Today’s Youth, Tomorrow’s Leaders (Part I)

Walski’s Note: This is the third article by guest writer Mikhail Hafiz (follow him at @IMMikhailHafiz on X), a young Malaysian who writes eloquently on nationhood and his thoughts about how Malaysia can progressively move forward. Since this blog has been resuscitated from its deep slumber, I figured it would be a good idea to post more of Mikhail’s writings. This essay is part of Mikhail’s Rediscovering Malaysia series of articles, which he ultimately would like to publish in book form, sometime in the near future. This essay was originally posted as a thread on X, and is presented here with the express permission of the author, and is presented as-is, save some formatting edits.

Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.

Warren Gamaliel Bennis (1925-2014)

(Standfirst: Malaysia’s leadership crisis has come to resemble the Twilight Zone: an arid, desolate nowhere land where the modest expectation of leadership by example meets the harsh reality of leadership by absentia. The solution to this imbroglio lies in the future generation.)

[NOTE: In Part I, I delineate a holistic approach for the cultivation of advantageous and covetable leadership values, identify the five different types of leaders in the international political firmament, and argue for the necessity of architect leaders in our country.

In Part II, I develop the substantive chronological connection between youth and leadership by examining the challenges faced by the younger generation in equipping themselves with the expertise and experience to successfully shoulder the burden of political stewardship.]

A little caterpillar hatches from its eggshell and grows until it reaches its full size. It then spins itself a cocoon. In this chrysalis stage, it undergoes great changes. The metamorphosis complete, a beautiful butterfly emerges, ready to explore the world.

Similarly, a child born into this world grows and advances into the stage of youth, a period of significant development, and matures into adulthood to take his place as a leader in society.

And what better place for our future leaders to start their training than at home. If their parents and siblings, their first teachers, exemplify love, tolerance and respect towards one another, then they can also acquire these positive values.

It is, however, the years spent at school, totalling more than a decade, that are the most formative and impressionable years of their lives. In the classroom, they learn to ask questions, solve problems, come to logical conclusions and make the right decisions.

Outside the classroom, they are presented with the opportunity to develop their team-building, communicative and leadership skills through extra-curricular and sporting activities. They are, so to speak, in the chrysalis stage.

As these individuals progress from adolescence to adulthood, they continue to cultivate commendatory values and develop their leadership skills, whether they opt for tertiary education, choose to pursue a technical or vocational qualification, enrol in an apprenticeship programme, accept a position of gainful employment in a commercial enterprise or not-for-profit organisation, or explore their entrepreneurship abilities by setting up their own businesses.

Charity work and voluntary participation in political organisations also provide our prospective and fledgling leaders with the opportunity to inculcate laudatory values and habits, and master new leadership skills.

Just as it takes an entire proverbial village to raise a child, it is the “whole of society” approach that is, to a significant extent, responsible for the emergence of intelligent, empowered and virtuous leaders.

Also, just as it is the strong and resilient butterfly that survives in the polluted environment, it is the leader with unassailable rectitude who demonstrates fortitude of character to rise above moral depravity, by imbibing a multitude of noble and prized human attributes.

And what might these advantageous and covetable leadership values be?

Integrity. Honesty. Loyalty. Empathy. Alertness. Humility. Impartiality.

These are the qualities I would look for in a leader.

If we define “integrity” as “telling myself the truth”, and “honesty” as “telling the truth to others”, as American physician and writer Spencer Johnson (1938-2017) has done, then it is imperative that a leader not only acknowledges verifiable truths (ie, truths that are substantiated by statistical evidence and factual statements) but also communicates these truths to others, without engaging in intentional misrepresentation and premeditated manipulation.

Should he fail to do so, the erosion of trust that consequently follows, from within his own political cabal (colleagues, subordinates, coalition partners) and without (fellow legislators, citizenry, regional counterparts, international community) will inevitably lead to a respect deficit, which eventually results in a lack of cooperation and legitimacy issues.

Humility is also a great asset to a leader. It is never easy to be humble and it is even more difficult for those who lack personal foresight and worldly experience to practice humility.

We do not like to be criticised. We do not like to be told we are wrong. We do not like to have our faults pointed out. However, we must realise that constructive criticism is dispensed by those who possess clarity and insight with our best interests at heart.

After all, some of the most valuable lessons and arcane truths are derived from acknowledging our errors and examining our mistakes. It is part and parcel of what humanity has come to regard as the learning process.

Despite the substantial influence of the political elite and the indelible impact of their decisions in determining the trajectory of a nation, it is somewhat surprising to discover that there is a scarcity of academic literature devoted to the study of political leadership.

As established academic and prolific columnist Benjamin Laker notes:
“Leadership literature comprises thousands of works – hundreds of which are typologies that categorize leaders in ways to explain their actions.“

“But very few examine political leadership. And given the rise of populist parties and alternative facts, advancing understanding of actions taken by politicians is crucial.“
(from Benjamin Laker’s article published at Forbes.com)

In 2020, the application of a typology developed by the Harvard Business Review to the political industry resulted in the identification of five types of leaders that populate our global political landscape: surgeon, soldier, accountant, philosopher and architect.

For purposes related to the discussion of the issues examined in this essay, a compact yet comprehensive description of each type of political leader, as articulated by Laker, follows –

• Surgeon leader: decisive and incisive; focuses on delivering short term impact via targeted troubleshooting (ie, identification and prioritisation of critical stress points); transformation is temporary as the entity is heavily reliant upon the leader himself.
• Soldier leader: focuses on maintaining order and increasing efficiency by trimming and tightening resources, and concentrating on the bottom line with an insatiable tenacity; fixation on operational details however drives a culture and climate of fear and uncertainty.
• Accountant leader: comparatively moderate and resourceful; opposes austerity politics and operates systematically, focusing on economic growth; often described as creative financiers; economic performance usually increases during their tenure and after their departure.
• Philosopher leader: a passionate debater who enjoys discussing the merits of contesting approaches; often guided by principles driven by dogma; inspiring to those who share a prevailing ideology while marginalising to detractors, thus creating an echo chamber.

What Malaysia desperately needs, in such troubled, troubling and trying times, is architect leaders: insightful and visionary individuals who “focus on redesigning and transforming to build long-term sustainable impact.”

Architect leaders possess the best attributes of the other four types of leaders. They also, according to Laker, “exemplify the concept of Servant Leadership – an interconnected series of principles coined by Robert Greenleaf in 1977 that focuses on stewardship.”

And what could be more pertinent in the representative democracy that is Malaysia than the principle of political stewardship, especially when some of our incumbent politicians have come to regard their elected positions as a birthright, legacy or entitlement?

While the tenure of an architect leader usually produces steady performance improvement, he is often vilified by those who gravitate towards immediate impact and short term gratification, precisely because of his commitment to long term sustainability.

However, it is humbly submitted that such nearsighted individuals, who tend to prioritise short term benefits over long term gains, fail to consider and appreciate the intrinsic truth encapsulated in the following words of wisdom by former American president Theodore Roosevelt Jr (1858-1919):
“This country will not permanently be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.“

[END OF PART I]

(Part II may be read here)

DEDICATION:
To Kasthuri Patto (@PattoKasthuri on X): It is my personal opinion that no treatise which comprehensively examines the topic of Malaysian political leadership is complete without a reference to your late father’s uncompromising integrity, indefatigable efforts and indomitable spirit.

His words of wisdom, which I have included in this article (towards the end of Part II), resonate as clearly and unequivocally today as they did 37 years ago, when they were read and heard for the very first time.

May he rest in eternal peace.