In my opinion what makes a leader, in the first place is based on a couple of "bedrock values", them being

1) Integrity &
2) Humility

When these two are compromised either in public or personal life it does have an negative impact.

By getting oneself into a leadership position , we are knowingly or unknowingly setting an example and are making more people to look upto you / follow you. Hence the responsibility of doing the " right thing" is more. In Hindu Philosophy this is described as "Dharma" or laws as it is the same for every one.

As lord Acton once said " Absolute Power corrupts Power Absolutely"
It is the belief of these so called leaders that they have absolute powers that led to their down fall.

Beliving " I'm right " is not wrong only when this gets converted
to " I'm only right " it creates all the trouble.

On your topic about learning from history , the question is do these so called powerful leaders really want to learn ?.

Applying the concept of Windscreen and Rear view mirrors. Nothing wrong in looking through the windscreen if you can also look the farthest enough and keep in mind the " Cause and effect " theory.

Newtons Third law is for Real.

What I like most about the article is the following sentence:

History does not have to repeat itself, but it will if we fail to respect it.

More importantly we should learn from history in the right context. No two situations are going to be exactly the same. We need to where others have been and the outcomes. We keep all these in our deep memory and it will come back with other info to facilitate you to get to the essentials. Patton wrote in his diary that the way to learn from to crudest and I think oldest form.

Napoleon was also an avid reader and learned from Frederick the Great, Hannibal etc.

Ladies and Gentlemen, no amount of advise can embody what Pearl Buck is trying to say above. History is about humans and humans shall prevail.

Rgds

Gurbachan
Military Studies Lecturer

The problem is that all of these people that you mentioned thought that they were the first one to accomplish what they did to get power, or are in other ways "unique" in what they are doing. The truth is that this has all been done before, and usually by people far better than you. By not looking back at people and situations such as yours, to learn from their mistakes, is both foolish and vain. The general feeling that there is a lack of leadership in America is a very real issue, and we collectively have suffered greatly for it. Instead of leaders working hard and actually studying the use of power, we are "led" by people who have inflated opinions of themselves, and do not work at true leadership hard enough. They seek power for powers' sake, and have no idea how to use it affectively.

Why Don’t Leaders Learn From History?

Three possible reasons, certainly not exhaustive:

1. Sometimes we expect the new to be better than the old for the simple fact of being new. Still, let’s look at something really old:
Thucydides, the Greek historician, was born more than 400 years before Christ.
He begins his famous description of the Peloponnesian War by explaining the principles upon which he evaluates evidence.
His basic perspective is that human nature is the basic cause of historical events (Thucydides attributes no historical event to either the gods or to fate) and hopes that his rational analysis will be useful to those who wish to understand the way things happen, since events similar to those of the past will certainly recur in the future because human nature is unchanging.
He analyzes the events of this war, he tells us, in order to enable future generations to understand the causes and progress of future wars, though not necessarily to prevent them.

2. To a great majority of the business leaders - extremely active - reading history books may appear a very boring activity, if not a complete waste of time.

3. Someone could simply argue that mistakes done by others are not painful, and therefore they are easily forgotten.

In my review of the literature over the years I have found personal flaws, five in particular, to be the single most important source of CEO failure, including that of ignoring the lessons of the past. The five are greed, irresponsibility and lack of virtue, materialistic values, moral frailty, narcissism, and narrow-mindedness. They usually go together. The last flaw causes the greatest inattention to history. Narrow-mindedness is an attribute of the personality trait called “openness to experience.” It ranges from being broad-minded to its opposite, being narrow minded. Business schools cultivate narrow mindedness by loading curricula with quantitative, finance oriented subjects to the near exclusion of the qualitative ones. When they graduate, students are ill-prepared to look into the future for the long-term consequences of decisions being considered or to look into the past for guidance. Reshaping business schools may be pointless. The broad perspective of a liberal arts education with its dose of the humanities is simply incompatible with the values and assumptions about human nature underlying business education. So what should boards do about personally flawed CEOs? Fire them. And learn from the past by not repeating the mistake in choosing a successor!

I think the repetition of history by those who are repeating it is caused primarily by people viewing their own circumstances as somehow different from those circumstances faced by people in the past. Often those looking in from outside can see the parallels and may even comment on the similarities and the lessons that should be drawn from history. But when the decision makers want to go in a particular direction, they rationalize away the similarities with historical events, perhaps often attributing the differences to their own capabilities -- back to the article's point on security and invulnerability.

This is a great column. Of course, leaders should learn from history.

But then, do we, as management educators teach them, and their potential followers how to actually "do" history, that is, study it with some rigor. Indeed do we expect rigorous historical understanding from our peer faculty in the B-School world ?

How seriously is historical scholarship - the history of leadership, of management ideas, of specific individuals - taken in management and organization studies. I appreciate that "Business History" is a substantial field; and that particularly with the Chandler tradition, HBS is an exception.

But when did papers that were about history and/or historical method feature in the leading scholarly journals - say Administrative Science Quartery, AMJ, AMR, OS?

And are we really prepared to face the fact that such historical work may indeed reveal a "dark side", hitherto concealed, about what we teach, not least about leadership and followership - I am thinking for example of Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust, or Neil Baldwin's Henry Ford and the Jews, or even Zygmunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust?

And will we challenge the "bad" history that seeks to appropriate historical figures to make tendentious points about leadership?

So, if we want leaders to take history seriously, then those of us who claim to have an interest in leadership development should be seen to as well.

Clausewitz identified 4 qualities of a genius-leader

Courage (Moral and Physical)
Determination
Coup di'oeil - intuitive sense -'flicker of the eye'
Statecraft or ability to see the big picture

All these qualites are necessary to achieved the vital trust better leaders and followers. The examples given have failed on the very first requirement.

There is a good book by Prof Khong on the potential for learning wrongly from analogies or historical precedences.

Some of the examples given are no where near not learning from history or 'forgetting' but more of being outright dishonest, abusing one's authority and not being forthright. There is more to it then history. There is an agenda and the unfortunately the system allows for it to happen. When we start tweaking the laws to suit our own course we are going down the slippery slope of the terrorist and we will ultimately lose any moral high ground.

Rgds

When leaders are in the midst of anything, they are going on with the momentum gained due to their power. Probably they or their advisers do not get enough time to look back at their controversial decisions and may continue with the same mistakes. They also have to defend the controversial decisions so that their followers should not feel that they are guilty.

While doing anything, if leaders have "detached - attachment" for the work they are doing, then the way these things are carried out can change drastically.
Let me explain you this concept, while someone is carrying out something or in the midst of it, momentarily s/he has to disassociate him/herself from that work, have a look at it from different perspective (different than just looking from the rear view mirror of the car, say looking from the roadside / helicopter to a major problem say accident on the road). This another perspective will give that person very good idea of the problem, similar past problems encountered and past solutions.
Probably due to lack of time the leaders or their advisers cannot take a look at the problems from different perspective.

Regards

Chandrashekhar S. Joshi

All human history is basically about human nature. Situations and environments may change but human values are constant. It is in this context that we have to learn from history. Those values that spawned success hundred of years ago hold true even today. Alas! we no longer have those living role models today. Everyone wants to achieve materially without toiling for it. One must not only try to achieve sucess but earn and deserve it as well

Ignoring history and not learning from it may be part of the explanation. Yet it is also important to remember the strong influence temptations and human weaknesses may have upon the will of the person. Temptations are many and varied; some are very strong and dificult to overcome. If even highly placed leaders of the churches have been tempted, what can we expect of politicians and business men? Strength of character is essential in order to overcome temptations leading to possible scandals or crimes. Yet it must be remembered that in all men there is a particular mixture of character weaknesses and strengths.

Sounds like a statement more than an argument. Who said that leaders never look back - you did?

It's deeply ingrained in human beings not to accept mistakes. Even if there's an acceptanc,e it's done only with reluctance, not wholeheartedly. For outsiders it's easy to say "accept." But for those who have committed the error, who are part of the error, it's a threatening proposition. So the solution: radical revolution in thinking patterns at all levels, from all of us. History will never help unless we feel we are part of all history. The history of a tyrant king is our own history, though apparantly we are not kings. But at home we may act like tyrants.

Another human error is to wake up to truth about life very late. It looks as though we are waiting for some crime to happen and then pounce on those perpetrators. Why can't we be awake before anything bad strikes us? Or at least be prepared to meet it?

I guess it simply boils down to better decision-making with access to better knowledge. History, taken in the right perspective, provides such knowledge.

If history is lernt in proper context and decisions taken considering all related matters , the final outcome could be much better than being ignorant about historical trends.

Leaders often fail to consider history because:
They have an unhealthy sense of their own uniqueness (if I am not like others why would history have anything to tell me?)
They have a sense that the events around them are 'peculiar' to their time and therefore history is of little value
Self-defence has developed into a belief in their own myth and if this is about always being right what would prompt them to look at situations that might suggest that they are wrong?
Sychophants encourage 'the myth'

Why don't we learn from history?

Probably for the same reasons we don't learn (as in grow and expand ourselves) in general. We are insecure and learning often challenges us. It's easier to remain in the blissful state of denial.

As an example, not many people readily admit to needing help, advice, or material assistance. For instance, as a leader myself and having worked with many other leaders in numerous countries I've observed that hardly any of us will admit to needing time off. I once worked with a man who would stand on his breaks because he was worried someone would think he was lazy. We try to disguise the obvious (to everyone else) reality that it's time for a vacation.

Why do leaders get this way? A leader leads therefore the leader is in a vulnerable spot. They are responsible. Success or failure is largely in their hands. Some leaders really get off on this and they take to believing that it all rests in their hands. Which is not true, but it bolsters their egos. The typical dictator style boss.

The other side is the whining "lets share ALL the responsibility leaders." these are the guys that only make decision if it's just right and if there is a scapegoat in place. This may not bolster but it does protect the ego.

Both sides are completely obsessed with self and will guard against anything that challenges that. This includes the opinions of others and the lessons of history.

I believe most of the leaders mentioned in the article are well educated. I highly doubt that they would claim to be unaware of history. I am very sure Bill Clinton knew all about Nixon. Why did he try his own cover up? Surely not lack of knowledge. Rather, like anyone of us entering a place where our insecurities are pressed, he tried to hide, defend, and deny. This probably is the same for the others as well.

I have been giving this a lot of thought. It seems to me that history teaches us about motivations, actions and responses. It also seems to me that throughout history, the basic motivations that lead to innovation, advancement and conflict, have not changed all that much (if at all).

As things grow; families, social organizations, governments, countries, etc. I have noticed that they tend to look ahead for ways to become wealthier. As they do, they seem to lose sight of the activites that got them to the point where they can think beyond satisfying their most basic needs.... namely, the nurturing of things to make them strong. When greed eclipses the nurture requirement, things begin to fail. Balancing the efforts dedicated to innovate and grow with the need to nurture is truly a discipline. It is a discipline that so many of today's organizations (businesses, governments, families, etc.) fail to even attempt to maintain. Its a discipline that if not adhered to will keep the organizations from reaching a state of true success, or what Abraham Maslow would call Self Actualization.

I'm heading off to Gettysburg next week with a dear old historian friend of mine. Civil wars are very interesting to me because the battles are about nurturing the existing ways vs. innovation and growth in a more positive, usually humanitarian direction. The reason behind our Civil War is a great example of a fight against the overnurturing of old ways vs. innovation and growth. Humans, mostly those in non-leadership positions but many labeled leaders as well, too often think that its impossible to over-nurture. Not true. Its about balance....baby!