One evening I was flipping through television channels without looking for anything in particular when Fareed Zakaria suddenly appeared on CNN. There he was, a familiar face, measured and articulate as always, discussing world affairs with the kind of clarity that makes complicated issues seem manageable. A few days later I came across a YouTube clip of Francis Fukuyama. Not long after that I watched Gideon Rose speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations.

For some reason, seeing those three within such a short period made me think of one person: Harvard professor and political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who passed away nearly two decades ago, in 2008.

I found myself thinking about the connection. Zakaria became one of the most recognizable commentators on global affairs. Fukuyama emerged as one of the most influential political thinkers of his generation. Rose went on to become editor of Foreign Affairs. All three, at different points and in different ways, had been part of the intellectual world surrounding Huntington at Harvard.

Of course it would be simplistic to attribute their success to Huntington. They were exceptionally talented people at one of the world’s leading universities and each went on to build an intellectual identity and career of his own. What struck me instead was Huntington’s ability to mentor and intellectually engage with such strong minds and, perhaps more importantly, to see them develop ideas of their own, sometimes in directions that differed significantly from his.

They did not become replicas of Huntington. And perhaps that is precisely what makes the story so interesting. 

The best leader is not the one who makes himself indispensable but the one who develops people who can eventually succeed without him

It left me wondering whether one of the best ways to judge a leader is to look not only at what he accomplishes but also at what becomes of the people around him. That thought led me somewhere seemingly unrelated: to the recent conversation on Saudi social media about what makes a good manager.

The debate over the “good manager” and the “bad manager” may seem like another discussion about workplace frustrations but perhaps it also reflects a broader change in how employees think about management and leadership in a rapidly evolving Saudi labor market.

A good manager should not be judged only by results, efficiency or the ability to satisfy senior management. Increasingly, another measure matters: the people he develops.

Even a talented manager who delivers excellent results may leave an organization overly dependent on individual leadership. The stronger test of leadership may be whether the team can continue to perform, develop and take responsibility after that leader moves on.

This is why building a strong leadership pipeline matters. Strong institutions understand that leadership development and succession planning are not simply HR responsibilities. They also depend on managers who delegate meaningful responsibility, recognize talent, tolerate disagreement and prepare others to take on bigger roles.

The question, therefore, should not only be, What did this manager achieve? but also, What happened to the people who worked for him?

And this brings me back to Huntington.

What fascinated me was not simply his own intellectual legacy but the caliber and independence of the people who developed around him. Perhaps there is a lesson for management in that.

The best leader is not the one who makes himself indispensable but the one who develops people who can eventually succeed without him.

Perhaps the ultimate measure of leadership is not how many people work for you but how many capable people emerge because they worked with you.

• Nasser bin Hamed Al-Ahmad is a political researcher and writer with more than eight years’ experience in political media. He writes on politics, leadership, institutions, and social change, with a particular focus on the MENA region and the United States. X: @nasseralahmad3