Why There Is No Such Thing As Humble Leadership By Benson Agoha

Stop preaching this sermon about humility as an attribute of leadership. Let me stress this, I do not believe and, I say it again, do NOT believe, there is anything like a `humble’ leader. The reality of our world dictates that you either be a leader or a follower – which makes it both simple and complicated at the same time.

Management scholars have continually peered into the field of leadership, both to define it and to see how the leader can best be qualified in terms of expectation, capability and delivery of results. While things are often muddled up, it seems to me that because leadership is a by-product of social dynamics, a good leader will best be attributed to corporate organisations, whereas a great leader is for political and military institutions. Why? Because corporate organisations view a leader in terms of whether he is a democratic and compassionate or not, while political and military institutions view him in terms of excercise of strenght - strong will, might, or raw power.

You may wonder why I maintain these two stand points, but consider that leadership is not a word that emanates within horizontal associates or functional colleagues. Leadership stems from the search for the `head’ from among, or to guide a group. A leader must possess the strength of character that will enable him ride the tides of leading. And humility is not one of them.

Am I saying that every leader must hate the world humility? Far from it, but the point I am making is that, leaders, like most other professionals, are role players. For this reason, they must be trained to understand that a leader today, can be a follower tomorrow. Or that a leader in point `A’, may become a follower at point `B’. It is just a matter of the `role’ he is playing at that point in time.

It is wrong to attribute `humility’ to a leader who is playing the role of a follower. What choice has he got than to be humble to those in whose hands his own fate rests for the time being? Academics understand this very well. For example if a professor comes to study under an Assistant Senior Lecturer, he understands that, for that period he is automatically following, just as the ASL would when he finds himself handling a project under the Prof. This creates the need, and room, for mutual respect, tolerance and accommodation.

A better and effective leader is he who is trained to understand that the role is timed and temporary and that he is both a leader and follower at the same time. He must be intelligent, knowledgeable, have strong mental attitude and character, reasonable, attentive, tolerant, compassionate, assertive, accommodating – but not humble.

Some Pastors, are generally perceived as humble, but while this is good for their image, the truth is that they are just humble to God, a Supreme power over which they have no choice - not to their church members.

In 10 Attributes of a Humble Leader, Ron Edmonton argued that `Humility always demands a certain level of trust. A humble leader is willing to take a risk on others, trusting them with the sacredness of the vision, even at the chance they may be disappointed with the outcome’. There again, this writer indicated his religious background, and it is then easy to understand his take on humility.

But while I accept totally, RE’s recognition of God’s supremacy over man, I have to point out that delegation and trusting others with the vision is a requirement of management, and scientific management requires that the skilled hands be put in the right places for a greater chance of achieving results. If we recognise the need to respect and obey higher powers, how then can a leader be said to be humble when he is playing that role of which he is already constrained to actually play.

Although in “Humility Key to Effective Leadership”, Jacqueline Ghosen insists, as does Prof. Bradley Owens, that, "Leaders of all ranks view admitting mistakes, spotlighting follower strengths and modeling teachability as being at the core of humble leadership," leadership maybe about admission of errors, obedience and respect to higher powers as well as tolerance of followers. Giving instruction or delegation to subordinates is not arrogance but part of his/her responsibilities. How he/she chooses to do this marks him/her out as popular or well-loved or not. It doesn’t make him arrogant, except he/she shows disrespect to superiors.

Lastly, I have to point out that a leader must not look down, except he/she is doing it with compassion. Looking down, is not a symbol of humility, but a dangerous move that no leader should practice. Looking down has pitfalls and temptation and brings down a leader faster than other types of incompetence. Looking down demeans the strategic focus and vision and endangers to collective goal.

A leader who looks down runs a serious risk of failure through temptation, of envy and jealousy and short-sightedness, of loss of dignity respect from his followers – except of course he/she does so with and for sake of compassion on the followers.

What do you think?

<>-------------------------------------<>

Benson Agoha is the founder of Woolwich Online

<>-------------------------------------<>

Write in and join "Benson and his Cronies at Leadership Lane": Articles for publication must have full contact details, including name, address and telephone number of sender and sent by email to: onlinewoolwich@yahoo.co.uk.