THE PAST AND THE PRESENT, A COLLECTIVE MIX?

It seems natural to compare the performances of the previous leaders with the present because we have been programmed to judge the unknown with the known standards. However, in leadership, this method of standardization does not work because each person who comes to lead, comes with a unique personality and experience [temperament and intelligence], which suppose that he is going to have a different way and manner of doing things.

While speaking at the just concluded Young Medical Laboratory Scientist Forum Conference at Ebonyi State, Nigeria, I pointed out that most of our historical global leaders who achieved something worthwhile followed their instincts and who they perceived themselves for them to be able to achieve their goals and aims. And this begs us to have a basic interest in finding out what exactly they did and how they did it. 

According to David Keirsay, in his book, Please Understand Me II, he explains the import and influence of personality on how each leader will go about providing leadership. In doing that, he marries temperament and intelligence together as a basic mix for achieving great results.

He wrote thus:

"Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi, two giants of the 20th century. Churchill was the virtuoso of political maneuvering, wheeling and dealing in unending political skirmishes; and Gandhi was the sage of interpersonal diplomacy, seeking freedom and justice for his people by appealing to the conscience of his oppressors.

"The tactician and the diplomat, diametric opposites in leadership style, yet each able to do for his country something that men of other character could not possibly have done-deliver it from bondage. Equally brilliant leaders, but brilliant in radically different ways.

"George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, two giants of earlier centuries, each crucial to the survival of the United States of America. Except for a large measure of kindness and great physical strength, these two men had nothing important in common. Washington was a superb logistical commander who, faced with obstacles of incredible proportion and tenure, put in his way by his Congress, his generals, and his fellow citizens, freed his country from colonial bondage.

"And Lincoln was a superb political and military strategist who, despite the long-continued blunders of a train of ill-chosen generals, the weakness of the Congress, and the intrigues of many of his fellow citizens, saved the United States from national dissolution. The logistical leader and the strategic leader, diametric opposites in both attitude and action, yet each achieving the same end, and earning his country's eternal gratitude.

"Why would these four men-Churchill, Gandhi, Washington, and Lincoln-go about leading their people in such fundamentally different ways?

"The answer is: temperament. It takes a certain kind of temperament to achieve certain ends.

"The steadfast Guardian Washington had precisely the kind of temperament that the War of Independence and the establishment of a republic required, and the pragmatic Rational Lincoln precisely the kind of temperament the Civil War, and the Reconstruction, had he lived, required.

"Similarly, only an indomitable Artisan like Churchill could have rallied the English people during the dark days of World War II and convinced his wily friend Franklin Roosevelt to throw in with him before it was too late; and only a benevolent and altruistic Idealist like Gandhi could have inspired the Indian people to the swell of passive resistance that ultimately set them free from British dominion."

The leader's objective, whatever his or her temperament, is to execute a plan of operations in the pursuit of a specified goal. However, since implementing any goal requires a certain kind and degree of intellectual development on the part of the personnel assigned to it, all types of leaders must take intelligence-their own and that of their employees-into account if they are to lead well.

Our focus in deciding the performance of a leader is to be sure that he or she is intelligently paying attention to the fundamentals and basic principles of leadership, not necessarily their methods, even though some methods can be ineffective. Furthermore, our worry should not be the way and manner they go about achieving those results, but that they must be produced the intended results in the end.

So, judging the present by the past is not different from putting someone in a box. The individuality of the leader is more important in deciding what results should be achieved and how they should be achieved. So, the crux of the matter lies in choosing a leader with the right of temperament and intelligence.

Do you think that your leaders, by their temperament and intelligence, are fit to produce the intended results?