Emmanuel Mutisya Ngui

Supervisor: Dr. Elias Mokua

School of Journalism

University of Nairobi


A personal experience on leadership

Failed leadership in Kenyans’ own hands

Given the ongoing management of Kenya’s leadership on development, I think I should be the angriest Kenyan citizen- our leaders really take advantage of us and end up taking us for granted. Looking back at Rostow’s [1](1960) modernization approach to development, for the longest time in over a decade, Kenya has been on the verge of real socioeconomic take off. Tracking back to 2003 when Kenya finally got a breakthrough from a one party leadership to a new taste of leadership that led to the launch of new constitution 2010


I feel that Kenya’s leadership has failed in taking Kenyans through a healing process from the the2008 violence. The impact of the post-election violence is still felt and evident among our communities, In addition, the government has failed in its role of utilizing the Constitution 2010 to help in reckoning or accounting primarily for the loses suffered as a result of the violence, even the extra-judicial killings by its own military force. Throughout time, our leadership has failed to address such issues as impunity, cases of rapes on our women and our grandchildren and focuses on fighting poverty by exploiting the poor people’s rights and livelihoods. In the end, only the wealthy individuals and those in power benefit from such development agendas as the new housing policy which requires employees to contribute to an housing plan that they cannot afford, that is, based on the argument that majority of Kenyans survive on a gross income below KSH 40,000 per month which is way below the expected rates of persons who can afford to purchase the houses to be constructed for the poor. The government confidently wants to keep us poor, weak and divided, as the rich make platforms for the rich in the name of helping the poor. A similar situation is what happened with the housing plan in Kibera. After the government constructed houses for slum dwellers in Kibera, the more privileged community bought the houses and rented them to the poor in Kibera. Kenya is evidently what Tanzania’s former president the late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere described as man-eat-man society or for a better theoretical understanding, what Charles Darwin describes as survival for the fittest.


Kenya’s top most leadership has appointed unreliable persons to head key government institutions that have continued to facilitate corruption through a favorism business approach whereby the government conducts business with a select few who reflect the interests of those in leadership. Recently, Kenya Power and Lighting Company, a parastatal that has monopolized the industry of electricity energy production and distribution was put on the spotlight by media after an audit of tenders awarded to a company last year, a company that had applied for the tender days later after the expiry of the deadline. Clearly, we are not looking forward to a justification that this process was fair and that there were no other qualified companies to be awarded the tender. The system is one that favors a few and manipulates the rest of citizens who do not have the muscle to question in a court of law.


Practically, the Constitution 2010 approach to governance and development is a participatory one which follows the same structure as the sustainable development model. The government created various institutions as per the Constitution; however, these institutions have been subjected to patronage or intimidation which is not in any way suggestive of a participatory or public inclusion approach to development. In a country where majority of her citizens are young men and women under the age of 35, qualified graduates and innovative-energetic young minds with great ideas for development, the government shamelessly appoints old retired men into positions of responsibility in the very same institutions crafted by the very Constitution. Thefts linked to public property such as National Youth Service and Pipeline scandals are coupled with the appointments of retired civil servants which further explain that the leadership cares less for its people’s development.


These same retired officers continue to serve the very old styles basically serving the powerful not the majority with a top-bottom development model. There is no respect to inclusion, equality, equity and public participation. I think the government does not approach development as people centered and does not respect the environment at all. This means that there is no transparency to hold the government accountable in any of its ways. For instance, the government took into a partnership with the China government where it secured a loan for the development of a standard gage railway. The public was never aware about this debt until the media intervened. In a recent interview on NTV Kenya, the president promised to avail the China to Kenya loan documents to the public, a word he has failed to keep months after the interview. According to my assessment on how the president is handling this issue, I think he does not respect the strong will and concerns of Kenyans. The president and his leadership must first acknowledge that development happens around the people and for the people and not the people around development and for development. The leadership therefore has failed to realize the position of its citizens and the positive role they can play as contributors and active agents of change in Kenya. Through my eyes, the government does not seek to realize the potential of its people such as invest in the creativity seen in innovative exhibitions that would otherwise add value to the lives of millions of Kenya.


My experience with the leadership with Kenya’s government to other lower levels of management such as institutions like schools has being a transactional one whereby you are only awarded for doing good that is in praise of what the government is doing best, that is manipulating and exploiting its citizens. We see the president invest millions of shillings on single citizens for singing songs or reading poems that appeal to his leadership. These very amounts of money could probably be channeled to a project that could benefit even if not many, just 20 youth to start small business. It may be argued that this is money from an individual’s pocket; however, we see lack of primary periodization of the general public’s needs to an adoption of one that only rewards to seek favor from public opinion. It is merely a system of misplaced priorities.


Limitations to leadership theories

  1. The Great Man Theory of Leadership

Experiences over time in history largely explain that great men or heroes are born and not made. This argument as presented by the Great Man Theory opens a whole controversial topic for discussion questioning the capacity for leadership in each person’s inner personality. I think everyone is born a leader, and if not, at least with a leadership mindset whereby each one is ordained to take charge, govern and be in full control of their own lives especially after achieving the social qualification of independence at adulthood. Truly, leadership hereby comes out as inborn, however, this theory fails to discuss that the desire to be in charge of other people is not an inborn thing rather a motivation that exceeds other people’s inborn motivation of self-governance. If we bank on the argument that leadership is inborn such that a person is either a natural born leader or not then we are basically going against nature’s description which shows mankind being in charge of simple things like family discipline, self-management among other key drivers.

The great man assumption is that greatness is measured through legacy by impacting many people which is not always the case. There are individuals who are known for making great impacts on people’s lives and continue to do so only that their stories are not covered in history, or perhaps did not experience equal publicity to be famous. The argument of this theory is therefore one that dwells on the spectacle of things whereby success and victory is not measure by reality but what we see on the bigger picture, in this case, the actual impact of the leadership of these individuals, some of them is negative more than positive contribution to the development of the human race.

A leader is in charge of leading people to achieve their happiness by helping them to fulfill certain desires through a model that helps them achieve their goals such as those that should be described in a manifesto, not one that leads people into destructive practices and builds more enemies and border conflicts. According to the theory, a leader is a hero who accomplishes goals against all odds for his followers which contradicts with the some leadership styles such as dictatorship and colonization that was experienced in Africa with the likes of big names such as Otto von Bismarck of Germany, who lead colonization in Africa. This is deprivation of people’s needs which do not reflect the argument of the Great Man Theory statement that these born leaders are highly influential individuals, gifted with divine inspiration and the right characteristics like charisma, intelligence, wisdom, political skill etc. with a capability to have a decisive historical impact. This is a total contradiction because in history we have seen leaders like Adolf Hitler, Omar al-Bashir, Yoweri Museveni who are said to have abused their position of leadership yet the theories were developed focused on identifying the innate qualities and characteristics possessed by great social, political, and military leaders which result to the development of the followers’ interests as opposed to achieving personal interests..

This theory focuses on the aspect of male leadership hence a feminism perspective even from its title as a “great man theory” and is not applicable in today’s world where women empowerment is a primary advocacy. Although the name may have changed to the great person theory in place of great men theory still focuses its ideologies on the practices of the male gender in their role in leadership as opposed to the female gender. This is seen in the illustration of such texts as “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.”

In addition, the ideology presented in this theory that there are a few exceptional men in each generation who were born with qualities and characteristics that caused other individuals to follow them is not a factual one. If this was the case that great persons came into existence, then randomizing would be the nature of birth and some generations would otherwise exist without leadership personalities.

Lastly, the assumption that people are born leaders contracts with the mentorship approach used in grooming leaders to build an image for themselves as we may see with how newly-weds are integrated into the monarch of the United Kingdom.  A leader is taken through training and equipped with certain skills that make them to be who they are.

2.      Transactional Leadership Limitations

The transactional theory of leadership explains that leadership is a transaction that involves rewarding good for good. This introduction assumes the function of leadership as one that is dependent on the action and contribution of a leader’s followers or supporters to the leadership.  It places the burden of a successful leadership on followers which is contradicts with other leadership approaches such as servant leadership which says that leadership is dedication to serve the people regardless of whether they are supporters or not. A leader is supposed to be held accountable over fulfilling a sense responsibility on the people. Such responsibility involves leading people and managing resources entrusted on the leader to achieve certain set goals and objects.

This theory seems to set a leader free of the sense of accountability and responsibility that comes with the expectations of the people on their leadership. People such as employees are supposed to be awarded their rightful benefits such as salaries, whether or not they are doing good enough to be noticed by the leader. This form of leadership is easy and convenient but involves manipulating people’s effort to go out of their ways to perform extra good to the leadership so as to be awarded for their exclusive contribution to the organization or institution.

This kind of practice does not recognize that in many cases team work is the key to the success that is rewarded to individuals and therefore seems to promote certain blockades to development such as exclusion. Leadership of this style manipulates its people through making certain demands and setting high expectations and therefore the theory fails to address the rights of such persons and clearly define what they are. For instance, persons will be seen to work for longer hours only to be awarded a title on the notice board as employees of the week. Rewards if any, ought to be reasonable rewards that add value to the betterment of the livelihoods of the active contributors involved in the transaction. This theory hereby fails to pay respect to those certain areas of personal development and only focuses on the development of the organization.

Rewards do not always benefit the persons in a substantial way to improve their own lives. This model attempts to explain how to motivate persons working in a group or organization’s set up. However, it fails to realize personal differences among employees and that persons perform best under different influences, not everyone is motivated by gifts, some people are motivated by simply getting the work complete. Transactional leadership further argues that employees will perform best as an action to avoid punishment such as losing a job may apply. In real sense, leadership ought to be one that utilizes all the strengths of its employees and not one that punishes or dismisses at will. Leadership involves encouraging and inspiring team players to do best what they are good at.

The transactional style of leadership also does not realize that work performance is also influenced by a cordial relationship between the leader and his people, and that the leader is also part of the team. In the theory, leaders see that salary or the agreed benefits for work done is the reward for the day and will often fail to apply other captivating roles such as praise for work well done which can a long way to move persons to do better. Sometimes, the rewards may not always match the amount or quality of work achieved which is evident through strikes by officials for underpayment, poor working environments and the likes of other challenges involved with work.

The leader exercises a sense of authority over the people such that all accountability is held upon the people and not the leader. The model of leadership here is a top-bottom approach whereby the leader only feeds the people with instructions and will not pay attention to other factors as to why certain employees many not perform to their maximum potential. The blame is always on the employees and hardly will the leader get views from team players as the approach is one that is one-way directive that persons should only focus on what gets them the promised reward.


  1. Transformational Leadership theory


Considered a theory that is in charge of other leadership theories, the transformational theory is one that puts people’s development at the center of a leader’s interests. Nonetheless, its descriptive approach of influence, inspiration, motivation and intellectual stimulation do not entirely set it apart to stand out from the other leadership theories as all leadership is people guided.

The argument that a leader arises as one who is most influential among people is a not a sufficient backup for how power is vested on individuals to be in charge of other people’s interests.


Influence is an achievement acquired through a process of campaigns and convincing people to believe in one’s own endeavors, success in one’s own goals indicates that other people can trust you as a leader and not necessarily to the view portrayed in the transformational theory which holds that people are convinced by someone who has their development at heart. Such a person is seen as the leader of the people, possessing great personalities as seen in the great man theory.


However, this is not always the case as some people make calculated moves to the top positions motivated by personal desires and personal dreams for the communities they wish to have. Leadership hereby goes far beyond possessing a charismatic personality that convinces people that one has achieved their life goals and that they can lead others to do the same. This is an assumption approach than having any empirical evidence that it would actually work for the people. In addition, the theory fails to explain the linkages between the great personalities of the leaders and how they connect to the objectivity of the leadership.


Transformational leaders come out as powerful individuals with great personalities and the only link between them and their followers is trust which cannot be measured. It fails to provide a means by which the true selves of these persons that could otherwise be used to perform further background searches on the individuals.


However much the transformational approach is development centered, the theory fails to pay attention to other modern approaches such as sustainable development which require full social inclusion in leadership. The transformational leader believes that he or she knows what is best for the people, has access to the right resources to implement the desired change but this could sometimes conflict with what the society perceives as most important to them. An individual’s dream or vision may not always represent the bigger picture of a community’s needs.


  1. Trait Theories

Leaders are seen to hold certain predictable traits as may be described in other leadership theories. To begin with, successful leadership is dependent on many other factors such as political environments other than personal characteristics as the traits theory only focuses on the leadership traits as key for such achievement. In addition, the listed traits of leadership are not a definitive must have qualities for a leader. Furthermore, a person may still possess these qualities and have no interest in being a leader.

Further, the traits theories fail to describe a way of holding the leaders accountable over their role. Leadership is a responsibility and his fails to come out in the description of the theories as they only explain the personalities that qualify one to hold such positions.

The major focus on traits limits the use of this approach in other forums such as leadership training because personalities cannot be planted or imposed on an individual. Each person has that unique bit of their individualism which makes him or her likable in a particular way. This approach also fails to discuss the influence of such traits on the performance of groups and organizations.


5.      Behavioral theories

It is stated that human beings develop behavior from the interactions they have with the environments. This is an assumption that behavior is developed through exposure to various environments which absolutely not the case when it comes to persons who may prove to possess some bit of resilience to resist behavioral influence in such environments. In leadership, not everyone will be inspired to take up a leadership role simply because they have grown in a political environment. People are considered unique, each different at their individualistic level and their interests will be shaped by other factors such as principles and values they hold dear to themselves. Therefore, it is not just about exposure to environment that a leader chooses to become a leader or acquires good leadership traits, rather, it is a matter of personal choices influenced by one’s own principles.

Behavioral theories do not account for how persons’ behavior changes from to time when exposed to different factors. Human behavior can be dynamic and prove to be difficult to monitor. It is also hard to predict human behavior as there is no actual scientific procedure to tell when someone is acting as the real self or just pretending to find favor in a given situation. Further, the behavioral theory fails to explain how a leader would deal with issues that they may be experiencing for the first time. The theory fails to take into account the consequences of inexperienced leaders who only show attributes of good behavior but no track record for experience in leadership.

  1. Contingency theory of leadership

Logically, leaders ought to rule and guide on approaches to development based both on the situation today and in reference to the future, while of course, they have alternatives to consider. The contingency theory argues that leadership should be flexible to accommodate any forthcoming challenges.

However, the contingency approach seems to present a platform for leaders to manipulate their followers as the leaders appear to have some added privileges to change and alter plans to suit what they visualize as the best outcome. Sometimes, a leader could change a strategic pan only to create a new one that favors personal business or political goals.

Evidently, not much information is available for discussion of the applications and limitations of this theory. Little is published about how leaders otherwise make promises to their followers only to sit on the throne and take new directions to implement only that which favors them or affects their rivals in a certain way. Therefore, this theory fails to present more accurate advances towards what a leader should do and when at such times when an alternative is required as opposed to letting them leaders to walk away from their deceptive manifestos.

The contingency theory suggestion that a leader needs to know what to do depending on the situation is an action that can be used to determine the face of a leadership that fails to plan strategically. A leader needs to have a strategic plan that predicts expected outcomes of the future and explains what actions and risks would arise and how to tackle them. This theory contracts such scientific approach of proven procedures to adopt a model that is made up of more of guess work than actual planning. A leader is hereby unsure of the outcomes or new risks that would come with a simple decision made regarding a situation. The theory exposes leaders to make decisions while under pressure and therefore so many variables are not put into consideration to make an effective and efficient decision. Hereby, this theory fails to present an empirical approach to measure results as well as make reliable predictions on the impact of an action.

The contingency argument results are biased as they are based on what a leader sees as most important for the people as guided by a situation at a given time. This contradicts other leadership approaches such as participative leadership which focuses on concentrating development as the people’s most important needs and not the leader’s most important needs.

ESM Ngui Freedom for Human Happiness Theory of Leadership and Development

If you do not know the way, where you are going, any way can lead you there. Thus the more human one becomes the more fulfilled one becomes. This means achieving the ultimate life purpose which is self-satisfaction comes with making certain essential factors available for this goal to be achieved. The greatest of all these factors is freedom.

For someone to get satisfaction, they must grow, for someone to grow; they must have potential such that if all factors are availed, each human being would flourish equally. In this case, when all resources and environment is right, the result is not happiness but one factor which is the pillar parent of happiness. This resulting pillar is called freedom. Freedom then makes it possible for growth to take place.

Growth is a process of achieving. When someone is achieving he or she is seen to be happy.  When a student successfully graduates from an undergraduate program, finds a well-paying job and immediately joins a post-graduate program, he or she feels content with the life progress. However, one factor makes the feeling of happiness possible. That is, as long as the person in question is following the success journey at will, pursuing a course they like and working for an employer they voluntary like and not as may be predetermined by certain factors that would otherwise leave the person with no choice but to go back to school and practice in any available career. This is freedom. That which individuals do or achieve in freedom gives makes them happy.

This hereby explains that freedom is a function that leads to an end called happiness.

When the level of happiness begins to go down, a gap called a feeling of lacking begins. In a vice versa, this feeling of lacking is an indication of diminishing freedom. It means that someone is being deprived of the basic factors that facilitate the presence freedom. Using the opposite of the student example above, a student who attends school because he or she has no choice, is forced to pursue a particular degree to meet his or her parent’s dreams and expectations, feels more oppressed throughout the very same process of achieving. This explains that when all factors of resources and environment are right they will clearly not always result to happiness. In the absence of freedom it is clearly impossible for human beings to be happy. Among the very key factors of development for growth of human beings is an element of freedom which later grows to be the sum combination of all other resources such as finances, time and environment.

Clearly, life happens as a subjection to getting and lacking- the extremes to which one is content with what they get, the happier they are said to be. Hence, an understanding of the United Nations Development Program happiness index which is based on superficial approach to happiness of general access to material things and the availability of all resources but fails to emphasize on the significance of freedom. Arguably, the concentration of the happiness index fails to explain the existence of situational factors such as negative peace whereby a very successful marriage between two persons who have successful careers, good health and beautiful children residing in a beautiful house still end up in divorce. This is the unresolved puzzle of human race which for a longtime has seen motivational speakers come up with life skills approach with catchy book topics such as “10 key points to a happy home” , however, all these have being in vain. The spoken and most avoided topic, as well as the most oppressed subject by governments especially among developing countries is freedom. Freedom is the solution to the human race puzzle.

Leadership must be driven by one agenda of fulfilling human happiness by bringing equilibrium between mankind and nature as described in the sustainable development model. However, the role of man is influenced by freedom as opposed to mere understanding of the impacts of his development actions on nature. The first approach should be to embrace that it is in the willingness of man to follow all development approaches that determines whether or not development will happen. Laws govern the people and bring about a sense of uniformity in how man carries out his activities on the planet earth however, if man is forced to do good then that good is in vain. Man’s action is influenced by his strong will and desire to achieve something, his specific drive is catalyzed more by the freedom to pursue the desires of his heart, but the presence of law imposes how man should behave and instills fear in man to act as described in a transactional model. However, this only alters maximum exploration of the full potential of man. Man needs to exist in a free environment to perform to his maximum potential.

In addition, human beings have found in their capacity ways to make themselves happy amid a situation where leadership governs with a focus on image that promotes the agenda of politicians and other persons considered influential or possessing the great man’s theory personalities. The existence of rich countries whose citizens are suffering internally explains that happiness is achieved through other means and ways other than money and excellent infrastructure. This may explain why Rwandese refugees are still immigrants in foreign countries yet the media advertises Rwanda as the next destination for tourist attraction.

There are more aspects of life that prove fulfillment to man’s happiness other than developmental ones. The center of them is freedom. Leadership needs to focus on the people’s freedom, failure to which people feel oppressed or bullied to submit to the will of their leaders. It is like Pedagogy explained in how education is administered to students who are said to be active contributors of knowledge while in the real sense they are forced to consume knowledge and learn from a teacher’s experience. Usually, in a developing country a student’s contribution to knowledge ends in an assignment presentation. Even the contribution of the student to knowledge is a forced one as it is mandatory class participation.

Therefore, the happiness measure is seen as a failing one. For instance, Singapore measure of happiness is seen as a lower one compared to Somalia which is less developed
We could argue that persons in Somalia are liberated on certain sociocultural attributes as compared to Singapore residents. A good demonstration is in the family tree and population size growth. While Singapore suffers an ageing population due to controlled birthrate, Somalis have a leeway to have as many children as they would wish

To fulfill people’s lives requires leadership to understand where their country is destined by understanding all factors that make talents visible and growth possible. Hereby, successful leadership is about creating conditions for happiness so that each person finds growth in life, but most importantly, a country needs to invest in policies that create environments for work that are free from full authoritarian control and conflict. The forceful nature of what must be done, when and how such as when to start attending school, what to learn and how to learn it only yields a small happiness result compared to individuals following what is truly dear to their hearts.

A closer look at the desire and hedoism theories further explains that authentic happiness is one which allows for the “Full Life” approach which involves a life that satisfies all three criteria of happiness; the Pleasant Life (pleasures), the Good Life (engagement), and the Meaningful Life. Happiness is hereby the result of getting what you want and not what others wish for you to get (Griffin, 1986). Leadership hereby needs to observe a model of management which engages people to present to the table their most pressing issues and vote against the list to identify the most common need among the people instead of the leaders always defining what they think is best for the people by means of intuition. The approach of preparing political manifesto during an election season is a clear demonstration that explains why people will always be unhappy regardless of how good the government is doing. For example a leader could by observation identify that a community requires improved roads infrastructure whilst the people’s most burning need is to construct dams or drill boreholes to resolve a threatening water condition in the area. As much as the leader has met one of the most important needs for the people, they still feel the leader would have done them much further good by digging a borehole for them. Consequently, if a community was left to pick what was best for the people, without question, the leadership would be serving the people by having the people’s needs first at heart. Therefore, leadership that is genuinely designed and targeted at the people is one that maximizes on creating and building opportunities that enhance feelings of pleasure and minimizes pain. According to the Objects List theory, happiness is achieved when human beings achieve certain things such as career growth, trustworthy friendships, good health, material comforts, beauty, education, love and knowledge among other items that are significantly unique to individuals.

The role of leaders is to help human beings improve living conditions so that they can improve their fulfillment to enjoy some happiness. Therefore, leadership must be people centered such that development happens on the people and not people working on and around development. It is also critical that leadership focuses on the perspective that development is for the people and not people for the development.

For you to be a leader, you must understand what people are looking for beyond the superficial measure of happiness for your followers. Your strategic approach a s a leader must be one that allows freewill to manifest among people engaging in development. This is simply promoting freedom. When people lack freedom then they are living under slavery. This is best seen with the inequalities experienced in globalization presented such critical cases as cultural imperialism, whereby people are supposed to work, perform and live in certain ways controlled by the so powerful Western and American countries. Therefore, the advocacy for sustainable development that uses the approach of participation will be a failed one not until the United Nations among other international agencies step forward to advocate for the protection of certain aspects of freedom that are otherwise not discussed in legal books. The probability of one country being more developed than another does not imply that the culture and beliefs of the developing country is inferior and that business must be conducted as directed by the more established counties. Innovation requires freedom to grow.

Leadership that embraces the approach of freedom for development therefore should be conceptualized under the following key pillars:

  1. Trust n therefore truth
  2. Justice n therefore law and order
  3. Morally sound decisions for development

The above three pillars are the platform needed for the prosperity of this theory whereby leadership must demonstrate and achieve:

  1. Accountability
  2. Transparency
  3. Responsibility
  4. Uniformity- the extent to which people function under a common rule of law
    -Individuals act willingly according to social order
    -There are two approaches: / it is not an excuse to avoid responsibility / individuals cannot rule themselves independently
  5. Responsiveness- defines the call to action, people free n willful contribution to development

Having realized the value of freedom in leadership, the huddle for transparent and truthful leadership that promotes freedom for and among individuals especially among developing countries is corruption.

Corruption is the greatest challenge for a leadership that observes transparency and accountability. However, absence of corruption may not be used to imply that developing countries would develop better without corruption. An environment that fails in practice of transparency and accountability is an indication of leadership that has to oppress its people for personal benefit, and therefore, the people’s freedom is abused.

Corruption is an indication of opportunities that are redirected for use through the wrong channels. These particular opportunities are kept away from the people and thus clearly, these very same opportunities are what is requirement as the vital breath for people’s growth. Denying people opportunities for growth is denying them freedom.

Corruption is evident in Africa due to a system of monopoly in business which is usually influenced by discretional power which assumes accountability. Goods from these companies are usually compromised not to meet everyone’s expectations. As much as it may be argued that all goods are quality and of the same standard, in the world of monopoly model of business, there are individual persons who will still feel that they could really find better deals if only presented with more alternatives to pick from. This is a sign of sold freedom.

In a corrupt field, a virtue of truth which is a child to prudence is seen to suffer diminishing essence as leaders ignore the fact that they are assigned integrity responsibility by the people. Corruption hinders the open room for transparent decision making which is a propelling tool for sustainable development Therefore, the following understanding of the definition of leadership is recommended for both a leader and the followers to advocate for freedom as a key component of development hence achieving ESM Ngui Freedom for Human Happiness Theory of Leadership and Development as a successful leadership approach:

1) Purposeful (act of to lead)
2) Vision ( leader)
3) Mission (leadership- which is the process)
4) Function (virtue souled to justice)
5) human function (reasoning well)
6) Knowing who knowing what


Rostow, 1960 The Stages Of Economic Growth