LEADERSHIP@Ben&Tim.com

Gov.-elect Benigno Repeki Fitial and Lt. Gov.-elect Timothy Pangelinan Villagomez are going to be sworn-in today for a four-year term to head the Executive Branch of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. The Ben&Tim leadership style will greatly influence if not determine the direction and course of the islands’ future.

“The only constant in business is change, and the leadership in adapting corporate operations to the changing business world must come from the top,” Myles L. Mace wrote in an article titled The President and Corporate Planning in 1965 for the Harvard Business Review (HBR). The observation is applicable to every segment of society, and in the hierarchical structure of social life, the pendulum swing between top-down and bottom-up methods of decision-making preoccupies management and leadership literature.

The Spartan military model of top-down practices towards sustained equilibrium sells easier in the short-term than the Athenian democratic model of complex dissipative structures. In the ‘70s, President Ferdinand E. Marcos of the Philippines and Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore practiced a rigidly controlled version of the first. Marcos’ reign lasted a decade and left a convulsive patrimony. Lee managed to leave a sustainable legacy though devoid of the libertarian qualities normally associated with democratic processes.

The second model, with its highly participative development component has infused post-WWII business thought. It has crept into political ideology and guided the creation of the Civil Society, its voluntary sector and NGOs.

In 2001, Ronald A. Heifetz and Donald L. Laurie wrote in The Work of Leadership that followers want comfort, stability, and solutions from their leaders which leads to babysitting. “Real leaders ask hard questions and knock people out of their comfort zones. Then they manage the resulting distress,” they concluded.

One impassioned e-mailer J. L. Camacho wrote to this paper last October before the election. She exclaimed: “… We, through the leaders we elected, squandered nearly every cent, every inch of land, turned a blind eye to environmental destruction for personal greed. Corruption reigns on these islands and those who are the least righteous among us are asking for our votes! The problems are front and center, and the cause is not right under our noses, but even closer right AT our noses. Yes, WE, the voters… We can’t fault our elected officials 100 percent, we’re equally to blame. Greed keeps the wheel of our politics spinning. For nearly three generations we have been voting for inept and corrupt relatives that have been bought and paid for by special interest groups… No matter who is sworn in next year… we MUST keep an active role in holding our leaders and their appointees accountable for their actions or inactions… We demand true leadership…”

Heady and sharp words. She points to a relevant issue, the matter of leadership and the role of those who follow. She points to an obvious equation, the complementary roles of those who lead and those who will be led.

I previously made a distinction between the power of authority and the influence of authenticity in matter of morals and ethics. Last year, Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones wrote Managing Authenticity: The Paradox of Great Leadership for the HBR. The clamor for authenticity moved into the business sector. It is equally appropriate in the political realm.

Goffee and Jones wrote that in establishing authenticity as a leader, one consistently has to match words and deeds. J. L. Camacho makes this requisite accountability. To get people to follow, secondly, a leader has to relate to the led. This means presenting multiple faces to various audiences. Will this not lead to manipulation? Not necessarily. Authentic relationships reflect aspects of the leader’s inner self, so it can’t be an act. Authentic leaders know which personality traits they reveal to whom, and when. Leaders and followers both associate authenticity with sincerity, honesty, and integrity. It’s the real thing—the attribute that uniquely defines great managers and leaders.

Prolific writer and management guru John C. Maxwell writes of five levels of leadership. I offer similar categories as five faces that leaders may present to specific audiences.

There is the position face which focuses on the platform that a candidate offers during the campaign to be elected to an office. We expect leaders to refer to what they promised and what they are doing about it.

There is the facilitator face which gives permission to those led to go beyond the leaders stated aims and goals, making the followers’ efforts their very own to fit their intents and purposes.

Then there is the production face. This is like my relationship to my auto mechanic. I am not interested in who he is sleeping with, or whether he sleeps with anyone at all! I only care for the services he provides for my car. There is an element of that in our accountability of our public servants. Our care is in the provision of the public services we expect them to deliver.

The empowerment face finds a leader enabling followers to become leaders themselves. Followers lead because they have been shown how to, a practice also known as people development.

Then there is the personal presence face where a leader’s transparency becomes an object of followers’ loyalty and devotion. The leaders’ awesome and mysterious charisma invokes followers to free responsibility and dutiful choice.

In November, Ben&Tim were my second choice. That is no longer pertinent. I begin with trust in the manner of Reagan’s “trust but verify.” My colleagues in the B&T camp assure me that the LEADERSHIP@Ben&Tim.com will not be read-only but highly interactive. Let the interface begin!