Strong leadership vs weak leadership

During this campaign season, politicians have been accusing each other of being weak leaders without truly understanding the real difference between the qualities of strong leadership and weak leadership. The potential voters unfortunately also do not understand the real difference between strong leaders versus weak leaders. In fact, there is also misunderstanding about the difference between a strong leader and an authoritarian leader.

Leadership is a very critical element in running an organization and it is especially true in running a country. Strong leadership leads to growth and motivation. Weak leadership leads to confusion and stagnation.

As we head to Election Day, we must understand the key differences between the qualities of a strong leader and those of a weak leader.

In this column, I will enumerate the qualities that will differentiate strong leaders from weak leaders.

Vision and purpose. A strong leader has a clear vision and a well-defined purpose, commonly contained in a program. The leader understands long-term objectives and seeks to inspire others by setting meaningful goals and show a clear path on how to achieve these goals. He/she instills confidence by demonstrating unwavering commitment to this mission.

Weak leaders do not have a clear vision and struggle to set long-term goals. They operate on short-term goals and usually have winning an election as their only goal. A clear example is a well-known television entertainer who was asked in a news program what his program would be. His answer was that he had no program yet because he had not yet won. The tragedy is that this entertainer is included as a potential winner in most surveys.

Decision-making ability. Strong leaders are decisive and capable of making informed, strategic decisions. They can analyze situations carefully, consider the potential risks and rewards and make choices with confidence. They take responsibility for their decisions and learn from both their successes and failures.

Weak leaders struggle with decision-making and avoid making tough choices. They rely heavily on others to make decisions for them or change their positions according to what is popular, which leads to inconsistency.

There are senators who have kept silent on issues because they do not even know the meaning of the term analysis. Although they are known for their silence when it comes to discussing even major issues in the public arena, they rely on personality and the ability to speak well as substitutes.

Communication skills. Effective communication is a hallmark of strong leadership. Strong leaders articulate their expectations clearly and they foster transparency. During her presidential campaign, Corazon Aquino was threatened with a bullet if she did not stop criticizing her opponent. Her answer was short and very clear: “Sabi nila, isang bala lang ako. Ang sagot ko, ‘Isang balota ka lang.’”

Weak leaders struggle with communication, often giving vague instructions. They fail to listen actively and avoid difficult conversations. Instead, they resort again to entertaining people, rather than enlightening people.

Integrity and accountability. Strong leaders lead with integrity, setting high ethical standards for themselves. They take accountability for their actions and decisions. They build trust by being honest, reliable and fair. This is an extremely rare quality in the world of politics.

In history, Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership in India’s independence movement was rooted in moral integrity and nonviolent resistance.

Leading by example. This is the most evident quality of strong leaders. They practice what they preach and set a high standard for their team. They embody the values they expect from others and earn respect and credibility through their actions.

Weak leaders fail to lead by example and often expect more from their followers than they are willing to do themselves. Their hypocrisy leads to lack of motivation among people. The Philippine National Police (PNP) is supposed to enforce the law and yet, some of their senior officials are guilty of breaking the law.

A recent example was when a senior PNP official violated the ban on ordinary vehicles’ use of the lane exclusively for buses. Until the date of this writing, the PNP has refused to publicize the name of that top PNP official who violated the rule with the lame excuse that he was headed to an emergency meeting.

A clear example of a person who has led by example is Leni Robredo, with the photograph of her wading through floodwaters to personally rescue stranded families during a typhoon in Naga.

The potential voter must also see the difference between strong leadership and authoritarian leadership. Strong leadership fosters trust, collaboration and inspiration. Authoritarian leadership relies on fear, control and rigid hierarchy. Authoritarian leaders demand strict obedience and do not tolerate dissent.

Strong leaders empower their subordinates while authoritarian leaders prefer to centralize power and make all major decisions themselves. Strong leaders rely on motivation and inspiration while authoritarian leaders use fear, punishment and strict discipline to maintain order. Authoritarian leaders do not encourage dialogue and strongly resent opposing views.

In history, the clearest example of an authoritarian leader was Adolf Hitler. For me, the best example of a strong leader was Ninoy Aquino, who had the vision for the Filipino people, was a great communicator, was imprisoned for his principles for several years and had the courage to return to the Philippines because he strongly believed that the Filipino was worth dying for.

In this election, we must vote for strong leaders.