Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little.

A leader who get easily influenced by his surroundings and hence, changes his way of leading or his rules will get less. Or in other words, such a leader will hardly succeed. According to the statement, for accomplishing high a leader should have an aptitude to revolt against the cherished belief and bring some new believes for the public. The statement may seem true at first glance, but, the generalisation makes it false.

At the time of Independence in India, when Bhagat Singh and his followers were using the violence as their tool to get the Independence, that time Mahatma Gandhi did not influence by these ways and used his own way of non-violence. The whole India followed him in Satyagarah and the India got Independence from Britishers. This is an example where, a person did not get influenced by the popular opinions and hence, got the accomplishment.

But, do you think that getting an accomplishment depend on this factor? A leader may succeed by his noble acts and humanitarian tasks. Lets take an example of Mother Teresa, she did not get any influence of the society and people around her. It was just her noble acts and kind heart that made her to accomplish the love of people. Nelson Mandela , is an another example who considered black and white people equal. He did not revolt anyone and neither got influenced by any popular opinions. Still, he is considered to be an highly accomplished person. People respect him.

An-abortion law in Ireland and the right for the gays to get married in USA are the examples, where a leader is making the law without any influence and still, they are getting accomplishment from the world.

To sum it up, for a leader to get accomplishment, sometime he has to go by the general opinions and sometimes he has to revolt.