Afew weeks ago, I attended a conference on leadership with a particular focus on Hong Kong's next generation of leaders. It offered an interesting look at the sort of people who might be taking senior positions in the community in roughly the next 10 years or so. It was also a good opportunity to ask serious questions about the meaning of leadership.
The conference started off with a few words from Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen. Almost as soon as he had left, the keynote speaker, Professor Dean Williams of Harvard Kennedy School, delivered his address.
He said we must distinguish leaders from managers; the former mobilise a group of people to confront problems and find answers, while the latter simply maintain order and give directions in accordance with the authority they have. And he said we must not confuse real leaders with fake ones; the former get people to face hard truths and take ownership of problems, while the latter are mainly concerned with status and dominance and believe one person can have all the answers.
In case you are thinking what some people in the hall were thinking, these comments are Professor Williams' core themes. He has expressed them many times before around the world, and he had no one particular in mind.
They were thought-provoking ideas because they remind us how rare a truly talented leader is. People may complain about the quality of leadership in government (or other areas) in Hong Kong. But just how many people are there who could do better? Maybe some, but the number must be small.
Convincing people to accept something they dislike is difficult. I think most people who have been in leadership positions can think of times when they have wanted to get something done but failed to achieve it because other people did not want to follow. There is no shortage of examples from our government; attempts to reform the tax and health-care-financing systems have flopped after the community did not buy the ideas.