Peggy Noonan writes a compelling commentary about the kind of leadership needed in today’s world (and yesterday’s and the future’s as well). Leadership must begin with the people we are trying to serve. And that means listening to them, even if it isn’t comfortable, even if we don’t like them. We should think about organizing listening tours in the developing world for those in power - CEOs, government leaders, executive directors of powerful non-profit organizations. The point of such tours would be not to determine solutions after a few days’ exposure to the place, but simply to listen to what local people say, what they feel, what they articulate as their needs and desires. We might all learn a lot, not only about other communities, but also about ourselves.
Listening tours may be worth trying. The problem is so fundamental almost anything is worth tying.
However, prevailing current approaches to training leaders and top-down organising have been in use for centuries. They will be very difficult to change until we change how we are trained to think and organise. We now have the scientific knowledge of the world and the human mind and the technology to support this change but tend not to use it because leaders everywhere like things the way they are. After all, they started with the training and type of personality that suited the way things are.
Reply to Graham DouglasThe idea of leadership “beginning with the people we serve is a good one”. The question is who are the people we are trying to serve and at what level would the tours be cost-effective in relation to delivering the services to the poor?
Based of my regional experience most of programs which have failed to deliver the services to those most in need, have been top down and quite often discussed with the leadership at enourmous costs. Sometimes the costs of sensitization and soliciting of ideas at this level have been so high that by the time all the MOUs are signed and strategic plans are completed, there is not much left to support meaningful implementation. In such a case who is the major beneficiary? It appears like approaching the tour at this level borders “re-cycling of the approaches” that factor into failures in delivering to the most needy in the past and present.
In my opinion we should (and rightly so) assume that the leadership is aware of the problems and is party to the global and national strategic plans(thro declarations etc)and focus on tours at a lower level.
A bottom up approach and deliberate effort to expeditiously reach the most needy for their inputs and participation may the most desirable, in my opinion.
Philip Mwalali
Reply to Philip Mwalali