>1) Did he communicate his ideas clearly?
To an extent. The problem was that his vision surpassed even the wildest ambitions of his comrades. He wanted to reach the end of the earth for no other reason than to say he did it. The policy of cultural fusion was less clearly articulated because it was so hard for Macedonians to swallow.
>2) Did he had or has emotional intelligence?
Very high. He was himself a very emotional person outside of battle. He could read faces and gauge troop morale at a glance. He knew what the mood was around him. When his troops mutinied in India, he knew he couldn't keep dragging them along against their will.
>3) Did he set relevant goals and objectives?
Absolutely, if a bit vague. His goals were ever-changing, usually becoming grander and grander. He did everything he needed to do to keep his empire flourishing and his army well supplied. He won every battle he fought and took every territory he set foot on.
>4) Did he defined priority actions for the interests of their nations? Examples.
This question is a bit unclear. You'll have to clarify.
>5) Did he take advantage of his own strengths and work to improve his weaknesses?
His strengths were literally the source of all his success, and his weaknesses were kept under control well enough that they never compromised him. His drive, endurance, charisma, courage, nerve and genius all carried him to the pinnacle of success. His vices have been greatly exaggerated by history and by slanderers whose work started even before Alexander was dead.
>6) Was he charismatic and interested in his people?
He was the most charismatic person in human history, elevated during life to the status of a divine hero and to godhood after death. His love for his people was sincere, but he was not blind to their faults and shortcomings. He wanted to breed a superior race of soldiers and citizens, rather than give Asia to his Macedonians wholesale.
