The economies and diseconomies of leadership in Kenya

By XN Iraki

There is probably no other topic discussed more in forums than leadership. Both public and private sectors are always looking for effective leaders.

Most job adverts look for candidates with leadership qualities. Our traditional societies thrived for decades because they had leaders going by titles from Laibons to Orkuyot and Muthamaki.

Britons took over the country using existing leadership structures through treaties and other not so good techniques like divide and rule.

We seem to believe the main reason we have not evolved into a developed country is because we lack critical leadership. But why should leadership be lacking, yet there is enough supply? Why the mismatch? What can we do about the apparent scarcity of leadership?

There are several theories that explain and demystify leadership from trait to contingency theories. The former assumes that leaders are born while the later presupposes that situations spawn leaders.

In this country, trait theory seems to be popular going by the bold attempts to build dynasties. Different situations have created new leaders; multiparty created the young Turks, some sitting pretty well in the government. The computer age created a new type of leaders from Bill Gates to Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs.

In Kenya leadership is going through an interesting trend, Americanisation. The British Model of leadership has finally been dismantled. Our constitution heavily borrowed from the US constitution, with States (counties), senate and titles like "chief of staff" and "law clerks." Some argue this makes sense because the US system was an improvement of the British system with its classes. Why didn’t we improve on US system?

We have attempted to bring women into leadership position with the "third rule." It is another debate if women make better leaders than men.

Are old cars better?

Enough digression; why has leadership been ineffective in Kenya? Economists can explain. George Akerlof, the 2001 Economics Nobel prize winners tried to explain why old cars (called lemons, Americanisation again), seem to sell better than new cars.

The owners, knowing that their cars are problematic advertise more, pimp them more and talk sweeter. Such old cars are therefore overpriced. In the long run, the new and better cars leave the market because they cannot sell.

Could this lemon problem explain our lack of effective leaders? May be the best leaders never come out because those who cannot make leaders take over through talking. Some fear that the public vetting of our leaders will make the lemon problem worse, as good leaders shy away.

We cannot discount the fact that the supply of leaders is low compared with demand. Many aspire to be leaders but few have what it takes to be a leader, decisiveness, patience, long-term thinking and selflessness. Self-aggrandisement might be a greater motivator to leadership than service. The best evidence that there is a shortage of good leaders is their price (wages and salaries). The salaries some leaders in the private sector are paid will make many MPs salivate.

Some opine that we could face a more serious shortage of leadership in future because "things are too good". Most parents have become nannies, taking care of all their children’s needs including "clearing" for them high school and university. The traditional "hard route" to leadership is gone. Walking to school, hunger and poverty created some of the leaders we have today. Ever wondered why top comedians seem to come from slums or Eastlands?

What can we do to stem the shortage of leadership?

Some universities have even started a bachelor’s degree in leadership. Mentoring is becoming popular. And the new constitution says a lot about leadership and integrity. The new political dispensation based on counties will demand more leaders. This was a bold step; once the systems are in place, it might be easier to get the leaders.

New meritocracy

To ensure there is no lemon problem, we can create a new meritocracy, distilling from the masses the best leaders. The vetting and use of panels are bold attempts to create new leaders if prejudices are kept off.

But we seem to forget that another reason we get ineffective leaders is because high unemployment drives lots of people to leadership jobs even when they have no leadership qualities.

If we grew our economy, there would be lots of leadership positions created over and above the constitutional ones. One way to make our political leaders more effective, reduce their diseconomies is to offer them competition from private sector. For example, we all know Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump.

How many US senators can you name? A quick review shows that few countries have developed without effective leaders, whose first task has always been to fix the economy. The next general elections give us a chance to turn diseconomies of leadership into economies of leadership.

Finally, families and schools are the labs where leaders are made or unmade.