In a conversation with Joseph Badru years ago, he mentioned how job hunting in itself can feel like a fulltime job. It was a profound submission that has stayed with me, particularly when I consider the gravity of leadership and governance. If the mere act of seeking employment requires such disciplined labour, how much more the job of determining the fate of millions?
Leadership is both a burden and debt to be honoured. It is not necessarily a prize to be won for being intelligible, charismatic, politically astute, or having done well. We must remember that every policy of government, budget of parastatal and every directive of persons in place of authority has resulting effects on real people. In some instances, decisions made in air-conditioned offices or the comfort of our homes redistributes consequences and determines who thrives, suffers, or even stands a chance at surviving. To step into leadership without preparation is ethically indefensible.
In a society where millions rely on the decisions of a few, ambition alone is insufficient. Preparedness which includes the relentless study, reflection, and operational discipline before taking office is the moral precondition for leadership.
Too often, leadership in Nigeria is framed as destiny, entitlement, or divine appointment. We focus on the electoral victory or the appointment letter rather than the readiness required to function. This posture of heart excuses a lack of preparation and presents charisma as a substitute for competence. Yet, history clearly shows us that outcomes are not dictated by destiny, but by institutions and the readiness of those who lead them.
Leadership is about public trust. While leaders can recover from mistakes they make in office, citizens may not. And that makes it even more sacred. When a policymaker misunderstands food systems, families will go hungry. When a governor mismanages urban planning, floods will claim lives. When a minister lacks administrative competence, hospitals are doomed to silently fail. To assume power without preparation is a moral breach and a gamble with lives, livelihoods, and dignity.
This brings us to the critical distinction between ambition and preparation. It is only normal for humans to have ambition. Everyone has ambition. As a matter of fact, ambition is abundant. Preparation, however, is rare. It is also important to state that both are necessary because they serve different purposes. While ambition drives the desire for office, preparation grounds that desire in reality. When ambition outruns preparation, leadership becomes performative, reckless, and ethically irresponsible. Preparation demands the humility to recognize what one does not know. It requires studying systems deeply and resisting the temptation to learn on the job at the expense of the citizenry. A prepared leader studies budgets before approving them, (s)he has a crystal clear understanding of land laws before proposing reforms, and that of food systems before promising its security. Ambition sits one down and asks, Can I lead? Preparation on the other hand will ask, Should I, and how can I ensure I do no harm? Preparation is readiness. Ambition without it is moral negligence.
This preparation must be operationalised by what I call the Own It Mentality. At its core, this is about accountability, reliability, due-dilligence and follow-through. As David Ogilvy noted, “In the best companies, promises are always kept, whatever it may cost in agony and overtime.” Governance should function no differently. This mentality transforms preparation into visible practice. It means responding promptly to communication, because delays compound uncertainty and erode trust. It means addressing conflict early, knowing that avoidance only multiplies consequences. It is the discipline of giving teams autonomy while demanding efficient delivery. It ensures that commitments are kept, decisions are deliberate, and promises are grounded in reality.
When we look at Nigeria’s governance challenges, what do we see? Take a look at policy inconsistency, failed programs, urban flooding, and food insecurity and you will see that we often describe them in cultural, political, or ethnic terms. While these factors exist, a more fundamental issue is the preparation gap. We are plagued by leaders unprepared for the consequences of their own ambitions.
Consider our recurrent struggles with food security. The problem has consistently been framed as a simple lack of production. This has prompted seasonal knee-jerk calls for fertilizer distribution or tractor procurement as agricultural mechanisation and transformation. A prepared leader, however, understands that food security is a complex system involving land tenure, input quality, extension services, logistics, storage, and market access. Preparation would insist on mapping the value chain before allocating funds. It would prioritize cold-chain infrastructure where post-harvest losses are highest, rather than distributing inputs for crops that will eventually rot.
The same logic applies to urban planning. I have seen people ascribe flooding as an act of God or a mystery of nature. In reality, it is the predictable result of blocked drainage, neglected maintenance, and poor physical planning/land-use enforcement. These are not even mysteries. They are the outcomes of unprepared leadership that failed to study the spatial dynamics of the city.
Preparation is very much an issue of moral seriousness as it is of technocratic perfection. It requires asking hard questions: Who benefits if I am wrong? Which institution will sustain my policy when I am gone? What data changes my mind? Prepared leadership is concrete. It requires policy literacy. Having a distinctively clear understanding of frameworks like the Land Use Act or procurement laws before making commitments. It demands data-informed decisions, and accepting that measurement is an act of honesty. It necessitates building institutions that survive beyond one’s individual tenure.
Prepared leadership anticipates conflicts of interest and erects safeguards early. Transparent procurement, asset declarations, independent audits and all that has to do with being ethical. Ethics are not an afterthought. The same can be said of communication. It isn’t an explanation that should happen after the work is done. It should be one that educates rather than excites. Prepared leaders explain trade-offs and timelines. They invite scrutiny because they have done the work. This steadiness earns legitimacy that no rally can manufacture.
There is a dire need for leadership and first, we need to rid our system of unprepared ones. Leadership is a moral obligation. It goes beyond one’s desire for office and the satisfaction that comes from that personal achievement. The measure of leadership is found in outcomes that are sustained beyond one’s tenure. The question for every aspiring leader, then, is simple: Do you lead because you want the power, or because you are ready to bear its consequences?
Crossing the bridge from intent to impact is herculean a task, but the refusal to prepare before crossing that bridge is highly unethical and unfair. Preparation is the first installment of the debt we owe to the people we hope to serve.
