Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader, it is not as important as a leader’s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers.

The greatest leaders of human history are not the ones who exercise unwilling power over their followers but rather the ones who champion popular movements which encapsulate the will of the people they lead. A leader's most important quality is being able to garner respect among their peers and subjects.

With respect from peers, a leader can actually achieve their goals because the people will rally behind them. Respected leaders with strong public support can actually shift what is capable of being accomplished. This is essentially the thesis of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders as he believes that championing a vision with strong democratic support will amplify his message as every individual who believes in it becomes his spokesperson. Leadership with the respect of peers can rally a society around the leader's vision as people will adopt what is popular without much hesitation. Authority figures with the will of the people on their side often remain in the room long enough to hear what people actually think, allowing them to solidify their path around that vision. After all, embodying the people's vision allows a boss to become a leader by accomplishing goals that better the lives of their subjects. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella single-handedly changed the culture of that company by enacting this exact principle of empathizing and connecting with his employees, thus transforming Microsoft from the competitive boys' club culture it used to be to one that is starting to become a collaborative and welcoming environment. Being supported by peers is the only way for a leader to be truly deemed effective over the long term.

Not only is respect the practical way to affect positive change, but also the morally superior way to lead. Without respect from peers, leaders have to resort to dictatorial power moves to accomplish their vision. If there is no popular support for a leader's decision making, they are definitionally an authoritarian figure, hardly an effective way to lead in terms of moral groundedness. Authoritarian leaders fail to consider the way their decisions affect the people they lead because they have no incentive to do so. Historically speaking, authoritarian leaders tend to get overthrown. Dozens of 20th century leaders such as Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Robert Mugabe, and Adolf Hitler were ultimately deposed and their respective regimes drastically diminished. Leading without popular support as well as democratic accountability leads to a disconnected and eventually dissatisfied populace. Even on a smaller scale, the stubborness of companies such as Kodak or Blockbuster whose CEOs refused to listen to the will of their employees nor peers in the marketplace ultimately led to their undoing. Having respect among subjects is the morally correct way to lead and only way to prevent ineffectiveness in the long term.

That being said, there is an important consideration as to why having a strong moral compass of one's own is a critical asset of a leader: a populace who is themselves morally corruptible. While respect and democratic considerations of one's subjects is ideal for a leader, subjects are often vulnerable to manipulation. Determined propagandists and generally malicious, charismatic voices could deceive a population into taking up morally reprehensible positions. Many countries in the world today are illiberal democracies or otherwise democratic countries where citizens willfully vote for the stripping of their rights by populist authoritarians. In India for instance, the majority Hindu population, if they decided to, can vote for leaders who oppress religious minorities. Even though those leaders may have the respect of their peers in the community, their peers can make cruel judgments. On the global stage there exists many online propaganda campaigns to deliberately misinform and enrage the voting public. While respect is definitely important in a successful administration and prevents authoritarian leadership, blindly succumbing to the peer pressure of a misinformed public can result in weak and careless leadership.

While it is certainly important to maintain a moral compass, earning and maintaining the respect of peers and subjects is crucial for effective leadership. This type of leader is often the most successful in getting their agenda actually accomplished and maintaining historical notoriety well after their end. Without respect from peers, a leader can quickly transform into a morally bankrupt authoritarian. After all, a great leader not the one who sits in the castle while his people fight but the one who stands on the front lines leading the charge.