Defining organisations and leadership is important and there are many ways in which it can be done. This is just one of that I think best defines the genes in terms of expectation.
1 – Organisation
of Opportunists
There is an organisation where the dominant behaviour is governed by only one objective, “My well being”. This is an organisation, where a number of individuals have come together to look after their personal benefit!
When
they keep saying different things and sometimes contrary to what they have been
recommending but all their actions result in benefiting them, well that’s a
classic opportunist. Everyone knows such people can’t be trusted.
With time and observation, it dawns on us
that most opportunists are myopic in their vision and understanding of the
world. These people cannot bring new thinking and it is above them to rise to situations where
leadership and courage is required.
Most of all they cannot develop a thought,
these opportunist are only good in terms of riding the momentum of public
emotions. When the followers/associates become sentimental they will not come
over to bring calm around them, rather they will use that moment and try to build
strength. Time and again they will remain opportunist.
2 – Organisation
of an Ideology
This organization believes in some fact or fiction or story or
whatever. They have a belief, an ideology for which they work. Members here will put their personal
needs and wants in second place to the ideology.
Well, here you are dealing with an orgnisation where the basis to achieve a common goal. The goal is made or prepared
considering their ideology, it is based on some principal -- right or wrong is
always debatable but there is an underlying motto. .
Leaders with ideology can be people with
exceptional ability.
If the organization is driven by the ideology such as --"Justice and Equality for all (and not
limited to a certain set of people), if not of past, but for present & future"
-- and its members are actually able to implement it then the people can consider themselves as blessed.
When such organisations is working properly and is fair then you will see many leaders emerging. It can groom a good leader who can evolve to the caliber level of Mahatma
Gandhi and Mandela. These days, such people are hard to find but more than that such organisations are difficult to find.
Otherwise it is extremely important to
understand what is the core idea or the vision that one would end up
supporting. Because it can be as distorted as the KKK, Black Panthers, Taliban,
etc. (there are couple of Indian versions as well on all sides -- regional
level, religion, caste, sub-caste, etc. ).
But allow me to put a little caveat. One
must understand that with time and experience, since humans as a species also
evolve, individuals will also change and organisations are made up of individuals.
Leadership
: Bucketing individual leaders
Broadly there are four types of leaders. I have
marked them as Type 1, 2, 3 and 4 for ease of reference:
Type
1: They want power and feel like a king. Power is
their only ambition. At times such leaders can be so much of a control freak
that they will go to length to discredit their opponents, especially those whom
they consider as strong competitors. These are also mostly opportunists who transform into tyrannical. Type 1
does not have any grand plans. And they cannot think beyond 1-to-5 years (in
democracy) or whatever period they fancy (dictator). And also they do not evolve
in their message to the need of the people or the process of evolvement
is too slow.
Type
2: Leaders that want position of power to profit
only. From a leadership point these are opportunists. This may sound similar to
Type 1, but there is a subtle difference, they don’t care of being a king or
king maker or whatever, for them it’s not about positions its money/power or
anything that they are aiming for constantly.
When opportunists become leaders they cannot bring radical changes nor will they rise up to a situation when
people in general are sentimental. When the public in its emotional moments
demand blood, these leaders will become brutal, but they will not dominate
continuously by being brutal, that capacity these individuals do not have.
Since they understand their potential they
will not aim for the highest office but the second highest or the council that
supports the highest office. This is the lot which would shift between power
broker and being in position of leadership like a governor, CM, MoS etc.
Type
3: Leaders, who want power in order to write history.
It’s not money or power that is the driving factor here. It could be leaving a
legacy, or creating history. Usually such people either create institutions or
mold an institution to their vision. Off all the characteristic there is one
that are crucial here if they are not only in power but they are also the face
of power — Good debater/speaker – they will give speech to capture imagination.
If leadership is split between front face
and party organizer, and the true leader is more of a party organizer and not
in the leader chair himself/herself, then it would be completely ideological
driven. There are also times that such leaders,
when they get a taste of power, then ideology goes out of the window and they
become Type 1 leader i.e. a tyrannical, power hungry leader.
Differentiating the two would be a
challenge but I think the easiest way would be to see how they handle the day
to day activity and keep an eye on their past actions. That should give you a
glimpse of what type the leader is – Mahatma Gandhi/Mandela or Hitler/Chavez.
Type
4: People who are propelled to leadership position
and their target is simple one, to stay in that position for as long as they
can, even if they have no ability and/or appetite to deliver results for which
the power was bestowed upon them. In either case such leadership is usually
week
