The argument is correct in saying that in terms of efficacy, a leader's ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers is much more important than his or her ability to pass sound moral judgements.

We know that what makes a leader, a leader, is their following. People rally behind leaders not only because they share a common vision and/or a common cause - which, to some degree, everyone involved does - but also because people recognize said individual as a strong representative and as someone who holds more authority than the following masses. Inciting this emotion of trust and respect in their peers and followers is imperetive to the success and efficacy of a leader, because trust combined with respect, more often than not, results in faith, and as history has shown us, a leader capable of inculcating faith in it's subjects, is oftentimes a leader that changes the course of history.

However, this does not mean that the ability to arrive at sound moral judgements can be discounted. A leader is always one bad decision away from losing faith of his or her subjects and inviting doubt in their mind. Also, in some cases, an inability to arrive at sound moral judgement might be an indicator of an inability to think critically, which opens up a whole new box of worms.

Therefore, although the ability to take sound moral judgements can in no way be ignored, a leader without the abiliy to maintain the respect of his or her peers is much more likely to be ineffective and fail.


Thanks in advance, all feedback welcome!