Unfolding the map
It's hard to pinpoint when an entity needs to change, what exactly needs to change. An organisation is made of the living and non living, the tangible and the non-tangible. The measured and the immeasurable. The noticeable and the unnoticeable. There are many moving parts, there are rotating crankshafts, multiple facets, layers, compounded by oranisation's legacy influence vs future proofing factors. Add to it the speed of these changes, leaders do find it is a supreme challenge to 'make a change'.
But history has it that effective and successful leadership is not a coincidence. Similarly, an ineffective leadership is not a coincidence either. Depending on how this is looked at, it is almost never a linear line to successful change nor it is a linear line to an unsuccessful one.
Not a coincidence, but seizing opportunity
Take the Ottoman Caliphate in the 13th century for example; Their geographical advantage is owed to their proximity to the declining Byzantine Empire. Mehmed II or famously known as Mehmed the Conqueror strengthened the Ottoman Navy by establishing the Golden Horn Shipyard in 1455. This was the precursor to the innovative military institution by the Ottoman administration, which contributed to the innovative tactics, superior infrastructure and logistics and development of specialised ships. According to DergiPark.org, a comprehensive journal platform in Turkiye, the Ottoman Naval capability in the 13th century was superior of its time, and, in today's modern world, is comparable to Dual-Use Logistics Optimization, Multimodal Global Connectivity and Logistics "Control Towers", to name a few.
Unlike the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911-601 BCE) and the Spanish Empire in the Americas (late 15th century to early 19th century), the Ottoman Caliphate is known for its pragmatic administrative style that integrated diverse populations.
The observations here are two (2) throngs:
1- The end is justified by many means depending on the opportunity, circumstance and leadership capability [as was the case for the rise of the Ottoman Empire]
2-A desired state is never permanent or maintained for a prolonged time by itself and the contributary factors need to evolve with the changing internal and external pressures [referring to the prolonged success of the Empire and its gradual decline]
An ideal remains an ideal if not lived and followed through
While not the 'best' of examples, take Nazi Germany in Operations Barbarossa 1941 for example. The operations, dubbed the largest military operations in history was driven by Nazi Germany's underestimation of Soviet's manpower and resistance. Nazi Germany's ideological goals of eradicating communism failed to foresee the logistical challenges and assumptions of how mother nature can reverse these ideals for them. Stalin, the architect and overarching master mind for the Soviets, along with key military figures such as Vasily Chuikov (62nd army), played the 'long game' and enforcing 'not a step back' policy despite earlier defeats in 1941.
In Human Capital (aka Human Resources), attrition rate refers to the gradual reduction of workforce. In war, this was exactly the concept employed by Stalin, the 'war of attrition' strategy. The Soviet succeeded in wearing their enemies down to the point of defeat. The Nazi Germany was not prepared for this strategy.
In a contemporary long green table, a military leader can't succeed with just presenting the ideals, but also the worst-case scenario, both in their boots and the boots' of the enemies. In a contemporary world, a leader, regardless of sector, must have the knowledge of the past to understand pattern and context, as sole experience alone is not enough. Similarly, this understanding and application, will be the precursor for a leader to simulate a future scenario, hence with the resources, capabilities and strategies available, only can the leader deploy strategies and tactics in anticipating such scenarios.
Leadership and trust
Taking the words of Admiral William H. McRaven, to be a great leader takes trust, and trust takes time to build. Why should a leader not overpromise? This is because failure to deliver is the quickest way to lose trust. Hence, it takes time to build trust, the same way it takes time to for leaders to build consistency in demeanour, behaviour and exemplify good character and behaviour.
In my own humble words, the leadership should be a sophisticated 'engine' or system, which is iterative and can be amplified, resonated and multiplied over time. Hence a true great leader is one who is not just able to exemplify great characteristic, but one who walks the talk, emphasises humility and able to make quick rapid decisions given the circumstance. Maintaining order and perfectness in line and angles, is never just about the parade, but is the essence of alignment, that when a great leader is in command, he or she commands.
Aligned
The infrastructure, 'eco-system', values and culture of what lies beneath and interconnects with the one who commands should always be in a ready state to face unassuming and volatile circumstances. In today's world, intelligence is both subjective and objective, and having that needs to be an integral part of leadership, at all levels. Most industries and sectors reflects this; the higher up your rank, lesser you are in the actual work as those are supported by the level or grades below you. The leadership needs to be informed not just with objective insights, but also how those objective insights bring meaning. Hence, leadership at each of those levels need to up their game not only to keep up, but also to emulate the leadership characteristics for the direct observation of those in their charge.
Purposeful and valuing distinction
Forging future leaders starts early. Experiential learning is a non-negotiable. This shifts the paradigm of 'teaching', 'training' and 'assessment' to a one which is a 'living experience'. The same way subjective organisational matters such as integrity, humility, 'amanah' or responsibility is never confined in a lecture room, nor a week-long course.
Leadership is flavorful too. Great leaders may think alike, but acts with distinct styles, such as the case for Khalid Ibn Walid (592-643 CE) was known as the 'Tactical Innovator'. He was acknowledged and feared by the Byzantine (Roman) and Sassanid Persian Empires. Salah Addin (Saladin (1137-1193 CE) meanwhile is the 'Chivalrous Unifier', acknowledged as for his leadership style, military genius and noble character by his enemies, the Crusaders.
Leadership crosses ranks and this is best depicter by British-Malayan's own hero, Lieutenant Adnan Saidi (1915-1942), a junior commissioned officer who led his platoon of the 1st Battalion of the Malay Regiment during the critical Battle of Pasir Panjang in 1942 against the advancing Japanese army.
So what is the missing link here we ask?
1- Depending on your vantage point, a complex matter such as changes or improvement, must be viewed from different angles and depth. What one angle offers is a view which may be incomplete. Rotate the plane a bit, you'll be quick to catch, there is more than 1 narrative to the story. Same way when you angle the Operations Barbarossa from 0 to 180 degree angle, from both the Nazi German and Soviet's front.
2-Per the wise words of Admiral William H. McRaven, a distinguished retired U.S. Navy), 'But as difficult as leadership, it is not complicated'
