Your Leadership Or Your Life: A Leadership Lesson

A classic radio skit by comedian Jack Benny involved Benny being held up on the street by a man with a gun. "Your money or your life," the gunman said to Benny, who portrayed himself in character as an inveterate tightwad. There was a long pause. The gunman repeated, "Your money or your life."

"I'm thinking!" said Benny. "I'm thinking!"

Whenever I remember that skit, I think of leadership. The portrayal of Benny's stage character, a skinflint equally concerned for his money as for his life, gives a kind of sideways, albeit humorous, glimpse into the nature of human commitment. For some people, there are things as important or more important than one's life.

I submit that leadership involves such commitment -- maybe not as extreme as offering up one's life (though history clearly shows many leaders have) but none-the-less that calls for our total devotion.

Leadership is not just position or even performance. It's much more. It's a life-quest. I am not saying it should be more important than your life; I am saying that if you are in a position of leadership, you should make your leadership a better part of who you are.

Leadership is important to you in two ways. First, it is a career-maker/breaker. Most careers have at their basis leadership. A human resources director told me. "Brent, we hire people for their skills and knowledge but we promote them or fail to promote them or fire them for their leadership abilities (or lack thereof.) What we hire for and what we fire, promote for are two different things!"

Organizations are hungry for good leadership. And if you can provide it, you have a great career advantage over those who can't, or at least those who provide it ineffectively.

This is especially so if you promote the right kind of leadership. It doesn't mean being an order leader. The days of the order-leader are not just numbered. They're over. Today, leadership is motivational or its stumbling in the dark.

Because in terms of achieving more results faster continually, the order is the lowest form of leadership.

With globalization, businesses worldwide are undergoing changes as radical as any since the Industrial Revolution. With competition increasing dramatically, with the volume and velocity of information multiplying, with information becoming accessible to more and more people, with the traditional, pyramidal structures of order-giving flattening, leaders today need skills akin not to those needed for white-water canoeing.

Order leadership founders in an environment where lines of authority are dynamic, information widely disseminated, markets rapidly changing, and employees empowered. In such an environment, new leadership, motivational leadership, is needed.

In short, the leader who can "have" others get results. That means global leadership is essentially motivational leadership.

That's the kind of leadership needed to achieve such success. Now, here's the tool to make that leadership happen. That tool is The Leadership Talk. Here's what the Leadership Talk is all about.

When it comes to realizing motivational leadership around the world, there is a hierarchy of verbal persuasion. This hierarchy extends to people everywhere, no matter what their culture, what job they hold, or what ambitions they have.

The lowest levels of the hierarchy are speeches and presentations. They communicate information. The highest level, the most effective level is The Leadership Talk. The Leadership Talk not only communicates information. It does something much more. It establishes deep, human, emotional connections with people.

The question isn't, "Why is this connection necessary in terms of getting organizational results?" (After all, the answer is obvious.), the question is, "Why is the Leadership Talk the gold standard for international leadership?"

For one thing, I've had top leaders in top companies worldwide applying it for more than two decades, and it simply works. It's all about helping leaders get what I call "more results faster, continually." You can get those kinds of results on a global scale without the Leadership Talk.

The Leadership Talk is motivational, action-focused, results oriented. When you use it, you'll find it works not only on an organization level but also on a deeply personal level.

And it is in the realm of the deeply personal that leadership comprises the second way its important. This leadership methodology can be of great benefit to your life-relationships, not just your job ones. In fact, it's something you can devote your life to in every relationship every day.

Your leadership or your life? With the Leadership Talk, your leadership IS your life.

2006 © The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

PERMISSION TO REPUBLISH: This article may be republished in newsletters and on web sites provided attribution is provided to the author, and it appears with the included copyright, resource box and live web site link. Email notice of intent to publish is appreciated but not required: mail to: brent@actionleadership.com

The author of 23 books, Brent Filson's recent books are, THE LEADERSHIP TALK: THE GREATEST LEADERSHIP TOOL and 101 WAYS TO GIVE GREAT LEADERSHIP TALKS. He is founder and president of The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. ? and for more than 21 years has been helping leaders of top companies worldwide get audacious results. Sign up for his free leadership e-zine and get a free white paper: "49 Ways To Turn Action Into Results," at http://www.actionleadership.com

Three Ways of Defining Leadership

Here are 3 popular ways of defining leadership, each from a slightly different perspective:

Leadership means being the dominant individual in a group.
Leadership means getting things done through people.
Leadership means challenging the status quo, promoting a better way.

For many, leadership means doing all three of these things but there are subtle and important differences. Let's look at them one by one.

Leadership means being the dominant individual in a group.

In primitive tribes and higher animal species the dominant individual was the leader. Being the leader simply meant having the power to attain and hold the top position for a reasonable length of time. Contrary to definition 2, you could be the leader without getting anything done through others. A leader was the person in charge even if the group was in a stable state where people went about their business as normal. As long as group members obeyed the leader's rules, the leader did not even need to be actively involved in the lives of group members, let alone get anything done through them. You could also be the leader in such a group without promoting a better way as suggested by definition 3. If you didn't need to be voted into power, why have a platform for change? You simply seized power; no sales pitch was needed on how you could make life better for the group. Yes, such leaders may have led groups successfully in battle and built great monuments with them, but, strictly speaking, you could be the leader without achieving anything through a group effort. The meaning of leadership, according to this definition, is simply to be at the top of the pile.

Leadership means getting things done through people.

Great leaders throughout history have led their groups to momentous achievements, but the idea that leadership should be defined as getting things done through people has been developed most fully by modern business, which is all about achieving results. As business has become more complex, the leadership challenge has grown form one of the simple issuing of orders to a few "hands" to the subtle coordination of highly skilled, diverse knowledge workers to build sophisticated machines and put men on the moon. There is a problem with this definition of leadership, however. It used to belong to management. Why the switch from management to leadership? And is this a good move? Up to the late 1970's writers used the terms leadership and management interchangeably but with more emphasis on management. For example, the management theorists, Blake and Mouton, developed their famous managerial grid in the 1960's. At the time, it was portrayed as a way of identifying your management style. Today, in line with the shift to leadership, the name is the same (managerial grid) but it is now positioned as a leadership style instrument.

Similarly, we used to talk about management style more than leadership style. Managers could be either "theory X" and task oriented or "theory Y" and concerned for people. But a profound shift in thinking took place in a revolutionary period lasting from the late 1970's through the mid 1980's. The cause of this upheaval was the commercial success of Japanese industry in North America. This led pundits to claim that the U.S. had lost its competitive edge because U.S. management was too bureaucratic, controlling, uninspiring and inept at fostering innovation. Rather than upgrade management, there was an emotional over reaction such that management was rejected and replaced by leadership. Since then, leaders were portrayed as theory Y, inspiring and concerned about people while management got saddled with all the bad guy attributes of being controlling, theory X, uninspiring and narrowly task focused. Similarly, the distinction between being transformational and transactional was originally launched to differentiate two leadership styles, but it wasn't long before it became used to separate leadership from management, the former being transformational and the latter transactional.

In our haste to trash management, we grabbed whatever tools were handy but with heavy costs. First, we painted leadership into a corner by suggesting that you needed to be an inspiring cheerleader to be a leader, leaving no room for quiet or simply factual leadership. Second, we created a bloated concept of leadership by banishing management. Third, by attaching leadership to getting things done through a team, we associated leadership irrevocably with being in charge of people, thereby ruling out positionless leadership. Yes, there is informal leadership but this concept is essentially the same as formal leadership except for their power bases. Like its formal counterpart, informal leadership still means taking charge and managing a group to achieve a target. In either case, you need to have the personal presence, organizational skills and motivation to take charge to be a leader.

Leadership means challenging the status quo, promoting a better way.

We have always felt, intuitively, that leaders have the courage to stand up and be counted. They go against the grain, often at great risk, to call for change. We only need to look at Martin Luther King, Jr. His leadership rested not so much on his oratorical skills - they were just icing on the cake. He was a leader primarily because he marched and spoke against injustice. He challenged the status quo and promoted a better world.

However, and this is the whole point here, if you think through what it means to challenge the status quo or advocate change, there is no necessary implication that you have to be in charge of the people you are trying to influence. The bottom line is that this third definition, when worked through fully, gives us a way to break the stranglehold of the previous two definitions. The benefit of this move is that we gain a clearer understanding of how all employees can show leadership even if they totally lack the skills or inclination to take charge of groups in a managerial sense, even informally. Think again of Martin Luther King, Jr. He sought to move the U.S. Government and the population at large to think differently about such issues as segregation on buses. His leadership efforts were successful when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such discrimination unconstitutional. Now, it is obvious that he was not in a managerial role within the Supreme Court. He showed leadership to this group as an outsider. You could say the same of Jack Welch who had a leadership impact on countless businesses around the globe through his novel practices, such as being first or second in a market. Again, those who followed the lead of Jack Welch did not report to him. They were not even members of a common group.

Leadership Reinvented for the 21st Century

If we cast aside the first two definitions of leadership, what is left? If leadership means nothing more than promoting a better way, then we need to upgrade management to take care of everything to do with getting things done through people. We need to say that management does not entail being controlling, bureaucratic or theory X, that they can be as inspiring as they need to be, good at coaching, developing and empowering people.

A critical supporting fact is that the power on which leadership is based is shifting from having a dominant personality to the ability to devise new ways of working, new products and better services. Businesses that compete on the basis of rapid innovation are engaged in a war of ideas and no one has a monopoly on good ideas. This is revolutionary because it suggests that leadership can no longer be about group domination. Now, leadership is a brief influence impact, an episode or act, not an ongoing state or role. You still may need a larger than life personality to ascend to the role of Chief Executive, but leadership conceived as a good idea for a better way can be very small scale and local. Any employee with a better idea can promote it, even if only by example, without having the personal presence to be promoted to a managerial role. Strictly, speaking there are no longer any leaders, only leadership. This view captures the fact that leadership is a fleeting state that can shift quickly from one person to another. It is an impact rather than a type of person or position. It must be so if it can be shown by outsiders.

Key Features of Leadership Reinvented

It does not involve managing people to get things done.
It comes to an end once those led get on board. It sells the tickets for the journey; management drives the bus to the destination.
It is a discrete episode, a one-off act of influence, not an ongoing position of dominance.
It is based on the promotion of a better way.
It can be shown bottom-up as well as top-down.
It can be shown by outsiders and between competing individuals or groups.

Thought Leadership - The Essence of Leadership Reinvented

Organizations today need all employees to think creatively and to promote new products. Promoting a better idea can be called thought leadership. In a knowledge driven environment, the newest, best idea influences others to get on board. When a product developer convinces top management to adopt a new product, that person has shown thought leadership bottom-up. But it can be shown across groups as well. When Microsoft develops products or services invented by Apple or Google, they are following the lead of these innovators. This also is thought leadership.

While the possession of great emotional intelligence and the oratory of a Martin Luther King, Jr. can help thought leaders make their case, it is vital to see that these skills are nice to have add-ons, not an essential part of the meaning of leadership. Technical geeks with zero emotional intelligence and an obnoxious influencing style can show thought leadership if they can demonstrate the value of their ideas. This is very empowering because it moves us away from the demand to develop sophisticated leadership skills as a precondition of showing leadership. Strictly speaking there are no leadership skills, only influencing skills and great content. Imagine asking Tiger Woods. after the end of the third round when he is in the lead, how he developed such great leadership skills. The truth is that he shows leadership through being great at the content of his profession, not by having a separate set of talents called leadership skills. On the other hand, there are very definite management skills. Getting work done through people calls for quite sophisticated interpersonal and organizational skills.

Content is King

The point of the previous section is that convincing content or substance can trump great style or form. Having a larger than life personality may still help you get to be CEO but this is the power of style over substance. If the prospective leader has enough charisma, it almost doesn't matter what is being advocated (the content). Conversely, thought leadership is most convincing if backed up by hard evidence. Having persuasive influencing skills helps but isn't essential. This means that front line knowledge workers can focus on what it really takes to show leadership: begin by developing convincing content. If your idea is good enough it will virtually sell itself. It's not that influencing skills are not valuable. The point is that we can define leadership without mentioning influencing style. Also, there is the fact that opportunists will get on board with a great idea with no persuasion whatsoever. Thus, if it is possible to show leadership without being personally persuasive, then having such skills cannot be a necessary condition to show leadership.

The Future of Leadership

Leadership reinvented can still be shown by CEOs. They just need to accept that much of what they do needs to be reclassified as management. They also need to devote more time to fostering leadership in front line employees, thereby taking empowerment a huge leap forward. If they want to reap the full innovative potential of all employees, CEOs and other managers need to engage and inspire employees more fully. Helping them to see how all employees can show leadership now could make all the difference between winning the war of ideas and falling further behind. Where knowledge rules, the old fashioned conception of leadership as group domination is dangerously obsolete. Complexity drives specialization. It is time to bring management back from the dead to take care of getting things done through people, leaving leadership to focus on finding and promoting new directions.

Definition number 1 may still be good enough to capture what happens in small street gangs and primitive tribes but it is most clearly out of date in a world that is a war of ideas. Number 2 is a mess because it is a total confusion of leadership and management. Only definition number 3 captures all leadership - that shown by people in charge, by those with neither the inclination nor the skills to take charge, and by outsiders like Martin Luther King, Jr. Uniquely, this definition also captures what it means to be a market leading company or a leading individual or team in sports. Leadership is simply a matter of showing the way. One of the many exciting features of this definition is that followers must choose to follow of their own free will because coercive power and authority are missing. Definition number 3 captures the essence of pure leadership.

See http://www.lead2xl.com for more articles like this one. Mitch McCrimmon has over 30 years experience in executive assessment and coaching. His latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, challenges conventional thinking on leadership.

Holistic Leadership

Preface

The purpose of this article is to present an integrated model of leadership. I call this Holistic Leadership, one founded upon the premise that each of us must strive throughout our lifetime to become a centered individual who is able to effectively use the four principal components of leadership. Of particular significance is to understand the importance of the whole and the inter-relationships among the components and their elements.

My approach is not to focus on leadership equals position in an organization (i.e., management), but rather to talk about it as being resident in each and every one of us. It's important that any discussion on leadership be integrated with individual, team and organizational learning. Although an effective leader must be able to adjust her style to the circumstances and people she leads, this must also be done in the larger context of a learning culture.

So what is a learning culture? To paraphrase Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline), a learning culture exists when people collaborate to create their own future. From my perspective, this means that leadership must be shared if this is to indeed happen, and that people must work continually towards becoming holistic leaders.

Why All the Fuss?

The roles that people (managers and staff) play in today's organizations have become much more dynamic. They face greater complexity in their work environments as a result of the evolving and more sophisticated needs of clients; growing interdependency in the global economy; technological change; changing organizational structures and work processes; an aging population, and fiscal pressures. For those in managerial positions, these individuals must not only be able to respond to the needs, values and aspirations of their staff, they must also anticipate changes in the future.

To help their organizations thrive in a rapidly changing economy and society, everyone must practice some form of leadership. While working in a collaborative manner with co-workers is key to helping their organizations succeed in the 21st Century, enhancing one's personal leadership is critical, and this requires self-discovery and self-awareness.

In his book Principle Centered Leadership, Stephen Covey stresses the importance of people achieving balance and greater fulfillment in their lives by following correct principles. Doing so gives people a base for all of their daily decisions. From a leadership perspective, this is especially important because it instills a sense of stewardship, an essential element in effective leadership. As Covey states:

When people align their personal values with correct principles, they are liberated from old perceptions. One of the characteristics of authentic leaders is their humility, evident in their ability to take off their glasses and examine the lens objectively, analyzing how well their values, perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors align with "true north" principles.

The need has never been greater for leaders - at all levels - who are capable of functioning effectively in organizations in which diversity and interdependence have become two major yet opposing forces. This requires new behaviors for leaders if they are to succeed in this new and complex environment. Let's now look at a model I've called The Holistic Leader: The Four Components & Their Principal Elements.

The Holistic Leadership Model

Note: Please visit my website (see the resource box at the end of this article) to view a diagram of the model. Click the button 'Holistic Leadership'

At the core is the Centred Individual, representing the person who has attained a high level of comfort and competency with the four primary leadership components. One may prefer to see the centred individual as having achieved balance. That's fine, as long as it's understood that balance does not mean using the four components in equal measures. Instead, the centred individual is able to seamlessly alter her leadership behaviour to meet the needs of her followers and co-workers under a given set of circumstances.

Because leadership does not exist unless there are followers, it stands to reason that at the core of the issues that demand the attention of leaders is people. This model was created with people as the cornerstone. Moreover, it respects the need for formal, managerial leadership and informal, shared leadership. Both are needed to support one another in an age of uncertainty, paradox, and speed.

Teaching

Much has been written on the need for leaders to be coaches and mentors. This is indeed essential to their effectiveness. But Teaching, as a key leadership component, is broader, encompassing the learning organization concept. Some writers have used the expression The Teaching Organization in place of the learning organization. Teaching becomes the responsibility of everyone in the organization. It begins from the inside. This is the quest for personal mastery: to continually strive to improve oneself, and in turn to share with others. In essence, we become stewards for teaching, because it is seen in the organization as highly valued and necessary to its long-term success.

To be a "teacher" means being open, both to self-discovery and to the views and feedback from others. Reflection and inquiry are critical if this is to occur, for without them we are not able to slow ourselves sufficiently to explore new meanings and possibilities. Teaching is fundamental to effective formal and informal leadership.

Directing

This component is critical to those in management, especially at the senior level. We read in the management literature how managers must posses certain key elements. They need to be visionary and strategic, yet also have a burning sense of urgency to move forward. Furthermore, they must be results-oriented, and to achieve this means that they must be capable of mobilizing people.

That these five elements are essential for effective formal leadership is not in dispute. But what about those people in middle managerial positions, not to mention staff? Little has been written on the need for people at the middle and lower levels in organizations to develop their skills for these five elements. However, they are critical skills to acquire if we wish to see a change in the culture of leadership in organizations.

Peter Senge explains that there are three main types of leaders in organizations. Senior managers are one category. A great deal has been written on this group. The second category of leaders is front-line managers, who Senge says are the most critical in an organization because they connect daily with staff. And the third is what he calls Network Leaders, or what others call Thought Leaders.

All three categories of leaders must interact because they each possess certain strengths. Front-line managers, unfortunately, have not been paid sufficient attention in organizations, with respect to improving their leadership abilities. In terms of the Holistic Leadership model, front-line managers need to ensure that they develop the directing component, because they are the ones who are best positioned to mobilize their staff. But this means that they need to be visionary and strategic, as well as results-oriented.

Network leaders are the seed planters, sowing ideas in their organizations and bringing people together. Their interaction with front-line managers is vital, in terms of reciprocal sharing of knowledge and ideas. And they play a key role in influencing senior management. Network leaders must also develop the elements contained in the directing component if they wish to increase their effectiveness.

Consequently, it's important that we rethink our assumptions on the directing component of leadership. These assumptions are oriented around power and authority and where they are housed in organizations. If we really wish to see our organizations evolve to embrace collaborative learning and shared leadership, then we need to shed some of our traditional beliefs on leadership.

Participating

This brings us to the participatory aspect of leadership. It doesn't matter what expression is used: shared leadership, participatory leadership, post-heroic leadership, roving leadership, etc. The point is that this component of leadership is critical to helping organizations create learning cultures that are based on power-sharing, inclusion, enrollment, alignment, collaboration, and commitment.

Much has been written on participatory leadership. In both the private and public sectors, it is espoused by senior management as being the new way of working together. However, what is said publicly is often not practiced. This applies not just to management but staff as well. Modeling the desired behaviours that accompany this form of leadership is fundamental to its eventual success. Network leaders, for example, must practice the elements contained in this leadership. Staff, too, need to learn how to collaborate and how to find common ground when conflict arises.

Some time ago, I read an article that talked about the tacit collusion in which employees frequently engage to protect their functional boundaries. Specifically, people follow unspoken norms with respect to staying out of one another's jobs. When these norms are not followed, conflict typically emerges. The consequence is the "cementing" of behaviours and practices in organizations. When a major change initiative is introduced, senior management becomes frustrated by the rigid silos that have been erected among functional groups, and which in turn contribute to resistance to the change effort.

Participating is an extremely important component of holistic leadership because it provides the conduit to unleashing the potential of people. Again, this is important to those in senior and front-line managerial positions, and also to those who seek to play informal leadership roles.

Nurturing

This component of holistic leadership is one that is only beginning to receive attention. It is what some call the "soft" aspect of leadership. Because it is strongly oriented around relationships and the human dimension, it is not easily quantifiable. Moreover, nurturing is an area that has not traditionally been part of the heroic leadership mindset, and which has been dominated by males.

The ability to show empathy is vital to enhancing our leadership. To be empathetic means to be able to put oneself in another's shoes, or frame of reference. Stephen Covey, in his book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, speaks of the habit of Seek first to understand, then be understood. This is a difficult habit to learn because it requires us to listen carefully to the other person and to really understand their point of view, all the while refraining from speaking ourselves.

Improving our ability to empathize will in turn enhance our communication skills. Creating meaningful conversations, or dialogues, is essential if organizations are to enhance their collective ability to learn. But the challenge to this is the diversity that is growing in organizations. The holistic leader is able to see the value in diverse needs, wants, beliefs, expectations, personalities, backgrounds, gender, colour, age, etc. Being able to see from a systems perspective the benefits that diversity brings to an organization, and in turn influencing it in a forward-thinking way, is a strong leadership asset.

This leads to the creation of bonds within the organization. The holistic leader has contributed to creating a web of relationships, despite the challenge of addressing diversity in an organization that faces unrelenting change. These bonds, in turn, support collaborative learning and the creation of a learning culture.

The holistic leader understands and pays attention to the need for developing the triangle of spirit, mind, and body. Without daily practice of these three equally important parts, it is difficult to achieve a high state of personal wellness. As with personal mastery, personal wellness starts from within. But the holistic leader also strives to help her co-workers (and staff) increase their awareness of this important element of nurturing leadership. For example, the network leader sows "wellness seeds" in the organization as a way to assist the organization create a healthier workplace: spiritually, intellectually, and physically.

Wrapup

I have attempted in this article to present an integrated model of leadership that is simple in design yet complex in practice. The four components of the holistic leader model are not discrete but rather interdependent. When looking at one part of the model it quickly becomes apparent of the link to other parts. And this is how we need to approach leadership: by understanding the web of relationships among the many elements. If we take the approach that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, then we will benefit from the synergies that emerge when we work towards becoming holistic leaders.

James Taggart has been a student of leadership for over 15 years, and devoted over a decade to applied work in leadership development, organizational learning, and team building. As a thought leader, he has initiated and led several change management projects. He has also worked as an economist for many years, conducting applied research into labour market issues; carrying out policy research in the areas of science, technology and innovation; and initiating projects focused on industrial competitiveness.

In addition to bachelor and master degrees in economics from the University of New Brunswick, Jim holds an executive master degree from Royal Roads University in Victoria, Canada. His master's thesis was on the topic of shared leadership.

Jim invites you to visit his leadership website: http://www.leadershipworldconnect.com/
He also writes a leadership blog:
http://changingwinds.wordpress.com/

What You Need to Know About Leadership

Executive Summary

Since the inception of business, organizations have searched for clues to help identify and select successful leaders. They have searched for men and women of vision with that rare combination of traits that help them serve as motivator, business driver, and authority figure. The concept of leadership has been widely observed and frequently studied, but a thorough understanding of what defines successful leadership has always remained just out of reach.

I wanted to find the answer(s) to the age-old question, "What makes a great leader?" After studying the behavioral attributes of thousands of business leaders, the resulting data could reveal commonalities that define strong leadership. What similar patterns or behaviors might possibly be found over and over again? By forming a concise "leadership recipe," the never-ending search for quality leaders could finally be simplified to a standardized set of characteristics that might help predict successful leadership in any organization. But could science and behavioral psychology be successfully applied to extract these leadership "revelations" from the data?

I centered my investigation on 30 behavioral leadership models that were used across 24 unique companies encompassing 4,512 business leaders from all performance levels. These companies included several from the Fortune 500 list. Each of the 30 leadership models was analyzed to identify the most common behaviors that differentiate higher-performing leaders from low-performing leaders. The findings compiled from this data set revealed new evidence that must serve as a foundational piece of every leadership hiring or training endeavor.

Expectations of the Study

Leadership is a concept that is difficult to capture. You know it when you see it, but it is difficult to quantify. The components of leadership are often examined and observed, but the ability to predict successful leadership has thus far avoided the confines of a repeatable recipe. Many approaches have been used in an attempt to document commonalities among successful leaders, but only with mixed results at best. Taking a new approach to the issue, I set out to study the behavioral characteristics of successful leaders in comparison to leaders of lower performance levels. The two main objectives of this study were:

To identify the three most important behaviors that are predictive of leadership performance.
To identify the level or degree of the three most common behaviors that are predictive of leadership performance.

Behavioral Leadership Models

Before discussing the study findings, it is important to lay the groundwork of this study using the behavioral leadership model. The behavioral leadership model is the cornerstone to this research study since it is designed to capture the behavioral preferences of successful leaders currently working in the position. Essentially, the behavioral leadership model captures the unique combination of behaviors that predicts success. Each unique model was created using the same methodology, but the customization was made possible by using performance data related to a specific position. To create a behavioral leadership model, each organization used the following three-step process.

Define Success-Traditionally, leadership success is determined by education, experience, potential, or other non-performance related measures. For this study, success was determined by actual performance on the job. We want to better understand the behaviors of the real leaders who produce results on a daily basis.

To keep the study focused on leadership productivity, each company defined success based on their business practices, and their leaders were evaluated on their ability to produce the desired business results. Those who did not produce the desired outcomes were considered ineffective leaders while others who produced the desired results were considered successful leaders. Each organization utilized specific performance data captured from those leaders actively engaged in the leadership role. The types of performance data collected ranged from subjective data (i.e., performance evaluations, soft achievement ratings, etc.) to objective data (i.e., store sales, percent to plan, profit metrics, etc.).

Use a Behavioral Assessment-The objective in this step is to capture the behavioral preferences of each leader (across all levels of success). The leaders in each organization were assessed using a behavioral assessment tool that measured 38 core behaviors. The 38 behaviors provided insight into the deeper motivations and preferences of each leader.

Build a Leadership Model-To create the leadership model, the behavioral assessment data was combined with the performance data for each leadership role. The result was a behavioral depiction of successful leadership across 38 behaviors. The leadership model determined how important each dimension was when compared to all 38 behaviors. Understanding the importance provides insight into the comparative ability of each behavior in predicting leadership performance. Equally as important is the degree in which the dimension needs to exist (ex: "high" Attention to Detail, "medium" Assertiveness, or "low" Insight into Others). The degree of a behavior will greatly affect leadership in terms of productivity, communication, and many other leadership activities.

Each leadership model was constructed in the same manner. The specific combination of dimensions (both importance and degree) was a reflection of current performance data from active leaders in the role. The models were customized to capture the true essence of leadership as it exists on the job and as it relates specifically to daily performance or contribution to the organization.

Behavioral Leadership Study

For this study, leadership roles were analyzed across 30 leadership models using the behavioral and performance data of 4,512 business leaders. For each role, a unique leadership model was created to assemble the strongest predictors of leadership according to behavioral preferences as they relate to actual quantified performance on the job. The process included comparing each of the 30 leadership models in a search for common behaviors predictive of leadership success (also considering the importance and degree). The study was based on the following parameters:

There were (n = 24) companies represented, some with multi-billion-dollar annual revenues, across (n = 10) industries: Medical, Grocery, Retail, Financial, Restaurant, Hotel, Food Service, Property Management, Industrial, and Customer Service.
Successful leadership was defined as a consistent and quantified achievement of current business objectives as designated by the organization. For example, in situations where the organization defined leadership success as achieving a higher "percent to plan," good performance was reflected through a consistent and strong production of high "percent to plan" numbers.
The average tenure for the (n = 4,512) leaders with varying performance levels was 2,242 days (over six years).
For descriptive purposes, leadership roles were banded according to range of responsibility. For this study sample, Level 1 leaders, or 36.67%, are responsible for a small direct group of employees. Level 2, or 56.67% of the sample, are responsible for a location, site, store, or entire office. Level 3, or 6.67%, were responsible for a region, multiple sites, multiple stores, multiple locations, or multiple offices.

Leadership Study Findings

Importance-Most Frequently Occurring Behaviors

Over the course of the study, each of the 30 leadership models was analyzed and the top ten "most predictive" behaviors were recorded and compared. The objective was to use the top ten behaviors across the 30 models as the method to capture the most predictive behaviors.

The next step was to identify the three most common behaviors (out of the top ten) across the 30 leadership models. The focus was limited to the top three most common behaviors to provide a more concise view of successful leadership. By identifying the three most frequently occurring behaviors, insights would be gained into the three most important behaviors that predict leadership success across a wide variety of leadership roles in a wide variety of industries. The data showed some surprising results:

Interestingly, all 38 behavioral dimensions were represented somewhere within the lists of top ten behaviors across the 30 leadership models.
Least Important Behaviors-There were two behaviors that were consistently the lowest in importance. Reflective (deep thinking and/or the ability to anticipate long-term outcomes) and Team Orientation (desire to work with groups) had the lowest frequency, occurring in just 10.00% of the models.
Most Important Behavior-Across all 30 of the leadership models, Energy appeared in the top ten more than any other behavior (14 out of 30, or 46.67%) among all the leadership models. The mere presence of Energy in the behavioral model did not indicate the degree most suitable for the position, only that it played an important role in the overall behavioral equation for successful leadership.
Second-Most Important Behavior-The dimension of Competitive Fierceness appeared in 13 out of 30, or 43.33%, of the top ten lists of the leadership models studied. Some successful leaders may be more competitive while others prefer a supportive environment. As with Energy, Competitive Fierceness was found to be a primary part of many behavioral models in varying degrees.
Third-Most Important Behavior-Acceptance of Authority appeared in 12 out of 30, or 40.00%, of the top ten lists of the leadership models studied. Whether these 12 behavioral models required a high, medium, or low degree of this dimension required further study (see the following section).

There were 38 behavioral characteristics studied across the 30 leadership models. The objective was to find the most predictive or most frequently occurring behaviors that drive successful leadership. The research data revealed that Energy, Competitive Fierceness, and Acceptance of Authority appeared in the top ten lists most frequently. The most predictive or most frequently occurring behaviors provide the avenue to further explore the degree or amount of each behavior needed to predict leadership success for each of these three behaviors.

Challenging Leadership Assumptions

Based on the three most important or predictive leadership behaviors (Energy, Competitive Fierceness, and Acceptance of Authority), assumptions can be formed based on common (natural) perceptions of successful leadership. It is a common practice to assume that successful leaders exhibit a strong relation to, or very high degree of, a particular behavior. For the purpose of this study, I examined the varying degrees required to be successful across each of these three important behaviors.

Assumption #1 - Leaders must be "high energy" to be successful.

Energy was considered the most predictive (or most frequently occurring) behavior in 14 of 30, or 46.67%, of the leadership models.

? 21% of the models required below average Energy levels

? 37% of the models required average Energy levels

? 21% of the models required an above average Energy level

? 21% of the models required high Energy levels

? 0% of the models required an extremely high level of Energy

Although the majority of the leadership models required an above average amount of Energy, there were no models that required extraordinary levels of Energy.

Assumption #2 - Successful leaders must be highly competitive to be successful.

Competitive Fierceness was a top ten behavior in 13 of 30, or 43.33%, of the leadership models studied.

? 23% of the models required a more Supportive approach

? 39% of the models required a balance between being supportive and competitive

? 38% of the models required a more competitive approach

? 0% of the models required a high level of Competitive Fierceness

? 0% of the models required an extremely high level of Competitive Fierceness

The majority of the leadership models required an average to slightly above average level of Competitive Fierceness. None of the leadership models required a high or extremely high level of Competitive Fierceness.

Assumption #3 - Successful leaders need a more rebellious nature to be a high performer.

According to the data studied, Acceptance of Authority was considered one of the most predictive behaviors in 12 of 30, or 40.00%, of the leadership models.

? 42% of the models required a more rebellious approach

? 41% of the models required a balance between accepting authority and being rebellious

? 17% of the models required a more Acceptance of Authority approach

? 0% of the models required a high level of Acceptance of Authority

? 0% of the models required an extremely high level of Acceptance of Authority

According to the data studied, 84% of the leadership models required a below average or average level of Acceptance of Authority. None of the leadership models required a high or extremely high level of Acceptance of Authority.

Conclusions Drawn from the Study

Data Point #1-All 38 behaviors play a role in successful leadership. It is important to point out that across the leadership models studied, all 38 behaviors appeared in the top ten of at least two or more of the leadership models. The entire group of 38 behaviors was present and accounted for in identifying successful leadership. This helps us to better understand the need to view each behavior as potentially valuable.

Conclusion-there were no behaviors that could be ignored or excluded from the recipe for successful leadership.

Data Point #2-Successful leadership behaviors are situational. Even the most common or frequently occurring leadership behavior showed up in less than 50% of the models. Stated another way, slightly more than half of the 30 leadership models did not consider Energy (the most frequently occurring behavior) as an important differentiator in identifying successful leadership. The data does not support the notion of a universal or "off-the-shelf" behavioral leadership model that will predict successful leadership.

Conclusion-there was no cut-and-dried combination of behaviors that predicted successful leadership (not even some of the time).

Data Point #3-Most leadership roles required higher than average levels of Energy, but not as high as you might think. Only 21% of the leadership models required high levels of Energy and none of the leadership models required extremely high levels of Energy.

By definition, a high level of Energy is often manifested through lots of activity, but the negative byproduct is hyperactivity, waste, and inefficiency. Practically, an above average level of Energy translates to the leader's ability to keep a group of people focused and moving at the proper pace and in the proper direction without the frustration of hyperactivity. From the follower's perspective, it is important to understand the implications of a sporadic or over-reactive leadership style (extremely high Energy). Think of how frustrating it is to do something and then redo it "just to stay busy" or doing busy work just "because the boss can't sit still." Associates perceive this style as scattered, confusing, and they struggle to find success and fulfillment under such a leadership style. Over time, credibility and respect can be lost, leaving this type of leader ineffective.

Conclusion-The most successful leaders possess above average amounts of energy, but not too much!

Data Point #4-Great leaders are competitive, but they also understand the importance of being supportive. According to the data, 23% of the leadership models required a more supportive approach to leading others. Combined with the 39% of leadership models that required a balanced approach, these findings provide helpful insights to the task of understanding strong leadership. Intuitively, the concept of balancing support with competition makes leadership sense. Leaders must know when competition is appropriate and when being supportive of those around them is more valuable than competing. Think of it as healthy competition-knowing when to turn the competitive juices on and when to turn them off. Without a firm grasp of this concept, overly competitive leaders may alienate those around them and create toxic environments.

Conclusion-A balance of respect for authority and rebelliousness is a common predictor of successful leadership.

Data Point #5-This we know to be true: successful leaders tend to challenge conventional structure and rules. In fact, 42% of the leadership models required a more rebellious approach to leadership. Many organizations rely on their leaders to challenge the current structure and methods that have been historically successful (or unsuccessful, as the case may be). Strong leaders often have an eye for creating positive change that removes stumbling blocks to success.

However, do not go overboard and think that your next leadership hire must behave like James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause." Keep in mind that 41% of the leadership models required a balance between following authority and challenging the establishment. Not to be forgotten, another 17% of the leadership models required leaders to accept and embrace the structure around them. The practical reality is that successful leaders know how to "choose their battles." Sometimes being a rebel is productive and provides the necessary change, but that must be balanced with the recognition of situations where one must accept the current structure and operate within it.

Conclusion-Successful leaders often have a "rebellious streak" that leads them to challenge the current structure and methods, but they choose their battles wisely.

Summary of Findings

Remember the original question: "What makes a great leader?" Contrary to preconceived notions of what we might expect the answers to be-for example, all successful leaders must be high-energy and extremely competitive while battling the powers-that-be at every opportunity-what I found was not nearly so clear-cut. In fact, successful leaders were scattered all over the behavioral board, ranging from a below average degree of one behavior to a high degree of another.

What do these findings tell you about your organization? Everyone is different, and every leadership behavioral model will vary from company to company. Any so-called "Leadership Model" that offers a one-size-fits-all solution is most likely a failure waiting to happen. As proven in the data for over 4,500 leaders, your leadership staff is very different than the one at the company across the street. As a matter of fact, there is ample documentation of extreme differences between leadership preferences in groups working together within the same organization.

What is the solution to identifying and hiring successful leaders for your team? Learn your organization's strongest leadership traits that translate into success on the job. To accomplish this task manually, look to your own executive and managerial team for clues as to the behaviors that help leaders succeed. A thorough understanding of their job function, productivity expectations, and behavior will provide insight into what makes one person more effective than another in a particular role.

There is an easier way to determine the perfect leadership recipe for your organization across multiple behavioral dimensions. The "automated" method is to use a good behavioral assessment to measure the behaviors of your incumbent leaders. In approximately 30 minutes-the time it takes to complete a validated, reliable behavioral assessment-you could have access to a behavioral profile for every assessed leader in the company. From this data, a profile of a successful leader can be generated and used to duplicate your current crop of successful leaders through better hiring decisions. In addition to bringing more successful leaders on board, behavioral profiles provide content for an employee development program that will drive higher productivity for years to come.

Dr. Jason E. Taylor is the Chief Science Officer at PeopleAnswers Inc. He is a leader in the field of talent assessments in business. Since receiving his Ph.D. from Texas A&M University, Dr. Taylor has pioneered the development of several assessment technologies since the late 1990s. He is an active member of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP). Visit the PeopleAnswers site at http://www.peopleanswers.com

Leadership Development - Leadership Styles and Training

What makes a good leader?

Leadership development

Ever since we started Impact Factory, lo these many years ago, we have struggled with the whole notion of leadership development or leadership training. Indeed, we have resisted writing about it in much detail because the subject is so subjective.

Are leaders born or made? Can you use management leadership training to give leadership skills to someone who isn't leadership material? How is it done?

Given that we're being asked to create a lot more leadership programmes of late, we decided we'd take a hard look at just what makes a good leader.

Even of you don't think of yourself as a leader, you will have areas in your life where other people look to you for leadership. So here are some essentials qualities and skills you need to be a good leader in whatever leadership arena you're in.

Leadership training

Training is a misnomer when applied to leadership. Any leadership development programme has to include at least a passing reference to the following:

Introduction to the concept of leadership behaviours
Discussion and debate about leadership
A widening of the definition beyond traditional leadership stereotypes
Personal understanding of individual leadership qualities and strengths
The difference between leadership and management
A look at how people perceive, their perception is their reality
Assumptions and their effect on how people see the world
What are your terms of reference and seeing the bigger picture
Personal patterns and beliefs
A look at the elements that have influenced and shaped the participants
Establishing ownership of individual's leadership behaviours

A programme needs to be designed around the development of the individuals involved rather than towards competencies identified as required by the organisation.

Leadership style

What does a leader look like?

No cookie cutter models here. Everyone can develop their capacity to lead, from church committees to local pressure groups to business teams to political parties. When someone is committed to, and practises using their leadership capabilities at all levels in their life, then they can and will develop their own potential as a leader.

There is a tendency, in our Western culture, to see Leadership as synonymous with white, middle class, male, in charge. There's a kind of unspoken template of what leadership is supposed to look like. Now we know that isn't true. Leadership can and does come in many different shapes and forms.

Good leaders don't conform to a template. Indeed, leaders are people who don't usually follow the party line. They have an edge to them, they get up people's noses sometimes, they make decisions - lots of them - that often others don't like. They say the things that need saying in a way that others understand.

Don't let the picture get in the way

However, it is important to acknowledge that people developing their leadership skills are often hampered by their picture (or other people's picture) of what a leader is supposed to 'look' like.

This is when it's important to understand that the role of leader is not only completely individual (remember, they don't fit a mould!) but also has to be worked at with belief and will and determination by the person occupying it.

It's different for everyone

Not only that, leaders will be experienced differently by the individual people they lead. One getting encouragement, another understanding. That, of course, will be due to the leader's ability to see what each person needs (more on this later).

In addition, not every leader is going to be a great leader in the sense that the world around them acknowledges their leader status. Many leaders get no 'public' recognition, only their personal satisfaction of a job well done.

Leadership theory

Seeing the Big Picture Vision

When the 'vision' word is used it usually means that someone has an idea of what the future could look like and a plan to get there. No point painting rosy, pie in the sky pictures ('we'll double our turnover in a year; we'll create international markets; we'll be number one in the UK', etc.) if pie in the sky is all they are.

More like, 'we could double our turnover in a year, this is how we could get there, this is what I expect from everyone in the organisation to help us get there and any new ideas are welcome.'

The ability to see

There is one essential quality for anyone in any position of leadership: the ability to see what is going on. Seeing is clarity. Seeing in the 'wood for the trees' kind of way.

We've heard the following phrase from a number of people throughout the years and it's a good one - get your attention off yourself and on to whatever is going on.

What you'll see

Here's what you'll be able to see if you do that: you'll be able to see things from other people's points of view; you'll be able to understand what's going on for them. You'll be able to see what other people are capable of and how to help them achieve it. Most importantly, you'll be able to see the whole picture not just your little bit of it.

Leadership skills

What makes you tick?

Know thyself. To be able to see you need a clear understanding of what has made you the way you are and what has shaped and influenced your life. The clearer you are about what motivates and affects your behaviour, the clearer you will be able to see what is going on with other people.

You didn't spring fully formed from Zeus's head - many things have affected you over the years. A good leader is proud to acknowledge role models, people, places, things, etc, which have inspired them.

You can't do it alone

Any good leader worth their salt should be able to name 100 people, places, things, right off the bat. Why? Because they know themselves well enough to acknowledge who has supported and inspired them along the way, and what support they still need to get things done.

Leadership quality

Qualities

Think about what qualities your role models have that are attractive to you, that make them inspiring. Now, putting aside modesty, false or otherwise, think about what qualities they have that you also have. You have to know who you are and accept that you have outstanding qualities - leaders are able to do that.

Beliefs, rules and patterns

How well do you understand the rules, beliefs and patterns you have created in your life so far? Everyone's got 'em.

They can be the simple kind of rule - you should brush your teeth twice a day. They can be the more complex kind - you should treat everyone the way you expect to be treated. Beliefs can be things like - I believe everyone should be fair. And patterns can be as simple as going to and from work the same way every day.

When identifying your rules, patterns and beliefs see if you can avoid putting a value judgement on whether they are good or bad; this is far more about seeing just how well you understand your own behaviour.

Leadership management

Moving things forward Innovative thinking

Leadership requires innovative thinking; it requires people making positive and inspiring impacts; and it requires them to be able to motivate others. What is needed is an ability to think and act 'out of the box'; out of the accepted or 'right' ways of doing things.

The culture of tomorrow will be one where change and innovation are the order of the day. Out of the box thinking and identifying future needs go hand in hand.

There's no such thing as 'can't do'

'Can't do' is an alien concept to a real leader. Leaders get things done. They have commitment, persistence, determination and resilience. Couple all of that with creative problem-solving and you have a person things happen around.

What we mean, is that no matter what their personality, there will be a kind of buzz around them; things change when they're around; indeed, things might even get shaken up when they're around. It isn't always comfortable being around leaders.

You can't stay stuck

Along with a 'can do' attitude, is an ability to move things forward. When others get bogged down, good leaders know how to motivate and inspire the people around them. They are willing to take risks and stand up for what they believe. They want to get things done and bring people along with them.

Development training

Can training develop leadership skills?

In our view, you cannot 'send' someone on a leadership programme who doesn't want to be there and expect them to become a leader. It's not like the reluctant presenter who gets sent along to a course and finds out that it's not so bad after all. If your prospective leader isn't fully engaged in the process, sending them along to be 'taught' leadership skills will be a waste of time and money.

If you fall into that category, then no amount of leadership training is going to develop your skills.

However, if you have to step into a new leadership role, or there are greater expectations of how you manage people, or you've become a project leader, and you have a willingness to develop and take on new skills, then it's really possible to give yourself a leadership boost. Everyone can develop their capacity to lead, from church committees to local pressure groups to business teams to political parties. When you are committed to, and practise using your leadership capabilities at all levels in your life, then you can and will develop your own potential as a leader.

Management training

We believe there is a real difference between management and leadership. You don't need to be a leader to be able to manage other people. However, to be an outstanding manager, you do have to have some of those essential skills and qualities that are necessary in developing as a leader.

Even if you are a manager with no major aspirations of leadership, there will be people who will turn to you for leadership, whether you like it or not. Therefore, when looking for training to develop your skills, it might be a very good idea to look at leadership courses as well as management courses.

Leadership courses

There are scores of courses available calling themselves Leadership Training, Leadership Development, Leadership Skills, etc. We cannot judge just how good they are, but if you think about everything you've read so far and feel in synch with our sentiments, then that's what you need to look for: courses that incorporate a clear approach to developing leadership skills.

Earlier in this document we outlined some of the things to look for in a Leadership Training Programme. Add to that list a few more essentials:

How to initiate leadership behaviours
Understanding how commitment works
Leading by example
Influencing skills
Empowering and motivating others
Thinking on your feet
Handling yours and others' stress

In our view, really good leadership courses need to incorporate all of these elements to be truly effective. Equally important, a programme needs to be relevant to your specific leadership needs and not something off the peg.

This is why Impact Factory only delivers tailored leadership training; so that each and every course fits the organisation to a 'T'.

In conclusion:

Expect the unusual, the quirky, the non-conformist, the doer, the inspirer and you've got yourself a leader. To become one or to develop your leadership skills you have to be fully engaged in the process of development and just like everyone else, you have to practise, practise, practise.

Key Learning Points:

The power of aligning personal motivation and business objectives
The capacity of strong well expressed beliefs to motivate others
Communication is far more than just words
Leadership is not just about getting people to do what you ask
It is far more about seeing what is needed and carrying people forward with your vision
Being able to create the impact you want
Expanding your spheres of influence
Being able to talk to people in terms they understand
Using appropriate language
The relevance, development and use of personal style
Putting across concepts and ideas with ease and flair
The value of creative risk-taking and "out of the box" thinking
Making sure projects move forward without having to do all the work yourself.

Jo Ellen and Robin run Impact Factory who provide Leadership Training and Development, Public Speaking Presentation Skills, Communications Training and Executive Coaching for Individuals.

The Preparation For Leadership

Introduction

Generally, people ascribe the success or failure of a leader to their qualification or fitness to lead. For this reason when leaders are sought in the secular world, the qualifications of the individuals are usually given primary considerations. On the contrary, a close examination of the call of great leaders God used in the Bible reveals that God was not primarily concerned about qualifications. Eims Leroy, observed that Leaders like Moses, Gideon and Jeremiah openly confessed their inadequacy to perform the task God called them to do.1 If God was looking for qualified men then he would not have called them.

Does it then mean that preparations are not necessary for Leadership? According to Gottfried Osei-Mensah, there are prerequisites for spiritual leadership.2 This statement implies that some form of preparation is necessary. In addition, it is clear from scripture that every leader that God used had certain qualities or abilities that were necessary in performing their task. This observation however poses a question: Were those leaders prepared for their calling or did they just happen to have the qualities God required? With God, things do not happen by chance, therefore the thesis of this article is, those whom God used in the Bible as leaders were always prepared for their task.

To clarify this thesis statement selected leaders in the Bible are examined. The goal is, first to prove that the leaders were prepared for leadership and second, to determine the nature of the preparation and its importance to the leaders' call.

The following three categories of leaders have been selected for this study:

a) Those whose call and commission came as a surprise to them

b) Those who were mentored by their predecessor

c) Those who assumed leadership as a result of a crisis.

Under each leader the presentation will also be divided into three sections:

a) His life history before his call to leadership;

b) His leadership role and achievements;

c) Summary of the specific ways he was prepared for leadership. Finally an

evaluation would be made and conclusions drawn.

A. LEADERS WHOSE CALL AND COMMISSION CAME AS A SURPRISE

Among the leaders whose call and commission came as a surprise were Moses and Paul. These were leaders who had personal encounter with God whilst they were pursuing their own goals in life. These leaders would now be discussed individually to determine how each of them was prepared for leadership.

Moses

a) His life history before his call to leadership

The Bible, in Exodus Chapter 2-5, discusses the life of Moses from the time of his birth to that of his call. According to this section, Moses was born in Egypt by Hebrew parents. But because of an edict by Pharaoh to kill all the Hebrew baby boys, his mother was unable to raise him up from childhood to adulthood. However, by what can be termed divine providence, Howard F. Vos stated that Moses probably spent the first two or three 'years of his life with his own mother.3 The remaining period of his first forty years was spent in the palace as an adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter. Commenting on the years Moses spent in Pharaoh's palace, John C. Maxwell observed that he received the best of what Egypt offered both physically as well as intellectually. Maxwell cited Acts 7:22 which states that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was mighty in words and deeds.4

In spite of the fact that he was raised up in Pharaoh's palace Moses acknowledged his Hebrew identity. He had to flee Egypt because he killed an Egyptian to protect an oppressed Hebrew. The next forty years of his life he spent in Midian tending the flock of Jethro. It was in Midian, at about 80 years of age that God made the surprised call to him.

b) His leadership role and achievements

In this section the goal is just to make a brief reflection of Moses' main task and achievements. According to John D. Hannah, in his commentary on Exodus, God commissioned Moses to deliver the children of Israel out of Egypt. He showed how that call and commission came as a complete surprise to Moses.5 Although God also promised to take the Israelites to a good and spacious land, that commission, according to Hannah, was not given to Moses. To support his point, he made reference to Stephen's statement about Moses' mission in Acts 7:35-36, implying that there was no indication that Moses was supposed to take the Israelites to the promise land.6 Moses indeed accomplished the task God gave him in spite of all his objections about his inability when God called him. This was because he accepted in faith God's assuring words that he would be with him to accomplish that mission and also because of his ambition to deliver the Israelites from slavery. Commenting on the aspect of his ambition, Ted Engstrom pointed out that "he never lost sight of his ambition and calling in life which made it possible".7 Throughout his mission these words of assurance had been a motivation for him.

In addition, Maxwell rightly observed, over the course of the years in the desert, Moses' leadership improved. He cited Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, as one person who helped to make that difference in his life.

Moses also accomplished something else that was not explicitly stated in scripture. D.A. Hubbard, in his article on the Pentateuch said that both Judaism and Christianity accepted without question the biblical tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.8 These writings had been great materials not just for spiritual purpose but also for academic purpose.

Paul

a) His life history before his call to leadership

According to Act 21:39;22:3, Paul was a native of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia. He was of pure Jewish descent and of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil 3:5). He was a Hebrew and a Pharisee. He spoke Greek and was familiar with Aramaic (Acts 22:2). Paul, learned tent making because it was customary that all Jewish boys learn a trade.

In his book, 'Paul the Leader', Oswald J. Sanders made this observation about Paul: "all the formative years were calculated, to prepare him to be an eminent Pharisee and Rabbi like his great mentor Gamaliel".9 Paul studied under Gamaliel, a distinguished teacher of the law and of the school of Hillel. Sanders also observe that the school of Hillel embraced a broader and more liberal view in education than that of Shammai - the other distinguished school.10 In addition, Sanders stated that unlike the school of Shammai, the school of Hillel was interested in Greek literature. In that school, Paul learned to use works of Gentile authors. He surpassed his fellow-students in both academic achievements and in zeal for both God and the tradition of his fathers. He was almost a member of the Sanhedrin, the supreme legal and civil court.11

b) His leadership role and achievements

Oswald Sanders, noted that Paul became a great spiritual leader when his heart and mind were captured by Jesus.12 Such statements could not have been made if Paul had not made great achievements in the role God gave him to perform. Another writer, Ted E. Engstrom gave the background to Paul's success: "a Jew living in a Greek city, and with a Roman citizenship. Both by birth and training Paul possessed the tenacity of the Jews, the culture of the Greeks and the practicality of the Romans, and these qualities enabled him to adapt to the people among whom he was to move"13. According to Acts Chapter 9, when Paul encountered the Lord Jesus he was commissioned to take the gospel message to the gentiles. Records of Paul's accomplishments of his commission can be found in Acts Chapters 13-28. These included missionary journeys to gentile territories, Church planting, training or teaching ministries among the gentiles and successful debates with secular philosophers.

In addition Paul also wrote thirteen of the New Testament Epistles. In these epistles he dealt with important theological concepts like justification, sanctification and the resurrection of Christ. Various portions of defense of the Christian faith against secular philosophies are also included in these epistles. According to 2Tim. 4:7, Paul was sure he accomplished God's mission for his life when he stated that he has fought the good fight, finished the race and kept the faith.

B. LEADERS WHO WERE MENTORED BY THEIR PREDECESSOR

The second categories of leaders to be examined are those who were mentored by their predecessor. Among such leaders are Joshua, who succeeded Moses and Samuel, who succeeded Eli. These two leaders will be examined individually in this section.

Joshua

a) His life history before his call to leadership

The Bible gave a brief family background of Joshua in Exodus 33:11; Num. 1:10. He was the son of Nun, the son of Elishama, head of the tribe of Ephraim. Apart from this background, there is no other information about him before he met Moses. The scriptures gave much focus to Joshua's mentoring relationship with Moses. This close working relationship between them can be traced in scripture.

According to exodus 24:13, when Moses went up Sinai to receive the two tablets for the first time Joshua accompanied him part of the way and was the first to meet him on his return (32:17). Also when the Israelites sinned by worshiping the golden calf, Moses moved the tabernacle outside the camp and left the congregation in charge of Joshua. In addition, Joshua was one of the twelve spies sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan. It was only after about forty years of mentoring by Moses in the desert that God directed Moses to give Joshua leadership authority over the people.

In his book, 'Leadership Images from the New Testament', David Bennett mentioned four steps in developing a leader from the example of Jesus. These are:

a) To develop leaders who have learned to follow

b) To train within the context of personal apprenticeship.

c) To make commitment to the community as well as training for a task.

d) To stress on the spiritual aspects of leadership.14

These four steps can be found in the almost forty years mentoring relationship between Moses and Joshua. As Engstrom rightly puts it "Moses had the right attitude, when he knew it was time to train someone else for leadership. He was fearful of being a paternal leader and pleaded with God to give the Israelite a successor".15 This might have been one of the reasons why he devoted himself to mentor Joshua.

b) His leadership role and achievements

Joshua's role was made clear to him when he was commissioned as the leader of Israel. His call and commission was mediated through Moses. In Numbers 27:12-22 the Lord reminded Moses that he would not enter the promise Land and that Joshua would replace him. Moses obeyed the Lord's instructions and commissioned Joshua before the whole Israelite assembly. This commission kept Joshua in focus throughout his mission and he kept his faith in the one who called him. As Donald K. Campbell rightly observed, Joshua interceded for the nation when the Israelites sinned and were defeated.16 God's mandate was that Joshua would lead the Israelites to the Promise Land and he depended on him to accomplish that mandate. Commenting on the charge given to Joshua to be strong and courageous in Josh. 1:6, Campbell also said it was an affirmation that God would not let Joshua down.17 However this may also be seen as an indication that prior to the time he became Israel's leader he had potentials, which he needed to build up in leadership.

Details of how Joshua accomplished his mission have been recorded in the book of Joshua. The conquest of Canaan was however not an easy one but Joshua's training as a military leader and his dependence upon God gave him added advantage. He made mistakes but he learned from his mistakes.

Samuel

a) His life history before his call to leadership

According to John C. Maxwell, Samuel was special from the time he was born because he was an answer to prayer. He further commented that, as young child, Samuel was placed in the care of Eli the High priest and Judge of Israel.18 This revealed that the mentoring relationship between Eli and Samuel started quite early in Samuel's life. Like Joshua, Samuel stayed in the same place with his mentor. In addition, at a very early age, God began to speak directly to him and that motivated him to reverence and serve God faithfully. The role played by Hannah in initiating this mentoring relationship should not be overlooked. McChesney and Unger said that it was a vow that Hannah made to dedicate Samuel to the Lord as a Nazarite.19

b) His Leadership Role and Achievements

To better understand and appreciate Samuel's achievements, one should first examine the religious, political and social situations prior to his assumption to leadership. Eugene H, Merrill rightly observed that "the 300 or so years of the history of Israel under the Judges were marked by political, moral, and spiritual anarchy and deterioration". It was in this background, where all seemed to have failed that Samuel was groomed and also took up leadership.20

With reference to his achievements, "Samuel's level of influence with the people continued to increase throughout his lifetime. As a prophet, he was respected because he spoke from God. But in time Samuel also became Israel's Judge, a position similar to that of a king. He was the nation's civil and military leader. Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life".21 Indeed, only leaders with certain qualities can achieve what Samuel achieved. It was that kind of excellent leadership that God was looking for in order to address the deteriorating situation in Israel. Israel enjoyed a time of peace during Samuel's reign.

C. LEADERS WHO ASSUME LEADERSHIP AS A RESULT OF A CRISIS

During the period between the death of Joshua and the start of Samuel's leadership, many people ruled Israel as Judges. All of them came to leadership as a result of a crisis need. Gideon and Samson were two of the Judges who ruled Israel at that time. They will be examined in this section, as representatives of the Judges, to determine whether they were prepared for their leadership roles.

Gideon

a) His life history before his call to leadership

In Judges chapter 6-8 the Bible gave a brief historic account of Gideon's family background. He was the son of Joash the Abiezrite. He was also of the tribe of Manasseh. One may want to suggest that Gideon had no quality or potential for leadership before he became a leader. This assumption is proved wrong in the light of the angel's greetings to Gideon - "mighty man of valor" (Judg. 6:12). As Joyce Peel rightly said, "the angel calls out his hidden qualities which we see developing in the rest of the story".22

It can be seen that Gideon already had faith in God from a question he asked the angel - where are all the wonders that our fathers told us about when they said, "Did not the lord bring us up out of Egypt?" His parents have made him realize that in the past they have depended on God for survival. However, Gideon wanted an assurance that it was the God of his fathers talking to him, so he asked God to give him a sign (:17). Joyce Peel's comment on Gideon's request is that "it isn't for the sort of sign an unbeliever asks to evade a challenge but for a sign to confirm to a believer who is ready to obey".23 Gideon was convinced that God was speaking to him and based on that fact he responded to the call to meet the Midianite crisis.

b) His Leadership Role and Achievements

Gideon was called to perform a specific role and that was to deliver Israel from the Midianites. He had a clear vision in mind as to what he had to do. He also believed that he could accomplish his goal because he had the assurance of God. In addition he had inner qualities, which gave him enough courage to move into action, even though he started at night. Gideon delivered the Israelites from the Midianites' oppression but he first brought them back to faith in God. However, immediately after his death the people turned back to their foreign gods.

Samson

a) His life history before his call to leadership

In Judges Chapter 13-16 the Bible gave an account of Samson's life. Samson was the son of Manoah of Zorah and of the tribe of Dan. His birth was foretold to his parents by an angel. They were also told that he would be a Nazarite to God from the womb Iudg. 13:2-5,24). The Bible also says in Judg 3:24-25 that God blessed him and that the spirit of God began to stir him up while he was in Mahaneh Dan. From this account it can be observed that Samson was a man of unusual strength. In Hebrews 11:32 he was recognized as of the great men of faith. During Samson's time the philistines were suppressing the Israelites.

b) His leadership role and achievements

Samson's call and commission was mediated through his parents. According to Judges 13:5 he was to start the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the philistines. As John Mazwell rightly points out, "despite his good start, Samson got himself into trouble many times, and in the end he finished poorly: he was weak, blind and enslaved by the enemy from whom he was supposed to deliver his people."24 Samson had the opportunity of becoming a great leader but his despicable character destroyed his leadership.

Conclusion

Three categories of leaders have been examined in this chapter to prove that the people that God called to leadership in the Bible were always prepared for their tasks. The first category of leaders were those whose call came as a surprise to them. The second were those who were mentored by their predecessor and the third, were those who responded to a crisis. It was proved that all of these leaders had some form of preparation necessary for their particular calling. These preparations may come from God, their parents, religious background, formal education or a mentor. Therefore one could conclude that God does not call any person to leadership who had not been prepared. God's call or one preparation does not guarantee success because the preparation for effective leadership does not end with one's call.

END NOTES

1 Eims Leroy, Be The Leader You Were Meant To Be Illinois: Victor Books, 1982), pp 8-13

2 Gottfied Osei-Mensah, Wanted: Servant Leadership (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990), pp 24-32

3 Howard F. Vos. Moses: The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p 886.

4 John C. Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes In a Leader's Day: Revitalizing Your Spirit and Empowering your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas \nelson Publishers, 2000), p. 300.

5 John D. Hannah, Exodus: The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Colorado: Chariot Victor Publishers, 1985), p 112.

6 Ibid, P 121.

7 Ted W. Engstrom, The Making of A Christian Leader: How to develop management and human relations skills (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), P 29.

8 D.A. Hubbard, Pentateuch: The New Bible Dictionary (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p 903.

9 Oswald J. Sanders, Paul the Leader: A Vision for Christian Leadership Today (Eastboume: Kingsway Publication Ltd., 1982), pp 16/17.

10 Ibid, p 17

11 Ibid, p 19

12 Oswald J. Sanders, Spiritual Leadership (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), p 40.

13 Ted E. Engstrom, The Making of Christian Leader: How To Develop Management and Human Relations Skills (Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p 20.

14 David W. Bennett, Leadership Images From The New Testament: A Practical Guide (Carlisle: OM Publishers, 1998), pp 33/4

15 Ted W. Engstrom, The Making of a Christian Leader: How to develop management and human relations skill (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p 30

16 Donald K. Campbell, Joshua: The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Colorado: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1984), p 326.

17 Ibid, P 328.

18 John C. Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes In A Leader's Day: Revitalize Your Spirit and empower Your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), p 67.

19 E. McChesney and Merrill F. Unger, Samuel: The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), P 1121.

20 Eugene H. Merrill, Samuel: The Bible Knowledge commentary (Colorado: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1985), P 431.

21 John C. Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minute in a Leader's Day: Revitalize Your spirit and Empower Your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), p

22 Joyce Peel, A Journey through The Old Testament: The story of God's relationship with man. woman and the world (Oxford: The Reading Fellowship, 1993), p 60

23 Ibid, p 60

Dr. Leopold A. Foullah is currently Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies, Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, Mount Aureol, Freetown. He is also the General Superintendent of the Missionary Church of Africa, Sierra Leone Conference. He holds the following academic qualifications: Dip.Th., B.Th., M.Div., M.Th. and Ph.D (Leeds University, England). He is interested in Biblical Theology and Social Issues. He is External Examiner for both The Evangelical College of Theology (TECT), Jui and the Sierra Leone Theological College & Church Training Center in Freetown. He is married with three children.

A Historical Reflection - Leadership in Primitive Africa

It would not be correct to think that the kind of leadership in present day Africa has no bearing on the past. This applies to both political and religious kind of leadership and inclusive of various levels of leaderships. Regardless of the kind of leadership (political or religious) or the level of leadership, e.g., head of state or head of a family, there are indications that traditional concept of leadership in Africa is still prevalent in present day concept of leadership. In this article the goal is to identify the leadership concept in Africa during the primitive years of the development of the continent. In the process it will also be shown how the people developed this concept. As a case study, special attention will be given to Sierra Leone because of her uniqueness in being an African country founded by Western powers.

INDIGENOUS CONCEPT OF LEADERSHIP IN AFRICA

In his discussion on early civilization, F. K. Buah in his book, 'Ancient World', made this observation; "After a while men saw that it was not safe to have their homes scattered about and began to build them near each other in the same place. This is how village life began. Where there are more than two families staying in the area, there must be someone who will look after the common good of the people. The headman is generally the first person who had settled in the village, or he was the bravest of the people who lived there. He was to rule these people by a council made up of the oldest and wisest men in the village." From these words of F. K. Buah, a background to the development of leadership is brought into focus. It can be observed that whilst Western countries have developed greatly into cosmopolitan cities, a much larger part of Africa portrayed early and typical village settings. Two things can be pointed out from the citation above concerning the way leaders were recognized in the past: first, they were recognized in terms of age or the time period one has been in a particular area; second, they were recognized because of some personal qualities or achievements.

In his book, 'The History of Sierra Leone' Magbaily Fyle discussed more about this early forms of leadership in the continent. According to him, villages and towns may group together in a section, which is referred to as a state. All of the towns may have their own immediate rulers. The head of the main town in that section, usually the oldest town, was the Chief of that section. This head would be recognized as the King, because he belonged to the family, which founded the town that became the center of the state.

Magbaily Fyle pointed out that in the founding of most states, warfare had been involved. He said that if a person is a great hunter or warrior or even as in Mende country, being a popular "moriman", it is easy for that person to be brought the leadership of a prominent town and eventually becoming the King of a state. Like F. K. Buah, Magbaily Fyle agreed that special good qualities were essentials for the recognition of leaders.

Warfare was the most important factor involved in recognizing a leader. But as Fyle observed, later considerations were given to people whose forefathers have been great warriors, though the person has to prove himself. F.K. Buah in his book, 'West Africa and Europe', throws more light on Fyle's observation made above when he said that people moved from one place to another to make new settlement as a result of bad climate, infertile land, famine, floods, or war with stronger people. In cases where new settlements developed as a result of any of the reasons stated above, other than war, considerations of a person's forefathers are taken into account in recognizing a leader. In the case of war, the stronger becomes the leader. F. K. Buah brought this to light as he discussed the history of the Denykyira and Asante people of Ghana around 1695 A.D. The Denkyiras were ruling the Asante people by then. According to Buah, the Asante realized that, in order to become a powerful nation, they must have direct contact with the Europeans. Under the Dekyiras this could not happen, so they looked for an opportunity to fight the Denkyiras in order to free themselves. This opportunity came when the Denkyira King asked for more taxes in gold. They took advantage of it and freed themselves. The Asante then built up a powerful kingdom. F. K. Buah further observed, "from what we read about the Asante in books, we get the impression that they spent most of their time in warfare. It is true in the course of expanding their empire, the Asante King had to fight and subdue other Kingdoms".

The King or the Chiefs were not the only leaders recognized during the early stages in the development of Africa. Councils of elders, to help Kings or Chiefs in their duties have long been recognized in Africa. The concern at this point is how these elders were recognized. Magbaily Fyle noted that there were no written records of the names of those elder during those times. These societies did little or no writing. However, he said everyone knew who the elders were. If a man was becoming important, he became an elder. He became fully recognized once his absence in a meeting raised comments among the other elders.8

Fyle also noted that another class of leaders recognized in traditional Africa was those of various secret societies. In reference to the male societies, he stated that these leaders taught young men activities of manhood such as, fighting, hunting, the use of various herbs to cure ailments, recognition of rank order in society and other matters. The point here is that these leaders, who were not necessarily the political leaders of the village or state, were also given recognition.9

THE WESTERN CONCEPT OF ACKNOWLEDGING LEADERSHIP IN TRADITIONAL AFFRICA

The traditional concept of leadership in Africa has also been influenced by western concept. In most African countries, this influence became obvious during the period that led to independence. However, Sierra Leone is unique in the sense that the country has a direct influence of western powers in her establishment as a nation. F.K. Buah in his book, 'Africa and Europe', briefly described how the country was founded. He said that freed slaves who become social problems in London, Nova Scotia and Jamaica were brought by the British to a coastal area in the west coast of Africa and resettled. The British directly governed these resettled slaves.10 Arthur Porter, in his book "Creoledom", revealed the western influence in the leadership during the development of the nation in the following quote: "religious originations in Freetown did not have to wait for missionaries from Europe. Many of the Nova Scotian settlers had been Christians in Canada and on arrival had set up chapels for themselves". It can be seen from the quote that westerners had already influenced these settlers before they came back. They set up chapels, a copy of western practices quite different from the indigenes. Porter further observed. "The churches were not organizations devoted only to service and worship; they were also centers of social life in the community, providing a field of activity in which the freed Negroes could acquire status and exercise leadership. The church provided an easy opportunity for status enhancement to those with aspiration for leadership. Thus many with great ability and force of personality, if not academic distinction, soon broke away and collected their own following".11 Like the indigenous people, leadership for these African settlers involved a fight although it was not physical. Also personal ability and qualification counts. Unlike the indigenes one is not qualified to lead because of age or because he has been around the longest. F.K. Buah, in his book, "West Africa and Europe" noted that the Christian missionaries who came shortly after the founding of Sierra Leone were very much interested in education. They built schools and later a college. As the settlers and indigenes became one people, the different leaderships concepts blend into one. Leadership positions became more of an appointment or election rather than a show of force.12

CONCLUSION

Africans had a concept of leadership from the primitive stages of the development of the continent. The indigenous people of the continent considered people who could protect them physically and at times spiritually, such as a warrior, hunter, moriman, etc, as qualified to lead. Old age is also considered as wisdom and qualifies the individual to lead or to be in the ruling council.

Since most African countries were colonized by western powers and they founded others, another dimension of traditional leadership was developed in the continent. Leaders were recognized by educational qualification. Agee was given little consideration. Leaders were appointed or elected. The way the leaders were recognized or acknowledged gives one partial knowledge of their leadership concept. It has been appointed or elected. The way the leaders were recognized or acknowledged gives one partial knowledge of their leadership concept. It has been seen that it a blend of indigenous and western approaches.

A Historical Reflection: Leadership in Primitive Africa

It would not be correct to think that the kind of leadership in present day Africa has no bearing on the past. This applies to both political and religious kind of leadership and inclusive of various levels of leaderships. Regardless of the kind of leadership (political or religious) or the level of leadership, e.g., head of state or head of a family, there are indications that traditional concept of leadership in Africa is still prevalent in present day concept of leadership. In this article the goal is to identify the leadership concept in Africa during the primitive years of the development of the continent. In the process it will also be shown how the people developed this concept. As a case study, special attention will be given to Sierra Leone because of her uniqueness in being an African country founded by Western powers.

INDIGENOUS CONCEPT OF LEADERSHIP IN AFRICA

In his discussion on early civilization, F. K. Buah in his book, 'Ancient World', made this observation; "After a while men saw that it was not safe to have their homes scattered about and began to build them near each other in the same place. This is how village life began. Where there are more than two families staying in the area, there must be someone who will look after the common good of the people. The headman is generally the first person who had settled in the village, or he was the bravest of the people who lived there. He was to rule these people by a council made up of the oldest and wisest men in the village." From these words of F. K. Buah, a background to the development of leadership is brought into focus. It can be observed that whilst Western countries have developed greatly into cosmopolitan cities, a much larger part of Africa portrayed early and typical village settings. Two things can be pointed out from the citation above concerning the way leaders were recognized in the past: first, they were recognized in terms of age or the time period one has been in a particular area; second, they were recognized because of some personal qualities or achievements.

In his book, 'The History of Sierra Leone' Magbaily Fyle discussed more about this early forms of leadership in the continent. According to him, villages and towns may group together in a section, which is referred to as a state. All of the towns may have their own immediate rulers. The head of the main town in that section, usually the oldest town, was the Chief of that section. This head would be recognized as the King, because he belonged to the family, which founded the town that became the center of the state.

Magbaily Fyle pointed out that in the founding of most states, warfare had been involved. He said that if a person is a great hunter or warrior or even as in Mende country, being a popular "moriman", it is easy for that person to be brought the leadership of a prominent town and eventually becoming the King of a state. Like F. K. Buah, Magbaily Fyle agreed that special good qualities were essentials for the recognition of leaders.

Warfare was the most important factor involved in recognizing a leader. But as Fyle observed, later considerations were given to people whose forefathers have been great warriors, though the person has to prove himself. F.K. Buah in his book, 'West Africa and Europe', throws more light on Fyle's observation made above when he said that people moved from one place to another to make new settlement as a result of bad climate, infertile land, famine, floods, or war with stronger people. In cases where new settlements developed as a result of any of the reasons stated above, other than war, considerations of a person's forefathers are taken into account in recognizing a leader. In the case of war, the stronger becomes the leader. F. K. Buah brought this to light as he discussed the history of the Denykyira and Asante people of Ghana around 1695 A.D. The Denkyiras were ruling the Asante people by then. According to Buah, the Asante realized that, in order to become a powerful nation, they must have direct contact with the Europeans. Under the Dekyiras this could not happen, so they looked for an opportunity to fight the Denkyiras in order to free themselves. This opportunity came when the Denkyira King asked for more taxes in gold. They took advantage of it and freed themselves. The Asante then built up a powerful kingdom. F. K. Buah further observed, "from what we read about the Asante in books, we get the impression that they spent most of their time in warfare. It is true in the course of expanding their empire, the Asante King had to fight and subdue other Kingdoms".

The King or the Chiefs were not the only leaders recognized during the early stages in the development of Africa. Councils of elders, to help Kings or Chiefs in their duties have long been recognized in Africa. The concern at this point is how these elders were recognized. Magbaily Fyle noted that there were no written records of the names of those elder during those times. These societies did little or no writing. However, he said everyone knew who the elders were. If a man was becoming important, he became an elder. He became fully recognized once his absence in a meeting raised comments among the other elders.8

Fyle also noted that another class of leaders recognized in traditional Africa was those of various secret societies. In reference to the male societies, he stated that these leaders taught young men activities of manhood such as, fighting, hunting, the use of various herbs to cure ailments, recognition of rank order in society and other matters. The point here is that these leaders, who were not necessarily the political leaders of the village or state, were also given recognition.9

THE WESTERN CONCEPT OF ACKNOWLEDGING LEADERSHIP IN TRADITIONAL AFFRICA

The traditional concept of leadership in Africa has also been influenced by western concept. In most African countries, this influence became obvious during the period that led to independence. However, Sierra Leone is unique in the sense that the country has a direct influence of western powers in her establishment as a nation. F.K. Buah in his book, 'Africa and Europe', briefly described how the country was founded. He said that freed slaves who become social problems in London, Nova Scotia and Jamaica were brought by the British to a coastal area in the west coast of Africa and resettled. The British directly governed these resettled slaves.10 Arthur Porter, in his book "Creoledom", revealed the western influence in the leadership during the development of the nation in the following quote: "religious originations in Freetown did not have to wait for missionaries from Europe. Many of the Nova Scotian settlers had been Christians in Canada and on arrival had set up chapels for themselves". It can be seen from the quote that westerners had already influenced these settlers before they came back. They set up chapels, a copy of western practices quite different from the indigenes. Porter further observed. "The churches were not organizations devoted only to service and worship; they were also centers of social life in the community, providing a field of activity in which the freed Negroes could acquire status and exercise leadership. The church provided an easy opportunity for status enhancement to those with aspiration for leadership. Thus many with great ability and force of personality, if not academic distinction, soon broke away and collected their own following".11 Like the indigenous people, leadership for these African settlers involved a fight although it was not physical. Also personal ability and qualification counts. Unlike the indigenes one is not qualified to lead because of age or because he has been around the longest. F.K. Buah, in his book, "West Africa and Europe" noted that the Christian missionaries who came shortly after the founding of Sierra Leone were very much interested in education. They built schools and later a college. As the settlers and indigenes became one people, the different leaderships concepts blend into one. Leadership positions became more of an appointment or election rather than a show of force.12

CONCLUSION

Africans had a concept of leadership from the primitive stages of the development of the continent. The indigenous people of the continent considered people who could protect them physically and at times spiritually, such as a warrior, hunter, moriman, etc, as qualified to lead. Old age is also considered as wisdom and qualifies the individual to lead or to be in the ruling council.

Since most African countries were colonized by western powers and they founded others, another dimension of traditional leadership was developed in the continent. Leaders were recognized by educational qualification. Agee was given little consideration. Leaders were appointed or elected. The way the leaders were recognized or acknowledged gives one partial knowledge of their leadership concept. It has been appointed or elected. The way the leaders were recognized or acknowledged gives one partial knowledge of their leadership concept. It has been seen that it a blend of indigenous and western approaches.

ENDNOTES:

1.F. K. Buah, West Africa and Europe (London: Macmillan Publishers, 19), p. 56.

2.Magbaily Fyle, The History of Sierra Leone (London: Evans Brothers Limited, 1981), p. 56.

3.Ibid, p.57.

4.Ibid, p. 57.

5.F. K. Buah, West Africa and Europe (London: Macmillan Publishers, 1960), p. 96.

6.Ibid, pp.112-3.

7.Ibid, p. 116

8 Magbaily Fyle, The History of Sierra Leone (London: Evans Brothers Limited, 1981), p. 59.

9 Ibid, p 66.

10 F.K. Buah, West Africa and Europe (London: Macmillan Publishers, 1960), P158/9

11 Arthur Porter, Creoledom (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 78/9

12 F.K. Buah, West Africa and Europe (London: Macmillan Publishers, 1960), p 161.

Dr. Leopold A. Foullah is currently Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies, Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, Mount Aureol, Freetown. He is also the General Superintendent of the Missionary Church of Africa, Sierra Leone Conference. He holds the following academic qualifications: Dip.Th., B.Th., M.Div., M.Th. and Ph.D (Leeds University, England). He is interested in Biblical Theology and Social Issues. He is External Examiner for both The Evangelical College of Theology (TECT), Jui and the Sierra Leone Theological College & Church Training Centre in Freetown. He is married with three children.