Beware of misleaders who thrive on fear and capitalise on crises

We live in a world that romanticises crises. This gives rise to the false prophets, the smooth operators, the gangsters, and the demagogues who would have us believe that we need them to lead us through the crisis, to save us, to show us the way.

These are the words of Elizabeth Samet, Professor of English at West Point Military Academy in the United States, who cautions against the pervasive tendency to conflate leadership and crisis. She quotes John Adams (1735 – 1826), an American author, lawyer and the second President of the United States. All that time ago he cautioned against leaders who capitalise on difficult situations to have us believe that our destiny and salvation lies in their hands.

Adams wrote that the United States would not improve until people begin to consider themselves as the fountain of power. They must be taught to reverence themselves, instead of adoring their servants, their generals, admirals, bishops, and statesmen.

The absence of self-reverence and self-leadership invites a worshipping of not only religious leaders and wartime or warmongering generals, presidents and electoral candidates, but, in the same vein, of so-called captains of industry and of the world’s wealthiest.

A legacy of authors, poets and playwrights – from Frantz Fanon to Shakespeare to Virginia Woolf – have, like Samet, commented on this through the decades, clearly distinguishing leaders from the misleaders. It is time for us to do the same.

The concept of misleaders is eloquently captured by Andre van Heerden in his book “Leaders or Misleaders, the art of leading like you mean it.” He believes the fault lies in our understanding of what leadership is really about. I think he is spot on.

Misleadership is underpinned by fear, lies, corruption and self-interest. Misleaders capitalise on crises and use this as a platform to get into power by promising all sorts of benefits that are never delivered.

Fewer than 10% of leaders today demonstrate the kind of leadership that we should be calling “good” or “effective”, let alone “true” or “great”, he asserts.

Continued next page

(156 VIEWS)