Select Page

This week, we discussed about if a leader should be reactive or proactive. A lot of people prefer proactive leadership, saying that because it means leaders plan ahead and shows that leaders have a vision of the future. It is the idea of “wining at the starting point”. It might also bring innovations to the organization. A proactive vision is a principle of an effective leader.

Reactive leadership means that leaders’ actions are depend on the situation and the society. It is a way to be more aware of what is happening before making any decision. In my opinion, in terms of internal organization of a group, a leader is always reactive. This is a practice of democracy. In a democratic system, a leader is a reflection of the need from the society. People choose a leader because they can see their hope to be fulfilled under her leadership. A leader is not the creator of the rising tide, but she is pushed by the tide. And the tide is a composition of people. In this case, the decision a leader make should be always a respond to the member’s need.

On the other hand, the desire for a leader to be proactive encourages the idea of elitism. Expecting a leader to be proactive shows the desire for a savior and a guidance. A leader thus become a distinctive figure from the mass. Which is the idea of “expert leadership”, from Robert Michels. Leader is a figure that lead the group. The expert leadership means the ability of initiative and decision-making. This tied with an idea of elitism. She becomes independent of the control of people. At the same time, she has more responsibility individually taken by herself. If there is anything wrong, it becomes her fault because it is her decision not a decision made by the majority. I feel like the powerlessness from both sides that the people have no control over policies under this concept of leadership, and the leader is helpless when she stands on this position, because she has a responsibility to be a savior as well as a decision-maker.

Therefore, in my opinion and with Michels’s idea, in order to practice real democracy, instead of being considered as a hero, the leader should be considered as no more than an servant of the collective will. And her action is based on the reaction of the organization as a whole.

Note: I emphasize that it is a suggestion of internally organization. It is different from negotiating with other organization or resolving conflict.