James Meindl is Carmichael Professor of Organization and Human Resources in the School of Management. His research interests are in the social psychological processes involved in organizing and managing, and he has published numerous articles and book chapters in such areas as leadership and decision making, and power and influence.

What are the key qualities that any true leader must possess?

There are many, many definitions of leadership, and just as many ideas about the qualities that leaders must possess. You might be disappointed, but probably not surprised, to know that no simple recipe for effective leadership exists, especially if you're looking for a laundry list of personality or character traits. In the end, it's all about followers uniting to achieve some common purpose. All leaders have followers: if you have no followers, then you are not a leader! So the question really becomes, what makes people like you and me willing to follow someone else's lead? What seems to matter most in the modern definition of leadership is that people are inspired by some uplifting vision of the future, are committed and empowered to work toward that vision, and see their leader as a symbol of the values they hold dear, as well as an instrument for achieving collective goals.

Can leadership be learned, or is it something you're born with?

Leadership is a special kind of relationship that develops between people. The potential for leadership to emerge is created out of the intersection of the leader, the followers and the context in which they are embedded. This means that no one is born with leadership in them; leadership emerges from time-to-time, and in certain situations, as a part of the relationship we establish with one another. Now some people, by birth and socialization, develop the motivation and some of the skills that increase the chances that they will become leaders in many of the situations they encounter with many of the relationships they establish with others. By the time most of us reach adulthood, our personalities are not going to change much, and certain character issues will be fixed. Nevertheless, there is much that can be learned about behaviors and actions, and about the philosophies and principles that can guide your practices. Moreover, some of the deepest learnings about leadership are about self-discovery-clarifying values, knowing your strengths, etc.-rather that learning how to be like John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr. And while these charismatic leaders were perhaps graced with special leadership gifts, the rest of us can learn many skills useful to leadership through hard work and determination. I would also add that what seems to come "naturally" for others is often the result of practice and experience. The things that make people good learners generally applies to learning leadership as well: IQ counts, but so does EQ-the ability to understand, express and control emotion, passion and drive.

How do the candidates for office measure up on the charisma scale? Gore versus Bush? Lieberman versus Cheney? Clinton versus Lazio?

The biggest myth about charisma is that it is a fixed attribute of one's personality. Personality counts, but so do other things. That's why the charismatic appeal of any leader can change over time. It is very much an eye-of-the-beholder concept, influenced by situation and circumstance, behaviors and decisions, information and reputation. A part of charisma is a beauty contest, related to superficial charm and physical attraction, similar to that of movie stars. But it is also a measure of deeper things, an inference regarding a candidate's character, personality and leadership ability. During the party primaries, Sen. John McCain was by far the most charismatically appealing candidate. His heroic past is legendary; his straight-talk express connected well with people and the media; he was convincingly passionate about his vision for the future. Bradley, Bush and Gore paled by comparison, though each had some of the right stuff.

I would have to say that neither Bush nor Gore has great charismatic appeal. Neither have in their biographies the heroic struggles and triumphs over adversity that McCain could lay claim to, although each tried to elevate their biographic past during the Republican and Democratic conventions. I think Gore, at one time labeled as "charismatically challenged," has been improving a great deal. He has made some bold, even dramatic, decisions during the course of the campaign and his mannerisms, physical presence and oratory have been improving. His charismatic appeal, though not based on a Hollywood-star personality, is going up and that results in more positive leadership ratings. What charisma Bush possesses emanates from what some see as his down-home, easy interpersonal style. As with the top of the tickets, neither Cheney nor Lieberman are great charismatic figures, though Lieberman, with his engaging sense of humor and moral mission, may have an edge. In the New York Senate race, Lazio appears to have some of the interpersonal style and mannerisms that could increase his charisma potential, while Hillary Clinton has the star-power reputation that could provide a basis for great charismatic appeal. These two senatorial candidates, however, have yet to build or benefit much from other factors that might cause them to be seen as charismatic leaders in the eyes of more voters.

In this age of in-your-face media coverage of election campaigns, are candidates doomed if they lack charisma?

No, charisma doesn't necessarily win elections. Though McCain had charismatic appeal, he still lost the primary race to his opponent. Charismatic leaders tend to be most sought after during times of crisis. The economy is pretty good right now and we are not at war. Perhaps some see crises in our educational system, in our health-care system, others see a crisis of morality. Those who are alarmed tend to be drawn to charismatic leaders who display passion and commitment to important causes. In general, though, when political campaigns highlight charismatically appealing candidates, people are more likely to take an active interest and participate. Even without crisis, most of us prefer to be inspired by our elected leaders. In a close race, voter estimations of candidate's character, gravitas and leadership ability-in short, charismatic appeal-can matter enough to make the difference between winning and losing. Media coverage has probably increased the importance of charismatic appeal. But it's a double-edged sword: it can either amplify the charisma of a candidate or it can expose a lack of it. In the same way, some reporters and political pundits help to elevate the charismatic stature of a candidate, while others are working to expose his/her "feet-of-clay." Also, the media stands between candidates and voters, leaving room for the manipulation of images, charisma being a potentially important part of the "marketing" of a candidate.