Big Society and Transformational Leadership

In the UK, one of the big ideas of the new coalition government is that of Big Society. This concept favoured by Prime Minister David Cameron can be tested against the principles of transformational leadership, originally attributed to President Kennedy

In a launch speech in Liverpool this week, [July 2010] The Prime Minister was reported by The Guardian as saying that Big Society was

“..about liberation, the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from [Government] elites to the man and woman on the street. This is a powerful idea for blindingly obvious reasons. Micro-management just doesn’t work. It has turned able, capable, individuals into passive recipients of state help with little hope for a better future. It has turned lively communities into dull, soulless clones of one another. So we need to turn government completely on its head.”

Liverpool, Windsor and Maidenhead, the Eden valley in Cumbria, and Sutton in London would be in the vanguard, getting help to set up local projects, ranging from transport to improved broadband provision. Cameron said these places would be big society’s training grounds. Proposed initiatives include relocating community centres, building renewable energy projects, community buyout of pubs, spreading broadband access, giving the public more say over local spending decisions including parks budgets, and further powers to parish councils; increased volunteering at museums, developing neighbourhood media and digital content; working on sustainable transport services, developing youth projects, and creating “green living” champions.

The three strands of the big society agenda include social action (for which the government had to foster a culture of voluntarism and philanthropy); public service reform eliminating centralised bureaucracy “that wastes money and undermines morale” – and community empowerment, “creating communities with oomph”, the neighbourhoods being “in charge of their own destiny”.

Reactions to the Speech

Reactions to the speech were mostly predictable. Political opponents reacted not to the idea but its implementation.

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Tessa Jowell called Mr Cameron’s speech “a brass-necked rebranding of programmes already put in place by a Labour government. We welcome the [Government’s} decision to continue our work in partnership with local communities, but these projects are dependant on funding and resources being put in place. It is therefore highly unlikely that civil society will become ‘bigger’ due to the large public spending cuts that are being put forward by this government.”

Norman Smith, Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4 noted that

The ‘big society’ is David Cameron’s Big Idea. His aides say it is about empowering communities, redistributing power and fostering a culture of volunteerism. Perhaps it is no wonder that Tory candidates during the general election found it difficult to sell the idea to voters. So why is David Cameron returning to this theme?

In part because he does view it as his answer to Big Government – but there are also more basic political motives. First, it’s about providing a different agenda to the day by day litany of cuts, cuts and more cuts. Second, it is – as his aide Eric Pickles has acknowledged about saving money. If people are doing things for free then you don’t have to pay public servants to do them for you. So beneath the grand-sounding philosophy there is hard-nosed, practical politics behind the ‘big society’ message.

Leadership Theory

One of the so-called new leadership theories of the 1980s was that of transformational leadership. This developed from studies of leaders such as John Kennedy. Such leaders who were often but not necessarily charismatic, were able to transform society by transforming the individuals within society to aspire to less selfish ends.

The theory has an appeal to idealists of all political colors. It was associated with vision and idealized influence. Although retaining its popularity on leadership courses, it also attracted critics who felt that it retained too much of earlier charismatic principles which seemed to require the intervention of ‘The Great Man’ to achieve desired social uplift. This suggests a leadership dilemma: transformation in this way is believed to require empowering, but the agent of empowering is the highly empowered and charismatic leader. Students of leadership may find it instructive to examine the big society proposal as a map for transformational change, and test it against such theoretical dilemmas.

4 Responses to Big Society and Transformational Leadership

  1. davidburkus says:

    One key elements of transformational leadership is individual consideration. Indeed, this is what separates it from charismatic leadership. Transformational leaders take an interest in the growth of their followers and grow them to eventually take over (empowerment). In this way, transformational leaders are different from charismatic, who rely on their charisma to always stay in power…this is also what makes it nearly impossible for politicians to become transformational.

  2. alex says:

    It occurred me that one risk to the aspiring transformational leader is that they may be seen to appropriate existing goodwill between the those targeted for transformation.

    Charitable gestures under the transformational regime will automatically have the motivation behind them questioned. “Are you doing this because of the influence of the leader or would you have done it anyway? … are you sure???”

    I wonder if questions like this have been brought into a map of transformational leadership before.

    The leadership dilemma resulting from the risk then would be how to balance claims to have been an effective transformational leader when it might be more effective to appear not to act at all – a kind of doing without doing. For example being urged to be more community minded by David Cameron may not work in some areas of the country and sectors of the economy.

  3. Dean Wilkinson says:

    i am doing some coursework and i am wondering what type of leadership style cameron uses is it transformational or another style and reasons i can not figure it out this would be a great help

  4. Dear Dean

    As in Dilemmas of Leadership, you are advised to study and make sense of what D.C. says and does. In the above comments, Alex has picked up on transformational behaviours or intentions.

    David distinguishes between tranformational and charismatic ‘maps’.

    So it’s not just a case of ‘finding the right box’ but deciding which ‘map’ makes more sense.

    You might want to think about

    visionary leadership (he is big on visions)

    transformational leadership (all in it not for self-interest).

    His background links with trait theories of ‘born to lead’).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: