Our people should be led to overcome the coronavirus

IN one chapter of his book, Transforming (Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 2003), the political scientist and author James MacGregor Burns relates how in a class ON LEADERSHIP, HE fired UP A LIVELY discussion of the question: “Was Adolf Hitler a leader?”

A female student vehemently answered the question, “Yes!” Evil though he was, she declared, Hitler mirrored the hopes and hates of the German people, he won elections, and he fulfilled his promises by changing Germany along the lines his followers wanted —so how could he not be called a leader? She had the class, said Burns, all but convinced and almost had him, too. Almost.

The teacher then explained how he extricated himself from the conundrum. It was not that the student was in any way pro-Hitler, who stands as perhaps the most detested man in all of human history. The problem is confusion about the essence of leadership. Is leadership a neutral thing, a mechanical press or power potential available equally to a Hitler or a Gandhi? Or should it be defined as a good thing?

Burns then quotes Joanne Ciulla, a leading authority on the ethics of leadership, who believes “the question of what constitutes a good leader lies at the heart of the public debate on leadership.”

The professor and political theorist then pointed to three standards or norms as they relate to leadership: virtue, ethics and values.

Virtue refers to norms of conduct, or “habits of action” such as sobriety, cleanliness, fidelity, honesty in personal relationships.

Ethics reflect modes of more formal and transactional conduct such as in integrity, trustworthiness, reciprocity, promise-keeping, and accountability.

Values mean such lofty public principles as order, liberty, equality, justice and the pursuit of happiness.

Politicians all too often offer vivid examples of the vital distinctions among virtues, ethics and public values.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt transgressed the virtue of marital fidelity and lied to the American people about using the US Navy to aid British warships against German submarines, at a time when the US was supposed to be neutral.

Bill Clinton was roundly criticized for unvirtuous conduct with a young White House intern.

Did FDR’s and Clinton’s lapses in virtue trump their worthiness as leaders. FDR led in the transformation of American government and society and is one of the greatest US presidents in history. There is still a question whether Clinton produced enough changes that benefited the American people.

Historians with a longer perspective should provide the verdict.

So, was Hitler a leader, even a transforming leader? Burns has a thoughtful answer: “Certainly, Hitler transformed Germany. By what standards could his rulership be measured? Clearly, he would not be described as virtuous or ethical except by Nazi standards. His own higher vision was to restore order in the increasingly turbulent Germany of the 1930s and then create a ‘Greater Germany’ that would dominate Europe, if not the world.

“In fact, Hitler left his country in defeat and devastation, so he was a terrible failure measured even by his own standards. If we tested him instead by Enlightenment values of liberty and equality, he was a fanatical enemy of both. He failed utterly to create for the people of Germany lasting, meaningful opportunities for the pursuit of happiness.”

Burns then concluded: “My answer to the question I put to my students: Hitler ruled the German people, but he did not lead them .”

Leader or ruler: The difference

This chestnut led me to further research on the essential difference between a leader and a ruler, and why it matters.

Many scholars have written on the subject. I think the following explication by Les Taylor in an article online will suffice:

“A leader is a person who leads or commands a group, organization or country. “A ruler exercises dominion. “While those descriptions are interesting, I think the primary distinction between the two is that a leader has the ability to influence — people and outcomes. People follow leaders because they trust them. And they trust them because they believe in their ability to reach an intended goal or outcome. They trust them because they believe a leader has their best interests at heart.

“There are other distinctive differences between the two.

“1. Leaders influence, rulers demand: Demanding that certain actions be taken a certain way almost always leads to resentment. No one wants to be told what to do, how to do it or when to do it — especially today. Dictates and demands make us feel powerless, and this leads to resentment. If you’re looking for mediocrity and a half- hearted effort, just demand something be done — without asking for input from those affected by the edict.

“Leaders look for input, they want to know what others are thinking and they’re always looking for better ideas and new ways of doing things. A leader doesn’t fear a different opinion and doesn’t consider someone who disagrees an enemy.

“2. Leaders are transparent, rulers... not so much: No one likes to think something is being hidden from them. When things aren’t going well or mistakes have been made, it’s always a good policy to simply admit it. Don’t make excuses and don’t make stuff up. Admit things aren’t working out as planned and get input on how to fix the problem.

“3. Leaders listen, rulers aren’t interested in other ideas or opinions: You’ve heard that 50 percent of being a good communicator is being a good listener? I think being a good communicator means listening more than 50 percent of the time. Leaders want to know what’s [really] going on — they don’t assume they know. A good leader also wants to hear differing opinions.

“Rulers have their own agenda and don’t really care what others think. They’re not looking for advice or opinion. They’re looking for compliance.

“4. Leaders focus on the positive, rulers are faultfinders: Leaders encourage. They provide hope, support and confidence by maintaining a positive, encouraging attitude. We all want to know our efforts are appreciated and we all need positive reinforcement — especially when things aren’t going well.

“Rulers are finger-pointers. It’s not about seeing what’s working; it’s about pointing the finger and blaming. Rulers rule through fear- mongering and faultfinding.

“5. Leaders play to the strengths of others, rulers don’t: Leaders surround themselves with people who have the strengths they personally lack. A good leader doesn’t try to be a Jack [or Jill] of all trades. Leaders focus on their specific strengths and avoid trying to strengthen their weaknesses. Leaders delegate the things they don’t do well to those who have the necessary skills to achieve positive results.

“Rulers have a false sense of their own abilities. They believe they’re where they are because of who they are — and grossly overestimate their abilities.

“It seems pretty obvious which of the two will lead effectively and create positive outcomes. Leaders are influential, transparent, good listeners, who focus on the positive, and play to the strengths of others.

“Rulers, on the other hand, rely on position and power to get their followers (subjects) to do what they want them to do. They’re not interested in differing opinions or input. Rulers are self-focused, and, in their world, the ends justify the means.”

I mean, of course, to suggest by all this that amid this terrible coronavirus pandemic, the nation needs leadership above all. The Filipino people need to be led so they can pull themselves out of the hole of this emergency. It will not happen by sheer command or threats.