Should Trust in Leaders and Leadership be Earned or Expected?

There can be no denying that definitions of leadership have and continue to vary tremendously . Despite the definitional differences, in the instances where leadership is mentioned when referring to organisations, governments or individuals, the definition is rarely clarified. Therefore, in order to discuss trust in leadership, it is important to clarify my understanding of leadership, its purpose and how it is distinct from leaders.

Leadership is a process. The process includes a leader and followers in a given situation who undergo a process. This process leads to an outcome which changes the situation in which that leader operates. Once a particular outcome has been obtained, and the situation changes, either the leader needs to adapt his/her leadership style in order to respond to the new situational needs or a new leader needs to emerge who is better able to respond to those new situational needs. The purpose of leadership is therefore to achieve a particular goal which was collectively decided upon. Leaders are just one component of that process. They are an integral component but one component nonetheless. Without followers, leaders cannot and will not exist. In addition, if the individual who is on top of a vertical hierarchy of authority is not able to respond to the situationally dependent needs of followers, technically, they are not exercising leadership. One of the benefits of recognising leadership as being a process, is that the system is able to recognise that a leader can emerge from any position within society or an organisation if the situation arises. It, therefore, increases the likelihood of innovation and fresh ideas and approaches being incorporated into otherwise rigid systems.

While formal leadership studies has, more often than not, been applied to organisations, understanding the leadership process in political systems is equally important. In order for a leader to remain credible, they are obliged to respond to the needs of their followers in a given situation. Distrust in leaders is a result of leaders being unable or unwilling to meet the needs of their followers and/or do not allow for the emergence of a more capable leader. Distrust in leadership results when followers no longer believe that the system through which leaders emerge is capable of providing them with competent and responsive leaders. There is, therefore, a complete breakdown in the leadership process.

One situation where this becomes particularly relevant is peace negotiations or the selection of leaders rather than the election of leaders. South Sudan is a prime example of the failure of the leadership process and a distrust in leadership. Simplifying the story quite substantially, without a countrywide discussion of the type of country/government the people wanted, leaders were selected during the peace process. However, those “leaders” (SalvaKiir and RiekMashar) did not meet the needs of the people of the country. Instead of building a nation through the leadership process, they were unable and/or unwilling to respond to the needs of citizens of South Sudan. As a result, fighting erupted once again in the capital of Juba in July 2016. The peace which has been ‘declared’ remains fragile and thousands of refugees continue to flock to neighbouring countries in search of safety.

Trust in leadership by followers needs to be earned by the leaders who have emerged to respond to a particular situation. If leaders are unable to respond to those needs, trust in that leader cannot be guaranteed and if the leadership process is unable to respond to the need for a new leader, trust from followers cannot be expected. Leadership is an interaction between leaders and followers and in order for trust to be ensured, that relationship needs to be respected from both the leader and the followers.

Photo Credit: See http://www.nairobibusinessmonthly.com/companies/leaders-and-followers/

What is leadership and how does it apply to peacebuilding in Africa?

Despite its frequent use, the meaning of leadership is rarely unpacked, especially when the term is applied to contexts outside that of business. Specifying the meaning of the term ‘leadership’ is even more important as there are almost as many definitions of the term as there have been people who have tried to define it. When looking at the relationship between leadership and peacebuilding it is important to recognise the importance of leaders and to acknowledge that leadership is a process which involves more than one individual. Leadership transcends institutions and should not be seen as merely building and strengthening institutions. Peacebuilding is a process of building a durable peace within society. It aims to address the root causes of conflict in an attempt to prevent recurrence.  In an era where peacebuilding has captured the attention of development organisations and international organisations, such as the United Nations (UN), it is important to consider the importance of leadership rather than solely looking at institution building. While it is important to recognise the importance of institution building, institutions are influenced by the actions of human beings. In a dynamic context where individuals and groups have the power to dismantle or weaken institutions, it is important to interrogate the role of leadership in trying to explain institutional inefficiency and the problem of looking solely at institutions.

To better understand the leadership phenomenon, it is important to explain its meaning. According to Keith Grint, leadership can be understood as a person (who the person is), position (the title of or position held by an individual), results (what the person does/achieves) or process (how results are achieved). Echoing Grint, Pierce and Newstrom describe leadership as a process. It involves a leader, followers operating within a particular context. This involves a process of both leading and following and therefore producing outcomes. By understanding leadership in this way, we can recognise the importance of context specificity and the significance of followers in the leadership dynamic. During this process, leaders affect change by influencing the attitudes and behaviours of followers within a particular context. If a leader is unable to do this, according to this definition, she/he is not a leader. Therefore, this is a huge departure from the way leadership has been conceptualised especially within a vertical hierarchy.  This is because individuals who top a vertical hierarchy are not necessarily leaders but may be managers or just figureheads.

Understanding this leadership process within peacebuilding is integral. This is because we have to recognise the individuals who are able to influence followers’ behaviours and attitudes to either build peace or derail attempts to achieve peace. By looking at leadership, organisations and institutions would better be able to incorporate more diverse groups of individuals into formal peacebuilding structure to help build and consolidate peacebuilding work. This view of leadership will also help us better understand that as contexts change and outcomes are reached, leaders either have to adapt to continue to influence followers or new leaders need to be identified or recognised as credible by the formal system. By recognising the fluidity of the leadership process, both the national and international community may better be able to respond to the dynamic nature of peacebuilding in Africa and therefore better serve communities which are in the process of building more peaceful societies. This approach might also better tackle the perpetual institutional weakening undertaken by governments and international organisations to ensure exploitation remains possible in many natural resource rich environments.

Leadership is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon and it needs to be unpacked clearly before its meaning can have any impact. It is essential to rethink how peacebuilding is being done in various contexts in an era where conflict relapse is so common. A leadership analysis is an important addition to current peacebuilding framework and might help the sustainability of peace across the globe.

Photo Credit: See http://voiceseducation.org/node/7683

 

 

The death or the birth of the state in Africa

Before weighing in on the current role of the state in Africa, there are three things which need to be clarified. First, statebuilding is an ongoing process which both the developed and developing world has and continue to go through in order to respond to the needs of citizens. Second, the systems and institutions governing the state system in the Global North, largely stem from the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Even though European states have had the over 300 years to create a functional and responsive system, conversations about the role and meaning of the state and the relations between states within that region remain ongoing. Thirdly, we cannot forget that, apart from Ethiopia, Egypt and Ethiopia, all African states are younger 60 years old.

The argument that the state is becoming less and less relevant in the era of globalisation and the growing importance of both regional, continental and international bodies which in essence exist above the state, is important. In addition to the, seeming, diminishing relevance of the state, there are numerous states which have stopped responding to the needs of citizens. Rather, the state has become a means to protect the political and financial interests of the elite within society. By doing so, the physical and human security needs of citizens remain elusive. Therefore, do citizens even need the state and state structures when they act as their own governments by providing all basic services to themselves without any state support? This question becomes even more pertinent in an era where violent extremism is on the rise and groups are gaining legitimacy as service and security providers in communities where the state has willingly or unwillingly been absent.

Despite the glum picture which has already been painted about state inefficiencies, an argument can be made that the security challenges facing the developing world, especially Africa, are the growing pains of infant states. These violent and non-violent citizen revolts can be seen as forced conversations between the state and its citizens about what the state should look like, who should govern, what the values of that state should be and the position of the citizen within that state. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on what side of the debate you fall, the current global governing system does not allow these conversations to take place, which could explain the numerous instances of conflict relapse after regional or international conflict intervention. The international community also seems to conveniently forget the violent state and nation building processes which culminated in both WW1 and WW2, to name only the two most recent wars which engulfed the entire region.

By forwarding the possibility that the violent conflict which is so prevalent in Africa is part of the statebuilding process, I do not at all negate the dire consequences of conflicts to the lives of citizens and state infrastructure. Rather, I think it is important to recognise that conversations between states and citizens have to take place in order to determine the living arrangements of people living within or across borders. Additionally, if the state and international community are not willing to listen to citizens’ grievances when they are aired peacefully, violence and conflict may soon follow.