REGISTER

Sent from my HTC

register
Sent from my HTC

My Complete Thesis

http://www.ziddu.com/download/7017752/completthesis.pdf.html

Gandhi

 

A list of references are included in the Links and Book Lists, but I especially want to recognize Ved  Mehta's book "Mahatma Gandhi & His Disciples", and Dennis Dalton's "Mahatma Gandhi: Nonviolent Power in Action". Gandhi's own "Hind Swaraj" is also essential reading.

The Leadership analysis and commentary is my own, faults and all.

One of the greatest figures of the twentieth century, and perhaps of the millennium, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in Gujarat on October 2nd, 1869, and was assassinated January 30th, 1948.

He was both one of the most successful Leaders of the century, and, by his own standards, one of the least successful. He was charismatic, but he was also deliberate and analytical. Gandhi was very much a product of his times, yet one of his greatest sources of inspiration was the Bhagavad-Gita, written thousands of years ago. He was a politician, a writer, an intellectual and an orator. Without doubt he was a very complex man, but a man who believed in simple things.
  
    
So where do we start with an analysis of his Leadership style, ability and results?

Gandhi declared that "Action is my domain", so it is necessary to study the details of his life to begin to form a clear picture of his Leadership. The start point is also the end – he was called both "Mahatma", meaning great soul, and "Bapu", meaning Father. He was both of those things, not only to his native India, but also to millions of people around the world.

Family history

Gandhi was born into a minor Hindu political family, whose beliefs were influenced by Jainism (a non-violent religious group), and who were vegetarian. Both his father and grandfather was at one time Prime Minister of nearby, small princely States. Of note, "Gandhi" means "grocer" in Gujarati.

Married at 13, his father died when he was 16. This greatly hurt him, not least as he was with his wife at the time rather than at his father's side when he died. Some commentators argue that this event was a root cause of Gandhi's later celibacy vows. I find this difficult to accept, as those vows were only made 16 years later, as part of a broader determination to focus his values. In fact, Gandhi had four sons.

Gandhi was a lack-luster scholar, later deciding to be trained as a lawyer in London, where he resided from 1888 to 1891. In so doing, he both broke convention and left behind his young, illiterate wife, Kasturbai. His London period was one of "avoiding temptation", and of learning new ideas. For example, he apparently liked the New Testament, but disliked the Old.

After a brief stint unsuccessfully in an Indian law practice back home, he moved to South Africa in 1893, working as advisor to a well-to-do member of the Muslim Indian community. He went back to India to be with his wife in 1901, but returned in 1902 at the request of the South African Indian community.

Swaraj

Gandhi spent 21 years in South Africa. A critical event in his life was one week into his stay there, where he was asked to leave the First Class compartment of a train by a European. Despite having the right ticket, he was forcibly removed from the train. He suffered other racial indignities in those early months.

His two central ideas were born in South Africa. These were

• "Swaraj" (Independence for India, and personal spiritual renewal of all Indians),
  
• "Satyagraha" (truth, love and non-violence). Importantly, "Satyagraha" is more than just civil disobedience, as in Gandhi's view passive resistance could easily change into active resistance, and thus violence. Rather, in his conceptualization, respect for the other party was central, and all kinds of violence were forbidden absolutely.
  

Related to these two ideas was the "Constructive Programme" - Gandhi's Social Reform platform, consisting of three points:

1. Hindu/Muslim unity,
   
2. The abolition of Untouchability
   
3. "Swadeshi", the manufacture and use of indigenous products.
   

Gandhi's goal was none other than the complete transformation of India and its people. Whilst many of his later political colleagues shared some of these ideals, few shared all. We will return to these thoughts as we analyze Gandhi's Leadership.

Whilst in South Africa he learnt from Jewish and Christian friends, and developed respect for the ideas of Leo Tolstoy amongst others. Tolstoy's work "The Kingdom of God is within You" stated that all Government is based on war, and that one can only counter these evils through passive resistance. Gandhi also got involved in humanitarian activities. For example, he led a Red Cross unit in the Boer War, in 1899, and was decorated by the British authorities as a result.

When he was about to leave Durban in 1894 to return home to India, he was galvanized by newly written comments in the papers about the proposed Natal Franchise Amendment Bill. His friends and business acquaintances, hearing what he had to say about this, and how he said it, urged him to stay.

Thus, he drafted the first Indian Petition to the Government in 1894, against the Bill, which took away voting rights from Indians. In 1894 he also founded the Natal Indian Congress to build support for the Indian cause. He actually succeeded in reducing some of the harshness of the bill. However, his other campaigns against unjust laws and discrimination were not successful. Of note, British law overrode Natal law, and prohibited racial discrimination. But Natal had freedom on administrative matters, and loosely worded laws allowed much abuse. His activities and his support for the causes of the poor were rapidly building his reputation, in South Africa and in England.

South Africa

Another critical event was in 1906, when Gandhi organized an ambulance corps to go to Zululand. The Natal Government mounted a campaign to suppress the Zulu Rebellion, started when a chief killed a tax collector. The intense suffering of the Zulu's and the lack of caring exhibited by the authorities for the wounded left him deeply moved. In his Autobiography, Gandhi had noted that nursing was one of his principal joys. In any event, in Zululand Gandhi made his famous vows:

• "Brahmacharya" - celibacy, an ancient Hindu vow
  
• "Satyagraha" - truth, love and non violence, Gandhi's own invention
  
• "Ahisma" - non violence to all creatures, and vegetarianism, a Jain vow
  

Gandhi later in his life slept naked with some of his women associates. These experiments in sexual self-control were often seen as controversial, but Gandhi's intent was to probe the limits of sexuality, and to show that it was possible to attain "absolute" and child-like innocence.

It was in 1904 that he first started a weekly journal (the "Indian Opinion") and began living in communes, on the "Phoenix" Farm in Natal. In 1910 he started the Tolstoy Farm, near Johannesburg. This later was an 1,100 acre farm given to him by a close Jewish friend, saying a great deal about Gandhi's uncommonly wide and somewhat eclectic following, even in those early years.

"Satyagraha"

In 1906 in the Transvaal, the Government wanted Indians to register and be fingerprinted "like criminals". The law also meant that only existing Indian residents could be registered, Indians could not freely travel between Provinces, and future immigration was to be controlled. At that time there were about 13,000 Indians in Transvaal and about 100,000 in all of South Africa, so it was a large group affected. Gandhi even went to England to gain support for his view. But, despite reassurances he won there, and some concessions he received from the Transvaal Government, the law was passed in 1907 as the "Asiatic Registration Bill". Gandhi and his followers called it "The Black Act".

Gandhi at that moment galvanized his ideas into "Satyagraha", and founded the Passive Resistance Association. Importantly, "Satyagraha" combined both Political and religious goals in Gandhi's mind, for the first time, with a very clear focus an action.

Gandhi and others refused to register.  He was involved in a mass burning of registration documents, he was tried and he went to jail. This was in Pretoria, in 1908, and it was his first time in jail. He served two weeks of his sentence.

After many Indians were jailed, Gandhi reached a compromise with General Jan Christian Smuts, the South African Leader. If Indians voluntarily registered, all Indian protesters in jail would be released. Gandhi agreed, although it led to his being attacked by extremist Indians and rescued by a white police officer. Smuts later reneged on the deal. Nevertheless, this left Gandhi relatively undeterred, and he believed totally in his non-violent approach.

His second imprisonment was also in 1909 (his third was in 1910). On his way back from England later in 1909, where he was again soliciting support for the Indian cause, he wrote "Hind Swaraj", his seminal work which set out his philosophy and action plan. It was published in December 1909, in Gujarati.

In 1910, the Union of South Africa was created from the provinces, giving yet more legal autonomy to the Government.

In 1913, Judge Searle ruled that only marriages performed under Christian Rites were legal, instantly making Indian, Muslim and other marriages "irrelevant". Gandhi wanted to fill the jails with Indians. October of that year he led a march supporting mineworkers across the Transvaal border, and was arrested several times, including twice in one day. Pressure was mounting on the Government to open an independent inquiry. However, at that time European railway workers went on strike and the Government was in real jeopardy. So Gandhi called off the Indian actions, as he did not want to take advantage of his Government opponent weaknesses.

In any event, in this case Gandhi won. He reached agreement with Smuts in 1914, and the introduction of the Indian Relief Act of 1914 made Indian and other marriages fully legal.  The head ("poll") tax was also abolished, which had been a long-standing source of discontent. He did not, however, succeed in reversing the Immigration restrictions.

Fasts

It was in South Africa that Gandhi first used fasting as a tool in "Satyagraha".  Gandhi recognized that fasting could be misconstrued by others (he was, for example, accused of selfish egoism exhibited in his fasts!), so he developed very clear rules. In essence, fasts were an expression of "suffering love", in a deeply Christian sense.

According to Bhikhu Parekh, in his book in the Past Masters series, Gandhi's reasons for fasting were essentially fourfold:

• it was his way of expressing his own deep sense of sorrow at the way those he loved had disappointed him
  
• it was his way, as their Leader, for atoning for their misdeeds
  
• it was his last attempt to stir deep spiritual feelings in others and to appeal to their moral sense
  
• it was his way of bringing the quarreling parties together.
  

Gandhi also placed limits on when fasting was appropriate;

• Fasts could only be undertaken against those people he loved
  
• Fasts must have a concrete and specific goal, not abstract aims
  
• The fast must be morally defensible in the eyes of the target
  
• The fast must in no way serve his own interests
  
• The fast must not ask people to do something they were incapable of, or to cause great hardship.
  

Gandhi followed these principles on every fast. During his lifetime, he fasted 17 times.

To India

As a result of his activities, Gandhi became quite well known in India, and this gave a virtually instant platform for his activities when he returned.

Throughout the South African period he was never "anti-British", and was quite civil even towards General Smuts. He believed in his duties to the Empire, especially in time of war, as demonstrated by his organizing another (perhaps less successful) ambulance group for the British in World War 1, and recruiting troops for the British Army when back in India in 1918.

Rather, Gandhi was pro- Indian, pro- truth and pro- non-violence. In essence, he was pro- human rights (to steal a phrase he never actually used in its current Western meaning), but with a profound personal intensity and commitment.  He carried this attitude with him as he returned to India.

He thus left South Africa with the basis of his life philosophy, a proven method of organizing people to get political results, a growing reputation, and massive personal self-confidence. 

Bengal Partition

From 1905 to 1911, the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, had divided the province of Bengal into two - West Bengal, Bihar & Orissa, with a Hindu majority, and East Bengal & Assam, with a Muslim majority. He did this largely for relatively short term political reasons, but it had long term implications.  Most importantly, it served to awaken the Indian population to the need for Independence, to control their own destiny.  Clearly, as is evident from Gandhi's "Collected Works", he was well informed about these developments.     

Return to India

In 1914, Gandhi left South Africa, first spending a few months in England, where he organized an ambulance corps of Indians to help Britain in World War I.  He arrived in India towards the end of 1914.

In 1915, he founded the Sabarmati ("Satyagraha") Ashram, near the Sabarmati River at Ahmedabad. (In 1936, he founded the Sevagram Ashram, near Wardha).

Pictures from the Virtual Ashram website

For a time, before launching into new action, he carefully studied the "Indian condition" and the political landscape. Then, in 1917 he launched his first "Satyagraha" campaign in India, for the rights of farmers on indigo plantations in Champaran, Bihar. He was arrested, but the case was not pressed. In 1918, he led a mill workers strike in Ahmedabad, reaching an agreement with the owners after a three day fast, his first "Satyagraha" fast in India. Events built momentum.

Considering it his duty, in 1918 he actively recruited Indian volunteers to fight in World War I.

April 1919, he organized a National "Hartal" or mass strike against the British authorities. He fasted for three days in penance for violence from Hindu activists, but unfortunately the Hartal partly set the stage for the infamous Amritsar massacre.

The Government banned public meetings in the Punjab, and when one such meeting took place, 379 unarmed Sikhs were massacred, and 1137 wounded – men, women and children. This followed the orders of British General Dyer. Unsurprisingly, this dreadful event polarized public opinion in India and in Britain when the facts became known. The resultant report from the Hunter Commission largely exonerated Dyer, and thus severely discredited the Colonial Raj.

Congress

In 1920, Gandhi became the leader of the All India Home Rule League, and he drafted the first constitution of the Indian National Congress. Not without dissent, "Satyagraha" was adopted as the policy of Congress, and it remained so until Independence.
It was thus in 1920 that the non-cooperation movement was first launched nationally. This included such powerful symbols as burning foreign cloth, although poet Rabrindranath Tagore (later a Nobel Prize winner) was amongst several key leaders who felt Gandhi was overly feeding nationalism. Tagore was a friend of Gandhi (he first called him "Mahatma"), yet still he felt that Gandhi should pay mores attention to the need for India to be properly integrated into the Global Community. Gandhi seemed to agree with this in principle, but believed it necessary to have an independent India in its fullest sense, as a pre-requisite to India's emergence on the global stage.

Bardoli

In Bardoli in 1922, Sardar Patel led a "Satyagraha" against unfair taxes. This was a positive and pivotal event in the story of independence, which demonstrated the power of a grass roots issue as a key to future actions. Unfortunately it also led to riots, and Gandhi fasted for five days in penance for this violence. 1922 was also the year Gandhi was arrested for the first time in India, for burning foreign cloth. At trial he so moved the Colonial judge that the judge admitted that "no one would be better pleased than he if the Government were to release him sooner" than the statutory 6 years he had placed as a sentenced on Gandhi. Gandhi thanked the judge in a most courteous exchange, and in fact he was released after 22 months.
From 1924 to 1928, Gandhi was relatively quiet. He even observed a "year off" in 1926, devoted to reflection and experimentation. During that time the Indian predicament worsened, and the political scene got yet more difficult.

Salt March

It was in 1930 that Gandhi led the famous Salt March. The Colonial Government had taxed salt for many years, and unauthorized production of this essential mineral was illegal. So, this law affected poorer people even more than most other laws. Without doubt the march, which touched the poorest of Indians and gained global notice, was the most successful event of the entire independence campaign. Whilst the idea was not fully supported by all Congress Leaders, Gandhi had found a brilliant yet simple way of touching everyone's heart. Of note, the march got widespread support from women, and Gandhi cleverly used both Indian and Global media to further the cause.

In 1915, he during the early days of the march, Gandhi made one of the most moving speeches of his life, berating his supporters for being overzealous in using the resources of villages on the way in supporting the marchers. Gandhi called for "personal purity", and equality between marcher and suffering populace. He succeeded, and the march from that point was on the firmest moral ground, in his view.

It took 24 days and 241 miles to complete the march - from March 12th, departing from Sabarmati Ashram, to reach the coast at Dandi, on April 6th. He started with 78 followers, and ended with thousands. Gandhi was 60 years old when he symbolically picked up salt on the beach, and broke the law. He and thousands of others were arrested, but he was not put on public trial.

Unfortunately the Salt Tax was not abolished until October 1946, during Nehru's interim Government.

To England

Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, was ambivalent about the arrest of Gandhi, especially given the Government's defeat at Bardoli, and also partly because he agreed with Gandhi about the unjustness of some laws. Still, Gandhi and other leaders of Congress were arrested, and only released in January 1931.

March of that year Gandhi and Irwin came to an accord and civil disobedience ended. In August 1931 Gandhi attended an unsuccessful conference in London, and on his return "Satyagraha" restarted. During that trip he met many Leaders from all spheres of activity, including the King, and it was at that time he addressed mill workers in Lancashire – explaining that his rejection of foreign cloth was not an attack on them. He won their support.

Churchill called him shortly afterwards "a half-naked fakir", for which Gandhi thanked him and remarked

"(I) would love to be a naked fakir, but was not one as yet".

"Children of God"

1932 Gandhi was arrested again (in all, he spent 2338 days in prison in India and South Africa), but was released without trial. In 1933 he launched his weekly "Harijan", and started a major campaign in support of the Untouchables, or "Children of God", as Gandhi preferred to call them.

It was clear to Gandhi that the whole issue of caste and Untouchability was a potential disaster in the making for India, and it became one of his main themes. His efforts were not always accepted by the Untouchables themselves, and at the end of his life he saw his work for the Untouchables as incomplete.  In this instance, after heavy negotiation and another fast, he did however secure a three-way agreement between Congress, the Untouchables Leader Ambedker, and the Government.

Hindu & Muslim

Gandhi was much less successful with Hindu / Muslim relations, which continued to deteriorate through the end of the decade. Jinnah, the Muslim Leader, and eventually Pakistan's first Prime Minister, was in many ways Gandhi's greatest intellectual adversary. Muslims had ruled over Indian for many centuries in its past, and there was much fear of reprisal by a Hindu majority state. To some extent, Gandhi's potent use of Hindu history and imagery actually helped the Muslim separatist cause.

In 1934 Gandhi inaugurated the All India Village Industries Association. He also resigned his Congress position, at which time Jawaharlal Nehru became Congress' Leader (and later India's first Prime Minister). Also that year three attempts were made on Gandhi's life, something he just shrugged off.

There were provincial elections in 1937, which gave much power to the States, and also gave Congress a strong platform. The Act of 1935 which made this possible was generally accepted to be the forerunner of Independence. But elections also served to deepen the rift between Hindu and Muslim.

Negotiations

In 1939 Gandhi returned more vigorously to Political Life. With Congress, he decided not to support Britain at the outbreak of World War II, unless India received unconditional independence. He was interned in 1942, but released two years later because of his poor health.

In 1942 Churchill sent left-winger Sir Stafford Cripps to India, and he came up with a plan for conditional but rather limited Indian Independence. Congress rejected the British proposal, and in August the final national "Satyagraha" was undertaken. The British blamed Gandhi for the breakdown in negotiations, and it was in November 1942 that Churchill said:

"I did not become the King's First Minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire".

It was in August 1942 that Gandhi demanded that the British "quit India" unconditionally, and told Congress workers to consider themselves free of British rule from that moment. Gandhi and other Congress Leaders were arrested, and held at the palace of the Aga Khan at Poona. Disobedience soon became violence, for which Viceroy Lord Linlithgow accused Gandhi of being responsible. Gandhi was shocked by this, and attempted to engage the Viceroy by letter. With no positive response, in February 1943 Gandhi fasted for 21 days to help break the deadlock. He survived but his health was seriously affected from then on.

On February 22nd 1944, whilst they were together in prison for the last time, Gandhi's wife Kasturbai died, at age 74. On May 6th Gandhi was released from prison. He had spent 5½ years in British Jails in India.   

Independence

In 1944 the British Government formally agreed to Indian Independence. One of the conditions of this was that the Hindu Congress Party and the Muslims resolve their differences. Despite Gandhi's implacable opposition (including a four month 116 mile walk through East Bengal late 1946), this led to the partition of India and Pakistan at independence in 1947. In fact in March 1947, at a conference with Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, and Jinnah, Gandhi opposed Congress's agreement to this partition.

In August, the month of Independence, Gandhi started a "fast until his death" to stop the incredible Hindu versus Muslim violence in Calcutta. His success prompted Mountbatten, a firm supporter of Gandhi, to write:

"In the Punjab, we have 55 thousand soldiers and large scale rioting on our hands. In Bengal, our forces consist of one man, and there is no rioting.

As a serving officer, as well as an administrator, may I be allowed to pay my tribute to the One Man Boundary Force, not forgetting his Second in Command, Mr. Suhrawardy.

You should have heard the enthusiastic applause which greeted the mention of your name in the Constituent Assembly on the 15th of August when all of us were thinking so much of you"

August 15th was Independence Day, and Gandhi refused to attend the celebrations because of his opposition to partition. After Calcutta, he went to Delhi, and mingled with both Hindu and Muslim in an attempt to heal wounds. He also visited refugee camps, alone and without guards.

Assassination

When the Government of independent India later agreed (with popular support) to renege on earlier promises of transfer of assets to Pakistan, Gandhi successfully protested with a fast. This aggravated extremist opposition to Gandhi, and a bomb went off at one of his prayer meetings in January 1948.
Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. Godse first bowed to him, them shot him three times at close range, on January 30th 1948. It was the day after he wrote a draft constitution of the Indian National Congress.

Albert Einstein, in tribute, said Gandhi

"… demonstrated that a powerful human following can be assembled not only through the cunning game of the usual political maneuvers and trickeries, but through the cogent example of a morally superior life".

Gandhi & 4 E's

Gandhi learnt his Leadership skills during his years in South Africa, and honed them in India.

Yes, he was naturally charismatic. Yes, he had a "feel" for his Follower's needs which was uncannily correct. But he did develop formal tools and methods to become a better Leader over time. What he learnt is instructive to us all.

Not surprisingly, I believe that he is a classic example of the Leadership model put forward in "Leadership Truths". That is, he had a rock-solid value system from which all of his activities stemmed, he wanted to make major changes at every turn in his life, and he had a totally interdependent relationship with his followers. And, as a man of action, he used the 4 E's throughout his life.  

Beliefs 

Before we delve into the analysis, it is important to understand a little more about Gandhi's beliefs, and how they relate to his actions. His entire program rested firmly on his moral code.

As discussed in the biography, whilst a Hindu, his wide-ranging interests and learning gave him knowledge and an eclectic assimilation of other faiths. He was without doubt a "learner" and an experimenter in almost every aspect of his activities, and throughout his life.

Some of his Christian followers once argued that his approach, especially as regards self–sacrifice and "suffering love" meant he should convert 100% to Christianity and be done with it! Indeed, he once walked through the Vatican, ignoring the artwork, but stopping to weep before the Crucifixion.

His beliefs are central to everything he did. He saw love in Christianity, a direct relationship with one's God in Islam, and the unity of life in Hinduism. Religion for Gandhi was what one did, not what one believed. Action was everything.

Western doctrine talks of either mind/body, or mind/body/soul, and then adds the mind distinction of the ego and the id. Gandhi however constructed a more complex, multiple layer theory of the human being. Some of the aspects were classic Hindu, and some were "Gandhi" additions or modifications. Frankly, some of Gandhi's writings are inconsistent with others, but that reflects his learning over time rather than some kind of intellectual immaturity.

Gandhi saw a four part whole making humanity what it is. First, there is the body, in the classic Cartesian sense. This splits into two parts - the physical aspects of the body, and then the senses by which we communicate with our surroundings.

Second, there is mind (or "Manas"). As many other thinkers do, Gandhi distinguished between consciousness ("Chetana") and intelligence ("Buddhi"). So far, there is little new.

Third, Gandhi, like all Hindus, believed in the Spirit (or "Attman"). This is not a Cartesian "Ghost in the machine", but rather it is the universal principle or force within us all, and which connects us to the Universe. This is critical to understanding of Gandhi's "Satyagraha", as that was designed to rekindle the true spiritual self in all of us. Recall that in "Swaraj" he did not just want the independence of India – he wanted the independence of each one of us, in a spiritual rebirth. Going further, Gandhi believed that the Attman within each of us allows us all to have the "charismatic" effect needed to lead others – because it connects everything to everything else.

The fourth component is the psychological or moral disposition that we all have, which uniquely belongs to each individual (the "Swabhava"). He believed that this was more a product of rebirth and "Karma" than learned characteristics. This is because God in his view is not a person, but is Truth. Thus, by discovering one's own true dispositions, one reaches one's own unique spiritual destination (or "Moksha"). Again, spiritual renewal is to Gandhi the key to personal freedom.

Values

For Gandhi, Truth was everything, and it was intrinsically linked with the concept of the non-violence and spiritual renewal that was "Satyagraha" and "Swaraj". "Satyagraha" was not just a political method but a moral statement about how to act politically. Unless events were conducted the right way, he would rather not act, and often called off protests or other actions as a result.

Truth was also connected to humility, cleanliness, celibacy and poverty. It was connected to unity (of religions and beliefs), and to the goodness of humanity. He always believed that people were intrinsically capable of good – which was both a key to his success as a Leader, and one of the reasons for his failures. He believed in action, and not just words.

He believed in industry and in self reliance. He was skeptical of Modern society, and especially of the breakup of the rural communities as people migrated to industrial cities. Gandhi believed that natural methods were the best way to keep one healthy, and except for an appendix removal never used "modern medicine". Finally, to Gandhi, being vegetarian was more than a "health" issue. It was a question of morality.

Change  

His entire life story is about action, to bring about positive change. He both succeeded and failed in what he sought to do, but he always moved forward and he never gave up the quest for improvement, both social and spiritual, and both for individuals and for the Nation as a whole.

In some changes he succeeded, and in some he failed. And, in some case, the success came years after the action. For example, the Salt tax was only fully repealed at Independence. But, in every case his actions were targeted against a specific change he was trying to bring about.

Followers

Gandhi's life is one of total service to others, and of the unselfish representation of their needs. His spirituality and charisma just added to his plain hard-nosed rationalism in analyzing each issue he faced – to evaluate how best to motivate and therefore lead his Followers. Rarely has one man been able to generate such a band of willing followers.  

Envision

His vision of the future was a combination of the spiritual, the moral and the practical, and it was through his consistent application of his vision that he led.

He clearly felt that the apparent Indian lack of self-respect enabled the British to rule India, so he felt that Indians should take prime responsibility for their own situation. Thus, as consistently noted, Gandhi wanted not only the political independence of India, but the spiritual renewal (and independence) of all of India's people.

His vision of the future of India was firmly rooted in the glorious, spiritual past of the Gitas, yet with significant influence from Christian and other values. In expressing his vision, Gandhi touched the hearts of millions, and to this day holds a moral beacon for millions more.

Practically, he chose causes that were of great importance to his potential followers, and brought alive his vision of what success would look like. Examples are his work to bring fair treatment to people in South Africa, the repealing the Salt Tax and Indian Independence itself. In every case he did not just use philosophical statements or flowery visions, but he laid out concrete objectives which people could buy into and then act upon.

By contrast, his failures stemmed from not being able to make concrete his own deeply felt vision of a just society - most importantly the final Partition of India.

In all things he did as a Leader, he thus put forward a powerful and appropriate vision to the Follower group. He could write the most complex, intellectual work, to be sure his point was understood. Yet, he could express the feelings of his Followers in the most simple and eloquent ways. Picking up a handful of salt on the beach was perhaps the most dramatic practical expression of his vision of freedom from the salt tax, an act that was copied by thousands.

Vision? 

On the other hand, he frankly had a model of "modernity" which was open to question. He respected the British people, but did not respect "Modern Civilization". He felt that the industrialization process led to irreligious society, and even felt it incongruous that women should be working in factories – although he did support the British suffragette movement. In essence he felt that the British were good people, with good institutions, but that they were being led off course by modernity.

It also seems that, whilst his prescription of "self reliance" for India was a fair option, and one that rang a cord with the population, it was an exclusive vision – excluding the positive power of industrialization and the global economy in the making. It is somewhat ironic that a man of such inclusive ideals would not more actively seek to find better resolution between the opposing forces of core spiritual values and modern industrialization.

Whilst Gandhi clearly felt that "the violence of all Governments" meant that the people should control their own destiny in small scale groups, he did not per se argue for a plural democratic India. He believed that the small-scale village communities would be able to work things out. Nehru was the driver for mass democracy, with his vision of a socialist India, rooted in her history, learning from the British democratic ideal, but firmly and independently looking forward.

Enable

In formal organizational terms, Gandhi employed few unique methods. Yet, he clearly knew how to get people in the right place, to do the right thing. From arranging ambulance corps, to setting up formal "protest" organizations, to raising funds or even recruiting troops to fight in the War, he was no stranger to structure.

However, his greater enablers were in his own actions. He literally lived the life that he wanted other people to live. He demonstrated exactly how to behave, whether in normal day to day life, or in high-profile political protest. From the philosophy and structure of the "Constructive Program", his use of a spinning wheel was both a symbol of revolution, and a method of demonstrating how to build the "perfect" Indian Society.

The Ashrams were permanent examples of how a society constructed of small, "village" groups should operate. The Ashram had very formal rules, which all built on the core value system he was adamant the inhabitants should have. Nothing helps humility or cleanliness come alive better than a turn at cleaning the latrine…

Gandhi also used words as enablers, ranging from writing protest letters to helping to construct the Constitution of the Indian Congress party. "Satyagraha" and "Swaraj" are themselves both words of description and words of action.

From his dedication to a life of action, every thing he did enabled his Followers to follow and to act. "Do what I do, not what I say" was his greatest enabler. It was also his greatest energizer.

Empower

Gandhi's life was a combination of discipline and freedom, for himself and for his Followers. His greatest successes came from empowering people with the methods and the desire for "Satyagraha". When those individuals faced attack or prison, they were both terribly alone, yet totally connected to their fellow protesters. They were free to pursue their goals, yet they had a contract with Gandhi and with each other. He needed to serve them, just as they served him, the cause, and each other (see my definition of "empowerment in Leadership Truths).

Unfortunately, his belief in the goodness of everyone to some extent blinded him from the frailty of human nature. Letting people free who cannot overcome their own demons leads to unpredictable consequences. This was clear in the violence of Partition. And, his belief that "Satyagraha" would have helped the Jewish people in their terrible struggle with Hitler was at best idealistic, and at worst inconsistent with the nature of the task

Energize 

Gandhi had a knack of choosing causes which would have maximum impact, and which would have the maximum chance of touching everyone. Many members of Congress were skeptical of overly focusing on the Salt tax issue, as it had been a long-standing source of discontent. It could be seen as a minor issue in the grand scheme of the fight for Independence. Yet, the Salt March caught the imagination of the Nation, the global media and the world.

Not only could Gandhi energize on a large scale, but he could also touch individuals. A classic example is the response of the Judge who hoped Gandhi would be dealt with leniently, despite the Judge having to serve a mandatory sentence on him.

Gandhi's humility, and obvious care for his opponents as equally as his followers, meant that virtually everyone Gandhi met had an emotional response to the man and his actions. Witness the Lancashire mill workers in England, who should have disliked his boycott on their products. His obviously truthful and heart felt explanation, both of why he was doing what he was doing, and why he hoped the mill workers would not suffer, struck a significant cord.

Gandhi also chose his personal symbols well, from the white dhoti ("cleanliness and humility") to only wearing sandals made of leather from cows that died naturally. The only decoration on the walls of his room at the Ashram was a crucifixion. He took the philosophy he espoused and turned it into visual representations of his "story". These symbols clearly provided a consistency to the energizing process he consciously used.

From a "story telling" viewpoint, his speech on the Salt March, almost angrily denouncing the overzealous use of scarce rural resources for the benefit of the marchers was a classic case of his speaking from his values, and galvanizing his Followers back onto the right course.

Single handedly, he stopped slaughter at partition in Bengal, with two of his most powerful energizing tools. He fasted without fear, and he met the "combatants" face to face, with no fear for his own safety. In fact, it is worth noting that his apparent fearlessness and disregard for himself was in itself a powerful energizing force, and a great problem for his opponents.

Yet, he also failed in energizing. The fait accompli of partition showed that he had failed to overcome both the fears of the Muslims in a largely Hindu India, and the nationalism / exclusiveness of Jinnah. He also failed to generate a sufficiently multicultural, pluralist sense in the leaders of Congress to build the right bridges. He could find insufficient enablers, and he could not energize a unanimous desire for "One India". Equally, his use of Hindu symbolism and obvious belief in the goodness of humanity , almost "against the odds", at least partly contributed to his own assassination.   

Influence  

Gandhi's effect on the world was and still is immense. On the positive side, he helped create the world's largest democracy. He also gave to the world a way of thinking about and acting upon value systems that profoundly influenced such important figures as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.  Gandhi directly influenced the American Civil Rights movement, and thus the broader Human Rights concerns and activities of today.

From a practical viewpoint, his focus on "Swadeshi" formed the core of India's industrial policy, and that did deliver some real successes under Nehru's Leadership. Yet, it is clear that the lack of Indian openness to the world economy, and the internal bureaucratization of Indian systems have held back that country over time. How much one can apportion "blame" to Gandhi is moot, as certainly those that followed him share the responsibility. That is a subject for another essay.
  
Net, even with his failings, Gandhi must still rank as one of the most effective and most positive Leaders of this or any other century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Genghis Khan

Biography

Genghis Khan, the creator and Leader of the Mongol empire, was born around 1165 (dates vary wildly), and died in August 1227.

An excellent biographical source is Paul Ratchnevsky's book "Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy". A book written in Mongolian, straight after Genghis' death, was The Secret History. In what follows, the Leadership analysis is my own, mistakes and all.  
    
Original art by G. Radnaabazar, from the Mongolia Page Culture & History web site     

 
 

Background

At the time of the rise of Genghis Khan, the Mongol tribes were disunited. They had a fiercely independent nature, a strongly held system of social rules, and were essentially shamanistic in religious beliefs. Their nomadic existence meant they relied on barter rather than money, but because of long standing in-fighting between the tribes, they were economically poor. Stories of eating "anything that moved" and even of some cannibalism in hard times persist.

Politically, whilst the Mongols clearly recognized their own tribal connections and blood ties, there was no "Mongol Nation".

The Tartars to their east, and the Keraits to their immediate west were enemies of the Mongols. To the south-west were the Uighurs, and due south, the Chinese Chin dynasty was well established. The Chin were powerful enough to extract dues of various kinds from their northern, nomadic neighbors. And, to the far west, stretching to the Black Sea, the Islamic Sultanate of Muhammad of Khwarazm prospered.

The times were cruel, with execution being the usual punishment for transgressions. Wars were fought with no mercy for the opposing army. Slavery was the norm for conquered peoples. On the other hand, the Mongols had an intense sense of loyalty, hated theft, had a history of the acceptance of the beliefs and the way of life of others, and tended to be generous to people they trusted.

Not surprisingly, this background helped shape Temuchin, who later became Genghis Khan.

Conquests

Temuchin's first major patron was Toghrul, of the Keraits, who he saw as an adopted father. Toghrul was probably the strongest leader amongst the Mongolian tribes at that point, although he was constantly under threat both externally and from family infighting. When Temuchin's wife Börte was abducted by the Merkits, Toghrul and Jamuka (Temuchin's blood brother, his "anda", and eventually his enemy) helped rescue her (1183/84).

But not everything went Temuchin's way, with a major defeat in 1187 leading to almost a ten year gap in his life history, until 1196. That year Temuchin successfully attacked the Tartars. He then rescued Toghrul from exile, who was given the Chin title "Wang Khan". Jamuka declared against Temuchin in 1201, when he was elected "Gurkhan". In 1202 Temuchin exterminated the Tartars, and that year Wang Khan broke with Temuchin. Thus, and perhaps inevitably, Genghis was at war with the Keraits.

In 1203 Wang Khan died, and Genghis assumed his title of King of the Keraits. Jamuka was betrayed to Temuchin, and died in 1205. Thus the stage was set for Temuchin to be elected "Genghis Khan", over all of the Mongolian tribes, in 1206.

In 1209, the Uighurs submitted to Genghis, leaving him free to concentrate on the Chin and to refuse to pay tribute to them. Eventually, after many battles and even a withdrawal to Mongolia, Genghis destroyed Zongdu in 1215. This was the Chin capital (later to become Beijing), so the Chin capital moved south to Nanking (Kaifeng).

Treacherously, and somewhat stupidly, soldiers of Sultan Muhammad of Khwarazm killed ambassadors from Genghis, forcing him to declare war on that Islamic empire in 1219. Genghis won in 1221. His Empire stretched from the Korean peninsular almost to Kiev, and south to the Indus. It was the largest land empire ever seen.

Genghis was thus now able to focus his time on establishing an effective administration of the Mongol Empire, whilst keeping internal strife under check and setting his succession in place.

He died in August 1227 (the cause is not certain), having named one of his sons Ogödei Kha'an his principal successor. Ogödei is remembered by history as probably the most principled of the sons, explaining Genghis' choice.

Genghis' youngest son Tolui (by all accounts the cruelest of his sons) was not chosen - but Tolui's son became Khubilai Khan, later the first Yuan Emperor of China.

Values

Genghis Khan's value system was visible to all, and he certainly "walked the talk".

He totally shared his people's belief in the nomadic way of life, recognizing that, in war as in the hunt, booty is the main aim .. and winning was what counted. However, amassing material wealth did not matter much to him, as he shared everything with his loyal supporters. He was seen as a most generous Leader.

As an individual, he wanted power. He was a physically strong man, although he was probably not a "hero" in the sense of an outstanding hand-to-hand fighter. He encouraged his supporters to be frank and speak without ceremony, and usually moderated his passion and anger with thoughtful responses.

Genghis also demonstrated a rather liberal and tolerant attitude to the beliefs of others, and never persecuted people on religious grounds. This proved to be good military strategy, as when he was at war with Sultan Muhammad of Khwarazm, other Islamic Leaders did not join the fight against Genghis - it was instead seen as a non-holy war between two individuals.

Whilst Genghis was himself illiterate, he understood the power of spreading ideas via the written word, and used it to administer his empire. He was responsible for the spread of the Uighurs script as the common Mongolian alphabet. He was relentless in learning new things, absorbing ideas from other cultures as often as he could.

Against his enemies, vengeance was a constant theme, reflecting his Mongol cultural heritage, and he slaughtered people with ease. Terror was always one of his principle weapons of war. He laid waste to entire cities and populations that resisted his armies, although he often by-passed others that submitted.

He was clearly most perceptive about politics in rival tribes and cities, and he understood what drove individuals. Usually his strategies involved finding psychological ways to undermine his enemies, based on these perceptions

On the other hand, he recognized the values of his individual enemies. He would put to death a soldier who had tried to be disloyal to their own commander, by, for example, betraying the commander to Genghis. However, he would pardon and even bestow honours and responsibility on those who had fought loyally for their commander - even if against Genghis. In fact one of his most trusted generals, Jebe, was once a young opposing soldier who shot Genghis' horse from under him in battle.

Envision

Genghis Khan actually used the 4 E's of Leadership, even if he didn't know it!

The vision was one of economic prosperity for his people, power for himself, total destruction of his enemies and fairness for willing subjects.

At the beginning it is doubtful that he had a grand vision of building the World's biggest empire. Rather, he recognized that rich plunder was the best means of preventing the Mongol tribes from fighting each other. He also recognized that this would allow them to preserve their nomadic way of life.

Enable

His enablers included good use of military technology, a unique organization of his army, promoting leaders on merit not lineage or family, definite rules of engagement in war, and a clear administrative system for conquered peoples.

Whilst his army had no unique weapons, he put to good use the short horse stirrup, to give better control at close quarters. His elite troops were quite heavily armored, although others were more militia-like. His soldiers used the Central Asian compound bow, which had the power of a European crossbow (although they didn't know it), whilst being half the size of a long bow.

He organized his army into units of "ten thousand", not sorted by tribal affinity as was historically the case. This reduced the possibility of internal friction. He also had an elite "Household Guard" with hand-picked commanders, upon which he relied for the most difficult tasks. All of his officers were instructed never to abuse their soldiers.

Rules of engagement were clear to all, and rigorously enforced. For example, if a soldier deserted his troop, he was executed. If a soldier failed to stop to help a fellow warrior whose baggage fell from his horse, he was executed. If two or more members of a troop made a great advance, but were not supported by their comrades, the latter were executed. And so it goes on...

In terms of battle strategy, it seemed that there was little unique about Genghis' approach, building as it did on the Mongolian way of hunting. He also tended to close in on the enemy only when he was sure of overwhelming them - although he did loose some battles, even then. It seems that the thoroughness, fierceness, courage and total dedication of his troops were what carried the day.

In peacetime, Genghis developed unique administrative organization structures, designed to pre-empt feuding. The unit was not the tribe, family or aristocracy - but based again on tens, hundreds and thousands - "mixed and matched". Leadership was, as ever, based on merit. And he organized a system of internal communication by horse riders. (As an aside, the way some of these riders behaved caused much distress to the populace. They were accorded first right to virtually anything they wanted from local people as they rode across the country, and often abused this right. Genghis was not perfect in his administration ...)

Genghis' legal code (The Yasa of Chingis Khan) was firmly based on Mongol common law, but written down and extended as cases arose. And, as for his armies, the rules were clear and tough. For example, theft of any kind led to execution, and adultery was also punishable by death for both parties. He also rigorously enforced the Mongol religious taboos, although as noted before his administration was tolerant of other people's beliefs. On the downside, it should be noted that the continual pursuit of booty and plunder meant that many valuable artifacts were destroyed as he conquered, both religious and otherwise.

In no way am I trying to justify the more uncivilized of these rules .. but I simply want to point out that the clarity and universality of Genghis' rules ensured that his empire worked.  

Empower 

It may be difficult to see that a Leader as strict as Genghis practiced "Empowerment". However if we define "Empowerment" as a contract between a leader and his followers for mutual trust and accountability, it was certainly central to Genghis' approach.

Merit was Genghis' guiding principle in choosing his leaders, both in wartime and when at peace. He did use the noble group as commanders, but his most valuable generals were solely picked on merit. He trusted these people to get the job done, although he clearly held them accountable for results

The army units were led by commanders personally picked by Genghis. His commanders could be from his immediate family, lowly sheep herders, or even conquered warriors he trusted and respected. Commanders were expected to have their troops ready for battle at all times - else they were replaced. All of the soldiers from whatever rank thus literally had the possibility before them of becoming commanders, based on their own merit.

Net, the Mongol army fully agreed with the goals of their Leader, and accepted the rules under which they fought. They totally trusted Genghis, and would rather die than let him down. In that sense, empowerment was clearly at work.

Energize 

It seems clear that Genghis was consistently reflecting the real desires of his followers. He unleashed their need to escape from a poverty cycle, rather than simply focus them on visions of world conquest. Then, he made the "enemy without" the tool to prevent internal conflict.

It is perhaps most difficult to assess exactly how Genghis Khan energized his people, as almost no speeches are accurately recorded, and he himself could not write. However, "The Secret History" and several Persian chroniclers provide a few clues.

Whilst Genghis sought power for himself, he also was careful at every stage to offer his followers major gain from their conquests. He shared his animals, his clothes, his food and his plunder with his people, almost irrespective of their social position.

He constantly demonstrated his loyalty to his trusted people, and his generosity surely encouraged all to follow. Rules were clear, rewards were many, and merit was a guiding principle of his administration.

When he went into battle, he very clearly intended to win. His people knew they followed a winner. Even in matters of vengeance, or of being insulted (as was the case with Sultan Muhammad), he very obviously put things in terms his followers could deal with and act upon.

Finally, he was totally true to his own value system, in a way that was obvious to both his friends and his enemies. This in itself must have provided significant energy to his followers.

Aftermath

Genghis Khan forged the unification of the Mongol tribes, and reversed their decline in living conditions.

Trade flourished, and contact with distant lands, including Europe, was encouraged. He set in motion the events that created the World's biggest land based empire, including the creation of the Yuan Dynasty in China. Importantly, his firm stand on his society's ethical rules and his intolerance of misdeeds led to a marked change in the social climate. Inter family rivalry all but disappeared, and peace and order were very evident to outside visitors, including European travelers.

As Microsoft Encarta says:

"The greatness of the khan as a military leader was borne out not only by his conquests but by the excellent organization, discipline, and maneuverability of his armies. Moreover, the Mongol ruler was an admirable statesman; his empire was so well organized that, so it was claimed, travelers could go from one end of his domain to the other without fear or danger".

Or, as in the introduction to the Genghis exhibition at the Royal British Columbian Museum said:

"Genghis Khan pledged to share with his followers both the sweet and the bitter of life. In structuring his army, he integrated soldiers from different tribes, thus inspiring loyalty to the Mongol army as a whole rather than to a specific lineage. He gave his enemies one simple choice: surrender and be enslaved, or die. By consistently enforcing discipline, rewarding skill and allegiance, and punishing those who opposed him, Genghis Khan established a vast empire".

For the people he conquered, the impact was very mixed. The Chinese fields got turned into nomadic pasture, adversely affecting the Chin peasants and causing hardship. On the other hand, for the cultures that he and later Khubilai Khan ruled, like the Chin, the encouragement of the exchange of knowledge and ideas helped them develop. For example, the Chinese became acquainted with Iranian medical knowledge and astronomy, and in return the peoples of the Middle East learnt much from China.

Unfortunately, unlike earlier days, increased prosperity meant that the lifestyle of the Mongol nobles tended to edge too far past that of the commoners. And, the sheer size of the empire and the extent of the losses in Mongolian manpower meant Genghis' empire was stretched thin.

Finally, recall that warfare and booty was the order of the day for the nomadic existence. So, in gaining a stable empire, the Mongols had to get used to the money economy. And, just as the administration came under control, so the administrators themselves became less militarily capable, and more intent on self-gain.

It was perhaps inevitable that, on his death, the empire was destined to split between his three remaining sons. Eventually, though, four Mongol Leaders became great Khans in their own right. It is a tribute the memory of Genghis Khan that they did not war between themselves - rather they linked co-operatively together in separate Khanates to "rule the world".
Perhaps the most important Khan was Khubilai, who founded the Chinese Yuan dynasty. This dynasty flourished from 1279 to 1368, and had a lasting effect on all aspects of Chinese life.

It is thus very clear that Genghis was a Leader with a "capital L".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miyamoto Musashi
Author: Mick Yates

The Way

The Book of the Five Rings explores winning strategy in the context of Samurai swordsmanship, but it is equally applicable to leading modern business. Musashi believed the teaching would not only help warriors, but would also be useful to artists, laborers,merchants or bureaucrats, as an adjunct to their own separate, disciplinary study.  
    
"The Way of the warrior does not include other Ways, such as ... certain traditions, artistic accomplishments and dancing. But even though these are not part of the Way, if you know the Way broadly you will see it in everything. Men [and women] must polish their particular Way".

(Musashi defending himself, V&A Museum)  
    
Whilst we do not condone his life of violence, Musashi firmly understands his own value system, and sees it as the basis for everything he does. His life exemplifies striving for both excellence and balance in all we do - a state of mind that today we all too often discuss and very rarely achieve. A brief evaluation of the Samurai value system is included in this website.  

History

Musashi was born in the Mimasaka province of Japan in 1584. His father was a Samurai, so not surprisingly Musashi had great interest in swordsmanship, and he studied all he could.

"From youth my heart has been inclined toward the Way of strategy. My first duel was when I was thirteen, I struck down a strategist of the Shinto school, one Arima Kihei. When I was sixteen I struck down an able strategist Tadashima Akiyama. When I was twenty-one I went up to the capital and met all manner of strategists, never once failing to win in many contests".

Musashi was never an important General, but was a rather solitary warrior. Perhaps it is a stretch to think of Musashi as a leader, but it is easy to see how some of the things that he said and did provide lessons for today's leaders.

In particular, his ability to achieve excellence in both martial and artistic endeavours shows an enviable and disciplined appreciation of balance. His eloquent mastery of both large and small scale strategy provides object lessons for today's business leader's. And his combination of physical and psychological skills in fighting duels shows a real understanding of how to deal with other people.  

Fighting style

Probably Musashi's most famous duel was against Ganryu (Sasaki Kojiro) in 1612. This Long Sword expert was beaten by Musashi with a wooden pole, after a certain amount of psychological outmaneuvering - Musashi's lateness made Ganryu loose self control. This combination of skill and psychology became his trademark.

From 1603 the Shogunate of Tokugawa Ieyasu brought an end to years of civil disorder in Japan, and began the Edo era. Whilst violence was still common, broadscale war was a thing of the past, replaced by bureaucratic rules, and most of the big armies were disbanded.

Musashi was a ronin (an unattached Samurai), seeking duels to test his skills. He developed a unique, two-handed sword fighting style, which became known as the "Ni Ten Ichi Ryu" school. Many details of his life are sketchy. Most authors believe that he fought and survived against the Tokugawa forces in the early 1600's. 

Zen

Throughout his life, Musashi continued to duel, to test his skills, and to teach. He increasingly spent his time seeking the wider truths of his "Way". He continued his study of Zen Buddhism, although it is not clear whether he saw Zen as a pursuit in its own right, or as merely a way to improve his sword fighting skills. It is quite probable that he never fully realized Zen-enlightenment.

Nevertheless, Zen clearly played a major role in Musashi's life and writing..  

Balance

Despite his warrior profession, there was a clear balance in Musashi's life. He successfully blended his fighting philosophy with skill in the Arts. In fact, Musashi's artistic output remains highly prized today, not just as symbols of an historically significant individual, but as aesthetically attractive works in their own right. Whilst Musashi says that his "Way" is purely about warriorship ...

"cutting down the enemy is the Way of strategy, and there is no need for many refinements of it"

He also wrote .....

"It is said the warrior's is the twofold Way of pen and sword, and he should have a taste for both Ways. Even if a man has no natural ability he can be a warrior by sticking assiduously to both divisions of the Way".

Rather than resolving the relative "weighting" of warriorship, Zen and the arts to Musashi, it is more important to note that this complex man had several critical but clear themes in his life and in his writing. The balance of opposites itself is the key to understanding his work.   

Contradictions 

He thought nothing of killing, yet he had a strict ethical code. He would rather have died himself than break this code. He was an invincible swordfighter, with great strength, yet he was an accomplished sumi-e (Zen brush) painter, and a fine craftsman in wood and metal.

(Bodhidharma painting by Musashi, in Tokugawa Art Museum)  
     
He was a man who preferred action, yet his writing shows great thought and penetrating analysis. He was essentially a "loner", but he clearly understood how to deal with other people.   
     
Here was a man at peace with himself and with his surroundings, despite the dilemmas and apparent contradictions of his way of life. Interestingly, whilst it was most usual in those days to seek a Zen teacher or guide, Musashi appears to have been quite self-sufficient.     

Focus

Musashi's start point is that, unlike the "Way" of other disciplines,

"The warrior is different in that studying the Way of strategy is based on overcoming men"

We view this somewhat belligerent statement as one of the keys to understanding of Musashi, as it underpins his focus on the individual's role. He goes on to list the nine essential attitudes and skills of good "strategists".

1. Do not think dishonestly
2. The Way is in training
3. Become acquainted with every art
4. Know the Ways of all professions
5. Distinguish between gain and loss in worldly matters
6. Develop intuitive judgment and understanding for everything
7. Perceive those things which cannot be seen
8. Pay attention even to trifles
9. Do nothing which is of no us

Most of the items on the list are self-evident. The first four stressing the need for training and broad learning .. and development of wisdom.

Point 5 really means to be discrete in one's dealings with others. The Japanese have a concept of "tatemae" and "honne" - truth, in relation to other people. "Tatemae" is what is expected to be done or said, and may not be what one really thinks. It prevents loss of face all round. "Honne" is the real truth, and you share that only with people with whom you have built a trusting relationship over time. Musashi would say "stick to the tatemae" on the battleground, against your competitors.

The last four points on Musashi's list stress how to work day to day - with economy of action, but with deep penetration of the facts.  

Book of Five Rings

The "Book of Five Rings" was the result of Musashi's lifelong search.

It was written in the form of a letter to a pupil; it is his personal Zen "Heiho". It is quite short, gives a lot of personalised advice, and features both tactical and strategic teaching. Its themes are examined further in Samurai Leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pope John XXIII
Author: Steve Lourey

Background

Pope John XXIII (1881 - 1963) was the pope from 1958 to 1963. He was born Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli. From Sotto il Monte (near Bergamo), he studied in Bergamo and in Rome, and he was ordained a priest in Rome in 1904. He began his long career in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps when they appointed him in 1925, with the title of archbishop, to be the apostolic visitor to Bulgaria. Later the Vatican named him Apostolic Delegate to Turkey and Greece in 1935. Between 1944 and 1953 he served as Papal Nuncio to France. He was also a Vatican observer at U.N.E.S.C.O. from 1946-1953. In 1953 he was made a cardinal and named Patriarch of Venice.

When he was elected pope, Roncalli was thought to be a compromise candidate because of his advanced years. He was elected -- and expected -- only to "keep the Papal seat warm". Although he served as pope for a mere five years, he accomplished a great deal, the most historic was the convening of the Second Vatican Council.In the time leading up to election of Pope John, the French and Industrial Revolutions had virtually destroyed the stable socio-political order with which the Church had been allied for centuries. Despite valiant attempts by succeeding popes, the secular forces that finally and irrevocably divided Church and State ultimately prevailed.

Church reaction

The reaction of the Church leadership was to resist the insights and values emerging within the increasingly secular Western world. This lead the Church to withdraw from what was taking place in history and in people's lives. The result was an insular institution, ingrained with what sociologist Gerald Arbuckle describes as "uncritically accepted Euro-centric customs, aristocratic values, and customs".
The Church believed that the world's failure to heed the Church's teaching was the cause of its sufferings and many disasters. However, John's predecessor, Pius XII, became more open to the world's growing achievements, and publicly declared the Church's preference for democracy to other forms of government. This hesitant openness helped form the groundwork for John's decision to call the Council. 

Second Council

The Second Vatican Council (there have only been twenty Councils in the Church's history) was the beginning of a revolution in Christianity, the ancient faith whose 900 million adherents made it the at the time world's largest religion. Named 1963's Man of the Year by Time, Pope John XXIII set in motion ideas and forces that affected not merely Roman Catholics and other Christians, but the whole world.

John won people's hearts and minds by being a simple man, who summed up the Papal title servus servorum Dei -- Servant of the Servants of God. Simplicity was one of his core values. John also embraced man's mastery of the natural world. "The church," said John, "applauds man's growing mastery over the forces of nature and rejoices in all present and future progress which helps men better conceive the infinite grandeur of the Creator." During a time of great change and advances in medicine, technology, and science, Pope John XXIII sensed that the time was ripe for internal renewal in the church, and opened the way for it. John's attitude of openness put him at loggerheads with the Roman Curia, the central administrative body of the Catholic Church. Traditionally, the Curia has exerted vast influence and control not only on the worldwide church but on the Pope himself, and has looked upon any efforts to change either institution with deep hostility. "Roma locuta est; causa finita est" has been the Curia's dreaded traditional pronouncement in deciding Catholic affairs around the world: "Rome has spoken; the matter is settled."

Envision

John had a vision that was driven by a desire to endow the Christian faith with what he described as "a new Pentecost"; a new spirit. It was aimed not only at bringing Christendom into closer touch with the modern world, but at ending the division caused by the Reformation -- and counter-Reformation -- that had been a thorn in the side the Christian message for more than four centuries. He compared the idea with a flinging open of windows within the Church -- windows that some restorationist within the Church have been trying to shut tight ever since!

John's vision was to make the Catholic Church sine macula et ruga (without spot or wrinkle). John set out to align his Church's whole life with the revolutionary changes in science, economics, morals and politics that have swept the modern world, and make the Gospel message relevant. Stretching out the hand of friendship to non-Catholics and non-Christians, for the first time in four centuries he made a start towards Christian unity.

Enable

The first Council session discussed subjects ranging from church unity to mass media, but they fought the key battles over three important schemata, or proposals: The Form of Worship; The Sources of Revelation; and The Nature of the Church. By an overwhelming majority, the Council fathers approved liturgical reforms that, among other things, enable the world's bishops to decide for themselves whether they wish parts of the Mass to be said in the language of their own countries.

The vote goes much deeper than ceremonials; it has been described as somewhat akin to a government allowing its embassies to decide foreign policy. A power historically held by the Curia -- the right to change the liturgy (and something for centuries considered unchangeable) -- now was partially given to national, linguistic or continental bishops' conferences. The way was thus opened to a decentralization bound eventually to extend into such areas as missionary activity and control of seminaries. Atlanta's archbishop at the time, Paul Hallinan, called the shift "a vote against old ideas."

John enabled not only others, but himself. At the end of the Council session, Pope John said the Council had enabled him "to hear the voice of the whole Catholic world." By this time, John knew he had terminal cancer, and in a radical move, to make sure that the next session would go faster, he set up a new secretariat to carry on council deliberations until the council fathers reconvened. To each bishop he arranged to send all proposals during the recess. The Council produced many disagreements, but John dismissed them by saying, "We are not friars singing in a choir." He accepted that change created conflict, and did not shirk from that conflict.

Empower 

John empowered the bishops of the church to decide in regards to the way they administered their own areas. Instead of a centralized structure, John tried to give back to bishops the power and authority that were their right by nature of their office; that of successors of the heads of local churches. Sociologist Gerald Arbuckle points out, "Pope John, first by his example and then by words, challenged the familiar mythology of the fortress Church; people began to feel that alternative ways of doing things in the Church might now be possible and the Council legitimized this feeling of growing openness".

John's call was to one of simplicity. It was a call of "back to basics", if you like, and a call to live authentically the Gospel message. He felt that power should reside within the scope of local bishops, and their people, rather than the Roman Curia. John felt that one should learn from history, but not be bound to it. There was in the Catholic Church two sources of revelation recognized -- Scripture and tradition. John wanted to present Scripture and tradition as two channels in the same stream, or two sides of the same coin. The Curia, on the other hand, felt strongly that the church should continue the policy of centralization and isolation. They saw dialogue with hostile elements as risky with little potential for return, and was thus to be avoided. They saw tradition as the governing paradigm.

Those who deviated from tradition as laid down by Catholic history were deviating from the truth. Dialogue was pointless, and goodwill with dissenters and people outside the Church impossible.

Energize 

John's openness sparked a renewal of interest in ecumenism, especially a "deep" ecumenism. In 1963, in his encyclical Pacem in Terris -- Peace on Earth -- John called for not only an end to the arms race, but regulation for human affairs for the benefit of all humanity, and a reconciliation between East and West. Essentially John was calling for reconciliation and authentic dialogue between the communistic and capitalist systems. His call helped spark dialogue between East and West, which ultimately contributed to the end of the Cold War.

The Council also energized men and women of good will to experiment with new ideas and ways of doing things -- of practicing loyal dissent -- while still staying a loyal part of the Catholic Church.

Observations

The irony is that although John theoretically had ultimate power (within reason) within the Catholic church, he was probably more appreciated by those outside the church. Having established much goodwill and credibility, he played a role is the defusing of the Cuban missile crisis. John did not accept that the cold war was inevitable.

He constantly argued that are all one human family, and that our commonality should override differences, or at least be the basis for dialogue. He stressed a need for structural and social justice, and a moral imperative for Christians and men and women of goodwill to serve the poor. Conservatives in the Church, on the other hand, believed that religious leaders should stay out of the political arena. The saw poverty as the lot in some peoples' life. They should accept it, and focus instead on the rewards of the coming world.

Regrettably, leaders following John have not fully followed on John's program of reforms. However, John set a benchmark for other leaders in the area of inclusion, an ability to see differences to commonalities, and an attempt to break free from the inertia inherent within large organizations. As Arbuckle says, "John XXIII initiated a revolution against ecclesiastical institutionalism to return the Church to the dynamic virtues of Christ-centered love, justice and service in a changing world".

To paraphrase Mick Yates, "It is thus very clear that Pope John XXIII was a Leader with a 'capital L'". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Samurai Leadership
Author: Mick Yates

Excellence

For the Samurai, in some ways his decisions on how to succeed were relatively simple. He essentially had to harmonize a constituency of two - his Lord, and his "Bushido" code or value system. Obey both, or die. In fact, one could argue that the Samurai only had one master, his value system, as loyalty to the Lord was an intrinsic part of the code. Another constant of Samurai life was continual training for excellence. Harmonizing these things is a good lesson for today.

The Samurai had a very clear view of their own values and those of their society. This value system evolved as did the Samurai themselves - from being the original "warrior caste", to becoming leaders of society. For insights into the code, try reading the Hakagure. This was written at the start of the period in which Japan transitioned into the "modern" world whilst closing its doors to the west..
  
In a closed environment like seventeenth century Japan, most people had a common understanding of their culture, and of the underlying value system. The rules were set by the Shogunate, who acted with a greater or lesser sense of public virtue, depending on the Shogun. It was therefore relatively obvious how to succeed or fail, assuming one had the appropriate training and skills (a good swordsman, carpenter, farmer etc.).

In modern society, business enterprises have broad constituencies, and deal with very varied relationships. To succeed therefore requires the skills of management of complexity, and the ability to lead others through this complexity. Elliot Jaques has studied and written about this extensively, and we discuss it briefly in value systems 

Constituencies

Today business has several main constituencies: Customers, Employees, Shareholders and Society at large, and a fifth, if one includes the immediate Family of the employees. Each of these constituencies has its own values, beliefs and needs - they may be rooted in the same national value system, but each will have its own variations of values. It is probable that every individual's value system is slightly different from everyone else's. Nevertheless, understanding one's own system, as well as the systems of others around us, seems to be a pre-requisite for getting an organization to pull together.

Understanding what is valued by the constituents in one's home country is difficult but relatively easy compared with understanding global constituencies.

Today, a Japanese Samurai may seek success by focusing on the perpetuation of his or her enterprise. An American might seek to maximize shareholder value. A Scandinavian will want to explore the value of the enterprise to society. And the Chinese might focus on "no unemployment in State enterprises". Whilst this focus would be right in its own way, all may also be thinking narrowly. Each group should also evaluate and respond to the needs of their other constituencies, and then to each other.  

Strategy & tactics

Throughout the "Book of Five Rings", Musashi talks about "strategy". Translated from the Japanese, "strategy" is seen by some authors as "the Way". Additionally, modern-day business use of "strategy" usually differentiates it from "tactics" or "execution", as if in some way tactics were inferior.

For Musashi, "strategy" and "tactics" have equivalent worth - an important lesson. Interestingly, the complexities of modern warfare, and its dependence on technology and long-distance logistics, show once again a similar blurring and equality between "strategy" and "tactics".

How many times has the grandest business strategy fallen flat because the execution was below-par? How many times has such a strategy been agreed in the board room, but not been communicated and deployed properly to the organization responsible to execute? How many times has a success (or failure) left a bitter taste in one's mouth, if it was achieved with unexpected tactical implications?

On the other hand, how many times do even the best business tacticians miss the long range strategic implications of what they do? A simple example would be building market share with lower pricing. This is fine, but unless one's costs are lower, and can sustain further cuts profitably, a price war will drive one into oblivion as the competition fight back. Fortunately, few companies report this kind of error!

Put another way, it is essential in today's business world to evaluate both strategic options and executional deployment with equal vigor. Deployment, meaning both the tactics used and the communication of the plan to the employees, is equally critical.

As Henry Mintzberg has pointed out, the days of stand alone strategic planners are numbered. Strategy, strategic deployment and execution are central to a global enterprise, and are too important to be left to a separate department. They are "line" jobs. 

Education

In keeping with Zen's teaching, Musashi's aim in "The Book of Five Rings" is not to intellectualize his learning or experiences - his aim is to offer principles, examples and signposts towards a unique understanding of oneself and one's capabilities, which then become apparent through intuitive action.

Business education today seems to go from one trend to another. From the scientific operation research methods of the sixties, to the Harvard case study method, to the eighties focus on quality and competitive advantage, to nineties globalization and process management and so on. All of these are helpful, but Musashi would say none can work alone. And, if they work once, they might not work twice!

The best manager will integrate all possible inputs, and internalize their implications. It is in the manager's head (or spirit) that the right course of action will then appear. In fact, it will appear only in the manager's head, as the complexities of input and the varieties of situations can never be predicted anywhere else. How much of today's western business education focuses on this process of integration? In this writer's experience, it is very little.

One of the strengths of western intellectual education is the development of expertise and confidence in a chosen field, with deep, focused study. This enables creativity, and builds yet more confidence, experience and creativity. On the other hand, one of the strengths of the Japanese business system is that employees spend time in many different departments and functional areas, getting a broad overview of the business as an organism.

Musashi would probably say that neither was better - both are essential.

 
 

Samurai driving

It is like driving a car. We all had driver education. We all have an "intellectual" understanding of the gear shift, the brake, the steering. We all know the rules of the road, and we are aware of the weather and its implications. We all want to get "from A to B" - we know the goal. Those few occasions that we drive without thinking, yet change gear flawlessly, anticipate traffic effortlessly, show courtesy to others - and still make record time - are the moments when we are closest to the way Musashi fought. It is our experience that lets this happen.