Nigeria and the false notion of leadership

By Gozie Irogboli

An important function of leadership is that of succession planning. In the family, in the cooperate world and in the political spheres it is essential. But the Nigerian political leaders think only in terms of self perpetuation and when that is not possible, they would install their children or a puppet that they can remote control because they need someone who will cover up the mess they usually leave behind.

As I reflect ruefully on Nigerian’s perennial political imbroglio, my mind dwells on what Chinua Achebe of blessed memory once said about what he considered to be the problem of Nigeria, the recumbent African giant. In his epochal essay entitled: The Trouble With Nigeria, the erudite scholar had declared assertively that, “The Trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership”. Everybody agrees to this heroic assertion. Nigeria has not produced the right leadership that is needed to properly cement the disjointed fissures and ethnic cleavages, chart a common course and inspire the people towards the accomplishment of national goals. The devastating effects of dysfunctional leadership are felt on every facet of our national life. There is unbridle corruption, undesirable culture of impunity, cronyism, nepotism, mediocrity, no clear national aspiration, lack of unity, mutual recrimination, poor national productivity etc. plaguing the soul of the nation. But, the problem of Nigerian is so much about followership as it is of leadership because of the wrong people’s perception of the concept of leadership.

The pertinent question that rankles in the minds of every wellmeaning Nigerian is: why is it difficult for the right leadership to emerge? The reason for this is not far-fetched. The Nigeria sociocultural milieu has made it impossible for the right leadership to emerge. There is a close connection between the people and the types of leaders they produce as Joseph-Marie de Maistre the French-Italian political philosopher and diplomat puts it many years ago: “every nation gets the leaders it deserves”.

Nigeria is a heterogeneous entity of over 200 million people and about 500 ethnic nationalities – something to cheer about. Unfortunately, that which is supposed to be its strength has become its worst weakness. The socio-cultural environment is polluted by ignorance, hypocrisy, hatred, mutual recrimination, ethnic irredentism and adverse socio-cultural atavism. Our decisions at personal and national levels are colored by hatred, creed and ethnic prejudice. We have people supporting injustice and promoting tyranny and oppression out of ignorance, hypocrisy, hatred and lack…By electing bad leaders and not holding them accountable and showing them solidarity even when they display crass incompetence and glaring injustices to the citizens, Nigerians are culpable in the crime of making and sustaining dysfunctional leadership.

Indeed, leadership like most terms and concepts is grossly abused and bastardized in Nigeria. The Nigerian notion of leadership is tinged by traditional dogma and military mentality by the Nigerian public. Leadership as it generally conceived is about influencing peoples’ behavior towards the attainment of shared goals or common aspiration. This means that the leader wields power. Power in this context is not force, coercion or excessive reliance on authority but ability earned through trust, style, skills or other rare attributes. What does the leader do? The leader influences, motivates, supports, develops, plans, and achieve goals. A Leader establishes direction, creates vision and strategies, effectively communicates goals, seeks commitment from his people, and builds teams and coalitions for the purpose of goal attainment. And the followers are usually motivated by the passion or the genuine commitment of the leader to pursue and achieve the shared goals. People are usually de-motivated, and disenchanted when the leader abandons the common goals and hanker after parochial interests.

Essentially, leadership is a process involving people, activity and mutual interaction, influencing people in the pursuant of common goals. Trait, skills and style approaches are the schematic ways scholars look at the concept of leadership. The trait approach emphasizes the attributes such as, intelligence, self-confidence, integrity, sociability, determination, and emotional stability among others which the leader is expected to have. It is believed that with these traits the leader is able to influence his followers to achieve the desired goals. The traditional notion of leadership is that leaders are born with these leadership traits. The danger of believing that leaders are born is that it makes the so-called leaders arrogant; taking things for granted and ignoring efforts to sharpen their skills and latent potentials by learning. It creates entitlement mentality. Those who believed they were born to lead most of the time rely on authority to lead; what I call leadership by assumption—clinging to assumed noble ancestry or position of spurious claims. And the inherent dangers include lack of training, reliance on authority, impunity, patronage, illusion and unrealistic assumption. People who hold on to this belief place all emphasis on their rights and most often negate their obligations. Rights and privileges without obligation or responsibility are tyranny. History has shown that the ultimate destination of tyranny is failure. The current state of affairs in the country has made a complete mess of the born-to-rule hypothesis for what we have experienced in the past fifty years in the hands of those who lay claim to this antiquated theory is toxic and dysfunctional leadership that has ruined the nation.

However, over the years, the general views about leadership have evolved from mere emphasis on leader’s personality (traits) to other issues like the leader’s behaviors and capabilities. Thus, leadership can be appraised based not only on individual attributes, but on competencies (problem-solving skills) and leadership outcome (performance or goal accomplishment).

The style approach to leadership is about the behavior of the leader towards the followers and task accomplishment in different situations. By and large, the attitude of the leader in this regard is dependent on the situation. The behavior of an officer leading his troops to the war front may not be the same when he is leading them to the parade ground or to the armed forces games. In the style approach, some leaders are task oriented (more interested in goal accomplishment) while some are people oriented (more interested in relationship building). The most effective leader in the leadership grid is the one that combine both styles.

In the skills approach, leadership is seen as a skill-based process. The skill approach emphasizes the capabilities that make the leader more able to effectively influence his group. These skills can be latent, honed or learned. Skills and abilities can be learned and developed. Robert Katz, a Harvard scholar identifies technical, human and conceptual skills as the basic skills that make leaders effective. Technical skills have to do with competency. Leaders should have the right techniques and analytical tools to interpret situations. A man who does not know about Economics may find it difficult leading an economic team. In the contemporary fast-paced world, leaders are expected to be updated with current global trends in order to keep pace with the environment. Outdated individuals would not understand issues and global contemporary trends and therefore may not be effective.

Gozie Irogboli, an economist, a novelist and public policy analyst can be reached at goziei@yahoo.com