Humility, empathy and authenticity key between RW defeat and AKD victory

I attribute RW’s defeat to a distinct lack of empathy which impaired his ability to understand the needs, hardships, feelings, yearnings, and thoughts of a significant component of the population, these being the low-income earners and the lower middle-income earners. Opinions may differ but facts are stubborn. The Achilles heel of RW in many past elections, both presidential and general, has been his inability to respond to the needs of the common person. AKD, on the other hand, understood them perfectly and his message was astutely crafted to tugging at the heart strings of this section of the population, a section which had been disadvantaged over many years by elitist thinking

The recently concluded Presidential elections in Sri Lanka provided us many lessons in leadership. The key differentiator, in my view, was that Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW) portrayed himself as a ‘master’ of people while Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) projected himself as a ‘servant’ of the people, a servant on the lines of ‘servant leadership’ as propounded by Robert Greenleaf, management researcher and AT&T executive, where leaders put the needs, aspirations, and interests of their followers above their own. Sajith Premadasa was a hybrid of the two styles. History has proved that ‘middle of the road’ approaches rarely bring success.

Leadership is usually associated with power, authority, control, command and privileges. It is in this vein that many leaders regard themselves as the almighty ‘masters’ of their followers and constituents. The ‘master’ syndrome is typical of traditional leadership where power is accumulated and exercised by those at the apex. Whilst such power was largely exercised sensibly and sagaciously in the past, there is now an increasing tendency of those in power in both the political and corporate world to act as if they are above the rules, regulations and the law even in settings where democratic principles prevail. Their privileged mindsets lead them to believe that they are exempted from the standards of decency, transparency, honesty, integrity ethics and scrutiny, expected and accepted by society. An examination of the behaviour of our political leaders in Sri Lanka in the past five decades will confirm the truism of this statement. The benign response of the masses to wrongdoings of leaders and the confidence such leaders accumulate by being not chastised or penalised for their misdemeanours have emboldened political leaders to act with disdain and impunity.

Corporate leaders are no exception. I have been a participant in the corporate arena in the past 53 years in roles ranging from an accounts clerk, accountant, finance director, managing director, executive director, non-executive director and chairman to a leadership coach/consultant and I have been privy to the opinions, views and thoughts of thousands of employees from a variety of organisations across the world who were, and are, frustrated by the growing extent of leadership entitlement where leaders callously disregard and disrespect laid down policies, procedures and processes even while applying them strictly, and rigidly, to everyone else in the organisation. My personal experience in these respects has been positive.

Presumed immunity

As alluded to earlier, many leaders believe that they can get away with murder and that their power and position make them immune to whatever that follows. Such presumed immunity gives them the confidence that they will never face the consequences for their reckless behaviour for there will always be someone who will cover their tracks, protect, and shield them, or give them another chance because they are a chosen lot and therefore deserve it. It is starkly evident that this misconception has not only fed an attitude of entitlement in the offending leaders but has weakened self-regulation, self-awareness, and empathy. It has also heightened feelings of superiority and a false aura of invincibility. It was heartening to note that the Sri Lanka’s voters disproved such aura of invincibility on the twenty first of September 2024.

The defeat of RW, the sitting president, at the Presidential polls raise many questions. It is worth recalling that RW took the reins in mid-2002 at a time when Sri Lanka was riddled with shortages of fuel, gas, and other essentials because of a lack of foreign exchange and was reeling from the negative effects of galloping inflation and a fast-depreciating currency. The leaders of the country were under immense pressure from the citizens to bring about real change. RW, the opportunist he is, and has been, stepped in as the Prime Minister and subsequently the President and addressed the issues through a reform program dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) whose involvement had been kick-started earlier by his predecessor, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. 

The IMF program demanded tight fiscal and monetary discipline. The IMF imposed financial indicators and ratios which called for heavy direct and indirect taxes, significantly increased utility rates and other tough measures. Citizen compliance was operationalised through a mix of measures which included, at times, the curtailment of the freedom of movement and the freedom of expression. Bills, Acts, and even physical force were employed in the enforcement. By the beginning of 2024, RW was hailed by many as the saviour of the nation. Yet, in the first round of the Presidential elections he came a distant third receiving just 2,299,767 votes compared to AKD who received 5,634,915 votes and SP who received 4,363,035 votes. 

So, why was RW rejected so mercilessly by the voting citizens of Sri Lanka on 21 September 2024 despite his material achievements? The answers revolve around the traits, behaviours and soft skills of his leadership style and this article serves to highlight some of them. The observations and comments are relevant to any leader in both political and corporate arenas. 

Humility in leadership

The importance of humility in leadership can never be over-emphasised. A leader may be an extrovert or introvert by nature. Extroverts are natural born motivators and introverts lead by example. Whilst such differences do exist, a quality which is common to all great leaders is humility. Humble leaders are known to be open to challenge, feedback, and criticism. They are approachable. They recognise that they are not omnipotent. They show willingness to learn from others in improving the quality of their decision-making. Since they are not threatened by another’s success, humble leaders are effective in building strong relationships with their teams. Their open mind enabled by humility make them more flexible and adaptable. They do not shy from making mid-course corrections when the original plan is not delivering the anticipated outcomes.

I have come across many leaders who are too proud to admit that they were wrong in the first instance. Humility is considered by leadership gurus as being more important than charisma or intelligence. I perceived significant arrogance in the utterances of some of the presidential candidates and such behaviour worked against them eventually. There are schools of thought which view humility as a sign of weakness or a lack of confidence. This is far from the truth. I have always urged my colleagues to be humbler, the higher they climb the corporate ladder. Humility and simplicity have always worked for me in building cohesive teams which pursue a common vision and in fostering an environment of trust and respect. I go by the adage that one becomes powerful by being powerless.

I attribute RW’s defeat to a distinct lack of empathy which impaired his ability to understand the needs, hardships, feelings, yearnings, and thoughts of a significant component of the population, these being the low-income earners and the lower middle-income earners. Opinions may differ but facts are stubborn. The Achilles heel of RW in many past elections, both presidential and general, has been his inability to respond to the needs of the common person. AKD, on the other hand, understood them perfectly and his message was astutely crafted to tugging at the heart strings of this section of the population, a section which had been disadvantaged over many years by elitist thinking. 

From a leadership perspective, empathy should not be confused with sympathy. Sympathy is to be sorrowful for another’s misfortune while empathy is the ability to perceive and comprehend the emotions, yearnings, dreams, thoughts, and experiences of others, and to respond in a way that demonstrates care, understanding and support. In my fifty-three years of corporate experience, I have found that empathy is not an easy trait to master. It is a complex psychological and emotional skill which is essential in connecting with others on a deeper level and validating their emotions. 

Seen, heard, and valued

It is my observation that leaders who have had to sweat and work hard in meritocratically climbing the corporate and social ladders are more likely to possess empathy than those born with silver spoons in their mouths. The focused, but still extensive and well-coordinated mobilisation of party supporters in gathering the needs of the masses and the use of such data in imaginarily stepping into the shoes and mindsets of the voting public assisted AKD in approaching and addressing the situations from a new angle. The voting citizens of Sri Lanka felt seen, heard, and valued by AKD’s message.

I am very familiar with how empathy has delivered benefits to corporates, the key among them being, * By understanding the travails and tribulations of, and the challenges faced by, team members, empathy was the invisible glue which bound, and the thread which connected, leaders with their teams. The sense of belonging thus created led to higher job satisfaction and improved retention, * In times of high volatility like what exists today, empathy enabled leaders to identify, upfront, the anxieties such volatility brought to their teams. The proactive addressing of the anxieties helped empathetic leaders to better guide and support their teams with precision, confidence, resilience, and cohesion, * Empathetic leaders were quick in recognising the emotions of their team members and that ability facilitated effective and timely communications which preempted pending dangers. We can say, “a stitch in time saved nine.” The feelings of concern, love and care were amplified, transparency was enhanced, and misunderstanding was minimised, * Leaders who understood their team members created environments where individuals were empowered, risk taking/innovation was encouraged, and diversity was celebrated.

Studies confirm that when individuals feel understood, respected, and valued, they contribute openly and voluntarily, take risks, and collaborate effectively thereby birthing an atmosphere of psychological safety. Psychological safety is catalytic in creating a corporate culture of trust and openness. When psychological safety is high, employees experience a sense of belonging and exercise more courage in discretionary effort and speedier decision-making. All of these engender continuous learning and speedier problem solving. These are outcomes which contribute to competitive advantage and organisational growth.

The ‘master’

A leader must never portray himself/herself as the only person having all the answers. As was explained earlier, when that happens, the leader believes that he/she is the ‘master’ and that he/she deserves special treatment and is, therefore, above the rules. Psychologists refer to this as a ‘god complex,’ this being a pattern in which an individual believes he/she has great power, unrivalled ability, infallibility, and influence. He/she develops a superiority complex. The self-belief of an inflated ability and infallibility obviates the need to confer with others in solving problems. 

There are many leaders with a god complex in the corporate world. Such persons show no desire to listen to nor consider the thoughts, opinions and views of their colleagues, subordinates, teams, and other employees even when such views are so obviously value adding. Their bloated sense of self-importance and narcissistic disposition result in an unsatiated hunger for self-adulation and admiration and an indescribable lack of empathy. Narcissistic leaders rarely admit errors even when the evidence is irrefutable and overwhelming. I leave it to you the readers to determine who among the candidates suffered from a ‘god complex.’

However brilliant a person may be as an individual, a leader of a nation or an organisation cannot achieve sustainable success in a democratic setting unless he/she inspires a shared vision among his/her followers. The primary task of a leader is not to sell his/her personal view to constituents. He/she must imagine the end outcome and communicate his/her vision to citizens, in the case of a nation, and to employees, in the case of a corporate. The leader must collaborate with the subject persons in finding ways to satisfying their individual aspirations while achieving the national or corporate goals.

A leader may, on the odd occasion, achieve success through an autocratic leadership style and/or fear, but such success will never last. As was observed by Kouzes and Posner in their best seller, ‘The Leadership Challenge,’ (quote): “Nobody likes being told what to do or where to go, no matter how right it might be. People want to be a part of the vision development process. They want to walk alongside their leaders. They want to dream with them, invent with them and be involved in creating their futures.” (end quote). 

Seeking authenticity

In today’s increasingly complex, but more emancipated, world, constituents, followers, and employees are demanding the expression of an authentic self from their leaders. People want to be led by someone real. AKD embodied that excellently even in the face of fears expressed by many citizens about the past record of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) a key member of the National People’s Power (NPP). People no longer seek just a mastery of skills, technology, and strategy of their leaders, but they seek authenticity. They seek an authenticity which anchors ethical behaviour, transparent relationship and credible communication which are essential for sustained success. In a world where trust is in high demand but in acute short supply a high value is placed on authenticity. The public’s cry for authenticity in the Presidential election was their belated response to their long-standing disenchantment with politicians, businesspeople, and corporate leaders. They no longer had the appetite to be duped by the same persons over and over.

In displaying his authenticity, AKD did not attempt to fit a persona to a mould which was demanded by some voters wanting to preserve their lifestyles with no concern for the plight of the many fellow citizens who were living in poverty or close to the poverty line. These are fellow citizens who did not enjoy equality of opportunity in many areas of economic and social activity. He did not attempt to match the basket of goodies which was offered by RW and SP. AKD’s message was uncomplicated, uncluttered, and simple. Therefore, it carried more credibility. The listener found his promises to be pragmatic and deliverable. They did not see it as ‘pie in the sky.’ In short, the AKD message carried authenticity. A key lesson to leaders is ‘do not bullshit.’ You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

I am, and I have always been, an advocate of performance management. However, I do acknowledge that today’s corporate world characterised by a diverse, multigenerational workforce, unimaginable infusion of technology, and virtual/hybrid work environments require leaders who are focused on people as much as on key performance indicators. There is a deficit of humanity at work. Anxiety, loneliness, stress, and burnout are the norm than the exception. Camaraderie, cohesion, and unity are on a downward slope. The political world is no different. Sri Lanka was, and is, hungry for an authentic leader.

The Presidential election has provided us valuable insights on positive and negative leadership behaviours. Whilst the adoption of such behaviours, by themselves, do not guarantee economic or social success they have been proven to be essential elements of effective leadership. Current and future leaders, make note.

(The writer is currently a Leadership Coach, Mentor and Consultant, and boasts over 50+ years of experience in very senior positions in the corporate world – local and overseas. www.ronniepeiris.com)