A very concerning statement I frequently hear or read about in South Africa relates to how good the people of South Africa are. This statement is commonly made in reference to the way South Africans dealt with the daunting challenges they faced when their society changed from being the monster it was prior to 1994, to the near-miracle it is today.
I regard the statement as concerning because too often, when this statement is made, praise is heaped indiscriminately upon South Africa as a country, without appropriate mention being made of the exceptional leadership and management skills we had at the time. I daresay that our miracle would have been impossible even to imagine without the great leadership we had at the right time.
I believe the people of South Africa are very good people. I agree they demonstrated this very eloquently with the incredible sacrifices they made to ensure the success of their country`s process of political transformation. The process, as we all know, was peaceful beyond the imaginations of even the wisest among us. But my knowledge and experience tell me that the human race itself is not a bad race. In other words, South Africa does not really have better citizens than any other country in the world. What South Africa had, in its hour of need, which many other countries often have to do without, was quality leadership.
My concern therefore is that the failure on the part of many people, both within and outside of South Africa, to appreciate the crucial part played by the quality leadership the country had when dealing with its political morass may result in many institutions in South Africa being unable to find the right leadership to take them into the future. The outstanding leadership provided by Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk, two former presidents of South Africa, in helping to avert the certain precipice the country was headed for must be understood in its proper context and be afforded the honour it deserves.
In my view, the reluctance to adequately appreciate the crucial roles played by De Klerk and Mandela in transforming South Africa is tantamount to saying Germany would have the same history without Adolf Hitler. Or nearer home, South Africa would have had the same experiences without the high priest of apartheid, namely Hendrik Verwoerd. Of course both these statements are incorrect.
Leadership plays a very significant role in determining the fortunes, or the misfortunes as in the cases of Hitler and Verwoerd, of nations. And the tendency to underplay its significance is completely wrong and misguided. It is wrong to not only because it denies leaders credit, or blame, that is due to them. It is wrong because, which I think is more important, it deprives the rest of us lesser mortals the valuable understanding and learning we need in terms of the functioning of the concept and practice of leadership.
The myriad of conflict-ridden relationships in our society today, which no doubt stand in the way of the country`s socio-economic development, require the same quality of leadership that helped South Africa put is political house in order. In economic terms, South Africa stands today exactly at the same point or stage where it stood politically when Mandela and De Klerk stepped in with their exceptional leadership skills.
Sadly, the deep divisions created by some of the policies used to govern this country in the past, which were misguided at best and murderous at worst, have ensured that no trust exists between the various sections. People in various sectors see others as their enemies rather than fellow-contributors to the success of their society. The situation requires leaders who are able to move outside of the narrow confines of their traditional constituencies and embrace what is best for their country. People in leadership positions are called upon to emulate the exemplary courage of De Klerk. They must put the country on a path to economic redemption. It is a very disturbing issue for South Africa that so many of the people in charge of powerful institutions are managers and not leaders.
They are technically competent people who command the skills and expertise to fulfil their functions within the narrow confines and parameters of their jobs. But they do not seem to possess the vision, courage and commitment to seek out and embrace the new economic models so desperately needed by our society. Many of them spend copious amounts of resources addressing peripheral issues, falsely hoping that the real issues will evaporate. And some of them are simply self-serving individuals who have neither the talent nor the interest to help their companies cease the opportunity to deal with the dilemma they face.
But the great risks taken by De Klerk could not have meant much for the country if they were not reciprocated by Mandela with his extraordinary capacity to embrace risk and uncertainty. So ordinary people as well must play their part by taking a leaf out of Nelson Mandela`s book. Ordinary people or citizens in their various formations must demonstrate a capacity to rise above pettiness and meet management or leadership pound for pound in the search for economic unity and prosperity in South Africa.
Leadership, at times, dithers about change because it is afraid change will create problems that will cause companies to lose revenue or value. My conviction, after many years of trying to make sense of leadership issues, is that organisations lose much more value from members who are on a permanent go-slow, and believe me many people in our society are, because of hostile operating environments resulting from poor leaedership than from any other cause imaginable. It is true that transformation will cause some real pains as the environment undergoes change. But transformation is the sole insurance against the disaster that will befall our country if ordinary citizens are allowed to lose complete confidence in the change process.
South Africa`s economic rebirth can only be made possible by a new breed of leaders who possess the vision and character to vacate comfortable positions in order to make a clean break with the ignominies of the past. Risks must be taken to rectify, once and for all, the anomalies in our society through transparent and fair processes of leadership.
The people of South Africa demonstrated very emphatically their resilience and commitment to finding lasting solutions to their country`s problems by standing firmly behind their leaders during the painful process of political transition. But without visionary and courageous leadership to take advantage of the opportunity for economic reconstruction, this great potential will go to the dogs. Our leaders in the economic domain and society in general can never say they were not warned.
Once again, I say the leadership abilities of Mandela and De Klerk must be accorded respect not merely to offer them the glory they deserve. A much more important reason to offer this respect is to encourage other leaders to step forward and offer the country what they can offer in these times of need. I have absolutely no qualms with the roles played by the populace as well as the bridesmaids or lieutenants. And I am not in denial about them or their significance. The point I make here is that it takes tons of leadership capacity to mobilise, channel and sustain the energy and loyalty of people, especially when pursuing uncertain causes. And people who can do that are in serious short supply in our society. So we need to do everything in our power to promote what Mandela and De Klerk did.
Leadership is a temporary event or commodity and we will always have arguments about who played a more important role than whom. What we need to understand is that ordinary people associate organisations with people who lead them. They come into and stay in organisations because they see sense in trusting the abilities of a particular leader. They do not only listen to the mantra of their organisations` founding documents. Mandela and De Klerk rose to the occasion as chief protagonists and power brokers of competence when the country called. They must be appropriately celebrated and their legacy promoted for the sake of learning and progress for our country.
I am aware that south Africa as a society has a long history of denialism and plain dishonesty when it comes to conferring credit due to people. But the case of Mandela and De Klerk is as straightforward as the case of Josef Blatter. Josef Blatter gave Africa its first FIFA World Cup and decided that Madiba was the most appropriate mortal to be honoured with it on the African continent. As I said, leadership is in many cases a temporary intervention to negotiate a particular difficulty. Josef Blatter worked tirelessly and risked plenty to give South Africa and Africa the 2010 FIFA World Cup motivated by, among others, the great sacrifices and consistency of the Madiba Brand.
South Africa is currently in desperate need of leaders of exceptional ability to help the country deal with its socio-economic challenges. The populace will certainly form part of the cast, and will certainly share in the spoils. But the show will neither start nor go on without the main characters. We need courageous leaders at this point in our history not only to initiate change but also to take charge of it as it happens so that it does not spin out of control. The first step in grooming the leaders of tomorrow is to appropriately honour those of yesterday and today.
Gibson Sakong
Executive Chairman – Montshepetja Academy
3 Comments until now.
“Quoting great leaders”
I truly respect and acknowledge the role played by our great leaders in our and the significant change they have installed in our country. Nevertheless it’s high time we stop dwelling in the past but focus on grooming better leaders which by all means will have the same impact that our former leaders had in this country.
Secondly I would like to comment on one of your statements;
“Leadership is a temporary event or commodity and we will always have arguments about who played a more important role than whom”
I believe that leadership it’s not a temporary commodity because they are leaders who are in not leadership anymore but they are still making the impact they possessed while in leadership. Leadership it’s something engraved in us but being a leader it acquires skills to possess your leadership abilities.
I think your quote may be applicable to today leaders especially our political leaders because they are people who are power hungry. In the end of the day we may say leadership it’s a temporary event or commodity because of people who are need training and relevant resources which will make them leaders not power hungry human beings.
AS WE LOOK AT THE SIGNIFICANMCE AND DEFINITION OF OUR DEBATED QUOTE “LEADERSHIP IS A TEMPORARY EVENT OR COMMODITY…” WE WILL HAVE TO FIRST UNDERSTAND OUR GROUND OF DEBATE.
LEADERSHIP IS ONE OF THE SOCIAL ROLES WHICH ARE USUALLY OCCUPIED BY PEOPLE FROM WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY THEY LEAD AND THEIR AIM IS TO LEAD SOCIETIES AND COMMUNITIES TO MUCH GREATER AND GREENER PASTURES. HOWEVER, WE AS MANKIND HAVE ATTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP TO BEING IN A HIGH POSITION.
WITH THAT IN MIND, WE CAN NOW LOOK AT WHERE AND HOW IT COMES TO THE QUOTE ABOVE.
MANKIND IS MORTAL AND WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, WE DO COME TO AND END,BUT SOMETHING OF OURS ALWAYS REMAINS BEHIND, HOW WE WERE AND STILL ARE PERCEIVED BASED ON OUR DOINGS AND MARKS WE MADE. LOOKING AT BOTH NELSON MANDELA AND F.W. DE KLERK, F.W. DE KLERK TOOK A GREAT AND SUCCESSFUL LEAP OF FAITH AND BROUGHT THE COUNTRY TO A NEW STATE AND BEING. ON THE OTHER HAND, NELSON MAN DELA WAS IMPROSINED FOR 27 YEARS AND HE WAS A FREEDOM FIGHTER, HE DEFIED THE ODDS AND ENDED UP SERVING TIME ON OUR FREEDOMS BEHALF AND OUR BEHALF. MANDELAS DOINGS WERE MORE HEROIC AND SELFLESS AS COMPARED TO THOSE OF F.W. DE KLERK (NO OFFENCE, HARSH REALITY)AND TODAY IF YOU ARE ASKED TO MENTION GREAT LEADERS IN THE WAR AGAINST APARTYHEID, WE SAY WALTER SISULU, STEVE BIKO, ROBERT SOBUKWE, HELEN JOSEPHS AND JOE SLOVO, NEVER WILL YOU HEAR F.W. DE KLERK, WHICH IS FAULTY.
HOWEVER, IT IS MERELY A MATTER OF WHO DID A BETTER JOB THAN WHO AS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE BY THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER. AS FOR F.W. DE KLERK, HIS KIND IN RACE AND CONDUCT, THOUGH HE PROVED TO BE DIFFERENT, HAD AN IMPACT ON HOW WE PERCEIVE HIM IN THE MATTER OF DEMOCRACY HEROES.
SECONDLY, AND LASTLY, WE AHVE SO MANY PEOPLE, BOTH COMPETENT AND INCOMPETENT, IN HIGH POSITIONS, WE AS SOCIETY REFER TO THEM AS LEADERS OR OUR LEADERS AS USUALLY STATED. WHEN LOOKING AT PEOPLE LIKE THAT, IT MUST COME TO MIND WE MEAN THEY LEAD IN THE LADDER OF HIERARCHY. THE MINUTE THOSE PEOPLE LEAVE OR EVACUATE THE RANK OR POSITION, WE GIVE LEARSHIP CREDENTIALS TO THOSE REPLACING OR SUCCEEDING THEM. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS HOW SOCIETY TREATS LEADERSHIP AS A TEMPORARY EVENT OR COMMODITY.
AS I CONCLUDE, THE REASON WHY LEADERSHIP IS REGARDED AS A TEMPORARY EVENT OR COMMODITY, IS BECAUSE WHAT IS PERMANENT IS THE MARK THAT YOU MAKE. AT ALL COSTS, INDELIBLE MARKS SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN FOR THEIR IMPRINTS ARE TANGIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE, OVER AND ABOVE ALL, THEY TEND TO DEFINE OUR BEING AND DIRECTION.
True, Eric that indelible marks out-live their maker. Tread softly and the wind shall blow away your footprints with the greatest of ease.
In a demorcracratic society every leader is given a definite period to rule/lead. Thus, this symbolises the temporary nature of leadership in the sence of a democratic society. During such a limited period, it is expected that a leader should/must show all that he is capable of doing for the people that he is leading. I believe that the the subject of who has done a better job as compared to whom, arises only after that definite tenure comes to an end.
Further, I also believe that the very temporary character of leadership is what makes great leaders. See Mugabe and his cronies who never reconsiled this truth of the very nature of leadership and their desires. The idea is to come, make a difference/contribute and leave!
Comment!