The qualities of leadership that make one individual a great leader and another individual an ineffective one are not absolutely fixed. Depending on the time in question, the situation and the person who is leading, the qualities that an individual will need to have as a leader in order to be effective can vary significantly. At the same time, it can be useful to examine those qualities in historical leaders of the past so as to glean whatever lessons are possible from their approach and their accomplishments. The following will consider the leadership qualities of Moses, Martin Luther, Pres. Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa and Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
The Bible, like many other works of faith, is replete with stories of remarkable leaders. The books of Exodus and Deuteronomy provide readers with an archetype for an ideal leader in the figure of Moses. As we all know, Moses is represented in the Old Testament as the early Hebrew leader who brought the Jews out of bondage in Egypt more than 3000 years ago. While the concept of "charisma" is often spoken of when discussing modern leaders in business, politics or any other important field, Moses was the literal definition of a charismatic leader (Zivotofsky,1994).
One of the fundamental qualities that Moses exhibited as a leader was his unshakable faith in his monotheistic God. In modern, secular terms, this could be described as self-confidence, determination and a willingness to commit to a singular vision. This unwavering certainty that his vision was valid and that his cause was right led Moses not only into conflict with the Egyptians, but also with the Hebrews and (occasionally) God himself.
Another religious figure who is often cited as an example of effective leadership is Martin Luther. As the principal founder and instigator of the Protestant Reformation, Luther could be described in modern terms as a “transformative” leader. Luther challenged the status quo of the time, including the dominant position of the Catholic Church. In large measure, Luther accomplished this by using the latest communications technology of his time; namely the newly invented printing press (Brown, 1992). Printed copies of Luther’s “Ninety-Five Theses” spread like wild fire throughout Germany and the rest of Europe.
These were revolutionary ideas at a time when unquestioning subservience to the church and the state were common. Before Luther, the precepts of the Catholic Church and its political influence held sway throughout much of Europe. Luther’s objections to the dogma of the Catholic Church regarding salvation, and what he perceived as its corruption, helped to change all this. In fact, beyond removing the political influence the Catholic Church had in a number of European nations, the Reformation and the counterreformation that followed helped to transform the Catholic Church itself.
Abraham Lincoln is without question one of the greatest and most revered of all American leaders. There have been more books, movies, documentaries and works of art created about this American president than any other American leader. But the actual qualities that made him such a remarkable leader are not the ones that most people think of. Lincoln is often associated with his so-called “honesty” and his supposed willingness to go against the tide of general opinion on issues like the Union and slavery. In fact, these were not Lincoln’s principal tools as a leader.
Lincoln’s most powerful characteristic as a leader was that he allowed himself to be led. Lincoln listen closely to public opinion, detected which way the wind was blowing at any given moment and chose the most opportune time, place and situation for promoting his own agenda and views. It was by doing this that Lincoln was able to dominate a cabinet of highly educated and remarkably qualified men who all felt they were better suited to his position than Lincoln himself (Goodwin, 2005). This quality in Lincoln that allowed him sense the pulse of the nation from moment to moment and act in a way that would further his own long-term objectives was what made him the leader he was.
Another leader who was well known for his ability to sense the mood of his own people, as well as the nature and character of the people who were oppressing them, was Mahatma Gandhi. During the early part of the 20th century, Gandhi was the principal leader of a movement for Indian independence from the British Empire. For generations, the British (either directly or through corporations like the East India Company) controlled much or all of India. This colonialism and the oppression that occurred as a result of British occupation was unacceptable to Gandhi and his supporters (Gandhi & Fischer, 1983).
However, Gandhi’s approach to combating the British was not to combat them. Instead, Gandhi advocated civil disobedience and complete nonviolence. Having studied in London to become a lawyer, Gandhi understood that at their heart the British people themselves were just and honorable. For this reason, by ensuring that images of nonviolent, helpless Indians being assaulted by troops or police officers in India made their way to Britain, Gandhi was able to play on the conscience of the British people. In the end, this movement (as well as the British government’s conciliation’s in exchange for Indian assistance in World War II) led to India’s independence.
In her own way, Rosa Parks’ civil disobedience as a civil rights activist in Alabama was quite similar to Gandhi’s and had a similar goal. The refusal by Parks in 1955 when boarding a bus to sit in the “colored only” section of the bus had the effect of putting a spotlight on the unjust nature of the segregation system in the old South (Wade-Lewis, 2006). It was also one of the principal sparks that led to the expansion of the civil rights movement throughout the South.
Like Gandhi, Parks was perfectly willing to be arrested and jailed if it would help to further her cause. Also like Gandhi, Parks and many others in the American civil rights movement chose to use nonviolent civil disobedience rather than resorting to violent actions that might cause further oppression. The arrests of Parks and others like Martin Luther King Jr. served as examples of the unjust nature of segregation and help to bring about its demise.
The leadership of Mother Teresa in helping the poor of India and elsewhere is unquestioned and largely unprecedented. However, this leadership differs from many of the others mentioned previously. Mother Teresa founded a Roman Catholic organization known as the Missionaries of Charity. This organization operates in over 100 countries and runs hospices, soup kitchens, orphanages, schools and a host of other facilities designed to help the poor (Chawla, 1996).
Mother Teresa’s leadership was twofold. One aspect of her leadership was her organizational ability, which was demonstrated by her capacity for establishing and leading such a large multinational organization across many continents. But her principal quality of leadership was shown in her example of selfless charity for those who are suffering. Mother Teresa was not an entirely uncontroversial figure though, with many condemning her for her views on the “nobility” of suffering. Nevertheless, she was an effective leader who accomplished many of her goals through example.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa was a principal leader in the struggle in that country against the apartheid system in which Blacks were treated as second-class citizens in their own land. Following the dissolution of the apartheid system and the establishment of full civil rights for all races in South Africa, Archbishop Tutu has expanded his work by advocating for human rights around the world, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his efforts (Maluleke, 2015).
Like Martin Luther before him, Archbishop Tutu took advantage of advances in media technology in order to further his goal of changing South Africa for the better. The ability to have televised interviews with reporters around the world (and particularly in the United States and Europe) allowed the Archbishop to promote the cause of equality in South Africa without the direct interference of the South African government.
In conclusion, current leaders around the world can draw a number of lessons from the leadership examples provided by the individuals discussed above. The personal commitment of a leader like Moses or Martin Luther would be particularly useful for many politicians who lack the courage of their convictions. The ability of Martin Luther and Desmond Tutu to effectively communicate their views using the most modern and sophisticated means is something many leaders fail to take into account today. For instance, Egypt’s leaders did not recognize during the Arab Spring the power of sophisticated Internet communication. Providing an example as a leader, such as what Mahatma Gandhi, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa did in their work, is another valuable quality that modern world leaders could bring to their leadership approach. Finally, the ability to understand when to hold back and when the moment has come to act is a leadership quality that helped Abe Lincoln free the slaves and bind the Union together. Many modern leaders lack this ability to stay in touch with what the public is really thinking.
References
Brown, P. (1992). Preaching from the printshop. Christian History, 11(2), 33.
Chawla, N. (1996). Mother Teresa. Rockport, Mass: Element, 1996.
Gandhi, ., & Fischer, L. (1983). The essential Gandhi: His life, work, and ideas : an anthology. New York: Vintage Books.
Goodwin, D. K. (2005). Team of rivals: The political genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York : Simon & Schuster.
Maluleke, T. (2015). Desmond Tutu's Earliest Notions and Visions of Church, Humanity, and Society. Ecumenical Review, 67(4), 572-590.
Wade-Lewis, M. (2006). I Remember Rosa Parks: The Impact of Segregation. Black Scholar, 35(4), 2-12.
Zivotofsky, A. Z. (1994). The leadership qualities of Moses. Judaism, 43(3), 258.
