sign in sign up
<<
Home , Envy

Working Paper Series 2016/45/EFE

Destructive and Transformational Leadership in Africa

Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries INSEAD, [email protected]

Jennifer C. Sexton West Virginia University, [email protected]

B. Parker Ellen III Northeastern University, [email protected]

The continent of Africa presents a unique context of study for leadership scholars. A vast expanse of land encompassing over 50 countries, territories, and states with over 1.1 billion people, Africa’s diversity of ethnicities, cultures, and languages are both sources of richness and potential conflict. In this article, we explore examples of two leadership extremes within the context of Africa: transformational and destructive leadership. Through foundational work on transformational leadership, as well as relatively newer work on destructive leadership, we explore some of the psychological, situational, and institutional forces that account for the contrasting natures of exemplary transformational and notorious despotic African leaders. Following this contrast, we present countermeasures that can be taken to survive and thrive despite narcissistic leaders, and even the possibility of transforming them before they become truly destructive.

Keywords: Destructive Leadership; Transformational Leadership;

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2803042

A Working Paper is the author’s intellectual property. It is intended as a means to promote research to interested readers. Its content should not be copied or hosted on any server without written permission from [email protected] Find more INSEAD papers at http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/search_papers.cfm

1

“The trouble…is simply and squarely a failure of leadership.” ~ Chinua Achebe (from The Fate of Africa)

The continent of Africa presents a unique context of study for leadership scholars. A vast expanse of land encompassing over 50 countries, territories, and states with over 1.1 billion people, Africa’s diversity of ethnicities, cultures, and languages are both sources of richness and potential conflict. Although conflict and warfare are not exclusive to Africa, it does prove to be an interesting case (Williams, 2013). In the 1990s, while armed conflicts in other parts of the developing world were in sharp decline, Africa saw an increase in violence and warfare

(Williams, 2013). Conflict in Africa is difficult to understand, due to the many complexities that stem from prior colonization by European nations, tribal differences, and religions. As a result, many peace agreements and treaties have been signed by opposing forces, only to dissolve, collapse, or fail (Williams, 2013).

The colonization of most of Africa has had important bearings on its development, and the transition from colonization to independence has been driven by its leaders (Williams, 2013).

Thus, leadership is an important part of the historical narrative of Africa, and one can understand the current environment by understanding how the leaders of Africa have shaped its story.

Emergence from the colonization of Western nations was an important time for Africa, but also a time that demonstrated the best and worst of leadership (Jallow, 2013).

At the negative extreme, destructive leaders, marked by narcissism, personalized power motives, and ideologies of hate (Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007; Rotberg, 2013), demonstrate the depravity and damage that can be inflicted on innocent people. These leaders take advantage of situations marked by instability and primed for the emergence of a singular and powerful figure, capitalize on followers’ unmet needs, and negatively constituents’ quality of life by focusing almost exclusively on their own need for power and control. 2

Conversely, their counterparts at the positive extreme, described as transformational leaders (Bass, 1985), go beyond selfish concerns, offer their people the chance to be creative, to learn, and to nurture their own leadership abilities. Truly transformational leaders instill in others a sense of , respect and , inspiring a heightened level of commitment, self-sacrifice, , and performance. These leaders demonstrate , vulnerability, integrity, and trust – the building blocks of collaboration and connection. They enable healing, restitution and restoration in both givers and receivers, and have an unshakeable belief in excellence and improvement.

In this article, we explore examples of these leadership extremes within the context of

Africa. Through foundational work on transformational leadership, as well as relatively newer work on destructive leadership, we explore some of the psychological, situational, and institutional forces that account for the contrasting natures of exemplary despotic and transformational African leaders. Following this contrast, we present countermeasures that can be taken to survive and thrive narcissistic leaders, and even the possibility of transforming them before they become truly destructive.

The Spirit of Despotism: Destructive Leadership in Africa

“African history is filled with experiences of people shooting their way to power and then splintering into factions, like in Somalia and Liberia.” ~ George Ayittey

Many associate the concept of leadership with the idea of goodness - so much so that some have considered destructive leadership to be an oxymoronic term (Padilla et al., 2007).

Unfortunately, history has shown destructive leadership to be all too real. Too many countries have been ruled by power-hungry, narcissistic leaders-for-life, whose destructive ways lead followers to the edge of the abyss. Destructive leadership has been defined as reflective of 3 dominance and (i.e., rather than persuasion and commitment), as well as a selfish orientation, which results in negative outcomes, including decreased quality of life for constituents (Padilla et al., 2007).

The dominance and coercion stems from destructive leaders’ personalized need for power, negative life themes, and ideology of hate, while their selfish orientation is derived from a combination of their charisma, , and narcissism (Padilla et al., 2007). Destructive leaders crave power, and they seek to acquire and use it for personal gain (Conger, 1990; Padilla et al.,

2007). This incessant need for control results in coercion in efforts to impose their goals on followers, and often stems from a lack of control experienced in early childhood trauma

(O’Connor, Mumford, Clifton, Gessner, & Connelly, 1995; Zaleznik & Kets de Vries, 1985).

Further, these childhood difficulties often create an ideology of hate in destructive leaders, which justifies their use of violence (Padilla et al., 2007; Strange & Mumford, 2002).

Narcissism, hubris, and destructive leadership. Destructive leaders are known for their narcissism, defined as “a relatively stable individual difference consisting of self- and inflated self-views” (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio, 2011: 269). This extreme self-importance typically manifests in destructive leaders as an autocratic style, demands for unquestioned loyalty, and a hyper-aggressive of power resulting in mistreatment of followers (Campbell et al., 2011; Padilla et al., 2007; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Not surprisingly, narcissists are known for a lack of for their self-serving behavior (Exline,

Baumeister, Bushman, Campbell, & Finkel, 2004). Although their charisma gives narcissistic leaders a sense of dominance, , and associated with arrogance (Judge,

LePine, & Rich, 2006; Padilla et al., 2007), narcissistic leaders also are known to suffer from severe self-esteem issues that makes them others are “out to get them” (Campbell et al., 4

2011). Not all charismatic leaders are destructive, but research has demonstrated a link between the two (e.g., Beyer, 1999; Conger, 1990). Specifically, destructive leaders seem able to sell their vision of the future, a key component of charisma. However, that vision typically is focused on the enhancement of their personal power, and often depends on the displacement of rivals

(O’Connor et al., 1995).

The essential characteristics of narcissism are a need for grandiosity, a persistent search for and a lack of . In short, narcissists are preoccupied with dreams of glory, power, status and prestige. Restless and bored when they are not in the limelight, they are flagrant attention-seekers (American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Kernberg, 1975; Kohut,

1971; Kets de Vries & Perzow, 1991). Because narcissistic leaders overvalue their own worth, they see special treatment as their inalienable right and believe that the rest of the world owes them something. Considering themselves above the rules that others play by, they disregard social conventions and often are arrogant, haughty and disdainful. Determinedly self-involved, these people have difficulty recognizing the and subjective experiences and of others. Even when they do recognize a contrary to their own, they believe that their own needs take precedence over everyone else’s; hence their interpersonal relationships tend to be exploitative. All these traits tend to alienate those who have to deal with such leaders.

Like the mythological figure Janus, narcissism has two faces. Some self-love is required for survival; without concern for the self, the organism dies. On the other hand, too great a preoccupation with the self can become self-destructive. While narcissism in limited doses is necessary for the maintenance of self-esteem and self-identity, contributing to positive behavior patterns (such as assertiveness, , and creativity), the darker side of narcissism (with its self-centeredness, grandiosity, lack of empathy, exploitativeness, exaggerated self-love and the 5 absence of any boundaries) can cause serious to the self and others (Paunonen, Lönnqvist,

Verkasalo, Leikas, & Nissinen, 2006).

So where do we draw the line between healthy self-esteem and a compensatory inflated sense of self? That is never an easy call to make. As a general rule, though, we can differentiate between and its less healthy counterpart on the basis of interpersonal skills, the ability to empathize, having a genuine in the ideas and feelings of others, and a willingness to take personal responsibility for one’s behavior when things do not work out

(Paunonen, et al. 2006). As mentioned before, we all display narcissistic behavior at times; it is part of the human condition. In fact, a modest dose of narcissism is necessary to function effectively. Among individuals with narcissistic inclinations there are many who are talented and have made great contributions to society. Those who gravitate to the extremes, however, give narcissism a bad name, exhibiting an excess of pomposity, arrogance, envy, and vindictiveness in dealing with the external environment.

Given their need for power, status, prestige and glamour, it is not surprising that many narcissistically inclined personalities eventually end up in leadership positions. Their ability to manipulate others and their capacity to rapidly establish relationships (though shallow) serve them well in attaining high office (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984). Given their narcissistic predisposition, they harbor ambitions of greatness, fame and glory. Power, prestige, and status are more important than serving others (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). In fact, their primary concern usually remains the preservation of their own “specialness” as evidenced by a certain disregard for others.

In determining what makes narcissism dysfunctional for some and beneficial for others, it is helpful to distinguish between “constructive” and “reactive” narcissism (Kets de Vries, 2001). 6

Constructive narcissism develops in response to “good-enough” care giving. Parents who offer their children a lot of support recognize their children’s tolerance level and thus limit to what is age-appropriate. By providing a proper “holding environment” for their children’s various emotional reactions, they produce offspring who are well balanced and possess a solid sense of self-esteem.

Due to the kind of parenting they receive, such individuals possess a high degree of confidence in their abilities and are highly task- and goal-oriented (Kets de Vries, 2001). They are willing to take ultimate responsibility for their decisions, not blaming others when things go wrong. Although at times they may come across as lacking in warmth and consideration – substituting reciprocity in relationships with abstract concerns such as “the welfare of all” – their sense of inner direction gives them the ability to inspire others and create a common cause, transcending petty self-interests. Among narcissists of this ilk, we find people labeled charismatic, who have the ability to attract others to whatever cause they are pursuing. Given their realistic, positive outlook on life, they are highly successful at whatever endeavor they undertake.

Reactive narcissism develops in people who have been “wounded” in one way or another.

When young people face serious developmental hurdles – parental overstimulation, understimulation, or non-integrative —they do not get the kind of attention required for a smooth developmental path. The two important spheres of the self – built upon our tendency to obtain reassurance through mirroring (reflecting ourselves in the other) and our tendency to feel more powerful through identification – are poorly integrated in this type of narcissist (Kets de Vries, 2001). Reactive narcissism takes root when phase-appropriate development is interrupted, frustrating experiences are poorly handled, and parents are distant 7 and cold or overindulgent and admiring. In such an unhealthy environment, children acquire a defective rather than well-integrated sense of identity, and subsequently have difficulty maintaining a stable sense of self-esteem. These are the kinds of people susceptible to narcissism.

Individuals with this reactive orientation frequently distort outside events to manage and to prevent a sense of loss or . To cope with such feelings, they create a self-image of “specialness”. Despite an outward appearance of superiority, research has suggested that the grandiose, self-centered behavior of narcissists acts as a mask to conceal deeply negative feelings about themselves (Kohut, 1966; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006).

Consciously or subconsciously, they feel a strong need to make up for the perceived wrongs done to them in earlier periods of their lives. Having been belittled, maltreated or exposed to hardships as children, they are determined as adults to show everyone that they amount to something. If that determination stops at wanting – and working – to be valued or extends to making reparation, reactive narcissism can set in. If it turns into envy, , , grandiosity and vindictiveness, it can be immensely damaging.

Hubris in leaders has also been of interest to leadership scholars. Striving for power and status can endanger the kind of pro-social behavior that is critical for survival, and hubris leads to the illusion of invincibility, which contributes to complacency, carelessness, callousness and self-destruction. Hubris is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “a great amount of pride or confidence.” In many myths, mortals who display hubris end up learning, in brutal ways, the folly of this overexertion of ego. The Greek concept of hubris refers to the overweening arrogance and pride of humans who hold themselves up as equals to the gods. In ancient Greece, hubris was one of the worst traits a person could exhibit, invariably bringing the worst kind of 8 punishment. In Greek myth, humans who tried to act like gods by overcoming their mortal limits would invite punishment. In the story of Icarus, his father Daedalus, a talented craftsman, fashioned two pairs of wings out of wax and feathers for himself and his son. Daedalus tried his wings first, but before taking off from the island warned his son not to fly too close to the sun, nor too close to the sea, but to follow his path. Overcome with excitement, Icarus soared too close to the sun, which melted the wax on his wings, and crashed into the sea, failing to realize that flight was strictly reserved for the gods.

The story is just one of many cautionary tales about hubris and how it can undermine individuals and societies. CEOs are a frequent subject of studies on hubris, and have been found to hold high levels of self-importance, which in some cases have become full-fledged delusions of grandeur (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984). For example, Hayward and Hambrick (1997) found that CEO hubris was associated with higher acquisition premiums. Acquisition premiums represent the amount of additional value managers expect they will be able to extract from a target firm. Higher premiums indicate higher expected value. However, a majority of acquisitions fail to create the value that was anticipated. Acquiring firms led by CEOs with high levels of hubris tend to overestimate their ability to derive value in underperforming firms, subsequently leading these firms to overpay. Other studies of hubris have found that overconfidence in leaders have led to dynamism in performance outcomes, suggesting both big wins and big losses in firm performance (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007).

Recent successes can lead to higher levels of hubris in leaders (Hayward & Hambrick,

1997). For despots and tyrants, successfully overthrowing an existing government or executing a coup can give them a sense of overconfidence in their abilities to lead. Their ability to tackle and dethrone an existing regime reinforces their beliefs in their own potential. What may also 9 contribute to hubris is people’s tendency to idealize leaders. Being “saved” by a leader of a coup from a tyrannical government can lead to worship of the leader, leading to increased hubris in the leader. Subsequently, we may endow our leaders (who, as authority figures, are prime outlet for our projections) with unrealistic powers and attributes (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). As part of this psychological process, people – who really want to believe in the vision propagated by their leaders – fail to see objective reality.

Narcissism, hubris, and destructive leadership in Africa. Although it does not have a monopoly on destructive leadership – destructive dictators come in all different races, skin colors, religions and ideologies – Africa seems to have had more than its fair share. By the late

1980s, Africa had become a continent known for its dictators, and was the norm rather than the exception. These “Big Men” did not tolerate dissent, and violence became a tool used to control people and maintain power. Further, the decolonization of many African countries led to freedom from European and other Western influences, but also left a hole in structure, both socially and politically. The ambiguity, chaos, and uncertainty that resulted from the decolonization efforts led to an environment ripe for the development of destructive leadership (Kets de Vries, 2001; Kets de Vries, 2006b). In a twenty-year period in Africa, there were at least forty successful coups, and countless more were attempted (Meredith, 2007). In this time of political, military, and social turmoil, leadership of any sort added structure, but left

Africa and its citizens vulnerable to the narcissistic machinations of tyrants and despots.

What makes leaders behave in such destructive ways? Given the impact that people in the clutches of narcissism and hubris have on others’ lives, it is important to understand its origins.

By taking a close look at its underlying dynamics, we come face to face with the forces of excessive narcissistic behavior that lead leaders astray. 10

Any political system that concentrates power in the hands of one person is susceptible to degeneration into a dictatorship, and when a national leader becomes intoxicated with power, the consequences can be devastating. The for power in despots pushes them beyond respect for human rights and individual freedom (Kets de Vries, 2006b). Not only do they act out their neuroses in public, but also they fall prey to paranoia. Fearing that others seek to overthrow them, they engage in “protective reaction” – they attack before they can be attacked. Whether directed at their own people or an external scapegoat, if their suspicions are well founded (e.g., if dissidents form an alliance with external forces) despots are driven to violence by the sense of purpose and solidarity it gives the country, and the distraction it offers from their own shortcomings.

Narcissism, hubris, and the lack of judgment that stems from its presence can feed into the paranoia of despots and tyrants. Many of the political crises that emerged in Africa stem from very small rebel movements. For example, some opposition movements have been started with as few as 300 soldiers (Meredith, 2007). These small rebel movements have been successful in the context of Africa as a direct result of the paranoia and fear held by despots. Smaller armies helped protect despots from military coups, but it did little to protect both the nation and the leader from external rebel forces. Afraid of losing control over the military, many leaders in

Africa kept small, scattered, and poorly managed military units to protect their own rule from military coups (Meredith, 2007). As a result, smaller forces allowed tyrants to maintain their power, but left their countries susceptible to outside attack. The lack of control and brought about by multiple military units contributes to the lack of structure and chaos necessary for despotic leaders to take power, creating a cycle that is difficult to halt (Meredith, 2007). 11

Additionally, a lack of oversight from appropriate regulating bodies feeds into the development of hubristic leaders (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). An outcome of chaos and disorganization from tyrannical coups is the fact that there is little to no opposition to the existing leader. Research has shown that oversight can moderate the relationship between hubris and overestimating abilities. For example, in the presence of powerful boards of directors, the relationship between CEO hubris and acquisition premiums is weakened (Hayward & Hambrick,

1997). What makes despotic-autocratic leaders so dangerous for the world community is not so much their tendency toward violence as the ease with which that tendency can be indulged.

Terrorizing the population, starting a war – engaging in any violence for that matter – is easier for despots than for democratic leaders. Despots do not need to ask permission from executive or legislative bodies. They do not have to convince the populace. It is enough to have an official- sounding agency rubber-stamp their decision – they have the power to do pretty much as they wish. Such behavior, it goes without saying, can come at a terrible price in human for the citizens under their rule. And the visible costs are only the tip of the iceberg; the hidden effects of their actions or inactions can take generations to rebuild – for example, the loss of national pride and the obliteration of culture and creativity. The costs of despotism are social, cultural, and economic with long-lasting consequences (Kets de Vries, 2006b).

The portrayal of the leader by the media can also impact a leader’s levels of narcissism and hubris. In the case of many African dictators, control of the media has been a trademark of their regime. Many political leaders in Africa have used the media to portray themselves as heroic, furthering their own political agendas (Williams, 2013). This media attention feeds back into the leader’s own beliefs about their abilities and reinforces their confidence and pride

(Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). As the people project feelings of fear, obedience, and 12 admiration onto their leaders, the leader eventually develops a certain mystique. Rare is the leader who can resist this form of idealization – which in turn inflates the leader’s self-esteem.

Finding themselves in a hall of mirrors – seeing what they want to see – many begin to believe that the projected fantasies of their people are reality. They imagine themselves to be as perfect, intelligent or powerful as others idealize them to be. Such leaders find themselves in an echo chamber: the only opinion heard (though in many voices) is their own and they gradually come to believe that what is said about them is true. Critics and opponents of the hubristic leader find their credibility attacked and their dissenting opinions dismissed (Jallow, 2013; Judge et al.,

2006). Opposition leaders are arrested, intimidated, even killed. In such regimes, press freedom is nonexistent. Censorship is imposed, journalists, newspaper editors, columnists and bloggers are harassed for telling the truth. Any newspapers, radio or television stations that are critical of the regime will be shut down. Thus, the tragedy of hubris is that when caught in its web, leaders set themselves apart from common mortals; the rules and expectations of appropriate behavior no longer apply to them. Impatient, contemptuous and vindictive, they react with disdain, rage and/or violence when a situation is not to their liking. They not only fail to admire or appreciate others, they often begrudge others their success or possessions.

This sense of envy may originate out of feelings of impotence that eat at the heart of hubristic leaders (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Despite their sense of superiority, deep down they struggle with feelings of insecurity and inferiority (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Although

‘on stage’ they spend their lives self-aggrandizing, their inner theatre is often pervaded by self- and a profound sense of worthlessness (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). And the deeper the insecurity, the greater the megalomania can be. 13

Such a way of looking at the world will create a sense of entitlement. Furthermore, given the force of hubris, they lose the ability to distinguish between and reality – they may start to live in their own world, encouraged by the people that surround them. But hubris, and with it a false sense of invulnerability, leads to a kind of self-imprisonment, as the truly hubristic person ignores every opportunity for moral counsel and shared judgment (Judge, et al., 2006).

Without meaningful dialogue or listening, they become the authors of their own doom. Finding the balance between “confidence/hubris” is a critical challenge for people in leadership positions.

All too frequently, when the balance tips toward hubris and too far away from , problems arise, impairing their judgment.

While they may initially be elected, once in power despotic rulers become addicted to power, unable to let go. Too often, after liberating their countries from colonial suppression, former freedom fighters revert to despotic rule when in power. It is this unyielding grip on power that is the hallmark of every despot. Political repression becomes a weapon in their hands. No longer concerned about their people’s aspirations, they are only interested in looking out for themselves. Among others, Ahmed Sékou Touré of Guinea, who was hailed as a great liberator, remained in power until his death, using death camps to remove any opposition to his rule

(Touré, Ahmed Sékou, 2006). Idi Amin’s reign of terror as the ‘butcher of Uganda’ reached legendary proportions (Rodriguez, 2013). Jean-Bedel Bokassa, a former colonel who seized power in the Central African and went on to proclaim himself Emperor of this impoverished nation, allegedly engaged in cannibalism and destroyed the foundations of civil society in a country that has experienced strife ever since (Jacobs, 2013).

To this list of tyrants can be added those who deny democratic rule. Opposition parties are either outlawed or accorded little political leeway. Elections become a farce, always won by 14 the despot. Since Paul Biya became president of Cameroon in 1982, he has staged an election every few years to justify his continuing reign (Young, 2008). King Mswati III of Swaziland has been in power longer than most of his subjects care to remember. Head of one of the world’s poorest countries, with the highest percentage of AIDS victims, he is known to have a taste for luxury as well as polygamy (Sibongile Dlamini, 2008). Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo’s longstanding regime in Equatorial Guinea has made it, according to domestic and international observers, one of the most corrupt, oppressive and undemocratic states in the world (Obiang

Nguema Mbasogo, Teodoro, 2008). In Sudan, after staging a bloodless coup he called the

“ Revolution,” Omar Hassan al-Bashir soon abolished trade unions and suspended all political parties (Ball, 2013). In 1993, he named himself president and instituted Islamic law, subsequently leading to a bloody civil war with Darfur (Ball, 2013). In Uganda, Yoweri

Museveni’s regime has been associated with killings, torture, illegal detention, and other war crimes (Watts, 2013).

The self-destructive journey for these despots begins when they start to create their own reality and refuse to see anything but what they want to see. Their sense of self-righteousness, arrogance and inability to accept others’ ideas impair their effectiveness. Given their need for affirmation, they reject any views that counter their autocratic . Many build regimes characterized by the exclusion of others from policy-making, intolerance of criticism, disregard of people’s legitimate needs and unwillingness to compromise. Mobutu Sese Seko ruled the

Congo for 31 years, employing the oppressive tactics that others had used before him (Morello,

2013). A notorious self-promoter, he would not tolerate any criticism. They surround themselves with yay-sayers telling them only what they want to hear, and dissent is no longer tolerated. In the end, however, the only voice they listen to is their own. 15

Conducive Environment

Despite the above-listed negative qualities, destructive leadership requires more than a potentially flawed individual with a need for power. Destructive leadership also requires the presence of susceptible followers and a conducive environment (Padilla et al., 2007). Susceptible followers enable destructive leadership because they have presently unmet needs (e.g., safety or identification) the leader can provide, low self-belief the leader can enhance, and sometimes ambition or congruent beliefs the leader can fulfill (Padilla et al., 2007). Similarly, certain environments, such as those thrust into instability or lacking checks and balances, make it easier for destructive leaders to rise to power and maintain control (Padilla et al., 2007). Interestingly, these two elements (i.e., susceptible followers and a conducive environment) create a vicious cycle, as the chaos and confusion of unstable environments allows destructive leaders to gain control by meeting follower needs and restoring order. Further, because followers’ needs are being met, they allow the further centralization of power, which results in an increasing absence of checks and balances that enables destructive leaders to maintain control (Padilla et al., 2007), paving the way for despotic leadership with devastating consequences (Acemoglu, Robinson, &

Woren, 2012).

Tyrants and despots often use ideology in order to provide structure in contexts defined by chaos. Ideology provides a system or framework that can help organize society. In times of chaos, ideology can reduce uncertainty and give people a common goal to work towards (Kets de

Vries, 2006a). Ideology, or dogma, espouses what is important, valued, believed, and accepted

(Arendt, 1969), and tyrants and despots often replace or supplement religious ideology with ideology centered on the state and politics (Kets de Vries, 2006b). In Uganda, President Idi Amin was able to win support from his constituents by expelling foreigners and attacking Western 16 imperialism. His actions were perceived as asserting the interests of Africa, and as such, were met with support from many Africans (Meredith, 2007).

Ideology can also create separation from other forms of identification. By creating a new belief system and educating the youth in a population, it creates circumstances of greater separation between former culture, society and beliefs (Kets de Vries, 2006b). After Amin’s successful coup of Uganda in 1971, his first acts were to release political prisoners and lift emergency regulations. Amin’s early actions fed into a sense of and experienced by the people of Uganda (Meredith, 2007). Ideology also can convey political and economic ideals that appeal to a poor and war-weary population. Amin’s expulsion of foreigners and rejection of Western interference was popular in an area recovering from Western interference and imperialism (Meredith, 2007).

The political and social context in Africa has provided opportunities for narcissistic leaders to take advantage of the context. These leaders, seeing that the people long for structure, stability, and certainty take advantage by providing and operating under the curtain of reform.

They begin their campaigns by appearing to provide a solution to the current problems that plague their country, whether it be violence, disease, or warfare. For example, al-Bashir’s first steps as leader in Sudan was to end a bloody civil war in the south. Samuel Doe, leader of

Liberia from 1980 to 1990, was heralded as a savior for his tough stance against AIDS.

However, opportunity presented itself in the form of instability that allowed these leaders to abuse their power.

However, ideology also serves to feed into the leader’s hubris and narcissism. While despots repress their citizens, they might also protect their population from external threats, recreate a sense of community, introduce law and order, and eliminate other forms of conflict. 17

The dependence of the community upon them feeds into their narcissism, and their ability to demonstrate their power through protection adds to hubris (Kets de Vries, 2006b). As a result, these narcissistic leaders’ protection creates a cycle of dependency. The language and employed by tyrannical leaders can also mask narcissistic leaders’ true intentions and self- serving behavior and tap into the expectations and of society. Soon after his ascent to power, Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe since 1980, appealed to the country’s white population not to flee. His Anglophilia coupled with public speeches and campaigns focused on

“unity” signaled a peaceful mission that masked his violent methods of suppressing the opposition and maintaining power (Godwin, 2011).

Although initially lauded in his homeland, Mugabe’s iron fist ultimately turned a once rich country into a basket case. Instead of being guided by the forces of generosity, restraint and , Mugabe became bitter and vindictive, not only towards the country’s white population but the segments of his black compatriots who held opposing views. In 2000, Mugabe encouraged militant supporters (many of them veterans of the civil war of the 1970s), with the help of armed gangs and officials from his Zimbabwe African National Union party, to occupy the country’s 5,000 white-owned commercial farms. Unable to find a more equitable way to distribute land based on the rule of law, he opted for violence. With the economy ruined and human rights commonplace, Zimbabwe’s citizens live in misery and fear.

Another important element of a leader’s power is their control over the country’s resources – perks that they believe are rightfully theirs. Absolute power is not often conducive to sound economic policies. Despotic leaders are notorious for poor economic management, which relies on the rule of law, transparency and an absence of corruption. Lacking the ability to compromise and bargain with a plethora of competing groups, they simply loot the nation’s 18 coffers. Recent reports suggest that almost $50 billion leaves Africa every year as illicit financial flows and stolen assets, almost twice as much as what it receives in official developmental assistance (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, UNECA, 2016), thus depriving the population of needed resources for development and even meeting basic human needs (Global

Financial Integrity, 2011; World Bank, 2011).

Despots subvert key state institutions (the civil service, judiciary, media, to name a few) to serve their own interests. The national infrastructure – telecommunications, roads, airports, bridges, schools, hospitals, and seaports – will begin to crumble as they award contracts to their cronies and family members. Countries run by dysfunctional leaders, where the leader and his henchmen have looted the treasury unashamedly, stashing their loot in foreign bank accounts, will be saddled with mountains of foreign debt. They deliberately undermine the development and effective functioning of the national statistics system, weaken the national policy platform, and perpetuate a state of poor numbers (Jerven, 2013).

A 2010 report from the US Senate Subcommittee on Investigations (USSI) details four instances where suspect funds were transferred to US professional and financial institutions for personal gain. The son of the President of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, is suspected of moving over $110 million into the US from 2004 to 2008. Purchases include high-end real estate in Malibu, California and a $38.5 million Gulfstream jet (USSI, 2010). Omar

Bongo, President of Gabon until his death in 2009, is suspected of transferring $100 million through US bank accounts (USSI, 2010). One of the wives of former Nigerian president,

Jennifer Douglas, is suspected of bringing in over $40 million into US bank accounts through offshore corporations. Ms. Douglas is also accused of accepting a $2 million bribe from Siemens

AG (USSI, 2010). Finally, Dr. Aguinaldo Jaime, a senior Angolan government official attempted 19 to transfer $50 million in government funds into a private account (USSI, 2010).

The examples above demonstrate the unfortunate reality of destructive leadership in

Africa. Time after time, narcissistic, power hungry, and charismatic men have gained control over susceptible followers by taking advantage of conducive environments (Padilla et al., 2007).

These despotic leaders have increased their control over time and led their people into the true mark of destructive leadership – decreased quality of life for followers. When despotic leaders attain power, an inner rot sets in. Any idealism that flourished when the regime first took power gradually seems to turn to . Those true believers who once fought for an ideal, later fight only for the perks that loyalty brings. The lure of such perks is strong; in a society built on favoritism, corruption becomes inevitable. And with the onset of corruption, the regime loses its most powerful sources of control: moral authority and political legitimacy.

Additionally, these leaders came of age in a political system that succeeded in terrorism and despotism. Their own methods of seizing and maintaining power may contribute to a cycle of despotism in Africa. Manipulating current situations in Africa may be a tool used by narcissists to gain power at any and all costs. Narcissistic leaders, those individuals who are self- centered and willing to pursue power and prestige at any cost, may have found fertile ground in the context of Africa (Kets de Vries, 2014). In leadership roles, leaders with good intentions may start out with the people’s best interests in mind, but may grow more paranoid at the earliest threat of , driven by fear of being ousted by other leaders. Even more worrisome, the unique context of Africa may facilitate the development of future generations of hubristic and narcissistic leaders.

Despotic, autocratic leaders are insensitive to the plight of the governed. Fearful of going against the regime, many in the educated classes adapt to the existing totalitarian government, 20 subsequently abandoning their consciences and principles to partake in the plunder and repression of the people. Others flee, leaving any opportunity for opposition substantially weakened. Even when close to death, despots seek to turn the regime into a family business, grooming sons, wives or other family members to succeed them. The very strong centralized civil government, an artifact from prior colonization, creates a system with little accountability to its constituents. (Dia, 1996; Kiggundu, 2013). Additionally, Africa’s history of colonization from

Western countries has created a system where modern institutions have been superimposed on informal and indigenous institutions, creating conflict that offers a wide opportunity for exploitation (Dia, 1996).

We note in passing that all the destructive leaders and dictators in Africa have been men.

With only two small states that have had female heads of state----Liberia and Malawi----Africa has not experienced destructive leadership or dictatorships perpetuated by women leaders. This provides virgin territory for the scholarly study, training and development of leadership in

Africa.

For the Greater Good: Transformational Leadership in Africa

“A large chair doesn’t make a king.” ~ Sudanese saying

Contrary to the narcissistic, power-abusing nature of destructive leaders, transformational leaders are those whose focus extends beyond immediate self-interest (Bass, 1985). These leaders motivate and inspire followers by providing a compelling vision of the future that emphasizes a greater good (Bass, 1985; 1999). Transformational leaders appeal to followers because they provide a sense of purpose - usually the attainment of a worthwhile common goal

(Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). In addition to these collective-focused elements, transformational leaders are known for their ability to connect to followers as individuals by 21 encouraging them to develop (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011).

More specifically, transformational leaders are argued to be the most active and effective because of behavior captured by four underlying dimensions – idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1999). Idealized influence, similar to charisma, attracts followers to leaders. These behaviors drive followers to respect the leader and make them respect and want to identify with the leader (Bass & Avolio,

1997). Inspirational motivation involves leaders behaving in ways that create for the articulated future vision by highlighting the positive features of the planned future state (Conger,

1989). Followers buy-in to transformational leaders’ visions because these leaders present the desired future in a manner that seems attainable (Bass & Riggio, 2006). For individuals, transformational leaders demonstrate intellectual stimulation by encouraging followers to challenge the status quo and look for new ways to approach problems (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Instead of telling followers what to do, transformational leaders push followers to think for themselves to develop novel solutions that will help deliver the desired future state. Finally, transformational leaders move their focus away from short term self-interest and towards long- term betterment of followers by demonstrating individualized consideration. More specifically, transformational leaders develop followers through coaching and mentoring (Avolio, Bass, &

Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985)

The contrast between destructive and transformational leadership is stark, as is the contrast between Robert Mugabe’s leadership (as well as other despotic leaders presented above) and that of Nelson Mandela. Mandela, former president of South Africa, offers a remarkable illustration of transformational leadership. Capturing the imagination of people the world over, his dignity, humility and courage are a role model for us all. Who can forget the sight of him on the balcony 22 of Cape Town’s city hall on February 11, 1990, arms outstretched, embracing the thousands of people eager to see him after his long imprisonment on Robben Island with the words “I greet you all in the name of peace, democracy and freedom for all.”? This sort of rhetoric is emblematic of idealized influence, and instantly endeared Mandela to followers in South Africa, as well as around the world.

In Clint Eastwood’s 2009 film Invictus (Latin for invincible or undefeated in Latin),

Mandela’s philosophy of leadership is brought to life. Based on John Carlin’s Playing the

Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game that Changed a Nation (2008), it examines the relationship between the South African president (played by Morgan Freeman) and François

Pienaar, captain of the Springboks, South Africa’s rugby team (played by Matt Damon). Bear in mind that even in the post-apartheid era, rugby was still considered the game of the white oppressor, and that the 1995 Rugby World Cup was hosted by South Africa when the political situation in the country was potentially explosive (Carlin, 2008). Many blacks, after enduring years of racial discrimination, were vengeful, while the white minority was anxious about the future of the country under black leadership (Carlin, 2008). Could the much-touted “rainbow nation” overcome the and violence of the past?

Mandela saw what could have been a divisive event as an opportunity for healing and progress. He recognized that rugby had a deeper meaning off the field, and that the World Cup had the potential to become a symbolic opportunity for reconciliation and forgiveness. Shortly before the competition began, Mandela invited Pienaar to his official residence for tea. He knew that the Springboks were expected to lose in the first rounds of the game, but he had other ideas

(Carlin, 2008). The meeting with Pienaar gave Mandela the opportunity to discuss leadership strategy—to explain how important it was to his vision of South Africa’s future to have the team 23 help heal the nation—and to ask Pienaar to inspire and lead the “underdogs” to victory. He later gave Pienaar a copy of the poem “Invictus” by William Ernest Henley, saying that it had helped him when the future looked very bleak (Carlin, 2008). It famously ends with the line: “I am the master of my fate/I am the captain of my soul.” Although the above depicts a one-on-one meeting, the spirit of the actions is indicative of inspirational motivation. Mandela sells Pienaar on his compelling future vision, and compels Pienaar to work with him to make it a reality.

It is important to understand that Mandela was reaching out to his former despite opposition from much of the African National Congress. For the president, the past was past; in building a new nation, the future was what mattered. He had come to realize that a life lived without forgiveness would put him (and others) in another kind of prison. Even though many thought Mandela was going too far, he was prepared to prove them wrong. He lectured his party members on the meaning of strength in forgiveness: “Forgiveness liberates the soul, it removes fear. That’s why it’s such a powerful weapon.” He made it clear that only this way would they be able to build a unified nation and create a shared future; the alternative was continued violence and chaos.

The image of Mandela striding onto the rugby field at Ellis Park Stadium wearing a

Springbok jersey to present the trophy to the team captain was a powerful symbol of reconciliation, restoring dignity to the black majority while reassuring white South Africans that they need not fear . By emphasizing forgiveness, Mandela became the most admired and revered political leader in the world. In forgiving, he showed how different he was. He demonstrated to the world that it took more courage and more humanity to forgive than to take revenge. His was a profound lesson in leadership.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, 24 also provided an opportunity for forgiveness and reconciliation. The Commission, established in

1994, investigated state-sanctioned crime and other human rights violations during the time of apartheid (TRC, 2016). Hailed as an innovative method for establishing peace and following many years of human rights violations, the TRC represented a clear departure from the

Nuremberg Trials. Unlike the one-sided and condemnatory Nuremburg Trials that occurred after

World War II, the TRC focused on openness and its operations were transparent, holding public hearings that fostered awareness of the atrocities committed by both sides in South Africa’s history of apartheid (TRC, 2016). Victims on both sides were allowed to speak of their experiences, and perpetrators of violence and hate were allowed to publicly address their actions and ask for amnesty. Under the leadership of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the TRC was able to facilitate South Africa’s transformation from its troubled past to a more hopeful future (TRC,

2016).

Leadership in Africa: Recovering from the Past and Facing the Future

“The only people who can fix Africa are talented young Africans. By unlocking and nurturing their creative potential, we can create a step change in Africa's future.” ~ Neil Turok

For leadership researchers, Africa presents a dynamic context for further study. Leadership research has the potential to respond to two important questions that impact the development of

Africa and its leaders. The first question is how do we get more Mandelas and fewer Mugabes?

The second question is, when we encounter “Mugabes,” as we inevitably will, how do we move forward productively, perhaps even enough to change them?

Not surprisingly, there is a large contingent of people who will look at Mandela of an example of “natural” leadership. Given what he accomplished, especially after what he endured, it is easy to fall into the trap that assumes leaders like Mandela, and perhaps all truly 25 transformational leaders, simply are born. Even some of the most respected management scholars have noted that it is difficult to view Mandela as anything other than someone who entered this world with an ability to lead that few others have. However, decades or leadership research, and even a review of Mandela’s own life, suggest otherwise (Barling, 2013).

The introduction to this section is not to suggest that Mandela’s leadership development and emergence was not at all impacted by genetics. Research on the links between personality and transformational leadership indicate that our traits do impact leadership emergence and effectiveness (Judge & Bono, 2000). Further, a study of identical twins reared apart indicated that genetic factors predicted leadership emergence directly, and through personality (Arvey,

Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006). Similarly, Johnson and colleagues used a sample of twins to isolate the effects of genetics on transformational leadership behaviors, and found that each of the four categories of transformational leadership behaviors (i.e., idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) were, to an extent, heritable. Thus, it is likely that Mandela did possess some innate leadership tendencies.

However, the studies above also indicate that genetics (i.e., “nature”) are not the sole explanation for leadership. Mandela, like other “world class” leaders, was shaped by early childhood influences, including adversity, as well as family and non-family influences. That is to say that Mandella’s leadership also likely was a product of his environment (i.e., “nurture”).

More specifically, Mandela enjoyed relative privilege. For example, after his father’s death, he became a ward of the Regent of Thembu, and was able to attend elite schools (Barling, 2013), and later Fort Hare University. These were considered extraordinary opportunities for a rural black child in South Africa, and they no doubt shaped much of his worldview and approach to leadership, perhaps even more so than any genetic gifts. In fact, Fort Hare should be considered 26 especially foundational to Mandela’s leadership emergence, as it also was home to other future

African leaders, including Kenneth Kaunda (Zambia), Yusuf Lule (Uganda), Julius Nyerere

(Tanzania), as well as Robert Mugabe. Thus, as Barling (2013) noted, Mandela spent some of his most impressionable years at a particularly dynamic place. Thus, it is likely that being born to relatively affluent parents, overcoming the death of his father at an early age (Mandela was 10), and interacting with other influential individuals all played a significant role in Mandela’s development as a leader.

The lesson here is that, as remarkable as Mandela was, his exposure to people and environments mattered a great deal. One of Mandela’s early work positions was as a clerk for the law firm Witkin, Sidelsky, and Eidelman in Johannesburg. This early exposure to the law and the court system presented Mandela with the idea that the legal justice system could function as a space where conflicts could be deliberated and potentially resolved (Boehmer, 2008). It was during this formative time in his early adult life that Mandela began to gain exposure to the

ANC, regularly attending meetings with fellow radicals (Boehmer, 2008). Additionally,

Mandela’s political awareness and growing support of the anti-apartheid movement can be traced to the daily transgressions he witnessed on Johannesburg’s streets (Boehmer, 2008). However, it is impossible to ignore the overlap of Mandela and Mugabe’s developmental experiences, which makes it important to explore the darker qualities (e.g., hubris and narcissism) that might help explain their differences as leaders.

As stressed earlier, a certain degree of narcissistic behavior is essential for a leader to succeed. In many cases, narcissism can be a source of strength. A moderate dose of grandiosity transformed into self-confidence and expressed in the ability to identify with others will contribute to effective leadership. The confidence and of narcissistic leaders can inspire their 27 followers (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). The strong visions of narcissistic leaders can unite opposing groups, instigate dramatic actions, and impose new and innovative strategies

(Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). In such instances, the excitement generated by the narcissistic leader can have a positive impact. The self-confidence and purposefulness that the leader radiates can be contagious. It may foster goal-directedness, group cohesion, and alertness to internal and external dangers. Conversely, an excessive dose of these strengths can lead to psychological impairment and destructiveness.

At what point constructive forces turn into destructive ones depends on the context. The impact of narcissistic leaders is not only dependent on their individual characteristics but also on the environments in which they operate (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). In the African context, far too often – and too soon – the shadow side of narcissistic leadership raises its ugly head, and leaders resort to political expediency at the cost of long-term goals. Actions originally interpreted as bold and imaginative are gradually exposed for what they really are: pure short-term . In extreme cases, the inability to accept others’ ideas, the tendency toward self- righteousness, lack of problem-solving, intolerance of criticism and inability to compromise may endanger the country, dragging it into a downward spiral. Pushed by the forces of excessive narcissism, they disregard their people’s legitimate needs and instead take advantage of their loyalty. They behave callously, offering deprecation rather than support. Overly competitive, they allow envy to color their behavior. Caught in the web of hubris, their behavior creates submissiveness and passive dependency, thus stifling any sense of reality.

Dysfunctional leadership becomes even more attractive in times of crisis when anxiety and confusion make people more susceptible to regression. In the midst of the chaos, such leaders give in to their emotional impressions. Adept at simplification and dramatization, they 28 present themselves as merchants of hope, offering “salvation” in many different forms. And their people are more than willing to accept the proffered images of the knight in shining armor. In their desperation, they readily accept the Faustian bargain without a thought for the high price that eventually has to be paid.

Unfortunately, few despotic leaders are ever held accountable for their evil acts (Kets de

Vries, 2006b). The tragic paradox of history is that those individuals who murder one person are more likely to be brought to justice than those who plot the genocide of millions. Despots who commit crimes against humanity far too often go into quiet retirement instead of being brought to justice (Baker, 2004). In an article exploring the statuses of six former African tyrants, Baker

(2004) concludes that despite the involvement of foreign governing bodies and increased media attention, little has been done to punish or hold African dictators accountable for their reigns of terror.

On a global scale, this situation is changing. Since the milestone International Military

Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946, where war crimes and crimes against humanity were prosecuted, despots are finding it increasingly difficult to stay unnoticed (Kets de Vries, 2006b). Coupled with the subsequent tribunal in Tokyo (which reviewed war crimes committed by the high command of the Japanese Imperial Army), a precedent was established for holding the leader of a country responsible for crimes committed by that country (Kets de Vries, 2006b).

In the present, the United Nations has taken a more active position against despots. After the atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Security Council established two specialized ad-hoc tribunals (Kets de Vries, 2006b). The first, the International Criminal

Tribunal set up in The Hague, began by bringing to justice the instigators of crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia, seeking to convict a number of key players, notably Slobodan 29

Milošević (Kets de Vries, 2006b). Similar steps were taken to bring to justice the people responsible for the genocide in Rwanda. The second International Criminal Tribunal, convened in Arusha, sentenced Jean Kambanda, former prime minister of Rwanda, to life imprisonment

(the harshest penalty available) for supporting and promoting the massacre of some 800,000

Tutsi when the Hutu briefly held power (Hague Justice Portal, 2016; Kets de Vries, 2006b).

The successes of its ad-hoc tribunals have led to the establishment of an independent

International Criminal Court (ICC), a permanent international judicial body especially set up to try individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (ICC, 2016). This body became official in 2002, when the so-called Rome Statute received adequate ratification. The

ICC has a much wider jurisdiction than the earlier tribunals. But this international court was set up to complement existing national judicial systems, stepping in only if national courts were unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute the crimes falling under the mandate of the ICC

(ICC, 2016). The ICC makes international standards of conduct more specific, provides an important mechanism for implementation of these standards, and ensures that potential violators are brought to justice.

The existence of the ICC is a warning to despots everywhere that the world is changing and there is nowhere to hide. Such indictments are a signal by and to the world community that nobody stands above the law. Furthermore, many politicians and military strategists have noted that if the UN (helped by this court) had taken greater preventive action in hot spots around the world, considerable violence could have been avoided, millions of lives could have been saved, and many countries could have avoided political and economic ruin (Kets de Vries, 2006b).

While the ICC may be one the few pathways to prosecuting past atrocities and a reasonable deterrent to preventing future outrages, the ICC is not without controversy. While the 30

Rome Statute has been ratified by 111 states, it is not universally accepted. Notably, both the

United States of America and Israel have “unsigned” the Rome Statute (Chatham House, 2010).

Many African countries are also rethinking their involvement in the ICC. African states played a significant role in ensuring that the negotiations of the Rome Statute were successful (Chatham

House, 2015). African states were the very first to ratify the Rome Statute, with Senegal being the very first state (Chatham House, 2010). In 2010, all of the current situations being investigated by the ICC occurred in African countries, leading critics to suggest that African states are being unfairly targeted and singled out by the ICC. Member countries of the African

Union have pointed out that while the Security Council has referred the situation in Darfur to the

ICC for review, other equally heinous situations including Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Gaza, etc. have been passed over (Chatham House, 2010).

Increased media attention and greater awareness have contributed to a greater preparedness on the part of the UN and the world community generally to deal with situations of despotic leadership (Kets de Vries, 2006b). Although media has commonly been a tool wielded by narcissistic leaders to enhance their own power and control their populations, the Internet coupled with social media has become an important instrument for protesters and revolutionaries. In the Arab Spring uprising that swept through North Africa and the Middle

East, social media was found to play a central role in conveying messages and stories of the struggle for democracy (O’Donnell, 2011). Social media can be used to bear witness to atrocities, capturing and sharing images of war, famine, and other human rights abuses. Difficult to control, today’s media exposure has made the world community today less tolerant of leaders and regimes that engage in civil war, mass murder, ideological intolerance and murderous repression. The mass media has played a huge role in that shift, awakening the conscience of the 31 world. In this day and age, atrocities are difficult to hide. Visual awareness of human atrocities, projected by television, computer monitors, and smartphone screens, has helped many of the world’s key decision-makers – always attuned to the pressure of their citizens – to recognize the exponential costs in human suffering of standing by as mere spectators. In such situations, preventive action is a bargain, in cost-benefit terms, compared to an after-the-fact salvage operation.

Given the high costs that come with autocratic, despotic leadership, it is commonly thought that the only way to get rid of narcissistic leaders is through outside intervention. While force may be the tool most often employed to change such regimes, leadership research may hold the key to enact change within African countries. The first way in which leadership research can help Africa is by allowing its people to recognize the signs of a narcissistic leader.

Understanding the behaviors and actions of narcissistic and hubristic tyrants can provide watch dog groups and opposition parties the warning signs necessary to prevent tyrants from coming into power. Recognizing a potential problem before one arises, thus preventing their reign, may be the most effective tool.

Additionally, a better understanding of narcissistic and hubristic leaders in Africa can aid populations in understanding the toll that despotic and tyrannical leaders extract from society.

Common to the stories of many African dictators is the physical, emotional, and financial pillaging of its institutions and people. Africa is a source of great riches and plentiful resources, but mismanagement and outright theft have left many national governments destitute. Thus, understanding the potential negative impact of these leaders, combined with the ability to spot them before they ascend and/or create despotic control, is critical to positive development in

Africa. 32

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, leadership research also can help African countries begin to educate and develop their young leadership base. Training the next generation of politicians, statesmen, academics, administrators, entrepreneurs and other individuals crucial to the development of African countries is critical. Additionally, understanding how leadership can transform the vision and mission of countries can help governments re-instill pride, cultural understanding, and peace between nations. The African Union and other organizations working to shape a peaceful and prosperous future for Africa’s many stakeholders can benefit from the lessons learned from studying both transformation and destructive leadership. Research has shown that transformational leadership training is possible (Barling, 2013). This, giving future leaders the tools to enact change can only help the future Africa’s journey to a peaceful and prosperous future.

Leadership scholars also have much to learn from the unique context of Africa. Africa represents a vibrant economy with increased spending, and Africa is drawing increased attention from firms all over the world (Zoogah, Peng, and Woldu, 2015). Many different economic sectors are ripe with opportunity, from agriculture, retail, banking, and telecommunications

(Zoogah, et al., 2015). Seven of the world’s top 20 fastest growing economies in the next five years will be in Africa (Zoogah, et al., 2015). Africa’s unique and diverse cultures provide an opportunity for management scholars to test their theories in a unique and interesting context.

Africa, with its explosive growth and nascent entrepreneurial ventures, also provides an opportunity for researchers to explore the limits and boundary conditions of our theories in management and entrepreneurship. This calls for the establishment of national or regional leadership academies for advancing African leadership studies (Jallow, 2013) and leadership 33 training and development (Kiggundu, 2013), so as to overcome the current leadership deficit

(Rotberg, 2013), and improve the stock of development leaders.

Conclusion

Africa’s history provides an excellent view of the pitfalls of narcissistic and despotic leadership, and demonstrates the difficult task of resisting the siren song of narcissism and hubris. The examples of African leaders who got caught in its web should be seen as cautionary tales, reminding us that every nation needs checks and balances against the abuse of power.

Without these safeguards, any leader, no matter how enlightened, can descend into despotic rule.

However, Africa also provides an example of the power of transformational leadership, and the positive change it can drive. Thus, in addition to keeping a watchful and protective eye, the history of Africa shows us the importance of intentional development of future leaders.

34

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, D., Robinson, J. A., & Woren, D. 2012. Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. (Vol. 4). New York: Crown Business.

American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders, DSM-IV. Washington: American Psychiatric Association.

Arendt, H. 1969. On violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Arvey, R. D., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy: Genetic and personality factors. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 1- 20.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. 1999. Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4): 441–462.

Baker, B. 2004. Twilight of impunity for Africa’s presidentail criminals. Third World Quarterly, 25(8): 1487-1499.

Ball, H. 2013. Omar Hassan Al-Bashir. In A. Mikaberidze (Ed.), Atrocities, massacres, and war crimes: An encyclopedia: 57-59. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Barling, J. 2013. The science of leadership: Lessons from research for organizational leaders. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1): 9–32.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1997. Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. 2006. Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Beyer, J. M. 1999. Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 307-330.

Boehmer, E. 2008. Nelson Mandela. Toronto: Sterling Publishing, Inc.

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S.M., & Marchisio, G. 2011. Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4): 268–284.

35

Carlin, J. 2008. Playing the : Nelson Mandela and the game that made a nation. New York: Penguin.

Chatham House. 2010. Beyond the ICC: The role of domestic courts in prosecuting international crimes committed in Africa. Retrieved from https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/109362

Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2007. It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351-386.

Conger, J. A. 1989. The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A. 1990. The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2): 44-55.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52.

Dia, M. 1996. Africa's management in the 1990s and beyond: Reconciling indigenous and transplanted institutions. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

Exline, J., Baumeister, R., Bushman, B., Campbell, W., & Finkel, E. 2004. Too proud to let go: Narcissistic entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6): 894–912.

Global Financial Integrity. 2011. Illicit financial flows from Africa: Hidden resource for development.

Godwin, P. 2011. The fear: Robert Mugabe and the martyrdom of Zimbabwe, New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Hague Justice Portal. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/?id=2

Hayward, M. L., & Hambrick, D. C. 1997. Explaining the premium paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103-127.

ICC. 2016. International Criminal Court: About the Court. Retrieved from https://www.icc- cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/Pages/about%20the%20court.aspx

Jacobs, S. L. 2013. Bokassa. In A. Mikaberidze (Ed.), Atrocities, massacres, and war crimes: An encyclopedia: 70-71. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

36

Jallow, B.G. (ed.) 2013. Leadership in colonial Africa: Disruption of traditional frameworks and patterns. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jerven, M. 2013. Poor numbers: How we are misled by African development statistics and what to do about it. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Johnson, A. M., Vernon, P. A., McCarthy, J. M., Molson, M., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (1998). Nature vs nurture: Are leaders born or made? A behavior genetic investigation of leadership style. Twin research, 1(04), 216-223.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751.

Judge, T.A., LePine, J., & Rich, B. 2006. Loving yourself abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to self- and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 762–776.

Kernberg, O. 1975. Borderline Conditions and Patholigical Naricissism. New York: Aronson.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2001. The leadership mystique: An owner’s manual. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2006a. The leadership mystique: Leading behavior in the human enterprise. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2006b. The spirit of despotism: Understanding the tyrant within. Human Relations, 59(2): 195–220.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2014. Coaching the . Harvard Business Review, 92(4): 100- 109.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). Neurotic style and organizational pathology. Strategic Management Journal, 5(1), 35-55.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Perzow, S. 1991. Handbook of character studies. New York: International University Press.

Kiggundu, M. N. 2013. Personal reflections on public administration and development management in Africa: 1961-2016. Chapter VI (pp 75-96). In de Vries M and Bouckaert (eds).Training for Leadership. Brussels: Bruylant

Kohut, H. 1966. Forms and transformations of narcissism. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 14(2), 243-272.

Kohut, H. 1971. The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.

37

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. 1985. The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78-102.

Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Teodoro. 2008. In K. A. Appiah & L. Gates Jr. (Eds.), Africana: The encyclopedia of the African and African American experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordaasc.com/article/opr/t0002/e2980

O’Connor, J., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. L., & Connelly, M. S. 1995. Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: An historiometric study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4): 529–555.

O’Donnell, C. 2011. New study quantifies use of social media in Arab Spring. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/news/2011/09/12/new-study-quantifies-use-of-social-media-in-arab- spring/

Meredith, M. 2007. The fate of Africa: A history of fifty years of independence. New York: PublicAffairs. Morello, J. 2013. Congo, Democratic Republic of. In A. Mikaberidze (Ed.), Atrocities, massacres, and war crimes: An encyclopedia: 117-119. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. 2007. The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3): 176–194.

Paunonen, S. V., Lönnqvist, J. E., Verkasalo, M., Leikas, S., & Nissinen, V. 2006. Narcissism and emergent leadership in military cadets. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(5), 475-486.

Rodriguez, R. 2013. Death squads. In A. Mikaberidze (Ed.), Atrocities, massacres, and war crimes: An encyclopedia: 140-143. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. 2006. Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 617–633.

Rotberg, R.I. 2013. Africa emerges: Consummate challenges, abundant opportunities. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Sibongile Dlamini, B. 2008. Mswati III. In L. Gates Jr. & E. K. Akyeampong (Eds.), Dictionary of African biography. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordaasc.com/article/opr/t338/e1411

Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. 2002. The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 343-377.

38

Touré, Ahmed Sékou. 2006. In N. Brockman (Ed.), An African biographical dictionary. Amenia, NY: Grey House Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.libproxy.wvu.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/ghabd/to ur%C3%A9_ahmed_s%C3%A9kou/0

Truth and Reconciliation Commission, South Africa (TRC). 2016. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/topic/Truth-and-Reconciliation-Commission- South-Africa

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, (UNECA). 2016. Background: Illicit Financial Flows. Retrieved from http://www.uneca.org/pages/iff-background

USSI. 2010. Keeping foreign corruption out of the United States: Four case histories. Retrieved from http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/report-psi-staff-report-keeping-foreign- corruption-out-of-the-united-states-four-case-histories

Watts, T. J. 2013. Uganda. In A. Mikaberidze (Ed.), Atrocities, massacres, and war crimes: An encyclopedia: 661-663. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Williams, P. D. 2013. War and conflict in Africa. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

World Bank. 2011. The puppet masters: How the corrupt use legal structures to hide stolen assets and what to do about it. Washington DC.

Young, E. 2008. Biya, Paul. In K. A. Appiah & L. Gates Jr. (Eds.), Africana: The encyclopedia of the African and African American experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordaasc.com/article/opr/t0002/e0515

Zaleznik, A., & Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 1985. Power and the corporate mind. Chicago: Bonus Books. Zoogah, D. B., Peng, M. W., & Woldu, H. 2015. Institutions, resources, and organizational effectiveness in Africa. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 7-31.