EPISTEMOLOGY OF LEADING: WHAT LEADERSHIP IS NOT

Deconstructing the ontological meaning, interpretation, and application of leadership

By ANTHONY OBI OGBO
M.B.A., M.HM, P.hD.

With unimaginable measures of definitions, the sense and discipline of leadership and the act of leading still face ontological inadequacies. Authors, researchers, and theorists of leadership, for many years, have crafted their definitions from countless perspectives, justifying the conceptual relevance of each meaning with substantial phenomenological facts. In fact, most definitions are submerged in theoretical concepts of organizing people to manage their environment, politics, and resources; whereas the proper identification and deconstruction of practice insufficiencies gradually diminish out of consideration. For example, most definitions of leadership might end up investigating the epistemic standards of leading or managing success; but perhaps, to an extent, would least consider the very senseless trends leaders embrace at the detriment of their constituents. This essay, however, invokes the definition of leadership from the rearmost view by metaphorically invigorating significant theories and concepts to convey the meaning and application of leadership.

The article as a purpose, provides remedies to the disparaging afflictions of leading beyond the conjectural boundaries of organizing people, their hope, and aspiration. Passages in this article in explaining the process of leading or managing, offer substantial clues on how leaders or managers could harness their resources and translate their communal crisis into a plantation of economic possibilities. Consequently, in a shear reversal, rather than asking and explaining what leadership is or should be, the approach in this paper emerges from a backmost standpoint to ask and convey what leadership is not and should not be.

So let us proceed then with what leading is not, by first clarifying that leadership is not voodoo. It is not a ping-pong political affair, neither is it a fanfare business; it is a social science. In fact, in the broadest sense, the application of leadership must make sense. It must raise philosophical clarification in meaning and practice. It could be argued that the tradition of leadership must appeal a real-world epistemic connotation of organizational objectives, and implore execution actions. Nonetheless, if the exercise of leading does not breed tranquility of commonsense; ontological humility; if this process does not enthuse the spectacle of wisdom, where leaders learn from followers and followers learn from leaders; where leaders uplift followers and followers uplift leaders; or perhaps, where both camps walk side-by-side in solidarity over transcending challenges, it is not leadership

It might be acknowledged that effective leadership demands an integration of sociotechnical systems and tasks. Thus, if the process does not assume a driven expedition for innovation through a sociotechnical approach, whereby technological work procedures are incorporated with human emotions and actions, it is not leadership. It must be acknowledged that web applications are not humans but gadgets – thus leadership must not just focus on technical shortcuts to solving problems, but also could display a human face. Therefore, if the process is not strategized by intellectual actions; if the practice does not flow in-between the stakeholders of the organizations and the leadership; it is not leadership.

Consequently, if the practice does not share task-related thoughts; emit a learning culture, and instill a focus on both human attitude and information conveyance, it is far from leadership. Effective communication is a good process for managing attitude. Through open communication, leaders can amplify innovation by expediting, planning, goal-setting, exchange of information, and reduction of misunderstandings. Therefore, if the practice does not task the aptitude to listen, understand, sympathize, coach, and mentor; and furthermore, if the practice does not create a culture of transparency and information control to bond the leader and the led; it is not leadership.

Leadership is not a one-man process. Leaders do have subordinates, which conceivably are partners in the organizational development process. Isolating such cohorts in the decision process often leaves a structure of monocracy or tyranny. Therefore, if the leading process does not recognize subordinates as partners in business; and adopt them as allies in the change transformation venture, where the fundamental process of embracing something new implores a construction of sociopolitical awareness and shared collective interests, it is not leadership.

In quest of organizational transformation, amidst transcending global economic challenges, if activities do not entail the bone to take risks and facilitate innovative solutions to achieve unexpected outcomes, it is not leadership. This author in an approach to explore the content and discipline of organizational leadership in its entirety argues that the passion and basic skill set of leading might not be enough in making the organization great. A leader must be armed with the intellectual capacity to manage and motivate a culture of risk-taking. The audacity of leadership represents a scepter of human endurance, individual courage, and resolute idiosyncrasy. Therefore, if the process does not involve the propensity to tackle unparalleled trials of experimentation, potential threats and failure, it is not leadership.

It is appropriate to ensure that a broad enough human resources base must be allocated to innovation-related activities. As a part of organizational culture, tolerating failure makes organizations more innovative. In fact, people will not try to do new things if they know that they will be punished if they are unsuccessful. The process of taking risks must dovetail the fail-factor. In other words, a process that encourages risk-taking in the leading sector could reward failure as a learning tool. When leaders or managers dismiss such failures triggered by the risks of innovation with regulations and penalties, they are merely suppressing the passion to create something new. Therefore, if the organizational culture and structure do not create the standards for taking risks; if the system does not recognize the practical meaning of failure from the perspective of learning – it is far from leadership.

But the charismatic aspect of the act of leading is often played down, especially where a capitalistic quest for profitability engulfs human empathy. A leader must have a human face and exhibit compassion. If he does inspire empathy; that is, if he lacks the compassionate characteristics concomitant with the milk of human kindness[i] – if he does not resonate with the plights of the commonalities and share their traditional values and collective aspiration – the practice is far from leadership.

In a current era of social, political, and economic uncertainties, the language of leadership could build hope rather than fear; emit love rather than hate and animosity; orate peace rather than hatred; and accordingly, build unity rather than division. As Mahātmā Mohandas Gandhi noted[ii], “Service without humility is selfishness and egotism.” Therefore; if he talks like Robert Mugabe[iii]; twits like Trump[iv]; and parades the pitiless disposition of Kim Jong-un[v]; it is not leadership.

The values of the team aspect of leading or managing must be acknowledged too. Leadership success is a group phenomenon – and could entail an organized collaboration of individuals to accomplish tasks, solve problems, and collectively dissuade impending organizational or management challenges. Thus, if the process lacks the team atmosphere and signals unchallenged authority; or embraces the team setting but undermines its collaborative actions – it is not leadership.

The application of leadership must galvanize a culture of transformation, inspire the masses, and carry them along toward the finishing contours of mission accomplishment. As a leader or manager, it might not just be enough to oversee and appraise routine tasks and activities. It is the leader’s responsibility to supervise strategies for moving the organization from a present state to an upper level of economic possibilities. A leader must be able to speak the language of transformation with an accent pertinent to innovation and change structures. Therefore, and finally, if it does not speak the language of transformation; does not recognize the values of innovation; in other words, if it undermines the necessities of change and undercuts the technology of organizational reformation and progress, it is not leadership.

_________________________________

[i] Phrase ‘Milk of human kindness’ expressing care and compassion for others was derived from work of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, 1605. Reference quote: “Yet doe I feare thy Nature, It is too full o’ th’ Milke of humane kindnesse.” (Shakespeare’s Macbeth, 1605).

[ii] Indian lawyer, politician, social activist, and writer Mahātmā Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was the leader of the nationalist movement against the British rule of India.

[iii] Noted for controversial racist rhetoric, Zimbabwean revolutionary and politician, Robert Gabriel Mugabe served as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe from 1980 to 1987 and then as President from 1987 to 2017.

[iv] Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017 whose addiction to Twitter could adversely reshape the presidency.

[v] Termed world’s foremost living dictator, Kim Jong-un is the Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea and supreme leader of North Korea since 2011. Under his rule, North Korea remains among the world’s most repressive countries.

_____________________________

About the Author

Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo is the Publisher/Editor of International Guardian News in Houston, Texas; author of The Influence of Leadership, and the Strategic Advisor, Center of Excellence, Consumer Arts and Sciences at the Houston Community College. Profile: http://www.ajtlonline.org/dr.–anthony-obi-ogbo.html

Nigeria and the Implications of a Donald Trump Presidency – Fani-Kayode got it all muddled up

In the opening paragraph of his views about the implications of a Donald Trump’s Presidency to Nigeria, Chief Femi Fani-Kayode declared his support for Trump’s presidential bid. Trump is the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 election running against the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

By Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo — By Anthony Obi Ogbo

But as applies in any true democratic setting, Fani-kayode’s support for Trump is justified. The application of politics is often based on interests, which entitle individuals and organizations to their choices of either electioneering candidates or governance policies. However, Chief-kayode went beyond his choice of a candidate, and delved into other issues he inaccurately illustrated.

For those who do not know, Fani-Kayode is a former Nigerian Minister of Aviation (2006-2007) who joined active politics and juggled between Nigeria’s two major political parties; the then ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and the opposition’s All Progressive Congress (APC). In June 2014, he finally settled for the PDP and was later appointed the Director of Media and Publicity for the 2015 Presidential Campaign Organization of the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan. His candidate, Jonathan lost this election.

Since this period, Fani-Kayode has written editorial articles and commentaries about significant issues of Nigeria’s politics. He has reliably presented substantial arguments on various issues, but his latest take on Trump offered opinions that were not only based on falsehood, but also inconsistent with the existing facts.

In the most part, Fani-kayode cluttered his materials on current affairs, and rendered some analysis that revealed a lack of thorough knowledge of the United States politics. For instance, his support for Trump, in his words, was because Trump “admitted publicly that the American-inspired removal of Arab secularist leaders like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghadaffi, Hosni Mubarak and, more recently, the attempt to remove Bashir Al Assad were wrong, short-sighted, counter-productive and have led to nothing but chaos.”

Fani-Kayode may not have been aware, but during his nomination campaign process, unprompted media interviews of Trump clearly exposed his ignorance about politics of Africa and Middle East. Here is a candidate who could not identify Africa on the world map – and worse – Libya, Nigeria or Egypt from the African map. America saw this movie with Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice presidential candidate in 2008 presidential campaign who had no single knowledge of her country’s foreign policy at the time.

Fani-Kayode in furtherance of his ill-informed opinion claimed that Trump was well known for his disregard and contempt for radical Islam, his firm opposition to islamist intolerance and jihadi terrorism and his concerns about the activities of those that seek to establish a new world caliphate where sharia law is applied. This is absolutely false. Fani-Kayode either ignorantly or intentionally ignored to emphasize how Donald Trump’s rapidly changed policy positions, including his radical views on Islam.

Donald Trump in 2015 had proposed a blanket ban on Muslims based on what he called “hatred” of the West innate in Islam. He advocated for the first time, the monitoring of mosques as a way to deal with radical Islamic terror. Asked if he’d consider closing some mosques, Trump said “absolutely, I think it’s great.”

In 2016, Trump softened these policies to ban on only Muslims coming from countries with a history of terrorism. Accordingly, Trump’s policies have been tainted with outright falsehoods while he simultaneously refused to offer specifics on implementation strategies.

The truth however, is that in America, after the W. Bush’s horrible tenure, most voters no longer relate to block-headed candidates who only read campaign scripts and make imaginable promises about matters that are beyond their knowledge. It might have worked in Nigeria with Buhari, but in the United States, experience matter; and that why John McCain failed with Palin, and Mitt Romney failed woefully with Paul Ryan.

Unlike in most African countries where democracy is bastardized beyond recognition, the United States President does not dictate laws and orders.

Fani-Kayode in his article, had also questioned the trio of President Barak Obama, and his past and present State Secretaries, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry on matters inconsequential to their constitutional powers. Unlike in most African countries where democracy is bastardized beyond recognition, the United States President does not dictate laws and orders. President Obama has been operating under a Republican dominated congress and often struggled to implement his own proposals. He has important job to do besides what an individual in Nigeria thinks about his office.

Funny enough, Fani-Kayode in his piece blamed Obama, Clinton, and Kerry for imposing an arms embargo on Nigeria when President Goodluck Jonathan was in power, but failed to explain the disgraceful events that trailed the United States’ actions.

In his own explanation at the time, Mr. James Entwistle, the American ambassador to Nigeria attributed a United States blockade of Nigeria’s ability to purchase weapons to human rights violation by Nigerian troops in the Nigerian North-east.

This was consistent with the Leahy Law or Leahy amendment – a U.S. human rights law that prohibits the U.S. Department of State and Department of Defense from providing military assistance to foreign military units that violate human rights with impunity. This law was approved by the congress in 1997, years before President Obama took office. So why blame Obama?

But Fani-Kayode evaded what could have been a thorough justification of this embargo. For the fact that Nigeria’s former national security adviser, Sambo Dasuki, allegedly stole more than $2bn (£1.3bn) with funds meant to procure arms to fight Boko Haram was enough reason to conclude that this institution was justifiably troubled with high-level corruption and mismanagement – for even Fani-Kayode himself has been facing charges for allegedly being a beneficiary of that loot. Fani-Kayode it was alleged, received N1.7 billion directly from Mr. Jonathan in funds that they suspected came from Dasuki – not Obama.

Axelrod may have been hired by the APC, the same way Fani-Kayode was hired by the PDP. In fact, Fan-Kayode made more money in his PDP position than Axelrod made from the APC. Therefore, by whining about Axelrod assisting Buhari in his election victory, Fani-Kayode who headed Jonathan’s campaign was actually narrating his own incompetence and abysmal failure.

Fani-Kayode most ridiculously shot himself on the foot when he claimed that Obama’s campaign manager David Axelrod was paid large sums of money to assist President Buhari to come to power. As a point of reference, Axelrod was a former Obama’s campaign manager who operated a consulting firm at the time. He may have been hired by the APC, the same way Fani-Kayode was hired by the PDP. In fact, Fan-Kayode made more money in his PDP position than Axelrod made from the APC. Therefore, by whining about Axelrod assisting Buhari in his election victory, Fani-Kayode who headed Jonathan’s campaign was actually narrating his own incompetence and abysmal failure.

If I may ask Fani-Kayode, was it Obama that appointed Professor Attahiru Muhammadu Jega who tactically delivered victory to his Kingsman? Was it Obama that headed Jonathan’s campaign? Was it Hillary that procured a card reader that could not even recognize the President’s finger print at the accreditation process? Was it Kerry that registered thousands of underage voters in the North? I can go all day.

It is ridiculous that rather than evaluate their lapses on why they failed to retain Jonathan’s incumbency, those who headed his campaign and indeed the party leaders were busy blaming their structural woes on Obama. As I mentioned in my book, “Governance Buhari’s Way”, managing failure remains one of the best part of effective governance. In organizational leadership, failure is not unacceptable. What might be disastrous is when managers fail to immediately assess measures and reconcile their lapses. After any election, especially in a race as controversial as the PDP-APC presidential polls, a “postmortem” is compulsory to enable players explore relevant thoughts about their performances. In other words, winners engross in strategizing about implementing their blueprints and projections, whereas losers evaluate their losses to make amends for a comeback.

If I may ask Fani-Kayode, was it Obama that appointed Professor Attahiru Muhammadu Jega who tactically delivered victory to his Kingsman? Was it Obama that headed Jonathan’s campaign? Was it Hillary that procured a card reader that could not even recognize the President’s finger print at the accreditation process?

However, in the Nigerian system, the situation is absolutely the opposite. Most winners are immediately occupied with infighting over their opportunities to loot public funds. The others are busy lampooning losers with foul language for losing. Losers on their own part are enthralled in some “don’t blame it on me” mentality. Fani-Kayode exemplifies an incompetent loser who is yet to assess his failures, but would arrogantly go around to pass blame on others.

Fani-Kayode made substantial points about specific ill-advised actions of John Kerry over Nigeria’s politics but those are absolutely unconnected with Trump’s ability to lead. Nigeria made that mistake when out of frustration about specific policies of President Jonathan, cheered a dictator into office. Today, those who committed this error are licking their wounds. Consequently, structural policies by Obama, Hillary or Kerry unfavorable to Nigeria do not justify Trump’s leadership proficiency.

♦ Anthony Ogbo, Ph.D. is the Publisher of Houston-based International Guardian, and author of “Governance Buhari’s Way.”

How the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is misleading the world about Nigeria

Is John Kerry actually representing the United States or is he serving some incomprehensible interests?

Before the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry visited Nigeria last week, he placed his agenda on the table. With priority accorded to

corruption and security, the august visitor also wanted to discuss the state of the economy with Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari. This visit which was hailed as the last possible engagement by a major American official during the Obama administration came at the right time; a dire period in Nigeria’s fragile democracy, where cries of hardship by a frustrated populace have replaced the national anthem. The visits also was billed to solidify a bilateral affiliation between the two countries after a period of strained relations.

Ordinarily, a top-ranking American diplomat visiting Nigeria would be expected to make as a first destination, the commercial hub of Lagos (the former Nigeria’s capital), or the seat of the government in Abuja. However that was not the case with this visit. Kerry headed straight to the city of Sokoto; predominantly Muslim and an important seat of Islamic learning situated in the extreme northwest of Nigeria

Kerry’s visit to Sokoto confirmed the devotion accorded to the Sultan of Sokoto—Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar III, as a strategic partner of the U.S., regarding sociopolitical issues in Nigeria and neighboring Muslim regions. The visit soon provoked a controversy. For instance, a prominent Christian group, Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) voiced out their condemnation, accusing Kerry of being “discriminatory and divisive.” Another organization, the Foundation for Human Rights and Anti-Corruption Crusade also expressed concerns that the United States was fueling ethnic and religious tensions in Nigeria by supporting northern leaders.

These organizations might be right in their discontentment of Kerry’s itinerary. In a country divided since its independence in 1960 over ethnic and religious differences, it was awfully intolerant for Kerry to have flown in, socialized with Muslim clerics and winged off. He was in Nigeria on Monday and Tuesday, and was hosted by the Sultan of Sokoto, the most senior Islamic cleric in the country. He also met with 19 governors of Nigeria’s northern states and held talks with President Muhammadu Buhari, who is also a Muslim.

CAN president, Reverend Supo Ayokunle, said Kerry’s visit showed a “lack of respect for the heterogeneous nature of Nigeria” and favored the country’s Muslim population to the detriment of the Christian community.” Proponents of the regime however differ, praising Kerry’s visit to the Muslim region as an effective partnership strategy in strengthen America’s ongoing battle with Islamist extremism. The sultan is believed to have much leverage with Nigerian Muslims and was seen as the appropriate channel to get the U.S. message across in fighting terror.

Most observers believe that Nigerian Christians are under siege and are the major victims of a supposedly secular governmental system that is currently undermined by the regime. But during his visit, Kerry spent more time showering praises to his Muslim host rather than reveal his country’s position in assisting Nigeria with corruption, security, and state of their ailing economy. According to Ayokunle, Kerry’s actions speak volume; “his body language were very divisive.”

This is not the first time Kerry has crashed dabbling into a delicate Nigeria’s politics. Earlier in 2015 – during a heated Nigeria’s presidential campaign, Kerry inappropriately criticized the incumbent regime of President Goodluck Jonathan for an election postponement that was legally justified. He had impolitely issued a release expressing his deep disappointment about the postponement, urging that the Nigerian government not use security concerns as a pretext for impeding the democratic process.

PIC.-3.-U.S.-SECRETARY-OF-STATE-JOHN-KERRY-VISITS-SOKOTO — Kerry and the Sultan (Center). With Nigeria’s current governance predicament; the first major question would be, when has the Sultan become the country’s spokesperson on matters of corruption, security, the state of the economy? If the Sultan was a force in coordinating fights against terrorism and sectarian violence, why is Northern Nigeria still in such a security mess?

Unfortunately for Kerry, the postponement was later vindicated. From all valuations, there was no way the election could have been held with the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Attahiru M. Jega admitting to poor supervision, and process unpreparedness.

Kerry was also criticized for overreaction – acting without adequate information from reliable agencies from the United States monitoring the developments. For example, shortly after Kerry’s release, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), a United States nonpartisan organization working to support and strengthen democratic institutions worldwide in collaboration with International Republican Institute (IRI) issued their report contradicting the secretary’s position on the issue.

This time, again, Kerry may have misled America with his senseless Nigeria’s visit. He may have goofed in his misguided Sokoto adventure. With Nigeria’s current governance predicament; the first major question would be, when has the Sultan become the country’s spokesperson on matters of corruption, security, the state of the economy? If the Sultan was a force in coordinating fights against terrorism and sectarian violence, why is Northern Nigeria in such a security mess?

If Kerry was serious about using traditional or religious rulers to boost his Nigeria’s security agenda, he could have visited the Chiefs in the Delta region also, where pollution perpetrated by major United States oil companies have ravaged many communities; and where government forces have been engaging local militants in bloody battles. Kerry also forgot to visit the Religious leaders or historically prominent chiefs in the Southern zones where the Fulani herdsmen armed by the regime destroy farmlands, and communities; and fatally attack individuals and families at will with sophisticated weapons.

The fact is that Kerry does not get it. His visit contradicted the very U.S. policy he endorsed. Earlier this month, the U.S. government through Kerry’s own office placed a danger alert on 20 States in Nigeria over security fears in the affected areas, claiming a lack of confidence in the Nigerian Army – to guarantee the safety of its citizens. The states affected were; Adamawa, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Borno, Delta, Edo, Gombe, Imo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Niger, Plateau, Rivers, Sokoto, Yobe and Zamfara.

With these states including those in the South-South and South-East, why does Kerry think that a visit on security with just the Sultan of Sokoto, and then all Northern governors were appropriate? How would Kerry’s visit to Sokoto solidify a bilateral relationship between Nigeria and United States? Is John Kerry actually representing the United States or is he serving some incomprehensible interests?

♦ Author, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is the publisher of Houston-based International Guardian.

Latest book on Buhari highlights governance lapses and solution strategies

I have the pleasure of writing the preface of Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo newest book, “Governance Buhari’s way”, released worldwide today. I don’t often do this but this author has been someone I share ideological thoughts with.

In his last book, The Influence of Leadership, a research study, Dr. Ogbo, a leadership and management scholar, explored how the political, cultural, social, and economic conditions in Nigeria influence the lives of Nigerian citizens through lived experiences of two citizens from each of the six geopolitical regions of the country. The research centered on people (Nigerian citizens), through the subjects of management and leadership, and through the processes of managing and leading.

Dr. Ogbo made substantial recommendations for leaders, which focused primarily on the themes categorized as moral philosophy, organizational change, transformation, and diversity management. These remedies, Dr. Ogbo contended, could help the present and aspiring leaders to develop effective leadership strategies to manage their citizens, public service system, and resources.

Governance Buhari’s Way is consistent with Dr. Ogbo’s exploration of solutions to the dysfunctional system presently operating in Nigeria. While the content critiques the styles and philosophy of the Nigerian President, Muhammadu Buhari, Dr. Ogbo researched and discussed some applicable models relevant to leadership behavior and practice, to deliver a structure for effective management of Nigeria, its people, and its abundant resources.

As Dr. Ogbo noted, this book is not a condemnation of Nigeria’s struggle for survival, but an academic work about the misuse of leadership in a democratic setting, and a foundationally intrinsic misunderstanding of leadership as against management structures. Using relevant concepts, the book appraised President Buhari’s apparent and reactionary temperament in handling the affairs of government, and considers how ill-informed choices or errors in judgement might derail Nigeria’s quest for unity.

As the author noted, this book is not a condemnation of Nigeria’s struggle for survival, but an academic work about the misuse of leadership in a democratic setting, and a foundationally intrinsic misunderstanding of leadership as against management structures.

The book, Governance Buhari’s Way, cited incompatibility in President Buhari’s executive structure, categorizing them into three groups, “fanatics who worship him; cohorts who think they understand him; and underhanded politicians who have lied that they know him.” On how an alliance between President Buhari and his incompatible cohorts would inspire a progressive change, the book invoked the interchangeable roles of the managing, and the leading, in the public service system – setting the records straight on the use of, so called, technocrats in running the public system.

The organization of this book centers on a literature review of significant concepts of transformation management. Besides a discussion on the language of leadership, the book reviewed the application of moral philosophy in the governance system; the process of organizational transformation, and the philosophy of the change process. These concepts were adequately applied in appraising President Buhari’s unconventional style of leadership within a democratic system of government. They also underscore major reasons why his regime appears currently shaky, and might be headed for the worst, without an immediate structured intervention.

The Author’s writing approach in this book is unique – a mixture of academic language and conventional conversational humor. However, the facts, suppositions, and recommendations remain a scholarly composition of the science of “how not to manage people and resources”. As Dr. Ogbo put it, “In a complex economy, installing a leader without relevant skills is like hiring a tailor to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) to perform surgery, just because they can handle needle and thread.” In all, this book is an absolutely illuminating and interesting piece of work.

Education management scholar, (Dr) Olayinka C. Dixon-Oludaiye is the publisher, Becky Magazine, County Meath, Rep of Ireland.

Deconstructing the ontological meaning, interpretation, and application of leadership

Is John Kerry actually representing the United States or is he serving some incomprehensible interests?

Like Us On Facebook