What makes a true leader? Siddhartha Mukherjee. "Gene: A Close History"

In an interview, Bill admitted: “These books are beautifully written. They are unpredictable and full of deep thoughts.” Let's find out what these books are.

David Foster Wallace - "String Theory"

David Wallace is an American writer and essayist.

“In this book, Wallace bends language forms like Neo, a metal spoon in the Matrix,” Bill says of the book.

Source: amazon.com

Phil Knight - "Shoe Dog"

Phil Knight is an American businessman and founder of Nike. In the book, he talks about how very few CEOs are able to open up to this world and the people around them.

“He pours out the story as honestly as possible. It's an amazing story," says Gates.

Source: amazon.com

Siddhartha Mukherji - "Genes"

Siddharthi Mukherjee is a Pulitzer Prize-winning Indian-American physician, scientist, and writer. "Genes" is a book about genomic technologies. Written for "non-specialists": Mukherjee understands that science is not close to everyone. But he believes that genomic technologies affect everyone, affect everyone's life. And Gates absolutely agrees with him.

Source: amazon.com

Archie Brown - "The Myth of the Strong Leader"

Archie Brown is a professor at Oxford University. His “The Myth of a Strong Leader” was published back in 2014. But the book turned out to be relevant precisely in 2016 - because of the election race in the United States.

“Leaders are not the strongest. Leaders are those who cooperate, delegate and negotiate. They are the ones who understand that no person on Earth can or should know all the answers.” – Bill.

President Obama is often criticized for his weakness in foreign policy, the latest confirmation of which was the rapid deterioration of relations with Russia and the crisis in Ukraine. Senator John McCain, one of the many critics who joined the attack on the president, called the Obama administration's reluctance to provide military equipment to the interim Ukrainian government "another sign of weakness."

However, there is a significant difference between a strong leader and a wise leader. Typical strong leaders—that is, leaders who seek to dominate both at home and in foreign policy—are often prone to overreacting in times of crisis, especially in matters of military force. Fortunately, Obama has managed to avoid this so far.

Meanwhile, the world wants to see in the American president - and this is also in the interests of America itself - not strong leadership, but enlightened leadership. Think back to the 1962 Caribbean Missile Crisis, when President John F. Kennedy overruled advice to bomb Soviet ships bound for Cuba and destroy the missile installations built there. Although the US was eventually able to convince the Soviet Union to remove its nuclear missiles from the island, the Americans also had to make concessions and promise that they would not try to overthrow the Castro regime by force and that they would remove American missiles from Turkish territory. As part of that treaty, it was decided that this final concession would not be made public. Moreover, this became known after such a long period of time that there were already suggestions that the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey was not at all a concession to the Soviet Union. So while the common myth is that only Khrushchev had to turn a blind eye to certain facts, in fact Kennedy turned out to be a reasonable enough politician to turn a blind eye to many things too and not provoke the start of a catastrophic nuclear war. This episode is a perfect illustration of the notion of enlightened leadership: Kennedy won the public relations battle, but the agreement negotiated by the US and the Soviet Union was a genuine compromise.

Obama's foreign policy caution is a welcome alternative to the naïve optimism of President George W. Bush and the fiasco of his operations in Iraq, which have tarnished the US reputation on the world stage, especially in the Arab and Islamic worlds. No matter how catastrophic the situation in this or that Muslim country may seem, there are no objective reasons to believe that an American military invasion can bring sustainable peace there, and not new outbreaks of hostility, some of which will inevitably be directed against America itself. Obama's attempts to avoid direct military intervention in Libya and Syria and his desire to continue dialogue with Iran - instead of attacking it - are at the core of prudent leadership, despite the fact that, as critics of the president argue, this prevents him from taking on the mantle of strong leader.

Nor should Obama be blamed for trying to mend his legacy of US-Russian relations since his 2009 reset. Obama and his advisers made the mistake of believing that Dmitri Medvedev's views were fundamentally different from those of Vladimir Putin and that, as president, Medvedev would have great influence on the country's politics. In reality, it turned out that Putin was a patron, and Medvedev was just an assistant, and the exchange of posts did not change anything in their relationship.

The fact that the reset failed — with Putin returning to the presidency, then launching an offensive against the opposition, and now annexing Crimea — is not just the result of miscalculations by the Obama administration. This was the result of the West's policy towards Russia since the early 1990s. After the end of the Cold War, the American leadership had the opportunity to involve Russia in new security structures that could successfully replace NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Instead, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics, initiated by President Bill Clinton and continued by Bush, has backfired as warned by astute critics of the policy, including George Kennan.

When Kennedy was looking for a way out of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he put himself in the shoes of Nikita Khrushchev and considered how he himself would respond to American proposals if he were the Soviet leader. No matter how often Washington has assured the Kremlin that NATO expansion is not a threat to Russia, this expansion, and Bush's decision to withdraw the US from the ABM Treaty, has always been viewed by Moscow as a threat. While these moves may have seemed like signs of strong leadership in the US, they have only exacerbated tensions between Moscow and Washington. American leaders of that period should have followed Kennedy's example and put themselves in the place of the Russian leadership, imagining, for example, what the US would have reacted to if, say, Mexico or Canada had decided to join the Warsaw Pact.

Of course, post-Soviet leaders bear the lion's share of the responsibility for their own failures. The authoritarian style of leadership reemerged under Boris Yeltsin and continued to gain momentum under his successor, Putin. Russian nationalism, which has always been one of the main features behind the monolithic facade of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, has become a rather powerful force in Russian society. And this was largely facilitated by what Moscow considers the hostile policy of the United States and the European Union in relation to Russian state interests. While the Russian political elite may fear EU influence in Eastern Europe, this is only due to the elite's own fear of a truly pluralistic democracy.

This brings us back to the Ukraine crisis, during which Putin, like many other typical strong leaders before him, apparently fell for the spirit of adventurism and overconfidence of a leader who had already suppressed internal political opposition and taken all measures to curb public control. Meanwhile, Republicans accuse Obama of not being decisive enough to respond to Russia's actions in Ukraine. He rejected calls to send weapons to the interim government in Kiev, although this week Vice President Joe Biden announced that the United States would send $8 million worth of "non-lethal military assistance to the army and border guards" to Ukraine, and will also provide $7 million for "medical care and social assistance" to the Ukrainian army. However, for Russia, ascribing to itself the right to interfere in the affairs of a neighboring state on behalf of its Russian-speaking citizens is undoubtedly an extremely dangerous step. That is why the Obama administration and the European Union were absolutely right in creating a hierarchy of sanctions and giving Russia the opportunity to participate in the development of a negotiated solution at every stage of the development of the crisis. The West should reserve the right to impose tougher economic sanctions in case Russia continues its offensive. Once again, a progressive approach out of the crisis is much more preferable than the "strong" leadership insisted on by the austerity advocates.

The histories and peoples of Russia and Ukraine are so closely intertwined that the street protests in Kyiv and the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych have raised more fears in Russia than in any other state, with the exception of Ukraine itself. Russia's subsequent moves, beginning with the annexation of Crimea, have made it much more difficult for Moscow to build relations with the government that represents the interests of the majority of Ukrainian citizens. However, there is a definite connection between Russia and the eastern regions of Ukraine, which has gone into opposition to the new Western-oriented government in Kyiv, which greatly increases the level of influence of the Kremlin in this territory. The Kremlin has a good opportunity to significantly complicate the life of any Ukrainian government that uses the opinion of the majority of voters in order to pursue a unified policy throughout Ukraine, including in areas where people of a different cultural identity live.

It is especially important now that Secretary of State John Kerry and his European allies, in their talks with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, recognize the need for some decentralization of political power in Ukraine. By doing this, the Obama team will have an opportunity to test the integrity of Putin's intentions. If the Russian leadership is truly interested in the unity of Ukraine (minus Crimea), a Ukraine in which many powers will be transferred to the regions, it must somehow rein in its agents and supporters in the east of the country. However, so far, unfortunately, this is not happening.

The situation in Ukraine can be compared to the successful transition from authoritarianism to democracy in Spain, which, as it turned out, can only be governed on a unitary basis under an authoritarian regime. The democratization of the country after the death of Francisco Franco was achieved in part by transferring some of the powers to the Spanish autonomous regions - and the most culturally distinctive areas, Catalonia and the Basque Country, received the maximum amount of power compared to other parts of this quasi-federal state. A fairly young state like Ukraine, whose post-Soviet leaders turned out to be not very talented leaders, should also follow these requirements in the process of building democracy. And the fact that the Obama administration is recognizing these realities should be something to be congratulated, not condemned at all.

Far too many in Russia worship the false god of a strong leader, and while this is part of Putin's own image, he also benefits enormously from the widespread idea in Russian society that the state that played a major role in ending the Cold War is now in the place of the underdog. enemy. The last thing Obama should do now is follow Putin's lead. Ukraine needs – and the United States must defend this point of view – wise and relationship-building leadership, not a strong leader. Typical strong leaders tend to be most afraid of appearing weak, and this causes them to make mistakes. A critical mind, the ability to give a correct assessment of political events with all their complexity, flexibility and, if you're lucky, insight can bring much more benefit to a leader than strength, which is overestimated by many.

Archie Brown is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Oxford University and the author of The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern Age, published in April.

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

If you're looking for something to read this holiday weekend, here are some of the best books I've read this year. They cover an eclectic range of topics from tennis and tennis shoes to genomics and leadership. All of them are very well written and each of them swallowed me like a hare hole full of unexpected insights and pleasures.

Earlier, Bill Gates already presented his. Therefore, we continue to replenish our library.

String Theory, David Foster Wallis

This book consists of several stories about tennis, which will be of interest even to those who are not interested in this sport.

Shoe Dog, Phil Knight

This memoir by the co-founder of Nike is about what it really looks like to be successful in business without cuts.

Genes, Siddhartha Mukherjee

In the book, Mukherjee takes readers through the past, present, and future of genetics, with a special focus on the ethical question of great importance that recent advances in genomic technology have provoked. Mukherjee wrote his book for non-specialists on the subject because he understands that new genomic technologies are close to affecting everyone and everyone very much.

The myth of the strong leader, Archie Brown

The book was written in 2014 by an Oxford University professor who has taught political leadership for over 50 years. Brown shows that the leaders who make the most visible contributions to history are not the ones we consider "strong leaders." And those who cooperate, delegate and agree - and understand that not a single person on Earth can and should not know all the answers. The book turned out to be especially relevant after.

Network, Gretchen Backe

This book is about the aging electrical grid, but even if you've never thought about how energy gets into your homes, this book will prove that the electrical grid is one of the greatest engineering marvels of the modern world. It is also possible to speculate on why grid upgrades are so difficult and critical to creating a clean energy future.

These are the books recommended by billionaire Bill Gates. For more interesting ideas for what to read interesting, look in our "" section.

Leadership is a favorite topic for motivational posters, self-development books, and public speaking. In the world of business, myths about great leaders are created and guides are written for those who want to be just as great: from endearing clothing to winning through intimidation, from striving for excellence to mastering the art of dealing.

True leadership is something natural and has no exact definition, it is a necessary quality. From time to time, most people need someone to give direction, encouragement, help them get through tough times, and support them. Some people do it better than others. Leaders are very different. For example, Steve Carell's The Office boss is absurd and arrogant ("Should you fear me or love me? The answer is simple: both. I want people to be scared of how much they love me. ”), and for the despot performed by Charlie Chaplin in the film “The Great Dictator”, invisibility is characteristic.

In dangerous times (especially during war) strong leaders are required. Winston Churchill was not loved before or after the Second World War, but during the war itself he proved indispensable. There are cases in which the leader makes a revolution in the minds and rebuilds society (the struggle for civil rights in the United States, apartheid in South Africa). However, the power of a leader is overestimated in autocratic and especially democratic regimes. This is argued by Oxford University political science professor Archie Brown, who is the author of a recent paper on today's leaders called The Strong Leader Myth: Contemporary Political Leadership.

Brown writes: “True leadership has characteristics that vary with time, place, and circumstance. Do not mistake unlimited power or the arrogance of individuals for leadership.

Vladimir Putin is a strong leader. A host of his colleagues consider themselves the same: Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Xi Jinping of China, Narendra Modi of India, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Viktor Orban of Norway, and a host of up-and-coming politicians among them. What unites them? Everyone seeks to regain national pride, disregards political correctness and responds to popular sentiment.

Peter Ford, a journalist for The Christian Science Monitor, and colleagues studied the consequences of Putin's 18 years of activity. When Putin came to power in the late 1990s, Russia was in turmoil: the empire was gone, the economy was struggling to survive, and discontent was brewing. It took Putin time to rekindle national pride and, much to the chagrin of Russia's neighbors, to restore the country's importance in the world. Donald Trump, who built his career on the legend of leadership, has repeatedly admired Putin's actions.

As with other leaders, Putin's success is measured by today's accomplishments and legacy. Without a doubt, Russia has returned in many ways: a key player in Eurasia, an influential country in the Middle East, a bulwark of conservatism for its admirers. However, every leader is tested by history. A strong leader believes that he alone can restore order. A responsive leader helps people cope with putting things in order.

Subscribe to us

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates reads about 50 books a year. Billionaire Mark Cuban reads for three hours every day. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced a decision to read 24 books every year, and investor Warren Buffett spends up to 80% of his time reading. The BookAuthority recommendation service features the favorite books of hundreds of recognized leaders such as Gates, Branson, Buffett, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook and more. Choose from this list something for yourself.

Bill Gates

one of the founders of Microsoft

"Shoe salesman. Nike's story as told by its founder Phil Knight

This memoir instantly and permanently hit the New York Times bestseller list. The book "offers a rare opportunity to learn about the life of the creator of the famous Nike swoosh, known for his shyness when dealing with journalists," and how his company grew from an ambitious start-up to one of the most iconic, revolutionary, and profitable brands in the world.

"Stress Test: Memories of the Financial Crisis", Timothy Geithner

Geithner, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and then Secretary of the Treasury under the Obama administration, takes the reader through the world behind the scenes of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, explaining the sometimes unpleasant decisions he had to make to restore the financial system and prevent the collapse of the economy.

The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in the Modern World Archie Brown

The book by one of the foremost political historians is a true study of the institution of political leadership throughout the world, from the advent of parliamentary democracy to the Obama era.

Jeff Bezos

CEO and Founder of Amazon.com

"The Innovator's Dilemma: How Strong Companies Die Because of New Technologies" Clayton M. Christensen.

The Amazon editorial team has listed The Innovator's Dilemma as one of the "100 books about success and leadership you need to read at least once." Christensen's work has been quoted by world-famous leaders from Steve Jobs to Malcolm Gladwell.

"Made in America: How I Created Wal-Mart" Sam Walton

The author, one of the most brilliant salesmen of the late 20th century who turned Wal-Mart into the largest retail chain in the world, talks about the inspiration, faith and optimism that helped him lasso the American dream.

“Data driven marketing. 15 metrics everyone should know Mark Geoffrey

Named Best Marketing Book of 2011 by the American Marketing Association. Jeffrey offers clear and compelling guidance on how to use a rigorous, data-driven strategic approach to dramatically improve your marketing performance.

Warren Buffett

investor

“Rules of the best CEOs. History and principles of work of eight leaders of successful companies”, William Thorndike

This book is number one on Buffett's list of recommendations. It chronicles the extraordinary success of eight leaders who have revolutionized corporate governance. Some of them you may not know by name, but you probably know their companies: General Cinema, Ralston Purina, The Washington Post Company, Berkshire Hathaway, General Dynamics, Broadcasting Capital Cities, TCI and Teledyne.