THE OPINION

Leadership was the core from the management. Leadership in principle was the capacity of a leader in moving the organisation, with all the available resources to achieve the aim. Therefore a successful leader was also a successful manager, but a successful manager not necessarily a successful leader.

Leadership was a secret that was critical for the success of development programs. Leadership had the extraordinary connotation. Leadership was also known with several types or the style, where respectively the type or the style of this leadership had the surplus and the weakness. Leadership was related to many aspects from a leader, so as to be gotten by the characteristics that eventually could identify whether a person could be said as the leader or not. The style of leadership and the characteristics of a leader was dynamic in line with the development of the organisation, the social community or the community that was led by him. Because of that really was difficult to say the type or the style of what leadership that was most exact and most was successful. Likewise his matter with the characteristics what will be shown by a leader.

Leadership from the period to the period experienced the change in accordance with the condition for the community and his time. Traditional leadership very thick with nuances of the ruler, who was known with “Titah Pandito Ratu”. The absolute authority was on the hands of the king. The authority model like that if being seen was positive and negative him. Positive him: was not corruption, the king was not employed by the people or the country. His negative: weak the control, authoritarian and feodalistik. It was different that his matter with modern leadership, that used the modern management. The authority no longer to one person, is carried out by delegations of the authority.

Government leadership in the Orde Baru period tended centralistic and authoritarian that afterwards Orde Baru leadership was then ended with the Era Reformasi. Leadership in the reform period headed in democratisation. This era afterwards bring up the autonomy era of the area, where the area was given by the authority that was wider to arrange his household personally. Where this transition the basic problem that was dealt with by the leader was the crisis of confidence, resulting from the feeling of the trauma in periods beforehand. Because of in the autonomy era of the area was demanded by innovative leadership and more close to the people. The capacity of a leader to understand the condition and the potential for the area became very important.

Although having several opinions that said that the leadership was abstract, but in fact this leadership could be measured from several aspects, with several approaches and the indicator that were measured. The existence of a leader in an organisation, the community or the community as a consequence of the social contract between the leader and that was led, definitely will bring results (output) as well as the impact (out come) that could be positive and negative. Therefore the success or the failure of a leader could be considered or measured from several aspects. Simply to measure the success of leadership could be seen dair 3 aspects. Firstly, from the aspect of the personal capacity (internal resources). Secondly from the aspect of the managerial capacity (managerial skill). Thirdly, from the aspect of the achievement of the aim (the goal succes).

The aspect of the Assessment of the Leadership
The personal capacity (internal resources), was the basic capacity that adhered in someone, who was the sensitivity in catching and translating the meaning of a problem or the challenge (the phenomenon), and could pour in an imagination that furthermore was formulated in a point of view, as well as could be carried out through concrete steps towards the change that was good in the future. With the personal capacity, a leader will have the creativity power to innovate, and the capacity to communicate. Beside this matter the existence of a belief himself, and the brave attitude took the risk towards all the actions that were carried out. The goal of a leader will never change, although must face various challenges or the obstacle, in fact until threatened the spirit even.

The managerial capacity was the capacity of a leader to plan, organise, carry out as well as carry out the supervision and the evaluation of an activity that was carried out or that was desired by him. This second aspect will not be free from the first aspect, because of the capacity comprehended the phenomenon of the organisation or the area, the fund understood the substance from this phenomenon became the reference of the management what was most exact to be applied. Because basically the good management must produce (perform), so as the good management will produce performance the good achievement.

The achievement of the aim (the goal succes), was the destiny from leadership, as the impact of the activity or the program that was undertaken with the good management. The destiny from the country or the community simply was welfare and justice. Welfare was measured from the quality of the life (quality of life), that also was known with the the development index of humankind, that could be seen from: the quality of education, the level of the health and the community's purchasing power. Whereas justice will be reached if the quality of the public's service (public service) that was given by the government could evenly and in a quality manner.