In the contemporary world, we have so many examples of such state leaders especially in Africa who have attempted to manage all aspects of government business but have ended up getting sidetracked from the long term strategic state goals. Recent events in Uganda explain this scenario better – the president seems to have lately defined himself as the sole figure of 'solution' in the country. It would be rather different if the Presidency attempted to identify itself as capable of solving all crises that come up. In other words the presidency might be powerless but the president is all powerful. When the teachers, traders, doctors, journalists, lawyers, have issues in their respective lines of duty, it's not their immediate supervising authorities that have to deal with their problems but rather it takes the direct intervention of the president. Well, this would have been branded 'effectiveness' if the president was providing conclusive interventions but in a situation where the president's intervention is widely perceived as a mere 'ceremonial' gesture, then it paints a different picture. Actually some people could possibly have been right to think that some government officials such as ministers are not professionally trusted by their appointing authorities to preside over ministerial business.

Leaders must discern the importance and the need for the existence of structures as well as credible people to work with. If a leader cannot trust his or her appointees to tackle the range of state issues, then possibly one could aptly presuppose that, that leader has crossed into the seventh age of the leadership cycle. As political analyst, Gwada Ogot puts it, "no single leader can be the all solving hammer".