Public-opinion polls show that citizens in many democracies are unhappy with their leaders. This is particularly true in Great Britain, where a number of members of parliament (MPs) have used their housing allowances to enhance their income, sometimes legally and sometimes not. Some analysts predict that only half of Britain’s MPs will be returned in next year’s election.
But, whatever the failures of particular British legislators, the issues go further than merely allowing voters to “throw the rascals out.” There is also a question of how successful leadership is taught and learned in a democracy. A successful democracy requires leadership to be widespread throughout government and civil society. Citizens who express concern about leadership need to learn not only how to judge it, but how to practice it themselves.
Many observers say that leadership is an art rather than a science. Good leadership is situational. In my book The Powers to Lead, I call this skill “contextual intelligence.” The ability to mobilize a group effectively is certainly an art rather than a predictive science, and varies with situations, but that does not mean that it cannot be profitably studied and learned.
Music and painting are based in part on innate skills, but also on training and practice. And artists can benefit not merely from studio courses, but also from art appreciation lessons that introduce them to the full repertoires and pallets of past masters.
Learning leadership occurs in a variety of ways. Learning from experience is the most common and most powerful. It produces the tacit knowledge that is crucial in a crisis. But experience and intuition can be supplemented by analytics. As Mark Twain once observed, a cat that sits on a hot stove will not sit on a hot stove again, but it won’t sit on a cold one, either.
Consequently, learning to analyze situations and contexts is an important leadership skill. The US Army categorizes leadership learning under three words: “be, know, do.” “Be” refers to the shaping of character and values, and it comes partly from training and partly from experience. “Know” refers to analysis and skills, which can be trained. “Do” refers to action and requires both training and fieldwork. Most important, however, is experience and the emphasis on learning from mistakes and a continuous process that results from what the military calls “after-action reviews.”
Learning can also occur in the classroom, whether through case studies, historical and analytic approaches, or experiential teaching that simulates situations that train students to increase self-awareness, distinguish their roles from their selves, and use their selves as a barometer for understanding a larger group. Similarly, students can learn from the results of scientific studies, limited though they may be, and by studying the range of behaviors and contexts that historical episodes can illuminate.
In practice, of course, few people occupy top positions in groups or organizations. Most people “lead from the middle.” Effective leadership from the middle often requires attracting and persuading those above, below, and beside you.
Indeed, leaders in the middle frequently find themselves in a policy vacuum, with few clear directives from the top. A passive follower keeps his head down, shuns risk, and avoids criticism. An opportunist uses the slack to feather his own nest rather than help the leader or the public.
Bureaucratic entrepreneurs, on the other hand, take advantage of such opportunities to adjust and promote policies. The key moral question is whether, and at what point, their entrepreneurial activity exceed the bounds of policies set from the top. Since they lack the legitimate authority of elected or high-level appointed officials, bureaucratic entrepreneurs must remain cognizant of the need to balance initiative with loyalty.
Leaders should encourage such entrepreneurship among their followers as a means of increasing their effectiveness. After all, the key to successful leadership is to surround oneself with good people, empower them by delegating authority, and then claim credit for their accomplishments.
To make this formula work, however, requires a good deal of soft power. Without the soft power that produces attraction and loyalty to the leader’s goals, entrepreneurs run off in all directions and dissipate a group’s energies. With soft power, however, the energy of empowered followers strengthens leaders.
Leadership is broadly distributed throughout healthy democracies, and all citizens need to learn more about what makes good and bad leaders. Potential leaders, in turn, can learn more about the sources and limits of the soft-power skills of emotional IQ, vision, and communication, as well as hard-power political and organizational skills.
They must also better understand the nature of the contextual intelligence they will need to educate their hunches and sustain strategies of smart power. Most important, in today’s age of globalization, revolutionary information technology, and broadened participation, citizens in democracies must learn more about the nature and limits of the new demands on leadership.
Joseph Nye is University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS