Mandela and leadership: Leading from the deck & leading from behind

One of the greatest leadership lessons from Nelson Mandela is that you can lead from the front or the back; and that the dynamic leader frequently alternates between the two.

At times the leader steps boldly to the front, setting the pace and spearheading decisions on critical and urgent issues facing the organisation. At other times, the leader opts for a more recessed position, providing a framework or an anchor that gives strength in the midst of turbulence.

During his long journey of social and political commitment, Nelson Mandela at times led as the captain on the deck, so to speak. At other times his leadership role was a background role, much more in line with the notion of a leader-filled society. Nelson Mandela's leadership style, and the approaches within that, has much to teach us. Here is a schematic view of how he alternated between the two leadership approaches:

Relevant period or initiative	Leadership approach
Defiance Campaign	Leading from the front
Rivonia Trial	Leading from the front
Internment on Robben Island & the period of armed struggle	Leading from behind
Negotiations	Leading from the front
Constitutional negotiations	Leading from behind
New democracy: Reconciliation	Leading from the front
New democracy: delivery and redress	Leading from behind
Eschewing a second term (as president of S.A.)	Leading from behind
Decision to retire (from active public role)	Leading from behind

During the Defiance Campaign, Nelson Mandela occupied the decidedly upfront role of Volunteer in Chief.

At the Rivonia trial, Mandela led from the front. Faced with the possibility of a death sentence in the context of a hostile courtroom and an unfavourable legal system, the trialists took a courageous and firm stand, based on a belief in justice. Nelson Mandela played the central role in forging that stand – cementing his reputation as a forceful leader in the face of adversity and a fearless campaigner for justice. In his speech from the dock (in 1964) he famously said that the ideal of a democratic society was one for which he was “…. prepared to die”.

Later while in prison serving a life sentence, Mandela appeared to understand that the leadership of others would be foregrounded. Oliver Tambo and Joe Slovo, for example, took up central leadership roles and Mandela regularly deferred to them on many questions facing the organisation. In prison, Mandela advised the other ANC leaders that they were inmates who should view themselves as political prisoners rather than leaders. This meant accepting the limitations on the role they could play – and also, critically, embracing the reality that political prisoners could not and should not engage in negotiations. Of course Mandela remained a leader and a symbolic force, but in the armed struggle context, he was not central (in the same way as before) in the day to day life of the movement.

Emerging from prison into the pre-democracy negotiations, he again stepped into the forefront, leading from the front. In the negotiations, and the period immediately thereafter, he was at the cutting edge.

Mandela very early on began to step aside from part of his presidential roles to allow Mbeki to become prominent. He skilfully prepared the public and the world for the reality of a democratic South Africa led by someone other than himself.

As leaders such as Mandela have shown, through leading from a position within the ranks, the leader can work more intensively and purposefully on the ethos, on general practice and on values. He or she can deepen the contribution to these aspects, in many cases a process begun but sometimes not consolidated when a leader is totally absorbed in the cut and thrust. From the rear vantage point, the leader has the space to elaborate certain ideas and to think about how he or she might institutionalise values. From that background position, he or she can provide the grounding and depth that nutures leadership and builds astuteness at all levels, thus promoting organisational sustainability.

In practice, leading from behind does not necessarily mean a leader has more time at their disposal, opts for a less intensive role or is retreating from responsibilities. The pressures and demands on time may be as great. However, because the leader that operates from the background is somewhat removed from the more reactive space, she has room to apply herself to broader questions – and to prioritise what is important (but perhaps less urgent) over crises and immediate pressures.

As Linda Hill has pointed out, Nelson Mandela has explicitly endorsed leading from behind and has done so through drawing parallels with how the shepherd handles the sheep in his care. In his autobiography, Mandela noted that the shepherd “stays behind the flock” steering them from behind. In this piece, I continue my theme of leadership lessons from the great man; I show how Mandela has used this leadership mode in conjunction with the more conventional “leading from the front,” depending on the requirements of particular situations.

Give me hope Obama: comparing the leadership of Obama and Mandela

Can Obama's leadership be compared to that of Mandela? Well, it has - and there seems to be merit in reviewing the former's achievements and standing in the world through a comparison with Nelson Mandela, the esteemed former liberation fighter and South African ex-president.

This blog piece (comparing Obama as a leader with Madiba) was sparked by a cellphone text message I received on the day of Obama's election. A friend advised me that Obama was "the new Mandela".
At first I thought any such comparison - comparing Mandela's leadership style as well as his leadership prowess - was far fetched, something to be discussed in jest or a notion that relied far too much on the colour similarities of the protagonists.

I thought: how can we compare the two? Although we rave at his electoral achievements and applaud his immense potential to effect global change, Obama’s leadership capabilities have not yet been deployed and tested to the hilt. Given my location on Africa’s tip, I at least am not aware of major leadership exploits on his part outside of presidential campaigning. Obama's leadership abilities are similarly not yet known to the many who revere him around the world.

Mandela on the hand has led solidly, with integrity and in a principled manner over a substantial period of time; he has been the dignified and powerful focal point of a historically significant process of change. He has done the time – laying down tracks and pathways that facilitate hope and progressive change in the present and all the way into the future.

His leadership style and greatness has also been forged in the fires of racist repression and enormous personal sacrifice, with himself enduring jail for 27 years. How can Obama be measured against the greatness of Mandela, one may well ask.

But, on further reflection, I realise that a review of their respective leadership approaches can be useful. Though not always a fair and meaningful exercise - and in many ways a discussion of each one's leadership style in relation to the other rather than a comparison of two people – such an exercise can be used to trigger debate and deeper thinking on leadership.

It is worth discussing two interesting views that I have come across in recent months.

According to another close friend, Obama's main appeal – and here similarities with the Mandela phenomenon are very strong – is that he is a peddler of hope. Millions of people in the world project their hopes onto him. In this friend's view, it matters less what Obama is and what he is able to do. What matters is that people who see and hear him have their hopes rekindled and their faith in the future restored. Just as it happened with Mandela, Obama emerges as a leader against a backdrop of worldwide pessimism, worry and fears about the future; at a time when millions wonder whether a better world will be achieved, if armed conflict can be reduced, poverty eradicated and major environmental challenges overcome. Untold millions across the globe are desperate for leadership and a powerful message that can propel us into joint action against the threats we face.

This view – that Obama appeal is linked to the state of the world and to a widespread yearning for a politics of hope – correlates with the view that leaders are (largely) products of their context, and that great leaders often emerge in times of great adversity and uncertainty. In such situations, a leader with a bold vision and a clear message can become larger than life.

Another comment to consider is one made by persons such as Fons van der Velden and Harry Boyle (the latter an academic involved with the Obama campaign). Their view is that Obama's leadership style is distinctive in that he constantly affirms the 'agency' of ordinary people and explicitly eschews the notion of the leader as saviour. (Clearly this view is to some extent in tension with Obama fever in which he as leader is seen as the embodiment of hope). Their view is supported by the narrative that Obama spins. His famous chant is 'Yes we can' rather than 'Yes I can'. At his post-victory speech he announced: "I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you (meaning the volunteers, organisers and active supporters)". Van der Velden and Boyle see Obama's mode of operation as a reflection of what they term citizen-driven democracy, where the knowledge of experts and the leader's hunches never take precedence over the importance of ensuring citizens have the space to express themselves, make choices and take action.
In comparing Mandela and Obama (as I do below) I see important similarities. Both fare exceedingly well (or so far seems to, in the case of Obama) in terms of core leadership capabilities: framing reality, offering vision, communicating vision, strategic direction, integrity, enthusing people, enrolling others, building teams, developing leaders, guiding action, organisation-building, managing change, building bridges, dealing with setbacks, etc.

But I also see differences. Differences arise from differences in their personal attributes, in their backgrounds, in the challenges they face(d) and in the contexts from which they emerge. Although both operate(d) in the global domain, they address(ed) the world from different platforms and particular vantage points. These differences ensure variation in the patterns of their leadership style – desite great similarity in the underlying fibres, patterns and colour of the raw material. I consider aspects of their leadership profiles below:

Obama	Mandela
Shaped by specific historical circumstances	Shaped by specific historical circumstances
Beat the odds: it was unlikely that a black person would be president of the United States.	Beat the odds: unlikely that he would be president in his lifetime.
Personally articulates specific policy solutions	Backed by strong party on major policy questions. Less 'hands-on' - greater contribution in the area of vision and high-level objectives.
Bridging leader – brought people together against backdrop of deep-set divides	Bridging leader – brought people together against backdrop of deep-set divides
Through moral leadership and expression of powerful vision, communicates an appeal that extends far beyond the party support base	Through moral leadership and expression of powerful vision, communicates an appeal that extends far beyond the party support base
Ardent democrat &, explicitly, a stalwart of participatory democracy	Ardent democrat
Position on imperialism unclear – wants to 'rebuild' the greatness of the US 'block by block' an ensure the US's beacon burns bright	Anti-imperialist
(Main focus: to restore pride in the US and to 'reclaim' the American dream)	Clear vision to change Africa's position in the world
A source of inspiration and hope; advances the 'politics of possibility' which asserts that change is always possible	A source of inspiration and hope; advanced the 'politics of possibility' which asserts that change is possible
Massive global expectations to use US leadership to being positive change in the world on economic, social and environmental fronts	Expectations that he would help shift global power relations and positively change the position of African and developing countries in world affairs
Realistic about what he can do as a leader. Eschews the role of 'saviour' and rejects being cast as a superior being raised into power by The Divine. Has stated: "There will be setbacks and false starts … (b)ut I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face."	Realistic about what he alone as leader can accomplish. Eschews the role of 'saviour' and rejects being cast as a superior being raised into power by The Divine. Strove to constantly acknowledge the contribution of others, despite the blind adulation of 'groupies' and past blunders in this regard by bodies such as the Nelson Mandela Foundation. Humble enough to voluntarily step down as South Africa's president after his first term in office
Listens to people; develops campaign strategy and party processes in a manner that facilitates and enables listening to 'the people'	Listens to people
Engages ordinary people and constantly advises them on relatively specific and active roles in bringing about change	Engages powerfully with ordinary people

What is your view? Do you agree that Obama is, as it were, the younger version of Mandela (as my friend informed me in his cellphone text message)? Or do you share my view that there are important similarities but that these men not only operate(d) in different contexts, but their contributions to the world differ in important ways according to the respective challenges each faced? Please share your view.

Leadership lessons: finding meaning in the regional crises

There are major leadership issues in Southern Africa. This is exemplified in events in Zimbabwe, at Eskom and the recent positions taken by SADC on the Zimbabwean crisis. All these flashpoints illustrate that when leaders and leadership fail, the public gets the short end of the stick (and endure additional and unnecessary pressure, burdens and suffering).

In Zimbabwe, the main political leaders have taken advantage of the population for many years; at the same time, these leaders in the ruling party have managed to get vast numbers of Zimbabweans to continue to vote for them in successive elections. At present, the ruling party, Zanu-PF, with its controlling tentacles in all state institutions, has stifled release of election results and has for many weeks blocked the ascension of a new government into power. In the April elections, Zimbabweans have at last exercised their vote to remove Zanu-PF from office; however, ordinary Zimbabweans, by and large, still shy away from using non-violent means to restore proper functioning of democratic institutions and an to end to repression.

At Eskom, with electricity blackouts arising from a lack of planning and poor strategic management, the leadership has failed to assume responsibility in any substantial sense. The Eskom debacle raises the following: Are institutions accountable to anyone; do they subscribe to any sense of minimum performance requirements for such a strategic entity; do they subscribe to a formerly adopted notion of leadership? If they were and did, how can the organization simply concede failure without any actions – a suspension, a firing, a withholding of bonuses or (at the most limpwristed) a pro forma rebuke of a person or committee – to indicate that the parastatal subscribes to high leadership standards.

The SADC fails to take bold leadership action when a more courageous position is required in the interests of regional justice and regional stability. It would appear a kind of “club” loyalty, and sometimes a historical solidarity between heads of state, takes precedence. Certainly, we can see that regional leaders and heads of state would want to be polite and “chommie-chommie” with each other, but should they protect each other at all costs? Should they avoid speaking up during a regional crisis or in the face of a member state’s systematic viciousness against its citizens? The people of the region have expectations of SADC. These expectations will never be fulfilled if the SADC does not see itself as a body that must provide bold leadership, if it does not set membership ground rules and if the collective does not require that members be in good standing in terms of such rules.

When leaders go off the rails, especially national leaders, it is often not just leaders that are failing; in many cases it is in fact a failure of the entire leadership system.

In situations of such failure - depending on how followers react - a big question mark often hangs over followers. A good leadership culture requires followers that are active, on their toes and alert about what they are entitled to. Whether we like it or not, we as followers get the quality of leadership we deserve/ are prepared to work for/ are prepared to struggle for. We get the leadership systems that we are prepared to build and sustain. A failure of leadership may also suggest that an erosion of leadership and of leadership culture in political parties and other influential organizations. In such formations, systems of accountability and succession planning may not be functioning properly and are most likely not working to replace moribund leaders who are out of touch with the current context.

Finally, the collapse of leadership culture may mean that formal institutions are failing; institutions set norms and boundaries for what leaders may or may not do. When leadership problems take the form of excesses – attacks on human rights, corruption, misuse of powers, failure to fulfill a legal duty to act – institutions measures should kick in and ensure corrective action is taken. However, if perverse and destructive leadership hangs around for years or decades, their hands firmly on the reins of power, then key institutions urgently need rebuilding or rejuvenation.

Leadership as discussed here includes but is broader than the skills, behaviors and performance of individual leaders. Leadership should be seen as:
a system;
a set of relationships; or
a culture (in the sense of agreed norms and practices).

In this regard, leadership can be seen as the expectations we have, the consequences which follow poor leadership and the demand for good leadership.

It is necessary to refer to expectations as they refer to the standards that prevail in the community or in companies regarding leadership. However, “expectations” are still relatively passive - necessary but insufficient. Just having them says nothing about what happens when leadership expectations are disappointed. If “consequences” (e.g. that you be stripped of your leadership position in certain circumstances) as well as the “demand” for good quality leadership are part of the process, it would speak of a more vibrant leadership culture.

From this, one can see how important followership is. What are the things that make up good followership? I suggest these aspects are important: A sense that you are entitled to good leadership, being alert and critical, voting in an intelligent manner, calling on leaders to provide information and reportback, mutual accountability between leaders and followers, and openly expressing views on issues so leaders know what followers feel and think.

I hope these reflections contribute in a small way to an agenda for change in Southern Africa. To a process that moves us beyond crises and towards fulfilling the potential of the region. If we can draw out critical lessons about governance in the region, then maybe – just maybe – there will be some meaning in the crises we are experiencing.

As usual, readers comments and replies are welcomed!

Proteas need new captain. Why not Ntini?

The South African cricket team – for cricket’s sake – needs a new captain. I suggest that it should be Makhaya Ntini.

Ntini has tons of experience, has scooped top cricketer awards locally and internationally, is level-headed, is a great motivator and has steadily honed his temperament to lead. Over the years, Ntini’s has been the goading voice, boosting flagging spirits in the toughest of games. He is the ideal player to guide and support the younger and newer players in the national side.

Our gum-chewing captain, Graham Smith, is a good opening batsman and will continue to be an asset to the Proteas; but he is not captain material. He appears to lack the qualities needed to lead the team, to get the players to focus and to draw out their greatness.

Under him, the Proteas are languishing. The South Africans are not short of talent; their problem revolves around mindset issues. The team struggles to retain its focus and its collective sense of self-belief during critical matches.

When the team is riding high and thrashing the other side, it's all hunky dory, team spirit is up and they play like world beaters; but when the chips are down, it's another story. In the face of setbacks and when the going gets difficult on the field, they are unable to stay focused, sustain team spirit and wear down the opposition through patience, excellent fielding and doggedly doing the basics right.

Some have referred to this as choking. I don’t like the term “choker”; such a put-down adds insult to injury, and has a fatalistic ring to it. But we must confront the team's recent propensity to lose heart when tension and pressure mounts. We have seen shoulders sagging, glum faces, a loss of fighting spirit and a slew of fielding errors when a different attitude could still have turned a particular game in their favour. At one stage in the last Twenty20 game against India, we needed 26 from 16 balls (not to win, but to progress to the semi-finals); with nothing left to lose, the batsmen at the crease couldn’t muster the boldness and drive required. They simply continued aiming for a run or two a ball – and thus we were bundled out of the competition.

At times such as these, it is clear, Smith’s captaincy is unable to bring out the best in the team. In addition, he has sometimes made patently wrong decisions (of whether to bat or bowl first) and – on occasion - seemed not to have been aware, or informed his teammates in time, that we needed a certain number of runs to win or stay in the contest. Under his watch, also, Herschelle Gibbs was moved around - with detrimental effects on the latter's game. Poor decisions were also taken in relation to AB de Villiers who replaced Gibbs as opener. De Villiers, who will one day have the mentality requred of an opening batsmen delivering consistently good performances, should have been positioned lower down the order, and perhaps given a season or two to play alongside a Pollock or Kallis.

At the start, Smith’s captaincy was complemented by Jacque Kallis and, to a lesser extent, Shaun Pollock. But Smith is overdependent on, for example, the experience and solidity of Kallis. Kallis and Pollock, brilliant as they are, will not be youthful or available forever. Smith needed to bring forth/mentor other talent that can steady the team when top order wickets have fallen and it is he, as captain, that ought to be effectively guiding and supporting younger players in the heat of a match.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni gave us a salient lesson in cricket captaincy. Leading the Indian team in the Twenty20, he demonstrated superbly the importance of captaincy and its tremendous value add: he showed, par excellence, how captaincy contributes to team character and grit, and how these factors win games.

In a life-and-death game and when the team is in a wobble, a good captain (regardless of whether he loses wicket or bowls a loose ball) is somehow apart from the wobble; his guidance, calmness and leadership is something that other players can hold on to. With a team of younger players and with the likes of Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid left at home, Dhoni excelled as captain and was my man of the tournament. In the case of Smith, on the other hand, he seemed just a part of the wobbling and sense of panic in the game we lost.

I ask: how much longer must we endure the spectacle of the Proteas making a good start and then bombing out?

I think Ntini is the man for the hour. It would be a shame if only prejudice prevents us from properly considering this solid cricketer. Sure, Ntini is not at his peak at the moment. However, when Smith was made captain, he was completely off form and frequently went out for zero or single figures. If we made Ntini captain, I am convinced, he will rise to the leadership challenge and simultaneously raise his game.

Do you agree with my assessment? Share your views by submitting a comment.

Madlala-Routledge's firing will deepen political ructions

The firing of Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge from her position as Deputy Minister of Health is causing giant waves in political circles. The full story of the motivations, specific issues and processes related to the dismissal is still emerging. Comment has come from many quarters and many more wise heads will pronounce, I'm sure, but I will still add my tuppence worth:

1. The action to dismiss is at best puzzling and at worse a cardinal error. Given the rifts and ructions in the party, President Thabo Mbeki appears to need friends; it is not a time for further disturbing a hornet’s nest. The past year and more has seen a block of opposition build up against him. If one takes the pervious ANC National General Council (held last year) as a marker, he has become something of a rallying point for a variety of sub interest groups and disaffected persons who are united only in their opposition to him, including:
- Some who feel denied their share of the BEE gravy.
- Those who feel bypassed in the appointment of provincial Premiers.
- Those more generally who have their eye on top positions - they believe they can get there if they join some kind of united mobilization for a new leadership order.
- Those bitter and angry because they feel top ANC leaders continuously undermine the Tripartite Alliance.
- Those (including communists in the ANC) who remain angry about the adoption of Gear and the austerity programmes that the country has recently emerged from.
- Supporters of Jacob Zuma who feel he was being victimized through the use of state agencies such as the Scorpions.
- Those from marginalized social groups who feel they have not yet benefited from transformation (e.g. unemployed youth, local ANC activists angry about gaps in local government delivery and ANC members who feel that demarcation decisions mean a much longer wait for delivery).

In this context, the axing of Madlala-Routledge is almost certain to add to Mbeki's problems of political management and maintaining cohesion in the party.

2. The axing may be positive in at least one sense. It would indicate that President Mbeki has broken his moratorium on firing members of Cabinet, even where they perform dismally or fall seriously short of expected leadership behaviour.

3. Madlala-Routledge is a leader to many of us. Her leadership standing is not only related to the role she played in building unity of stakeholders around a clear and strong platform on the issue of HIV/Aids prevention, treatment, care and support. It dates way back to the eighties when she was active in mass democratic movement structures and was a central figure of women’s organization in KwaZulu-Natal.

4. The official comment from the Presidency around the axing of Madlala-Routledge is that the President owes no one an explanation. I think the president’s spokesperson, Mukoni Ratshitanga, should distinguish between rulership and leadership. Rulership requires the minimum engagement and communication with subjects; under that conception of governing, a leader needs to do the bare minimum required by law. Leadership, on the other hand, entails constantly engaging and enrolling others - the public, stakeholders and interest groups - behind the leader’s thinking, what s/she stands for and the direction s/he is taking.

Mandela: leadership lessons from the great man

Today is a good day to honour Mandela’s leadership and to draw out some salient lessons from his life.

When we consider the Mandela saga, miracles as well as tough realities are key themes. Think about how people often refer to South Africa’s “miracle” – and how others (like me) counter that the transition from apartheid to democracy was actually the result of hard slog, commitment and careful processes. It also came as an aftermath to immense sacrifices by many. In the same way, when we speak of the “Madiba magic”, one can and must go beyond the surface to examine the concrete factors, traceable processes and actions that are in no way mystical. The cold stone floors of Robben Island also form a stark backdrop to the magic.

Interestingly, Mandela has never made a claim to being a god or infallible. He is a great leader, but equally human. He is a towering figure, but we can easily identify with many aspects that make up the man. He gets angry, he has soft spots (kids) and he has human failings. What is striking is the depth of his self-knowledge and self-acceptance as well as his strong but easygoing self-esteem. These qualities mean he is almost never over-defensive. Where he has erred (as in insufficiently tackling HIV/Aids when he was head of government), he forgives himself and moves on to the actions that will put things right. This trait also allowed him to quit formal political power early and (presently), as elder statesperson and “veteran,” to seek out reflective personal time.

The following are some key aspects of Mandela’s leadership:

1. He is empathetic. When he is interacting with people, he is “in the moment”. In the presence of ordinary folk, he seldom postures or plays a role and appears happy to simply focus on “taking in” their expressions, feelings and responses.

2. Mandela is strong on moral leadership. One gets the sense that, from his inner core, he is always seeking the light and always gravitating to do what is “right”. The ethical foundation to what he is doing or saying appears to be critically important to him: almost everything he says is subtly infused with this emphasis on the ethical. This may be the key to his aura.

3. The former President’s leadership style is characterised by consistency. Over his life, the context has changed many times and so have the issues; he has also deployed different strategies in response to such change. But at another level, he is stubbornly consistent. This consistency is linked to his strong moral and values-based approach. He has always espoused the same principles, including a people-based approach to leadership, constant communication, dialogue and a strong belief in basic human rights.

4. His life again proves that “taking a stand” is central to giving shape, form and strength to one’s leadership. The young Mandela worked out his position in relation to the fundamental issues and took stands on that. These stands form the bedrock of his leadership. In the sixties, Mandela consciously took part in illegal political activities. He also helped to launch an armed struggle to end the apartheid system. When he was arrested, he took a principled stand and spoke firmly and clearly about his convictions even though he knew such views had been criminalised by the regime. In the eighties, Mandela rebuffed government offers to release him on condition that he compromise his principles. Mandela always strongly advocated and upheld non-racialism and has always maintained that South Africa belongs to “all who live in it”. His convictions have many times moved him to anger and occasionally to lash out. On the other hand, his stands are generally articulated as inclusive and as an invitation to join him in working towards an ideal or objective. His stands are never inherently aggressive nor rallying points for the promotion of divisiveness and unnecessary conflict.

5. For Mandela, giving the lead (communicating his stand) and listening are two sides of the leadership coin. For him, listening to others is inherent in leadership. Given his experience, he reached a point where he could display astute leadership on his own (and there were certainly times that required that). However, from earliest times, his leadership was characterised by working in a team and listening to others. He thus always speaks of the “collective” and to this day swears by “consultation” with colleagues/comrades as a way of arriving at wise decisions.

6. Although in his younger years he broke up meetings of communists, the more seasoned Madiba demonstrates the power of openness in political leadership. It is not necessary to be factional, to close down debate, to label people as a way of avoiding a response to their arguments. Madiba is great because, even if someone is different (from another part of the democratic movement) or an opponent, he looks for ways to work together on a specific issue towards some positive social outcome. This makes him a smart negotiator, someone who is never too dogmatic and doctrinaire and one who honours others’ contribution to a cause.

The effective leader must complement his capabilities and expertise. Mandela brought this to the fore in the way he handled the management challenges of his job as the democratic nation’s first President. Seemingly, Mandela was aware that management or operational details did not sit well with him. During his presidency, he consequently gave the reigns of running government to then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki who combines leadership with strong management sense.

When the effective leader moves on, he or she does not leave behind a vacuum. One of the silliest titles for a book ever published was “When Mandela Goes”, with all the undertones it carried that South Africa would be leaderless and rudderless when Mandela left the Union Buildings hot seat. In reality, South Africa has no problem here: in the ANC and other parties, there are leaders aplenty. South Africa’s bigger challenge – by a long way – is at the level of management (referring inter alia to questions of follow through, holding people accountable and making things happen). There just appears to be insufficient management capability available to match the bold visions the country conjures up on every front. But that’s another story.

Mandela made his contribution to leadership development by illustrating that a true leader never creates a context in which other leaders wither and decline. Rather, other leaders flourish, grow in stature and excel in the presence and vicinity of the great leader.