Sunday Nov 24, 2024
Sunday Nov 24, 2024
Saturday, 29 June 2024 00:12 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The citizenry vote for politicians in the vain hope that ‘this time there will be change for the better’ – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara
Despite the critical engagement of scholars and other writers in the mainstream media attempting to introduce leadership models with countervailing themes such as plurality, inclusiveness, sensitivity, empathy, acute self-knowledge and other ‘softer’ attributes, the essence of political leadership in Sri Lanka in the intervening decade and a half after the end of the so-called ‘ethnic war’ has seen a hardening of positions
As Sri Lanka gears up for elections later this year, people of voting age would do well to gird their loins against being gulled again into casting their ballots unwisely for those whom we call our ‘leaders’.
In the past we’ve voted repeatedly for crooks, charlatans, the incompetent, the corrupt, and the utterly unrepentant of their litany of crimes.
To add insult to injury, we chronically elect as our representatives those who couldn’t organise a proper punch-up in parliament where chilli-filled paper-bag- and chair-throwing is two a penny but still have the gumption to stand for public office as if their House is in the order they say they want the Nation to be in.
As political analysts and commentators have observed, the citizenry vote for politicians in the vain hope that ‘this time there will be change for the better’; and the electorate is disappointed time and again – although ‘next time round’, too, the voting population opts to invest their faith in the electoral system all over again.
As Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda and Dr. Pradeep Peiris observe: “There is also a growing dissatisfaction with, and a lowering of trust in, the functioning of political parties. This has led to a paradoxical situation. People feel that the political parties are essential to the functioning of democracy but do not seem to trust them for making democracy work...” (State of Democracy in Sri Lanka: a Preliminary Report, PCD Journal 2009, pp. 57-74).
It is a perennial or cyclical problem that has many root causes.
For one, the ethos of party-political leadership whereby political leaders prefer to nominate party candidates who will sweep the polls even if their ethics are questionable.
For another, the entrenchment of the patron-client system whereby government and citizenry are both complicit in the two part tango ‘for every giver/taker, there is a taker/giver’ model of transactional politics.
As Uyangoda and Peiris have it: “Political parties have become election and patronage machines.”
Then again, the calibre of independents seeking public office leaves much to be desired in terms of moral, ethical and personal probity. It is self-service not service they seek.
Last not least, a rotten political culture where those whom we elect to lead us seek to serve themselves and their political masters, and vested interests among the elites who paved their path to power, and not the people who voted them in or the country’s more pressing causes.
We look at the latter of these today, from a conceptual point of view, and attempt to develop a framework for aspiring Sri Lankan politicians to take cognisance of.
Or party leaders – and here we can but hope against hope, despite empirical evidence and the experience of decades indicating otherwise – to heed the need for better leadership.
Or both politicos and their sponsors to note and act upon these in the larger national interest over and above narrow partisan gains and petty agendas.
Thinking about leadership
Leadership is a topic that has been much discussed but little agreed upon in terms of definitions, essence vs. attributes, and praxis.
There are “many diverse ways of thinking about leadership”, according to Harvard University Professor William E. Allen in ‘Leadership Theory: A Different Conceptual Approach’ in the Journal of Leadership Education (2018).
Although scholars are almost universally agreed that “creating a logical and consistent picture of the state of leadership theory is a difficult task” per leadership thinkers such as Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio and Johnson (2011), it is increasingly evident in a world suffering from a ‘leadership deficit’ that defining, developing and applying meaningful, relevant and sustainable models and theories of leadership is the need of the hour worldwide.
‘Leadership deficit’ is a term coined by Thomas J. Tierney in relation to nonprofit organizations; but now, it is increasingly applied to civics, politics and governance (cf. Tierney, Thomas J, ‘The Leadership Deficit’, 2006, as quoted in the Stanford Social Innovation Review 2006).
A slew of scholarly papers by the likes of academicians Harter (2012), Martin & Allen (2016), Paxton & Van Stralen (2016) and Perkins (2019) have already identified this need; and Allen argues for “a new point of view [that] encourages discussion with the hope for a more efficacious understanding of leadership theory in any part of the world”.
In our part of the world, in this day and age, as a nation and its people prepare for presidential and general elections in the year ahead, it is timely and prudent to apply ourselves to developing a solid national political leadership framework.
Local models and native wit
Controversy surrounds the emergence of a particularly Sri Lankan model of political leadership in the years after the cessation of hostilities between the Government and separatist terrorist forces in May, 2009.
Academics and journalistic commentators have identified the attributes of this style of governmental, national and political leadership as being a variety of elements native to the Sri Lankan ethos, as follows:
Despite the critical engagement of scholars and other writers in the mainstream media attempting to introduce leadership models with countervailing themes such as plurality, inclusiveness, sensitivity, empathy, acute self-knowledge and other ‘softer’ attributes, the essence of political leadership in Sri Lanka in the intervening decade and a half after the end of the so-called ‘ethnic war’ has seen a hardening of positions.
This is evident in stances among governmental ranks and corridors of power, including among the establishment and entrenched political culture – embracing political leaders of all parties, policy imperatives and personality types.
And so it is opportune, timely and appropriate to propose an alternative model of leadership that is arguably more suited to our native wit and commonwealth.
Sri Lanka is yet to emerge from the traps of rigid, traditionalistic, outdated, outmoded, and demonstrably undemocratic or even autocratic forms of leadership.
So today, we examine a model (ideally young, preferably visionary, essentially honest, ideologically unfettered, and characteristically possessing unimpeachable integrity) political leaders’ vision, mission, passion, and corresponding styles.
We’ll suggest sustainable strategies for working harmoniously and productively with others through mutually beneficial inter-relationships; and also consider factors in the implementation drives of such a leadership framework through the lenses of envisaging, executing and evaluating.
A holistic approach
Leaders are also human; and as such, a successful and sustainable leadership framework will necessarily take into account the elements that make human beings function well and at their best, relationally.
Valuable leadership praxis was offered by onetime US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was once the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in World War II, in the assertion that “leadership is getting people to do what you want them to do; but now, they want to do it too.”
The key to unlocking this door to desirable results, relationships and ramifications comes in three parts of the human anthropology: the Cognitive – what one thinks and believes (‘head’); the Affective – how one emotes and empathises (‘heart’); and where one works to make practical difference to one’s community (‘hands’).
This is as discussed by Ottati et al. – refer Victor C. Ottati, Marco R. Steenburgen and Ellen Riggle in ‘The cognitive and affective elements of political attitudes: Measuring the determinants of candidate evaluations’,
Springer Link: Polit. Behav. 14, 423-442 (1992).
A trinity of interconnections
HEAD – the Cognitive element: can be understood best in four parts:
Vision: the ability to envision what leadership is and what objectives it can achieve, as well as an insightful understanding into the personal, interpersonal and operational elements that are necessary to accomplish the same; the gift of envisioning the future
Vitiation: the vital recognition of one’s own validity to lead... based on the important aspects of introspection, self-examination and self-knowledge, and a rational yet emotive acceptance of one’s own strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities for and threats against one’s leadership praxis
Values: the principles espoused and norms agreed upon that constitute the moral, ethical and justice-oriented underpinnings of the mission to be undertaken by the team
Virtues: the affirmation of inherent diversity among people comprising the leadership project, and an acceptance of plurality, inclusiveness and the spirit of democracy
HEART – the Affective element: this will be better encapsulated in the ways and means below:
Passion: a deep-seated belief in, and a commitment to, the calling and tasks of leadership, and the ability to motivate others to not only catch the vision but commit to the accomplishment of goals and objectives at hand while working with equal fervour
Personality: a set of character-based and temperament-driven skills that inspires others to not only commit to the tasks at hand but continue to contribute amidst challenges
Persuasion: a talent to communicate the vision and co-opt the cooperation of one’s team of followers and co-leaders without exerting undue pressure or exercising force
Perseverance: a heartfelt mindset that keeps on pressing doggedly towards one’s end goals and objectives in the face of any disasters, setbacks and discouragement to come
HANDS – the Behavioural element: this is well captured by the following quartet:
Mission: an unwavering contribution to the goals and objectives that would accomplish the end result envisioned, and a meaningful and sustainable personal contribution through exercised leadership that inspires and motivates others in the team to also work
Management: an ongoing process of input, output and recalibration whereby the leadership team critically engages with the work in progress to stay on the right track
Monitoring: an awareness of the environment in which the project at hand is being worked out and a sensitive response to the larger legitimate demands of the community, society and socio-political establishment
Manoeuvrability: an inherent flexibility in the project where work progresses sustainably despite internal as well as external changes, challenges, shocks and surprises, as well as the ‘wiggle room’ in which to manoeuvre all workloads wisely
In such a holistic model, there will be synergy between and among the elements in each segment of the Affective, Behavioural, Cognitive, (ABC) trinity.
In the Cognitive (‘head’) segment, the Vision will drive the Vitiation as well as the Values and the Virtues. Where the Vision is a just, peaceful and equitable society, the Vitiation must necessarily prompt an examination of one’s ideas, thoughts and beliefs to ascertain whether one’s Vision is an authentic one that is true to one’s own nature and self. This would then prompt the development and dissemination of corresponding Values (a sense of justice, peaceful temperament, egalitarian outlook or worldview) and Virtues.
In the Affective (‘heart’) segment, the Passion will shape the Personality, Persuasion and Perseverance elements. Where the Passion is for ‘speaking truth to power’ – that is, the critical and yet also constructive engagement of government in societal and national interests – the leader must be correspondingly fearless and outspoken; he or she must be able to persuade others to be so too; and the team as a whole should persevere in their task at all costs.
In the Behavioural (‘hands’) segment, the Mission will have an impact on the Management and Monitoring elements, as well as Manoeuvrability. Where the Mission is the mitigation of corruption in the prevalent political culture, Manoeuvrability must mean that even if a team member falls short of the leadership’s ideal, the project to uproot corruption – for example – does not fall by the wayside. Also, the Mission needs to undergo regular internal audits, and suitable checks and balances must be instilled in terms of Management, as well as the leadership project and its exemplars keeping themselves and their stakeholders regularly updated on changes to laws, norms and regulations pertaining to corruption in all its forms.
A trio and triad
Another matrix for interpreting the above inter-related leadership elements is to consider this triad from a trio of other aspects pertinent to leadership: the leader, working with others, and operationalisation of tasks, as follows...
‘The leader’:
Leadership style: refer Passion above (‘a deep-seated belief in, and a commitment to, the calling and tasks of leadership’) but also elements of Mission (‘a meaningful and sustainable personal contribution through exercised leadership that inspires and motivates others’).
Vision of the leader: refer Vision above (‘the ability to envision what leadership is and what objectives it can achieve’) but also elements of Passion (‘not only catch the vision but commit to the accomplishment of goals and objectives’).
Strengths and weaknesses: refer Personality above (‘a set of character-based and temperament-driven skills that inspires others’) but also elements of Vitiation (‘a rational yet emotive acceptance of one’s own strengths and weaknesses’).
‘Working with others’:
Communication: refer Persuasion above (‘a talent to communicate the vision and co-opt the cooperation of one’s team of followers and co-leaders’) but also elements of Virtues (‘the affirmation of inherent diversity among people comprising the leadership project’).
Structural factors: refer Management above (‘an ongoing process of input, output and recalibration whereby the leadership team critically engages with the work’) but also elements of Values (‘the principles espoused and norms agreed upon that constitute the moral, ethical and justice-oriented underpinnings of the mission’).
Effective relationships: refer Virtues above (‘an acceptance of plurality, inclusiveness and the spirit of democracy’) but also elements of Personality (‘inspires others to not only commit to the tasks at hand but continue to contribute amidst challenges’).
‘Operationalising of tasks’:
Planning: refer Mission above (‘an unwavering contribution to the goals and objectives that would accomplish the end result envisioned’) but also elements of Vision (‘the ability to envision what leadership is and what objectives it can achieve’).
Implementation: refer Manoeuvrability above (‘the ‘wiggle room’ in which to manoeuvre all workloads wisely’) but also elements of Perseverance (‘a heartfelt mindset that keeps on pressing doggedly towards one’s end goals and objectives’).
Evaluation: refer Monitoring above (‘an awareness of the environment in which the project at hand is being worked out and a sensitive response to the larger legitimate demands’) but also elements of Passion (‘ability to motivate others to not only catch the vision but commit to the accomplishment of goals and objectives’).
In the light of this matrix, it is evident that the Leadership Framework being proposed is not only head, hands, and heart holistic but also inter-related and integral as a whole to a leader’s practice of leadership.
It may initially seem academic, impractical, airy-fairy or unrealistic to many ears unaccustomed to the vigour of introspection or the rigour of rational development of leadership cadre in party, public office and public-private partnerships (PPP).
Yet, it may have merit in the light of all those other failed models of leadership that generations of political leaders and their respective party machines and manifestoes have foisted on a gullible, naive and complicit citizenry.
Hope someone out there hears this cry or plea for a new, freshly felt and reasonably thought-out model and praxis of political leadership.
| Editor-at-large of LMD |
