Leadership being redefined

The quality of human capital of any society or a nation is dependent upon the quality of leadership. Followers are true representative of leadership; conversely, the quality of leadership of any nation or organisation is a reflection of who and what types of individuals constitute the band of followers.

From mature and sensible leadership to whimsical leadership; from muted responses to loud rhetoric and from modesty to arrogance the concept of leadership is undergoing a complete reconstruction; in fact a phenomenal metamorphosis of change.

Since leadership is highly romanticized in view of the perception of power associated with it that all followers vie to be leaders in the shortest possible time, and hence end up being bad followers. We are ourselves a case in point. Until a decade or more by few years, leadership was associated with the ability of one who spots, recognises, and has within himself/herself a sharpened emotion of knowing what type of followership would be desirable or required for achievement of strategies and goals. Leaders were never those who couldn’t obey themselves or the command. Leadership must be served through visible subservience.

Leadership was until recently all about nicety and grace. Most baby-boomers who acquired leadership positions were paragons of grace, albeit may not have been absolutely virtuous too; but whatever they did in terms of moral or financial impropriety was conducted discreetly. If and when such lapses were discovered they would with modesty and grace, make public admission and walk away into political oblivion. The generations that followed are setting entirely new standards of leadership traits and behaviour. They blatantly flout principles. In doing so, they aren’t shy. No wrong is seen in trumpeting less than good behaviour.

Any moral or financial turpitude is not viewed by them with any regret or remorse. Being labelled as corrupt is a badge of honour. Even if it was said in lighter vein about those whose name didn’t appear in the Panama Leaks as being those who had no position of respect or authority in society; the joke is actually representative of the mind-set of society.

There are many episodes of disclosure, proven and unproven, that gain fame and far-reaching currency, but each of them has been swept under the carpet of forgotten misdeeds; the Panama Leaks is just one such example. And as regards the Epstein files, the world had to be brought on the brink of a nuclear assisted Third World War to stop its reverberations in several Capital cities. The complicity of those named and those who assisted in all the humanity demeaning acts and morally absurd behaviour had to be protected. The Epstein files are on the way to be lodged into the limbo of forgotten political lapses, involving moral impropriety.

While in the third standard one wintry morning, we were dismayed and horrified to be told by the Rector about the horrible assassination of J.F. Kennedy, who represented leadership in its truest and finest formats, notwithstanding the domineering presence of Marilyn Monroe at the White House. Even the escapades of both John and Robert Kennedy weren’t flaunted or discussed in full public view. Indeed the standards of media were also different then, unlike today, when cameras are rolled into private chambers for getting a cheap journalistic scoop. The decline in values is widespread and not restricted merely to leadership. It runs deep.

Without stepping outside the Sub- continent, we can look at the lives of so many leaders, who led a simple life, and were possessed of all noble traits that a leader is expected to possess. Robin Hood was a leader too, of his band of merry men, but he was just; he robbed Peter to take care of Paul, and not to fill the treasure chest of Marian or her children. They had some code of ethics too. The current leadership doesn’t even have a Robin Hood as their ideal, let alone have before them the simplicity of Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Khawaja Nazimuddin, Shuharwardy and so many more of them.

Many leaders, particularly of the corporate sector, are referred to in admiration as being “street smart”; my take on this coinage is never be surprised if the street smart manager speaks or adopts street language at the workplace, while dealing with colleagues/followers.

Khrushchev thumping his boot on the rostrum of the United Nations, General Assembly, was seen as an act of a maverick politician, who was known for his erratic behaviour. Richard Nixon in his book recounts that as Vice president when he visited Moscow Khrushchev invited him to his Dacha and offered to cook a meal himself. In the kitchen, whilst cooking, Khrushchev would narrate a joke and then laughingly would punch him (Nixon) hard in the tummy; a few punches he ignored, but later he narrated something and punched Khrushchev back real hard – the message was delivered. Khrushchev amended his behaviour.

Leaders have to take full responsibility for all engagements. A leader is not expected to state, ‘if talks fail, you will be responsible’ but, “if they are successful, it will be my crowning moment of glory”! In the current day and environment the lack of clarity of objectives; the domineering uncertainty while taking decisions and a general lack of commitment appear to be more dominant feature of leadership, although leaders have to prove to the contrary.

Trust is the bedrock of all relationships; so it is true between a leader and a follower. Regrettably, trust is on widespread decline both ways – neither the followers trust nor does the leader. The deficit is only increasing.

In view of the growing gulf of mistrust, the engagement between the led and the leader is of a poor quality; this leads to not giving full attention to each other. Leaders have to value their teams and only then does the follower offer his/her dedicated commitment; lack of application of empathy causes major shifts (negative, largely) in engagement, encouragement and empowerment.

Political leaders today lecture on virtues of morality that would convert men into saints/angels but what they show in their everyday behaviour and demeanour are the manners of the devil. Speaking about a co-parliamentarian, Benjamin Disraeli had remarked, “he has to learn that petulance is not sarcasm, and that insolence is not invective”. The smallest of mind uses words of abuse; today from the mouth of the politicians ‘comes the acid.’

Unfortunately, those who demonstrate pride usually have no reason to be filled with pride; it is only a mark of one’s own faults. A proud leader places himself aloof and distant from followers; and from such a distance they (followers) look small; what pride makes the leader to ignore and forget is that this very distance causes him to appear a Lilliput equally to the followers. (This theme is borrowed but restated). Changes in the concept of leadership are daunting.

I do wonder how a twenty- year-old in the year 2047 would look at honesty and uprightness of Mr. Jinnah, both as a lawyer and politician. Will they remain in awe of him and continue to respect his ideals or will it be a different story of ‘he had a chance to make big money but he lacked courage’? God forbid, but the possibility of such thought penetrating then cannot be over-ruled. This must be seen against what we have today. Is there any remorse that is expressed or is visible on the part of those who are labelled as ‘corrupt’ in all its various formats, dimensions and manifestations? None. Money and not morals dictate the process to acquire the mantle of leadership.

If William Shakespeare, circa 600 or less years ago had said, “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown”, today, gleefully, I would reword his thought and assertion as “easy lies the head that wears the crown” (and those who are devoid of money shall have no place to lie their heads in peace, their lives would be miserable). The thought process stands altered.

The many desired qualities in a leader include traits like character (honesty and integrity), visionary, willingness to learn, open and accountability, problem-solver, effective in relationship management and, above all, be a good follower, too. Alas! It is difficult to find one today who fits the bill. Those who are honest are miserably incompetent and those who are dishonest are fabulously competent. A dilemma. Principles and values are up for negotiability; the flexibility to amend them for ignoble purposes is blessed with unbreakable elasticity.

The metamorphosis of change in the concept of leadership is that soft communications have given way to loud pronouncements. Modesty and silence are confused by vociferous communications, reflecting fulsome arrogance. Soft attitude stands replaced with harsh content; cruelty takes precedence over kindness; humility with pompous stance; polite demeanour with aggression; choice of words from respectful to vulgar and swearing words or graphic expletives. The forbidden four-letter word is used impetuously by Presidents; no regrets at all. Nobility and morality have vacated in abdication to give space to ignobility and amorality. Leadership, like many other lofty concepts, is being shredded to pieces. Bullies are leaders of tomorrow.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026