Higher standard of leadership This book was writen by Keshavan Nair, a former corporate executive who has served on the faculties of the Ohio state and in the Indian institute of technology in Kampur. He was born in India but graduated from university in the United States. He has writen other books based on leadership. “Higher standard of leadership” is based in the life and moral principles of Mahatma Ghandi and is directed to anybody in our world, including businessmen, leaders or politicians. It is not a long reading and I feel satisfied for reading it. I think setting the example is a matter of significant weight which we do not regularly take into account. When we set an example then we are able to ask the same from others. But when we don't show we are able to perform certain actions is it right to demand from our relatives? Does this encourage the respect of the humans whom we ask to? I do not think so. For example if the parents are smoking at home in front of the child, it is obvious that their behaviour is not exemplary. But when the child grows up if the parents ask him to stop smoking, are they in their right to do so? Yes, but they didn't do right at all. They didn't set the example. The child might feel offended, or uncertain for this as their parents have smoked in front of his eyes various times. Does this determine to the child to continue with the habit of smoking? No. I quote a phrase from the book related to this: “We lose our respect for our leaders if we do not approve of their conduct – public or private. Leaders who do not command our respect reduce the legitimacy of their leadership and lose our trust”. This leadership of example is translated, as we see, to all the existing areas in our society, including business, family, or politics. Leaders with questionable morals do not encourage proper behaviour in others, indeed, it promotes it. However, when we behave through the most ethical principles, we not only set an example, but we can inspire others to do it or demand it from them. It follows like this: if I have been able to do it, why don't you? Businessmen who go to the production line and do the work at the machine, the same as the labourer, are setting the standards. If the boss came and did it at a certain speed, at a determinated production rate, then why the labourer can't? It is in these situations when we really have the ethics to ask from the labourer or not. When the businessman is doing the job of labourer for one day, he is setting the morals of conduct. If he observes a product which is defectuous and is going to be sold to the customer as an standard product they are establishing the principles of ethics and of conduct. These actions realized by the businessman in front of the machine are going to be visualized by the labourer and is pressumed the labourer will behave the same way. I think as a businessman it is proper to set the example by droping themselves to the
production line for one day each year, or by doing tasks they don't usually work in, as: marketing, research, sales... It is through this example that they can be righteous to demand from their workers and that they develop that empathy. This empathy is relevant to all diverse situations inside a company: providers, customers, teammates... (Quoted from the book) “Ghandi believed and acted on the belief that leaders have the responsibility to set an example of conduct.” This, the same it is applied to the businessman can be applied to other scopes, like polithics, family, teams... For example I consider that politic personalities should exit of their marble tower and live with the poor. This way they will understand them better. In fact, it is only through this way that the poor will open themselves to the politic and explain their most real concerns. This is what Ghandi thought: “It is easy to believe something intellectually, but living your beliefs takes a commitment”. This is what Mahatma Ghandi did when he travelled ceaselessly huge distances by foot or by train in the 3rd class, or when he went to live with the untouchables, dress like them, work in their jobs, or when he went to visit the most damaged villages after the war of independence, or the places affected by the religious war between Hindus and Muslims. He always believed in the power of non-violence. The action of violence only produces mores violence, which creates a spyral process from which is really difficult to repair. Ghandi offered gifts to the man who brought him into jail, or to the English authorities during the independence non-violent protests. Ghandi never comited any acts of violence, or when he did something related to that, he established penitence for himself and long times of meditation. However, this doesn't mean he didn't protest in the matters he didn't agree. If he identified a social injustice, he set non-violent actions of protests to change or abolish it. He never called upon any acts of violence, and demanded others to do the same as him. This means that if we are not agreed, we have to reveal our opinion. Frequently humans adopt certain positions so as to avoid causing any bad opinion about us. We have to communicate our view even if they don't want to hear. When we behave through non-violent patterns of conduct, we are going to yield non-violent reactions. We can resolve all the difficulties through peaceful dialogue.