Where is my saviour?

Every now and then we are confronted with situations that are overwhelming and require that we seek assistance to overcome them. Help can come unexpectedly from whom we least expect, providing us with support to get back on our feet. However, what happens when we are unwilling to get back on track and apply leadership to our lives? Recovery can sometimes be difficult and quite a lot of us find that rising from the ashes takes a lot more effort than we are willing to invest.

What if waiting for others to resolve our issues is embedded in our culture? Sometimes we expect our leaders to attend to our problems, and they in turn depend on us, creating a loop where issues are perpetuated. For example, many of us hold the illusion that the economy can be fixed by the government alone, when in fact it requires society to be more productive and generate demand, while leaders make the right decisions to stimulate and achieve sustainable growth. I think that one of the main functions of governments is to provide the right environment for society to thrive. For me this means providing the necessary infrastructure to ensure appropriate levels of law, order, education and social services while having the essential regulations and mechanisms in place to influence the economic, financial and social structures. When governments start overextending their responsibilities and promote paternalism, they risk raising debt and poverty because their citizens are no longer empowered to be productive and seek progress.

Those of us who perpetually feel helpless have somehow lost faith in our inner strength. In this sense we are incapable of seeing ourselves as our own saviours. History has shown us how certain societies have been able to literally rise from the ashes through coordinated efforts from each of its citizens. Meanwhile, others languish in their desperation, wondering  why they cannot overcome their difficulties, even with all the potential in the world at their disposal. In the end, we must realize that welfare and progress in society depends mostly on our collective attitude and not so much on external factors and paternalistic policies.

How do we apply ethics?

What are the principles and values that guide leaders? Is it the need to truly help the collective or is it personal gain? Ethics is vital to good leadership since it provides an accepted framework which can help determine whether the right choice for the collective is being taken. Each of us has a point of view with respect to what is right or wrong, but there are clear rules that help us operate in society and which should be followed if there is to be effective leadership.

When trust is lost among the stakeholders, the fabric of team work and vision is lost. The modus operandi becomes every man for himself, as greed becomes more important than the will to attend to the needs of the collective. A leader can lose integrity when faced with the temptation of abusing power and misusing public funds. This attitude of self-indulgence can quickly spread, killing any chances for progress. In this sense, corruption is a disease that deviates a lot of resources from achieving our vision and is symptomatic of bad leadership.

To reach the objectives set out, all the effort must go into making the vision a reality and not in following personal gains. Each of us has an obligation to ensure that ethical codes are followed, and understand the reasons for doing so. It is my belief that leaders have a lot more to gain from experiencing the success of the collective through achievement of the goals set out in the vision.

How do we achieve consensus?

When it comes to spreading ideas, there are battles for the minds of the stakeholders. Each person has different and usually contradicting ideas about the objectives and how they should be achieved.  What motivates others to follow and support our vision? The answer is sell, sell, and sell. For me effective selling isn't so much in the speech. It is in understanding our stakeholders, their needs and their willingness to buy into the solution. By adapting our vision to our stakeholders and allowing them to participate in the solution, we greatly increase the chances for success. For the poor, eradicating poverty may mean greater organization and access to tools for self-help. For the rich it may mean investment in education facilities and infrastructure to increase the availability of skilled workers.

The dark side to influencing others occurs when it is carried out with negative emotions. How are the stakeholders being motivated? Through hate, fear, anger and blaming others, or through passion, empathy, enthusiasm and love of achievement and team work? For me, to achieve true consensus each of the stakeholders should buy into the idea with their own logical thought process that will guide them through the tasks ahead of them. In nature we can clearly see the difference between a swarm of locusts following blindly and leaving a trail of destruction, and a colony of ants with roles and responsibilities geared towards growth and sustainability. After all the emotion has evaporated and we are confronted with hard work, each of us must find inspiration in doing what is right for us. Leaders should demonstrate through example that each of us in the collective must assume full responsibility for our actions and be accountable for the results.

How do we measure progress?

One of the aspects where a lot of leaders fail is delivering on their vision. If we are serious about achieving the objectives set out in the vision then it is imperative that progress be measured. For example, how will we know when we have reduced poverty? Will it be while charity can distribute enough food or when the poor are capable of self sustenance? To ensure success, part of the implementation plan must include metrics and a way of identifying the reasons for deviations. There must be enough information available to identify where the resources are being used and how it compares to the plan. Also, other metrics such as the number of cases resolved per unit of currency gives an idea of the effectiveness of the policy.

Do we take full responsibility of the consequences or do we blame others? A characteristic of negative leadership is placing the blame on others for deviations in the plan. If there are any responsibilities that leaders have direct control of, it would be seeking information, making decisions and managing execution. In this sense I think leaders have an obligation to interpret the information correctly, understand the context and take action accordingly.

How does our vision contribute to leadership?

We can be so immersed in our hectic lives that we forget the reasons for dedicating so much time and energy to our daily activities. Having a vision gives us a purpose through objectives, that we can use to direct and prioritize our efforts. However, having a high-level vision is not enough. For example, most of us would like to eradicate poverty, but do we have the right plan to implement it? This is one of the steps where leaders fail to make the dream a reality.

Is the plan to take from the rich and give to the poor or is the plan to increase employment and productivity? When we define the plan it is important that we base it on realistic goals and sustainable resources. How do we motivate and mobilize the large numbers of stakeholders required to make the plan a reality? Sometimes the vision is launched in the hope that somehow people will figure out what to do. This is characteristic of leaders who think success depends entirely on them, and that it is enough to use rhetoric to enforce a vision. The truth is that great leaps in progress are achieved only when the hearts and minds of the collective are dedicated to achieving a vision.

What are our criteria for decision making?

Decision making is a competence that can differentiate a good leader, and where exercising self-control is critical for success. In particular, we can make sure that our needs and emotions do not interfere with the process of effective decision making. Do we base our decisions on whim or on true knowledge of the situations and the stakeholders involved? Our history is full of examples of wrong decisions at critical moments, such as refusing help after a catastrophe due to a difference of ideology with those offering aid. It seems that leaders do not take into account the context of the situation and the needs of the collective as much as they do their own criteria. Our response to difficult situations provides a good measure of the significance of using context. For example, there are certain decisions that should be taken immediately after a disaster and not after a personal assessment, such as sending specific resources that can assist those in dire need. This could save lives and make a difference by having help available 2 days after a disaster as opposed to a week later.

I think that effective decision making has a lot to do with being prepared. This means that there have to be mechanisms in place to collect information that can provide an understanding of the situations we are confronted with. Do we take the time to question what is really going on and finding the reasons behind the problems we are confronted with? Or are we blinded by our emotions such as fear and anger? It is best to make informed decisions that can target specific problems and focus resources on resolving them.

With ever increasing sources of data, decision making becomes more of a challenge if we are not prepared to process and interpret them correctly. Also, the data we receive does not necessarily give us a license to automate decisions. Sometimes bold assessments are made that can give the wrong impression of the situation. For example, it could be said that the poor have greater access to health and education because the number of clinics and schools have doubled. Yet when we look closer we could find they lack the resources required to carry out their functions. Leaders would do well to ensure that the decisions taken maximize the benefits of those that are affected.

What is my leadership style?

In difficult situations do we tend to be dictatorial or participative? Sometimes it is inevitable to impose a decision when the occasion requires it. However, when it becomes a habit the ability to comprehend and make informed decisions is greatly diminished. Do we like to have full and direct control over others or do we influence and motivate them? Leaders sometimes pursue the illusion of having control over other people in the belief that success depends only on them. For me, leadership has no purpose unless it gets the full support of its followers.

Do we promote leadership based on the cult or in the vision of true unity and tolerance? When leadership is centered on personality it loses credibility and support. In response, the strategies applied sometimes include restricting freedom and abusing laws in the name of an ideology. On the other hand, if leadership is based on respect and tolerance it can leverage the diversity of people and ideas that can make great things happen.

What do we do with those who do not share our vision? Do we exclude them because they follow different ideas, principles, values, laws, religions or beliefs? Sometimes leaders loose their way by focussing on demonizing those who do not follow blindly. A lot of effort is lost in the battles that ensue and in the divisions that are created. What is the purpose of this? To force everyone to submit to the same vision? For example, to eradicate poverty we will need everyone's participation and ideas, including from those we consider different and indifferent. In reality we have no control over the hearts and minds of other people and it is precisely in those places where we will find the driving force behind progress. By contrast, we would do well to exert control over ourselves, and yet this is where we least exercise it. In this sense, our leadership style should take into account the needs of the collective and be adapted to the situations we are confronted with.