1.0. Introduction
Broadly, leadership is divided into two distinct categories in terms of leader’s behaviour, his way of dealing with his subject or others, his way of motivating others, etc. These two categories include Heroic and Post-Heroic leadership. Theory of heroic leadership belongs to classical approach to this consideration where leaders used to be all in all and led through full command. There was a widespread and generalized trend of “hero-worship” (Lowney, 2003). Some vital examples of it stand Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Plato, etc.
However, post-heroic leadership, though passive as compared to heroism, is an evolved form of it. It is totally opposite to what is done and believed in commanding form of leadership mentioned above. In a nutshell, it is shared leadership style where leader adopts humility and believes in teamwork. He prefers the benefit of his group, team, organization, or any other entity under him to his personal interest (Etcher, 1997).
Both types of leaderships have their own merits and demerits, but post-heroic leadership can be considered more suitable to emerging requirements of 21st century in all fields of life. Indeed, under the sheer impact of globalization and technological growth, today’s world is characterized by intense complexity. Therefore, it requires a subtle approach to cope with these complexities, and it is very unlikely for a single person to be sum of everything required for this purpose. To support the underlying arguments, the writer has referred to the leadership style of Nelson Mandela as empirical evidence.
2.0. Nelson Mandela as a Post-Heroic Leader
2.1. A Brief Introduction of Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela has been the only black President elected in democratic elections for the period of 1994-1999. He was born in a small village of South Africa in 1918 and died a natural death in 2013 at the age of 95 years. His period of rule is marked as ‘success’, and several attributes of his ruling style are the perfect example of post-heroic essence of leadership (Meredith, 1998; Brevis, Smit, & Cronje, 2002; Charteris-Black, 2007).
2.2. Leadership Characteristics of Nelson Mandela
Some of the chief characteristics of Mandela’s way of leading and their proximity with post-heroic approach to leadership are elaborated below:
2.2.1. Servant Leadership
Mandela believed in servant leadership, which is one of the most debated philosophies centered on leadership style. It is contrary to “leading through command and control” as in case of heroism. Mandela spent a huge time in imprison. However, he always kept committed to his ambition, and it was to serve the nation at the sacrifice of any personal comfort. As soon as he was released, he resumed his mission. He made every effort within his capacity to bring the best distribution of power. Hence, he transferred the share of his power to other departments and institutions. He believed in serving the nation instead of asserting his command. In the end, he just walked away from power on the basis of a self-motivated decision. All these characteristics pose him to be a perfect example of servant leader (Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser, 2013, Kalungu-Banda, 2006; Frick, 2004).
2.2.2. Selflessness
Selflessness is considered major attribute of a servant leader in Servant Leadership Theory (Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser, 2013). And, it is truly applied to the leadership style of the underlying former president of South Africa. For example, as discussed above, as soon as he was released from imprison, he got engaged in serving the nation through different initiatives. However, he never bothered to take any revenge from them whose conspiracies caused him prolonged jail. The height of this selflessness can be observed at its peak as he came into power. He never used his power for any personal benefit (Kalungu-Banda, 2006; Charteris-Black, 2007).
This characteristic of Mandela’s way of ruling cannot be traced in classical examples. Majority of heroes in the classical history are found to be indulged in battles and wars associating personal interests at the cost of others’ lives (even). Even though their considerations are justified with respect to the needs of that particular time, the stain of selfishness cannot be removed from their outlook. However, Mandela sets an example of how to avoid personal bias and aim beyond personal interest. Therefore, this characteristic of his personality also places him in the category of post-heroic leaders.
2.2.3. Shared Leadership
Shared leadership refers to broad distribution of leadership among different members of a group (Gronn, 2002). It is a key concept associated with post-heroic leadership, because it teaches against total command and control. He says, “Lead from the back, and let others believe they are in front.”(Conger & Pearce, 2003; Shipper & Manz, n.d.).
Mandela in many aspects was the strong follower and believer of distributed style of leadership. The clearer idea of this consideration can be gathered from the fact that he, throughout his life, kept striving to promote democracy. He strictly condemned monarchy, dictatorship, or any leadership style that bestows all the power to a single individual. He believed in decisions based on majority’s opinion. He preferred negotiation to self-motivation. Mandela never took an initiative without taking all the key members in parliament and his followers into confidence. That is why he is regarded as the symbol of trust (Charteris-Black, 2007).
2.2.4. Transformational Leadership
Totally contrary to transactional leadership, transformational leadership refers to the identification of need for change on social, national or any other level, and brining that change with the mutual collaboration among different members in the group of leader (Humphrey, 2013). For many reasons, the concept of transformation leaders is linked with anti-heroism in leadership (Srivastava, 2003). For example, it involves ‘distribution of power’ as the ultimate decisions are to be taken under the mutual consent and collaborations among different members (Kouzes and Posner, 2012). Then, it is directed towards social welfare rather than any personal interest, which is one of the chief characteristics of post-heroic style of leadership (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012; Bass, 1998).
There is a sharp difference between the living conditions and business climate of South Africa before and after the Mandela was elected. He was fully alive to the negative outlook of the economy of his country. He also knew that dictatorship and non-democratic forces had dented it badly. Hence, he had already identified the root causes of the economic downtrend of his poverty stricken nation. Since the very day as he got elected as the president, he started striving for findings out the solutions to all the issues faced by the country. He implemented all his plans in a democratic way and it was the biggest change in itself.
He brought significant reforms in many terms, which revolutionized the economy by bringing the industry on right track. All the economic components underwent great improvement. Furthermore, social implications of these changes are also thought-provoking and hold many lessons for his successors. It is also worth mentioning in this regard that he considered education to be the base for any change plan and emphasized immensely to promote literacy (Kaluga-Banda, 2006). One of his most famous quotes given below also sheds light on it:
“Education is the most powerful weapon, which you can use to change the world.”(Kalungu-Banda, 2006).
In other words, he led by example and setup a platform for his followers. He will always remain a big source of inspiration not only for South Africans, but also for everyone up with a desire to be a leader.
2.2.5. Nelson’s Approach to His Faults
Nelson believed that there is not fault in admitting one’s faults. He never tried to conceal his shortcomings. On many occasions, he publically admitted many of his mistakes and blunders that might have discredited him to some extent. For instance, when the opposition criticized him for not taking sufficient initiatives to fight against prevailing issue of HIV and Aids, he did not argue against this criticism. Rather he admitted it to be his fault and promised to be more focused in this direction in days to come after that (Kalungu-Banda, 2006).
Apart from this, in July 1991 he joined a conference at Durban where ANC strictly criticized the weakness of his role in strengthening the security forces. The critics were of the view that Nelson had been more moderate in that regard than they assumed him to be. Mandela again did not cover this weakness by any excuse, but openly admitted it to be the weakness of his party. He assured to take appropriate initiatives to come with a stronger military to ensure the higher level of security (Kalungu-Banda, 2006).
Basing on this, it is not out of place to state that Nelson Mandela was a true post-heroic leader. Heroic leaders hardly dared admit their faults. They believed in full command. And, they used this command as a shield to hide their pitfalls. Furthermore, they hardly had their critics, as their subject feared the arousal of their fury (Etcher, 1997). Consequently, they also had very minute chance of improving their character as a leader, because a person can only expect to improve if he is able to identify his weak areas.
2.2.6. Democratic Language
As discussed earlier, one of the major qualities of a post-heroic leader is the distributed leadership. And, this consideration is at the very base of democracy. Mandela’s way of communicating and interacting is also the true reflection of democracy. Usually, he used first noun plural i.e. “our, we, and us” during his speeches that created a sense of unification. Mandela was also strictly against racism. And, the use of this kind of communication also provides evidence of it (Kalungu-Banda, 2006). Such words are also helpful in encouraging the followers (Fairhurst, 2007) and they feel that leader is always considering and thinking about them (Padilla, Hogan and Kaider, 2007)
He wanted to promote unity among all the ethnic groups on social level. His gesture and use of words proves this tendency. He never entertained any prejudice against ‘white’ despite being black himself. Furthermore he preached equality by ensuring “equal opportunity for all” in all the walks of life (Kalungu-Banda, 2006).
However, his critics hold that Mandela was not consistent in his way of interaction. At times, he also used the words like “I, and me” that denote a non-democratic approach to some matters. For instance, during a secret negotiation on governmental level he was recorded to be saying “my colleagues will kill my plan and condemn my initiative” (Varela, 2013). These statements clearly show that he had devised some personal plan and wanted to implement that, but was fearing interference on the part of his colleagues. It was totally against the spirit of democracy. Hence, it can be established that despite being characterized by all the attributes specific to a post-heroic leader, Mandela was also influenced by heroism though to a very small extent.
4.0. Conclusion
Basing on the findings of the study, it is held that heroic style of leadership has its own merits and demerits, while post-heroic its own. For example, post-heroic leader believes in negotiation and taking everyone into confidence, which can mitigate the risk of resistance, but can cause unwanted delays in decision making. By the same token, there are many critical issues associated with heroism, which have no concern with post-heroism theories of leadership.
Mandela could never be in position to bring revolutionary changes that he did if he had followed the traditionalized pattern of dictatorship that was common in South Africa when he took his charge. It is through his inspirational personality, creating encouraging environment for equality, social reforms, democratic approach to critical matters, and zealous approach to serve nation that provided the base for his achievements.
References
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brevis, T., Smit, P. J., & Cronje, G. J. (2002). Management principles: A contemporary edition for Africa. Cape Town: Juta.
Charteris-Black, J. (2007). The communication of leadership: The design of leadership style. London: Routledge.
Conger, J. A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Etcher, J. P. (1997). Post-Heroic Leadership: Managing the Virtual Organization. Performance Improvement, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 5-10. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140360203
Fairhurst, G. (2007). Discursive Leadership. London: Sage
Frick, D. M. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 1040-1050. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.005
Humphrey, R. H. (2013). Effective leadership: Theory, cases, and applications. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Kalungu-Banda, M. (2006). Leading Like Madiba: Leadership Lessons from Nelson Mandela. Cape Town: Double Storey Books
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: 5th edition. Jossey Bass
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2013). Servant Leadership and Serving Culture: Influence on Individual and Unit Performance. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1434-1452. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0034
Lowney, C. (2003). Heroic leadership: Best practices from a 450-year-old company that changed the world. Chicago: Loyola Press.
Meredith, M. (1998). Nelson Mandela: A biography. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 176-194.
Shipper, F., & Manz, C. C. (n.d.). Shared Leadership. Shared Entrepreneurship. doi:10.1057/9781137405807.0008
Srivastava, M. K. (2003). Transformational leadership. Macmillan.
Varela, E. A. D. R. (2013). Critical Analysis of Nelson Mandela’s Leadership Style. Available from http://www.portaldoconhecimento.gov.cv/bitstream/10961/2531/1/Critical%20Analysis%20of%20Nelson%20Mandela's%20Leadership.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2016]
