New Literature for a New Era

(16)

Use of Urdu Expressions

Urdu expressions are used in this book to tag leadership styles and types. It is in recognition of the fact that Urdu language and culture are highly evocative and full of expression, irony, elegance and wit.

For example, the richness and depth of meaning that the word Gadha conveys when applied to ineptitude and incompetence are in a class of their own.

Literally, the word Gadha means donkey. But in common usage it typifies a certain level of incompetence and ineptitude, possibly benign in nature but quite destructive, nevertheless, in its impact and outcome, that provoke a rich mix of censure, condemnation, pity and derision in the user.

The word Himar in Arabic, also meaning donkey and often used for similar purposes, comes only second to the Urdu Gadha in sheer impact and richness of connotation.

The English word idiot could also be serviceable for the same purposes – but, in my view, only next to the Urdu Gadha and quite possibly next to the Arabic Himar.

Idiot, however, has proved its resilience as an effective marketing tool for certain educational and technical products such as a guidebook for idiots or dummies or an idiot-proof product or method – including possibly calculus or physics.

The Urdu word Chore is even harder to replace in any other language. The English equivalent thief or the Arabic counterpart Liss take only a second place as literary replacements to the Urdu Chore – and a distant one at that.

The word crook, however, does an adequate job in English of capturing the core meaning of Urdu Chore.

The expression Gadha, as it is used in this book, refers to the qualities of the head such as lack of intelligence, foresight and smartness.

The word Chore, on the other hand, refers to the qualities of the heart and character, such as duplicity, corruption and lack of integrity.

The Arabic expression Kha-in has basically a similar connotation. It is an omnibus term that could be used to refer to someone who is generally untrustworthy and duplicitous and whose character is seriously flawed on a broad index of integrity and honesty.

However, from the point of view of developing a common sense-based typology of leadership, the two models Gadha and Chore often, though not always, present themselves as two ends of a fulcrum.

This does not mean there is necessarily an inverse relationship between the two leadership types in all cases. Nor does it mean that a leader could only be one of the two, either a crook or an idiot.

But generally speaking, people – those whom the leadership purports to lead – find themselves having to choose between two alternative explanations of disastrous results.

Was it stupidity that caused this debacle – any injurious or negative outcome – they ask themselves and each other, or was it corruption?

For example, when bad things happen to a group, organization, community, nation or society, the question often becomes one of choice between explanations: Is this the result of leadership being Gadha (inept and idiotic) or its being Chore (crooked and corrupt)?

This means, did leadership simply bungle up due to ineptitude and incompetence, or did it deliberately set out to pursue actions and policies that were to its own personal benefit and that were at the same time to the detriment of those it purports to lead?

Often the answers are not easy to find.

Naturally, the best or ideal leadership is one that combines the finest qualities of both head and heart. That is smart, honest as well as hardworking.

But such a happy combination is not always easy to find.

It goes without saying that where all these qualities come together, the followers stand to benefit tremendously. And where they don’t, the followers stand to lose.

The world suffers because of leaders that lack one or the other of these qualities – leaders who are either Gadha or Chore – or Sust (lazy). Or those who pretend to be Shahenshah.

Hopefully, clarifying some of these ideas in this book would help readers to better understand their leadership and work to improve their leadership situations.

(17)

WHAT REALLY IS LEADERSHIP?

Literature search, anyone? Well, that is what this section is.

You can go find your own books, journal articles or conference papers. Your own set of references, so to speak.

I have culled ideas from several sources to offer a synopsis of leadership ideas and models.

So, what is leadership anyway?

Who are the leaders?

Are leaders born or are they made through proper parenting, education and training?

Is leadership an omnibus trait – a one-size-fits-all kind – or are their different leadership types depending on tasks and situations?

Which leader should we support?

What type of leaders should we try to be when we ourselves are in a position to provide leadership?

Is leadership a talent?

Is it part of a person’s innate character?

Is it what is called a personality trait of some kind? Is it a personality type?

Is leadership something you are born with, something you inherit? Is it all in the genes? Does it all come from our ancestors?

Or is it a matter of training and education, of teaching and learning, of access and opportunity?

Who knows how many Jack Welches (General Electric’s former CEO and an acknowledged leader in his field), Winston Churchills, Abraham Lincolns and Bill Gates (the Microsoft mogul) may be lying hidden in the ghettoes, shantytowns and poverty-stricken villages of the world?

And then do leaders create their own avenues and opportunities or are they simply individuals who ride the crest of access to glory?

Is leadership a set of ideas, approaches, styles and skills anyone can learn?

Is leadership simply a matter of knowledge and understanding – a way of thinking and acting, of doing things a certain way, of getting along with others, of getting others to do what one wants?

Is it ultimately having the means, the resources, the access and the power – personal, social, political, economic, organizational, communication power, otherwise – of being able to influence and bend others to your will?

Of being able to be heard and of being able to prevail?

Of being able to mobilize others to the adoption and pursuit of goals and delivery of results preferred by you?

Is leadership task-specific? Is it role-based? Is it limited to specific situations?

Are there different leaders for different tasks, purposes and roles, or is it one single person who does it all? Embodies everything in himself?

In other words, are leaders born or are they made by the times, training, resources, opportunity and access that come their way?

Or is it a combination of all these things?

The purpose here is not to deal with these rather technical aspects of the leadership question. It is not to address the complex personality, educational and opportunity-based or situational mechanisms that go into the making of leaders.

Libraries and the Internet are full of books and articles and research and theory pieces – literature as it is sometimes called – both good and bad, on the subject.

The purpose here is not to rehash and recycle that wisdom – even though much of it is quite invaluable for a proper understanding of the subject. And even though I have myself reviewed a fair selection of it to be able to make the observations I make in this book.

The goal here is to go beyond those models, methods, taxonomies, typologies and findings to present some thoughts on how to understand better the working of the existing leadership in our own practical, everyday life – and quite simply how to hold that leadership accountable.

The central focus of this book is how, by holding its feet to the fire, as the saying goes, we can get the most out of the leadership we may have.

Or maybe replace it with a better and superior leadership if the present leadership is unwilling to change and unable to deliver.

The focus here, therefore, is on how to identify the nature of leadership by its performance and by its results – an old but tested Biblical formula of judging a tree by its fruit.

And on how to help people understand this clearly so that they will be able to improve their own lives and circumstances by being able to deal with their leadership more effectively.

So what is leadership?

Is it a, b, c, d or all of the above?

My answer? I don’t care!

And you know why.

Because, like most social phenomena, most likely, it is a hodgepodge of all of the above and we would find it to be so if we could look beyond the prisms of foundation grants and university tenure and promotion and corporate sponsorship considerations.

That means there probably is an element of truth in all of the above concepts and models.

Trying to map and measure and make sense of social reality – modulated as it is by personal and social agendas and constraints – is a little bit like the seven blind men who went to “see” an elephant and brought back a wealth of data on the subject but were unable to piece it all together for lack of “sight.”

So are we unable to piece all the shards and shreds of truth and insight on the leadership question and create a larger and more comprehensive picture of leadership for our own lack of “vision.”

That is, for our lack of larger and more integrative understanding – an overarching theoretical umbrella or framework of some kind.

For lack of a grand theory of leadership as it were.

The seven blind men lacked sight, we lack vision.

As a result, elephant to them was a broom, a tree trunk or a giant barrel depending on which blind man one talked to.

To us leadership is this, that or something else, depending on which theorist we talk to or which book we read.

Next Article: Leadership: What Is It and How to Deal with It? [Part Two]

Previous Article: I Too Have A Dream!

Home | Writings | Audio | Quote of the Day

Related:

1. Leadership: What Is It and How to Deal with It? [Part Three]
2. Leadership: What Is It and How to Deal with It? [Part Two]
3. Your Leadership Is a Reflection of You [Quote of the Day – 238]
4. Government of the People: That Is Islam!
5. Liberty and Stolen Identity in the Middle East
6. Speak Out!
7. 18 Days That Blessed the World!
8. Watchdog Media Are an Integral Part of Islam [Quote of the Day – 115]
9. Are Elections Haram? Says Who? And Based on What? Part 1
10. How Much of Muslim Leadership Do You Think Is “Sold Out”? [Quote of the Day – 120]
11. Newspaper Transition from Watchdogs to Lapdogs [Quote of the Day – 116]
12. Islam Gave the World the Gift of Liberty
13. Islam Means Democracy [Quote of the Day – 74]
14. From Sadat of Egypt Banning Long Robes for Men to Sarkozy of France Banning Niqab for Women [Quote of the Day – 103]
15. Why Blame Machiavelli for the Darkness in Our Own Soul? [Quote of the Day – 104]
16. When Society Loses Free Media, Democracy and Islam Follow in Short Order [Quote of the Day – 114]
17. Islamic Government Is Government of the People, by the People [Quote of the Day - 191]
18. Democracy in Islam [Quote of the Day - 270]
19. Whither Indian Muslims – Third and Last Part
20. Whither Indian Muslims – Part Two

Home | Writings | Audio | Quote of the Day