Leadership Philosophy Statement

            Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.  This, however, is a very generic definition of leadership that could apply in almost any situation.  This definition does its best not to exclude any kinds of leadership.  However, after studying Machiavelli, Lao-tzu and Gandhi my personal definition of leadership has altered to include aspects that are crucial to long-term leadership.  Leadership is a process for the followers whereby an individual gives up his individuality to the cause in order to achieve a common goal that is beneficial to leader, followers, and the community.

The change in the definition is based on the theories that Machiavelli, Lao-tzu and Gandhi had.  It truly differentiates between leadership and management. Management being a process much more structured around institutionalized authority that is given to you by another source of power, or through your ability to reward someone (such as giving them a paycheck).  I will instead discuss what constitutes true leadership, that meets my leadership philosophy statement, and that can be applied to other situations.  I will show that unemotional, pragmatic decision-making made with true comprehension of your followers’ needs and wants, when properly and emotionally communicated is the best source of leadership.

Machiavelli is widely portrayed as a man without a conscience for whom the ends seemingly always justify the means, there is another approach to understanding Machiavelli.  Machiavelli was a man exiled from his country.  He had witnessed one ruling family overthrown by another.  His book the Prince was merely a guide on how to gain and keep power based on what he had seen.  The book was actually an attempt to convince the prince that had the power to overturn the exile, and that Machiavelli would be a wise ally if he wanted to stay in power.  So, Machiavelli was not promoting the ends always justify the means, a phrase attributed to him even though he never wrote it, he was merely commenting on the practicality of certain actions and the need to remove emotions from the leader’s decision making and capitalizing on the emotions of the followers.  That is one of the reasons that a leader must give up his individuality to the cause.  The best decision must be made for the good of everyone, not a decision that is merely emotionally pleasing to the leader.  For example, a government or agency may have a policy to not negotiate with terrorists.  If a terrorist were to kidnap someone and demand something in return for their safe return the government or agency would refuse to negotiate with them.  This is not because it makes the leader emotionally satisfied that kidnapped followers are left with terrorists, but because the leader knows that a lot less people will be kidnapped if the terrorists know there is nothing to be gained by kidnapping, and also that a lot more people could potentially be in danger in the long run if they caved in to the demands of terrorists. (Fry)

Loa-Tzu promoted the midwife analogy.  He claimed that the best of leaders aren’t the ones at the front of the lines doing all the action and claiming all the glory.  The best leaders are those whose presence is always felt in the group and yet only step in when needed.  A bad leader that does a lot and says a lot will have followers and a cult.  A worse leader uses fear and force to achieve his goals.  And yet, only the most terrible leaders actually get a bad reputation.  It is best to remember that followers should feel as if they reached the goal by themselves.  If the followers feel as if the leader took them to the goal, it will lead to resentment towards the leader.  It is a great ability to conceal one’s ability in order to avoid the distrust of followers.  This is the reason the definition changed to emphasize that the process is for the followers. (Majka)

Gandhi’s personal philosophy directly indicated that a leader must remove personal followers and instead dedicate followers to a cause.  It is important that followers are following a cause and not a leader’s personal whims.  This stops a leader from gaining the kind of power that can only be described as devotion.  As they say, nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.  So, unless the leader is implicitly trusted it is best not to give the leader devotion.  Instead have followers devoted and the leader linked to a cause.  An example of this is during a community service project, where the leader, an employee of Saint Francis Service Dogs’, briefly showed up and explained our goal and then left.  Within minutes her face was forgotten, however, for the continuation of the day the goal of parking cars was followed through with success.  This is another reason why it was important to expand on the original definition on the leader giving up to the cause. (Lal)

My personal leadership style defined my definition of leadership for me.  My leadership style is based on a simple concept of practicality versus perception.  It is important to learn from the past.  However, it must be remembered that philosophies and theories are just that, one man’s opinion.  A great factor to successful leadership is to not romanticize the concept.  It is useless to follow the Great Man theory.  Leading people requires the appearance of emotions; leading successfully requires the ability to differentiate between appearance and action.   A leader cannot and should not be perfect, and if his ideas aren’t at least slightly controversial to at least a fraction of the followers, he’s not doing his job.  However, it is still just as important to consider the viewpoints of others during the decision making process; a leader should be making decisions based on the welfare of everyone, not on popular opinion.  Popular opinion is a leaderless system that leads to confusion, drastic changes and progress for the sake of passion.  It is of the utmost importance that a leader be willing to fight for an unpopular idea if he believes in it. (Stroup)

Furthermore, a leader must not be ambitious for glory.  That will lead to action for the sake of action.  A leader that acts as if he is the cause, as if a success for the cause is his personal victory, as if without him the followers could not have risen to where they are today, will not be a leader for long.  It is impossible to lead without trust in the process and abilities of followers.  Distrust on the part of the leader will lead to action motivated by “If you want something done right, do it yourself”, which will lead to feelings of misplacement and uselessness among followers that will ultimately result in resentment towards the leader; it impossible to lead those that resent you.  To avoid this, I practice the analogy of Lao-Tzu’s midwife; at the end of the process the follower feels as if he did it all by himself.  This was particularly useful in environments where I am leading my peers.  If I am the leader of the group I will allow the group to run itself and try to step in only when I feel the wrong pathway is being taken.  And even then it is important to realize that followers must be allowed to make their own mistakes. It is important, at times, even though you know what is coming, to remain silent until the group realizes a mistake on their own.  It is better to ask, “What will happen if…”, and allow the group to discuss alternatives then to state, “This is wrong because…”, and then force your alternative upon them.

At the Cave Spring Rescue Squad, as Jr. Chief, I was in charge of all members that were 21 and younger.  It was that experience that most led me to believe that a leader must be willing to have the cause be the center of attention.  A good cause can garner support and is infallible.  A good leader can garner devotion and the perception of infallibility.  Devotion will lead to delusions of grandeur and once a man believes he is better than the rest it is only a matter of time before he’s pulled back down to Earth.  And when that happens it’s usually not through choice, it’s usually in a manner that destroys his credibility as a leader.  But, if the followers were following the cause, rather than the leader, then the cause remains unharmed due to human flaws.  To avoid this sequence of events, I always invited the opinion of others during decision making and set up a series of checks and balances to make team decision making a necessity of the rules rather than a courtesy of the Chief.

In regards, to the future it is important to remember to make unbiased, unromanticized decisions, that keep the cause in mind rather than myself and to ensure that at the end of the day the follower feels as if it was his process.

Works Cited

Fry, David K. “Niccolo Machiavelli.” N.p., n.d. 11/17/2009. <http://www.ctbw.com/lubman.htm>.

Lal, Vinay.  “Mahatma Gandhi.” Manas: India and Its Neighbors.  UCLA. 1998.  11/17/2009. < http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/Gandhi/gandhi.html>.

Majka, Christopher. “Lao Tzu: Father of Taoism.” Taoism and the Philosophy of Tai Chi Chuan.  Empty Mirrors Press. n.d. 11/17/2009. <http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/lao.html>.

Stroup, Jim. “Great Man Theory.”  Managing Leadership. The Strategic Role of the Senior Executive.  N.p. 2009.  11/17/2009. < http://managingleadership.com/blog/2008/09/04/great-man-theory/>.