How Shared Leadership Can Rebuild Syria
The tragic sinking of the cargo ship El Faro in 2015 offers a powerful warning. This disaster, caused by rigid top-down leadership, extends far beyond the maritime world. In his book “Leadership is Language,” David Marquet uses this incident to show how well-meaning leaders, if they stick to traditional command structures, can accidentally cause catastrophe.
The captain of the El Faro tragically kept to his initial plan. This was despite increasingly serious weather reports and the concerns of his crew. His failure to change course, listen to warnings, and communicate openly with his crew sealed the ship’s fate. This sad example helps us understand the challenges facing Syria. The nation is on the edge of a new era, and its future leaders’ choices will decide its destiny.
Marquet’s main point is that leadership is about language. It means creating an environment where every team member feels able to share their ideas and knowledge. He introduces “red work” and “blue work.” These terms describe two different types of activity within any organisation.
Red work is the execution. It’s about getting things done, taking action, and following procedures.
Blue work is the thinking. It involves reporting, planning, improving, stopping, reflecting, learning, and making decisions.
Healthy organisations need both types of work. They need the right balance and the right people doing them.
The El Faro tragedy highlights the dangers of imbalance. Those doing the red work were not allowed to take part in the blue work. The crew were closest to the situation. They saw how bad the weather was becoming. Yet, they were not given the chance to share their observations and worries in the decision-making process. The captain alone did the blue work. The crew were just order-followers. This approach created a culture where information only flowed from the top down. Questioning authority was discouraged, and the leader believed he had all the answers.
Lessons for Syria’s Future Leadership
How does this relate to Syria? Syria’s new leadership, even with good intentions, risks repeating the deadly El Faro dynamic. This could happen if they adopt a similar inflexible, top-down approach. Just as the captain ignored hurricane warnings, a new Syrian leader might overlook the concerns of marginalised communities. They might believe they know best for the entire nation.
Decisions made alone, without consulting those affected, could easily restart tensions. A lack of open communication, like the captain’s silence with his crew, could lead to more distrust and instability. Prioritising quick reforms over inclusive talks risks alienating key groups. These include various religious, ethnic, class, and regional factions, which could worsen existing tensions. Centralised control can stop the creativity and teamwork needed for post-conflict rebuilding. This is especially true given the complex mix of local, regional, and international interests involved.
In short, if Syrian leaders keep all the “blue work” (planning and decision-making) to themselves, and leave the “red work” (execution) to a disempowered public, they risk repeating the El Faro’s mistakes on a national scale.
Learning from Historical Transitions
To avoid this dangerous path, Syria must learn from nations that have successfully moved from dictatorship to democracy. Looking at historical examples provides valuable insights.
The rebuilding of post-World War II Germany, though very different in context, shows the importance of inclusive processes and local governance. The Allied powers, through programmes like the Marshall Plan, encouraged local independence. They supported German involvement in rebuilding and the denazification process. This contrasts sharply with countries where top-down methods, often aimed at quick stability, led to long-term instability and resentment.
Post-Soviet Afghanistan’s difficulties highlight the limits of outside solutions. There was a failure to properly include existing tribal structures and tackle widespread corruption. This led to a lack of local support. Similarly, the transition in some post-Soviet states, like Russia, shows the dangers of quick privatisation. The rapid transfer of state assets to private hands, without proper institutional reforms, led to the rise of powerful business figures, huge economic inequality, and ongoing political instability.
In contrast, South Africa’s move from apartheid offers a strong example of the importance of inclusive dialogue and reconciliation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) held public hearings. It offered conditional amnesty for truth. This gave victims a platform to share their stories and perpetrators a chance to confess. The TRC, despite some criticisms, was key in fostering a national discussion about the past. It built a foundation for a fairer and more equal future. This differs greatly from the quick and incomplete transitions in some post-authoritarian states. There, a failure to address past grievances led to lasting resentments and repeated cycles of violence.
A New Leadership Approach for Syria
The main message, drawn from these varied experiences and Marquet’s lessons from the El Faro, is clear. Syria needs a radical change in leadership culture after the Assad regime. Syria’s future leaders must focus on the following:
Decentralisation of Authority: Empower local communities to take part in decision-making (“blue work”). This mirrors post-war Germany’s approach and avoids the problems of over-centralised control seen in some post-Soviet states. This means giving regional councils more independence and developing local governance structures that meet the needs of their communities. It also includes allowing civil society to operate and join in the decision-making process.
Inclusive Dialogue and Reconciliation: Addressing grievances and building trust among Syria’s diverse groups – Sunnis, Alawites, Kurds, Christians, and others – is crucial. Inspired by South Africa, truth-telling, restorative justice, and reconciliation methods will be vital for healing the wounds of war. This could involve creating platforms for victims to share their stories, holding open discussions about the past, and developing ways to address the conflict’s root causes.
Gradual and Sustainable Reforms: Avoid rapid, potentially destabilising changes, like those seen in post-Soviet transitions. Instead, prioritise building strong, independent institutions. This includes reforming the security sector, establishing an independent judiciary, developing effective public services, and investing in education and healthcare. All of this should happen while promoting a culture of transparency and accountability.
Transparency and Accountability: Ensuring open communication and ways to hold leaders accountable is vital. This will rebuild public trust and stop authoritarian tendencies from returning. This means setting up independent oversight bodies, protecting press freedom, and encouraging a strong civil society.
Moving away from a “command-and-control” model is essential. The El Faro tragedy, where “blue work” was controlled at the top, shows the danger of this. Instead, Syria needs a culture of open dialogue, shared responsibility, and inclusive governance. This is not just desirable but necessary to prevent past failures from happening again.
The way forward requires learning from both the successes and failures of similar transitions. Strategies must adapt to Syria’s unique situation. This includes a complex interaction of internal and external players, a highly fragmented society, and a history of authoritarian rule. While the challenges are huge, a future built on collaborative leadership, genuine reconciliation, and sustainable development is possible.
It is the responsibility of Syria’s future leaders, and its people, to demand this new path. They must actively take part in rebuilding and hold their leaders accountable. They can draw inspiration from the principles of “Leadership is Language” and the lessons of history. Only then can Syria truly rise from the ashes and set a course towards a just, stable, and democratic future. A future where both “red work” and “blue work” are valued and shared throughout society.
