Over the last two days we have had an illustration of how leaders rise and fall by public opinion mediated through powerful pressure groups. The upshot is a process which may be studied to understand how we get ‘the leaders we deserve’

Gordon Brown has been increasingly seen as a leader who has failed to win the approval of the electorate. Within six months the electorate will exercise its democratic right and probably vote for a new government with a different leader. In that sense the voters will appoint the leader they deserve. It might be argued that a private limited company also acquires the leader it deserves through a whole series of decisions by which shares are acquired. At a stretch, the argument could even be extended to hostile takeovers.

Returning to Mr Brown, the current critical incident concerns the death of a serviceman, Guardsman Janes, and a letter written to his mother Jacqui by The Prime Minister. In a short period of time the feelings of the mother were revealed as being amplified by what she regarded as a scribbled and disrespectful note which misspelled her surname. The story (unsurprisingly) became public. The media have enough interest and resources to monitor stories of grieving relatives of military casualties. Mr Brown is cast as a leader going through the motions of sharing a mother’s grief.

Act two: Press interest persists and it becomes public knowledge that Mr Brown is to have a conversation with Mrs Janes.

Act three: the call takes place and is recorded on a Blackberry by a neighbour. The recording finds its way in a rapid timeframe to The Sun newspaper which turns it into a front page exclusive. The interview reveals the hurt of a bereaved mother who also went on to comment on wide issues of political mismanagement of the war. I just heard a snippet which sounded both heart-tugging and at the same time written down and read out.

Not far behind the headlines

Not far behind the headlines can be found the recent stories of Gordon Brown and The Sun newspaper. The declaration by the Sun that the paper was withdrawing its support for Labour at the next election was timed for maximum impact during the Labour Party Conference. That was a month ago. This story has its own ghastly timing after the death of Guardsman Janes.

Leaders We Deserve

Act four: The story gains momentum. An unpopular leader has added to the grief of a mother of a fallen soldier. The Sun has played its rightful role in bringing the story into public view. That’s what happens in a democratic open society. In so doing, the public has extra information regarding the bungling way in which Gordon Brown deals with matters of public concern. But my own suspicion is that The Sun has achieved a short-term win with publicity and sales of the paper. But I also rather think that it will not lead to enough voters switching away from Gordon Brown and his party in six months time. It may even help blunt any future attacks made in the Newspaper against the Government.

Reactions from BBC phone in callers were largely sympathetic both to Mrs Janes and to Gordon Brown, and unsympathetic to The Sun. One thought that occurred to me was how we may also be ensuring that in future the leaders we deserve will rely more on carefully-crafted printed notes under such circumstances. Which would not seem to be a good thing at all.

England versus Australia at Twickenham promised to be a long-awaited dream, the return of super-hero Johnny Wilkinson. In the end it revealed both the power and the limit of dreams and visions

Listening to the match warm-up, I was struck by the power that the dream held over the English commentators. The programme began with film reminding everyone of the glorious history of JW culminating in the drop goal that won a world cup, and launched a thousand dreams of England rugby supremacy.

It was not to be. Ah, but in the lean years JW had been injured. The extent of the injuries somehow promised more for the time when he would come back. And in the true style of heroes he went to a foreign land to recover. Now he was returned. Australia had lost five out of six of their last internationals. All seemed to signal an opportunity for the dream to come true.

The dream start

In the movies, the game would start badly and England would fight back to snatch victory. In fact England had a dream start. JW oozed confidence and competence. Every touch was cheered by the crowd. Yes, the team collectively also seemed to draw confidence from somewhere. The mistakes which marred England’s performances in recent matches were near eliminated, and it was Australia who gave away penalties. And it was Wilkinson who stepped up to take his first kick and the old magic was still there. So team, crowd, and commentators were at one. This game was destined to be won.

Unnoticed signals

As a neutral observer I was less influenced by the dream. England were playing better, but there was a familiar ponderousness in attack. In contrast Australia were quicker in defence and attack. Only those unexpected mistakes were keeping England in the game. Meanwhile the commentators continued to be on Wilco watch. And he was playing well. England held on to their lead (all penalties). But Australia cut through for the only try, and created and spilled more chances.

Into the second half and Australia seemed more and more likely to score tries, England less likely. When Australia were still behind I noted ‘Final score: Aust by at least 4 points’. Thirty seconds later another incisive break and it was 18-9 a scoreline which Australia defended rather comfortably.

Leadership lessons?

The iinfluence processes of a charismatic leader remains a bit of a mystery. Current theories suggest a symbolic process through which a social group simplifies reality into a belief system. That is part of what is also called sense-making. The result can help the group overcome fears and anxieties. The cost is that of holding unrealistic beliefs of the leader’s capabilities to be a saviour.

I rather think JW had a positive effect on team performance which lasted through the game. England did not wilt. They did not lapse into recent error-prone ways. Individuals played to their potential. It just wasn’t quite good enough. The dream helped. But there was a limit beyond which the dream could not survive.

Dinner was nearly wrecked last light. I set off to procure an essential missing ingredient from The Bottle Shop in downtown Woodford. Shock horror. Traffic was at a complete standstill. In Woodford. At eight o clock in the evening. Unprecedented

What had happened was a community firework display which had brought families out in numbers that had exceeded expectations. Our one main road could not take the sheer weight of traffic. Eventually I did a Uie and returned home much later with requisite provisions.

Grumpy Old Rant

So why was I cursing Guy Fawkes for wrecking my dinner? In defence of my aging childishness, here’s the explanation. The firework display was, as most readers will have guessed, to celebrate the foiling of the plot to blow up Parliament by that national hero villain Guy Fawkes, many years ago. No Guy Fawkes, no fireworks in Woodford. Simples. It’s all that guy’s fault.

A more rational explanation

But there is a less petulant thought emerging from this grumpy old rant. I set off noting to my surprise that there was far less evidence of individual little celebrations. No fireworks going off, lighting the sky from streets and gardens. Why was that? It seemed the unexpected quiet had been noted from Waikiti to Woodford. Yes, half a globe away New Zealand had reported the quietest Guy Fawkes night in years.

The obvious idea is that there just isn’t as much money around to spend on fireworks. But that alone doesn’t quite stack up. When times are tough there is often a special effort to hold on to a much-loved ritual (let’s see what happens to incidence of drunk-driving accidents over Christmas). The other idea is that Halloween is replacing bonfire night as a marketing opportunity in the UK anyway. That may have been strengthened by public awareness that being tricked or treated is a lot less dangerous and disruptive that having half the nation’s young people tooled up and ready to let off improvised explosive devices where they cause the most inconvenience. Parents, shop-keepers, marketing executives find common cause in the switch.

So there we have it. A neat economic explanation of why there were people other than Guy Fawkes contributing to my delayed dinner.

The Morning After

Some things don’t change. The morning after Guy Fawkes night is usually foggy and damp. It was fog as usual in Woodford, as the photograph shows.

A new Chris Andrew documentary, Starsuckers, shows how the media blur the line between truth and fiction

The Guardian newspaper played an enthusiastic part in the promotion of Starsuckers, and the sting which was successfully perpetrated on The People, the News of the World and the Sunday Mirror whose journalists believed (or published anyway) various tales of celebrity goings on.

An entertainment review by Matthew Champion outlined the stories ‘sold’ to the paper of Amy Winehouse and other celebrities.

The headlines including the completely invented line that Amy Winehouse’s hair caught on fire when she tried to mend a broken fuse at a house party; that Guy Ritchie gave himself a black eye in a London restaurant with some misguided cutlery tomfoolery; and that Girls Aloud singer Sarah Harding is a quantum physics aficionado. But the main thrust of Starsuckers is the unholy alliance by the media and famous faces to exert an almost unshakeable grip over the world’s (western) population.

Another sniffy review, in contactmusic, found Starsuckers a bit of a dogs breakfast of a product. It found its format lacking in focus, smarmy and unconvincingly implying a global conspiracy to dupe the public for commercial ends. Nevertheless it grudgingly concedes that the documentary is packed with critical and entertaining material.. and that Atkins makes his points with wit and irony.

Righteous indignation

The film seems to have the righteous indignation of a Michael Moore shockumentary. Its format will find an appreciative audience in those with pre-wired suspicions and concerns about the nature of popular media. It will likewise be dismissed by others as a pretentious and righteous over-stating of the bleeding obvious

A conceptual model

Students of social media will be interested in a conceptual model provided by Atkins proposed for the alleged conspiracy: Start them young; keep them hooked; hard-wired urges; gathering information; and creating news.

I have been wrestling with the big leadership question of the week. Who is likely to be in his job longer, Adam Crozier of the Royal Mail, or Rafa Benitez of Liverpool Football club?

Mr Benitez’s team has suffered from injuries, losses on the field, and departure of key players. Worse, he has received a formal endorsement from his employers that his job is safe. It is part of football black humour to assume that any leader offered such an endorsement is far from safe in the job. His team faced one of those crunch matches over the weekend. We will never know what might have happened to Rafa if Liverpool had lost their sixth successive game. The players rose to the challenge and defeated their bitter rivals Manchester United.

Earlier in the day, the CEO of Liverpool FC gave Rafa that dreaded endorsement

Liverpool boss Rafael Benitez has been handed long-term job assurances by the club’s managing director Pressure has been mounting following a miserable run of four successive defeats. But Christian Purslow told Sportsweek: “Liverpool are on a long-term journey and you do not do that by worrying about short term results. Rafa Benitez is absolutely central to that long-term plan.”

Meanwhile

Mr Crozier has appeared to be slumbering while his company sank into irretrievable strategic trouble and imminent industrial relations conflicts. His management team also seemed to be facing a crunch match with the rampant forces of the Workers Communication Union.

The fate of these leaders way be settled by factors outside their control. But there may be indicators of the strength of the limpet factor in each case. Rafa is believed to have a high Limpet factor in the penalty clauses which would be triggered on his dismissal. Adam Crozier’s financial arrangements are unlikely to be such a consideration for his employers, which arguably include the Government (which claims not to want to interfere).

What do you think?

The BBC’s Question Time programme and Nick Griffin, leader of the right-wing British Nationalist Party, share a hugely insignificant event

Question Time is a venerable BBC chat show. This week it became the centre of a political story through its decision to invite Nick Griffin, leader of the right-wing British Nationalist Party to take part.

The programme format is to have a group of B-celebrities discuss current affairs under the avuncular chairmanship of David Dimbleby and interaction with an audience which is groomed to produce questions, pass comment, and generally exercise the appropriate amount of righteous indignation. The show normally escapes publicity. Views tend to be less than insightful, although the principle of balance and the presence of rather old-fashioned personalities on the panel can provide lively expression of opposing views. Sometimes there are flashes of genuine debate.

The political discussion programme was recorded as anti-fascist campaigners protested outside Television Centre. Mr Griffin was booed at the start of the recording and accused of trying to “poison politics” as he was attacked by fellow panellists and the audience. He said he had been “demonised” and repeatedly denied saying things which have been attributed to him.

Early reactions to the show were captured by The Times

The corporation was delighted with the outcome, claiming that it justified the decision to include Mr Griffin. Mark Byford, the deputy director-general, said: “Members of the audience asked the kind of tough questions that mark Question Time out as the premier television programme where the public put the panellists on the spot.”
Comments on internet forums from television viewers accused the BBC of getting it wrong by allowing everyone to gang up on Mr Griffin and make him look like a victim.

It Doesn’t Matter

Call me one of those internet forum commentators. I was struck by several aspects of the programme. It seemed over-staged. The panellists took turns in conveying their revulsion for Mr Griffin and his political party, while stoutly justifying the rationale for sharing a public platform with him. The chairman encouraged the ‘ganging up’ process by taking part in it.

The audience were also pretty-well rehearsed. The hostility was of that of appropriate licence granted to licence holders. Not too subservient, emotional from time to time, but nothing too aggressive.

The media discussion after the show explored the rather anxious question posed at the end of the programme by the BBC. Is this an early Christmas present for the BNP?
Griffin’s fumbling performance might be replayed to some effect in the run-up to the next election. That was pretty much the BBC’s line. Here’s my alternative view: This is a 24-hour story, unlikely to have much longer-term impact. Question Time and Nick Griffin have done no more than share an Andy Warhol Moment.

… But what if Griffin had been more persuasive? I would like to think that the outcome would even then have been minimal.

The first day of the Postal Strike saw the question raised. How long will Royal Mail CEO Adam Crozier keep his job?

During the 2007 strike I suggested that the Royal Mail issue was too hot to handle for Prime Minister Gordon Brown, or the opposition’s David Cameron. I went in for gloom and doom, muttering about lions led by donkeys and the horsemen of the economic apocalypse.

Little seems to have changed since then. The battle lines are now drawn up over implementation of the fragile agreement reached after the last dispute. The various players in leadership roles appear to be digging in for a fight with few obvious winners. Billy Hayes of the Communications Union (CWD) provides the rhetoric of Trade Union leaders of two or three decades ago. It is unclear whether there is much to be gained, beyond keeping faith with the anger and frustration of his membership.

According to The Communications Union (CWU) [Oct 13th 2009]

Royal Mail is rolling out those changes with little or no concern for the views or interests of our members, the hard-working postal staff .. Worse still, we have seen an alarming rise in bullying and harassment cases with managers using the flimsiest of reasons to sack postal workers with long service. The CWU has offered a three-month no-strike deal in return for negotiations and a suspension of the current changes which are forcing postal workers into industrial action.

The combined challenge of competition, pensions and the need to adapt to a rapidly changing world of communications makes change necessary. Royal Mail’s current approach clearly isn’t working so we’re seeking intensive talks to establish a national agreement that will pave the way for rolling out the change that the company desperately needs.

The Leadership of the Royal Mail

Nor is Royal Mail demonstrating convincing leadership in this matter. If there is a strategy, it is about keeping a low profile. A colleague charitably suggested to me that its CEO Adam Crozier may be deploying a do-nothing strategy, letting the Union self-destruct. It must be a very subtle strategy. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom which suggests it important to demonstrate that corporate leaders are pursuing a sound plan.

Mr Crozier is regarded by many as asmooth but ruthless business operator. His initial appointment might have been over-influenced by his bravura display in his previous job at the Football Association. There seemed little to justify the Royal Mail appoitment in a CV showing time at Saatchi & Saatchi, and Pedigree Petfoods.

At the time that it may have made sense as part of a tough double act of Leighton and Crozier. One tough and abrasive, one tough and smooth.

In an earlier blog I suggested that

Allan Leighton has an appetite for self-publicity as inspection of the Royal Mail website reveals. He presents himself as a dynamic (and somewhat terrifying) leader. In public he attempts to soften the image by implying he is very much one of a team, operating closely with CEO Adam Crozier.

Maybe Leighton saw in Crozier a promising sidekick in a double act. But those skills become less valued when a leader has to act as solitary lightening conductor for political storms…

Which might be the position Mr Cozier finds himself in, now that Allan Leighton has been has replaced by the equally decisive Don Brydon.

Adam Crozier, Royal Mail’s chief executive, could be forgiven if he were a little apprehensive about the Government’s appointment of Donald Brydon as chairman of the state-run postal service. Mr Brydon, who becomes a non-executive director of Royal Mail immediately and is to take over the chairmanship from Allan Leighton at the end of March [2009], has a history of disposing of chief executives. In a recent interview, Mr Brydon, 63, pointed to three examples: the chief executive of Allied “got chopped”; the chief executive of ScottishPower “got chopped”; and he “changed” the chief executive at Smiths, the engineering company, of which he remains chairman

What Next?

Mr Crozier will sooner or later make an appearance above the battlements. One influential commentator, Kevin Maguire of The Mirror, is already calling for his head.

There will be other losers in and outside Royal Mail. It adds up to a potentially gory tale of leadership and its challenges.

Almost by definition, a leader has intentions of influencing the behaviours of other people. This is often associated with personal ambition. Which prompts the question: How might we assess a leader’s authenticity through their examining their actions?

In recent years, a popular leadership concept is that of the authenticity of leaders in their actions and public pronouncements. For example, a recent article in Harvard Business Review examines authentic leadership. Its author, Jim Heskett, traces the term back to Warren Bennis, one of the all-time greats of leadership thinking.

Bennis raises questions about the nature of leadership … can a leader be authentic, or do the masks of command force the leader to be something other than his or her true self? Can a leader both act and be real?

Heskett introduces the idea of a leader’s moral compass. That is a term which is suffering through over-use particularly in political circles by leaders claiming the high ground of moral rectitude.

There’s more to authenticity …

Recipes for authetic leadership can be found in many popular books on personal development. Too often they are offered as checklists to be followed. Professor Heskett takes a more grown-up approach. He introduces the realistic situation in which a leader is aware of the need to reassure and comfort others under difficult or even extreme conditions. The mask of command requires a leader to appear confident when all seems lost. How does that sort of performance stack up with notions of authenticity?

Are some leaders able to navigate a managerial life without being authentic to their organizations or to themselves? In fact, are there times when it is necessary to avoid being authentic?

Some people take the view that any display of command demonstrate that a dramatic performance is going on. To them, such behaviour is phoney. Others are less dismissive of role-playing in public life.

As the general manager of a small company I am currently faced with this exact dilemma. In less than 12 months, business has gone down 46%, production is running at 12% capacity, the warehouse full and I am worried and scared. 25 people look up to me, every day, probably questioning every decision made, worried to death about their future and I see fear in their eyes. The question is not if the command mask can coexist with authentic leadership, but rather how it can not. I can not afford not to wear a mask of everything will be okay or chaos would soon follow.

So what do you think?

The mask of command is a term borrowed from the title of book by the English military historian John Keegan. He was interested in political leaders and dictators. But the concept has wider application into business and other areas of activity such as sport.
I rather suspect that Professor Heskett is working from behind the mask of the professional academic concealing his own views to encourage us to think for ourselves. Which is a mask I rather think I should be borrowing as well.

Trials in advance of the Leadership speech on Thursday.

If you want to join in the trials you can text TudorTweet

Monday Oct 5th

6.02 Listened to Radio 4’s Today Programme. Thinking this is a bit like what [colleague] AH does on his PC during meetings

6:23 Worthy but soporific discussion on SFA

6:24 My timing 2 min out. (BST). Will stick to this timing

6:26 Sport. I thought the programme would be wall-to-wall politics

6:27 News summary: Conservatives to cut benefits . [First lead]

Con. questions over Europe [Second lead].

That’s more like it.

6:29 Other items. Chance to get breath

6.30 Conference report: Half million benefit story. Likely to be controversial.
Risk nasty party. EASY TO ‘KEEP NOTES’, HARDER TO COMMENT. Maybe can clean up typos in real time?

6: 33 Lisbon / EU. Cameron needs to buy time and placate activists

Conclusion: must trial adding comments and outside feeds. Light fuse plunges trial into extra chaos. Think I’ll bale out

6:38 Trial ends

6.44 Fixed fuse. Checking how easy it will be to take a few Twitter feeds. Of course, I can add feeds subsequently. This may be a project needing a small social network [note for PC/AH].

Trial 2

Osborn’s speech [Tuesday]

12.35: Missed it by a few minutes. Appears to have been a speech which made the pain from change clear. Worth examining as another trial. ‘We are all in this together’ [Did he know the High School Musical song?].

To follow the trial

Don’t forget to refresh the page to keep up with the flow (fingers crossed) ..

Here we go

13.34

Discussion with my colleagues AH and MC suggested importance of balance in the forthcoming speech. Balance between confidence, and overconfidence. Another tension to be managed.

13.37

William Haigh warms up,
‘He sounds more Prime Ministerial’ [AC]

“It’s quite good going on the beach next to a fat person …[anon]. is this a suggestion WH is a dire warm-up to make DC appear even better?

‘..and fifth ….something about own values ..driving slave trade from the seas … this how we will defeat terrorists ‘. Ends. Warmish applause.

13.51 Oh, another warm-up.
Tim Kirkhope, leader of new Conservative group in Europe. Low key. Another warm-up reception.

BBC averts its gaze from other people’s advertising to sneak in some of its own…

14.02 “EXPECTED SOON Coverage of the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, including David Cameron’s speech, from the BBC Parliament Channel.”

Soon is 14.10. Technical supporters of LWD go to find coffee. I resume full control of the Computer and incoming feeds.. There do not seem to be any incoming feeds (or drinks, come to think of it. Where are they?).

13.59

Just in time. Thanks. Especially for the Minstrels. One packet. Is that for collaboration or meanness.

14.10

Bored helpers start discussing childbirth experiences. One was in labour when Margaret Thatcher offered her resignation. Other had a more recent vicarious experience. I stick to watching screen.

14.14 This speech is overdue (if I retain the natal metaphor). Cold Play plays on.

14.16 Back in hall. Darkness descends. House music (so AH says).
Echoes of warehouse music(whatever that means).
‘Steady rhythmic beat of anticipation’ (MC).

14.21 WH re-emerges to clapping.
Introduces team. ‘The Shadow Cabinet’. Warmish applause.

Then introdues on video someone
called Bono… our culture correspondence says he is a charity big hitter

14.25 A look back at 4 years under DC. The ecstasy of delayed gratification. When is HE coming.

14.31 He slipped in. I thought it was part of the montage!

14.31 attack on Labour ..steep climb but view from summit worth it.
First priority Afghanistan. Need top politician of top rank (Liam Fox).

[So are are going through the 'team' on the platform'?] Mentioned General Dannett’s role. Asked for round of applause for our troops.

14.39

Mentions personal tragedy this year. Moves on to his deep values. and
the big argument: Labour ‘we need more government..why is economy …society broken’ because government got too big’.

Alternative ‘rebuilding responsibility’.
We will have to rebuild and take the Country will us’ [seems to be talking 'inside' first.

Our option: we must pay down the deficit. The longer we wait the more we waste. What is progressive about spending on debt not our schools.

Recounts leaked cuts to ministers' pay/ public servants pay. Outlined where growth came from - business entrepreneurship and infectious self-belief.

14.56 Identified with rescuing the poorest from Labour's tax penalties. Well applauded. The rescuer Ian Duncan Smith. If we win (again) IDS will help us mend the broken society.

15.00 Convincing righteous indignation about Labour's failure to fix broken society. For me, authentic sounding. Stop treating adults like children and children like adults. This was a soundbite at last

15.06 This party is the party of the NHS. Targets will be removed, and replaced by patient accountability.

15.09 big government blamed for vivid examples of social dislocation.

15.11 Education. 'I come as a parent not a politician' (Oh, OK, then). Give the money to Heads not spend it in Whitehall. (At least something to analyse).

15.17 We will sweep rotten edifice [of Labour] away.

15.18 The Broken Parliament. We are just starting (after the expenses scandals). But even more this applies to the EC. William Haugue will lead our work (brief mention of a referendum).

15.22 Leadership. Will learn from poor leadership of TB and then GB.

15.25 Returns to theme. It will be a steep climb but the view will be worth it.

Ends to strong applause.

Instant Verdict

What impression did it leave on me. Effortless effort. Polished. Emotionally intelligent. Avoided sounded triumphant. Appealed to a wider outside audience who might not be concerned with its lack of specifics. At the end there was an almost indecently abrupt and calculated cutting-off of applause. Did he manage the different audiences? May have deliberately sacrificed in-hall rapture, in exchange for out-of-hall reactions. Just about got it right between tough love and toff love.