Ever since Athenian general and historian Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian war in his masterpiece, History of the Peloponnesian War, which set out to identify the reasons for Athens’ defeat in the 5th century BC war between Sparta and Athens, the subject of leadership has been the stuff of more theories, studies, research, teaching, you name it – all in search for ‘solutions’ to the problem of producing leaders.

In fact, some scholars have followed the ‘ideal qualities of a leader’ approach - an approach which suggests that leadership is an inherent innate skill, exemplified by, for example, Nelson Mandela, and also arguably Napoleon Bonaparte of France.

In contrast, however, leadership scholars like John Adair, a leadership theorist and author of more than forty books on leadership, have focussed on the ‘task led approach’ – an approach which suggests that leadership is simply a technical skill which can be taught.

Moreover, other scholars have even suggested that leadership qualities no matter how unique they may be, can be learned by a sort of osmosis; all that is required is to identify clearly apparently successful leaders of the past like Pericles – who is regarded as arguably the most influential and prominent statesman in Greece’s history, and the late Nelson Mandela for instance, and imitate them.

They would like us to think that qualities such as high ethical and moral standards can be learned, communication skills can be carefully observed and practiced, and, even attribute to see beyond what a common man sees can be coached through a series of past events.

Nonetheless, while all the above approaches may be valid, in this article, I intend to focus less on the process through which leaders acquire leadership skills, and more on how they can apply leadership qualities to improve their respective institutions both in the public and private sectors.

But, first things first: what is leadership anyway?

Personally, leadership is first and foremost about getting things done through people. The two, tasks and people, cannot be separated. This is mainly because without people, tasks will remain just that, tasks.

And without tasks, well, people have no challenge or objectives to look forward to. Secondly, without goals and people there is no role for a leader - a blinding glimpse of the obvious but nonetheless true.

In many walks of life, when goals aren’t achieved or little or no progress is made, frequently we hear that there has been no effective leadership –this, by definition, is what leadership entails; to get things done.

Also, in the military, an area I was fortunate to explore during grad school, leadership qualities are easily traced more so because leadership is about getting people to do unhesitatingly, and with certainty, dangerous and life threatening tasks which nobody would normally be prepared to do.

So, moving on from the fact that leadership is about two things - the task and secondly the people, for leaders to be effective, they must be capable of the identification and communication of a clear vision of what is to be achieved by the organisation they lead.

To stand any chance of succeeding where others have failed, strategies must be clearly explained so that private sector employees or civil servants fully understand the benefits attached to that given strategy so that they may give it their all - buy into it so to speak.

Also, as a leader, it is vital that you become easily accessible to your staff, whether junior or senior in rank. This is firstly because; it allows you to assess the level of your organisation’s morale - which can undoubtedly affect productivity levels, but also because, getting close to your staff helps to understand whether the task ahead is achievable.

This can be done through feedback provided by frontline employees who implement the policies or business ideas of your organisation. You will be astounded by the number of projects that fail not because the task at hand was impossible to achieve, but because concerns of frontline staff were neglected from the onset.

Good leaders know that just because something makes sense on paper, it doesn’t always work out that way out in the field. Therefore, a flexible approach is needed to maintain course mainly because, like it or not, no leader can do everything themselves. It is important to provide a clear direction while allowing room for feedback and meaningful debate.

Likewise, praise is as important as reprimand, but much less easy to remember to give. Leaders ought to set themselves a target of how many people they praise a day simply because it shows employees that their efforts are valued and that someone senior recognises that.

To add, leadership whether in the public or private sector, is all about setting clear, comprehensible, and obviously reasonable goals. Over the years, frequently, leaders in different settings have failed to set clear and realistic goals for their organisations – for instance, leaders like George Osborne, the former UK chancellor of the exchequer who was also believed to harbour aspirations for the UK Premiership, pursued austerity measures for over five years even though he knew with certainty that his strategy would continue to diminish people’s standards of living, especially the less fortunate.

Great leaders know when to be tough and resilient, but also when to be flexible, agile, and reasonable in the face of changing circumstances. You will find that management and process-change is only made because the present situation is not working satisfactorily.

That said, you would be astonished how often this is later forgotten and blame for failure is placed on the fact of change rather than on the failure to implement it properly.

junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk