Where are Today’s Leaders?

Wherever are our leaders today? Whether in the field of politics and business, why are so many of these “leaders” no more than managers, tinkering with the life’s minutiae whilst avoiding issues of substance? Is it due to the processes by which they are appointed or do those who follow them bear some of the responsibility for what is wrong?

Leadership isn’t easy to define, but it is certainly not the same as management. Management helps us to climb that ladder of success more efficiently: leadership ensures that it is leaning against the right wall! Leadership involves having clear values and principles, a positive vision for something better in the future, and the ability to communicate this to those who will follow, inspiring and motivating them to collectively work towards something better. It means recognising that there are at least two sides to any issue (or it isn’t an issue!), but it also means being willing to make what are often tough decisions, and having the courage to stand by them (i.e. taking responsibility). Great leaders earn respect and it is given willingly, for it is not respect if demanded or given reluctantly.

Inadequate leadership is endemic throughout both the commercial and political worlds, but its absence is especially evident where it is needed most. The troubles that persist in all of the trouble spots around the globe, such as in the Middle East, the Balkans, Cyprus or the Caucasus, are inflamed and perpetuated by “leaders” who can not transcend the immediate, selfish needs of their constituencies. They refuse to recognise that ‘it takes two to tango’. As strongly as they feel aggrieved by the injustice of their cause, so the other side holds the same strength of conviction for their opposing views and positions. Bellicose posturing many play well to their own constituencies, but it is immature, short-term and does nothing but damage to any hope for a brighter, better future for all concerned. It undermines the development of tolerance in each community, and hence to any real hope for forgiveness and worthwhile progress towards something better.

The recent events in Georgia are a sad example of this. There has been no mature leadership shown by any of those concerned: the Georgian ‘leadership’ should not have initiated the events, the Russians should not have responded as they did, and the Western ‘leaders’ have failed to acknowledge their hypocrisy, or make any serious attempt to better understand the view and feelings of their Russian ‘opponents’. Everyone concerned is worse off than before and unless mature leaders materialises miraculously, bigger problems loom for all concerned in the future.

But this is only an acute example of poor leadership that is endemic around the world. In many developing countries what they need most are benevolent dictators (if that is possible!), people who really do have the best interests of their communities uppermost: leaders in whom the populations can trust to lead them out of the crises they endure each day. Even in richer countries, too many governments base their legitimacy on the fear of something worse if they are not re-elected (such as terrorism, mass migration or economic malaise), rather than on anything positive. This is no way to lead anything: it focuses on looking backwards in fear, rather than forwards in hope!

In our ever crowded and integrated world, we need to learn to tolerate others who (due to circumstances that are inevitably different to our own), have views and ways of life that are different to our own. Otherwise, what are we to do? Massacre them? Ethnically ‘cleanse’ them? Imprison or exclude them? A wise leader understands that these approaches can never work in the longer term. Surely by now history has given us enough examples to teach us this lesson?

Worthy leaders recognise that however unpalatable it may be, other views, values and interests DO exist, and they will reach out in an attempt to better understand and communicate with others, rather than raise the psychological barriers. They are prepared to take the risk that their attempts may be shunned and ridiculed. They aspire for a brighter future and are willing to place their reputations on the line, in their pursuit for this. They have an inherently positive, optimistic view of the future, rather than a negative, fear-laden one, as seems to prevail today. And they believe in the inherent integrity and goodness of most fellow human beings. Travel to other countries and you will soon realise that underneath the veneer of cultural differences, most people are decent, honest and incredibly willing to help if we ask them. We all seek and value similar things: peace, food, shelter, families, education for our children, work, health, security and care in our old age. Once we recognise and acknowledge that we are more similar than different, we can better respect others’ differences, and even start to learn from these differences.

Some may scoff at these ideals, claiming that they are not realistic or feasible in practice. Perhaps so, but admirable recent examples of real, positive leadership do exist around the world today. Nelson Mandela is the shining example, one that any civilised individual can but admire, regardless of their own background. But so too must one applaud the leaders from Northern Ireland who took the risk to reach out for a better future. Within local communities around the world where there previously existed civil strife, leaders exist who are putting the past behind them, forgiving and looking to a better future together. That is leadership at the local level, and so surely it is only reasonable to expect the same from more ‘senior’ leaders around the globe?

Idealistic or not, do we wish to conduct our affairs on the basis that we do not trust nor respect others, rather than recognise the inherent goodness that exists in most of us? Is this the right approach for us to achieve a better common future for our shrinking, crowded planet? And is this the sort of attitude that we should seek in our leaders? Perhaps we have been appointing leaders for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way, for leaders only exist where others are willing to follow.

Most of us have leadership qualities within us, ready to be nurtured and blossom, perhaps in specific areas or at specific times. Nevertheless, in many situations most of us will remain followers (the many) rather than leaders (the few). However, followers have a responsibility to ensure that their leaders possess the characteristics that they seek. There are (at least) two shortcomings (each of which deserves a whole article in itself):

• We expect too much of our leaders and our governments. Increasingly, we expect them to fix all our problems, protect us from any eventuality (risk aversion) and all for as little of our financial input and commitment as possible. We are too ready to abrogate our personal responsibilities to politicians and governments, and then complain when in attempting to balance up the conflicting interests of everyone in our communities, our own interests are not protected. Unfortunately, our present crop of ‘leaders’ are only too happy to accept greater control over our lives (it offers them greater power), rather than encouraging us to take greater responsibility for our own futures.
• I fear that in our Western ‘democracies’ the mechanisms we have adopted towards selecting our leaders is fundamentally flawed. Although someone may enter into the fray with firm principles and a vision for something better, in order to rise through the system to a point where they are able to exercise these principles and pursue their vision, they must compromise so much that they are no longer sure what they stand for, except to retain the power that they have worked so hard and long to achieve. Alas, this seems to apply in the commercial world as well as the political.

As voters, we are not blameless, for every politician knows that we will not support any candidate who admits to not having an answer to all our problems, or admits that we must compromise and reach out to our apparent foe, or that we need to take more responsibility for our own lives.

Once again, psychology plays an essential role in this debate about leadership, for the qualities it needs are based on appropriate attitudes. These are entirely within our own control and therefore our own responsibility. Leaders must possess personal maturity and integrity. They must feel confident in themselves and have the courage of their convictions. They are willing to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Great leaders do not need to lean on the artificial props of their office or position: the Dalai Lama has no formal power, nor does Nelson Mandela and nor did Ghandi, but because of their psychological maturity and wisdom, when they speak, others listen and act. How precious are such leaders, how valuable, but alas, how rare too. As followers however, we must look for these attributes in our future leaders.