Greatness in leadership is not merely about personal glory—it is about creating a legacy that endures across time, geographies and generations

Anyone who has attempted to perpetuate his memory in any institution or community has believed himself to be an institution builder. To be an institution builder, as the words themselves will show, one has to build a purpose, establish a process, gather resources, and pull them together in pursuit of an objective.

This pursuit cannot be the pursuit of self-glorification. Usually, a successor tries to outdo his predecessor; this can be by upscaling, ignoring, or finding flaws in the predecessor’s efforts. Sooner or later, this destroys everyone involved because everyone must necessarily end up with a successor. That successor, sooner or later, becomes a competitor to the predecessor.

This may be an obvious truth, but not many people seem to have recognised it. Hence, if one is seeking glorification, perhaps the most important pursuit should be the search for a successive successor who is not only in sympathy with one’s approach but will carry the mission forward. The great leaders of the world have recognized this instinctively, and the epithet ‘Great’ has come their way. Martin Luther was a good example, as was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Nelson Mandela could also be a good illustration.

The examples are many. In each case, the conclusion is the same. Each so-called great leader needed a succession of people generously following them who proclaimed their greatness from the treetops. This may be easy to propound but difficult to action. One reason for this is that it needs a succession of people after one’s own life who would concur with the approach, and indeed have been beneficiaries of that person’s influence. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has been widely celebrated for his theories of agitation against foreign rule. There is evidence of his having worked together in tandem, where the situation so demanded, with the rulers.  This has since been noted and at times overlooked. 

There is a hypothesis which has done the rounds in certain quarters that the title of “Mahatma” was conferred upon him because of his request by the foreign rulers.  Such observations are difficult to critically appraise decades or centuries later. However, one approach remains.  Recognition of one’s leadership and contributions is a complex process that has yet to be fully understood. One’s greatness is therefore a matter of consensus building which is always difficult in its fullness. The bottom line is there must be something enduring in the actions of an individual to receive kudos across communities generations and geographies. 

That something must include what is noble in human existence. The succeeding leaders may be helpful but they cannot determine the full range of perceptions. The long and short of it is that petty pursuits of petty objectives for limited periods rarely have given enduring recognition for one’s greatness. Sooner or later, for most aspiring leaders, some process of a counterpoint emerges as other contenders for the spot of greatness arise.

Very often, these people, as alternate leaders, are from a different vantage point of perception, and debate is generated. Few have claimed eminence for greatness without having survived the crucial test of times and acceptance across generations.

History is a telltale testament as to how the pre-eminence of one’s contribution or the significance of one’s contribution can change with the changing cultures of the times. One may not be so well recognised in one’s lifetime, but subsequent generations awaken to that greatness as per their vision and their own needs.  The case of Birsa Munda is an interesting example. Not so long ago, he was one of the freedom fighters who was remembered in certain parts of India only by certain people. 

But times changed, and now he is being celebrated with the glory of a true visionary leader who fought for the independence.  Times change, and so does the vision.

However, if one thing remains constant, it is that few have attained leadership across generations and geographies without having a sound streak of spiritual vision. One may be celebrated for martial glories or administrative contributions, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, for loftiness beyond the constraints of time and space, some elevated spiritual insights valid across people and generations seem a common need. It is obvious that the subject matter of the greatness of leaders and what constitutes the same needs continuing depths of research, iteration and honest conviction.

(The writer is a well-known management consultant of international repute. The views expressed are personal)