Nelson Mandela Leadership Style Analysis

While there are other stories similar to the ones above, it would be disingenuous to suggest they represent Mandela’s style of leadership. They are perhaps a new perspective on leadership but Mandela was not above pettiness, dictatorial authoritarianism, and transactional, transformational, or integral leadership, at times. The problem seems to be one of observation.

In this sense, the story told here is as much about the observation as that of any kind of “Mandela.” The lenses of integral theory and development select moments in time and cast a lens upon them to create a story. The story, the connections of moments in time, that by necessity disconnect from other moments in time and other perspectives, observes a unity that is not present

Stengel (2008): “I did some research and presented him with a rather undistinguished list: Indonesia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Iran. He nodded and uttered his highest praise: ‘Very good, very good’".” Still, Mandela proposed the voting age. According to Cyril Ramaphosa, it was plain to Mandela that he had no support at all and it was clear that Mandela knew that there was little if any evidence that such a young voting age was warranted.

Did Mandela propose the voting age knowing it would be defeated? It is hard to believe he did not know it would be defeated. Perhaps it was a symbolic gesture to the youth of the nation that had been so instrumental in defeating apartheid. Was he hurt because he was Nelson Mandela and still no one supported him or was it an act to show his sincerity? Mandela was not above hubris and arrogance at times.

Mandela was constantly battling his unrealistically hagiographic public status and, at the time, the power of the president was being debated. Some wanted a near kingship. Was Mandela, in proposing what seemed so manifestly ridiculous, showing how equally ridiculous it would be to invest such power in an individual? Mandela, in a similar vein, wanted vigorous debate and contrary perspectives to be surfaced.

Incidents with Richard Stengel may reveal an answer to the other

When we began our series of interviews, I would often ask Mandela questions like this one: When you decided to suspend the armed struggle, was it because you realized you did not have the strength to overthrow the government or because you knew you could win over international opinion by choosing nonviolence? He would then give me a curious glance and say, "Why not both?" (Stengel, 2008, p. 3)

Stengel observed that Mandela was comfortable with contradiction. Unitive consciousness does not see contradiction, however. Contradiction implies that two different understandings both appear legitimate. At unitive development no understanding is other than illusory. Mandela does not suggest to Stengel that both are right but simply asks, “Why not both?” Again, he appears to act as a catalyst for Stengel without suggesting an answer.

Stengel admits that Mandela saw the world as “infinitely nuanced”. Stengel remarked on how Mandela saw the world as infinitely nuanced in many of his works. Stengel did not seem able to occupy the position of one who saw the world as infinitely nuanced in defining Mandela as a pragmatist or a