After the young chief executive had considered the list carefully he asked: ‘The role of strategic leader calls for a higher intellectual capability, doesn’t it?’
‘Yes, but it’s not exactly “brainy leadership” (as T E Lawrence once called it) that’s needed. More what the ancient Greeks called phronesis, which was translated into Latin as prudentia and thus into English as prudence, a word that has acquired certain overtones not present in the Greek original. A better and more commonly used equivalent to phronesis is the phrase practical wisdom.
‘Wisdom actually comes from the old Anglo-Saxon word for a leader, one who knows the way. Put at its simplest, wisdom is a blend of intelligence, experience and goodness. All those elements are required in one who is at the helm of an organization, especially in the turbulent seas of change. For, as the Roman poet Lucanus said, “Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm”.
‘The Athenians held up several of their great leaders as exemplars of practical wisdom, notably Pericles, who led them in the long Peloponnesian War against Sparta, “like the helmsman of a ship who,” writes Plutarch, “when a storm sweeps down upon it in the open sea, makes everything fast, takes in sail and relies on his own skill and takes no notice of the tears and entreaties of the seasick and terrified passengers.”
‘As for Thermistocles, he too had the power to reach the right conclusions when there wasn’t much time for debate and he possessed foresight. He was particularly remarkable at looking into the future, Thucydides tells us, and seeing there the hidden possibilities for good or evil. To sum him up in a few words, it may be said that through force of natural genius and by rapidity of action this man was supreme at doing precisely the right thing at precisely the right moment.’
Transcendent Common Sense Is The Rare
Power of Seeing Things As They Are
Which Signifies Genius.
It Is The Ability To Draw Right
Conclusions And To Take Correct ActionJ W Fortescue, writing on Wellington
‘I can understand why intelligence and experience are constituent elements, but why have you included goodness?’ asked the young chief executive.
‘Could we ever apply the term “wise” to someone who is not good? Greek philosophers in the school of Socrates saw conduct – personal or corporate – as a matter of choice. For them, choice necessarily involves not only intellect and thought but a certain moral state or character. It’s the combination of the two that spelt phronesis, practical wisdom, which is why Aristotle numbers it among the four cardinal virtues, along with justice, temperance and fortitude.’
‘But what’s the connection with leadership?’ he persisted. ‘I can grasp phronesis as knowledge (intelligence and experience) applied to practical affairs, by which a person might know what to do or what not to do. I can see too that a quality of mind and temper is also implied: self-control, a lack of rashness as well as the ability to focus the mind on a problem before acting. Acumen, foresight, resourcefulness, circumspection, diligence in execution – being “on the ball” – yes, I can see that they are all necessary for right thinking and right action. I suppose you can break down what we call decision-making into three phrases:
- Deliberation – courses open; probable and possible outcomes.
- Decision – making the choice.
- Action – acting on what is decided.
‘In the deliberation phase I can see that a degree of phronesis is absolutely essential, and that a chief executive should be expected to possess it. But I still don’t see where goodness comes into the equation. Integrity, yes, but why goodness?’
‘Aristotle instances Pericles and others like him as demonstrating the nature of practical wisdom because they can envisage what is good for themselves and for people in general. He adds that this quality belongs to those who understand the management of estates – forerunners of our modern industries and businesses – as well as political states.’
‘So if a leader is not a moral person, their vision of what constitutes the good of their state or organization will lack a moral component?’
‘Yes, Socrates taught that all leaders needed a vision of leaving their organization or city in a better state than that in which they found it. He questioned Xenophon, for example, to establish that he had a clear idea as to how he could improve the Athenian cavalry – better horses, more training, improved leadership and so on. Good in this context is clearly a holistic term, as are its related words better and excellent. But alongside the technical and material elements there is also a moral ingredient. Admittedly the Greeks had two different words for good – kalos (technical, proficient skills) and agathos (morally good) – but they tended to see them as two sides of the same coin.’
‘So phronesis is a moral virtue for the Greeks because it enables you to identify what is the true good for yourself and others. In modern organizational terms, it means – well, let me put it personally – if my aim is to see my company in a better state than it is now when I move on in, say, four or five years time, I need to have a holistic idea of what better means. Customer service, high standards of integrity and fair dealing, quality of products and services, finance and administration, the corporate spirit or morale of the company – all these may be ingredients of the vision.’
‘Yes, so goodness isn’t a separate entity: it’s the wholeness of the whole, as invisible but as real as health.’
‘You certainly know about health when you lose it,’ reflected the young chief executive. ‘I suppose that often it is only when a community or an organization loses its moral sense that it heads for disaster. By then it may be too late. The ship may be on the rocks and beginning to disintegrate.’
‘True, and prevention is better than cure. The wise helmsman does not endanger his ship by ignoring the guiding moral stars in the firmament. It might be useful to think of three or four wise people you know. What are their characteristics?’
The young chief executive mentioned two or three names of people he considered wise, and began to talk about their characteristics. Old habits die hard and so I stood up and began to capture some of the qualities he mentioned on the flip charts, adding some more of my own as I, too, considered those whom I thought to be wise:
- exceptional understanding;
- seeing things from a larger perspective;
- understanding himself or herself;
- thinking for himself or herself;
- seeing the essence of a situation;
- grasping how various aspects of reality are related;
- sound, executable judgement;
- experience-based pragmatic knowledge;
- a clear idea of where the obstacles are;
- ability to assume contradictory points of view;
- width, height and depth;
- having a rich life experience;
- bringing clarity and form to experience;
- helping others in time of trouble;
- working with a person’s natural focus of attention;
- being a good, sensitive counsellor;
- thoughtful, fair, not afraid to admit mistakes;
- acting within the limits of his or her knowledge;
- being comfortable with ambiguity;
- willing to profit and learn from experience;
- seeking the ultimate consequences of events;
- having moral and spiritual integrity;
- having an excellent character;
- searching for a way of life;
- reading between the lines;
- having an authoritative presence.
‘Those 26 attributes – by no means exhaustive – of the people we consider to be wise in effect map the concept of wisdom or, more broadly, what we think a wise person ought to be. All I can add is to suggest tentatively that those attributes fall roughly into the categories that I have called intelligence, experience and goodness. It’s always easier to remember three things than a long list.’
‘It’s more than just a memory aid, isn’t it?’ said the young chief executive. ‘It’s about trying to reduce complex things to their simple parts, teaching oneself to look for the essentials in a situation, the elements hidden under appearance. Isn’t that necessary if I am going to be any good as a strategic thinker?’
‘You are beginning to sound like a Greek philosopher,’ I laughed. ‘The concept of an element is a Greek discovery. Aristotle defined it as that which cannot be resolved into anything simpler, such as the irreducibly simple part of a compound or complex whole. The Greeks believed the physical universe was composed of only four elements: air, water, fire and earth. It took us about 2,500 years to establish that there are in fact more than 100 fundamental substances or elements to which matter can be resolved.’
‘That begins to sound quite complex,’ commented the young chief executive.
‘It certainly does to me as a non-chemist, but in the late 19th century a brilliant chemist developed what we call the Periodic System. Classifying the elements according to their atomic weight, he was able to group them into four clusters or families. It’s another good example of the power of the human mind to reduce complexity into a simpler form.’