on cooperation, teamwork, leadership... on a personal and global scale

"Teamwork" and "Leadership" skills are probably the most sought after attributes that employers demand from their employees. This idea seems so ingrained in our corporate culture, that it's probably safe to assume that for any given position, no matter how small and insignificant, every single applicant is a shining example of "leadership" personified (if one is to take CVs and resumes at face value).

I'm only using the hiring scenario as an example here, in order to illustrate how important and essential these two qualities are in all our lives: teamwork and leadership.
No single human can survive in this world completely on their own, at least not for long... that is why we form communities, families, companies, governments, civilisations, etc.... the very existence of each and every one of us is defined by our interactions with others. Every single interaction requires understanding. Combining efforts requires dialogue, and I think it should be clear to everyone that mutual co-prosperity requires compromise as an integral component, just as there can be no cooperation without communication. We need communication on all levels, from two infant siblings sharing a toy, to national representatives discussing solutions to global disputes at the UN.

Which brings us to today's topic: teamwork among leaders on a global scale
In particular, I want to bring attention to an example of bad teamwork and lack of leadership that transpired during a UN security council meeting. (source: article by the observer)
You might be familiar with the notion of (now disputed) "American global leadership" (see Times article).
While Trump's oftentimes conflicting rhetoric leaves one to doubt whether or not he intends for his nation to pursue the course of "global leadership", it's nevertheless crucial to maintain a good sense of "teamwork" on the international scene. Which is why I want to talk about a series of statements made by the American ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley.
In short, the main point that was taken up by the media from her input into the negotiations at the UN security council can be summarised by the following quotes:
“It is not the path we prefer, but it is a path we have demonstrated we will take, and we are prepared to take again,”
“When the international community consistently fails to act, there are times when states are compelled to take their own action.”

Now to give these words some context:
What Nikki Haley is tacitly implying, is that the US military might unilaterally undertake aggressive actions against the current internationally recognised government of Syria. Leaving arguments of politics and morality aside (this isn't aim of our discussion today), I want to explain why such statement is an example of bad teamwork and bad leadership (in the case that an attempt at leadership was made).

Let us first try to pin down what "leadership" is. This is actually quite hard to do, as there are many contradictory (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) definitions of "leadership", never mind good leadership. Specifically, we will talk about leadership in a group without an explicitly assigned leaders, such as the UN.
Nelson Mandela famously said:

"A leader...is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind."

In other words: the leader maintains the group. This is exactly the opposite of what Nikki Haley seems to be doing. In fact, she makes a point out of isolating her country from the rest. Not only that, but she does so by alluding, through her use of negative language, that everyone else is blameworthy for their lack of participation, thus breaking one of th golden rules of leadership and teamwork: never assign blame. Furthermore, by referring to her nation in the passive tone, she tries to absolve herself from responsibility for her own actions. Clearly not a leader-like quality.
This brings us to the next point:

"If you think you are leading and turn around to see no one following, then you are just taking a walk." – Benjamin Hooks

A good leader inspires others to follow of their own accord, not by coercing or coaxing them into an enterprise which they do not agree with. This, in turn, implies compromise. But once again, Nikki Haley goes contrary to better wisdom and instead declares her determination to avoid said compromise. Worse yet, she does so by referring to a past transgression by her president (the internationally condemned and legally questionable unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation, without declaration of war), and declares the intent to repeat it.

Not only is this an example of poor leadership, this is actually an example of a poor team player in general. The behaviour Nikki Haley is displaying here, is known to managers (read: leaders) as the "lone wolf". As we can see, it's such a basic example of un-cooperativeness, that it even has its own name. Unilateral action (especially the aggressive kind) is bad for any type of social environment. By explicitly going against the flow, Nikki Haley alienates herself and her nation from the community. But the worst effect of this attitude will only manifest in the future: it is actively signalling to her potential partners that she is anti-social. Even parties who might have initially had an amicable disposition towards her and her cause, will feel disinclined to assist her, given that she might endanger the prosperity of the partnership through repeated unilateral actions and non-negotiable commitments.

To help us all imagine the position, in which Nikki Haley has put herself and her country at the UN, let's try to put the scenario in a more familiar setting. We might all know a person who behaves similarly in our own lives. Most likely, each of us had the experience of dealing with such a "rebel" at school. Whenever the teacher or class representative organised a common activity, there was bound to be that one person who had to disagree and argue with the teacher, after the decision was long made.
When the class was set to go to a camping trip, they insisted on going to the pool instead, threatening to show up in swimming trunks on the day, or even skip the event altogether. When the class prepared to perform a classic play, they would purposely misremember lines and randomly break out in a dance while on stage, all because their idea of a class disco was rejected. You probably have someone particular pictured in your mind already ;)