The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens.

The effectiveness of a country’s leader is tied to how well he/she manages a country. Such a management can be emanated in the well-being of people, since every economic and political decision leads to the well-being of the people. However, to gauge the effectiveness of a leader, the well-being of people cannot stand as the only and the best touchstone, and other factors should also be considered.

To begin with, indeed the effectiveness of a leader can be mirrored in the well-being of the citizens. A leader should direct the budget of a society toward opportunities that every citizen is able to have the well-being; Directing the budget toward decreasing the unemployment, subsidizing the health facilities, enforcing the laws and equality in a society, and so on. An effective leader like the late prime minister of Iran Mosaddegh could be recognized when he nationalized the oil revenue for all the people to offer better quality of life for the public. In opposite, Kim Jong-un as an ineffective leader can be known where his people are in famine and his concern is the military of North Korea.

However, there are exceptional cases that render examining of the well-being of citizens, not the best way to measure the effectiveness of a leader. When wars are imposed on a country, the leaders of the war stricken country are not necessarily responsible for the well-being of their citizens as a war is imposed on them. Consider England during the World War. After the incessant bombardment of Hitler the society was deprived of well-being, but can we recognize Winston Churchill as an ineffective leader? No, as he saved the lives of the people and turned the tide of war with the Allies countries.

Finally, the effectiveness of the leaders is tied to the positive changes they bring to their people; sometimes these are in terms of the well-being, sometimes they emanate in saving citizens' lives, and sometimes in the reforms they appear. Take the Gandhi’s leadership. During his leadership of the social disobedience movement, he compromised the well-being of citizens as many lost their jobs, and many were imprisoned. But he brought independence that in future it guarantees the well-being of people.

In short, as discussed, assessing the well-being of a society in a vacuum may sometimes not be reliable to measure the effectiveness of a leader. This is because there are great effective leaders whose leadership was during the hard times, which the society lacked a decent well-being. Therefore, besides the well-being we need to see that what leaders have done for their society regarding the situation of their society.