Bosses not always to blame for union brawls

REUTERS

Members of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) gather at a hill dubbed the "Hill of Horror" during a memorial service for miners killed during clashes at Lonmin's Marikana platinum mine in Rustenburg, 100 km (62 miles) northwest of Johannesburg, August 23, 2012. South Africans held a memorial service on Thursday at a platinum mine where police shot dead 34 strikers, bloodshed that revived memories of apartheid-era violence and laid bare workers' anger over enduring inequalities since the end of white rule. Some 500 people crammed into a marquee pitched at the platinum mine, near what has been dubbed the "Hill of Horror" where police shot dead 34 striking miners in the deadliest security incident since apartheid ended in 1994. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko (SOUTH AFRICA - Tags: CIVIL UNREST POLITICS BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT ENERGY)

The recent Marikana incident that dominated news headlines locally and at times internationally deserves an objective analysis from a leadership perspective, which not only dwells on negative and possible failed leadership. Cyril Ramaphosa’s comments that all parties are to blame to some degree are probably not far off the mark.

Following such a gruesome incident it is difficult to even contemplate that one could extract examples of good leadership from it. Nonetheless, during crises leaders have a chance to demonstrate great or failed leadership, the former achieved when at least two ingredients are present: experience and pure motives.

Experience allows the leader to “tick the boxes” and do what is expected, necessary and perhaps a little more. Pure motives bring out the genuine caring, humaness, instincts and inspiration that at times may contradict experience and should even override it.

I asked myself whether local leaders, the general manager and his team, or Lonmin senior managers could have prevented this scandal by applying humble yet powerful leadership principles. I know capable executives in large mining houses who would not have allowed any form of contention to escalate to such an extent. But to be fair, there are always exceptions and this seems to be one.

A current leader in the platinum industry who has led a large mine before told me: “Having been a general manager myself and spending most of my working life in or around mines my answer to whether a general manager and his team could have prevented this tragedy from happening is an irrevocable NO.

“From a management perspective, even with the luxury of having first-hand knowledge of the situation at your operation, a showdown between two unions is not something that you can control.”

220812. Wonderkop Informal Settlement in Marikana near Rusternburg, North West. President Jacob Zuma addresses Lonmin striking mineworkers during his visit. Mineworkers are immovable on their demand of R12 500 salary. Picture: Dumisani Sibeko

INLSA

He adds: “Even if management walked the extra mile and intervened between NUM (the National Union of Mineworkers) and Amcu (the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union) it would have been an impossible task to convince NUM to surrender some of their power to Amcu, who have persevered in their mission to dethrone NUM as the majority union in the mining industry.”

Other leaders I spoke to confirmed that these comments were accurate.

This does not bode well for the mining landscape and should the following comments be accurate, the situation worsens: “Amcu’s thirst for power will not be satisfied until they have gained majority membership and they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. The truth of the African saying ‘When two elephants fight it is the grass under their feet that suffers’ will surely now be much better understood.”

Against this backdrop, let us start at the top. President Jacob Zuma demonstrated textbook leadership by cutting short an important trip to engage the horrible incident.

He refrained from inciting more emotion with rash judgements and decisions, which is the correct approach following such a difficult and still volatile situation. He promised to institute a commission of inquiry into what really happened. And he promptly delivered on this.

Again, delivering on promises is so important after explosive events, to neutralise and bring back some sense of order. He tried hard to avoid jumping the process of making decisions based on facts rather than emotion, which helps in such emotionally charged situations. Some feel that a decision to put in place a commission may be driven by the lack of assertive leadership through decisive decision-making. But this is not necessarily the case.

However, some may say these actions were too little too late. Zuma probably delayed his return trip too long. Why not do so after 10 people were killed? Could it be that his judgement and motives were clouded because NUM is an open supporter of a second presidential term for him?

One can’t help but believe that Zuma is aware of this union power struggle and that he may at the very least have been tempted to channel his support towards the powerful NUM, at the risk of it getting out of hand, which it unfortunately did.

When he returned to Marikana, he did not clearly return to the people but to the media instead, though it was at the actual mine, thus creating the impression that returning home was a mere “tick the box” exercise, dictated by his own experience or that of advisers around him.

He later returned to address the people, possibly to recover from this earlier mistake, and perhaps prompted by the visit of his nemesis, Julius Malema, which was to the people. This leadership indicates experience, but places huge question marks on Zuma’s motives during this sensitive period and leadership test. In difficult times great leaders return to the source, where the most pain and trauma is or was felt, especially when their motives are intact.

Our police commissioner, General Mangwashi Victoria Phiyega, found herself between a rock and a hard place. She is a newly appointed leader for whom it is vital to gain high credibility among her follower base as soon as possible. Defending the actions of her officers during this difficult time seemed to present itself as a great opportunity in this regard.

At the same time, she really wasn’t in a position to make a sound judgement as to whether her officers were in the right or wrong. It seems she chose to defend her men and women in uniform, leaving her with a 50 percent chance of either increased credibility or huge embarrassment.

Her motives may have been pure, but her inexperience could come back to haunt her.

As one newspaper headline read: “Mine massacre: Enters Malema.” Like it or not, Malema has again positioned himself as a relevant leader around this major incident. Unlike Zuma, he went straight to the people (the source) and addressed them. This is clever leadership and in this regard Malema often gets it right.

He did, however, show his inexperience and questionable motives by squandering an ideal opportunity to defy perceptions that he is driven by selfish political motives. Instead, he strengthened such perceptions when he attended the memorial service and clearly abused the platform by uttering insults to the government.

This was immature leadership at best – whether these comments were true is irrelevant. It was an ideal opportunity to express genuine human interest by setting aside his focused objective of toppling Zuma and instead sharing a deeper, meaningful message of hope, with some spiritual perspective. He missed a golden opportunity to show that he’s a leader with depth beyond mere political and ambition.

In crises, a leader’s depth of life experiences and emotional and spiritual maturity should bring the best out in them. We need such leaders in today’s complex society.

The impression created about Lonmin’s leadership is one of unfeeling tardiness. However, with larger political and labour battles in progress, one feels that they could not have prevented this incident. Should they have been more visible, more present? Should they have found a way to return to the source where the most pain and trauma was felt? Perhaps. But this may have been unwise and downright dangerous.

Lonmin do not receive a “get out of jail card” easily. The question for them is, to what extent are they improving their culture of caring for the welfare, working and living conditions of their staff? How pure are the management’s motives?

Union leadership seems shocking and exceptionally selfish to say the least. If this incident is a simple case of a power struggle, one finds it extremely difficult to find words to describe just how selfish their leadership is.

How insincere can leaders be when on the one hand they profess to fight for the rights of the poor, while on the other hand they are willing to exploit their followers by pushing their selfish agendas to the point where many lives are lost – and so many families affected for the rest of their lives.

One thing is clear: tough times and crises highlight inexperience and hidden motives in leaders like few other situations can. Some of this happened during this sad chapter in our new democracy.

Adriaan is a leadership expert, commentator and managing director and co-founder of Leadership Platform (www.leadershipplatform.com).