ORGANIZATION & ORDER
The intense years saw a massive re-organization of the context in which leadership in Africa operated. Prior to 1950 leadership was confined to informal (unformalized) contexts. Leadership operated underground organizations on the fringes of the social stage outside the public glare. The victory of self-determination meant that leadership in Africa was propelled to the center stage of social events. Leadership moved into the formal (formalized) structures of leadership that made demands of social order as well as social advancement. Two assignments that were contrary to leaderships most recent engagement.
The change over from an informal- ill appreciated outfit to the formal respected context of organization was exciting and challenging- it may have been a bit overwhelming as well. The new order demanded transparency and accountability, as well as monitored performance. Something which leadership in Africa, operating on the fringe, was not entirely used to. In fact this may have introduced a good measure of discomfort. On the fringe, leadership could have gotten away with a great deal- almost anything. Under public scrutiny it became difficult if not almost impossible. Leadership faced a major challenge to transform itself from being not accountable to becoming socially responsible. The challenge before leadership was to move away from partisan interests and take on social responsibility, managing social organization and creating social order.
FORMS OF ORGANIZATION
In the formalized environment there are at least four forms of organization (structure) that make varying demands on leadership.
To be effective in the various forms of organization leadership uses the structures available to them to maximize performance.
Association is driven by constitutions, Institutions by procedures (often laden with bureaucracy), enterprise is ordered to reflect business policy while corporation processes realize the vision of the organization and directly serve its purposes.
It is not hard to see that there are different roles required of leadership in each of these forms of organization. The constitution of an association is not expected to change much over time while in corporations processes may be eliminated overnight. There is frequent reorganization of activity in business enterprises while institutional procedure is a more permanent feature.
ORGANIZATION LEADERSHIP
Whereas leadership can be seen as a continuum it seems that in associations the highest form of leadership required is supervision. Leadership in institutions must develop some sort of Administration (if only to manage bureaucracy). Management is essential to the survival of an enterprise and visionary leadership is critical to the success of the corporations.
It is also not hard to see that the principle parties driving these organizations are different i.e. members, officers, managers and executives (leaders). Here is an interesting question; if political organization (association) is led by supervision, would it be right to charge political leadership with the leadership of a complex corporation? Or can we assume if one excels in political organization they will automatically be able to effectively handle corporate affairs with excellence? – I think not.
In institutions the exercise of leadership is centralized (around one person) and is often under intense pressure to perform. Can one man cope with the (burden) load of organization? There will be some things that will be missed. It is these that fester and foul into crisis. It is these that those who want to take advantage of leadership will prey on.
Leadership requires an integrative approach to matters. Management dealing with multifaceted issues requires a coordinative approach. Administration requires a uniform standardized approach to issues while association requires no more than agreement, its highest form of achievement being cooperation.
Associations are led by a few people holding a few posts. Institutions are stacked with officers. In enterprise managers oversee key functions while in corporations executives run business processes. Associations require unity while corporations thrive on diversity. Institutions attend to issues, while enterprise maximizes opportunity.
We must ask the all-important questions again with respect to leadership in Africa. Should we let one form of organization dominate leadership space or should we make room for the development of all forms of organization to ensure the appropriate environment for the development of leadership in Africa. The dominant forms of organization in Africa are definitely association and institution. But the many challenges that face leadership today could best be tackled by enterprise and corporate initiatives.
LEADERSHIP IN FORMAL STRUCTURES
Leadership in formal structure is “measured out” throughout the organization. In some organizations it is spread out generously in others it is centralized and restricted. In typical organizations leadership is assigned to specific agencies to drive the leadership function as shown below.
FORMAL LEADERSHIP AGENCIES
The leadership roles in each of these structures is separate and distinct with very different demands made on leadership in each case. Organizations use these structures to share out leadership responsibility. Some are more effective at this than others. Sometimes all these leadership agencies can be found in one organization. It is the density of available (quality) leadership obtained from these agencies that drives the overall performance and success of the organization.
MANAGING CHANGE
Every organization (institution) lags behind its environment. It therefore requires continuous internal development to stay abreast (relevant) in its environment. Managing change is therefore one of the most enduring challenges for leadership anywhere. And it is important that leadership is continuously able to handle transition. Transition in the organization context requires realigning organizations to new circumstances or order. Corporations thrive in diversity and therefore are continually dealing with change. Associations on the other hand cannot handle disunity very well. Differences are strengths in corporations while associations balk at mere suggestions.
When facing change Associations form committees to handle suggestions, institutions form commissions or hire consultants to advise them on what to do (this often leads to loss or mismatched strategic focus with every subsequent commission). In enterprises leadership quickly reorganizes activity in the light of the new circumstances. In corporations non-core (irrelevant) functions are simply dropped.
GOVERNMENT
The challenge of Government is that it means different things to different people. At the heart of governance is organization and order. It is about the state of affairs of a nation. The formation and organization of government presented a major predicament to leadership in Africa. Leadership sought to organize a country that barely understood the concept of nationhood and the workings of national government. The assignment of administration, organization and management of national structures and systems would challenge and occupy the minds of the Great Ones for many years. Coming from an informal context into a formal context was a colossal leap into the unknown. But the enthusiasm of self-determination cannot be faulted. After all it had taken a millennium to get to this point in history.
The immediate concern for leadership in Africa was “running government”. All the integrated matters of manpower needs, economy issues, regional governance, public administration, national security etc. were thrust into the hands of leadership in Africa in one night. It was enough to shock any system out of existence. The Great Ones handled the transfer of power bravely and took on the reigns of power with courage but with the least preparation. Leadership was soon to be overwhelmed by the demands of national governance. There would be many failures due to inability and incapacity. Meanwhile leadership had to diversify and develop fast to meet the needs of statehood. Leadership was placed on the fast track development through education and training and brought back swiftly to take over positions left by leaving settlers.
Government it turned out was a lot more than obtaining a set of politicians to take up office. It is more than winning an election. Governments are built from the ground up. Leadership in Africa had to start at the top without a supporting framework. Setting up government is structuring a successful system of governance of socially acceptable systems that ensure the protection and prosperity of those within national (organization) boundaries. In the ensuing uncertainty many nations turned to the same colonial (masters) powers for help –a form of reparations maybe. It may have solved the short-term problem, but turned out not to be the best long-term solution.
Because of the teething problems and management complexities that faced leadership, many governments failed to deliver on promises made to the people. Feelings of discontent and dissatisfaction arose within a few years of leadership in Africa taking power. Those governments that survived the short term had to deal firmly with unrest. At the same time in came external “Aid” and “Loans” to bridge the gaps in government performance and leadership short comings that were to cripple national economies in later years.
Organization Leadership should take care when making promises. Even though leadership must be visionary and strategic in outlook, it should always be realistic in practice. The people will remember and leadership will be judged by the progress it makes on promises.
THE STATE
Africa never developed instruments of State neither did it evolve systems of government. Africa adopted these to catch up with the rest of the world. Was this a necessary precondition for acceptance and success in the new village? Nations wrestled with ideologies that the people did not know. Democracy capitalism, communism, socialism…Were these ideologies necessary for statehood? Was Africa really any of these? By getting involved in foreign ideology leadership went into a sustained identity crisis. Many of the adopted systems disoriented into military regimes. These power-systems of governance replaced the proposed people-systems that failed to meet the people’s expectations. Africa did not (have time to develop and) set up a suitable system of government to deliver the dreams of the nation.
Leadership in Africa was taken through a 50-year crush program of institutional (national) management characterized by a patchwork, paste and prescription exercises. Leadership was again confounded and remained somewhat static and somewhat idle in the formal environment for many years.