What kind of Indonesian leader do you want?

By Yani Prasatya

JAKARTA (JP): Many polls have been conducted to predict who the upcoming leader of this nation will be through the elections. But seldom is the question asked: what makes a good leader?

We have heard the presidential candidates sharing their vision. But is that enough? Do you remember what Soeharto promised in his first speech in 1967? He promised us democracy while condemning the centralized-absolute power. Look what he actually did afterwards.

It seems that "walk the talk" is a concept that is broadly disrespected in this country. Dr. David C. McClelland, a distinguished research professor of psychology at Boston University and Harvard University, concluded that since leaders are primarily concerned with influencing others, it seems obvious that they should be characterized by a high need for power.

The need for power is one among three motives that every human has. The other two are achievement and affiliation.

In general, people have a negative view of the need for power, in contrast with the other two motives. They associate power with a dictatorship, dominance-submission, competition and zero-sum games. But McClelland's need for power is concerned about having influence over others, which can be a very positive influence.

McClelland found that a motive is an ongoing need, want or concern of which we are usually not conscious. Motives drive our behavior. They satisfy our needs, which may not be the same as other people's needs. Motive is a function of personality, and an individual's personality is usually formed between the ages of 3 and 5.

People with high needs for achievement (n Achievement) have a concern for meeting or exceeding a standard of excellence and improving their performance. Those high with n Achievement tend to choose moderate risks, and focus on doing well themselves. Study showed that n Achievement was associated with promotions in a large firm only for managers who did not manage large numbers of people but who made individual contributions.

People like interacting with other people, and some like it more than others. Individuals with high n Affiliation are concerned about establishing or maintaining close, friendly relationships and being liked or accepted. They maintain interpersonal networks and avoid competitive situations.

They prefer friends to experts as working partners. Whenever possible, they act to avoid conflict. Findings indicate that people high in n Affiliation tend not to succeed in management because people who try to avoid conflict and criticism do not make very good managers or leaders. It is difficult for them to be competitive, influence others and make hard decisions that may hurt people's feelings, as required by management jobs.

Power motive is the drive to have influence or make an impact on others. Effective managers and leaders tend to operate out of a mature stage called Socialized Power. This stage is called mature because the assertiveness is disciplined and controlled (high Activity Inhibition). They use their strengths to make others feel strong and capable. The power thoughts in this stage are more focused on doing good for others, for humanity or for some good cause. A less mature stage of power is Personalized Power, a stage where men are impulsively assertive (low Activity Inhibition). They influence others for self-aggrandizement, they make others feel weak in order to make themselves feel, or be perceived as, strong, capable or influential. The power thoughts are more focused on personal dominance, on winning at somebody else's expense, as in a zero-sum game ("If I win, you lose").

According to psychologist Hana D. Bustaman of the University of Indonesia, our society is characterized by high needs for power and affiliation, (Femina, Jan. 6, 1999).

It is expressed in folk tales which have a major theme that is not far from authority's power, people's misery and the importance of being loyal. Traditional Javanese batik designs also tells us about being loyal -- to the king and to the family. Individuals with high n Affiliation tend to make particularistic judgments about people in the firm that are viewed as unfair by others, thus leading to poor morale and less productivity. In a macro view, this leads us to think about nepotism in our country, like the Timor national car project.

What kind of n Power does our society have? Personalized or socialized? Surprisingly, neither! The n Power we have is the type of power that is even less matured than personalized power. Both personalized and socialized power see the object of power as others (influencing others). This is the Western tradition of political theory, it is about exercising power.

According to Ben Anderson in The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture, in the Javanese conception of power, it is about accumulating power. The object of this less matured stage of power is self, not others. The aim in this stage is to accumulate power in the self, or feeling powerful.

This may explain why our society behaves in certain ways. For example, we like to accumulate prestige possessions, we like to be associated with powerful people to make ourselves feel strong, "my backing is stronger than yours".

The Javanese concept of accumulating power is to focus on one's personal power, to absorb power from the outside. One gets power from meditation, having pusaka (sacred objects). One typical image, which links this type of absorption with the concentration of the opposites, is a battle between a hero and a powerful adversary, in which the defeated adversary in death enters the hero's body, adding to his conqueror's strength.

Research has shown that effective leaders should have Socialized Power (even though McClelland points out that there is another stage of matured power after socialized power -- a selfless stage where one acts to serve others without caring what one has done is recognized or not; an example of this is inspirational leader Mahatma Gandhi, or Romo Mangun, who left the Kali Code people after developing them because he did not want to be what he called "a godfather"). Unfortunately, our society, which is still dominated by a Javanese culture, is in the less matured stage of power than effective leaders should be.

We have learned that a good leader is not the one who needs personal success (Achievement), or who is people oriented (Affiliative), but one who is able to influence others (Power).

Obviously we are tired of leaders who make themselves the center of power, who absorb power and do not share it with the people. We are tired of being forced and intimidated, we need a different kind of leadership than our traditional (grand)fathers.

The power of our future leaders refers not to dictatorial behavior. It refers to a desire to have impact, to be strong and influential. In short, we want leaders with a more mature power motivation. The profile that we are looking for a good leader is what is called the "leadership motive syndrome": high n Power, low n Affiliation and high Activity Inhibition.

Studies have found that managers with this syndrome are more effective in leading the team to achieve the target and create a good climate in the team.

The question is do we have this kind of leader? Is it Habibie? Is it Megawati Soekarnoputri, Amien Rais or Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur)? Or none of them? Or do we have leaders with high n Power at all?

To help us in assessing our leaders, here are some behaviors that typically indicate individuals with leadership motive syndrome. * They show more respect for institutional authority, favor discipline and self-control and care for others. * They tend to join more organizations: they are socially responsible people, often assuming leadership roles in organizations or the community. * They show more public concern for others. * They enjoy work because it involves being in control of things (in contrast with individuals with high n Achievement who do things themselves, by being more efficient and for themselves).

Individuals with high n Power are attracted to extreme risks (different from individuals with high n Achievement who are attracted to moderate risks). It is possible that they choose unpopular positions in order to stand out more. The meaning of the attitude of people high in n Power toward risk taking may be made clearer by an example from everyday life. Politicians, if they actively seek office, are generally high in n Power. Thus: * They are often good at calling attention to themselves, at getting their names in newspapers or on television and at creating media events that will lead to name recognition. * They may identify with a particular issue or take an extreme stand (a low probability of success) in order to be better recognized.

Individuals with high n Power are also attracted to competitive games, such as chess, arm wrestling, tennis or boxing. In everyday life, this is manifested in direct confrontational situations. Debates by presidential candidates can be perceived as competitive situations.

In contrast to individuals high in n Power, those high in n Affiliation tend to be quite passive, like carrying out fewer conflicting acts, telling fewer lies in newspaper reports. They also fear disapproval and spend time seeking reassurance from others. They avoid competitive games. They avoid talking about people in negative terms. They are generally more cooperative or conforming.

Winter & Stewart (1978) conducted a study of the motive profile of a number of U.S. presidents, and found that the general prestige of a president, as well as his strength in action or assertiveness versus passivity, were strongly positively related to the president's n Power score and strongly negatively related to his n Affiliation score.

Presidents generally regarded as strong -- Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson -- all had n Power scores that were relatively high and higher than their n Affiliation scores. The relatively less effective presidents were either low in n Power, like Coolidge, or high in n Affiliation relative to n Power, like Eisenhower, Harding and Ford.

In general, the power motive functions in the same way for women as it does for men. But to be openly assertive has been valued for men and not for women. So even if a woman high in n Power has the impulse to argue, she might inhibit it because she accepts the sex-role value of being friendly and cooperative. And because the male role places value on assertiveness, men high in n Power are more assertive or argumentative.

Now, having some thoughts about leadership profile, you can reflect these thoughts to our leaders' behavior and use your judgment to conclude. For example, does Gus Dur avoid talking about people in negative terms? Is Megawati good at media attention to get better recognized? The same questions can be asked about Amien Rais, Habibie and other leaders.

The writer is a consultant from Hay Group in Indonesia, an international human-resources management-consulting company, where David McClelland was the director of research at Hay McBer in Boston.