Libre Magazine

How do we measure quality of leadership: through success or ability?

Most generally success. However, that does not mean there was only one Einstein or Newton. There must have been many, but the appropriate channelisation, opportunities, luck, results and fame were only achieved by the named few, similarly for leaders. For instance, the idea of an internet based world was envisioned by a Belgium Scientist in a different context, far before the computer was invented. But he was later killed by the Nazi’s and the idea and his subsequent fame blew in thin air.

Would Imran khan have a different fate than Inzamam-ul-haq, if Pakistan hadn’t won the 1992 cricket world cup, or would have kicked out in the early stages, without the associated luck? However, such arguments date-back to the discourse of the importance and value between invention and innovation or potential and result.

Hence, should it be success or ability?

Is leadership a stagnant concept or an evolving one?

Just like institutions need to evolve to sustain and maintain continuous levels of progress and achievement, so do human leaders. The action that would lead to positive leadership results in 1946-48, would certainly not replicate to 2006-8 in Pakistan, given the differing surroundings. Hence, it is success not merely action, and the prescription for success is a relative concept based on context.

The institutional policies which led to high growth rates in Europe post World War II above and beyond the US level, had to evolve towards the last decade of the 20th Century to continue to maintain the edge above the US. Evidence shows that the failure of such resulted in the lower growth rates in EU relative to the US, between the period 1995-2000, regardless of high savings rates, investment in human capital and other factors particularly noted for growth. Hence, just like institutions and actions, leadership attributes and focus needs to evolve with time and space. In other words, leadership is a lifestyle rather than a prescription or remedy (tot-ka).

Can a high quality leader under one circumstance, be placed into another circumstance or situation, and achieve results of high quality leadership instantaneously?

Rarely ever, since context and environment specific understanding and ability to work with the system is vital: which needs time, openness and a learning environment. To quote a domestic example, Pakistan International Airline is a case study on interest.

Is leadership quality a subjective or objective reality?

Subjective: Churchill was not acclaimed in great spirits during the initial stages of his premiership, but perceptions certainly changed during the latter half of his life. In conclusion it wasn’t him who changed, but the conditions around him which changed and marked the transition in perception.

Further, since our comparisons of the notion of leadership quality is based on leadership success- superficial or real? Even the best of us can fail? Therefore, education, experience, and pre-success are only proxies, are they even good ones? However, training and homework is vital, as we live in the world of probabilities and we need to reduce risk to a minimum. Therefore, although necessary these are not sufficient conditions to ensure positive results.

What constitutes high quality leadership?

On an abstract level: open mindedness to reality and surrounding, continuous learning and knowledge (education in the academia can be a humanly devised proxy- but not necessarily a guaranteeing devise), and most importantly the willingness to THINK! ..thinking does not translate into pure philosophy or a one-time game but in terms of action and a lifestyle! ..with its due share of luck.

Doctrination of thought, practice and surrounding coupled with the on-going pursuit of the first best mindset are not the traits an individual should wish to have, if wanting to achieve the success of high quality leadership, as mostly everything in this world is relative based on context.
A balance between effective soft and hard skills, in a context specific enviroment is vital. The ability to inspire, en-vision, communicate, strategize, maximize team potential, take timely decisions, own-up and so-forth are also vital. However, in the available space I cannot do justice to the wholesome theory of leadership skills.

I’m told, a good reference book on leadership theory is:The Powers to Lead by Joseph Nye

*My note is based on specifying the complexity of the reality, trying to work and expand through leadership theory unfolding the different possibilities of outcome attainable, with a degree of paradox between our hindsight and result.