Crisis of leadership, part 1

Mon, Aug 10th 2015, 09:43 AM

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

– Edward R. Murrow

Last month, The Bahamas celebrated its 42nd anniversary of independence from Great Britain that was ushered in on July 10, 1973. Since that historically transformative moment, our country has continually confronted challenges and overcome obstinate obstacles, primarily because of the indomitable and indefatigable spirt of the Bahamian people.

Following the attainment of majority rule in 1967, and in the very early years of nationhood, we were blessed with a cadre of leaders whose enduring purpose was primarily driven by a deeply committed resolve to improve the lot of our fellow citizens – to make The Bahamas a better place for every Bahamian.

Sadly, however, we have devolved into a people who have embraced a level of mediocrity in our leaders, the overwhelming majority of whom no longer inspire us with a vision of how to be the best that we can be, either individually or collectively. The deficit of leadership has become even more pronounced and stultifying because no leader has articulated a clear definition of the role that we can and should play in a vastly shrinking world that is daily being choked by the rapid onslaught of globalization. No leader has stepped forward to tell us what this new world means for our future and our culture.

Today, we are ensconced in a quagmire of inertia and indecision, and quicksand of inaction and indirection, with little hope for achieving the real meaning of independence and freedom for which our forefathers so ferociously fought.

We have repeatedly identified our most challenging crises as the accelerating level and fear of crime, an unacceptably and unsustainably high rate of unemployment, a failed educational system that has inadequately prepared Bahamians for a globalized 21st century and an increasingly obscure path to the attainment of economic empowerment for our people.

We submit, however, that there is a more fundamental crisis that transcends each of those crises: a crisis of leadership. Therefore, we would like to Consider this… What evidence is there to support the hypothesis that we are currently experiencing a catastrophic crisis of leadership?

In this series of articles on leadership, or more accurately, the crisis of leadership that is as ubiquitous and potentially as lethal to our national psyche as the multiple heads of the Hydra of Greek mythology, we will attempt to identify this phenomenon which, like a cancer, has metastasized to virtually every important sphere of human interaction and social intercourse.

This week we will begin by defining the concept of leadership. Subsequently, we will address the crises of leadership that are found in our political, religious, business and social spheres. We will also focus on how this current state of leadership is stimulating the development of a nation of sheep. Finally, we will address the concept of transformational leadership.

Leadership defined

Leadership means different things to different people, and different things in different situations. Generally, leadership has been described as a process of exerting influence in which a person can enlist the support of others in accomplishing a desired objective. There are several styles of leadership which experts on the subject have broadly described as autocratic, participative, laissez-faire or narcissistic.

In a Journal of Social Psychology article entitled "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates", Lippitt and White observed that: “under the autocratic or dictatorial leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader... who does not entertain suggestions or initiatives from subordinates.

“Being an autocratic leader facilitates quick decision-making, because the leader decides for the whole group and frequently keeps decisions close to himself until he feels it needs to be shared with subordinates.”

The autocratic leader often connotes the "strong man" model that was found in Caribbean countries before and during the era of Lynden Pindling in The Bahamas, Errol Barrow in Barbados, Michael Manley in Jamaica and Forbes Burnham in Guyana. Some scholars and pundits might even suggest that it was probably the only model that could have worked to get those countries firmly onto a new path and away from colonialism – almost trading one king for another. But the same commentators would also admit that that time is past – or has it?

The truly democratic leadership style is characterized by a leader who invites the members of his group to participate in the decision-making process by promoting the group interests in concert with his own.

The laissez-faire leader is characterized by an individual who has attained a leadership position without providing real leadership, permitting the group to fend for itself, allowing his subordinates a degree of freedom in deciding their own policies, where the subordinates’ authority and pronouncements are not curtailed by their leader.

Linda Neider and Chester Schriesheim observed in “The Dark Side of Management” that "narcissistic leadership is often destructive and is driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption, and a personal, egotistic need for power and admiration” and, in severe cases, adoration. “The narcissistic leader manifests a leadership style in which the leader is only interested in himself. This type of leader places the priority on themselves – at the expense of their subordinates. This narcissistic leader exhibits the characteristics of a narcissist: arrogance, dominance and hostility. It is a common leadership style. The leader’s narcissism could range anywhere from healthy to destructive.”

A toxic leader, described by Marcia Whicker, is “someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an organization and abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse-off condition than when he joined it.”

A nation of sheep

The most fundamental challenge that we face as a people resulting from the leadership deficit that we will examine over the next few weeks is that, in the midst of such a deficit, we also seem to have been lulled to sleep and have adopted an aura of obsequiousness, almost like sheep who are led to the slaughter by the “good shepherd”.

This is evident from how we nonchalantly tolerate leaders who do not bring their best. It is also shown by how we tend to vote against instead of for a leader. As a recent national survey demonstrated, while we support the idea of protest and activism, we would not stand up and demonstrate ourselves for something we believe in. Clearly, we have become content to be a nation of complacent sheep, satisfied to follow, even when being led over a precipice.

Conclusion

There are some who would suggest that our best years are behind us. Some say that it is only a memory when our political, religious, business and social leaders demonstrated the capacity to truly galvanize a people to support a national cause – even when that support could bring stinging and destructive personal retribution – by articulating a vision for a better Bahamas, not with pious platitudes, but with positive and progressive policy pronouncements and definitive and decisive deeds.

We disagree. We believe that our best days are ahead of us. But, in order to really achieve a better Bahamas, we must honestly assess what we expect from our leaders. We must demand that those who seek to lead are the best that the country has to offer. We must insist that they deliver on the promise of shaping a community where our leaders recognize that their most fundamental and solemn duty is to intelligently and pragmatically provide unwavering leadership that addresses, first and foremost, the common good.

Above all, we must always appreciate that, unless and until we overcome the crises of leadership that we now face, we will be destined to be a nation of sheep and that, as Edward R. Murrow observed, “a nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves”.

Next week, we look at examples of the crisis and deficit of political leadership.

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis and Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads