Intelligence dedicated to solving abstract or impersonal problems is worthless for a leader. Therefore, the kind of intellectual talents that show up on an IQ test are not very useful. Someone who takes a problem-solving approach to the world will not make a good leader. Someone who takes a problem-solving approach to his parents, friends, classmates, and so forth will do well.
That's because leadership consists in large part of stating and forging a group consensus, perhaps not in that order. A leader rarely suggests a course of action that doesn't immediately make sense to other people. If education and elucidation is required, he does that beforehand. A leader doesn't bother with courses of action that his followers aren't already one little nudge away from accepting, and then he provides that nudge. For this reason, it's best for a leader not to devote too much intelligence to actually solving problems -- he will just come up with useless and distracting ideas. A leader with a lot of credibility can get people to accept a new course of action solely on his own credibility, but if it doesn't work out, he loses a lot of credibility. He mostly needs to stick to courses of action that are credited to other people or which just feel right to his followers.
Leading by surpassing excellence is an invention of propaganda. Only after you already have a lot of power and loyalty can you start manufacturing such a myth.
That's a leader in the popular sense. But if being such a leader means he can't think deeply, then he'll have to rely on the intellectuals to provide him with the deep ideas he needs to lead.
Fair point. The creative visionaries are the people who should be leaders in an ideal or even morally acceptable society, but almost never the people who have the capability to grab power.
That's because leadership consists in large part of stating and forging a group consensus, perhaps not in that order. A leader rarely suggests a course of action that doesn't immediately make sense to other people. If education and elucidation is required, he does that beforehand. A leader doesn't bother with courses of action that his followers aren't already one little nudge away from accepting, and then he provides that nudge. For this reason, it's best for a leader not to devote too much intelligence to actually solving problems -- he will just come up with useless and distracting ideas. A leader with a lot of credibility can get people to accept a new course of action solely on his own credibility, but if it doesn't work out, he loses a lot of credibility. He mostly needs to stick to courses of action that are credited to other people or which just feel right to his followers.
Leading by surpassing excellence is an invention of propaganda. Only after you already have a lot of power and loyalty can you start manufacturing such a myth.