Perfect leader

Bermudez

We are defined by the performance of the leaders we install.

From the quiet of my writing room, I can imagine the howls of protest from those who believe the culpability for bad leaders belongs only to the unthinking mob. But I am throwing this assertion out there precisely to make the argument that even those who feel they have been diligent in selecting their leaders may actually be just as remiss as those who do not care much about who leads. In successful organizations, succession planning is usually a long, involved process that includes thorough selection, vetting and transition.

If the company is professionally managed, the most suitable candidate is identified through a deep selection process. In a family-run company, the incumbent shortlists his options and runs them through years of mentoring to gauge their potential.

Preparation

In either case, the candidate goes through a sufficient preparatory period to address chinks in his armor. An entire ecosystem is created to cover his weak flank and ensure that his deficiencies do not prevent the company from achieving its goals. It is not so in forgettable organizations where the search for leaders only begins when a vacancy occurs. Often, the selection is heavily influenced by the temper of the times, not by the strategic imperatives of the company. If the company happens to be going through a financial crisis, the astute CFO becomes a logical candidate.

If the company’s market share is bleeding profusely, the fast-rising brand manager looms large. If the company happens to be grappling with a life-threatening regulatory issue, the good governance guru gets an inside track.

We can say this too of many nations and their governments.

Notice how many groups that advocate good public governance hibernate after elections. They resume their succession planning as late as one year before elections. By then, there would be no more time to do a deep selection and to adequately prepare the anointed for the tough challenges that await him. When it comes down to choosing between winning and putting up the most deserving candidate, the pragmatists always win. By default, the “non-winnable” candidates do not even make it to the playoffs despite their impressive credentials and track record.

In successful organizations, succession planning is usually a long, involved process.

The nominators make do with a short list of nominees who are less desired but have a reasonable chance of winning. Then his best attributes are parlayed into a winning persona, an image larger than life that his supporters desperately want him to grow into, within the short span of the election campaign. This is where the problem begins.

Leaders seem larger than life because their followers make them so. Whether they admit it or not, people know right from the day they anoint their leader that he is not exactly built to their specifications.

Imperfections

Yet they gloss over his many imperfections as they get carried away by his charisma or his ability to get things done. They naively imagine him to be their knight in shining armor who will pluck them out of their sordid state, the all-mighty superhero who will single-handedly trounce the evil legion, and then cursorily acknowledge the adulation of his awestruck fans.

This explains the phenomenon of the “honeymoon period” with new leaders. When the romance is over, people realize that their superhero also blinks, that he is no more than a life-sized mortal who cannot possibly deliver all the lofty expectations they unilaterally wrote into his job description. Disappointed, they transit from feeling “they were had” to taking offense at their superhero’s “sins of omission,” They start to turn against him. As they gang up on him, they magnify his imperfections and begin to see flaws that aren’t even there. Remember, it was they who made him larger than life in the first place. As he diminishes in their view, they mount a new search for the next superhero. This was how it was with Jesus Christ. This was how it was with the great leaders of nations and global corporations who rose to the pinnacle of fame and fell.

Choosing bad leaders has dire consequences

In the real world, there are no superheroes. But many still cling to the self-deceiving thought that they can find someone who has excellent IQ and EQ, is an excellent manager, and has world-class diplomatic skills. In other words, they want someone who has all the qualities of history’s best leaders. They point to icons who “measure up” to these exacting standards. If truth be told, they merely extrapolate from the little they really know of these icons. In fact, there are just too many stories of invincible CEOs and leaders with the proverbial Midas touch who eventually landed in jail or became fugitives after more became known about them. But as with many things, people’s fascination with their anointed blinds them to assume that their man indeed measures up.

But does he?

Tragedy

Whether he does or doesn’t may not even matter in the end if his followers do not do their part. The tragedy of lazy followers is that they leave their chosen one alone after they pick him. They expect him to fight the powerful and the wily but they do nothing to help him or they desert him in the heat of battle. A public servant who steps on powerful toes as he tries to do well by his people runs into huge obstacles erected by political proxies of deeply entrenched power enclaves bigger than him. He is likely to find himself isolated, disparaged and crucified. But the biggest pain for the well-intentioned leader is the sad thought that people whose best interest he had in mind can so foolishly embrace the vicious canard being purveyed by his detractors.

But great leaders never lose. Certainly, they do not get poorer by the loss of lazy followers. Instead, they move on until they get crowned by history. Yes, history has a way of shaking out the clutter and overcoming dishonest revision.

What happens to the lazy followers?

Their fate is boring but dreadful. Superhero after superhero, they move from disappointment to frustration, from frustration to anger, from anger to hopelessness, and from hopelessness to knowing their heads as they ask, “God, why can’t we have a good leader?” A good epilogue eludes them again and again. —CONTRIBUTED INQ

Joey A. Bermudez is chair of the Maybridge Finance and Leasing Inc. and past president of MAP.