Those close to leaders often manipulate the system in their favour.
Some Gen Zs recently threw me a challenge: What are your thoughts on leadership?
Well, there are many potential answers. But let me make a feeble attempt.
First, a leader should think less about those near him and more about those far from him. When a leader violates this principle, the system becomes skewed in favour of a few with access to power, to the detriment of the silent but more consequential majority on the periphery.
Those close to leaders often manipulate the system in their favour. Of course, this is not always the case - many public-spirited individuals surround leaders - but a fair system must serve everyone, including those without direct access to power.
Those with such privileged access are inherently fewer. The innocent majority - often disengaged from the inner circles - are left to mind their own business. Yet those near power have more opportunities to tilt benefits in their favour. This is why visionary leadership must prioritise the needs of the invisible majority.
One achieves this by establishing systems that provide equal opportunities to everyone - those at the centre and those on the periphery. It’s difficult, but it’s the moral thing to do. The more people queuing outside a leader’s office, the more evidence that the system has broken down at the grassroots. If systems worked, the people would be served at those other levels without needing to chase the leader personally.
Great minds
Second, leaders should be wary of those who constantly speak ill of others. Even if the leader doesn’t confront them directly, they should treat such individuals as dangerous. When accusations are made, the alleged party should always be present to defend themselves. Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, once said: “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people.” Discussing people is not a mark of true leadership.
Third, always avoid petty battles. Reserve your energy for the bigger wars that are bound to erupt. Leaders constantly face pressure from rivals and crises, but the ability to choose the right battles is one of the greatest tests of leadership. If a leader fights every war that lands at their feet, they will lack the strength to face truly consequential battles.
That’s a lesson the Americans learnt during the Vietnam War in the late 1960s. It began as a minor intervention. Vietnam had achieved independence as two states - the southern state aligned with the West and the northern with socialism. When the North invaded the South to seek reunification, the US backed the South. The conflict escalated, and believing the North’s army was a ragtag militia, the US intervened directly, hoping for a swift victory. But the war dragged on and ended in the North’s favour with the fall of Saigon.
Some battles offer only a pyrrhic victory - a win so costly it amounts to defeat. The term comes from King Pyrrhus of Epirus, who fought the Romans in 279 BC at the Battle of Asculum. Though he won, he lost nearly 4,000 men and realised the cost was too high. US interventions in the Middle East have similarly yielded such costly wins.
The same logic applies in personal leadership. Some fights just aren’t worth it. Small defeats are often a fair price to pay to avoid bigger losses. Hence the saying: Do not respond to a mosquito with a hammer.
Examples include insults and defamation that leaders encounter. Most do not merit a response. Sometimes, a rebuttal does more damage than the original insult.
Fourth, seek to win through actions, not arguments. This is Law No. 9 from Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power. A story is told of the Italian sculptor Michelangelo, whose work attracted criticism from a mayor who said the sculpture’s nose was too long. Michelangelo pretended to adjust it and invited the mayor to view it again. The mayor then agreed that it looked perfect. In reality, Michelangelo had changed nothing - he simply offered a different angle instead of arguing.
Those who win through argument resemble the sophists of ancient Greece - skilled orators known more for winning debates than standing for truth. Protagoras, a famous sophist, argued that “man is the measure of all things,” meaning truth was relative. Such thinking justifies anything. But persuasive speech without substance leads nowhere. Leaders who win arguments may not be remembered. Leaders who take action - build schools, roads, hospitals - leave a lasting mark.
Animosity
Arguments breed animosity. Actions speak louder than words.
Finally, if you’re in politics, be careful what you say to fellow politicians - because they’ll likely tell someone else, who will tell someone else, until everyone knows. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but just remember that politicians are social creatures, and secrets don’t last in political circles.
Politics is as fluid as water. Today’s enemies are tomorrow’s friends, and vice versa. President William Ruto and ODM leader Raila Odinga clashed fiercely in 2022 - now they’re allies. Former President Uhuru Kenyatta’s staunchest supporters today were once his fiercest critics.
So, aim to be the best at your craft. Think of Mohamed Salah, the Liverpool striker, who once played for Chelsea. He went on loan to Fiorentina and later moved to Roma, before returning to England to become a superstar. Politics is no different. You could be scoring for Team A today, and for Team B tomorrow.
Your colleagues in politics might one day be the very people you’ll need to reach your next level. Learn the unwritten rules of the game - including the most important one: change is constant.
Dr Kang’ata is the Governor of Murang’a; Email [email protected]
