What do you think?
Rate this book
Leadership : Six Studies in World Strategy
Henry Kissinger analyses how six extraordinary leaders he has known have shaped their countries and the world'Leaders,' writes Henry Kissinger in this compelling book, 'think and act at the intersection of two the first, between the past and the future; the second between the abiding values and aspirations of those they lead. They must balance what they know, which is necessarily drawn from the past, with what they intuit about the future, which is inherently conjectural and uncertain. It is this intuitive grasp of direction that enables leaders to set objectives and lay down a strategy.'In Leadership , Kissinger analyses the lives of six extraordinary leaders through the distinctive strategies of statecraft which he believes they embodied. After the Second World War, Konrad Adenauer brought defeated and morally bankrupt Germany back into the community of nations by what Kissinger calls 'the strategy of humility'. Charles de Gaulle set France beside the victorious Allies and renewed its historic grandeur by 'the strategy of will'. During the Cold War, Richard Nixon gave geostrategic advantage to the United States by 'the strategy of equilibrium'. After twenty-five years of conflict, Anwar Sadat brought a vision of peace to the Middle East by a 'strategy of transcendence'. Against the odds, Lee Kwan Yew created a powerhouse city-state, Singapore, by 'the strategy of excellence'. Although when she came to power Britain was known as 'the sick man of Europe', Margaret Thatcher renewed her country's morale and international position by 'the strategy of conviction'.To each of these studies, Kissinger brings historical perception, public experience and - because he knew each of their subjects, and participated in many of the events he describes - personal knowledge. The book is enriched by insights and judgements such as only he could make, and concludes with his reflections on world order and the indispensability of leadership today.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published July 5, 2022
About the author
Henry Kissinger
235 books1,663 followersHenry Alfred Kissinger (born Heinz Alfred Kissinger) was a German-born American bureaucrat, diplomat, and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He served as National Security Advisor and later concurrently as Secretary of State in the Richard Nixon administration. Kissinger emerged unscathed from the Watergate scandal, and maintained his powerful position when Gerald Ford became President.
A proponent of Realpolitik, Kissinger played a dominant role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente.
During his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations he cut a flamboyant figure, appearing at social occasions with many celebrities. His foreign policy record made him a nemesis to the anti-war left and the anti-communist right alike.
A proponent of Realpolitik, Kissinger played a dominant role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente.
During his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations he cut a flamboyant figure, appearing at social occasions with many celebrities. His foreign policy record made him a nemesis to the anti-war left and the anti-communist right alike.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 191 reviews
Read
June 27, 2022A noxious, wheedling attempt by a century-old war criminal to rehabilitate the posthumous reputations of a couple of his fellow monsters by putting them in the same Table of Contents as some relatively decent and at least one genuinely good people. It doesn't work; the evil characters stand out like spiders in a bathtub, and Kissinger's own evil is likewise obvious on almost every page. My full review is here: https://openlettersreview.com/posts/l...
October 19, 2023
There is an endless discussion going on between my father and me regarding the value of history. Is it just 'one damned thing after the other'? What is the point of studying it? And how can we be sure that we really understand historial epochs?
In Kissingers latest book he discusses 6 different world leaders in order to get at the essence of what good leadership is. I didn't find the different leaders to be especially interesting seeing as how I've already read much about them and it is hard not to laugh when he writes about Nixon showing "courage" and "character". Its also slightly infuriating how Kissinger ingratiates himself with these leaders (having met them all).
What was interesting however was Kissinger cultural analysis. Kissinger makes a compelling case that today's educational system doesn't produce enough good citizens and instead produces egotists who want to have a successful career in multi-national corporations. Merit today is defined as intellect compounded by effort whereas leaders need more than that. They need courage, character and sharp analytical faculties. For these 6 leaders education was "not merelt a credential to be obtained in one's youth and set aside: it was an unending effort with both intellectual and moral dimensions" (p.400) This is one of the reasons for the decline which people have in leaders today and therefore also the decline of confidence in the political system as a whole.
The shift of emphasis from the written word to image has also skewed leaders and favored those who are perhaps are less thoughtful. Leadership becomes more about packagin and advertising, rather than actually having any actual value to people. In social media there are no 'leaders', only influencers and followers. At times I think that Kissinger is being too critical of today's technology and sees only its downsides. But I too find it deeply problematic that solitude and deep thinking are becoming all the more rare.
To get back to my question at the start of this review: reading up on history can provide one with analogies that are needed as a statesman and 'readership also creates a 'skein of intergenerational conversation', encouraging learning with a sense of perspective" [...] When combined with reflection and the training of memory, it also provides a storehouse of detailed and granular knowledge from which leaders can reason analogically" (p. 406) And not only that but also: "deep literacy supplies the quality Max Weber called 'proportion' or 'the ability to allow realities to impinge on you while maintaining an inner calm and composure'" (p. 405)
I will end on this note:
"Leadership is most essential during periods of transition, when values and institutions are losing their relevance, and the outlines of a worthy future are in controversy." (p. xvi) Which of our current leaders have the capacity for abstract thought, vision and erudition to really handle the challenges of today?
In Kissingers latest book he discusses 6 different world leaders in order to get at the essence of what good leadership is. I didn't find the different leaders to be especially interesting seeing as how I've already read much about them and it is hard not to laugh when he writes about Nixon showing "courage" and "character". Its also slightly infuriating how Kissinger ingratiates himself with these leaders (having met them all).
What was interesting however was Kissinger cultural analysis. Kissinger makes a compelling case that today's educational system doesn't produce enough good citizens and instead produces egotists who want to have a successful career in multi-national corporations. Merit today is defined as intellect compounded by effort whereas leaders need more than that. They need courage, character and sharp analytical faculties. For these 6 leaders education was "not merelt a credential to be obtained in one's youth and set aside: it was an unending effort with both intellectual and moral dimensions" (p.400) This is one of the reasons for the decline which people have in leaders today and therefore also the decline of confidence in the political system as a whole.
The shift of emphasis from the written word to image has also skewed leaders and favored those who are perhaps are less thoughtful. Leadership becomes more about packagin and advertising, rather than actually having any actual value to people. In social media there are no 'leaders', only influencers and followers. At times I think that Kissinger is being too critical of today's technology and sees only its downsides. But I too find it deeply problematic that solitude and deep thinking are becoming all the more rare.
To get back to my question at the start of this review: reading up on history can provide one with analogies that are needed as a statesman and 'readership also creates a 'skein of intergenerational conversation', encouraging learning with a sense of perspective" [...] When combined with reflection and the training of memory, it also provides a storehouse of detailed and granular knowledge from which leaders can reason analogically" (p. 406) And not only that but also: "deep literacy supplies the quality Max Weber called 'proportion' or 'the ability to allow realities to impinge on you while maintaining an inner calm and composure'" (p. 405)
I will end on this note:
"Leadership is most essential during periods of transition, when values and institutions are losing their relevance, and the outlines of a worthy future are in controversy." (p. xvi) Which of our current leaders have the capacity for abstract thought, vision and erudition to really handle the challenges of today?
August 18, 2022
I didn't have very high expectations, but I've decided to give it a go after some comments from Ray Dalio. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a disappointment. Why so?
1. it's not a book about leadership; it's a book that justifies (or: "presents in a correct spotlight") a few certain political figures, their actions, and (in general) the legacy - Kissinger's personal admiration (and sentiments) is cleary visible here, much more than references to actual qualities
2. with all the respect - Kissinger was a man of 7os, 8os, maybe 9os, but his perspectives on what has happened after that (raise of AI, Russian invasion, etc.) are just naive and ... cringe-y; he turns out to be a naive senior gentleman (which is not far from the truth - just check the Theranos case and how Kissinger was fooled by Holmes there).
3. I'm giving it more than 1 star mainly because the book contains some interesting geo-political details I was not aware of - some about Northern Ireland, some about the Middle East.
In general - a rather uninspiring read; OK if you already have some perspectives on the occurrences of the era (so you don't rely only on heavily biased information from Kissinger).
1. it's not a book about leadership; it's a book that justifies (or: "presents in a correct spotlight") a few certain political figures, their actions, and (in general) the legacy - Kissinger's personal admiration (and sentiments) is cleary visible here, much more than references to actual qualities
2. with all the respect - Kissinger was a man of 7os, 8os, maybe 9os, but his perspectives on what has happened after that (raise of AI, Russian invasion, etc.) are just naive and ... cringe-y; he turns out to be a naive senior gentleman (which is not far from the truth - just check the Theranos case and how Kissinger was fooled by Holmes there).
3. I'm giving it more than 1 star mainly because the book contains some interesting geo-political details I was not aware of - some about Northern Ireland, some about the Middle East.
In general - a rather uninspiring read; OK if you already have some perspectives on the occurrences of the era (so you don't rely only on heavily biased information from Kissinger).
August 28, 2022
The new book by Henry Kissinger looks at six historical figures and the leadership skills that they brought to bear on the rather monumental problems they faced in the post World War II era. I took a look at some of the reviews before I bought the book and will need to dispense with some of the issues raised in those reviews, as they are a constant when dealing with all things Kissinger.
We always will get a substantial group of reviewers that indicate that the book was terrible because it includes some self serving revisionism by Kissinger, and that in any case he is a war criminal etc, etc. Relying on the review of someone describing Kissinger in those terms will not bring a potential reader a fair estimation of the book. I discard those reviews despite having some real disagreements with Kissinger/Nixon policies in Indochina, and with some of his actions as National Security advisor and Secretary of State to President Nixon. Disagreements do not take away from Kissinger’s underlying brilliance, and have nothing to do with books by Kissinger, or about him.
This book looks at six leaders from the Post World War II era, with Kissinger describing a specific type of leadership trait in each that he believes produced groundbreaking results for the countries they led. His observations, in my view, are insightful, and bring some important concepts on leadership forward that have practical meaning for current and future leaders.
Kissinger has highlighted the career and leadership traits of:
Konrad Adenauer (The Strategy of Humility)
Charles DeGaulle (The Strategy of Will)
Richard Nixon (Strategy of Equilibrium)
Anwar Sadat (Strategy of Transcendence)
Lee Kuan Yew (Strategy of Excellence)
Margaret Thatcher (Strategy of Conviction)
Kissinger knew, and in some fashion worked with, each of these individuals. In reviewing the book Admiral James Stavridis said:
“This is an extraordinary book, one that braids together two through lines in the long and distinguished career of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The first is grand strategy: No practical geopolitical thinker has more assuredly mastered the way the modern global system works or how nations use the tools of statecraft to bend an often-resistant world to their will. But Mr. Kissinger is also an astute observer of the personal element in strategy—the art and science of leadership, or how, on the executive level, “decisions [are] made, trust earned, promises kept, a way forward proposed.”
Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2022 “Follow the Leaders” James Stavridis
To me that snippet from the review gives us a great overview of what this book is about. Different problems, and differing approaches to problem-solving unique to these leaders and the specific time in history that thrust them into leadership positions. After some biographical information about each Kissinger gives us a great view on how each of these leaders contributed in areas that required extraordinary skills to navigate, and the leadership qualities that helped them to succeed. Kissinger does not sugarcoat deficiencies but hyper-criticism is not the point of the book. Kissinger ties it together with a last chapter aptly titled “Conclusions” that brings additional historical insights and observations.
As you read Kissinger you understand his views, and how those views color his analysis. His chapter on Nixon, the strategy of equilibrium, fairly well establishes a core Kissinger value. Equilibrium is a constant theme for Kissinger, more so than the oft-described philosophy of “realism” used to describe him frequently.
Each one of these individuals contributed to the new world order developed after the calamity of World War II. Adenauer, the first Chancellor of the West German government that arose after the war, gave a speech that would give an idea of where he would steer the German people.
“Criticizing Germany’s conduct under Hitler. Adenauer asked an audience of thousands in the severely damaged main hall of the University of Cologne how it was possible that the Nazis had come to power. They had then committed ‘great crimes’, he said, and the Germans could find their way toward a better future only by coming to terms with their past. Such an effort would be necessary for their country’s revival. From this perspective, Germany’s attitude after the Second World War needed to be the opposite of its reaction to the First. Instead of indulging in self-pitying nationalism once again, Germany should seek its future within a unifying Europe. Adenauer was proclaiming a strategy of humility.”
Leadership, Kissinger, Henry p 9
Adenauer, in one of his final conversations with Kissinger, highlighted a true leadership conundrum. Adenauer had, through his leadership, steered post war Germany towards reconciliation and European integration, with special emphasis on repair of the relationship with France. This was not always a consensus view but Adenauer had steered the Federal Republic towards it on a long term basis. This conversation, after Adenauer’s retirement, brought forward the question to Kissinger (in response to Kissinger asking him to evaluate the existing leadership of West Germany)
“Are any leaders still able to conduct a genuine long range policy? Is true leadership still possible today?”
Leadership, Kissinger, Henry p 42
That question was posed in 1967 and is still a bona fide concern in the democracies today.
Adenauer and Lee Kwan Yew would likely be the least recognizable of the six figures, and in some respects the most significant, in terms of studying effective leaders. Lee Kwan Yew should be required study for all those that aspire to political leadership. His building of the city-state of Singapore is a textbook example of success not being reliant on size. His methodology would not always pass a test of democratic norms, but his strong emphasis on good, corruption free governance, excellence in business and an adherence to the rule of law brought real results. Kissinger cited some pretty impressive statistics.
“An assessment of Lee’s legacy must begin with the extraordinary growth of Singapore’s per capita gross domestic product from $517 in 1965 to $11,900 in 1990 and $60,000 at present (2020.)”
Leadership, Kissinger, Henry p 313
Of course Kissinger is not an economist so we get an examination of Lee from a foreign policy point of view. Kissinger has strong admiration for the balancing act that Lee performed between China, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Kissinger admires Lee’s devotion to “order” and the way he strategically balanced his foreign policy in a multi-polar world. (Equilibrium?) Lee was a truly fascinating leader worthy of more study.
Kissinger, as mentioned, did not dwell on the negative, but managed to provide balance, with an occasional wry observation that makes a point with a bit of humor. In speaking of a dispute between Charles de Gaulle and Marshall Petain over literary credit on a post World War I book, Kissinger observed:
“The capacity for gratitude not being among de Gaulle’s most highly developed traits….”
Leadership, Kissinger, Henry p 58
Kissinger’s relationship with Sadat may be one of the most important, in a sense of real accomplishment, by both men. Kissinger acknowledges a truth that was highlighted in Martin Indyk’s book “Master of the Game,” which was that he initially dismissed Sadat, not considering him to be a first rate leader, anticipating that he would be a short termer. That misjudgment was a contributing factor in the outbreak of the Yom Kippur war launched by Sadat and Hafez al-Assad against Israel. Kissinger does manage to stick in a very indirect criticism of a piece of the Jimmy Carter Middle East policy, due to the inclusion of the Soviets, but concedes that Sadat took that policy and in leapfrogging it ended up in Jerusalem.
The chapters on the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher and Richard Nixon will of course bring some criticism but are worthy and well done. I did not fully agree with the characterization of the Thatcher policy on Northern Ireland but that did not detract from my understanding and appreciating the larger points made. As always with Nixon Kissinger does not hesitate to acknowledge the flaws but highlights some of the major accomplishments of the Nixon Administration on foreign policy. Self interested? Maybe a bit, but the Nixon Presidency is worthy of plenty of discussion, and has some impacts that are still with us today.
In the Admiral Stavridis review he regrets that Kissinger did not make the book longer by including some other figures such as Deng of China and Bismarck. I agree, but would also include Zhou Enlai, who Kissinger has described as one of the most impressive men he has ever met. Even at his age he is still producing impressive works of literature that impart valuable insights. You do not have to agree with everything Kissinger believes to glean value from those insights. Highly recommended.
We always will get a substantial group of reviewers that indicate that the book was terrible because it includes some self serving revisionism by Kissinger, and that in any case he is a war criminal etc, etc. Relying on the review of someone describing Kissinger in those terms will not bring a potential reader a fair estimation of the book. I discard those reviews despite having some real disagreements with Kissinger/Nixon policies in Indochina, and with some of his actions as National Security advisor and Secretary of State to President Nixon. Disagreements do not take away from Kissinger’s underlying brilliance, and have nothing to do with books by Kissinger, or about him.
This book looks at six leaders from the Post World War II era, with Kissinger describing a specific type of leadership trait in each that he believes produced groundbreaking results for the countries they led. His observations, in my view, are insightful, and bring some important concepts on leadership forward that have practical meaning for current and future leaders.
Kissinger has highlighted the career and leadership traits of:
Konrad Adenauer (The Strategy of Humility)
Charles DeGaulle (The Strategy of Will)
Richard Nixon (Strategy of Equilibrium)
Anwar Sadat (Strategy of Transcendence)
Lee Kuan Yew (Strategy of Excellence)
Margaret Thatcher (Strategy of Conviction)
Kissinger knew, and in some fashion worked with, each of these individuals. In reviewing the book Admiral James Stavridis said:
“This is an extraordinary book, one that braids together two through lines in the long and distinguished career of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The first is grand strategy: No practical geopolitical thinker has more assuredly mastered the way the modern global system works or how nations use the tools of statecraft to bend an often-resistant world to their will. But Mr. Kissinger is also an astute observer of the personal element in strategy—the art and science of leadership, or how, on the executive level, “decisions [are] made, trust earned, promises kept, a way forward proposed.”
Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2022 “Follow the Leaders” James Stavridis
To me that snippet from the review gives us a great overview of what this book is about. Different problems, and differing approaches to problem-solving unique to these leaders and the specific time in history that thrust them into leadership positions. After some biographical information about each Kissinger gives us a great view on how each of these leaders contributed in areas that required extraordinary skills to navigate, and the leadership qualities that helped them to succeed. Kissinger does not sugarcoat deficiencies but hyper-criticism is not the point of the book. Kissinger ties it together with a last chapter aptly titled “Conclusions” that brings additional historical insights and observations.
As you read Kissinger you understand his views, and how those views color his analysis. His chapter on Nixon, the strategy of equilibrium, fairly well establishes a core Kissinger value. Equilibrium is a constant theme for Kissinger, more so than the oft-described philosophy of “realism” used to describe him frequently.
Each one of these individuals contributed to the new world order developed after the calamity of World War II. Adenauer, the first Chancellor of the West German government that arose after the war, gave a speech that would give an idea of where he would steer the German people.
“Criticizing Germany’s conduct under Hitler. Adenauer asked an audience of thousands in the severely damaged main hall of the University of Cologne how it was possible that the Nazis had come to power. They had then committed ‘great crimes’, he said, and the Germans could find their way toward a better future only by coming to terms with their past. Such an effort would be necessary for their country’s revival. From this perspective, Germany’s attitude after the Second World War needed to be the opposite of its reaction to the First. Instead of indulging in self-pitying nationalism once again, Germany should seek its future within a unifying Europe. Adenauer was proclaiming a strategy of humility.”
Leadership, Kissinger, Henry p 9
Adenauer, in one of his final conversations with Kissinger, highlighted a true leadership conundrum. Adenauer had, through his leadership, steered post war Germany towards reconciliation and European integration, with special emphasis on repair of the relationship with France. This was not always a consensus view but Adenauer had steered the Federal Republic towards it on a long term basis. This conversation, after Adenauer’s retirement, brought forward the question to Kissinger (in response to Kissinger asking him to evaluate the existing leadership of West Germany)
“Are any leaders still able to conduct a genuine long range policy? Is true leadership still possible today?”
Leadership, Kissinger, Henry p 42
That question was posed in 1967 and is still a bona fide concern in the democracies today.
Adenauer and Lee Kwan Yew would likely be the least recognizable of the six figures, and in some respects the most significant, in terms of studying effective leaders. Lee Kwan Yew should be required study for all those that aspire to political leadership. His building of the city-state of Singapore is a textbook example of success not being reliant on size. His methodology would not always pass a test of democratic norms, but his strong emphasis on good, corruption free governance, excellence in business and an adherence to the rule of law brought real results. Kissinger cited some pretty impressive statistics.
“An assessment of Lee’s legacy must begin with the extraordinary growth of Singapore’s per capita gross domestic product from $517 in 1965 to $11,900 in 1990 and $60,000 at present (2020.)”
Leadership, Kissinger, Henry p 313
Of course Kissinger is not an economist so we get an examination of Lee from a foreign policy point of view. Kissinger has strong admiration for the balancing act that Lee performed between China, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Kissinger admires Lee’s devotion to “order” and the way he strategically balanced his foreign policy in a multi-polar world. (Equilibrium?) Lee was a truly fascinating leader worthy of more study.
Kissinger, as mentioned, did not dwell on the negative, but managed to provide balance, with an occasional wry observation that makes a point with a bit of humor. In speaking of a dispute between Charles de Gaulle and Marshall Petain over literary credit on a post World War I book, Kissinger observed:
“The capacity for gratitude not being among de Gaulle’s most highly developed traits….”
Leadership, Kissinger, Henry p 58
Kissinger’s relationship with Sadat may be one of the most important, in a sense of real accomplishment, by both men. Kissinger acknowledges a truth that was highlighted in Martin Indyk’s book “Master of the Game,” which was that he initially dismissed Sadat, not considering him to be a first rate leader, anticipating that he would be a short termer. That misjudgment was a contributing factor in the outbreak of the Yom Kippur war launched by Sadat and Hafez al-Assad against Israel. Kissinger does manage to stick in a very indirect criticism of a piece of the Jimmy Carter Middle East policy, due to the inclusion of the Soviets, but concedes that Sadat took that policy and in leapfrogging it ended up in Jerusalem.
The chapters on the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher and Richard Nixon will of course bring some criticism but are worthy and well done. I did not fully agree with the characterization of the Thatcher policy on Northern Ireland but that did not detract from my understanding and appreciating the larger points made. As always with Nixon Kissinger does not hesitate to acknowledge the flaws but highlights some of the major accomplishments of the Nixon Administration on foreign policy. Self interested? Maybe a bit, but the Nixon Presidency is worthy of plenty of discussion, and has some impacts that are still with us today.
In the Admiral Stavridis review he regrets that Kissinger did not make the book longer by including some other figures such as Deng of China and Bismarck. I agree, but would also include Zhou Enlai, who Kissinger has described as one of the most impressive men he has ever met. Even at his age he is still producing impressive works of literature that impart valuable insights. You do not have to agree with everything Kissinger believes to glean value from those insights. Highly recommended.
September 13, 2022
An incredible book. This is so far the most interesting and illuminating book I read this year.
This book combines in a most masterful way:
- Interrelations between countries on a high level (macro)
- Personalities (micro)
The book highlights connections between the two through history and political events in such a masterful way that you end up wondering - did I just read about a character of a country or a geography of a person?
This constant gentle movement from macro to micro creates a web of understanding about the events of a critical era (that are still shaping our world today) in a way I didn't experience before. The closing chapter was absolutely brilliant as well.
The most interesting case-studies out of the six for me were: Charles De Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, and of Lee Kuan Yew (absolutely mind blowing).
I already purchased Lee Quan Yews book 'From Third World to First', and Margaret Thatcher's biography 'Not for Turning'. I hope these books will continue the brilliant chain of insights started when reading 'Leadership'.
Highly recommended.
My favourite quotes from the closing chapter:
"It is not necessary for the leaders of the contemporary great powers to develop a detailed vision of how to resolve the dilemmas described here immediately. They must, however, be clear on what has to be avoided and cannot be tolerated. Wise leaders must preempt their challenges before they manifest themselves as crises."
"Max Weber has described the essential qualities needed for transformative leadership: The only man who has a 'vocation' for politics is one who is certain that his spirit will not be broken if the world, when looked at from his point of view, proves too stupid or base to accept what he wishes to offer it, and who, when faced with all that obduracy, can still say 'Nevertheless!' despite everything"
This book combines in a most masterful way:
- Interrelations between countries on a high level (macro)
- Personalities (micro)
The book highlights connections between the two through history and political events in such a masterful way that you end up wondering - did I just read about a character of a country or a geography of a person?
This constant gentle movement from macro to micro creates a web of understanding about the events of a critical era (that are still shaping our world today) in a way I didn't experience before. The closing chapter was absolutely brilliant as well.
The most interesting case-studies out of the six for me were: Charles De Gaulle, Margaret Thatcher, and of Lee Kuan Yew (absolutely mind blowing).
I already purchased Lee Quan Yews book 'From Third World to First', and Margaret Thatcher's biography 'Not for Turning'. I hope these books will continue the brilliant chain of insights started when reading 'Leadership'.
Highly recommended.
My favourite quotes from the closing chapter:
"It is not necessary for the leaders of the contemporary great powers to develop a detailed vision of how to resolve the dilemmas described here immediately. They must, however, be clear on what has to be avoided and cannot be tolerated. Wise leaders must preempt their challenges before they manifest themselves as crises."
"Max Weber has described the essential qualities needed for transformative leadership: The only man who has a 'vocation' for politics is one who is certain that his spirit will not be broken if the world, when looked at from his point of view, proves too stupid or base to accept what he wishes to offer it, and who, when faced with all that obduracy, can still say 'Nevertheless!' despite everything"
September 4, 2022
I've always found Kissinger a hard author to place. 'Diplomacy' is an enduring classic, his earlier books on nuclear weapons and foreign policy could be compelling, while I found 'World Order' a rambling banality, and 'On China' both engaging and self-indulgent.
Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy is a profoundly wise book. It profiles six mid-2oth century figures (Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher) and details how they lead and reshaped their countries. Kissinger identifies each with a distinct and very different general theme - Humility, Will, Equilibrium, Transcendence, Excellence and Conviction, and convincingly explains how each idea defined their approach.
Where this book shines is in describing how each leader acted in person. The way they sought to shape their character and their approach to fit their moment. The word 'strategy' is somewhat apt, in that Kissinger shows how each of the 6 identified the biggest problems of their society, and in sympathy with the history and traditions of their society, sought to solve those problems. They adapted their approach to their times and themselves, while focused on the larger, longer term issues.
The wisdom in this book comes from the fact Kissinger knew each of them. He details their conversations and his observations of how they worked, often in moments of crisis. He shows how each quite deliberately shaped their character and approach to fit the times they were in and the problems their nation faced. Each taking a very different approach, but one appropriate to their times.
I found 'Leadership' a powerful counter to the view often put forward in the media today that there is only one model of leadership, the 'conviction' leader of values and strength. That nay have worked for Thatcher and Reagan, but it would have failed in all of the other leader's environments. It has failed an entire generation of leaders in the West who have taken it as the lode star.
The best of the essays are on Adenauer, de Gaulle and Lee. There is insight and clarity about their approach, and Kissinger remains only a sideline figure, having brief conversations to understand them in person, but without stakes in the fights of their times. Those where he struggles to separate his own role - Nixon and Sadat - read as more conventional accounts of their eras. Though the insights about Nixon's quixotic approach and personality are engaging. (And as an aside, I learned that the 1969 Guam Doctrine comments were planned carefully in the White House & flight over, rather than in any way being a spur of the moment declaration).
As such, I don't recommend trying to read this as a history lesson on these figures. I've already read plenty on Nixon and LKY, and have ordered a biography of de Gaulle based on this account. Kissinger offers a sometimes bloodless account of these figures, implying a clearer, linear and easier path than was felt at the time or than historians prefer. Indeed, in one near-self referential passage midway through he notes 'Historical memory is often endowed with the appearance of inevitability; gone are the doubt, risk and contingent nature of events that accompany - and, on occasion, threaten to overwhelm - participants in the moment'. Anyone reading this book should be careful to understand these events are likely more confusing in the detail than in the 60 page essays presented herein.
But there is a real, Plutarch-like value in looking at these as stories of character and leadership rather than efforts to nail down the historical record. The book offers a compelling critique of modern leadership, especially in the West: Where are the leaders who show a deep knowledge of their own societies? Where are the leaders who have molded their character to their times? And where are the leaders willing to directly confront the biggest problems, without suggesting there are easy resolutions that naturally fit their political party's worldview?
The example of Japan's Abe Shinzo, (not mentioned in the book) comes to mind as embodying a similar cast to the historical figures here. But in the US? In the UK? In Australia? It seems a long time since. Even if, as managers or fire-fighters we have had some of decency. But as statesmen* equal to these troubled times?
A book to drink deeply from, even if you shouldn't treat it as gospel.
*Please excuse the gendered language, but it's a useful word.
Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy is a profoundly wise book. It profiles six mid-2oth century figures (Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher) and details how they lead and reshaped their countries. Kissinger identifies each with a distinct and very different general theme - Humility, Will, Equilibrium, Transcendence, Excellence and Conviction, and convincingly explains how each idea defined their approach.
Where this book shines is in describing how each leader acted in person. The way they sought to shape their character and their approach to fit their moment. The word 'strategy' is somewhat apt, in that Kissinger shows how each of the 6 identified the biggest problems of their society, and in sympathy with the history and traditions of their society, sought to solve those problems. They adapted their approach to their times and themselves, while focused on the larger, longer term issues.
The wisdom in this book comes from the fact Kissinger knew each of them. He details their conversations and his observations of how they worked, often in moments of crisis. He shows how each quite deliberately shaped their character and approach to fit the times they were in and the problems their nation faced. Each taking a very different approach, but one appropriate to their times.
I found 'Leadership' a powerful counter to the view often put forward in the media today that there is only one model of leadership, the 'conviction' leader of values and strength. That nay have worked for Thatcher and Reagan, but it would have failed in all of the other leader's environments. It has failed an entire generation of leaders in the West who have taken it as the lode star.
The best of the essays are on Adenauer, de Gaulle and Lee. There is insight and clarity about their approach, and Kissinger remains only a sideline figure, having brief conversations to understand them in person, but without stakes in the fights of their times. Those where he struggles to separate his own role - Nixon and Sadat - read as more conventional accounts of their eras. Though the insights about Nixon's quixotic approach and personality are engaging. (And as an aside, I learned that the 1969 Guam Doctrine comments were planned carefully in the White House & flight over, rather than in any way being a spur of the moment declaration).
As such, I don't recommend trying to read this as a history lesson on these figures. I've already read plenty on Nixon and LKY, and have ordered a biography of de Gaulle based on this account. Kissinger offers a sometimes bloodless account of these figures, implying a clearer, linear and easier path than was felt at the time or than historians prefer. Indeed, in one near-self referential passage midway through he notes 'Historical memory is often endowed with the appearance of inevitability; gone are the doubt, risk and contingent nature of events that accompany - and, on occasion, threaten to overwhelm - participants in the moment'. Anyone reading this book should be careful to understand these events are likely more confusing in the detail than in the 60 page essays presented herein.
But there is a real, Plutarch-like value in looking at these as stories of character and leadership rather than efforts to nail down the historical record. The book offers a compelling critique of modern leadership, especially in the West: Where are the leaders who show a deep knowledge of their own societies? Where are the leaders who have molded their character to their times? And where are the leaders willing to directly confront the biggest problems, without suggesting there are easy resolutions that naturally fit their political party's worldview?
The example of Japan's Abe Shinzo, (not mentioned in the book) comes to mind as embodying a similar cast to the historical figures here. But in the US? In the UK? In Australia? It seems a long time since. Even if, as managers or fire-fighters we have had some of decency. But as statesmen* equal to these troubled times?
A book to drink deeply from, even if you shouldn't treat it as gospel.
*Please excuse the gendered language, but it's a useful word.
August 6, 2023
The introduction is like a master class about leadership. This was my husband's book which he had lots of Post-it notes sticking out of - he never does that. He told me to read the introduction and the chapter about Lee Kwan Yew who turned Singapore into a powerful nation from nothing. Both were excellent. I wasn't moved to read the other chapters but am sure they are equally insightful.
June 11, 2023
Ordinary leaders seek to manage the immediate; great ones attempt to raise their society to their visions.
I have been lazy recently to write book reviews but these six leaders made me have to do one:
- Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1963, uncompromisingly asked his fellow members of parliament who were complaining about the terms imposed by the Allies in their postwar occupation of Germany.
- Nixon, who pioneered the use of modern marketing techniques in politics, still pride himself on speaking without notes based on his mastery of world affairs in a direct and plainspoken way.
- Anwar Sadat, best known for the peace treaty with Israel that he brought to Egypt, understood that a just peace could be achieved only through an organic evolution and the recognition of mutual interests, not from imposition by outside powers.
- Lee Kuan Yew had forged a society that transcended his own life and meant his legacy to inspire, rather than inhibit, progress.
- Margret Thatcher, facing Britain's nostalgia for lost imperial glories and the abiding regret of national decline, had courage in departing so dramatically from the received wisdom of the time, and character in staying the course consistently as her tough medicine drew sharp complaint from the patient. She aims at the preservation of the United Kingdom, international engagement on the basis of democratic principles and domestic governance founded on individual self-sufficiency - supplemented by acknowledgment of Britain's postwar consensus on the need for a stable health service and welfare state.
- Charles de Gaulle walks through history as a solitary figure - aloof, profound, courageous, disciplined, inspiring, infuriating, totally committed to his values and vision, and refusing to diminish them by personal emotion.
Great leaders intuit the timeless requirements of statecraft and distinguish, among the many elements of reality, those which contribute to an elevated future and need to be promoted from others which must be managed and, in the extreme case, perhaps only endured.
All six could be bold and acted decisively on matters of overriding national importance even when conditions - domestic or international - appeared decidedly unfavorable. They wanted their peoples to follow along the path they led, but they did not strive for consensus; controversy was the inevitable by-product of the transformations they sought.
Is true leadership still possible today?
The question has been asked before, and leaders have emerged who rose to the occasion. When societies are blessed with peaceful times and indulge the slow corruption of standards, the people may follow 'either a man who is judged to be good by common self-deception or someone put forward by men who are more likely to desire special favors than the common good'. But later, under the impact of 'adverse times' - ever the teacher of realities - 'this deception is revealed, and out of necessity the people turn to those who in tranquil times were almost forgotten'.
The six leaders discussed here developed parallel qualities despite the profound differences among their societies: a capacity to understand the situation in which their societies found themselves, an ability to devise a strategy to manage the present and shape the future, a skill in moving their societies toward elevated purposes, and a readiness to rectify shortcomings.
I have been lazy recently to write book reviews but these six leaders made me have to do one:
- Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1963, uncompromisingly asked his fellow members of parliament who were complaining about the terms imposed by the Allies in their postwar occupation of Germany.
- Nixon, who pioneered the use of modern marketing techniques in politics, still pride himself on speaking without notes based on his mastery of world affairs in a direct and plainspoken way.
- Anwar Sadat, best known for the peace treaty with Israel that he brought to Egypt, understood that a just peace could be achieved only through an organic evolution and the recognition of mutual interests, not from imposition by outside powers.
- Lee Kuan Yew had forged a society that transcended his own life and meant his legacy to inspire, rather than inhibit, progress.
- Margret Thatcher, facing Britain's nostalgia for lost imperial glories and the abiding regret of national decline, had courage in departing so dramatically from the received wisdom of the time, and character in staying the course consistently as her tough medicine drew sharp complaint from the patient. She aims at the preservation of the United Kingdom, international engagement on the basis of democratic principles and domestic governance founded on individual self-sufficiency - supplemented by acknowledgment of Britain's postwar consensus on the need for a stable health service and welfare state.
- Charles de Gaulle walks through history as a solitary figure - aloof, profound, courageous, disciplined, inspiring, infuriating, totally committed to his values and vision, and refusing to diminish them by personal emotion.
Great leaders intuit the timeless requirements of statecraft and distinguish, among the many elements of reality, those which contribute to an elevated future and need to be promoted from others which must be managed and, in the extreme case, perhaps only endured.
All six could be bold and acted decisively on matters of overriding national importance even when conditions - domestic or international - appeared decidedly unfavorable. They wanted their peoples to follow along the path they led, but they did not strive for consensus; controversy was the inevitable by-product of the transformations they sought.
Is true leadership still possible today?
The question has been asked before, and leaders have emerged who rose to the occasion. When societies are blessed with peaceful times and indulge the slow corruption of standards, the people may follow 'either a man who is judged to be good by common self-deception or someone put forward by men who are more likely to desire special favors than the common good'. But later, under the impact of 'adverse times' - ever the teacher of realities - 'this deception is revealed, and out of necessity the people turn to those who in tranquil times were almost forgotten'.
The six leaders discussed here developed parallel qualities despite the profound differences among their societies: a capacity to understand the situation in which their societies found themselves, an ability to devise a strategy to manage the present and shape the future, a skill in moving their societies toward elevated purposes, and a readiness to rectify shortcomings.
July 27, 2022
One of the best books I have read in years and highly recommend it if you want a better idea of the current world.
Dr Kissinger profiles significant leaders who talents, determination , brilliant assessment of the history of their countries and place in the world order and showing how their leadership and vision for the future was such a help to their countries growth and place in the world. Adenauer of Germany led his country from the total devastation of WWIi and their Nazi past to a place of leadership in Europe and the world. Charles de Gaulle did the same with post WW II France, Nixon's great accomplishments in the opening to China, ending the war in Viet Nam against a backdrop of disastrous Watergate at home .The spectacular development of Singapore under the guidance of Lee Kuan Yew which demonstrates what effective and determined leadership can do for a country. Margaret Thatcher's huge success in the 1980s with mulilple crises for the UK and her close relationship with Reagan and the partnership with the US. Anwar Sadat in Egypt was very interesting to me and the determination to move his country to a different place that its recent history would suggest and for which he would be assassinated. The epilogue if very interesting regarding Dr Kissinger's thoughts on the current world order and the importance of "deep literacy" of life long learning and the importance of character in national leaders.
Dr Kissinger profiles significant leaders who talents, determination , brilliant assessment of the history of their countries and place in the world order and showing how their leadership and vision for the future was such a help to their countries growth and place in the world. Adenauer of Germany led his country from the total devastation of WWIi and their Nazi past to a place of leadership in Europe and the world. Charles de Gaulle did the same with post WW II France, Nixon's great accomplishments in the opening to China, ending the war in Viet Nam against a backdrop of disastrous Watergate at home .The spectacular development of Singapore under the guidance of Lee Kuan Yew which demonstrates what effective and determined leadership can do for a country. Margaret Thatcher's huge success in the 1980s with mulilple crises for the UK and her close relationship with Reagan and the partnership with the US. Anwar Sadat in Egypt was very interesting to me and the determination to move his country to a different place that its recent history would suggest and for which he would be assassinated. The epilogue if very interesting regarding Dr Kissinger's thoughts on the current world order and the importance of "deep literacy" of life long learning and the importance of character in national leaders.
March 5, 2024
Meget lesbar, og for meg en veldig god intro til disse seks lederne. Eneste jeg savner er litt mer analyser fra Kissinger, slik som han gjør i siste kapittel. Det siste kapitlet ble for kort, og det er det sjeldent det er…
August 12, 2022
I humbly came to know Henry Kissinger while I was the Commandant of National War College in 2018 when he lectured to our students at the prime age of 94. He was engaging and wise, though limited in his mobility. Our fireside chat format moderated by a senior faculty member who invited him was the 23rd such lecture at the college, and turned out to be, via student survey, the top lecture of the academic year! Leadership, his 2nd book published since our meeting, now less that two months from publication, demonstrates why and how he ranks as one of the greatest diplomats of our time. And at the age of 99, I don’t think there’s any stopping him from producing. ‘Leaders,' writes Henry Kissinger in this compelling book, 'think and act at the intersection of two axes: the first, between the past and the future; the second between the abiding values and aspirations of those they lead. They must balance what they know, which is necessarily drawn from the past, with what they intuit about the future, which is inherently conjectural and uncertain. It is this intuitive grasp of direction that enables leaders to set objectives and lay down a strategy.' In Leadership, Kissinger analyses the lives of six extraordinary leaders through the distinctive strategies of statecraft which he believes they embodied. After the Second World War, Konrad Adenauer brought defeated and morally bankrupt Germany back into the community of nations by what Kissinger calls 'the strategy of humility'. Charles de Gaulle set France beside the victorious Allies and renewed its historic grandeur by 'the strategy of will'. During the Cold War, Richard Nixon gave geostrategic advantage to the United States by 'the strategy of equilibrium'. After twenty-five years of conflict, Anwar Sadat brought a vision of peace to the Middle East by a 'strategy of transcendence'. Against the odds, Lee Kwan Yew created a powerhouse city-state, Singapore, by 'the strategy of excellence'. Although when she came to power Britain was known as 'the sick man of Europe', Margaret Thatcher renewed her country's morale and international position by 'the strategy of conviction,’ earning the moniker, Iron Lady. To each of these studies, Kissinger brings historical perception, public experience and - because he knew each of their subjects, and participated in many of the events he describes - personal knowledge. The book is enriched by insights and judgements such as only he could make, and concludes with his reflections on world order and the indispensability of leadership today. Kissinger’s writing is of so readable quality tinged with superior analysis, this volume deserves a place on the book shelf of every scholar of diplomacy and international relations.
Want to read
August 4, 2022Economist review
https://www.economist.com/culture/202...
Tommy Koh review
https://www.facebook.com/100006228882...
https://www.economist.com/culture/202...
Tommy Koh review
https://www.facebook.com/100006228882...
August 30, 2022
Wow! Very impressed that Kissinger can still bring it after all these years. A great read that reviews six leaders with whom Kissinger worked in international diplomacy… and whom he admired for their leadership skills. His review of de Gaulle was very insightful as I knew little of him. His discussion of Nixon I found to be incredible, and he included an insight that Nixon often made exaggerated comments… and that his close staff who really knew him understood this and they would just ignore his comment (wonder if that led to Watergate?). The section on Sadat I found to be very enlightening due to my limited knowledge of Egypt of that timeframe due to my being very young. Very interesting to hear how Sadat when from attacking Israel to quickly moving towards the historic peace talks/agreement with them. It’s always great to hear of the inside story of such historic events. Lastly, the discussion of Margaret Thatcher was great especially as I remembered the challenges of the 1980s (Falkland Islands, Northern Ireland, etc). The book really made me appreciate again how great her leadership of Great Britain was during those times. One final great insight Kissinger provided in the text was that “deterrence is always cheaper than war.” Wow. So awesome and so true! Can’t imagine the total cost to the U.S. of our support to the 2022 operations in Ukraine. Bottom line is that this is a must-read for those desiring to learn about leadership and/or history.
July 30, 2022
Where Kissinger Shines
This was an okay book. I learned some interesting leadership facts.
I have been on a leadership journey lately, and this was a good addition.
Kissinger seems to shine when writing about other leaders...
I do have to say, though... In the final chapter, Kissenger re-kindles his tone-deaf view of some of the major world power relations and really seems to not see the full picture.
Kissinger's true motives seems to shine through.
Take it with what you will, but I have seen the impact of Kissinger's work before - so I am glad that he is writing about other leaders and not recommending his own paths.
I wouldn't recommend this.
3.0/5
This was an okay book. I learned some interesting leadership facts.
I have been on a leadership journey lately, and this was a good addition.
Kissinger seems to shine when writing about other leaders...
I do have to say, though... In the final chapter, Kissenger re-kindles his tone-deaf view of some of the major world power relations and really seems to not see the full picture.
Kissinger's true motives seems to shine through.
Take it with what you will, but I have seen the impact of Kissinger's work before - so I am glad that he is writing about other leaders and not recommending his own paths.
I wouldn't recommend this.
3.0/5
August 11, 2023
Caeteris Paribus, you can also learn by reading. I just finished reading the book "Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy" by Henry Kissinger, New York, 2022, Penguin Press, Portuguese edition, “Liderança: Seis Estudos Sobre Estratégia Mundial”, Lisboa, 2023, Publicações Dom Quixote.
Leadership has two epitomes or simplifications, the leader can be a statesman or a prophet, the great leaders, unlikely or not, usually have both.
This leadership treatise analyses and teaches us to include in our leadership mission the examples of six great world leaders: German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, French President Charles De Gaulle, US President Richard Nixon, Egyptian President Anwar Sadate, Singaporean Founder and Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
All led their countries in difficult situations, with some unlikely to do so and with low expectations of their performance. All surprised and led their countries and peoples to much better levels of motivation and future than they had before them.
Two left on their own feet, two were 'deposed' by their own and one was assassinated.
Kissinger met with all of them, so the book is full of strategically "spicy" personal details and he has not "forgiven" them any sin or virtue, and from the top of his 100 years he gives us a perspective of what an effective and strategic leader should be:
"Great leadership results from the collision of the intangible and the malleable, of what is a given and what is aimed for. There always remains scope for individual endeavour - for deepening historical knowledge, refining strategies, and honing character. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus wrote long ago: "We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how to react to them". It is up to leaders to guide that choice and inspire their people (teams and organisations) in its execution."
Very good reading. I recommend it to all my friends who are or aspire to be in leadership positions in their organisations.
The Portuguese translation, proofreading and editing are frankly poor: spelling mistakes, typos, names and dates changed. Kissinger, this excellent book and we readers deserve more care from its Portuguese editor.
Caeteris Paribus, também se aprende lendo. Acabei de lêr o livro “Liderança: Seis Estudos sobre estratégia mundial” de Henry Kissinger, New York, 2022, Penguin Press, edição portuguesa, Lisboa, 2023, Publicações Dom Quixote.
A liderança tem dois epítomes ou simplificações, o líder pode ser um estadista ou um profeta, os grande líderes, improváveis ou não, costumam ter os dois.
Este tratado de liderança analisa e ensina a que incluamos na nossa missão de líderes os exemplos de seis grandes líderes mundiais: o Chanceler Alemão Konrad Adenauer, o Presidente Francês Charles De Gaulle, o Presidente Norte Americano Richard Nixon, o Presidente Egípcio Anwar Sadate, O Fundador e Primeiro Ministro de Singapura Lee Kwan Yew e a Primeira Ministra Britânica Margaret Thatcher.
Todos lideraram os seus países em situações difíceis, com alguma improbabilidade de o fazerem e com baixas expectativas sobre o seu desempenho. Todos surpreenderam e levaram os seus países e povos a níveis de motivação e futuro muito melhores do que os que tinham antes deles.
Dois sairam pelo seu pé, dois foram “depostos” pelos seus e um foi assassinado.
Kissinger conviveu com todos, o livro está por isso recheado de pormenores pessoais estrategicamente “picantes” e não lhes “perdoou” nem nenhum pecado nem nenhuma virtude, e do alto dos seus 100 anos dá-nos uma perspectiva do que deve ser um líder eficaz e estratégico:
“A grande liderança resulta da colisão do intangível e do maleável, daquilo que é um dado e daquilo que se almeja. Resta sempre campo de ação para o esforço individual - para aprofundar o conhecimento histórico, afinar as estratégias, e aperfeiçoar o carácter. O filósofo estoico Epicteto escreveu há muito tempo: «Não podemos escolher as nossas circunstâncias externas, mas podemos sempre escolher como reagir a elas». Cabe aos líderes guiar essa escolha e inspirar o respetivo povo (equipas e organizações) na sua execução.”
Muito boa leitura. Recomendo a leitura todos os meus amigos que desempenham ou aspiram a desempenhar posições de liderança nas suas organizações.
A tradução, revisão de texto e edição para português são francamente más: erros ortográficos, gralhas, nomes e datas trocadas. Kissinger, este excelente livro e nós leitores merecíamos mais cuidado da parte do seu editor português.
Leadership has two epitomes or simplifications, the leader can be a statesman or a prophet, the great leaders, unlikely or not, usually have both.
This leadership treatise analyses and teaches us to include in our leadership mission the examples of six great world leaders: German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, French President Charles De Gaulle, US President Richard Nixon, Egyptian President Anwar Sadate, Singaporean Founder and Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
All led their countries in difficult situations, with some unlikely to do so and with low expectations of their performance. All surprised and led their countries and peoples to much better levels of motivation and future than they had before them.
Two left on their own feet, two were 'deposed' by their own and one was assassinated.
Kissinger met with all of them, so the book is full of strategically "spicy" personal details and he has not "forgiven" them any sin or virtue, and from the top of his 100 years he gives us a perspective of what an effective and strategic leader should be:
"Great leadership results from the collision of the intangible and the malleable, of what is a given and what is aimed for. There always remains scope for individual endeavour - for deepening historical knowledge, refining strategies, and honing character. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus wrote long ago: "We cannot choose our external circumstances, but we can always choose how to react to them". It is up to leaders to guide that choice and inspire their people (teams and organisations) in its execution."
Very good reading. I recommend it to all my friends who are or aspire to be in leadership positions in their organisations.
The Portuguese translation, proofreading and editing are frankly poor: spelling mistakes, typos, names and dates changed. Kissinger, this excellent book and we readers deserve more care from its Portuguese editor.
Caeteris Paribus, também se aprende lendo. Acabei de lêr o livro “Liderança: Seis Estudos sobre estratégia mundial” de Henry Kissinger, New York, 2022, Penguin Press, edição portuguesa, Lisboa, 2023, Publicações Dom Quixote.
A liderança tem dois epítomes ou simplificações, o líder pode ser um estadista ou um profeta, os grande líderes, improváveis ou não, costumam ter os dois.
Este tratado de liderança analisa e ensina a que incluamos na nossa missão de líderes os exemplos de seis grandes líderes mundiais: o Chanceler Alemão Konrad Adenauer, o Presidente Francês Charles De Gaulle, o Presidente Norte Americano Richard Nixon, o Presidente Egípcio Anwar Sadate, O Fundador e Primeiro Ministro de Singapura Lee Kwan Yew e a Primeira Ministra Britânica Margaret Thatcher.
Todos lideraram os seus países em situações difíceis, com alguma improbabilidade de o fazerem e com baixas expectativas sobre o seu desempenho. Todos surpreenderam e levaram os seus países e povos a níveis de motivação e futuro muito melhores do que os que tinham antes deles.
Dois sairam pelo seu pé, dois foram “depostos” pelos seus e um foi assassinado.
Kissinger conviveu com todos, o livro está por isso recheado de pormenores pessoais estrategicamente “picantes” e não lhes “perdoou” nem nenhum pecado nem nenhuma virtude, e do alto dos seus 100 anos dá-nos uma perspectiva do que deve ser um líder eficaz e estratégico:
“A grande liderança resulta da colisão do intangível e do maleável, daquilo que é um dado e daquilo que se almeja. Resta sempre campo de ação para o esforço individual - para aprofundar o conhecimento histórico, afinar as estratégias, e aperfeiçoar o carácter. O filósofo estoico Epicteto escreveu há muito tempo: «Não podemos escolher as nossas circunstâncias externas, mas podemos sempre escolher como reagir a elas». Cabe aos líderes guiar essa escolha e inspirar o respetivo povo (equipas e organizações) na sua execução.”
Muito boa leitura. Recomendo a leitura todos os meus amigos que desempenham ou aspiram a desempenhar posições de liderança nas suas organizações.
A tradução, revisão de texto e edição para português são francamente más: erros ortográficos, gralhas, nomes e datas trocadas. Kissinger, este excelente livro e nós leitores merecíamos mais cuidado da parte do seu editor português.
December 21, 2023
Kissinger passed away while I was working through the latter third of the book. His passing at the very ripe age of 100 struck me as a symbolic passing of the baton of leadership and world order to younger generations. His life and actions - controversial as they were - illustrate his involvement, in one way or another, in every major geopolitical event of the second half of the 20th century.
In many ways, this book is far more of a recollection of those events analyzed through the lenses and key traits of six 20th century leaders: Konrad Adenauer (German Chancellor after WWII) as the example of humble leadership, Charles de Gaulle (French President after WWII) as the example of willful leadership, Richard Nixon (37th U.S. President) as the example of equilibrated leadership, Anwar Sadat (Egyptian President in the 70s) as the example of transcendental leadership, Lee Kuan Yew (First Prime Minister of Singapore) as the example of excellence-based leadership, and Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister in the 80s) as an example of determined leadership. All influenced and outlived by Kissinger.
The point tho is that this book is not a discourse on leadership. It is a book on history and geopolitics. The lessons in leadership are hidden in between the lines and scantly provided directly by the author - this is, in fact, the only reason why I’m giving it 4 stars as opposed to 5.
As a geopolitical book, this is fantastic. And timely. As I said at the beginning of this review, his passing represents a changing guard in leadership. The “younger generations” that are scantly mentioned throughout the book - those who were going to have to fix climate change or find peaceful coexistence with China as a new world power - are here and are taking over the role of builders of the new world order.
Understanding the trajectory that brought us here and the leaders whose decisions we now bare the consequences is essential for us to replicate their success and circumvent their shortcomings. Any aspiring leader in the 21st century - in business or in politics - would be wise to read this book and, generally, to read more history.
The book ends with words of warning and, in a way, with a gloom view for the future. Kissinger shares his lamentations for the loss of importance of history and philosophy as the cornerstone of humanitarian education. He warns about the changing forms in media and information dissemination, that are plunging us into a polarized, emotional, and shallow political reality. Lastly, he raises the importance of good leadership now more than ever in the face of revolutionary technology.
Under the trying circumstances that approach, good leadership is more important than ever. And books like this will play the role of stewards, transferring the wisdom of previous generations of leaders to us.
In many ways, this book is far more of a recollection of those events analyzed through the lenses and key traits of six 20th century leaders: Konrad Adenauer (German Chancellor after WWII) as the example of humble leadership, Charles de Gaulle (French President after WWII) as the example of willful leadership, Richard Nixon (37th U.S. President) as the example of equilibrated leadership, Anwar Sadat (Egyptian President in the 70s) as the example of transcendental leadership, Lee Kuan Yew (First Prime Minister of Singapore) as the example of excellence-based leadership, and Margaret Thatcher (British Prime Minister in the 80s) as an example of determined leadership. All influenced and outlived by Kissinger.
The point tho is that this book is not a discourse on leadership. It is a book on history and geopolitics. The lessons in leadership are hidden in between the lines and scantly provided directly by the author - this is, in fact, the only reason why I’m giving it 4 stars as opposed to 5.
As a geopolitical book, this is fantastic. And timely. As I said at the beginning of this review, his passing represents a changing guard in leadership. The “younger generations” that are scantly mentioned throughout the book - those who were going to have to fix climate change or find peaceful coexistence with China as a new world power - are here and are taking over the role of builders of the new world order.
Understanding the trajectory that brought us here and the leaders whose decisions we now bare the consequences is essential for us to replicate their success and circumvent their shortcomings. Any aspiring leader in the 21st century - in business or in politics - would be wise to read this book and, generally, to read more history.
The book ends with words of warning and, in a way, with a gloom view for the future. Kissinger shares his lamentations for the loss of importance of history and philosophy as the cornerstone of humanitarian education. He warns about the changing forms in media and information dissemination, that are plunging us into a polarized, emotional, and shallow political reality. Lastly, he raises the importance of good leadership now more than ever in the face of revolutionary technology.
Under the trying circumstances that approach, good leadership is more important than ever. And books like this will play the role of stewards, transferring the wisdom of previous generations of leaders to us.
January 12, 2023
Este o altă carte ce te face să privești în profunzimea unor lucruri pe care le folosești cu convingere, dar neînelegându-le resorturile lor ascunse. Arta conducerii societății pare a fi de la sine înțeleasă. Ce este în spatele ei, ce necesită ea pentru a produce rezultate pozitive necesită o analiză a faptelor istorice. Prin prisma acestor fapte, Kissinger descrie caracteristicile celor care conduc societatea dinspre trecut spre viitor în virtutea adeziunii populare, cu acordul majorității, nu în ciuda ei, mai ales în perioadele cele mai grele, atunci când transformările cer o analiză obiectivă a trecutului, a prezentului și necesită soluții pentru viitor. Atunci, liderul trebuie să dea dovadă de curaj și caracter, „curajul de a alege o direcție dintre opțiunile complexe și dificile; și puterea de caracter pentru a susține o direcție de acțiune ale cărei beneficii și pericole pot fi întrezărite doar parțial în momentul alegerii. Curajul solicită virtutea în momentul deciziei; caracterul sporește credința față de valori pe o perioadă îndelungată”.
„Strategia” este un termen care reprezintă concluzia la care un lider ajunge într-un moment dificil, când toate în jurul lui se desfășoară repede și constrângerile care se răsfrâng asupra lui necesită flexibilitate în gândire și o intuiție mult dezvoltată. Un lider nu funcționează într-un mediu izolat, ci unul concurențial, cu acțiuni în plină desfășurare, realizate de alți agenți, care-i pun la dispoziție lui un mediu mereu în schimbare, cu multe incertitudini stimulând permanent un răspuns de adaptare; și totodată liderul nu este izolat nici de propriul lui sistem de valori care se întrepătrund cu ale epocii sale și ale grupului din care face parte.
Pe parcursul a șase capitole, Kissinger descriere șase personalități postbelice care au influențat în primul rând istoria popoarelor lor, dar și a regiunilor mai îndepărtate sau apropiate. Șase tipologii în jurul cărora fiecare a dezvoltat propria strategie de dezvoltare a țării lor în condițiile cele mai neprielnice. Reușita lor este un amalgam de însușiri din care una a ieșit în evidență și a stat la baza întregii construcții.
Urmele pe care ei le-au lăsat în istorie sunt lecții care ar trebui însușite de fiecare urmaș al lor pe parcursul unui proces contemplativ profund. Orice lider de azi ar trebui să reflecteze asupra gândirii și împrejurărilor istorice ale acestor personalități care au reușit chiar dacă au trecut în registru și neîmpliniri. Avem de a face cu oameni, nu cu ființe supranaturale. Provocările politice și economice nu s-au sfârșit odată cu acești oameni, ci continuă să exercite forțe nebănuite asupra oricărei orânduiri umane, iar strategiile de azi trebuie să se orienteze în continuare pentru bunăstare unui număr cât mai mare de cetățeni după cum sugera Lee Kwan Yew, fondatorul statului Singapore, într-un discurs din 1981, de 1 mai: "Fiecare guvern rațional își dorește bunăstarea și progresul pentru cel mai mare număr de cetățeni." (Cel puțin, lecția oferită de Lee Kwan Yew, ar trebui studiată de orice guvern, mai ales dintr-o țară emergentă cum e România. Pragmatismul său și criteriile sale meritocrate, de abolire a corupției și mediocrității au reușit pe parcursul unei generații să creeze dintr-o insulă săracă și subordonată Angliei, o putere economică a cărei evoluție a fost luată etalon și de însăși China.)
Personajele urmărite în monografie sunt Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kwan Yew și Margaret Thatcher. Autorul i-a cunoscut personal, din postura de secretar de stat american, a colaborat mai mult sau mai puțin cu ei, le-a cunoscut aspirațiile și temperamentele.
Pe parcursul lecturii, uneori ai impresia că citești un roman; se simte o căldură a scriiturii datorată, poate, și apropierii dintre autor și personalitatea descrisă. Alteori te pierzi într-un hățiș tehnic și subtil al negocierilor; relevarea importanței momentului. Cartea e plăcută pentru cei interesați de istorie și politică diplomatică. Merită un loc demn în bibliotecă întrucât nu-și pierde valabilitatea în timp. Povestea poate fi repovestită la nesfârșit fără a-și pierde semnificația.
Post scriptum. Încercând să trec prin filtrul lui Kissinger politicienii români din ultimii 30 de ani, nu pot să nu remarc că nu sunt decât niște paparude triste. Situația prin care a trecut țara în această perioadă necesita imperios personalități cel puțin factura celor prezentate de autor, în schimb am avut parte exact de invers, anti-personalități. Nicio caracteristică pozitivă remarcabilă și remarcată la personajele cărții nu s-a regăsit, și nu se regăsește încă la niciun specimen politic român. Tocmai de aceea, cartea poate servi repere de urmat a unei noi generații de lideri politici români. Expunerea lui Kissinger nu este un rețetar. Dar pune la dispoziție niște modele comportamentale ale unor oameni aflați în anumite împrejurări istorice, forțați să adopte o poziție în detrimentul alteia conform construcției lor, caracterului fiecăruia construit în sânul societății proprii, a culturii sale unice. Kissinger expune experiența sa în contactul cu leadershipul de cel mai înalt rang. Este doar un prim pas pentru a alcătui un politician nou. Următorul pas nu este decât folosirea abilităților unice fiecăruia în realizarea unui scop benefic, pentru a deveni un astfel de model.
„Strategia” este un termen care reprezintă concluzia la care un lider ajunge într-un moment dificil, când toate în jurul lui se desfășoară repede și constrângerile care se răsfrâng asupra lui necesită flexibilitate în gândire și o intuiție mult dezvoltată. Un lider nu funcționează într-un mediu izolat, ci unul concurențial, cu acțiuni în plină desfășurare, realizate de alți agenți, care-i pun la dispoziție lui un mediu mereu în schimbare, cu multe incertitudini stimulând permanent un răspuns de adaptare; și totodată liderul nu este izolat nici de propriul lui sistem de valori care se întrepătrund cu ale epocii sale și ale grupului din care face parte.
Pe parcursul a șase capitole, Kissinger descriere șase personalități postbelice care au influențat în primul rând istoria popoarelor lor, dar și a regiunilor mai îndepărtate sau apropiate. Șase tipologii în jurul cărora fiecare a dezvoltat propria strategie de dezvoltare a țării lor în condițiile cele mai neprielnice. Reușita lor este un amalgam de însușiri din care una a ieșit în evidență și a stat la baza întregii construcții.
Urmele pe care ei le-au lăsat în istorie sunt lecții care ar trebui însușite de fiecare urmaș al lor pe parcursul unui proces contemplativ profund. Orice lider de azi ar trebui să reflecteze asupra gândirii și împrejurărilor istorice ale acestor personalități care au reușit chiar dacă au trecut în registru și neîmpliniri. Avem de a face cu oameni, nu cu ființe supranaturale. Provocările politice și economice nu s-au sfârșit odată cu acești oameni, ci continuă să exercite forțe nebănuite asupra oricărei orânduiri umane, iar strategiile de azi trebuie să se orienteze în continuare pentru bunăstare unui număr cât mai mare de cetățeni după cum sugera Lee Kwan Yew, fondatorul statului Singapore, într-un discurs din 1981, de 1 mai: "Fiecare guvern rațional își dorește bunăstarea și progresul pentru cel mai mare număr de cetățeni." (Cel puțin, lecția oferită de Lee Kwan Yew, ar trebui studiată de orice guvern, mai ales dintr-o țară emergentă cum e România. Pragmatismul său și criteriile sale meritocrate, de abolire a corupției și mediocrității au reușit pe parcursul unei generații să creeze dintr-o insulă săracă și subordonată Angliei, o putere economică a cărei evoluție a fost luată etalon și de însăși China.)
Personajele urmărite în monografie sunt Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kwan Yew și Margaret Thatcher. Autorul i-a cunoscut personal, din postura de secretar de stat american, a colaborat mai mult sau mai puțin cu ei, le-a cunoscut aspirațiile și temperamentele.
Pe parcursul lecturii, uneori ai impresia că citești un roman; se simte o căldură a scriiturii datorată, poate, și apropierii dintre autor și personalitatea descrisă. Alteori te pierzi într-un hățiș tehnic și subtil al negocierilor; relevarea importanței momentului. Cartea e plăcută pentru cei interesați de istorie și politică diplomatică. Merită un loc demn în bibliotecă întrucât nu-și pierde valabilitatea în timp. Povestea poate fi repovestită la nesfârșit fără a-și pierde semnificația.
Post scriptum. Încercând să trec prin filtrul lui Kissinger politicienii români din ultimii 30 de ani, nu pot să nu remarc că nu sunt decât niște paparude triste. Situația prin care a trecut țara în această perioadă necesita imperios personalități cel puțin factura celor prezentate de autor, în schimb am avut parte exact de invers, anti-personalități. Nicio caracteristică pozitivă remarcabilă și remarcată la personajele cărții nu s-a regăsit, și nu se regăsește încă la niciun specimen politic român. Tocmai de aceea, cartea poate servi repere de urmat a unei noi generații de lideri politici români. Expunerea lui Kissinger nu este un rețetar. Dar pune la dispoziție niște modele comportamentale ale unor oameni aflați în anumite împrejurări istorice, forțați să adopte o poziție în detrimentul alteia conform construcției lor, caracterului fiecăruia construit în sânul societății proprii, a culturii sale unice. Kissinger expune experiența sa în contactul cu leadershipul de cel mai înalt rang. Este doar un prim pas pentru a alcătui un politician nou. Următorul pas nu este decât folosirea abilităților unice fiecăruia în realizarea unui scop benefic, pentru a deveni un astfel de model.
February 13, 2024
Insightful accounts of Kissinger’s experience working with the six leaders. A set of distinct qualities can be observed in each leader (it’s a fun read bcuz he doesn’t explicitly point out the qualities of each one until the very end of the book and u get to figure out whichever qualities they embodied the most)
July 22, 2022
The studies in this book are oversimplified, distorted and self-indulgent. Early on, Kissinger writes, 'leadership is morally neutral'. This is actually more a study of power, not equivalent to leadership. Kissinger's formula is basically be single minded, divide and conquer, and turn a blind eye to the death and destruction caused along the way.
Did the others reviewing this even read it?
Did the others reviewing this even read it?
July 26, 2023
Kissinger is apparently brilliant and the final chapter is particularly helpful in understanding present challenges for political leaders.
December 26, 2023
Although considered a controversial man, Kissinger has written an inspiring book about a handful of remarkable and influential political leaders. Especially fruitful are those stories about the leaders who rebuilt their nations after major wars, Adenauer, De Gaulle… Pay attention to their long term plans and policies, their lack of populist manoeuvres, and humbleness in Adenauer’s case
January 19, 2023
Well argued and compellingly written, Kissinger’s “Leadership” uses the example of six, quite different 20th-century leaders to explore how leaders can pursue long-term objectives, internationally and domestically, and balance competing interests. Each profiled leader faced unique challenges and confronted them with both vision and a respect for the possible. For Adenauer, this meant rebuilding international trust in Germany by acceding to Allied demands and atoning for the crimes of the Holocaust. For de Gaulle, it meant restoring French confidence in their country’s greatness by creating a national myth of universal resistance to the Germans, ending the Algerian War, and charting its own path through the Cold War (e.g., rejecting NATO troops on French soil, developing France’s own nuclear deterrent). For Nixon, it involved embracing a balance-of-power conception of foreign affairs to pursue detente with Russia, split China from the Soviets, and prevent conflicts in the Middle East and India/Pakistan from spiraling out. For Anwar Sadat, it meant compromising and inviting backlash from his Arab neighbors and extremists in his own country in pursuit of peace with Israel. For Lee Kuan Yew, it meant investing in his own people’s economic potential to build Singapore into a thriving economy and overcome ethnic divisions by forging a national identity. And for Thatcher, it meant changing England’s political paradigm by arresting high inflation, standing up to striking coal miners, delivering economic growth and dynamism, and revitalizing Britain’s leadership on the world stage through both unilateral action (e.g., the Falklands War) and collaboration with the Americans (e.g., urging Reagan to negotiate with Gorbachev, defending Britain’s nuclear deterrent). Our leaders today could learn a great deal from their examples (with the exception of Nixon’s domestic escapades) as they seek to balance the competing interests and aspirations of China and the US in a multipolar world without running the risk of devastating conflict.
June 4, 2023
I found this audiobook an interesting listen that was first published a year ago and today we find Dr. Kissinger on the news as he just marked his 100th birthday. It is surely a fascinating undertaking to profile six consequential leaders from the Post-World War II period, including Lee Kuan Yew, Charles de Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat and Margaret Thatcher. I began the book most interested in his view on Lee Kuan Yew and read from a review of the book by Singapore's Ambassador-at-Large Tommy Koh that Dr. Kissinger and Prime Minister Lee were mutual admirers. I was not as familiar with Chancellor Adenauer and found the discussion of his efforts to restore Germany after World War II through setting conditions for democratic progress and prosperity. The commentary surrounding Dr. Kissinger as he hits the century mark is a reminder that there are people around the world that view him as a war criminal while admirers in the U.S. have called him the country’s "greatest scholar-statesman" of the Post-World War II period. I got something out of listening to the audiobook, but it certainly leads you to worry about having leadership up to the task in the present moment in American politics and society.
October 26, 2022
Kissinger has met many leaders. He admires only 6.
1. Conrad Adenauer: led defeated Germany to regain her footing, not as vassal states of the winners of WW2.
2. Charles de Gaulle: a mid level general forming a government for France while in exile without any land or army. He managed to make his government the legitimate one, able to negotiate with Britain and America as though he was their equal.
3. Richard Nixon: master of foreign affairs albeit brought down by Watergate.
4: Anwar Sadat: a little known Egyptian leader that changed the Arab perception to allow Israel to coexist.
5. Lee Kuan Yew; from third to first world. Spirit of excellence
6. Margaret Thatcher: Iron Lady. Won the Falklands war, ensured Hong Kong’s 50 years
1. Conrad Adenauer: led defeated Germany to regain her footing, not as vassal states of the winners of WW2.
2. Charles de Gaulle: a mid level general forming a government for France while in exile without any land or army. He managed to make his government the legitimate one, able to negotiate with Britain and America as though he was their equal.
3. Richard Nixon: master of foreign affairs albeit brought down by Watergate.
4: Anwar Sadat: a little known Egyptian leader that changed the Arab perception to allow Israel to coexist.
5. Lee Kuan Yew; from third to first world. Spirit of excellence
6. Margaret Thatcher: Iron Lady. Won the Falklands war, ensured Hong Kong’s 50 years
April 8, 2023
I was open-minded when I began reading this book. I am thankful that I read this book because I learned a lot from Henry Kissinger’s insights into six unique world leaders Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew, and Margaret Thatcher. Please self-reflect and see how you would lead if you were in their shoes. The answers to your leadership skills reside in your honest self-assessment of your values, principles, courage, strategic acumen, and the wisdom Kissinger imparts in this book. I highly recommend this book for any striving leader who wants to impact society constructively and meaningfully.
May 21, 2023
Es impresionante que con 99 años HK tenga la lucidez que requiere escribir un libro así, que recoge los retratos de seis protagonistas de la historia del siglo XX, con los que ha tenido relación personal, describiendo sus liderazgos nacionales en circunstancias adversas y la huella que dejaron en la historia de sus países.
September 16, 2022
****** 6 STARS IF POSSIBLE ******
Leadership (2022) is a detailed analysis of six monumental twentieth-century leaders. By examining both the circumstances that formed these leaders and the strategies they used to shepherd their respective nations through periods of turmoil, it presents invaluable lessons for anyone working to shape the world’s future. From Charles de Gaulle’s strategy of will to Anwar Sadat’s strategy of transcendence and beyond, it serves as a historical debriefing on some of the defining leadership strategies of the last century.
---
Scrutinize and learn from the strategies of six very different leaders.
In most societies and most times, leaders act like managers: they maintain the status quo. During periods of crisis, however, leaders must act, not just manage.
In this regard, there’s a lesson to be learned from great political leaders – leaders who have risen up to the occasion, transformed the state of affairs, and guided their nations toward better futures.
This book is a study of six of these leaders by Henry Kissinger, who is a renowned statesman himself.
---
Konrad Adenauer used the strategy of humility to restore order in postwar Germany.
After the end of World War II in Europe, Germany was in a state of disintegration. It had been utterly defeated militarily, it had lost its international legitimacy, and it was divided and occupied by Allied forces who served as the de facto rulers of its four regions. Food shortages starved the population while the infant mortality rate grew to twice that of the rest of Western Europe. Black markets ran amok, mail services stopped entirely, and trains were unpredictable at best.
More than these physical burdens, Germany also carried a heavy moral burden. It needed a leader who could help heal the nation’s wounds, restore dignity and legitimacy, and determine how it would walk forward into the future. In West Germany, that leader would be Konrad Adenauer, the former mayor of Cologne.
Adenauer had been an opponent of Hitler before the war had even begun, and his first public speech after the war was representative of this attitude. Speaking at the University of Cologne, he asked his audience, How is it possible that the Nazis came to power? He proclaimed that Germany needed to come to terms with its past before it could find a way toward a better future. From these words, it was clear that Adenauer’s strategy would be one of humility – of acknowledging and making amends for the past while integrating with the Europe of the future.
To that end, Adenauer approved a $1.5 billion reparations agreement with the Israeli government. He also conducted a series of war crime investigations that were focused primarily on high-ranking former Nazis.
Adenauer knew that Germany could not survive without outside help. It thus needed to abandon its previous nationalistic fervor as well as its tendency to manipulate its geographic position to gain favor, power, and authority. So, during his time as chancellor, Adenauer focused on strengthening his ties with the West, particularly the United States. He also sought reconciliation with France.
And his efforts were a success. In 1955, West Germany became a sovereign state, marking the end of the Allied military occupation of its territory. Two days after this had been declared, Adenauer traveled to Paris, where West Germany then assumed equal status within NATO. The strategy of humility had helped Adenauer’s Germany achieve its goal of equality.
---
Charles de Gaulle became the leader of the Free French using the strategy of will.
The sound of distant Luftwaffe airstrikes greeted Charles de Gaulle on June 5, 1940 – the day he established his office in the Defense Ministry. He had just recently been appointed the undersecretary of defense after having served as a professional soldier. However, within a week, the French government retreated from the capital. The prime minister resigned, and an armistice with Hitler was planned. Under these conditions, de Gaulle fled to London from Bordeaux.
The day after he arrived, de Gaulle gave a speech – authorized by Prime Minister Churchill – calling on all French officers and men in Britain to get in touch with him. Without saying so outright, he was forming a French resistance movement.
This was an extraordinary declaration. Not only was it a call for French citizens living in Britain to revolt against their home country – it was also one made by a barely known soldier-turned-junior minister, France’s lowest-ranking general. Yet here he was, calling for French soldiers to join him in opposition. De Gaulle’s actions in this instance were an exemplary case of his strategy of will.
Through this strategy, de Gaulle used his words to create alternate realities, thereby willing them into existence. One particularly remarkable instance of this came on June 14, 1944, in the French town of Bayeux, which the British had captured a week earlier. Bayeux was, at the time, still administered by French authorities from the part of France that was in collaboration with Hitler. Yet, in de Gaulle’s speech, he spoke as if they had been members of the French resistance since the beginning of the war. He also failed to mention the British and American troops that had actually been the ones to liberate Bayeux.
Why? De Gaulle was afraid that Allied forces would attempt to form a transitional government in France before he could do so himself. He needed to appear in France as soon as possible, styling himself as the new French figurehead before the Allies could.
Several weeks later, this strategy culminated when de Gaulle made his victory speech in Paris. Once again, he failed to mention the Allied armies who had helped liberate France and instead claimed that Paris had been “liberated by itself.” De Gaulle wanted to restore France’s faith in itself, even if it meant twisting reality in the process. He wanted to summon a sense of patriotism and national spirit, turning what was in large part an Anglo-American victory into a French one.
And it worked. De Gaulle’s parade down the Champs-Élysées that day seared him and his legitimacy into history, making him the leader of France until his resignation in 1969.
---
Richard Nixon developed his policy around the goal of equilibrium.
Richard Nixon was always a complicated and controversial figure in American history. His name is inextricably tied to the Watergate scandal, which occurred under his watch and made him the only president to date to have resigned from office.
However, Nixon also reshaped the nation’s foreign policy during his time in office. He did so based on a strategy of equilibrium, in which he sought a balance of power among the world’s great nations. Nixon viewed peace not as the status quo, but as a fragile and precarious state that must be carefully maintained. This could only happen if nations were balanced rather than one dominating the rest.
In Nixon’s view, the US should be the primary shaper of this equilibrium. If it dropped out of the balance, global chaos would result. America needed to simultaneously keep up strong alliances while maintaining a dialogue with adversaries.
So, how did he do it? One major step that Nixon made was extending a diplomatic opening to China. For years, the US and China had avoided any high-level diplomatic contact. But Nixon believed that the possibility for global peace would be strengthened if that could be rectified.
Unsuccessful attempts were made in 1969 and early 1970. But in October 1970, Nixon and Kissinger were able to establish contact with Chairman Mao Zedong through the Chinese Premier, Zhou Enlai. Zhou indicated that China was willing to negotiate with the US on the status of Taiwan, which was disputed. Over the next several weeks, Nixon and Mao communicated via Kissinger and Zhou with the utmost secrecy, lest any information accidentally fall into Soviet hands.
In 1971, Kissinger made a secret visit to Beijing. During that meeting, it was agreed that Nixon would officially visit China in February 1972. The result of this summit between Nixon and Mao was the Shanghai Communiqué, which to this day represents a major part of the basis of relations between the US, China, and Taiwan.
After the Communiqué was established, the US and China began collaborating to contain Soviet power. At one point, in February 1973, Mao even urged Kissinger to devote more of his time to Japan so the country wouldn’t feel neglected. Mao preferred Japan to develop closer relations with the US than with the Soviet Union.
Despite the closer ideological similarity between China and the Soviet Union than China and the United States, for Nixon, national interests took priority over philosophical concerns. This was the strategy of equilibrium in action.
---
Anwar Sadat carefully transcended Egypt’s reigning paradigm to achieve peace.
Dressed in a khaki military uniform and an overcoat, Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, filled his pipe, lit it, and began smoking. In his deep baritone, he told Kissinger, “I have a plan for you. I have named it the Kissinger Plan.”
This plan, it turned out, was a version of a proposal that Kissinger had already offered. In it, Kissinger had suggested that, to mitigate the conflict between Egypt and Israel, interim arrangements should be made such that both sides could adjust to the peace process step by step. This proposal had been rejected by Egypt’s director of intelligence – but now Sadat was accepting it.
Sadat’s plan was stunning because Kissinger had come into the negotiations expecting difficulty. The first step that Sadat proposed – an Israeli withdrawal across two-thirds of the Sinai Peninsula– was unrealistic. However, it still showed his willingness to proceed, potentially, with a series of interim arrangements.
In a way, this strategy was similar to the approach that Sadat had previously taken in his domestic policies. He transcended the strategies of his well-regarded predecessor, Gamal Abdel Nasser – but only in stages. Rather than overwhelm his people by changing the paradigm all at once, he did so progressively, reaffirming several of Nasser’s goals while gradually, almost imperceptibly, departing from others.
The result was that, after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Sadat finally felt comfortable extending a diplomatic hand to the US – something to which Nasser would have been adamantly opposed. By committing to a peace agreement with Israel, facilitated by the US, Sadat was doing what had been nigh-unthinkable before. If it went wrong, Sadat risked humiliation and potentially the ruin of his nation.
But it went right. In 1978, Sadat signed a peace treaty with the Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin: the Camp David agreement, for which the pair jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This victory was celebrated by Arabs both inside and outside of Egypt. However, the peace treaty was less acceptable to members of Muslim extremist groups within Egypt, who vehemently opposed Israel. Arab League members severed diplomatic relations with Egypt over the treaty, further inflaming tensions within the nation. The result was the assassination of Sadat at a military parade.
Despite his tragic ending, Sadat’s leadership showed his willingness to guide his nation into a different future, respectful of the past yet transcending its errors. This was, indeed, his strategy: that of transcendence. It was only his enemies who found this concept intolerable.
---
Thanks to Lee Kuan Yew’s strategy of excellence, Singapore became a thriving new nation.
Before 1965, the nation of Singapore didn’t exist.
Originally established as a British colonial trading post, it was technically ruled by British Indian authorities. Then, in 1963, it merged with Malaya as part of a new confederation called Malaysia. However, only two years passed before Malaysia decided to unceremoniously dump Singapore from the merger. The tiny nation was left entirely on its own, and its survival depended on the efforts of its young, dynamic leader, Lee Kuan Yew.
One aspect that Lee immediately knew he needed to address was Singapore’s ethnic disunification. Its people were mainly Chinese, Malay, or Indian, with smaller Arabic, Armenian, and Jewish populations. As a result, there was no common language among them – and no common tie making them feel like members of the same country.
To encourage unity, ethnic mixing, and a common sense of identity, housing districts were given racial and income quotas. Ultimately, this eliminated segregation, allowing people of different racial and cultural backgrounds to develop a national consciousness.
Lee also successfully answered the question of which language Singapore would adopt as its own, given that so many different ones were spoken on the island. His solution was to adopt a bilingual education system, in which all English-language schools taught Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil, and all other schools mandated English classes. That way, every family could keep its mother tongue and communicate in English.
Speaking of education, this was a priority for Lee, who, in his first nine years in power, devoted an astonishing one-third of Singapore’s entire budget to education. This was made possible because of Lee’s emphasis on eliminating corruption. His party passed laws imposing harsh penalties for engaging in corrupt behavior at any level of government. Socially, corruption itself became a symbol of moral failure, a betrayal of the nation’s values.
In all areas, Lee insisted on excellence – on not simply surviving but flourishing. He had to establish the expectation of excellence as a norm for the country, so that long after he was gone, his successors would carry his values forward into the future. All of society needed to believe that mediocrity was unacceptable and that transgressions would not be tolerated. By collectively committing to success, Singaporeans would stick together despite their lack of ethnic or cultural ties.
Thanks to Lee’s efforts, Singapore is now one of the world’s most successful countries. It is Asia’s wealthiest nation per capita, and it regularly ranks within the top percentile in measures of human well-being.
---
Margaret Thatcher helped heal a faltering Britain with her strategy of conviction.
During the 1970s, the common wisdom in politics was that only centrists could win elections. To get votes, you had to capture the middle ground.
One woman, however, disagreed. She asserted that deferring to the center muddied the electoral waters and left voters without real choices. Instead, politicians had to construct and fight for real policies that would clash meaningfully with those from the other side. Rather than seek out the middle ground, she preferred to make the middle ground seek her out.
This was the conviction of Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative prime minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. Thatcher felt very strongly about her limited-government, Hayekian economic views, and she intended to enact them.
Thatcher’s strategy of conviction didn’t always win her fans. One of her most notorious and inflammatory decisions was one she made as secretary of state for education and science, ten years before becoming prime minister. In that position, she cut a free milk program for primary-school children and earned herself the unflattering nickname “Thatcher the Milk Snatcher.”
Other times, her policies did bring in swaths of voters. For example, one of her privatization-focused programs, “right-to-buy,” gave council-house tenants the ability to buy their homes on favorable terms. Many of these primarily working-class people became new Conservative voters.
Thatcher knew what it took to win over the middle ground. But that was far from her only objective. Her ultimate goal was to fix Britain’s economy.
Britain was in an economic crisis during the 1970s. Taxes were burdensomely high, productivity was low, and inflation trapped employers and workers in a vicious cycle of wage increases followed by increases in price.
To combat this, Thatcher took a decisive approach. Not long after she took office, her government raised interest rates to 17 percent, leading to a recession. This meant that in 1980, the GDP fell by 2 percent and unemployment skyrocketed. Conservative Party members grew skeptical, but Thatcher held her ground. She cut bloated state programs, opened the stock market to foreign traders, and restrained public expenditure.
By the end of Thatcher’s time in office, inflation had been cut in half, unemployment had been reduced by 5 percent, incomes had more than doubled, and the number of working days lost to labor disputes had been greatly reduced. Thatcher’s commitment to her economic policies had helped Britain’s decline come to an end. But more than that, her conviction created a new British center, shifting the economic views of the median voter rightward and forever changing the landscape of British politics.
---
There’s no one-size-fits-all leadership strategy, just as there are no two leaders who are exactly alike. Unique historical circumstances shape leaders who, if the time is right, are able to seize upon a strategy that works for their time and place – thus transcending old paradigms and ushering in new ones. Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew, and Margaret Thatcher all transformed their respective societies using very different strategies, from humility to equilibrium, excellence to conviction. It’s important that we remember these leaders and their accomplishments in a world that seems to want to forget.
---
Henry Kissinger served in the US Army during the Second World War and subsequently held teaching posts in history and government at Harvard University for twenty years. He served as national security advisor and secretary of state under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and has advised many other American presidents on foreign policy. He received the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Medal of Liberty, among other awards. He is the author of numerous books and articles on foreign policy and diplomacy, including most recently On China and World Order. He is currently chairman of Kissinger Associates, Inc., an international consulting firm.
Leadership (2022) is a detailed analysis of six monumental twentieth-century leaders. By examining both the circumstances that formed these leaders and the strategies they used to shepherd their respective nations through periods of turmoil, it presents invaluable lessons for anyone working to shape the world’s future. From Charles de Gaulle’s strategy of will to Anwar Sadat’s strategy of transcendence and beyond, it serves as a historical debriefing on some of the defining leadership strategies of the last century.
---
Scrutinize and learn from the strategies of six very different leaders.
In most societies and most times, leaders act like managers: they maintain the status quo. During periods of crisis, however, leaders must act, not just manage.
In this regard, there’s a lesson to be learned from great political leaders – leaders who have risen up to the occasion, transformed the state of affairs, and guided their nations toward better futures.
This book is a study of six of these leaders by Henry Kissinger, who is a renowned statesman himself.
---
Konrad Adenauer used the strategy of humility to restore order in postwar Germany.
After the end of World War II in Europe, Germany was in a state of disintegration. It had been utterly defeated militarily, it had lost its international legitimacy, and it was divided and occupied by Allied forces who served as the de facto rulers of its four regions. Food shortages starved the population while the infant mortality rate grew to twice that of the rest of Western Europe. Black markets ran amok, mail services stopped entirely, and trains were unpredictable at best.
More than these physical burdens, Germany also carried a heavy moral burden. It needed a leader who could help heal the nation’s wounds, restore dignity and legitimacy, and determine how it would walk forward into the future. In West Germany, that leader would be Konrad Adenauer, the former mayor of Cologne.
Adenauer had been an opponent of Hitler before the war had even begun, and his first public speech after the war was representative of this attitude. Speaking at the University of Cologne, he asked his audience, How is it possible that the Nazis came to power? He proclaimed that Germany needed to come to terms with its past before it could find a way toward a better future. From these words, it was clear that Adenauer’s strategy would be one of humility – of acknowledging and making amends for the past while integrating with the Europe of the future.
To that end, Adenauer approved a $1.5 billion reparations agreement with the Israeli government. He also conducted a series of war crime investigations that were focused primarily on high-ranking former Nazis.
Adenauer knew that Germany could not survive without outside help. It thus needed to abandon its previous nationalistic fervor as well as its tendency to manipulate its geographic position to gain favor, power, and authority. So, during his time as chancellor, Adenauer focused on strengthening his ties with the West, particularly the United States. He also sought reconciliation with France.
And his efforts were a success. In 1955, West Germany became a sovereign state, marking the end of the Allied military occupation of its territory. Two days after this had been declared, Adenauer traveled to Paris, where West Germany then assumed equal status within NATO. The strategy of humility had helped Adenauer’s Germany achieve its goal of equality.
---
Charles de Gaulle became the leader of the Free French using the strategy of will.
The sound of distant Luftwaffe airstrikes greeted Charles de Gaulle on June 5, 1940 – the day he established his office in the Defense Ministry. He had just recently been appointed the undersecretary of defense after having served as a professional soldier. However, within a week, the French government retreated from the capital. The prime minister resigned, and an armistice with Hitler was planned. Under these conditions, de Gaulle fled to London from Bordeaux.
The day after he arrived, de Gaulle gave a speech – authorized by Prime Minister Churchill – calling on all French officers and men in Britain to get in touch with him. Without saying so outright, he was forming a French resistance movement.
This was an extraordinary declaration. Not only was it a call for French citizens living in Britain to revolt against their home country – it was also one made by a barely known soldier-turned-junior minister, France’s lowest-ranking general. Yet here he was, calling for French soldiers to join him in opposition. De Gaulle’s actions in this instance were an exemplary case of his strategy of will.
Through this strategy, de Gaulle used his words to create alternate realities, thereby willing them into existence. One particularly remarkable instance of this came on June 14, 1944, in the French town of Bayeux, which the British had captured a week earlier. Bayeux was, at the time, still administered by French authorities from the part of France that was in collaboration with Hitler. Yet, in de Gaulle’s speech, he spoke as if they had been members of the French resistance since the beginning of the war. He also failed to mention the British and American troops that had actually been the ones to liberate Bayeux.
Why? De Gaulle was afraid that Allied forces would attempt to form a transitional government in France before he could do so himself. He needed to appear in France as soon as possible, styling himself as the new French figurehead before the Allies could.
Several weeks later, this strategy culminated when de Gaulle made his victory speech in Paris. Once again, he failed to mention the Allied armies who had helped liberate France and instead claimed that Paris had been “liberated by itself.” De Gaulle wanted to restore France’s faith in itself, even if it meant twisting reality in the process. He wanted to summon a sense of patriotism and national spirit, turning what was in large part an Anglo-American victory into a French one.
And it worked. De Gaulle’s parade down the Champs-Élysées that day seared him and his legitimacy into history, making him the leader of France until his resignation in 1969.
---
Richard Nixon developed his policy around the goal of equilibrium.
Richard Nixon was always a complicated and controversial figure in American history. His name is inextricably tied to the Watergate scandal, which occurred under his watch and made him the only president to date to have resigned from office.
However, Nixon also reshaped the nation’s foreign policy during his time in office. He did so based on a strategy of equilibrium, in which he sought a balance of power among the world’s great nations. Nixon viewed peace not as the status quo, but as a fragile and precarious state that must be carefully maintained. This could only happen if nations were balanced rather than one dominating the rest.
In Nixon’s view, the US should be the primary shaper of this equilibrium. If it dropped out of the balance, global chaos would result. America needed to simultaneously keep up strong alliances while maintaining a dialogue with adversaries.
So, how did he do it? One major step that Nixon made was extending a diplomatic opening to China. For years, the US and China had avoided any high-level diplomatic contact. But Nixon believed that the possibility for global peace would be strengthened if that could be rectified.
Unsuccessful attempts were made in 1969 and early 1970. But in October 1970, Nixon and Kissinger were able to establish contact with Chairman Mao Zedong through the Chinese Premier, Zhou Enlai. Zhou indicated that China was willing to negotiate with the US on the status of Taiwan, which was disputed. Over the next several weeks, Nixon and Mao communicated via Kissinger and Zhou with the utmost secrecy, lest any information accidentally fall into Soviet hands.
In 1971, Kissinger made a secret visit to Beijing. During that meeting, it was agreed that Nixon would officially visit China in February 1972. The result of this summit between Nixon and Mao was the Shanghai Communiqué, which to this day represents a major part of the basis of relations between the US, China, and Taiwan.
After the Communiqué was established, the US and China began collaborating to contain Soviet power. At one point, in February 1973, Mao even urged Kissinger to devote more of his time to Japan so the country wouldn’t feel neglected. Mao preferred Japan to develop closer relations with the US than with the Soviet Union.
Despite the closer ideological similarity between China and the Soviet Union than China and the United States, for Nixon, national interests took priority over philosophical concerns. This was the strategy of equilibrium in action.
---
Anwar Sadat carefully transcended Egypt’s reigning paradigm to achieve peace.
Dressed in a khaki military uniform and an overcoat, Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, filled his pipe, lit it, and began smoking. In his deep baritone, he told Kissinger, “I have a plan for you. I have named it the Kissinger Plan.”
This plan, it turned out, was a version of a proposal that Kissinger had already offered. In it, Kissinger had suggested that, to mitigate the conflict between Egypt and Israel, interim arrangements should be made such that both sides could adjust to the peace process step by step. This proposal had been rejected by Egypt’s director of intelligence – but now Sadat was accepting it.
Sadat’s plan was stunning because Kissinger had come into the negotiations expecting difficulty. The first step that Sadat proposed – an Israeli withdrawal across two-thirds of the Sinai Peninsula– was unrealistic. However, it still showed his willingness to proceed, potentially, with a series of interim arrangements.
In a way, this strategy was similar to the approach that Sadat had previously taken in his domestic policies. He transcended the strategies of his well-regarded predecessor, Gamal Abdel Nasser – but only in stages. Rather than overwhelm his people by changing the paradigm all at once, he did so progressively, reaffirming several of Nasser’s goals while gradually, almost imperceptibly, departing from others.
The result was that, after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Sadat finally felt comfortable extending a diplomatic hand to the US – something to which Nasser would have been adamantly opposed. By committing to a peace agreement with Israel, facilitated by the US, Sadat was doing what had been nigh-unthinkable before. If it went wrong, Sadat risked humiliation and potentially the ruin of his nation.
But it went right. In 1978, Sadat signed a peace treaty with the Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin: the Camp David agreement, for which the pair jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This victory was celebrated by Arabs both inside and outside of Egypt. However, the peace treaty was less acceptable to members of Muslim extremist groups within Egypt, who vehemently opposed Israel. Arab League members severed diplomatic relations with Egypt over the treaty, further inflaming tensions within the nation. The result was the assassination of Sadat at a military parade.
Despite his tragic ending, Sadat’s leadership showed his willingness to guide his nation into a different future, respectful of the past yet transcending its errors. This was, indeed, his strategy: that of transcendence. It was only his enemies who found this concept intolerable.
---
Thanks to Lee Kuan Yew’s strategy of excellence, Singapore became a thriving new nation.
Before 1965, the nation of Singapore didn’t exist.
Originally established as a British colonial trading post, it was technically ruled by British Indian authorities. Then, in 1963, it merged with Malaya as part of a new confederation called Malaysia. However, only two years passed before Malaysia decided to unceremoniously dump Singapore from the merger. The tiny nation was left entirely on its own, and its survival depended on the efforts of its young, dynamic leader, Lee Kuan Yew.
One aspect that Lee immediately knew he needed to address was Singapore’s ethnic disunification. Its people were mainly Chinese, Malay, or Indian, with smaller Arabic, Armenian, and Jewish populations. As a result, there was no common language among them – and no common tie making them feel like members of the same country.
To encourage unity, ethnic mixing, and a common sense of identity, housing districts were given racial and income quotas. Ultimately, this eliminated segregation, allowing people of different racial and cultural backgrounds to develop a national consciousness.
Lee also successfully answered the question of which language Singapore would adopt as its own, given that so many different ones were spoken on the island. His solution was to adopt a bilingual education system, in which all English-language schools taught Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil, and all other schools mandated English classes. That way, every family could keep its mother tongue and communicate in English.
Speaking of education, this was a priority for Lee, who, in his first nine years in power, devoted an astonishing one-third of Singapore’s entire budget to education. This was made possible because of Lee’s emphasis on eliminating corruption. His party passed laws imposing harsh penalties for engaging in corrupt behavior at any level of government. Socially, corruption itself became a symbol of moral failure, a betrayal of the nation’s values.
In all areas, Lee insisted on excellence – on not simply surviving but flourishing. He had to establish the expectation of excellence as a norm for the country, so that long after he was gone, his successors would carry his values forward into the future. All of society needed to believe that mediocrity was unacceptable and that transgressions would not be tolerated. By collectively committing to success, Singaporeans would stick together despite their lack of ethnic or cultural ties.
Thanks to Lee’s efforts, Singapore is now one of the world’s most successful countries. It is Asia’s wealthiest nation per capita, and it regularly ranks within the top percentile in measures of human well-being.
---
Margaret Thatcher helped heal a faltering Britain with her strategy of conviction.
During the 1970s, the common wisdom in politics was that only centrists could win elections. To get votes, you had to capture the middle ground.
One woman, however, disagreed. She asserted that deferring to the center muddied the electoral waters and left voters without real choices. Instead, politicians had to construct and fight for real policies that would clash meaningfully with those from the other side. Rather than seek out the middle ground, she preferred to make the middle ground seek her out.
This was the conviction of Margaret Thatcher, the Conservative prime minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. Thatcher felt very strongly about her limited-government, Hayekian economic views, and she intended to enact them.
Thatcher’s strategy of conviction didn’t always win her fans. One of her most notorious and inflammatory decisions was one she made as secretary of state for education and science, ten years before becoming prime minister. In that position, she cut a free milk program for primary-school children and earned herself the unflattering nickname “Thatcher the Milk Snatcher.”
Other times, her policies did bring in swaths of voters. For example, one of her privatization-focused programs, “right-to-buy,” gave council-house tenants the ability to buy their homes on favorable terms. Many of these primarily working-class people became new Conservative voters.
Thatcher knew what it took to win over the middle ground. But that was far from her only objective. Her ultimate goal was to fix Britain’s economy.
Britain was in an economic crisis during the 1970s. Taxes were burdensomely high, productivity was low, and inflation trapped employers and workers in a vicious cycle of wage increases followed by increases in price.
To combat this, Thatcher took a decisive approach. Not long after she took office, her government raised interest rates to 17 percent, leading to a recession. This meant that in 1980, the GDP fell by 2 percent and unemployment skyrocketed. Conservative Party members grew skeptical, but Thatcher held her ground. She cut bloated state programs, opened the stock market to foreign traders, and restrained public expenditure.
By the end of Thatcher’s time in office, inflation had been cut in half, unemployment had been reduced by 5 percent, incomes had more than doubled, and the number of working days lost to labor disputes had been greatly reduced. Thatcher’s commitment to her economic policies had helped Britain’s decline come to an end. But more than that, her conviction created a new British center, shifting the economic views of the median voter rightward and forever changing the landscape of British politics.
---
There’s no one-size-fits-all leadership strategy, just as there are no two leaders who are exactly alike. Unique historical circumstances shape leaders who, if the time is right, are able to seize upon a strategy that works for their time and place – thus transcending old paradigms and ushering in new ones. Konrad Adenauer, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Anwar Sadat, Lee Kuan Yew, and Margaret Thatcher all transformed their respective societies using very different strategies, from humility to equilibrium, excellence to conviction. It’s important that we remember these leaders and their accomplishments in a world that seems to want to forget.
---
Henry Kissinger served in the US Army during the Second World War and subsequently held teaching posts in history and government at Harvard University for twenty years. He served as national security advisor and secretary of state under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and has advised many other American presidents on foreign policy. He received the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Medal of Liberty, among other awards. He is the author of numerous books and articles on foreign policy and diplomacy, including most recently On China and World Order. He is currently chairman of Kissinger Associates, Inc., an international consulting firm.
April 12, 2024
Leadership is Henry Kissinger’s final book—his swan song, if you will. Published in 2022, at the age of 99, Kissinger places the leitmotif of his many works, Westphalia and the balance of power, against the backdrop of six incredible lives, all of whom he personally knew:
1. Konrad Adenauer of Germany (45 pages)
2. Charles de Gaulle of France (72 pages)
3. Richard Nixon of the United States (78 pages)
4. Anwar Sadat of Egypt (71 pages)
5. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore (41 pages)
6. Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom (71 pages)
Kissinger’s preceding book, World Order, ended with a chapter on “leadership” in the Internet Age. This book follows up nicely in that regard. But it tries to be two things at once, and one of them, biography, is not Kissinger’s forte.
All six statesmen and stateswoman profiled are fascinating figures. Adenauer personally stood up to Hitler and succeeded him as Germany’s chancellor for 14 years. De Gaulle was a force of nature who restored his nation’s pride and confidence after a devastating collapse during the War. Nixon had the courage to go against the grain by opening up China, reaching détente with the Soviet Union, and making an honorable peace in Vietnam. Sadat was a martyred visionary who took an approach based on interests rather than ideology to be the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel. Lee created a nation out of essentially nothing and served as its leader for three decades. And Thatcher did for post-imperial Great Britain what de Gaulle did for post-Vichy France.
Yet, Kissinger’s writing fails to bring them fully to life. His analytical, fact-heavy style is more suitable for the other kinds of books he had written. Nevertheless, I recognize that this is a book about leadership and is not a biography as such.
The profiles of Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher were particularly memorable. It is a travesty that Lee’s profile is the shortest at only 41 pages. I would have liked to learn a lot more about him. I think the author could have made some cuts to de Gaulle’s and Sadat’s profiles—overextended in the former and a lot of redundancy in the latter. Nixon’s profile also felt a bit long, but that may be just my experience having previously read the author’s other books implicating Nixon’s policies. Thatcher’s was just perfect—not too long or short—and it was probably the best profile of the six.
Thatcher said of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, “British foreign policy is at its worst when it is giving away other people’s territory, as in the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.” But as Kissinger noted elsewhere, “appeasement” as a doctrine unnecessarily gets a bad rap. Sometimes, appeasement as a tactical maneuver can have lasting benefits, which is likely why Kissinger had suggested negotiating out of the Ukraine-Russian war in 2022.
So what makes a great leader? Courage and character, says Kissinger, and these six had both and then some. Rest in peace to them all—they each moved mountains and made history while on earth.
1. Konrad Adenauer of Germany (45 pages)
2. Charles de Gaulle of France (72 pages)
3. Richard Nixon of the United States (78 pages)
4. Anwar Sadat of Egypt (71 pages)
5. Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore (41 pages)
6. Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom (71 pages)
Kissinger’s preceding book, World Order, ended with a chapter on “leadership” in the Internet Age. This book follows up nicely in that regard. But it tries to be two things at once, and one of them, biography, is not Kissinger’s forte.
All six statesmen and stateswoman profiled are fascinating figures. Adenauer personally stood up to Hitler and succeeded him as Germany’s chancellor for 14 years. De Gaulle was a force of nature who restored his nation’s pride and confidence after a devastating collapse during the War. Nixon had the courage to go against the grain by opening up China, reaching détente with the Soviet Union, and making an honorable peace in Vietnam. Sadat was a martyred visionary who took an approach based on interests rather than ideology to be the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel. Lee created a nation out of essentially nothing and served as its leader for three decades. And Thatcher did for post-imperial Great Britain what de Gaulle did for post-Vichy France.
Yet, Kissinger’s writing fails to bring them fully to life. His analytical, fact-heavy style is more suitable for the other kinds of books he had written. Nevertheless, I recognize that this is a book about leadership and is not a biography as such.
The profiles of Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher were particularly memorable. It is a travesty that Lee’s profile is the shortest at only 41 pages. I would have liked to learn a lot more about him. I think the author could have made some cuts to de Gaulle’s and Sadat’s profiles—overextended in the former and a lot of redundancy in the latter. Nixon’s profile also felt a bit long, but that may be just my experience having previously read the author’s other books implicating Nixon’s policies. Thatcher’s was just perfect—not too long or short—and it was probably the best profile of the six.
Thatcher said of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, “British foreign policy is at its worst when it is giving away other people’s territory, as in the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.” But as Kissinger noted elsewhere, “appeasement” as a doctrine unnecessarily gets a bad rap. Sometimes, appeasement as a tactical maneuver can have lasting benefits, which is likely why Kissinger had suggested negotiating out of the Ukraine-Russian war in 2022.
So what makes a great leader? Courage and character, says Kissinger, and these six had both and then some. Rest in peace to them all—they each moved mountains and made history while on earth.
September 19, 2022
Henry Kissinger distills the leadership traits of six of the world’s leaders of the twentieth century, in his book, Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy. It is a compelling read, based on my enjoyment of the section describing Margaret Thatcher and her leadership of England during the “Reagan era” and the conclusions section. I did not read about the other five world leaders at this sitting, but plan to do so in the future. I highly recommend this clear-headed analysis offered up by Kissinger, which is well researched and buttressed by his own interactions with many of them.
“Without leadership,” Kissinger writes, “institutions drift, and nations court growing irrelevance and, ultimately, disaster.” Under President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, strong leadership revived their respective countries and made the U.S. and the U.K. relevant again.
Kissinger adds, “For strategies to inspire the society, leaders must serve as educators — communicating objectives, assuaging doubts and rallying support. While the state possesses by definition the monopoly of force, reliance on coercion is a symptom of inadequate leadership; good leaders elicit in their people a wish to walk alongside them. They must also inspire an immediate entourage to translate their thinking so that it nears upon the practical issues of the day.”
Both Reagan and Thatcher were great communicators and surrounded themselves with competent teams to effectively deal with the issues of the day. President Biden, by contrast, is an inept communicator with destructive policies (on the economy, immigration, crime, taxation, border security, labor relations, education, and more) that have more than 80 percent of U.S. citizenry believing the country is headed in the wrong direction. Biden’s fecklessness is compounded by the people he chose work the details - people chosen not for their competence, but for their gender and/or race. Ability is not a prerequisite to run government departments in the 2020s. As Kissinger stated, “Leaders can be magnified — or diminished — by the qualities of those around him.”
The good news for Americans, and unlike the British system of government, “weak leadership can survive in the American system thanks to the executive’s fixed four-year term.” After four years the U.S. president and his cabinet can be voted out of office.
On elections and the role of government, Margaret Thatcher said, “You only win by being for things [and be] for a free society with power well distributed amongst the citizens not concentrated in the hands of the state, and the power supported by a wide distribution of private property amongst citizens and subjects and not in the hands of the state.”
President Reagan concurred and made the U.S. stronger by restraining the size of government, lowering taxation, reducing regulations, and supporting small businesses and private enterprises. To date, Biden has done none of this. In fact, he has done the opposite of President Reagan and led the country into its worst inflationary period, social unrest, increasing union discontent with a growing number of strikes and walkouts, and restrictive regulations coupled with executive mandates in attempt to delegitimize Congress and skirt the Supreme Court.
On the world stage, Prime Minister Thatcher showed strength in retaking the Falkland Islands after Argentina seized them and standing up to the Soviet Union, of which Russia was one if its “states.” By contrast, Biden appeared weak, as demonstrated by his chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, seeing American soldiers killed and U.S. citizens left behind, while allowing the Taliban to take over and resume its reign of terror in the region. Sensing weakness, ISIS began its resurgence in the Middle East and Russia took the opportunity to invade Ukraine.
Inflation Redux
Under Biden, the nation is experiencing unprecedented levels of inflation and his government seems at a loss to act. By contrast, “Thatcher saw inflation as a threat to the national interest” in the post-President Carter years, observes Kissinger. In 1983, Thatcher said, “Inflation destroys nations and societies as surely as invading armies do. Inflation is the parent of unemployment. It is the unseen robber of those who have saved.” Thatcher effectively acted in the early 1980s. Biden not only caused the inflationary pressures of the 2020s with bad policy, he has exacerbated inflation with excessive government spending, amped it up by cancelling American energy independence, and juiced inflationary pressure by resorting to socialism with one of the world’s largest wealth redistribution schemes by taxing almost every American with increased tax rates, more fees, and forced compliance to executive mandates.
Thatcher believed in America. “My real reason for believing in the future of Britain and America,” she said, “is because freedom under the law, the essence of our constitutions, is something that both honors human dignity and at the same time provides the economic opportunity to bring greater prosperity to our people - a personal prosperity based on individual choice. In short, it works incomparably better than other systems.”
Indeed, the individual and capitalism is key to American greatness, as outlined in the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Prime Minister Thatcher, through her actions, admired these words. Biden, by his actions does not subscribe to them.
Make It About Service
Kissinger’s words in 2022 highlight the problem: “Something is amiss when the relationship between the leadership class and much of the public is defined by mutual hostility and suspicion.” This is why the public believes America is headed in the wrong direction during the 2020s. Kissinger adds a pertinent comparison, “Whereas nineteenth-century aristocrats understood much would be expected of them and the meritocrats of the twentieth century pursued values of service, today’s elites speak less of obligation than of self-expression or their own advancement.”
“No society can remain great if its loses faith in itself or if it systematically impugns its self-perception,” posits Kissinger. Biden is seen by many as a destroyer of faiths. Instead, Americans need a government to exhibit, once again, a “willingness to enlarge the sphere of concern from the self to the society at large and to evoke generosity of public spirit which inspires sacrifice and service.”
As remarked during the mourning period after Queen Elizabeth II’s passing, service to the people is what made her reign remarkable. Government officials take note, it’s all about providing service to your constituents, and not about feathering your own nest.
Be sure to read Kissinger’s book, Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy, and see how it relates to your leadership situation in your country, state or province, or your town.
“Without leadership,” Kissinger writes, “institutions drift, and nations court growing irrelevance and, ultimately, disaster.” Under President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, strong leadership revived their respective countries and made the U.S. and the U.K. relevant again.
Kissinger adds, “For strategies to inspire the society, leaders must serve as educators — communicating objectives, assuaging doubts and rallying support. While the state possesses by definition the monopoly of force, reliance on coercion is a symptom of inadequate leadership; good leaders elicit in their people a wish to walk alongside them. They must also inspire an immediate entourage to translate their thinking so that it nears upon the practical issues of the day.”
Both Reagan and Thatcher were great communicators and surrounded themselves with competent teams to effectively deal with the issues of the day. President Biden, by contrast, is an inept communicator with destructive policies (on the economy, immigration, crime, taxation, border security, labor relations, education, and more) that have more than 80 percent of U.S. citizenry believing the country is headed in the wrong direction. Biden’s fecklessness is compounded by the people he chose work the details - people chosen not for their competence, but for their gender and/or race. Ability is not a prerequisite to run government departments in the 2020s. As Kissinger stated, “Leaders can be magnified — or diminished — by the qualities of those around him.”
The good news for Americans, and unlike the British system of government, “weak leadership can survive in the American system thanks to the executive’s fixed four-year term.” After four years the U.S. president and his cabinet can be voted out of office.
On elections and the role of government, Margaret Thatcher said, “You only win by being for things [and be] for a free society with power well distributed amongst the citizens not concentrated in the hands of the state, and the power supported by a wide distribution of private property amongst citizens and subjects and not in the hands of the state.”
President Reagan concurred and made the U.S. stronger by restraining the size of government, lowering taxation, reducing regulations, and supporting small businesses and private enterprises. To date, Biden has done none of this. In fact, he has done the opposite of President Reagan and led the country into its worst inflationary period, social unrest, increasing union discontent with a growing number of strikes and walkouts, and restrictive regulations coupled with executive mandates in attempt to delegitimize Congress and skirt the Supreme Court.
On the world stage, Prime Minister Thatcher showed strength in retaking the Falkland Islands after Argentina seized them and standing up to the Soviet Union, of which Russia was one if its “states.” By contrast, Biden appeared weak, as demonstrated by his chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, seeing American soldiers killed and U.S. citizens left behind, while allowing the Taliban to take over and resume its reign of terror in the region. Sensing weakness, ISIS began its resurgence in the Middle East and Russia took the opportunity to invade Ukraine.
Inflation Redux
Under Biden, the nation is experiencing unprecedented levels of inflation and his government seems at a loss to act. By contrast, “Thatcher saw inflation as a threat to the national interest” in the post-President Carter years, observes Kissinger. In 1983, Thatcher said, “Inflation destroys nations and societies as surely as invading armies do. Inflation is the parent of unemployment. It is the unseen robber of those who have saved.” Thatcher effectively acted in the early 1980s. Biden not only caused the inflationary pressures of the 2020s with bad policy, he has exacerbated inflation with excessive government spending, amped it up by cancelling American energy independence, and juiced inflationary pressure by resorting to socialism with one of the world’s largest wealth redistribution schemes by taxing almost every American with increased tax rates, more fees, and forced compliance to executive mandates.
Thatcher believed in America. “My real reason for believing in the future of Britain and America,” she said, “is because freedom under the law, the essence of our constitutions, is something that both honors human dignity and at the same time provides the economic opportunity to bring greater prosperity to our people - a personal prosperity based on individual choice. In short, it works incomparably better than other systems.”
Indeed, the individual and capitalism is key to American greatness, as outlined in the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Prime Minister Thatcher, through her actions, admired these words. Biden, by his actions does not subscribe to them.
Make It About Service
Kissinger’s words in 2022 highlight the problem: “Something is amiss when the relationship between the leadership class and much of the public is defined by mutual hostility and suspicion.” This is why the public believes America is headed in the wrong direction during the 2020s. Kissinger adds a pertinent comparison, “Whereas nineteenth-century aristocrats understood much would be expected of them and the meritocrats of the twentieth century pursued values of service, today’s elites speak less of obligation than of self-expression or their own advancement.”
“No society can remain great if its loses faith in itself or if it systematically impugns its self-perception,” posits Kissinger. Biden is seen by many as a destroyer of faiths. Instead, Americans need a government to exhibit, once again, a “willingness to enlarge the sphere of concern from the self to the society at large and to evoke generosity of public spirit which inspires sacrifice and service.”
As remarked during the mourning period after Queen Elizabeth II’s passing, service to the people is what made her reign remarkable. Government officials take note, it’s all about providing service to your constituents, and not about feathering your own nest.
Be sure to read Kissinger’s book, Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy, and see how it relates to your leadership situation in your country, state or province, or your town.
September 10, 2023
Zeer de moeite waard! Met een zekere nuchterheid en heldere analyse geeft Kissinger een samenvatting van zes illustere wereldleiders. Het interessantst vond ik de epiloog omdat dat hoofdstuk antwoord geeft op de vraag: interessant, maar wat heb ik eraan? En: hoe nu verder?
Wat ik jammer vond is dat persoonlijke bespiegelingen en observaties van Kissinger over deze leiders goeddeels ontbraken, of die waren onvoldoende of anekdotisch van aard. Die persoonlijke ervaring is immers wat ik als lezer verwacht van een auteur die dicht bij het vuur zat en deze leiders persoonlijk heeft gekend. In dat opzicht was het duidelijk hoezeer hij deze leiders bewonderde, en een kritische noot ontbreekt meermaals.
Hoe dan ook, een goed boek.
Wat ik jammer vond is dat persoonlijke bespiegelingen en observaties van Kissinger over deze leiders goeddeels ontbraken, of die waren onvoldoende of anekdotisch van aard. Die persoonlijke ervaring is immers wat ik als lezer verwacht van een auteur die dicht bij het vuur zat en deze leiders persoonlijk heeft gekend. In dat opzicht was het duidelijk hoezeer hij deze leiders bewonderde, en een kritische noot ontbreekt meermaals.
Hoe dan ook, een goed boek.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 191 reviews