THE LEADER VACUUM
…the willing and the able
There is no doubt that the absence of a leader in an organization constitutes an unsuitable organization condition that can be described as a leader vacuum. It only constitutes a crisis if leadership has not been developed to take up responsibility. If leadership is not developed even after the leader position is filled, the prevailing condition constitutes a leadership vacuum that will eventually precipitate another crisis.
Finding suitable leaders is a big challenge anywhere. In many cases those that are able are, for the most part, unwilling. This scenario is not unique to Africa alone. A poor succession of leaders creates discontinuity in leadership, organization instability and will eventually disrupt delivery of corporate services and social commitment. This means that effective leaders need to be staffed efficiently at every level of organization. Leaders should therefore be in good supply. Without internal leadership development the leader search becomes a critical exercise.
The associated risks of acquiring leaders are higher and more unpredictable than those associated with leadership development. There are times however when an organization must look outside for new leaders, though organization persisting in this mode of selection must be prepared for the traffic like nature of organization development in which great accomplishments of a green leader are put to a stop by the actions of a red leader, while an orange leader can throw all traffic in an organization into a state of confusion by his state of ambivalence. The search itself to fill the leader vacuum can be quite a notorious exercise as four people present themselves for selection.
UNWILLING & UNABLE, UU
Mercifully this candidate is (sometimes) dismissed on site and will hardly be given opportunity to lead the ship. Yet we must consider the chance that he will be selected to the position because we have a crisis on our hands (and can’t quite think straight). This person is merely an office holder not sustainable by popular support or able to offer any proof of office by signs, initiative or activity. This leader is a stopgap leader. His highest achievement being that he held office when there was no one else available. The stopgap leader is one great organization challenge and he might end up stopping the gap for too long. Woe to the organization that will select and endure this leader for any length of time. Some organizations will have this leader imposed on them for reasons beyond their control. The rest is not interesting reading.
UNWILLING & ABLE, UA
Though it may seem that this is a good candidate because he has a “healthy” measure of reluctance to take on the leader role. It may also be true that he could not be bothered to apply himself. There is no guarantee that he will use his ability to become willing. Two problems also dodge leadership here; this leader is hard to find and if he is found he may not garner full leadership support. This makes him a leadership risk. If he takes office he may turn out to be an abrasive leader with (workable) individualistic tendencies. This kind of leader may be required in specific organization settings such as driving change initiatives.
WILLING & UNABLE, WU
This choice is perhaps the riskiest option available. It is also the most prevalent and generously available. This leader is particularly dangerous because he is capable of winning popular support because of his seeming willingness to lay down his life, when in fact he has no idea what is to be done. This leadership finds it difficult to go beyond mere imagery and symbolism. Leaders of this kind are great informal leaders and are subject to politics and opportunism to cover up for technical failure. They appeal to the people as pragmatists but organization performance will not be a strong point while they are in office.
WILLING & ABLE, WA
Though this may appear as an ideal choice, these leaders do not often put themselves forward for leadership. The search will be deep, hard and perhaps long. The WA do not treasure the rough and tumble of illogical exposure occasioned by public affairs and therefore find it difficult to be elected as leaders. They also will usually already have their hands full of other responsibility (making them unwilling to take on more). This does not make them in any way an ideal choice. The only way this leader will usually obtain office is probably by specific appointment, career growth, leadership development or succession planning. Such a leader will need to set aside other responsibilities or have them taken care of in order to make a positive long-term impact on the organization.
SUMMARY
Though any of these may come to office and do an excellent job we highlight the associated risks of unknown entities against leadership developed to take office. All the above leaders will take office with a lingering doubt and a confidence vacuum that needs to be erased before they can perform effectively as leaders. The people will have to wait and see if they have made the right choice. Developed leadership will have been observed. Competence, capability and commitment will not be in question. At least expectations of the developed leader will be realistic
The leader vacuum and its impact on organization performance is clearly discernible in discontinuous public appointments. Organizations that persist in leader vacuum theory to fill (top) leader positions take very high risks of performance continuity, service reliability and public confidence in the organizations performance. In many cases the organization remains in a state of suspended crisis even after appointment. In this state, an organization growth and development is highly unlikely. The leader vacuum also presents a challenge for leadership in an organization because one quartile (leader box) of the leadership square remains consistently unstable rendering leadership unsettled, insecure and to a large degree incompetent. Private organizations tend to prepare better to handle the leader vacuum than public organizations. Perhaps private sector organizations are more vulnerable to leadership instability than public institutions.