Current Events Prompt Concerns About The Future. The Horrific Attacks By Hamas On Israelis and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine contribute to an overriding sense of angst. In the United States, a pending election in 2024, which has been accentuated by debates among GOP contenders for the Republican nomination for president, adds increased awareness of the serious issues before the body politic. Never has there been a more critical time for citizens to make informed choices about the future of their societies and those that they choose to lead them.
These angst-ridden times give rise to important, societal decisions regarding leadership. The search to find competent individuals who can lead complex institutions commences with an understanding of the skills needed to lead a diverse and polarized constituency toward universally accepted action.
When recently polled as to whom they considered to have been great leaders, respondents mentioned such figures as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, George Washington, Winston Churchill, and to the surprise of some, Bill Gates. A study of these leaders, whose backgrounds vary considerably, revealed shared talents for motivating diverse constituencies and achieving goals that ultimately benefited society as a whole.
The noteworthy leaders identified in that poll were remarkable. They also all had flaws, as most do. What distinguished these individuals as remarkable leaders, however, centered on their firm sense of commitment and the impressive ability to motivate and, at times, inspire those whom they led.
A recent invitation to present to members of Alpha Kappa Alpha, Inc., a historic sorority that includes as a member the Honorable Vice President Kamala Harris, has compelled more probative study of the critical, societal need for effective leadership, and the skill sets required to move individuals toward collective, positive action.
Alpha Kappa Alpha, Inc. focuses on the salience of quality leadership as a fundamental construct of a strategy to build careers and foster institutions. This important agenda should be shared by anyone concerned about the future of society and institutions that advance society.
The problem associated with the identification of good leaders often lies in the failure to consider carefully the criteria necessary for truly effective leadership. Many leaders are chosen more serendipitously, without informed consideration of the skills needed to lead. Moreover, selection processes tend to be subject to personal or subjective preferences that do not lend themselves to informed decision-making.
Any decision as to who should lead requires an understanding of the competencies needed for effective leadership and an ability to motivate individuals whom they lead. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the late Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, once personally expressed that one who leads must “understand the complexities of their tasks and value the diverse constituencies that they will lead.”
The shortcomings of some leaders often result from the flawed processes used to select them. Those tasked with the search of a leader generally focus on candidates’ past successes rather their potential to lead prospectively. Competency in a particular field does not necessarily correlate to success as a leader in complex situations. Additionally, subjective preferences related to charisma or personal appeal, which are important interpersonal traits, can dominate decision-making and obscure candidates’ potential shortcomings as effective leaders. Consequently, those seeking good leaders must firmly establish the competencies required to lead their institutions and screen candidates accordingly.
Leadership as a discipline has several theoretical premises. Some subscribe to the notion that leaders are “born, not made.” Others theorize that good leaders possess an intuitive proclivity to listen, learn, empathize, and, thereafter, decide. This latter theory has historic validity.
Many of the popular leaders cited in the above-referenced poll appeared firmly committed to the institutions they led. Their popular success signified an understanding of the context of those whom they led and a seeming objective to motivate those individuals work toward goals that achieved universal success.
Understanding human frailties, including one’s own, constitutes a fundamental element of “emotional intelligence.” Effective leaders tend to be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and use this knowledge to appreciate the emotional needs of those whom they lead. This knowledge forms the basis of strategies that not only motivate, but also inspire individuals to coalesce around clearly articulated goals and objectives. “Top-down” leadership, which is authoritarian in nature and potentially expedient, seldom inspires loyalty or a sense of personal investment.
Emotional intelligence and the ability to inspire individuals to invest personally in the goals of an organization become critical components of a successful, leadership strategy. Cultivation of these skills requires a leader to:
• To learn about the circumstances and attributes of the individuals whom they intend to lead;
• Respect the human capital on which most institutions depend;
• Persuade rather than impose their will upon those that they lead;
• Possess a sense of self-awareness to recognize one’s own shortcomings, acknowledge any mistakes made during the course of one’s work as a leader, and take corrective action that respects the positive contributions of those whom they lead;
• Seek to coalesce the interests of individuals whom they lead to ensure collaborative action; and
• Possess an intuitive sense of humility that leads to an appreciation of the human capital of the institutions they foster.
To place total blame for ineffectual leadership on the leaders themselves may be somewhat specious. Some leaders are saddled with unreasonably inflated expectations for success.
At the end of the day, a stalwart leader accepts the pitfalls that come with committed leadership. History notes that President Harry S. Truman kept a sign on his desk that read, “The Buck Stops Here.” This message that had been displayed on Truman’s desk signifies that one who leads must accept responsibility for any mistakes. A corollary to this credo includes the duty to ameliorate those mistakes and strategize continually in anticipation of inflated expectations. Truman’s credo has contemporary relevance.
Today, those selected to lead must possess a strength of commitment and character that places the needs of the institutions they lead above their own, while also acknowledging successes and failures. To this end, leadership becomes a learning process in which the leader’s skills mature and the institutions that they lead thrive. Such magnanimous leadership has humanism as its foundation and comes from the head and the heart.
Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of Franklin D Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States, once stated, “To handle yourself, use your head; To handle others, use your heart.” Having leaders with heart may be just the panacea that a complex society urgently needs and deserves.
Read the full article here