A way to demonstrate good leadership is to be prepared for a crisis. As recent events have shown, when a leader fails to demonstrate that he or she is on top of the issues, trust in the leadership evaporates almost overnight.
While we can put together a list of recent high-profile failures – we are struggling to remember an occasion of excellent leadership in a crisis. Perhaps this is because when leadership demonstrates that it is “in control” we no longer remember it as a crisis?
Along with a lot of our colleagues, we’re watching to see how the leadership of the new coalition government approaches the huge job that faces them.
At the same time, we’re keeping an eye on the slowly unfolding leadership contest in the Labour Party.
It appears that Gordon Brown was more comfortable surrounding himself with people significantly younger. He disposed of the serious hard hitters of his generation who were capable of acting as role models to others underneath.
As a result, the young acolytes he picked to serve him had little exposure to role models of strong and authentic leadership, and are now revealing the gap in their ability, their experience, and their credibility.
They were not given the development that they required – and deserved – and as a leadership cadre it is arguably ill-equipped to take over.
Was Gordon Brown unaware of this part of his responsibility? Or was it that at a conscious or less-conscious level he was afraid to develop them, as he felt too vulnerable in his own self, and saw his own team as competition?
If you don’t give your people the encouragement, help and support to develop their talents, you are in dereliction of your duty and responsibilities as a leader.
As we see, he has left the organisation in a vulnerable state. How long will it take them to recover?
I’ve just been reading a blog by Dev Patnaik at Fast Company as part of a series of articles on Reinventing the MBA. It examines the approach of Roger Martin and the Rotman School of Management in Canada – to develop business leaders who are well-grounded in multiple disciplines.
I was particularly struck by this:
“Most people, whatever their background, are more comfortable reapplying a formula that has worked in the past than at generating new possibilities. They just try to use a template from an existing success . . . ”
This is one of the limitations that, time and again, is a major hurdle to overcome for leaders new to board level leadership. You can’t deliver an effective contribution if you are using a template or behaviour that belongs to a different role or task.
We believe it’s important to encourage leaders to exchange and share their experiences. So we hold regular informal dinners where we invite our clients to come and engage in conversation, develop their network, and listen to other perspectives. The speaker at one of our recent dinners was the Financial Tmes columnist Stefan Stern.
He initiated a conversation on leadership – and the need for courage.
At the fundamental level this must manifest itself in the courage to guide and steer the organisation, but as the conductor of the orchestra, creating the space and place in which other people do the performing. This indeed takes courage where the leader has built their success on being a star performer. And this courage will develop out of the skill and practice of deep listening.
In business and in politics, if there is a problem, you have to do something about it. Good leaders have either to develop Talent, or not be afraid of getting rid of poor performers and rotten wood. Unless you have Talent you can’t pursue effectively your aims and objectives or your strategic intent.
What Cameron has begun to understand, and where he has started to take action, is around some of the issues of Talent and Organisation. He has decided what needs to be done and is doing it. Brown is doing the reverse – eg he is living with incompetence. When this happens the rot seeps into other parts of the triangle.
In terms of Organisation – how things are done – Cameron has already begun to describe that in a way that Brown hasn’t started to yet. Cameron is saying – if you want to be an MP, if you want the Whip, you have to fall into line. Brown needs to improve existing Talent, and get rid of the people who don’t measure up. Otherwise he will not be a convincing leader. You can’t do what he is doing and just sit on the fence.
Nor has Brown been good at articulating what his Purpose is anyway, what the strategic orientation of the government is, and the philosophy, the values, the ethics, the aims and so forth. It’s never been on his agenda. His sole agenda was first to get the Role of Prime Minister (not what he was going to do when he was there). And then to make life difficult for the Opposition.
Cameron has to pay attention to Purpose also – because unless he can articulate a story that is convincing to people, however good he is at managing Talent (development or departure – shape up or ship out) or Organisation, it won’t be enough. For effective leadership you have to pay attention to all three.
Brown hasn’t understood what he has to do in order to be seen as an effective leader. Cameron appears to have instinctively understood that certain things need to be done around the triangle, in the way that Brown hasn’t. Brown won’t recover unless he takes this responsibility seriously. There are certain things that good leaders have to do – and Brown isn’t doing them, and is paying the price for it.
Will he have the courage – or the capacity – to do things differently?
The recent turmoil in parliament brings to the fore once more what happens when leadership is out of balance.
Why is leadership crumbling? What can be done to get us out of this mess? In our work with organisations we often analyse what is happening around the triangle of Purpose, Talent and Organisation.
A good leadership team and a good leader in particular, will focus on all three points of the triangle. If they fail to do that, then the triangle collapses and we get into the mess we are in now.
Gordon Brown has failed to pay sufficient attention to all three points on the triangle. What is behind each of them?
Purpose: aims and objectives, values, strategic intent, philosophy, ethics
Talent: the talent that is available in pursuit of purpose; need to measure the quality and develop it
Organisation: the policies, practices, procedures, structures and roles; they are the glue that holds together purpose and the talent
When the triangle is out of balance we have a problem. If you don’t pay attention to all three points, the whole thing will collapse. And confidence in parliament – and its leadership – has collapsed.