By : S. HADI ABDULLAH

WE have just witnessed the passing of the leadership baton from
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Most writers and the common citizen alike seem to think that the
two individuals are of different make-up. They may not be far
from the truth. Some have, in my reckoning, unnecessarily gone
to the extent of worrying what will happen to, and bemoaning the
fate of, the country without Dr Mahathir at the helm.

My answer is that Malaysia will go on - she certainly will get
on.

Leaders come in different moulds. History, be it of countries,
companies or communities, tells us that leaders are very much
people of their times; that their particular type of leadership
worked well at the time they were leaders. They almost always
had a vision and a passion to fulfil. They had a way of
galvanising people.

Dr Mahathir was very much a "telling" leader, bordering the
authoritarian type. Leaders of this category are normally said
to produce results.

Good examples of this type are Margaret Thatcher, Lee Kuan Yew,
Indira Gandhi and Deng Xiao Peng. Their counterparts in the
business world could be Harold Geneen and Jack Welch of GE,
Henry Ford, and Israel Sieff of Marks and Spencer.  Although
seen to be strict disciplinarians, they always worked towards
set goals.

In the religious sphere, Prophet Muhammad is an interesting case
in point. A friend of mine says that the prophet practised
altruistic leadership. He was firm, focused, forceful and fair.

Citing him as the most influential person in history, Michael H.
Hart goes on to say "He was supremely successful on both
religious and secular levels." Preaching monotheism, he united a
diverse populace that spread Islam to different parts of the
world. Today, there are about 1.3 billion Muslims around the
world.
  
On a leadership scale way above this come the fearsome leaders
of the past: Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great, amongst
others. They too produced results. Genghis and his grandsons
established an empire stretching from the Yellow Sea to the
Mediterranean. Only the British Empire of the 19th century
exceeded this in size. By skilful issue of rewards and martial
skills, Genghis brought together the different warring tribes.

Alexander, too, by sheer use of force and leadership by example
conquered, by the age of 33, lands from his home in Macedonia
till the north of India. His soldiers on horseback defeated the
troops of the Indian Raja on the backs of elephants.

Modern-day rulers like Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein have
all been known to be cruel to their own people. Somebody knocks
at your house door at night, that's the end of you.
Unfortunately, the above did not do anything that can be said to
be a plus factor. Almost all they did was for self-gain and to
prolong their rule.

In the business sphere, we have people like Al "Chainsaw" Dunlop
of Scott paper. He downsized his company, leaving hundreds
jobless (70% of senior managers and 30% of workers). He took
measures that were unfriendly only to sell the company to its
archrival - Kimberly Clark. He did all this in the name of
increasing shareholder value.

Robert Maxwell was another who often engaged in abusive
behaviour to his staff, often tyrannising them. The people at
Enron, like Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay, indulged in such
grotesque con games that took everybody down.

We see greed, avarice, and total lack of consideration for
others.

In the continuum of leadership, the exact opposite of this would
be what is often called servant leadership or soul leadership.

Today, we have many institutions in the US that are running
courses to develop leaders of this nature. To some extent,
Matsushita tried to do this through his Matsushita School of
Management and Government in Japan.

Classical examples of this category would be Jesus Christ, who
together with St Paul established a following of over two
billion people spread across the globe. Jesus personified
non-violence (Gandhi thought he was the prime example of this),
and lived a frugal and exemplary life.

In recent times, Mahatma Gandhi practised this sort of
leadership. Said to have averted many inter-religious clashes in
India, Gandhi was a symbol of simplicity, frugality and the
"mastering of self".

Mother Theresa, who was recently made a Saint by the Pope, is
also a good example. Mother Theresa worked with the poorest of
the poor. This Nobel Peace Prize winner had established more
than 570 missions -Missionaries of Charity - by the time she
died in 1997.

We see passion, sacrifice and selflessness.

In the business world, it is difficult to draw a parallel. Some
who have come close would be Stan Shih of Acer, Horst
Rechelbacer of Aveda Corporation, Anita Roddick of Body Shop,
etc.

Stan Shih, as we know, had given a good part of his company's
shares to his people. The co-owners certainly produced good
results for him.

Horst Rechelbacer is a firm believer in looking after the
environment. His shampoo and cosmetics are made from plants and
flowers, 90% of which had been grown organically. His company
only uses recycled paper and soy ink.

Anita Roddick is value driven and believes that business is
about human relationship. She is also a human rights activist.

Where does this bring us in relation to Abdullah?

So far, we have in a very general manner been trying to
illustrate that leadership is not of only one kind and that one
can be just as effective using a different type of leadership.
Of course, dysfunctional leadership does nobody any good.

From my readings, discussions and observation, Abdullah seems to
be simple, friendly, easy to get along with, and yet is focused
and determined in his own way. Some people have said that he is
"soft" when compared to Dr Mahathir.

"Softness" has its pluses. Like speaking one's mind, "softness"
has its strength and place too. A number of great movers in
history have been relatively quiet people. One should give the
man an opportunity to show his mettle before jumping to
conclusions.

To illustrate how diametrically opposite and independent a
former deputy's policy decision can be from that of his boss, I
am reminded of a situation during the times of our past Prime
Ministers Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak.

In the later part of Tunku's premiership, communist China
invaded India, taking the Ladakh Valley in the north. A firm
believer in democracy, Tunku initiated a Save Democracy Fund
among Malaysians to collect money to assist India to fight
China. Razak was his deputy at that time.

Not very long after this episode, Razak stepped into Tunku's
shoes. One of the first things he did was to visit China, not
only recognising her but also getting an agreement from China
not to interfere in the internal affairs of Malaysia (this must
been seen in the context of the communists and Chin Peng at that
time).

One could never have guessed the turn of events when Tunku was
raising money to fight the communists. Therefore, allowing the
leader of the day to make decisions appropriate to the times is
the right thing to do.

In leadership there's such a thing as "reality-testing". Many
leaders often fail the test when they fall for colour, pomposity
and glorification.

Successful ones who didn't include Nelson Mandela, Konosuke
Matsushita, John Harvey Jones, and our own Raja Tun Mohar. They
did not let power, praise and position get into their head.

Mandela did not forget his background and the duty to his
people. Not vindictive, he handed over the leadership long
before the need to do so.

Handing over the helm of his company almost 25 years before he
died, Matsushita said in his memoirs that he was afraid he might
be becoming a stumbling block to the progress of his company.

Jones recollects that he has always been ruthlessly
self-critical with himself. This former chairman of ICI did not
let prestige and position change his person.

Raja Tun Mohar, former President of MIM, was always his
distinguished yet simple self.

These people have always had a moral compass. Practising a
number of techniques like continuous self-appraisal, getting
feedback from spouse or loved ones, meditating and reflecting,
possessing a strong belief in God, etc, they kept themselves to
the ground.

The early Romans had a simple method of taking care of this.
When a victorious general entered Rome in his chariot (to the
rousing cheers of thousands), behind him on the same chariot was
a slave whose duty it was to whisper, "YOU'RE HUMAN, CAESAR.
YOU'RE HUMAN?."

People around leaders will always try to influence and change
them - wanting to fulfil their own fantasies, pushing the
leaders, if they could, to embark on projects that do no good to
them or those they lead. Most often, the courtier's pet projects
can end up as a white elephant. A good leader would be fully
aware of this all the time, constantly doing his reality check.

For more information on MIM programmes, call MIM Customer
Service at 03-21654611, e-mail enquiries@mim. edu or visit
www.mim.edu