Ruto's broadside exposes a lack of dichotomy in leadership in Cabinet

**President William Ruto during a past meeting at State House, Nairobi.** [PCS]

When Jocko Willink and Leif Banin wrote their classic ‘The Dichotomy of Leadership’ in 2018, they must have had a moment of shame at State House this past Tuesday.

For the avoidance of doubt, there can never be any exception when it comes to official protocols and etiquette. The world over, no one enters into presidential or head of government functions after they have arrived.

That said, President William Ruto’s comments about the performance of his Cabinet and other senior officials raise curious insights into the quality of leadership in his administration.

The obvious impression created was that there is a lot of mediocrity, incoherence and lack of capacity to deliver on key promises he has made to the people. But, on the other hand, suppose the president’s leadership style is too overbearing to the extent of choking his appointees out of their wit, potential and abilities? Reflecting on the totality of the past 10 months, there are persuasive indicators that point to a potentially one-man-show kind of leadership.

Three questions emerge: One, suppose it is true that as many of the cabinet and senior appointees were incompetent as implied, doesn’t that not speak against the appointing authority? Is the appointment of the Cabinet and Senior government officials not the most strategic and definitive decision of any president? Two, assuming the role of the devils advocate, suppose the appointed officials do not have the necessary latitude to do their work, would they be expected to deliver? Three, if indeed some are justly incompetent, is it not fair to relief them of their duties and onboard competent men and women to do the job?

The question of what makes a great leader has been highly studied over the years. The literature is as diverse as are the experts in the field. While there are some common threads across dispensations and generations, it is difficult to pinpoint a single set of factors. This in itself speaks of the complexity of leadership itself.

That notwithstanding, there still are emerging factors that seem to define leadership in the modern complex economic and business environment. Here we explore some outstanding recent literature and trail its practical relevance to our current situation.

First is Willink and Babin thoughts on the subject in 2018. According to their doctrine on the dichotomy of leadership, the most difficult element of leadership is that, for anyone to be a good leader, one must also be a good follower. In an earlier book, Extreme Ownership, they argue that every leader must be ready and willing to take charge; to make hard, crucial calls for the good of the team and mission.

President William Ruto signs performance contracts of his Cabinet and other senior officials. [PCS]

In the dichotomy of leadership, they argue for a need to find a balance between the two opposing forces of leading and following in leadership. Simply put, a good leader must be ready to lead, but must also know when to let others take the lead while they follow. This creates a culture of leadership at every level of the team and the organisation for that matter.

Leadership dichotomy

Let us put this into context here. Given, there is no single person in this country who has the capacity to run the government alone. It does not matter how intelligent or talented one maybe. It is humanly impossible to be everywhere and in charge of every detail of a government bureaucracy. One of the problems of bureaucracies is that when a single leader tries to dominate it, it creates a parallel alternative black system that exploits the weak links within it and the human limitations.

If anyone doubts this, they can study the collapse of the Soviet Union or trail the economics and fall of strong men well documented throughout history. A good case in point is the fall of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe in November 2017. Here at home, it is not difficult to find common threads around the succession intrigues of 1978 from Kenyatta to Moi; Moi to Kibaki in 2002; and the 2022 elections that birthed the current administration.

By default, government bureaucracies harbour a distaste of a ‘too domineering’ type of leadership, first and foremost due to their sheer size. I may be wrong, but in the heart of my hearts, I feel there is something fundamentally wrong with an administration where the president is the one who pushes for everything, even the most unpopular and controversial ones. This not only exposes the leader, but also denies him or her space to manoeuvre when things hit the wall as they surely must in the ordinary course of life.

A good place to draw lessons from is in war. In any war, the rule of thumb is that there must be always some boots on the ground and adequate air cover to protect the generals. An opponent taking out your general is psychologically significant even if for nothing else. Letting others take a lead role in their areas of responsibility provides both the air cover and a level of flexibility when things go outside the plan for top leadership.

ABCs of leadership

A second piece of literature I would refer to is the works of Linda A. Hill, Emily Tedande, Jason Wild and Karl Weber on the ABCs of Leadership published in the Harvard Business Review on 19th September, 2022. According the their study conducted over several years and across 90 countries, the realities of leadership in the 21st century are: one, leadership has become harder because stakeholders’ expectations have increased; two, global environment for leaders to execute their responsibilities has become more complex; three, digital transformation has become an imperative; and four, innovation has become ever more critical to sustained success.

As a consequence, for any leader to become great in the modern operating environment, they must master three key roles of an Architect, Bridger and Catalysts. As an Architect, the leader must build the culture and capabilities for co-creation among his/her team. As a Bridger, the leader must curate and enable networks of talent inside and outside the organisation to drive innovation. As a Catalyst, the leader must lead beyond organisational boundaries to energise and activate co-creation across the entire ecosystem.

This is what they call the ABCs of leadership in modern business environment. In a nutshell, instead of being everywhere in front on the stage, a leader must learn to show others the way. The leader must learn to set the stage and create an environment in which others are willing and able to do the hard work. Only then can the organisation remain innovative and competitive.

To put this into context, it is without a doubt that the Jubilee administration grossly mismanaged the economy. This required a radical departure from the Jubilee failed policies, and a decisive action against its excesses. As a matter of necessity, this demanded a new style of leadership that brought the finest minds and hands into the deck. But alas, 10 months down the line, what we have witnessed is empty rhetoric, blame assignment and aversion of responsibility.

What of senior cabinet members overstepping their mandate and responsibilities to contradict each other in the glare of cameras? Who inducted them into Cabinet and the ways of government?

In total sum, am afraid it seems the nation is crying out for a fresh breed of leadership. This is if we are to recover from our 60-year-old aborted take-off into a prosperous nation and society.