Many sections of the Tanach that deal with issues of leadership grapple with the question of why a particular personality was chosen for leadership over an apparently equally worthy colleague. For example, why was David chosen instead of Saul in spite of the fact that the Rabbis state that Saul was more righteous than David? Similarly, why was Yehuda selected for leadership over Reuven, even though Reuven, the first born, was always the first to confront the problems facing the family of Yaacov?

One of the key sections dealing with leadership contrasts the leadership potentials of Calev and Yehoshua. One who studies the story of the meraglim, the spies who were sent to scout the Land of Israel, notices that Calev and Yehoshua often act in collaboration, to the extent that at times they answer together and speak to the people as one person. Nevertheless, at the end of the story, each receives a different reward. Calev is promised a special inheritance in the Land of Israel, which will be passed on to his children. The Torah emphasizes that Calev was worthy of this special inheritance because he possessed a “different spirit.” The omission of Yehoshua in this context is striking, a point that is addressed by many of the commentators. Yet, there is another more fundamental question that must be asked. Given the special mention of Calev, why was Yehoshua, and not Calev, chosen to be the leader of Israel? Why did the greatness of Calev find expression in the settlement of the Land, while that of Yehoshua found expression in the leadership of the nation?

An in-depth look at Parshat Shelach reveals the core issue of leadership. The leader needs to be a personality who effects the meeting between the existential reality of the nation and its goals and ideals. He stands as a broker between them, and his fundamental task is to direct the people toward the fulfillment of the purpose of their existence. In his position as mediator he must be careful not to allow the tension to tear the two sides apart.

Two challenges confront the leader, and they define his role.

On the one hand, in his endeavor to satisfy the people’s needs, the leader is always in danger of forgetting his own ideals and vision – behavior that would abrogate the fundamental reason that he was chosen to lead. To avoid incurring the wrath of the people, this leader chooses to do only those things that will find favor in the eyes of the people. The Rabbis compared this type of leader to a dog who runs in front of his master, but stops at the crossroad waiting for his master to point the direction. A leader who regularly submits to the will of the people, focusing on the position itself without concern for his original goals, is susceptible to corruption as well, and is not a leader at all.

On the other hand, there exists the opposite danger – that the leader cuts himself off from the people and, in an oppositional stance, works exclusively toward the fulfillment of his ideals, regardless of the will or the reality of his people, oblivious to whether the path he has chosen is appropriate or desirable for his followers. He demands that the people follow his lead, and may engage in intense conflict with them when they do not respond accordingly. For this reason the Rabbis emphasized that prior to being selected as leaders, Moshe and David had to demonstrate their traits of mercy and kindness as shepherds. Their sensitivity to the needs of their flock revealed their ability to look behind them to continually check if they are continuing to lead their people, or are removed from them.

The account in Parshat Shelach describes Calev as leading the confrontation with Bnei Yisrael. It was he who argued with them vociferously, and who reprimanded them for their response to the spies. His passion for the land of Israel drove him to demand that his listeners follow his lead, and to speak to them harshly. It was with this very passion that he merited to receive one of the most important cities in Eretz Yisrael, Hevron, as his inheritance in the Land, but it was that same passion which disqualified him from the mantle of leadership. The approach followed by Calev does not lend itself to leading a nation.

In contrast to Calev, Yehoshua earned the leadership role precisely because he knew how to strike the balance between the vision and the reality of a people in crisis. When he perceived that the people were not ready, he refrained from taking a confrontational position, realizing that it would take quite some time before the nation would achieve the stability needed for its march towards Eretz Yisrael. This is the image of an appropriate leader – one who does not submit to the will of the people, but also does not stand in opposition to them. He knows how to relate to each individual, and, at the same time, does not lose sight of the ultimate goal for which the nation was established.

This principle relates to leadership on every level. Even in the family, the leaders of the family – the parents – must follow the model of Yehoshua. They cannot ignore the spiritual and psychological reality of their children, but also cannot acquiesce to this reality. Effective parents navigate adroitly between being empathetic and attentive to the needs of their children while providing them with education and direction.

As it is with parents, so too with Rabbis and educators. An educator who is unable to demand anything of his students and his school community is not worthy of the title. Yet, an educator whose approach is one of continuous and uncompromising demands will not succeed, for he has chosen the path of Calev, unaware of the dynamic of slow and thoughtful progress that corresponds to the nature of the community.

In reality, this principle also relates to an individual’s intrapersonal leadership, striking a balance between dissatisfaction with mediocrity and the unending demand for excellence on the one hand and the need for healthy self-esteem on the other. A person who does not place demands upon himself will never reach heights of accomplishment, but one who cannot recognize his abilities and accept his personal limitations will live in a constant state of inner turmoil.

Leadership on all levels – national, communal, family and intrapersonal – is founded in the ability to balance between maintaining the vision of one’s ideals while working in the context of the present reality.