International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and ManagementEmerald Article: Islamic perspectives on leadership: a modelAbbas J. Ali

Article information:

To cite this document: Abbas J. Ali, (2009),"Islamic perspectives on leadership: a model", International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol. 2 Iss: 2 pp. 160 - 180

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538390910965167

Downloaded on: 28-06-2012

References: This document contains references to 46 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

This document has been downloaded 1960 times since 2009. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Khaliq Ahmad, Ogunsola O.K., (2011),"An empirical assessment of Islamic leadership principles", International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 21 Iss: 3 pp. 291 - 318http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10569211111165325

James DeLisle, Terry Grissom, (2011),"Valuation procedure and cycles: an emphasis on down markets", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 384 - 427http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150312

Hans Losscher, (2011),""Being seen as" and "seeing as"", Kybernetes, Vol. 40 Iss: 3 pp. 494 - 506http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684921111133700

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Islamic perspectiveson leadership: a model

Abbas J. AliIndiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to address the notion of leadership in Muslim countries. Itseeks to develop a model for understanding leadership in Islamic culture and discusses the factorswhich give rise to two types of leadership: the prophetic and caliphate.

Design/methodology/approach – The article briefly surveys the socio-economic and politicalforces which facilitate the emergence of certain leadership styles. The paper, then, suggests a model ofleadership relevant to Islamic culture.

Findings – Two types of leadership were identified. Furthermore, the paper addresses the conflictbetween idealism and realism and the rise of authoritarian leaders.

Practical implications – This paper offers policymakers and researchers various avenues on howto address the issue of leadership in an Islamic culture and presents a theoretical model forunderstanding issues pertaining to leaders and leadership in Muslim societies. Specific propositionspertaining to the effect of culture and society on leadership are offered.

Originality/value – The paper offers a genuine reflection on the nature of leadership. The issue ofleadership and its linkage to culture has often been overlooked in the literature. In part, this is becausemost of the literature on leadership has been focused primarily on personality-based relationships andrelationships between leaders and followers. In this paper, it is argued that culture shapes personalityand gives meaning to contextual and relational aspects of leadership.

Keywords Islam, Leadership, Culture, Motivation (psychology), Charisma

Paper type Conceptual paper

Setting the scene: a model of Islamic perspectives on leadershipThroughout history, thoughtful and agonizing leaders, alike, have left their marks oncivilization and the journey of mankind. Certain circumstances have led to the rise andfall of leaders. The speed of the emergence and demise of leaders and their impact seemto vary significantly across cultures. Some have left everlasting achievements andhave been a source of cultural pride and identity. Other leaders have not looked uponfavorably and their legacy is discredited. While each culture views leaders from adifferent lens, all civilizations, however, appear to value contributions that energizeand sustain cultural continuity and revitalization. In particular, rich cultures, offer theintellectual depth and the fertility for transforming those with potential into greatleaders. That is, the depth and strength of a culture are pivotal for the emergence andevolution of leaders. Likewise, the presence of a great leader strengthens culturalvitality and continuity.

Sound leaders are uniquely positioned to take initiative and embark on purposefulchanges. Their vision and foresight and their ability to motivate and energize peopleenable them to navigate new terrains without ignoring present and potentialminefields. Their concerns and commitment to the aspirations and general welfare ofthe public and their unshakeable confidence in the ability to make positivecontributions enable them to achieve goals timely and effectively. These leaders map

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8394.htm

IMEFM2,2

160

International Journal of Islamic andMiddle Eastern Finance andManagementVol. 2 No. 2, 2009pp. 160-180q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1753-8394DOI 10.1108/17538390910965167

their environment, recognize and succinctly articulate followers’ aspirations, providelogical vision, and make change feasible, desirable, and practical.

There is a dialectic relationship between culture and leaders. Culture not onlyshapes the art of leadership but also nurtures and facilitates the emergence of leaders.Across history, culture gives meaning to what leaders do and eases or impedes theinfluence process and induces followers to respond and act in a particular way. Indeed,culture serves as a yardstick and a sifter which reminds leaders of what works andwhat does not work. That is, culture determines the boundaries of effective conductand sound leadership. Furthermore, each culture has its own assumptions and notionsabout idealism and pragmatism. Some of these assumptions change overtime butothers persist and are deeply cherished. The latter differentiate among cultures and areassumed to shape perceptions about leaders and leadership.

Dramatic events and rapid political changes coupled with a deep sense ofvulnerability at home and abroad have brought to the surface the importance of leadersand leadership. Indeed, vulnerability is largely a result of an absence of collectiveconfidence in leaders. In all aspects of human affairs, effective leadership makes thedifference. This is because leadership encompasses both practical and idealisticconcerns. Lack of wisdom and a practical vision leads to disaster and setbacks. It is thepresence of foresight, responsibility, receptivity, creativity, courage, integrity, andcompassion that ensures progress and prosperity.

The history of humankind evidences that leadership has been the pivotal factor indefining reality and designing and shaping events. In fact, the rise and fall of nationsand organizations have been attributed largely to the presence or absence of effectiveleaders. The importance of leadership stems not only from organizationalcompetencies, but also from the ability to arouse curiosity among followers, thecourage to confront abuses and assume responsibility and the foresight to articulate apurposeful vision to make change desirable and look at new possibilities positively. Inthis context, leaders assume various roles and functions. These roles and functionsdiffer in their significance over time and across cultures. Changing circumstances andsituations necessitate different leadership roles and functions. Despite this, however,leaders have to coordinate functions and innovatively maintain creativity with order,and order with creativity (Collier, 1971).

This paper is designed to tackle the issue of culture and leadership in Muslimcultures. It suggests a model of leaderships and distinguishes between two types ofleaders often found in Muslim societies. The model attempts to capture the essence ofthe culture and the interplay of the forces within the society that facilitate theemergence of the leader. In addition, the paper offers a theoretical reasoning for the riseof authoritarian leaders in business organizations and society. The paper explains howcertain aspects of personality founded in the culture lead to either benevolent orabsolute authoritarian.

Literature review of perception of leadershipLeadership studies, whether conceptual or empirical, have provided a rich literature onthe nature and aspects of leadership. While the majority of the research agrees on thecentrality of leadership in meeting goals and moving forward, the literature offers awide range of perspectives, often contradictory, on what constitute effective leadership.As Hunt and Conger (1999) assert, the range in new leadership conceptions is

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

161

quite abroad. While this state is necessary and healthy, it may lead unintentionallyto ambiguity and generalization. Recently, Howell and Shamir (2005) reviewed theliterature and conclude that most of leadership theories have been simple,unidirectional, and focus almost exclusively on the leader’s personality and behavior.In the process, the role of followers and the cultural environment that gives rise to theleadership are often neglected.

Traditionally, most of the research on leadership places considerable emphasis onspecific attributes (Blau, 1963; Dow, 1969; Stogdill, 1974). Identifying attributes werethought important of differentiating effective leaders from others. Friedland (1964) andWolpe (1968), among others, consider social and historical contexts as critical indetermining leadership. Hughes et al. (2006) assert that leadership is a result of theinteraction between a leader and followers. Willner (1984) argues that leadership isneither personality – based nor contextually –determined but is largely a relationaland perceptual phenomenon. Conger and Kanungo (1987) agreed with Willner andview leadership as an attribution phenomenon. The authors suggest that leadership,and specifically charismatic one, is an attribution made by followers who observecertain behaviors on the part of the leader within organizational contexts. Theypropose that attribution of charisma to leaders depend on four interrelatedcomponents: the degree of discrepancy between the status quo and the future goalor vision championed by the leader, the use of innovation and unconventional meansfor achieving the desired change, a realistic assessment of environmental resourcesand constraints for bringing about such change, and the nature of articulationand impression management employed to inspire followers in the pursuit of theidentified vision.

Howell and Shamir (2005) argue that in the context of charismatic leadership thereare two types of relationships: personalized and socialized. The first relationship isbased primarily on followers’ personal identification with the leader. The socializedrelationship revolves primarily on followers’ social identification with the group ororganization. This approach attempts to answer most of the shortcoming in theleadership theory; especially charismatic leadership process. Nevertheless, theapproach does not offer any direct link to societal culture. Peterson and Hunt (1997)make a serious attempt to address the leadership theory from a global and historicalperspective. The coverage, however, was primarily focus on the USA and the linkagebetween leadership and culture was neither clear nor systematic.

Societies differ in their perception of leadership and the effectiveness of the leader.Hofstede (1980, 1999) attributed such differences to cultural values. He argues thatvalues are specific to national cultures, never universal. Values represent what isdesirable and generally they are a preference of specific states of affairs over others.These broad tendencies are ranked hierarchically according to their relativeimportance. Societies differ not only in their values but also in the way they rankthese values; value system. The value system helps in establishing priorities, solvingconflicting demands, and categorizing leaders. Shaw (1990) suggests that each cultureappears to categorize leaders differently. He argues that cultural perception of whetheror not a person is a leader involves simple categorization. In fact, he proposes that ineach culture there are pre-existing leadership prototypes and expectations which are apotential source for variation across cultures. The attributes and practices thatdifferentiate cultures from each other are predictive of the leader attributes and

IMEFM2,2

162

behavior (House et al., 2001). Recent empirical studies provide support for suchproposition. Brodbeck (2000) led a group of researchers to study cultural variations ofleadership prototypes across 22 European countries. The results indicate thatleadership concept is culturally bound. Clusters of European countries which sharesimilar cultural values are found to share similar leadership concepts but differentfrom other European clusters. Nordic countries, for example, ranked high the attributesfor outstanding leadership as integrity, inspirational, visionary, team integrator,and performance. In contrast, managers in Latin countries ranked the attributes ofteam integrator, performance, inspirational, integrity, and visionary, in order, as themost desired.

Islamic perspectives on leadershipIn the Islamic religion and philosophy, the subject of leadership is given considerableattention. This is because, in Islam, leadership is perceived to be the most significantinstrument for the realization of an ideal society. The ideal society is based on justiceand compassion. Both qualities are an integral part of leadership. In Islamic thinking,neither creativity nor order can be sustained without justice and compassion. That is,justice “is the mainstay of a nation” (Imam Ali, died 661). Leaders are held responsiblefor promoting and enforcing justice. The Quran (4:58) instructs its believers: “When yejudge between people that ye judge with justice.” Indeed, the thriving of justice isclosely linked to the subject of leadership and leaders.

It should be noted that Muslims hold the early period of Islam (about 622-661) as themost just, compassionate, and ideal in Islamic history. Muslim scholars argue thatduring these early years, an Islamic society most closely resembled the ideal state.Probably, this state did not take place again except during the era of Caliph Omer BenAbdul Aziz (717-720) and for a short period during the Abbasid Empire (750-1258).Muslim scholars claim that justice was then fairly meted out and leaders were morallyguided and responsible. Therefore, a sense of idealism has evolved in the psyche ofmost Muslims, resulting in an infatuation with what is termed a Prophetic leader, asopposed to the Caliph model of leadership. Both concepts will be discussed later.

In this paper, leadership is defined as a process of influence, shared in nature,whereby a leader and followers engage in certain activities to achieve mutual goals.The paper provides an insight on the nature of leadership in Islam and the evolution ofthe concept and its practice. The paper highlights, too, that the nature and view ofleadership, in the Muslim World, have changed over centuries.

At the outset, it should be mentioned that the traditional view of leadership in Islamis that leadership is a shared influence process. Leaders are not expected to lead or tomaintain their roles without the agreement of those who are led, and at the same time,decisions made by these leaders were expected to be influenced by input from theirfollowers. The process is dynamic and open ended and the ultimate aim is to sustaincohesiveness and effectiveness. The Quran clearly calls for a leader to be flexible andreceptive to followers and states, (88:21-22) “So thou reminding; thou art only areminder. Thou art not, over them a compeller.” The basis for understanding andleading has to be fundamentally based on wisdom and spirited debate, otherwisefollowers becomes resentful and dissatisfied. The role of a receptive leader is capturedin the Quranic instructions which state, (16:125) “Argue with them in manners that arebest and most gracious” as (3:159) “Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

163

[break] away.” The leader is obliged to exemplify openness, a willingness to listen andcompassion in dealing with subordinates or followers. For example, during the courseof a public meeting, an individual criticized the second Caliph, Omer. Some in theaudience thought the criticism was harsh. Omer’s answer was that it was the duty ofthe leader and followers to listen to each other and to voice concerns. He was quotedsaying, “When followers do not participate and provide input, they are notcontributing something useful. And we are not useful if we do not consent to theircontributions.” Omer thought that public participation is fundamental and, as theProphet Mohamed insisted, that it is a policy choice. Omer, however, pursuedthe matter further when he informed followers, “When you see me engage in a wrongdoing, straighten me out.” In this context, the shared influence is not only built on “twoway influence” through dialogue and debate, but also on the right of subordinates totake a proactive role in confronting and correcting the leader. This foresighted modelwas possibly founded on Prophet Mohamed’s instruction, which made it mandatorythat followers not blindly follow leaders: “Obedience is due only in that which is good.”

Before discussing the changing view of leaders and leadership in Islamic thought, itshould be pointed out that in the history of Muslims, after the era of the Rightly GuidedCaliphs (632-661), the subject of leadership has been fiercely debated, but there has beenno consensuses on what makes up either the qualities of a leader or traits that predictwho will emerge as a leader. In fact, the concept of leaders and leadership has evolvedacross centuries and has been largely influenced by the nature of power structure andsectarian allegiances. To be sure, however, the evolution of the thinking on leadershiphas been shaped by powerful events, dynasties, rulers and individuals. These forceshave had a considerable stake in reshaping the image and religious conceptualization ofwhat leaders should be. In traditional Muslim societies, proper religious justificationsand assertions are essential for sustaining and validating power and authority.

The perceptions and realities of leadership have evolved dramatically in the MuslimWorld. The dramatic change in the concept of what constitutes a leader and leadershiphas been most likely influenced by the rise and fall of ideology (faith) and openness inthe society. As the following discussion shows, the Islamic view of leaders andleadership has been in a state of alternation. While the degree of strength of faith andopenness primarily influences this trend, outside forces and instability haveaccelerated the trend. Historical evidence and current research suggest, in general,the changing nature of leaders and leadership went through seven stages: the Prophetera, Rightly Guided Caliphs, the Ommeyade dynasty, the early Abbasid era, the lateAbbasid era, the era of stagnation, and the era of instability (Ali (2005) for detail).Since, the first two periods are considered by Muslim thinkers and authorities asthe ones that capture the essence of Islam and genuine practice, the focus will be on theconception of leadership during these two eras.

The Prophet Era (610-632)Mohamed served as a prophet and as a statesman. Under his leadership, profoundcultural and political changes took place in Arabia. Armstrong (1992) argues that theimmediate spread and acceptance of Islam reflected the unique message of Islam andwas clearly a reflection of the genius of Mohamed. She suggests, however, that theArabs were not sufficiently developed for a sophisticated Islamic monotheism.According to Armstrong (p. 53):

IMEFM2,2

164

Christianity took root in the Roman empire where Jewish communities had paved the wayand prepared the minds of the pagans. But Mohamed had to start virtually from scratch andwork his way towards the radical monotheistic spirituality on his own.

Mohamed strongly believed that leadership must be based on three foundations:Rehema (mercy), ehsan (kindness), and adel (justice). Once these foundations are met,race should not be an issue in selecting a leader. As Mohamed asserted, “Listen to andobey whoever is in charge, even though he is an Ethiopian [black].” Mohameddeveloped a pattern of behavior that facilitated the change in Arabia:

. He developed a vital community of believers and envisioned what thiscommunity should look like. While faith was an important instrument inenergizing his followers, Mohamed had to engage in dramatic social changes: heestablished a new form of social association (muakhat – two Muslims werepaired together and declared brothers, replacing the traditional bloodrelationship). He announced that faith would replace blood as the base forsocial relationship (Siddiqui, 1987). Furthermore, Mohamed had a deepunderstanding that Arabs are highly individualistic and unreceptive to centralauthority and strict personal orders. Therefore, contrary to prevailing practicesof show of power he declared that he was not a compeller, but a messenger ofGod; that his job, primarily, was to preach, warn and guide, to do good and avoidvice. This demonstrates how Mohamed understood the unique Arab psyche andsituated himself as an impersonal conveyer of the new faith.

. Initially, Mohamed focused only on promoting the message of Islam and creatingan environment to facilitate cultural change. Once the new community becamelarge and a city-state was established instructions regarding law and order werespecified. Furthermore, cooperation among members of the Muslim communitywas encouraged and brotherly relationships were extended far beyond theoriginal Muslim community. When various regions in Arabia and surroundingareas adopted Islam, Mohamed assigned walis (governors), local administratorsand market commissioners among others to govern. These were given autonomyin running their affairs (Siddiqui, 1987).

. Various forms of alliances were established. These alliances were aimed atensuring safety and stability and that certain principles were observed in anenvironment that was characterized mainly by the absence of law and order.More importantly, alliances sought to strengthen and spread the faith. Thealliance with the Jewish communities and other tribes in different geographicallocalities were intended to build the foundation of the faith and convey themessage to a wider audience (Jasim, 1987).

Mohamed viewed leadership as a process of shared influence. In his general conduct ofaffairs, whether religious or otherwise, Mohamed utilized a public open forum wheremembers of the community had immediate input and contributed on the spot to civicand administrative matters. He instructed his representatives by saying, “God blessesthose who benefit others.” That is, leadership is valid only when it results in a benefitto a society, regardless of the setting. He was reported to have said:

Everyone of you is a leader and every one of you shall be questioned about those under hissupervision; the Imam is a leader and shall be questioned about his subjects; and the man is a

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

165

leader in his family and he shall be questioned about those under his care; and the woman is aleader in the house of her husband, and shall be questioned about those under her care; andthe servant is a leader in taking care of the property of his master, and shall be questionedabout those under his care.

In this broad concept of leadership, Mohamed implied that shouldering responsibilityis essential for cohesiveness, smooth performance and improving the welfare of thesociety. In addition, Mohamed highlighted two necessary qualities for leadership:persuasion and moderation. In terms of persuasion, Mohamed asserted the necessity ofdebating and arguing in ways that are the best. Moderation was viewed as anavoidance of extremism and seeking the middle way stating that the best stateof affairs is the “middle way” and Quran (2:143) “Thus, we have made you a middleway nation.”

The Rightly Guided Caliphs (632-661)There were four caliphs during this period. Their sayings and practice are relevantto understanding the nature of leadership and organization. During that time, thecommunity was in the early stage of development, politically and economically. Theideology (faith) was a potent motivational factor. Accordingly, allegiance to the groupand identification with the faith was strong. The first Caliph, Abu Baker, in hisinauguration speech, defined what a Muslim leader should be. He stated:

I have been given authority over you, but I am not the best of you. If I do well help me, and ifI do ill, then put me right [. . .] The weak among you shall be strong in my eyes until I securehis right if God wills; and the strong among you shall be weak in my eyes until I wrest theright from him [. . .] Obey me as long as I obey God and his apostle, and if I disobey them youowe me no obedience (Quoted in Armstrong, 1992, p. 258).

During this period there was a consensus that the quality of a leader was primarily builton three foundations: the approval of followers, justice, and performance. Imam Ali(656-661) succinctly stated, “Good leaders are known by what their subjects say aboutthem. So, the best deed is the deed that benefits others.” The four Caliphs, in general,reaffirmed that leadership is a shared influence. This was captured by a sayingattributed to the second Caliph, Omer: “If you see me doing wrongs, then straighten me.”Most importantly, at this stage, despite an attempt to the contrary during the era of thethird Caliph, Othman, the Muslims and Caliphs, viewed the role of Caliph as a secularposition that represented a successor to the Prophet, but that was neither an heir tohis right nor a replacement for him (Arkoun, 1986; Ashmawy, 1992). In Islam, thegovernment is considered a civic system that is entirely built on the will of thecommunity. The approval of the community of how things should be run is the onlyvalidation that the leader needs to be in power. This understanding differentiates thetraditional Islamic conception of the leader and government and that of Christianity andleadership. The latter views the leader as having a divine order. This was articulated in(Romans 13:1), “Let everyone submit himself to the ruling authorities, for there exists noauthority not ordained by God” and in (Mathew 16:19) “And I will give unto thee thekeys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be boundin heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Furthermore, in Islam, there is an understanding that followers usually observe anddeduct certain qualities from the behavior of those in charge. Accordingly, they make

IMEFM2,2

166

attributions whether the person is a leader or not. Imam Ali (656-661), in his letter toone of his governors, considered the approval of the followers as the base of authorityand he abhorred the abusive use of power. He stated (p. 303):

Good rulers are known by what their subjects say about them. So, the best stock you canbuild is your good deeds[. . .] Do not say. ‘I am in charge and I shall be obeyed.’ This is a signof weakness in the heart and of a shaken faith, and an invitation to trouble.

In terms of openness, he argued that people in authority must be (p. 283), “modest andbenevolent to the people. Receive them cheerfully and treat them equally.” He indicatedthat a legitimate leader is the one who act according to the followers’ expectations;otherwise, that person is not a leader. He stated (p. 256):

If the elected person rejects or contests their [people] decision, they will bring to his attentionthe issues that need to be addressed. If he persists in his deviation, they will fight him for notfollowing the consensus of the Muslims.

The relationship between the leaders and followers are reciprocal as there will beneither leaders nor leadership without followers. Imam Ali asserted that reciprocitybetween a leader and followers was the basis of legitimacy (p. 245):

God has made it an obligation for his creatures to observe their obligations toward each other.He made them equitable and interdependent. The greatest of those obligations are the mutualrights of the ruler and the ruled. God has made them reciprocal so that they constitute a basisfor their cohesion.

In the centuries that follow the early era of Islam, various dynasties cam to power andsince then the Muslim World has been the subject of relentless foreign invasions andoccupations. These events have left their impact and have created a state of turmoiland uncertainty. Consequently, various leaders have attempted to promote their viewof leaders and leadership irrespective of the wishes of the followers. In all probability,these leaders have deviated from the original Islamic thinking and haveinstitutionalized a form of leadership that is inconsistent with early Islamicinstructions. For example, Al-Masudi (died 968, Vol. 3, pp. 41-43) reported that duringthe Ommeyyades era (661-750), the concept of leadership was mostly authoritarian andthat followers’ aspirations and expectations were ignored. According to Al-Masudi(p. 101), during this era, people were ordered to fear and obey the Caliph, rather thanGod. This was embedded in the behavior of many Ommeyyade Caliphs and theirrepresentatives. He reported (p.151) that Al-Hajaj ben Yousef Al-Thaqafi, one of themost feared military leaders of the Ommeyyade State, was quoted saying:

God says ‘fear God as you could.’ This concerns God and has exception. And God says ‘listenand obey.’ This specifically meant the servant of God, Caliph, and the favorite of God, AbdulMalik [the fifth Ommeyyade Caliph]. I swear in the name of God that if Abdul Malik orderedthe people to move into this valley and they went somewhere else, I would shed their blood.

Similarly, the collapse of Baghdad and the end of the Abbasid era after the Mongolinvasion in 1258 had left most of the Muslim societies in total disarray. In terms ofleadership, the thinking of Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) and Ibn Taimiya (1263-1328)became generally accepted. Ibn Khaldun (1989, p. 112) argued that goodness andinclination for collective or group feeling are a prerequisite for any leader. Lacking ofthese qualities, he asserted, “would be like appearing naked before people.” He

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

167

prescribed several qualities needed by leaders to ensure acceptance by followers. Theseare: generosity, forgiveness of error, tolerance toward the weak, hospitality towardguests, support of subordinates, maintenance of their indigent, patience in adversecircumstances, faithful fulfillment of obligations, liberty with money for thepreservation of honor, respect for the religious law and for the scholars who arelearned in it, thinking highly of religious scholarship, belief in and veneration for menof religion and a desire to receive their prayers, great respect for old men and teachers,justice for those who call for it, fairness to and care for those who are too weak to takecare of themselves, humility toward the poor, attentiveness to the complaints ofsupplicants, fulfillment of the duties of the religious law and divine worship in alldetails and avoidance of fraud, cunning, deceit, and shirking of obligations.

Ibn Taimiya (died 1328) witnessed the era of fragmentation, chaos, and foreigninvasion of the Arab and Muslim lands. Naturally, at the time of defeat andhumiliation, security becomes a more urgent concern and people tend to be moreinclined to accept a pessimistic and simple view. Ibn Taimiya’s thinking captured theessence of that period. He recognized the qualities of good leaders like his Muslimpredecessors (e.g. honesty, compassion, enforcement of justice, etc.) but gaveconsiderable attention to restoring stability. Therefore, he asserted the need to obey aleader even if he is an oppressor, corrupt, and unjust. Ibn Taimiya believed that howa leader obtained his power was less important than how he used it and “even if theleader [ruler] ‘was unjust or impious,’ it was generally accepted that he should still beobeyed, for any kind of order was better than anarchy” (Hourani, 1991, p. 144). IbnTaimiya strongly advocated the obedience to an unjust leader as obligatory, therefore,deviating from clear Islamic instruction exemplified by the Prophet’s sayings,“Obedience is due only in that which is good” and “When one sees a wrongdoing, hehas to change it by force, if he cannot, then by voicing concern, and if he could not thenby denouncing it in his heart; this however, is the weakest faith.”

Leadership traits and skillsHawi (1982) attempted to synthesize the most desired traits and qualities of leaders inIslamic thinking. He relied on history and the early years of the Islamic state to comeup with an all encompassing list. He described the attributes of an Islamic leader ashaving the ability to reason or act rationally, to be knowledgeable, mentally stable,courageous, in control of desires, generous, wise, in control of his temper, forgiving,caring, flexible, relying on evidence, abiding by promises, honest, able to keep secrets,acting decisively, being cunning, humble, free from hatred and envy, patient, thankful,diplomatic, not listening to slanderers and backbiters, not appointing the non-faithfulas deputies, following up and processing work, receptive and willing to give advice,attentive, a good organizer, rewarding and recognizing achievers and respectable intheir appearance.

In the context of business, Asaf (1987) provided two categories of traits andqualities that a leader must have: moral discipline which includes eight attributesidentified under moral categories; goodness, patience, forgiveness, an ability to makepeace among conflicting parties, selflessness, cooperative, a sense of responsibility,and tenderness and kindness in conversation. These attributes must be accompaniedby the avoidance of lies, arrogance, enviousness, anger and suspicion and spying. Inaddition, the traits of a leader deemed to be essential for effective conduct in business

IMEFM2,2

168

are: experience and knowledge, justice, caring, exemplary behavior, willingness toconsult, a trust in God and persuasiveness through goodness. Those leaders whoexhibit these qualities are assumed to show kindness, moderation, a willingness toconsult and delegate and not to inflict intentional damage on others, as well as acommitment to the development and growth of the organization.

Most of the above qualities and traits stand in sharp contrast to qualities that wererecommended by Machiavelli (1469-1527) and which seem to be practiced incontemporary world. The latter asserted that cruelty is essential for keeping followers“united and faithful,” that it was safer to be “feared than loved,” and that a leader mustimitate “the fox and the lion.” These qualities are perceived in Islamic thinking to bedestructive and are impediments to nurturing thriving and healthy organizations.Those who espoused such qualities during the history of successive Muslim stateshave been labeled as oppressors and aggressors, simply because these qualities aremore likely to violate the foundations of leadership: mercy, kindness, and justice.

While most of the qualities identified above seem to be essential leadership traits,not all leaders display these qualities simultaneously. Furthermore, the absence of anyof them does not necessarily preclude leaders from being effective or ineffective. Thereare, of course, certain situational factors that may give more weight to some attributesover others or that may lead to the neglect of sanctioned qualities. For example, duringthe Mongol invasion and the fragmentation of the Islamic World honesty, kindness andopenness were often overlooked as essential qualities for leaders. An ability tomaintain law and order, protection of the land and decisiveness were appreciated bymost of the people.

Muslim perspectives on leadership and leaders have always been linked to thenature of followers. Indeed, according to a Muslim saying: “The leader reflects thequality of his people.” That is, in a situation where followers are educated andresponsible the leader will be receptive and participative. But in a situation wherefollowers are dependent and avoid initiative and responsibility the leader may have tobe decisive and in control. This dialectic relationship between leaders and followerswas captured by Imam Ali. He stated (p. 244):

Constituencies will prosper only if they have a responsible leader, and for a leader to be great,the constituencies must be upright. When both the constituencies and leader observe eachother’s due, right is strengthened, religion tenets are respected, justice prevails and the societywill benefit.

Imam Ali believes that the relationship between the leader and followers is reciprocaland is shaped by common expectations and the situation.

Model of leadershipIslamic teachings and Quranic instructions have been instrumental in maintaining richtraditions across generations and vast and dispersed geographical areas. The teaching,however, has created an inclination among most Muslims, especially the religiouslyinformed ones, to be infatuated with the ideal forms, even when they know that theseideal forms are contradicted by reality. This situation should be differentiated fromhaving beliefs conflict with facts. For example, in the USA, Davies (2003) reported thatmany Americans avoid having an experience of cognitive dissonance when presentedwith facts that are inconsistent with their beliefs. In this situation, people are not

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

169

infatuated with the ideal; rather, they blindly follow and trust leaders. They disregardfacts that contradict information provided by leaders, thereby strengthening theleader’s position. On the other hand, people who are infatuated with ideals consider aleader who has deceived them to be corrupt, thus enlarging the psychological gulfbetween themselves and the leader.

In the context of leadership, the Muslim infatuation with ideals has hindered thedevelopment of sound and practical leadership theories. This is because when the idealis treated as identical to practice, rather than merely constituting the criterion by whichpractice is to be judged, disappointments and frustrations take place. Furthermore, theinfatuation with the ideal in an authoritarian environment may solidify autocratictendencies among individuals in authoritative positions. That is, the feeling ofindispensability finds a fertile ground in this environment.

One of the most promising Islamic-derived leadership models that successfullycaptures the interplay of personalism and individualism and leadership was developedby Khadra (1990). Indeed, Khadra’s prophetic-caliphal model is an attempt to cast lightupon a phenomenon in the Arab world where contradictory forces constrain leadersand obstruct societal development. The model has four elements, personalism(a subjective, egocentric view of the relationships of an individual to others),individualism (a tendency to make decisions irrespective of the opinion of the group),lack of institutionalization (lack of institutional arrangement to address the issues ofaccession, succession, and conflict), and the importance of the “great man”. The lasttwo are perceived to be the output of the interaction between the first two elements.The model depicts a situation where qualities of personalism and individualismundermine the quest to build institutions. Lack of institutionalism is thought to create avacuum in society. As such, neither the overriding concept (ideology) nor an overridinggroup is essential in filling the vacuum. Khadra suggests that the role and quality ofthe individual leader takes on an added value. If the leader happens to be an ordinaryperson, the model that emerges is the “caliphal model” – an authoritarian leadershipmodel. If the leader happens to be a great person (visionary), a prophetic modelemerges – a compassionate, attentive, flexible leader who displays a remarkableconfidence in his behavior and action. Khadra, however, over looks the role of theinfatuation with the ideals in the rise of either the authoritarian or the visionary leader.Furthermore, the author did not provide a clear and direct link to culture.

This model is useful in calling attention to important societal and organizationalproblems in the Arab world. Nevertheless, the Model was primarily developed for theArab culture. In this paper, an attempt is made to improve the Model to make itapplicable to broader Islamic culture. Unlike the Arab World, not all Muslim countriesexhibit strong personalism and individualism, simultaneously. That is, while almostall Muslims display the quality of personalism, not all of them are individualistic.Nevertheless, the infatuation of Muslims with the ideal and their longing for a justleader and society play a significant part in their daily lives. For this reason,individualism is replaced and idealism is introduced in the Model. Idealism in the Araband Islamic culture is considered a necessary social element. In fact, despite theircurrent relative economic and political failure, people in Muslim countries still bemoanthe loss of a glorious past and hope for a bright future. Muslims’ infatuation withidealism is a powerful force that often prevents them from dealing effectively withcontemporary world events. It could be, however, a potent factor in energizing their

IMEFM2,2

170

activities and revitalizing their economies. Furthermore, unlike Khadra’sprophetic-caliphal model, the current Model introduces culture as a major player ininfluencing and shaping the nature and type of leadership. We differentiate betweentwo types of culture: weak and strong. The interplay of culture, personalism andidealism shapes people’s expectations and subsequently the state of the society(empathy and indifference vs content and positive involvement).

Toward an Islamic model of leadershipSince both the Quran and the Prophet’s teachings (Sunaa) place emphasis on socialcooperation and idealism, there is a need for a model that reflects the essence of theIslamic message, while capturing the nature of leadership in the Muslim World. In thissection, a leadership model is proposed (Figure 1). The suggested model explains howtwo primary types of leaders come to exist. The model has four elements: personalism,idealism, great expectation and culture. Personalism here is viewed as the tendencyamong people in a society to relate to each other in a warm, friendly, and subjectivemanner. That is, people place a high value on personal relationships and relate toindividuals in the context of their reputation in the community and societal norms.

In early childhood, individuals are socialized to place great emphasis on personalreputation and the necessity to carefully guard one’s own standing in the community.They come to understand that they are not only part of a larger community but areintegral factor in complex social, religious, and professional networks. Individuals,therefore, develop a high sense of self in the context of dynamic social relations with aspecific and clear set of values and accepted societal norms. The supremacy of personalrelationships allows followers to relate to the leader both on the basis of personalcharacter and the nature of the advocated vision. Their input and approval areimportant to sustaining leadership position. This may constitute the reason, aspreviously discussed, that in Islamic teaching and early tradition the followers almostalways observe and deduct certain qualities from the behavior and action of those in aposition of responsibility and accordingly they provide or withheld support. That is, inan open environment, followers make attributions whether the person is a leader or not.The following proposition is suggested:

Figure 1.Islamic model of

leadership.

Personalism

Idealism

Sources: Ali (2005)

Content andpositive

involvement

Greatperson

Ordinaryperson

Propheticmodel

Caliphalmodel

Institutionalism

Lack ofinstitutionalism

Empathy andindifference

Deeply andwidely shared

beliefs andvalues

Weak sharedbeliefs and

values

Greatexpectation

Socialcharacteristics

Culture State of thesociety

Types ofleadership

Leadershipmodel

Outcome

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

171

P1. Followers’ expectations and attributions of certain qualities to a person incharge, largely determine whether or not that person as a leader is acceptable.

The personalized aspects have certain advantages. Chief among them are that problemscan be solved directly through intermediaries, that concession and compromise are thenorm, that there is ease in social interactions and formation of group/team work, thatthis results in strong loyalties and cohesiveness if applied intelligently, that it is easy toenhance commitment to goals and that, in many cases, clients’ needs can be satisfied ina friendly manner. Personalism, however, can have a devastating impact as it mayfacilitate fragmentation and divided loyalties thereby allowing minor problems tolinger. In many cases, personal considerations, emotional and subjective attachment,and personal loyalty to a particular individual not only divert attention from majorissues but also lead to group disintegration and polarization.

Idealism is defined as an aspiration to attain and an infatuation with the highestpossible state of existence or perfection. In idealism, absolute perfection is sought andconsidered to be a virtue. The interplay of personalism and idealism produces greatexpectations within society. Followers motivated by and infatuated with ideal andgoverned by personal identification with and admiration to the vision advocated by aleader, place a considerable hope that the leader will lead to a better future where theirneeds and aspirations are optimally met:

P2. Followers with strong personalism and idealistic orientations will showhigh-personal identification with and expectations of the leader in meetingtheir aspirations.

In a culture that is characterized by deeply held and widely shared beliefs and valuesthe great expectation generates an environment conducive for positive and clear vision,involvement and cohesiveness, receptiveness and tolerance. In this environment theexisting conditions ease, facilitate, and solidify the cultivation of admired leaders’qualities. Consequently, the leader that emerges is a “great person.” The great personexemplifies the ideal qualities (e.g. openness, thoughtfulness, foresight, articulation ofvision, caring, confidence in subordinates, optimism, integrity, accountability, etc.).The resulting leadership model is Prophetic:

P3. In a culture that is characterized by deeply and widely held beliefs and values,the expectations will strengthen and thrive and thus are more likely to createa fruitful environment for the emergence of the great leader.

Under this model there is a two-way interaction between the leader and subordinatesand caring, respect and love govern relationships. The leader is committed to theinterest of followers and the latter trust and show affection to the leader. The mutualtrust and understanding between the leader and the followers eventuallyinstitutionalizes the rules of law. This is not only the result of the mutual trust butalso, as Imam Ali argued in the seven century, because the relationships between theleader and followers are reciprocal, equitable and interdependent.

A Prophetic leader not only highlights the advantages of change, establishingtraditions and institutional procedures, but also induces a continuing commitment tovision and goals. Once a commitment is made and a tradition is entrenched,transformation to a healthy environment can be realized:

IMEFM2,2

172

P4. In a culture which gives rise to the great leader, the relationship between theleader and followers is reciprocal and thus admired practices and advocatedprocedures easily gain legitimacy and are willingly institutionalized.

In a weak culture where beliefs and value are not widely and deeply shared, greatexpectations are more likely to translate into apathy, indifference, frustration andfragmentation. More likely, the emerging leader is a type of “ordinary man.” That is,the leader does not exhibit any idealized quality, is not concerned with purposefulchange, and primarily focus on maintaining the status quo. In case that followers showfrustration, and fear and mistrust the leader, the leader is more likely resort topunishment and coercion. At a societal level, with the absence of respect and love fromthe populace, the leader resorts to coercion and authoritarian practice to maintainpower and submission. Thus, the emerging leadership model is “Caliphal”:

P5. In a culture where beliefs and values are not widely shared and held, the greatexpectations are more likely to lead to feelings of apathy, confusion, andfrustration among followers and to the rise of an ordinary leader.

Under this model, law and order are contingent upon the will of the leader andsubjectivity in decision making is almost the norm. Initially, subjectivity in conductleads to frustration among followers. Over time, this state eventually transforms intoapathy and indifference. Therefore, there will be no specific or admired organizationaltradition resulting in a lack of institutionalism and agreed upon direction.

The Caliphal model has been common in government, and in recent years avariation of it can be found in business organizations. In contrast, the Prophetic modelis rarely found in contemporary Islamic governments. Nevertheless, variations of it canbe found in family owned and small business organizations. The effectiveness of eithermodel is difficult to judge. But using institutionalism as a desired end, the Propheticmodel is certainly preferred. The economic stagnation and the lack of technologicaladvancement and transparency in Muslim countries have been attributed to thedetermination of the leaders, lack of institutionalism and lack of public participation.For example, in the context of the Arab World, The United Nations’ Arab HumanDevelopment Report 2002 (vii) noticed that “the predominant characteristic of thecurrent Arab reality seems to be the existence of deeply rooted shortcomings in Arabinstitutional structures. These shortcomings pose serious obstacles to humandevelopment and are summarized as the three deficits relating to freedom,empowerment of women and knowledge. They constitute weighty constraints onhuman capability that must be lifted.” Because general environment influencesorganizational life and culture, the identified reality in the Report certainly impedescreative and sound management practices.

Idealism and realismWhen the French philosopher Rodinson (1981) wrote, that many sayings attributed tothe Prophet Mohamed sound like contemporary liberal thoughts and, thus, must havehad to be written in an era of openness and liberalism not in the environment of Arabiaaround 620s, he raised an intriguing issue. He stated (p.59):

There are some hadiths [the sayings of the Prophet] that clearly reflect contemporarythinking rather than tendencies dating from the time of the Prophet. For example, manyhadiths deal with the problem of racism.

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

173

Rodinson’s astonishment, however, should be attributed to the state of Muslimsocieties today. Most of these societies are backward, authoritarian and behind othercountries politically, socially and technologically. Their social and economic progresshas been disappointing and has led to deep frustration among people of these societies.It is possible that scholars, especially in the West, may attribute such mediocreachievement to religion without careful understanding of the tenets of the religion andthe internal and external conditions that have led to societal stagnation. For a Muslim,“Exalted values are the fundamental components of his essence; they are inherent tohis being, his living, his thinking, his loving” (Shariati, 1979, p. 123). It is more likely,however, that in an environment of greed and political corruption and foreigndomination, confusing ideal with reality becomes permissible and gradually habitual.Furthermore, most Muslim societies are still traditional in nature. In these countriesreligion is not separated from other aspects of life. In his investigation of the Arabculture, Patai (1983, p. 165) noted that the Arab preference “ for thought – wishes,ideas, ideals, aspirations, and the like-over factual reality should not be confined to theera of religion, but should penetrate, together with religion, all other aspects of life.”Such interplay of ideals and reality in actual life serves magnificently in sustaininghope and continuity under adverse conditions. Nevertheless, in the context ofleadership, it may facilitate the emergence of authoritarian practice, especially in theabsence of ideological clarity and widespread social cohesiveness:

P6. In a culture where there is a lack of ideological clarity and social cohesiveness,intense yearning for ideals, irrespective of reality, could facilitate theemergence of an authoritarian leadership.

The rise of autocratic leaders in both political and business organizations is notsomething peculiar to Islamic culture. All cultures and civilizations have experiencedauthoritarian rule in their history. In Muslim societies, however, authoritarian rulers inrecent history have been more commonly in power despite Islam disapproval ofoppression and authoritarian tendencies. The Quran, for example, condemnsoppression (2:217): “Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” and (3:159):

Wert thou severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about thee: so passover (their faults) and ask for (God’s) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs. Then,when thou hast taken a decision, put the trust in God.

Leaders in Muslim countries, like those in other cultures, display various styles ofleadership. In the business world consultative, paternalistic and autocratic are morecommon than other styles. Muna (1980) conducted a study on managerial practice inthe Arab World and found that most managers espouse a consultative style. Ali (1989)found that most managers preferred consultative and pseudo-consultative styles. Thelatter is a mixture of consultative and autocratic styles. It is an attempt by individualsin a position of authority to give the impression of a commitment to a sanctionedtradition. That is, some leaders display a pseudo-consultative style to reduce thetension between authoritative and consultative trends and create a supportive andcohesive environment around themselves. Its existence can be traced to theauthoritarian element in most Muslim societies – an element springing from severalfactors that have shaped the norms and practices in contemporary Muslim states.These factors include the primacy of coercive force and instability in the succession

IMEFM2,2

174

process of the Islamic polity (Hudson, 1977), the centralized political system that haveevolved since the end of colonization of some Muslim countries, foreign occupation andcultural discontinuity (Ali, 1995), the domination of the Jabria (predestination) Schoolof thought in many Muslim states which legitimizes authoritarian action and theoppressive quality of leadership (Watt, 1961).

The persistent presence of authoritarian leadership in both politics and business isan intriguing subject. In Figure 2, the focus was on the societal and cultural factors,which under certain conditions either produce great Leaders (visionary) or ordinaryLeaders (authoritarian). There are various personal factors, too, that facilitate thepresence of the latter. In this part, the most important personal attributes are identified.These attributes are shaped to a large extent by internal (societal) and external(foreign) forces. Indeed, the interplay of all these qualities and factors, in the absence ofopenness and strong culture, creates a hospitable environment for authoritariantendencies. In societies that are infatuated with ideals, attributes that facilitate theemergence of authoritarianism find fertile ground. These attributes encompass a highsense of belonging, a high need for approval, a high dissatisfaction with the currentaffairs, a high need for recognition and a sense of being destined to lead. Observers ofIslamic culture note that these attributes are not only common but in the absence ofopenness may lead to unpredictable consequences (Al-Wardi, 1951; Baali andAl-Wardi, 1981; Barakat, 1976; Berque, 1978; Jasim, 1987). The following is adescription of each.

High sense of belongingAn individual in an Islamic culture feels, due to Islamic teaching and socialization, thathe/she is part of a wider social organization called Umma or community. The self“exists as the sum of its interactions with others” (Raban, 2003). The sense of self as anautonomous unit separated from other members of the society is seldom appreciated inMuslim societies. It is considered neither a virtue nor is it sought after. Those whoshow a high sense of belonging to this Umma normally display a higher involvementin the affairs of the society and are inclined, more than others, to champion what theyperceive as societal causes.

Figure 2.Factors influencing

authoritarian tendenciesat the individual level

High sense ofbelonging

Highdissatisfaction

with the presentaffair

High need forapproval/

appreciation

High need ofrecognition

Collision of idealand reality

A sense of beingdestined to lead

Infatuation withself

Inability to maketangible progress

Failure toacknowledgeshortcomings

Absoluteauthoritarian

Authoritariantendencies

Benevolentauthoritarian

Individual attributes

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

175

High need for approvalThose who seek approval for their actions, even for small matters, usually display deepfrustration and disappointment when they do not get immediate approbation for theiractions. Individuals in this category usually contact others to inform them of what theydid or ask for an appreciation for what they embark on. When individuals with a highsense of belonging, however, display simultaneously a high need for appreciation, theytend to engage in several manipulative acts to capture the attention of others andhopefully win their approval.

High dissatisfaction with the present affairsWhen a person perceives that current affairs are unsatisfactory or inconsistent withtheir perception of the interest of the society or the organization, they may feel a need tochange the status quo. The slow change or the failure to make progress to alleviatepersonal, societal or organizational problems often motivates people in this category toactively advocate change.

High need for recognitionPeople with a high need for recognition are always anxious and restless. Theirpersistent quest for recognition underscores uneasiness and a desire to influenceothers. Normally, they are involved in various activities and networking to buildsupport, at any expense, to their cause. Their quest for power and influence, however,revolves around selfish interest. Societal or organizational matters are useful only aslong as they facilitate their goal for recognition and power.

A sense of being destined to leadWhen a person displays a high sense of belonging, believes that the state of the society ororganization is not satisfactory and that they have the vision to make a difference, thatperson perceives that he/she is destined to lead. That is, individuals in this case overestimate their ability to lead and believe that their vision will lead to ideal outcomes. Thisperception is strengthened when the person believes that the rest of the people are notadequately qualified to either articulate their demands or meet existing challenges.

In Muslim societies because of the supremacy of the personal relationship, strengthof self-censorship, inclination to be influence by rhetoric, and a tendency to easily offerinitial trust without careful assessment (Ali, 1995, Jasim, 1987) there is a fertile groundfor individuals with above quality to emerge as a leader:

P7a. Individuals who, in societies that are characterized by the supremacy ofpersonal relationships, idealism, self-censorship, and which experienceeconomic-political stagnation, exhibit a high sense of belonging to the group,a high need for approval, a high need for recognition, and the dissatisfactionwith current group conditions, are more likely to believe that that they aredestined to lead.

The irony is that when individuals with these qualities assume a leadership positionand find themselves incapable of making positive changes, they cling to power. Here,the ideal and reality collide leaving leaders concerned more with their own interest,rather than with the interest of the organization or the society at large. Often, theleaders attribute failure to outside forces and to the inability of followers to appreciate

IMEFM2,2

176

their vision and efforts. As time passes and problems persists the leaders genuinelybegins to believe that they are visionaries or great leaders and that the general public isnot yet sophisticated enough to value their contributions:

P7b. The emerging leader who fails to deliver the promised positive changes andwhose followers show dissatisfaction will gradually display authoritariantendencies.

This combined with the failure to acknowledge their shortcomings, and a general lackof empathy and strong cultural identity among followers sustain authoritariantendencies. Depending on the leader’s sense of belonging to the community and thedegree of commitment to general interest, the leader is likely to exhibit either abenevolent or absolute authoritarian style (Figure 2). The first style incorporatestraditional qualities of informality and caring in conduct. The leader, however, behavesas the ultimate protector, caregiver and the one who shoulders all responsibilities. Theabsolute authoritarian leader spends a great deal of energy to project the image of themost capable and knowledgeable individual, but relies on coercion and brutality inmaintaining power:

P7c. Whether or not the leader is a benevolent or absolute authoritarian willdepend on the degree of the leader’s sense of belonging and identification withthe group.

The infatuation with the ideal and the tendency to project the appearance of greatness,despite an inability to articulate a vision that rallies followers, may be considered themost significant factors in nurturing authoritarian tendencies. That is, when leadersaspire to be great leaders but lack the necessary qualities, they are probably inclined tolimit freedom and liberty in order to conceal their deficiencies. This may explain therise of authoritarian rulers in the Muslim World since the death of the fourth Caliph in661. Indeed, the conflict between the desired ideals and reality is crucial tounderstanding the current tensions in the Muslim countries. Rulers and managers alikemanipulate events to perpetuate the appearance of greatness and moral clarity in orderto create a supportive and cohesive environment. As the gulf between the leader andfollowers is enlarged, the leader shows frustration and contempt to followers.Consequently, failure to stimulate popular support and respect induce leaders to utilizecoercive and dictatorial mechanisms.

ConclusionIn this paper, concept of leadership in Islam was discussed. The paper provided ahistorical perspective on the evolution and importance of leaders and leadership. It isargued that leadership is a process of shared influence. It is social and relational innature and is ultimately shaped by the nature of followers and the prevailing valuesand beliefs. The paper described and critically analyzed how the concept andunderstanding of leaders and their roles have evolved over many centuries.This historical survey evidences that contradictory conceptualization and justificationfor leaders and leadership have existed across the history of the Muslim people. Theevolution of leadership concept has departed from the concept that was advocatedduring the very early years of the Muslim State (622-661). The departure remotelyresembles the relatively liberal understanding of that early period.

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

177

A model of an Islamic leadership based on deeply held cultural elements waspresented. Furthermore, the paper presented theoretical reasoning for the rise ofauthoritarian role in a culture that experiences the living contradiction of idealism andrealism. It was argued that these conditions have greatly shaped leaders’ orientationsin governments and in the realm of business. Nevertheless, it was suggested that theIslamic model of leadership offers a better understanding of the situational and culturalfactors that exist in Muslim societies. More importantly, the model and itsunderpinning assumptions may be highly appropriate for managing twenty-firstcentury organizations.

The presented model offers researchers and practitioners an opportunity tounderstand Islamic culture and the complex environment at economic organization. Infact, the sensitivity and familiarity with the ever rising aspiration for a prophetic leaderand the constant clash between ideal and reality may provide a realistic understandingof the developmental and organizational issues in many Muslim countries. The factthat early Muslim thinkers (622-661) had thought that leadership is a reciprocal socialphenomenon may offer an insight for understanding not only the significance offollowers in determining the nature of leadership, the evolution of leadership practicesbut also the differences in cultures and the nature of organizations.

The interplay between individual and societal characteristics that gives rise toauthoritarian tendencies offers a practical opportunity for understanding the abuse ofpower in organization and the difficulties in meeting performance goals. Indeed, futureresearch may look at the conditions necessary to minimize the probability of theemergence of absolute authoritarian leaders. Furthermore, future research mayaddress whether or not the emergence of the great leader (prophetic) is a practicalpossibility and the possibilities for eradicating power abuses by cultivating anenvironment for effectively developing followers without overlooking nurturingconditions for facilitating the rise of the great leader.

In terms of Muslim societies there is a need to limit the gap of mistrust betweenleaders and followers. Organizations operating in these countries suffer from a deepand serious crisis. This crisis can be solved when managers and policymakers in theMuslim World become more pragmatic, reconcile the differences between what is idealand what is reality, and when they internalize the principles of their faith. Thisdemands an honest and deep reevaluation about the role of followers, the participationin the decision making process, the rights of individuals and the whole issue ofaccession and succession.

References

Ali, A. (1995), “Cultural discontinuity and Arab management thought”, International Studies ofManagement & Organization, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 7-30.

Ali, A. (2005), Islamic Perspectives on Management and Organization, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham.

Ali, I. (1989), Nahjul Balagah, (translated and edited by F. Ebeid), Dar Alkitab Al-Lubnani,Beirut.

Al-Masudi, A. Al-H. (n.d.) Muroj Al-thahib [Prairies of Gold], Vols 2/3, Dar-Almarifa, Beirut.

Al-Wardi, A. (1951), The Personality of Iraqi Individuals, Al-raipta Press, Bhaghdad.

IMEFM2,2

178

Arkoun, M. (1986), The Historical Base of Arab – Islamic Thought, Center for National Growth,Beirut.

Armstrong, K. (1992), Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper Collins Publishers,New York, NY.

Asaf, M. (1987), The Islamic Way in Business Administration, Ayen Shamis Library, Cairo.

Ashmawy, M. (1992), Islamic Caliphate, Siena Publisher, Cairo.

Baali, F. and Wardi, A. (1981), Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Thought Style, Haland, Boston, MA.

Barakat, H. (1976), “Socioeconomic, cultural and personality forces determining development inArab society”, Social Praxis, Vol. 2 Nos 3/4, pp. 179-204.

Berque, J. (1978), Cultural Expression in Arab Society Today, The University of Texas Press,Austin, TX.

Blau, P. (1963), “Critical remarks on Weber’s theory of authority”, American Political ScienceReview, Vol. 57, pp. 305-15.

Brodbeck, F. (2000), “Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries”,Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 1-29.

Collier, A. (1971), “Business leadership and creative society”, Harvard Business Review,Leadership Part II, pp. 15-23.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), “Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership inorganizational settings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 637-47.

Davies, F. (2003), “Many misinformed about Iraq, September 11 attacks”, Knight Ridder Newsservice, June 13, available at: www.krtdirect.com

Dow, T. (1969), “The theory of charisma”, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 306-18.

Friedland, W. (1964), “For a sociological concept for charisma”, Social Forces, Vol. 43 No. 1,pp. 18-26.

Hawi, S. (1982), Fisoul Fi Alamrh Wa Alamer (Lectures on Leadership and Leader), Al-Sharq,Amman, Jordan.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’ Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1999), “Problems remain, but theories will change: the universal and the specific in21st century global management”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 34-43.

Hourani, A. (1991), A history of the Arab peoples, The Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.

House, R., Javidan, M. and Dorfman, P. (2001), “Project globe: an introduction”, AppliedPsychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 489-505.

Howell, J.M. and Shamir, B. (2005), “The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process:relationships and their consequences”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1,pp. 96-112.

Hudson, M. (1977), Arab Politics, Yale University Press, New York, NY.

Hughes, R., Ginnett, R. and Gordan, C. (2006), Leadership, McGraw Hill, Boston, MA.

Hunt, J.G. and Conger, J.A. (1999), “From where we sit: an assessment of transformational andcharismatic leadership research”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 335-43.

Ibn Khaldun, A.-R. (1989), The Magaddimah, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (trns. ByFranz Rosenthal & edited by N.J. Dawood).

Jasim, A. (1987), Mhammad: Al-Hagigaha Al-Kubra (Mohammed: the Greatest Truth),Dar al-Andalus, Beirut.

Islamicperspectives on

leadership

179

Khadra, B. (1990), “The Prophetic-Caliphal model of leadership: an empirical study”,International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 37-51.

Muna, F. (1980), The Arab Executive, St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY.

Patai, R. (1983), The Arab Mind, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, NY.

Peterson, M.F. and Hunt, J.G. (1997), “International perspectives on international leadership”,Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 203-27.

Raban, J. (2003), “The greatest Gulf”, The Guardian, available at: www.guardian.co.uk (accessedApril 19).

Rodinson, M. (1981), Marxism and the Muslim World, Monthly Review Press, New York, NY.

Shariati, A. (1979), On the Sociology of Islam, Mizan Press, Berkeley, CA.

Shaw, J.B. (1990), “A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 626-45.

Siddiqui, M. (1987), Organization of Government Under the Prophet, Idarah-i Adabiyat-i Delli,Delhi.

Stogdill, R. (1974),Handbook ofLeadership:ASurvey of theLiterature, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Watt, W.M. (1961), Islam and Integration of Society, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.

Willner, A. (1984), The Spellbinders Charismatic Political Leadership, Yale University Press,New Haven, CT.

Wolpe, H. (1968), “A critical analysis of some aspects of charisma”, Sociological Review, Vol. 16,pp. 305-18.

Further reading

Ali, A. (1989), “Decision style and work satisfaction of Arab executives”, International Studies ofManagement & Organization, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 22-37.

Holy Bible (1977), King James Version, Thomas Nelson, New York, NY.

Holy Quran (1989), English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary, King Fahd HolyQuar-an Printing Complex, Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah.

Corresponding authorAbbas J. Ali can be contacted at: aaali@iup.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

IMEFM2,2

180