Nelson Mandela’s tactical decision to change his political movement from peaceful rallies to physical conflict proved to be one of the worst, although one of the greatest decisions he ever made. I find this to be one of the worst decisions in the fact that a transformational leader should never resort to violence, which also cost Mandela over 27 years of his inspiring life in prison. His time spent in prison, however, was not wasted as his message spread across South Africa and inspirationally motivated its citizens to seek an even power distance across their country between blacks and whites. Although imprisoned, Mandela’s power still reigned across the nation and intimidated the South African government as stated by A&E television network, “A 1981 memoir by South African intelligence agent Gordon Winter described a plot by the South African government to arrange for Mandela's escape so as to shoot him during the recapture (2010).” A&E television network later declared that the plot was foiled by British Intelligence, thus ensuring Nelson Mandela’s safety. While inside of prison, Mandela sought to better himself by writing an influential autobiography titled, Long Walk to Freedom, which revealed much of his life and in essence helped him better understand himself along with his cause. During this time of self-enhancement there was an immense amount of national and international pressure from around the world demanding the release of Nelson Mandela. With mounting pressures on all sides of the South African government President Frederik Willem de Klerk announced a new life for Nelson Mandela when he ordered his release in February 1990.
After 27 years of imprisonment, I believe Nelson Mandela had a renewed urgency to share his message for the good of his people along with a newly established need for achievement as he essentially picked up further ahead than he left off. Following his release, a conscientious and empowered Nelson Mandela took a directive leadership approach by pushing for foreign nations to not reduce their pressure on the racist South African government. This was also a proactive strategic decision to not let up on the stress faced by the South African government, and provide more empowerment to anti-government activists. His momentous growth in popularity while imprisoned and push for new government reform proved their value as he was elected President of the African National Congress in 1991. I found that Nelson Mandela recognized to achieve permanent change in the nation that there would need to be a new constitution implemented. Over the next three years Nelson Mandela struggled with the South African government to negotiate a new national constitution because he knew the importance of that document for national change. He later would find out that will he receive a vast change in job enlargement and enrichment before this could be accomplished. As described by A&E television network, “Negotiation prevailed, however, and on April 27, 1994, South Africa held its first democratic elections. At age 77, Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the country's first black president on May 10, 1994, with de Klerk as his first deputy.” After a lifetime of oppression and struggle Nelson Mandela was now in a powerful position to erase segregation forever. It is my belief that his first order of business as President was to establish some sort of affirmative action program to help eliminate faultlines and institute procedural justice in the South African government. This affirmative action desegregation program began by employing many black South Africans in government positions, as well as utilizing the country’s most popular sport of rugby promote equality among blacks and whites. A recent movie, Invictus, also does a great job depicting Mandela motivating black South Africans to support the national rugby team which was once racially biased against black citizens. During this time of promoting equality amongst the nation’s citizens, Nelson Mandela was continuing his work on establishing a new constitution. According to the A&E television network, “In 1996, he signed into law the new South African constitution, which established a strong central government based on majority rule and guaranteed rights of minorities and freedom of expression (2010).” For three more years he would regulate and demonstrate strong social responsibility as President of South Africa before his retirement in 1999. Nelson Mandela would forever change the organizational behavior of a racist government, and help eliminate the surface level diversity in a segregated nation because of his transformational leadership.
Nelson Mandela’s life has struck the hearts of many people throughout the world as his transformational leadership approach accomplished his terminal goal of equal diversity amongst all citizens in South Africa. Nelson Mandela has experienced a great feeling of job satisfaction from changing the government’s environment and knowing the nation of South Africa’s culture is at peace. Even with these accomplishments, however, he has continued to demonstrate strong organizational citizenship behavior for his country. He has displayed this through corporate social responsibility as he promotes the equality found in South Africa around the world, and still helps the nation’s citizens by building schools along with other various charitable projects. His self-management and innovative leadership abilities may have even influenced the world’s citizens to not accept tyranny from a government as progress is seen in the Middle East and North Africa today. Nelson Mandela is a true illustration of a transformational leader because even after reaching his need of self-actualization, he still continues to give back to the world.
“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership”
-Nelson Mandela
Can you think of a transformation leader of change that has had a similar influence on people as Nelson Mandela has done? If so could you please describe why you believe this to be true? If not, do you have any predictions for who you believe may be the next transformational leader in the world?
-Zach Seibel
Works Cited:
A&E Television Networks (2011), “Nelson Mandela Biography,” (accessed March 3, 2011), [available at http://www.biography.com/articles/Nelson-Mandela-9397017]
The first person that comes to mind as a transformational leader is Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi wasn't someone who looked after what he wanted in his own life but he tried to satisfy the needs of others in society. He was a pioneer for satyagraha. This was a resistance to tyranny through civil disobedience. This was founded on a family view of total no-violence. After Gandhi become leader of the Indian National Congress, he led campaigns to ease poverty , expand women rights, religious expansion, and increase economic self reliance. Mahatma Gandhi lived a modest life and spoke the truth and advocated others to do the same in their lives.
ReplyDeleteGandhi influenced many others to go out a preach his word of non-violence. Martin Luther King Jr. took Mahatma words that he wrote and spoke to heart and was a historical figure in leading the civil right movement. Martin Luther expanded and professed his thoughts of non-violence among black and whites in his famous I have a dream speech. John Lennon's music was inspired by Gandhi's transformational leadership. Even our current President, Barrack Obama said while he was senator of Illinois, "Throughout my life, I have always looked to Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration, because he embodies the kind of transformational change that can be made when ordinary people come together to do extraordinary things. That is why his portrait hangs in my Senate office: to remind me that real results will come not just from Washington – they will come from the people."
Mahatma Gandhi's actions, words, writings, and ideas of how to lives one's life lives on in today's world. Many people are inspired by his famous quotes and inspirational movements that he lead in India.
Team member: Mitchell Terry
I completely agree with you Mitch, as I believe that Mahatma Gandhi was a truly transformational leader because of his ability to influence his followers towards a creative, yet peacefully motivated means of protest. Both Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi exhibited numerous similarities, in terms of transformational leadership methods, of the respectful groups of activists in which they represented. These similarities may have also been derived from the fact that each of their causes were relatively similar as they both felt emotional conflict geared toward their government because of the oppression delivered to national citizens. The two leaders then sought justice, and initiated innovative movements to truly change each of their nations governments. During these movements they also utilized similar people-oriented behaviors as they demonstrated genuine concern for their followers, which you also stated as “Gandhi wasn't someone who looked after what he wanted in his own life but he tried to satisfy the needs of others in society.” Each of these transformational leaders truly displayed unselfish characteristics as they put their people before themselves, whether it was Gandhi fasting to make his followers stop violent protest or Nelson Mandela spending 27 years of his life imprisoned. These two self-motivated leaders have had an immense impact on the world as their influence has changed the culture and environment of many organizations and governments. In my opinion, a truly enlightening experience can and should be learned from each of these well-known transformational leaders.
ReplyDelete-Zach Seibel
Nicely said. While I have made arguments for Mr. Goodnight at SAS, you have both done a great job transferring the characteristics of a transformational leader from the business world to the world at large. I believe both Mandela and Gandhi are viable candidates for the description of "transformational leader."
ReplyDeleteI did have a brief comment on your opening remarks concerning Mandela. I must admit that I am not particularly familiar with the specifics of this situation, outside the details you have provided in your post. When reading, "Nelson Mandela’s tactical decision to change his political movement from peaceful rallies to physical conflict proved to be one of the worst, although one of the greatest decisions he ever made," A couple things ran through my mind.
At what point is violence considered a legitimate option? I can only imagine the injustices that were committed in Africa (I am familiar with events that occurred in Rwanda and Sudan). I am a person of faith and believe in peaceful protests. But is there a point at which a line is crossed? Perhaps Nelson had finally had enough and had exhausted all his options. This may or may not be the case, as I have no actual knowledge of the details. However, think back in history and contemplate the issues that have led to war. Are the atrocities that started the World Wars or the terrorist attacks on American soil worthy of armed retaliation?
When reading this passage, I can’t help but to draw a few parallelisms to the U.S. As I recall, the north and the south had a dispute surrounding the many aspects of racism. That disagreement also eventually led to armed combat. Racism is surely a cause worthy of serious attention. Clearly, peacefully talking about such a scandalous issue was not the answer. These two relatively similar situations, while having different fact sets, eventually used violence to fight violence. This begs the question again: is violence necessary in certain situations?
However, when we take a closer look at the two situations, we see that perhaps the nonviolent paths are more effective in the long run. While civil war and violence were used, I do not believe these were the only factors that contributed to the elimination or decline in racism. The willingness of the people to look past skin color and incorporate diverse people into society as equals led to the true end of slavery. Likewise, I think Nelson Mandela’s imprisonment, his writings, and his general resolve to refrain from violence after the fact provided a second wind to his movement. In the end, perhaps bloodshed is a route that should be avoided. Violence alone cannot bring about change. In war, there is a winner and a loser. Submission leads to dissent and this creates a vicious cycle. Peaceful and constructive communication must be used if the wounds of war are to be healed. These are just a few insights on your well written piece.
Regards,
Jarek Palmer