I just recently started watching Star Trek, and Kirk is very unlike the memes. The most noticeable thing is that, contrary to what TV and the Internet would have you believe, he talks like a normal human being.

As to why he is a good leader, he is competent and perceptive He always prioritises the health and safety of his crew even above his own.He never pursues romantic or sexual relations with crew members no matter how much he would like to, and takes reports of sexual harassment seriously (“Charlie X”). He doesn’t throw his weight around; while decisions are ultimately his to make, he listens to his subordinates and acts on their advice. He takes swift action, but only after diplomacy and negotiation have failed.

I’d argue he isn’t a great leader; he is a successful one. He gambles, he takes chances, and is swashbucklingly lucky throughout his career, even when he gets punished, until he meets and follows the lead of arguably the better leader between the two of them, Jean-Luc Picard, in the nexus.

TOS was quite woke in its day. There is still an awful lot of sexism on that Enterprise. The treatment of Spock is quite discriminatory. You could argue his unilateral decision that appears to be salomonic more than covered by actual law or regulations to maroon Khan and company on Ceti-Alpha 5 leads directly to the death of his own son, of whose existence he didn’t really know because his mom knew better than to stay in Kirk’s orbit. While you could say that an orderly private life isn’t a prerequisite to being a great leader, I think Carol Marcus knew he’d be trouble at home and at work and that’s why she wanted out.

He was very often in the right place at the right time and only made decisions that were later judged not to be entirely wrong. He had the charisma of a great man right until he oh-my’ed loose his mortal coil. If there had been an HR department between the music room and the colorful food cube dispensary there would have been need for the admiralty to get involved. He is a beloved character for his brazenness and faults.

i suppose in the most literal sense, he’s a good leader because he inspires his subordinates to follow. no matter how ill-advised or hairbrained a plan seems, his crew will always follow through. granted those same ill-advised, hairbrained plans are a reason why many would argue he’s a bad leader, but the Romulan episode goes to great lengths to show how he never makes those kinds of decisions lightly, despite making them often. the alternate version of that same episode in SNW shows that a more measured, Starfleet response there just wouldn’t have worked, so there’s also an element of Doylist logic there- he’s a good leader because the writers say so, and his actions aren’t the best course of actions for their own sake as much as they are because they’re his actions.

the movies definitely make him more fallible, and if Kurtzman-era Trek has one single theme, it’s the deconstruction and destruction of the infallible hero-captain archetype. but even then, Kirk being both The Greatest Captain and a space cowboy are load-bearing pillars of the Trek mythos at this point

TL;DR kirk’s intuition has plot armor and you can’t retcon that without basically retconning all of Trek because of his in-universe and real-life mythic status. he’s an exceptional captain, and the exception that proves the rule

Show era, he’s shown to be a competent captain able to make decent strategic decisions. For instance, in the episode with the cloaking Romulan Bird of Prey, Kirk creates a battle plan which is able to take advantage of deficiencies in his foe’s ship. He’s also seen caring about making sure the crew goes into battle prepared, constantly drilling the crew so they are more responsive when time matters. Kirk is also shown as able to make hard personnel decisions which end up being right in the end. Kirk takes risks and is somewhat aggressive in playing a weak hand, but that is why he was put in command. SNW even has an episode showing that Kirk’s command is better suited to certain situations over Pike.

Movie era, Kirk isn’t as good of a captain. His crew bungle safety so bad it kills his science officer. Kirk’s rash decisions get people killed when dealing with Khan. His crew shows wild incompetence which kills a Klingon Chancellor.

It is interesting how different the character is between the shows and the movies.

Is he a good leader? He always came across to me as a bit of a prima donna with a napoleon complex. I’d point to Picard or Janeway as better leaders to be honest, they are both able to actually inspire their crews to become something better than they would be on their own.

High situational awareness allowing decisive action, and impeccable plot armor.

100% agree that he’s a very bad leader. That wasn’t his role, his role was arrogant, risk-taking playboy. Keep in mind that the TOS years were the late 60s. TOS ran at the same time as the Smothers Brothers, Green Acres, and Bewitched. Arrogant, risk-taking playboy is a prime white male media main character trope that spans generations and decades. No one likes an asshole - unless it’s YOUR asshole, then it can get shit all over and you expect someone else to clean it up. Kirk broke rules, did whatever, fought everyone and banged everyone else, and always came away a winner. THAT was his role.

Even for the TOS movies, they tone him down into a “leader” a bit and it’s really just being the guy everyone has to listen to. It’s an ensemble of subordinates who largely do whatever, he barks demands, and because it’s a movie/show, they’re always working towards the same goal and get the job done.

Good decisions.

Immaculate enunciation.