We have argued in this chapter that leadership models developed from American research may not be effective in other contexts, even other western contexts such as Europe, and certainly not in Asia and Africa. Here we go further to consider whether integration of leadership concepts from elsewhere may in fact improve current leadership models. We draw on Bertsch’s (2012) work on the African philosophy of Ubuntu and his application of this to American leadership models to explore this in some detail.

Our (widely adopted) definition of leadership centred on influencing people towards organisational ends. Globalisation and growing international operations have increased both the need to lead and influence across national and cultural boundaries and the recognition that what works in one country may not work in another. Yet multinational corporations have been slow to recognise this despite a substantial evidence base of the role of national context on leadership. Bertsch illustrates this through comparing the African philosophy of Ubuntu with heroic leadership models. Despite much criticism, these models of heroic leadership, centred on influencing, motivating and empowering, dominate American leadership thinking and Bertsch demonstrates that Americans tend to prefer charismatic and participative leadership styles. Ubuntu, however, is a philosophy of humaneness that rejects this notion of influence.

Bertsch defines Ubuntu as humaneness and explains it thus: ‘a person is a person because of other persons [and requires] the capacity to express compassion, reciprocity, dignity, humanity, and mutuality in the interest of building and maintaining communities with justice and mutual caring’ (Bertsch 2012: 83). A person can only then function effectively as a human (and leader) when they acknowledge and appreciate the roles played by others. The five key elements of this philosophy comprise: survival; solidarity with others (missing in individual-centric American approaches); compassion; respect; and dignity. Bertsch argues that words such as harmony, connectedness, compassion, respect, human dignity and unity describe Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is thus at odds with American heroic leadership styles: it emphasises participation and agreement in decision making and presents a mechanism to ensure that decisions are ethical and that colleagues treat each other in appropriate ways. This arises from the fact that individuals are interconnected and must respect each other. Indeed, within this philosophy the ego and self-centredness often associated with heroic leaders is detrimental to good leadership. Leaders should be available and supportive of subordinates: a leadership position can only be retained if leaders act with civility, trust and respect and put the team’s interests above their own.

Self-awareness and self-assurance are essential. Leaders must promote the work and contribution of the team, which is again contrary to heroic leaders who seek recognition and glory.

Bertsch uses his analysis to argue that traits such as self-sacrificial, sincere, trustworthy, honest, group-focused and non-elitist are missing in contemporary American leadership practices. Further, that a move towards encouragement, compassion, solidarity would substantially alter these leadership practices and could address the ethical dilemmas facing many Americanbased corporations.

Questions

1. Do you agree that many of the aspects associated with Ubuntu are missing from heroic leadership models?

2. What similarities can you see between Ubuntu and emerging leadership models such as servant-leadership and authentic and ethical leadership models?

3. To what extent do you agree that the Ubuntu philosophy could improve American leadership models?