|
|
Great |
 |
Leaders |
 |
 |
Note on this Essay: It was published February 13, 2001, for a class called Executive Leadership. It was taught by Dr. Shils at the Wharton School. If you have any comments, please see the contact information on my homepage.
Historic Leaders
Long before the development of the first theories on leadership, dictatorial chieftains and kings ruled everything from small bands to extensive empires. Many failed miserably and were conquered by competing leaders with better management skills. Alexander the Great represented the epitome of leadership at his time. In addition to showing greatness and decisiveness through his own accomplishments, he brought the weaknesses of others into light. About 2 milleniums later, Frederick II the Great would enter the European stage with leadership philosophies equaling those of his Macedonian predecessor in excellence, but that evidently took into account the unique qualities of contemporary Prussia. Ioseb Dzhugashvili was born in the imperial Russian colony of Georgia, but was to betray his occupied country by turning to communism, later becoming one of the most feared leaders the world has ever seen. In the year Stalin’s troops were finally able to enter Berlin, a 24-year-old Japanese soldier was pondering on what to do after the war would come to an inevitable end. His name was Akio Morita, and former Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi once described him as ''the engine that pulled the Japanese economy''. Surviving its founder, the Sony Corporation continues to thrive in the memory of Morita, who died in 1999. Returning to Europe, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain is a final example of a leader whose vision and leadership is rapidly influencing not only his own nation, but also those of his continental allies. Different as they may be, all the above men have proven themselves to be effective leaders, though any evaluation of their policies is bound to be subjective in nature. Their successes make them similar, but exhibiting their unique qualities and attributes will make it easier to compare the leaders. In addition to this comparison, though, this paper will show that the challenges facing modern leaders not necessarily are of a more difficult nature than those that were faced in the past.
Alexander the Great died at the age of 33 in 323 BC, but his incredible campaign managed to reach as far as India before his young life ended. His dynamic personality is given much of the honour for keeping the empire intact, and most historians assume that he must have been a very charismatic leader. The latter often have an idealised goal they want to achieve, and are also likely to have a strong personal commitment to this goal. Aristotle taught the Macedonian leader, and it has been speculated that the Greek philosopher inspired Alexander the Great to explore the geographic limits of the world. Dreaming of going all the way to India must have been perceived as highly unconventional in his day, and Alexander the Great was thereby an assertive and self-confident adversary of radical change.
In addition to being charismatic, Alexander the Great certainly fit the description of a transformational leader. Stalin’s predecessor, Vladimir Lenin, possessed many of the same qualities, but leaders of this extreme calibre have generally found it difficult to find successors possessing the leadership capabilities needed to take over what has been transformed. It is common knowledge that Lenin would have preferred Leon Trotsky to resume leadership after his death, but Stalin evolved as the most successful in the power struggle following Lenin’s death. Being neither charismatic nor intellectual, Stalin managed to retain power by eliminating all opposition, including Trotsky, by violent means. The examples of Alexander the Great and Lenin show that when an entire country or organisation is built up around a single person, finding a suitable successor can prove too much of a challenge for even the most superlative leader. Alexander the Great’s Empire crumbled after the death of its sovereign, while the Soviet Union had to abandon many of its communist ideals after Lenin passed away. A similar problem was recently faced by former President Boris Jeltsin in Russia, while Jack Welch in General Electric went through corresponding difficulties when stepping down after many successful years at the company. The father of Frederick II the Great, Frederick William I, proves an exception to this general tendency. Having himself been a highly successful leader, he educated his son to become one of the most dominant figures in modern German history.
Frederick II the Great’s raison d’être was the needs of the state, and he believed that a ruler could carry out his duties efficiently only if he kept control over the government in his own hands. The time of the sovereign kings has come to an end, though, and current political leaders need to appreciate the fact that they are democratically elected leaders without extreme powers. Prime Minister Tony Blair is an example of such a modern leader, and he had to face stark opposition from both labour unions and leftist forces before being able to move the Labour Party towards the centre of the political spectre. Former President Bill Clinton faced similar problems in the Democratic Party, and was in a fashion similar to Blair’s unable to eliminate opposing forces by undemocratic means. This is not to say that democratic organisations hinder the emergence of charismatic transformational leaders; they just might make it more difficult and challenging for a leader to reach decisions on pressing matters. Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, on the other hand, are examples of leaders who certainly would have benefited from receiving contradicting impulses. Certainly, at least their respective subjects would have.
As the organisation surrounding a leader has changed, so has the suitability of once celebrated leadership philosophies. The economic challenges that faced Alexander the Great do not seem very complex in nature when compared to those currently facing Tony Blair in Britain, and the Macedonian leader’s economic policy did simply evolve around hiring more tax collectors to gather revenue for the state. As countries and businesses have become more complex, it has become increasingly difficult for a leader to maintain detailed control over all matters and affairs. This shows that it is vital for any leader to understand the organisation he is leading, both on a formal and on an informal level. The merger of Daimler Chrysler is a famous example of how different corporate cultures can be, and running a business in America is bound to require very different leadership skills than what is the case for a business run from Japan.
After the Second World War, nothing but rubble remained of Japan’s capital, Tokyo, and only the most optimistic entrepreneurs could see any hope in the middle of all the devastation. Lucky for Japan, Akio Morita was there to capitalise on the few opportunities that existed. In his autobiography that was published in the mid-80s, Morita emphasised how important it is for a leader to hire competent co-workers. He wrote, "No matter how good or successful you are or how clever or crafty, your business and its future are in the hands of the people you hire." Perhaps better than many leaders in the West, Japanese leaders have learnt the importance of having the support of one’s subordinates, and that a ship will not move forward if it is being pulled in different directions. Expecting that employees would stay with the company for life, Morita established a lifetime employment system, giving employees incentives to stay with the company. Japanese companies, though, are known to have a longer business perspective than their American counterparts, and long-term profits are preferred. To Tony Blair, it is not as easy, and results have to be shown before each election. Considering the speed at which Alex the Great, on the other hand, conquered territories in both Eurasia, it seems evident that a leader can show efficient leadership even without the pressure of an upcoming election.
In conclusion, it should be emphasised that the celebrated leaders of the past probably did not find their positions less challenging than current leaders do. The mentioned Prussian and Macedonian monarchs were evidently born into influential positions, but holding on to power certainly constituted a major challenge, and many contemporary monarchs were assassinated or overthrown. It is still too early to pass final judgements on the accomplishments of Akio Morita and Tony Blair, but they both seem to have emerged at a time when their leadership skills were desperately needed by their respective countries. To become a leader, though, it is necessary to be at the right place at the right time, and success at just this led the way to success for all the above mentioned leaders. In some sense, then, history does not seem to have created a big division between the leaders of the past and those of the present.
Bibliography
Bosworth, A. B. "Conquest and Empire – The Reign of Alexander the Great." New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Bullock, Alan. "Hitler and Stalin." New York: Vintage Books, 1993.
Morita, Akio. "Made in Japan." New York: E.P. Dutton, 1986.
Economist, The. "Akio Morita." The Economist Newspaper Group Ltd. 1999. 08 February. 2001.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/magazine/article/print/0,5746,302452,00.html
"Frederick II." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2000. 10 February. 2001.
Britannica on Frederick the Great
Don't see a menu up there? Click here to get framed!
