Muslim World Report

A Leadership Crisis: Are We Stuck with Managers Instead of Leaders

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | May 2, 2025 1:57 PM | 8 min read | 1569 words

TL;DR: The blog discusses the distinction between managers and true leaders in public service, emphasizing the need for genuine integrity and transparency. The text poses “What If” scenarios to explore possible improvements in leadership practices, advocating for a culture that values empathy, open communication, and collaboration. It calls for a systemic change that prioritizes ethical behavior and shared accountability among all employees.

The Crisis of Leadership in Our Institutions

In the world of public service, especially within military and governmental institutions, leadership is often heralded as a virtue—an essential quality that distinguishes the capable from the incompetent. However, recent experiences have revealed a troubling reality; leadership often falls woefully short of its ideal. A troubling case exemplifies this disconnect: a Navy veteran occupying a senior leadership position within our agency has not only failed to uphold the principles he swore to defend but has actively undermined the very people he is supposed to protect.

This case is not merely a failure of leadership; it represents a profound betrayal of trust, undermining the core values of integrity and service that should guide our institutions (Hutchinson, 2018).

Contemplating the “What If” Scenarios

This situation raises several important “What If” scenarios that may arise from the leadership crisis we are observing:

  • What if this Navy veteran had instead chosen to embody the principles of service he pledged to uphold?
  • How might our agency’s morale and effectiveness have flourished under a leader who prioritized transparency and open communication?
  • Conversely, what if the culture of silence and deception continues to persist?

The potential ramifications of this leadership crisis extend far beyond this individual situation, influencing the workplace environment and the trust between employees and management on a systemic level.

Instead of fostering an environment built on transparency and open communication, this leader has opted for deception and silence. His behavior starkly contrasts with the fundamental tenets of effective leadership, which necessitate accountability, empathy, and a commitment to the welfare of one’s team (Boin & Hart, 2003). This highlights a crucial truth: titles do not guarantee leadership effectiveness; leaders must earn their positions through consistent, ethical actions and genuine concern for those they serve.

The Need for Accountability and Transparency

What If the actions of senior leaders were publicly scrutinized, and their accountability became a shared expectation among employees? Such transparency could foster a culture where leaders are motivated to prioritize ethical behavior, cultivating unity and responsibility.

This dilemma reflects a broader systemic issue: too often, individuals in managerial roles masquerade as leaders, engaging in superficial team-building exercises while neglecting the essential need for authentic communication. As one of my colleagues pointedly noted:

  • It is often the lowest-ranking and lowest-paid members—like the receptionist in our office—who step up to uplift team morale through acts of kindness, such as making breakfast every Monday.

This stark contrast between the selfless acts of junior staff and the neglect demonstrated by senior management highlights that genuine leadership can emerge from unexpected places and does not always correlate with seniority or title (Folke et al., 2005).

Dismantling Hierarchical Barriers

In a world that values hierarchical structures, What If we began to dismantle these barriers, encouraging both vertical and horizontal communication? Imagine a workplace where the receptionist’s contributions are recognized and valued. Such actions could inspire others within the organization to share their ideas and initiatives, promoting an enriched culture of collaboration.

The Potential of Shared Contributions

The narrative of a receptionist as a leader exemplifies the potential of individuals at all levels to drive meaningful change within institutions, thus redefining the traditional notions of leadership and authority.

Moreover, the prevailing culture within our institutions often stifles candid dialogue and suppresses dissenting opinions. Many employees feel compelled to “suck it up,” upholding a deceptive appearance of normalcy, which can suppress legitimate concerns. This lack of openness is not merely an oversight; it is a systemic failure with potentially devastating consequences for both individuals and the organization (Van Lange et al., 2002).

The absence of constructive communication can inhibit innovation and lead to feelings of isolation and disempowerment among employees (Pate et al., 2007).

Creating Transparent Frameworks

What If we designed frameworks that actively encourage transparency, such as:

  • Regular feedback loops
  • Anonymous suggestion channels

These channels would allow employees to voice their concerns without fear of repercussion. By creating spaces for candid dialogue, organizations could cultivate trust and provide employees with a sense of ownership over their work environment. Such proactive measures could transform our institutions from closed-off entities into agile organizations responsive to their employees’ needs.

In times of crisis, effective leaders should prioritize regular check-ins with their teams to ensure that every member feels supported and valued. The current atmosphere of uncertainty cannot be alleviated through empty platitudes or reassurances; leadership demands a steadfast commitment to transparency and accountability, upholding the dignity of every team member.

Empathy and Active Listening in Leadership Training

What If leaders were trained in empathetic communication and active listening? By equipping our leaders with these essential skills, we could mark a significant shift toward more responsive and accountable leadership. The tangible benefits of such training could lead to increased employee satisfaction and a more harmonious workplace, demonstrating the immediate impact of fostering a people-first approach.

As we contemplate the state of leadership within our institutions, we must hold ourselves—and each other—to a higher standard. The expectations for leaders, especially veterans who should exemplify the values of integrity and service, are elevated. We must demand leaders who prioritize the needs of their teams above their self-interest. Such a shift is essential not only for rebuilding trust but also for creating a workplace where every individual can thrive (Freeman, 1977).

Redefining Leadership

The journey toward reclaiming true leadership must begin with the acknowledgment that it is not the title that defines a leader, but rather their actions and unwavering commitment to those they serve. In this spirit, we should ask ourselves:

  • What If we expand our definitions of leadership beyond formal titles to include those who support, uplift, and advocate for their colleagues?

By recognizing and celebrating these leaders, we could create a more inclusive culture that values contributions from all levels.

The Role of Adaptive Governance

An important factor in this shift is the necessity of adaptive governance, which can convert the challenges of contemporary crises into opportunities for reform, ensuring that our institutions not only survive but emerge stronger and more resilient (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996).

What If we implemented adaptive governance practices where employees are empowered to participate in decision-making processes? This approach could foster innovation and resilience, enabling organizations to respond effectively to emerging challenges.

Shared Accountability and Future Leadership

The potential implications of these “What If” scenarios underscore the urgent need for change within our institutions. As we explore paths toward improved leadership, we should be prepared to embrace innovative structures that prioritize collaboration and shared decision-making. This commitment to transformation not only enhances organizational effectiveness but also serves as a powerful reminder of the enduring value of integrity, empathy, and service.

Furthermore, we must consider the role of mentorship and guidance within our institutions. What If experienced leaders actively mentored emerging leaders, fostering a culture of learning and growth? By investing in developing future leaders, we could facilitate a generational shift in leadership styles, promoting values of authenticity, transparency, and collaboration.

As we reflect on the state of leadership within our institutions, it becomes increasingly clear that responsibility lies not solely with those in power but with everyone involved. Leaders must be held accountable, but employees also play a crucial role in challenging the status quo and advocating for constructive change.

What If we created a platform for all employees to voice their experiences and propose solutions? By fostering an environment of shared accountability, we could address systemic issues collectively and cultivate a culture that thrives on mutual respect and collaboration.

Conclusion

As we look to the future, we must collectively work towards more effective leadership within our institutions. The challenges we face are multifaceted and require a concerted effort from all members of the organization. By prioritizing open communication, empathy, mentorship, and shared accountability, we can redefine what leadership means in public service, ensuring that it is rooted in the principles of integrity and service.

References

  • Boin, A., & Hart, P. ’t. (2003). Public Leadership in Times of Crisis: Mission Impossible? Public Administration Review, 63(5), 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00318

  • Cole, R. S., Katz, R. L., & Mair, P. (1997). The Role of Trust in Governance and the Management of the Public Sector: A Review of the Literature.

  • Folke, C., Hahn, T. P., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441-473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

  • Freeman, L. C. (1977). A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543

  • Hutchinson, M. (2018). The Crisis of Public Trust in Governance and Institutions: Implications for Nursing Leadership. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(2), 136-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12625

  • Pate, J., Beaumont, P., & Stewart, S. (2007). Trust in Senior Management in the Public Sector. Employee Relations, 29(2), 184-199. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450710776281

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852

  • Van Lange, P. A. M., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Tazelaar, M. J. A. (2002). How to Overcome the Detrimental Effects of Noise in Social Interaction: The Benefits of Generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 768-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.768

← Prev Next →