Tricia Voute: Leading the way

These days, world politics feels like a crash-course in leadership. We are getting quite a display from the Trump-method to the Carney-approach. There’s Starmer and Zelensky, as well as the policies of Merz, Vance, von der Leyen and, of course, Putin.

I might have my preferences, but the question of ‘what makes a good leader?’ is more than partiality; it needs to be rooted in the human condition and how we understand it.

Last year, a book titled Philosophy and Leadership coined the term Homo Lidericus. Drawing on the Latin word for leader, the authors argue that we, as a species, have a leadership instinct that emerges spontaneously in our communities.

This shouldn’t surprise us. All social species have a similar inclination, not least because a functioning community is an enduring one.

For this reason, the writers make the further claim that leadership styles mirror evolution; they constantly transform and reshape themselves, according to time and place. Different levels of dominance and different types of communication will rise and fall according to the culture.

In other words, there is not an ‘ideal’ which we should follow, but pathways that emerge as situations change. Flexibility – or adaptability – is the key to success.

There is a lot of truth in this. After all, a rigid adherence to any approach quickly becomes dogma, and dogma stifles innovation.

Yet, despite this, there are still certain types of leadership that are constantly recycled. History points to this, as do theories of psychology and philosophy. Why? Because there are unchanging fundamentals that underpin the human condition.

The question then is whether the human condition requires, in certain situations, an authoritarian style of leadership.

This is deeply problematic. It is possible that in extreme conditions, a dictator is required to take control. We can think of devastated communities where ‘tribal’ infighting is so endemic that, short of a centralised authority, death and hunger will prevail. Order comes first, then freedom. Syria might be an example of this, I don’t know.

There is also the danger of placing ideals over reality. We might favour democratic approaches, but we know that democracy is inherently unstable and without stability imposed forcefully from above, disaster may threaten.

Still, these examples are at the far end of the spectrum and seldom arise. Philosophers have a term for such scenarios: quandary ethics. They are designed to make us think, but often seem pointless. We don’t live in the extremes but in the middle.

For this reason, perhaps it’s better to focus on what is it to be human. Who and what are we, and what we need to live fulfilled lives. Flourishing might be a general term but it points to something important even if it’s impacted by time and place. So, if we can extract ourselves from the here and now and look at the question conceptually, interesting things emerge.

Human beings are intelligent, and our cleverness must be considered and respected. Any leadership style that fails to develop this part of our nature will never succeed in the long term.

We value autonomy but we also value community. We know this is a balancing act, so a good leader will know how to adapt accordingly, recognising when the needs of community override the needs of the individual, and vice-versa.

We value those ‘virtues’ which enhance social cohesion. These virtues have a cultural element to them, and we see this clearly in the comparison between Aristotle and Confucius. Where Aristotle focused on eudaimonia (flourishing/happiness), Confucius focused on harmony. Aristotle placed the locus of virtue on the individual while Confucius placed it on the family, yet both called on human reason to achieve a well-functioning society.

I could go on, but my point is simple. Leadership exists in time and space, and there are externalities that impact decision-making. But leadership is also part of the human condition, and we need leaders who help both the individual and the community to flourish. Flexibility is imperative, as is balance; knowing when to favour one approach over another, and when to shift perspective.

This is purposefully vague, but enough (I hope) to eliminate the leader whose focus is on power and self-aggrandisement. Next time, I’ll look compare different styles.