In ancient Sumer, the world's first civilization, when an irrigation system needed rehabilitation or a devastated city needed rebuilding, a leader was put in charge to see the project to a timely and successful conclusion, whereupon he was dismissed. Compare the ludicrous performance of FEMA following Hurricane Katrina. Failure of leadership shows up in mundane affairs as well, from troubled corporations to troubled marriages.
The most extensive study on leadership ever, commissioned by the US Navy in the 1950s, became a motherlode of information for psychologists. It failed to identify a single trait that marked effective leadership but revived an old Greek idea that there are four distinct styles of leadership:
a. the goal of the "choleric" leader is to dominate others; he/she uses authority and any other form of legitimate power available to do so
b. the goal of the "sanguine" leader is to influence others through persuasion
c. the "phlegmatic" leader's goal is to bring everyone on side democratically; he/she is willing to sacrifice assertiveness to achieve consensus
d. the "melancholic" leader's primary goal is to stay out of trouble; he/she tends to be analytical, diplomatic and a stickler for policy and procedure.
Perhaps surprisingly, all four types have been effective and successful leaders in corporations, although each type brings weaknesses as well as strengths.
Perhaps the most overlooked arena of leadership is in marriage. Imagine the problems of a husband and wife, both of whom are "choleric" and constantly trying to dominate the other. But all of the other possible combinations has unique strengths and weaknesses as well, requiring different solutions. This seems an issue the psychologists have not yet adequately addressed,

Well, let's see, Seems to me (after my sixty-four years, here-abouts...): leaders are 10 percent skill; 40 percent charisma' and 40 percent bullshit. The remaining 10 percent is indeterminate. John F. Kennedy had it. Winston Churchill THOUGHT he did (and given the times, that was enough, so file him under the final 40, given above...).
But the bullshit factor just keeps getting harder to sell. Barack Obama is finding this an annoying contingency. He is such a smooth, smart guy. And with so much money...ah, yes. We might assume he has nothing to lose, by losing, And,as a practical matter, he does not have anything substantive to lose, given his wealth and all. But power is about more than accumulation of wealth. It is about that all-important badge: legacy. Which is another word for vanity. Need I say more? I think not. Well, maybe just this: George W. Bush; Barack Hussein Obama; Ronald Wilson Reagan---all the same cloth,...ain't that a stitch? (heh, heh)
There is one advantage to getting old: experience---and witnessing history. Told you so.

And so, how may we frame the altered state we call leadership? Neuman's notion about money seems accurate. But, charisma and salesmanship are clearly in the mixture. Those whom we designate as leaders are as smart, perhaps, as they need to be. But intelligence does not mean success, nor does charisma ensure lasting adoration. It is a tough sell, this leadership thing. And, it ain't for sissies. As Romney will discover. Or not.

Can someone be a leader while leading no one
And happily walk alone
on a path no one else has trod?
Now here is a paradox, and a riddle too.
You have done it, no doubt
And so have I
When we led our own self.
It is called self-discipline.
(Who said you had to be good to write poetry?)

"If someone says he is a leader, look behind him. If no one is following, then he's just a man out for a walk." (A. Lincoln, attributed).
A leader is someone who provides purpose, direction, and motivation that advances a group or organization toward a goal. And this means being able to take charge, either by designated position or by assumed role. A person who can do this is an effective leader.
To be a great leader, however, requires one more element, I think - the recognition that leadership is a servant's position. It sounds paradoxical, but it distinguishes those who lead for their own aggrandizement (Alexander, Ceasar, Napoleon) from those who served something greater than themselves (Belisarius, Wellington, Washington). It makes for a leader with the humility put him/herself aside - and only such can really be a great leader.

I think Leaders are made up of full of commitment, punctuality, timely deliver, coordination and much more things. If you want to become a successful leader then you should need to make responsible and punctual and then fulfill all the requirements of a good leader. There are many institutes are open to teach you that how to become a good leader but if you don't have much time for taking class then you should contact with some custom essay writing service because they provide assistance online and also according to your feasibility that how to make a prosper and energetic leader.