Leaders come and go, but constituencies remain

All things—human experiences, and coveted positions of significance, pass away—sometimes unprecedently in a twinkle of an eye! Only God—His Word, Love, and Glory endure forever! When applied to leadership, the same is true across all constituencies: national governance,local, national, and/or beyond. Human life ceases—as everything thereof.

Putting this into context, two critical leadership issues come into play: first—the power of influence; and secondly, the reality of change of guards, regardless of the cause(s). Except for divine ordination, many people rise to and sustain themselves in leadership through the power to influence others. And for such influence, leaders win loyalists with profound attachment—often finding it rather difficult to welcome and work with new leaders should those they were socio-emotionally—and for other reasons profoundly attached to, due to: reshuffles, firing, incapacitation, retirement, voluntary resignation—and in extreme cases, death; cease to hold hitherto occupied leadership positions. Change in leadership—whether precedented, gradual, or radical, is often resisted genuinely or ulteriorly. Ideal leadership change should be announced prior, allow for familiarisation engagements between outgoing leaders and their successors elect—socio-emotionally and mentally prepare affected teams to bid their leader(s) farewell and usher in new ones.

Nevertheless, sometimes it might be necessary and/or inevitable that leadership changes abruptly. Henceforth, steering on successfully requires astute strategies.

Scripture—precisely, Amos 3:3 NIV, muses, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” Indeed, lest they be dictatorial and fail themselves and all else, it is critical that the two parties—new leaders and old teams, ‘walk agreeably well together’ towards their respective constituencies’ success. Accordingly, it might be important for parties-in-question to consider—wholly, or as deemed fit, such advisory as rendered hereunder:

•Different people have different leadership—and working styles. Pretending otherwise, may be only but a facade. However, it may be reasonable to resist those who inconsiderately violate the established organisational modus operandi. But also, rather than resist or wish away new leaders whom they have absolutely no power of control over, or wish for “magical reshuffles” so that things somehow revert to the “original good order”, or in extreme wickedness, wish for one’s death—especially in public and political offices, constituents should best find prudent ways of clarifying values and expectations at the earliest opportunity, to prevent perilous antipathy. Differences may not be irreconcilable from the onset. Yes, there could be indications, but if strategically navigated—strategic adjustments sought, they can be prevented from degenerating into effectiveness stalemate;

•On their part, in-coming leaders, ought to think very fast, but take meticulous steps to tactfully and pragmatically buy acceptance, camaraderie, and loyalty from factions opposed to their leadership. Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni is iconic here! Even where it is a matter of command-and-control—in the case of armed forces, religious and cultural establishments where unquestioning loyalty is imbued in subordinates, it works easier when, more than just follow orders, loyalty is born voluntarily out of conviction;

•Finally, departing leaders—those still alive, please, know that just like you succeeded others, you, too, were bound to be succeeded—or may still succeed others if you are not retiring. Therefore, do not sow seeds of hostility among your loyalists against your successors. Instead, help them appreciate and welcome new leaders regardless. Your interests—whatever they be, cannot supersede national or organisational interests. Leaders come and go, but constituencies remain. Gently pass on the baton—move on peacefully!

[email protected]