Chief civil servant calls for creative leadership

The departing chief civil servant Sir Gus O’ Donnell calls for more creative leadership in public life in the UK

[Critique by LWD Editor and Creative Leadership advocate Tudor Rickards]

The creative Civil Servant

Creativity was hardly the first characteristic looked for in a career civil servant in the UK. I can recall when a feeble joke in Whitehall was to send a colleague a brochure for a course on creative thinking. But times change. More recently [from memory it was just before Alistair Darling’s arrival at the Treasury], there had been efforts involving testing approaches for stimulating the creative juices.

And now in one of his last public announcements as head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus o’ Donnell, argues for creative thinking as a way ahead for more innovative contributions in the future. This is what he wrote [sub-edited for LWD style. Sir Gus does not do sub-headings]:

Overcoming cultural inertia

It is not enough now for the Civil Service simply to respond to a dampened economic climate: it needs to become a central part of its recovery and growth. There is of course some cultural inertia to overcome, but there is a voracious appetite among departments to take on this challenge: to keep adapting, to think more creatively, to reach out to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to find better ways to fulfil the duties of government without increasing the cost. We know we need to deliver better for less.

The Red Tape challenge

The Red Tape Challenge, an initiative set up by the Prime Minister to do away with unnecessary regulations, is my favourite case study. This is of interest to everybody, but of critical importance to SMEs, which are disproportionately affected by new rules and red tape.

Topic by topic, we have been through the book of regulations to ask whether each one is really needed and whether it still serves the purpose originally intended. Civil servants have proved themselves to be good at this: of the more than 1,200 regulations looked at so far, we have recommended scrapping over half of them.

Innovation not regulation

I was particularly happy to become involved in the Red Tape Challenge because I am an economist by trade. Indeed, I have been an economist longer than I have been a civil servant, and I believe successive governments have been far too quick to solve problems with regulation and legislation.

I understand why this is – all our ministers sit in one or other legislating chamber – but we must be more creative and innovative in the way we solve problems without always resorting to the creation of new rules.

A more grown-up approach to failure

We must also be prepared to take more risks. In a media environment where failure is punished much harder than success is celebrated, this is more difficult for ministers and civil servants than for our friends and colleagues in the private sector. There are some promising signs that we can, in fact, do this quite well, but taking risks means having a grown-up approach to failure. We should celebrate success and learn from failure.

The Civil Service is an engine for growth

The more we can innovate, the more we can find alternatives to legislation and regulation, and the more we can overcome our aversion to risk, the more we can help drive the economy and really ensure the Civil Service is an engine room for growth. I would be proud of that legacy.

Demob happy?

This is quite a remarkable document for a departing leader to produce. I’m not quite sure how to read it. The presentation of a Civil Service hungry for change seems rather unmeasured.

Much rejoicing

But advocates of creative leadership will rejoice at support from such a quarter. On a personal level I am delighted. The piece was published within a week of the second edition of Dilemmas of Leadership, with its one totally new chapter devoted to, you’ve guessed it, creative leadership.

Acknowledgement

A youthful Sir Gus O’Donnell pictured above is taken from the Leeds University Business School Web Site

Author’s Delight

Leaders We Deserve draws deeply on the textbook Dilemmas of Leadership. The author captures his feelings on the day the second edition was published

Is Vladimir Putin a Transformational or a Charismatic Leader?

The question assumes the two categories are ‘either-or’. A better question: are Vlidimir Putin’s behaviours explained better by transformational or charismatic leadership maps?

Beware the ‘Either-or’ question

A quick visit to textbooks of leadership (such as Dilemmas of Leadership) provides ways of answering the questions and explains the difficulties inherent in an ‘either-or’ formulation. One reason is that an either-or perspective overlooks overlooks the key point that in empirical studies, leaders display a full range of styles including transformational and transactional features.

The charismatic leadership map

Charismatic leaders have been mapped from ancient times. The core assumption about them is that they have special skills or gifts so that followers are captivated by them and their ideas.

The transformational leadership map

The transformational map is a modern treatment of leaders (ca 1980s) which acknowledges some features are charismatic. The Transformation leader, as its label implies, transforms the worlds of their followers (which can be local to a team or organization, or global to the leader of a Nation State).

Transformational leaders are assessed most commonly on a scale developed by Bass and Avolio which captures a ‘full range’ of factors including transformational and transactional ones. Transformational leaders mostly require some transactional skills as well.

Other differences

The older maps of charismatic leadership have increasingly been extended to incorporate the ‘dark side’ of charismatic leadership manifest in tyrannical leaders. Transformational leadership has tended to treat tyrannical leaders as a special case. This has produced the so-called ‘Hitler dilemma’ for transformational research.

In part, the difficulty may be seen to require attention to the ‘dark side’ of leaders which is not generally considered.

Putin as a Grand Prix driver

A recent news article from Xinhuanet shows Mr Putin as a Grand Prix driver.

Jeff Schubert’s view

LWD subscriber Jeff Schubert notes

In order to justify his impending return to the presidency, Putin has invoked the cases of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Charles De Gaulle and Helmut Kohl as men who held power for a long time and who have been treated quite well be history – in contrast to Russia’s own Leonid Brezhnev.

Dmitry Peskov, his press secretary has said: “Putin reads all the time, mostly about the history of Russia. He reads memoirs, the memoirs of Russian historical state figures…”

The maps suggest…

If the distinction between transformational and charismatic style holds, a case could be made that Putin fits the older maps of someone who is actively promoted as a charismatic leader more than as the more modern transformational one.

Recent events

Recent events in The Ukraine have brought President Putin into the international spotlight. The western media have tended to mock the assiduous building of his image of the great leader, although with less contempt than in their treatments of North Korea’s incumbent. His decisive military intervention in the Ukrainian crisis has drawn attention to his power to influence world events.

Worth thinking about

Emerging events suggest that Putin is being seen as a modern illustration of The Great Man theory of leadership.. The theory was associated with Thomas Carlyle in the nineteenth century and considers that heroic and rare individuals shape the course of history. The contrary theories suggest that historical situations create powerful leaders. Cometh the hour, cometh the leader…

In many cultures the yearning for a Great Man to emerge and lead the people to greatness or rescue them from danger remains. Students are left to consider why the theory tends to ignore the Great Woman theory of leadership.

Interest in this post increased at the height of the Ukraine crisis [March 2014]. Is someone adding the Lone Ranger style to those attributed to Putin?

Today’s Top Business Stories tend to have a High Gloom Factor

The twenty top business stories provided by Google today reflect a general mood of pessimism. There are no tales of heroic leaders. Bad news stories dominate over inspirational ones. The stories mostly register high on a simple ‘gloom index’

Some years ago when I started collecting leadership stories, such a sample would have contained quite a few feel-good ones would have described the successes of heroic leaders. The proportion of those stories has since that time dwindled.

Introducing the Gloom Index

This week [Oct 24th 2011] I took a look at the twenty business stories obtained from scanning the pages of Google. My crude [1-5 star] Gloom Index rating is a representation of my judgement of the mood conveyed in the stories. Don’t take too much notice of it as a scientific measure, although it might offer promise if developed into an index of cultural mood of business confidence, a kind of ‘feed bad’ factor.

The stories and their gloom factors:

Bank of England ‘to kick start ailing economy’ Presented as reaction to gloomy outlook. Gloom Index ****

Weir group buys US fracking firm for £430 million (good news unless you disapprove of fracking). Positive innovation story with slight gloom factor. Gloom Index *

JD Sports slowdown. Mildly negative financial story Gloom Index ***

James Murdoch resigns from British Boards (Bad news except for Murdoch haters so modest gloom index Gloom Index ***

Banks have ‘racist’ lending policies. Negative leadership story defended in letter to FT Gloom Index *****

Daily Mail profits fall as newspapers come under pressure . Negative leadership story Gloom Index *****

Gas prices to rise. British gas chief asks for forgiveness. News Night yesterday had CEO of British Gas defending corporate policy against assorted pressure groups,no pun intended]. He mostly apologised for lack or transparency re tariffs and promised self-regulated reforms. Negative story. Gloom Index *****

Manufacturing output falls in EU and China
A real five-star gloom story Gloom Index ****

Wage gap for young men widens (could be positive for young women but presented as a bad news story Gloom Index ***

Compass (catering giant) shows good growth globally. Hooray. A good news story [Gloom Index 0]

Nokia Siemans cuts 17,000 jobs world wide. Negative business story, but could signal attempts to survive. Gloom Index ****

Nestle creates 300 jobs in coffee pod manufacturing in UK . A mild hooray for regional good news but tempered with a slight gloom factor at its scale when opposed to the high-gloom Nokia one. Gloom Index *

Poor results from another Utilities company (United Utilities) Gloom Index *****

Tesco slashes prices in promotional campaign (good news for Consumers but neutral presentation with some negative factors as might be expected from The Independent) Gloom Index *

Qinitec (defense firm) in 45% profit rise Good news, unless you consider rise in profits of defence firms in a negative light. Gloom Index *

Banks accused of dishonest lobbying by Sir Roger Jenkins Letter critical of Sir Roger, but still high gloom factor implied in the letter. Gloom Index *****

Lloyds promises more to SMEs and start ups (good news if you believe this; slight gloom factor for cynics) Gloom Index *

50% tax rate risks talent drain from UK (bad news slant, wouldn’t you say?) Gloom Index ****

Note on the Gloom Index

As I indicated above, The Gloom Index is no more than my personal shorthand assessment of the tone of the business stories of the day. It has some connection (in a negative sense) with current attempts to develop a happiness index and measures of feel-good factors. Feel-good measures and the Gloom Index link with the interests of behavioural psychologists, and particularly those interested in the merits of a positive approach to life.

A properly-researched Gloom Index could have value in studying leadership and change. It would connect with work of Teresa Amabile on the progress principle and Richard Boyatzis and colleagues. These approaches are described in the textbook Dilemmas of Leadership.

Sandusky trial reveals dilemmas of leadership and corporate governance

Bloggers have the luxury of offering opinions which sometimes influence popular opinion.  But speed of reaction almost always results in lack of detailed analysis.  The Sadusky football coach/child abuse scandal at Penn State is a case in point

The story caught my attention, as it provides insights into corporate responsibility, social influence theory, willful blindness and dilemmas of leadership. My thoughts are mostly around the dilemmas raised by the case, and for responsible bloggers

The complexities of the case

As I dug into the news [Oct-Nov 2011], I became aware of the complexities of the case as the ‘map’ of the trial shows. The Grand Jury report also reveals those who subsequently were fired [up to Nov 9th 2011]. It suggests the dilemmas facing the Penn State football coach Mike McQueary who had observed Sandusky molesting a student [in 2002].  Also the dilemmas for other individuals at Penn State as the story was passed up the line at Penn State.  

McQueary’s dilemmas

Stanton Peel presents the story from the point of view of McQueary:

The most common response I have heard about the Penn State football-child abuse scandal is that Mike McQueary should have notified the police, and that he should be punished. McQueary was a graduate assistant coach at Penn State in 2002 when he allegedly observed Jerry Sandusky, emeritus Penn State coach [molestiung a student] in Penn State’s locker room shower. McQueary immediately called his [own] father.

The next day, per his father’s recommendation, McQueary called Penn State’s legendary head coach, Joe Paterno, then went to Paterno’s home to inform the coach of what he had seen. Paterno reported some version of what McQueary had told him to athletic director Tim Curley. Subsequently, McQueary met directly with Curley and Penn State finance vice president Gary Schultz to describe what he had seen.

And that was it. Nothing happened to Sandusky; nothing was done for the child, or any other children Sandusky had assaulted. Years later, when a grand jury uncovered these events, Curley and Schultz were charged with lying to the grand jury; then Penn State fired Paterno and University president Graham Spanier.

No immediate action was taken against McQueary, who had become coach of wide receivers for the team. At first he was to be kept out of Penn State’s next game to protect him from irate fans. Then, the University’s attitude towards McQueary shifted, as more public ire was directed at him. He has since been placed on administrative leave.

Doing no evil and free expression of opinion

The battle for responsible blogging is as worthwhile a cause to defend as the right to free expression of opinion. Google got it right when it opted for their slogan don’t be evil. But more recently the firm has begun to phase out its slogan, aware that the dilemmas of corporate life make “doing no evil” too easy a target for critics.

Blogging no evil

Bloggers capture the wishes and fears of our 21st century world. They often amplify emotional beliefs. It is the duty of what called the redress of poetry. However, much of blogging would be of greater value if bloggers took more time in attempting to dig more deeply. By identifying the dilemmas faced within a leadership story, we give ourselves a better chance to see beyond the targetting of perceived injustices. It may not change the world, but it helps the blogger avoid the dangers of willful blindness.

Border Crossings: Brodie Clark and Rob Whiteman add their stories to that of Theresa May

Brodie Clark and his manager Rob Whiteman of the Border Authority appear before the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. Clark resigned his post after being suspended in order to be able to testify openly to the committee. His suspension followed severe criticism from Home Secretary Theresa May. The conflicting testimonies promises future political dramas

The context

The story is difficult to capture in one post. The context is covered in The Guardian which portrays the Home Secretary as under political threat.

In the same newspaper, a detailed account of the Select Committee proceedings today [Nov 15th 2011] and further background to the case can be found in Andrew Sparrow’s blog.

The story is of interest for its insights into leadership dilemmas and behaviours.

My notes at the time:

I followed the entire session as it was transmitted by the BBC. I did not intend to do that, but it was gripping viewing, and quickly sent me scrambling for my lap top computer. My initial notes are reproduced, with additional comments [in parentheses]

BC [Brodie Clark] is convincing and considered in his responses. Assertion he is ‘no rogue officer’ Powerful. Indicates ‘a possible conflation‘ [mixing up two distinct entities) between a Pilot and ‘Custom and practice [of the Pilot trial supported by Home Secretary Theresa May, and established procedures in a 2007 operational document].
Rob Whiteman’s evidence started rather badly. Seemed unwilling to supply a key memo to committee [ He] Believed info had to be sent to an on-going investigation. Committee not pleased. RW concedes only to check if it’s OK before complying. Chair [Keith Vas] makes the committee’s powers to order compliance clearer.
Main focus [of testimony] at start [is] the 24 hours when RW met and next day [when he] suspended BC.

Says ‘Suspension is a neutral act…’ [but was it common…for someone 5 weeks in post?]

Says the suspension was ‘normal’ [later repeating] ‘in organizations’.

His statement less convincing for me. Why? Insistent that he made the right decisions.

Vas ends session asking for more transparency [than the committee had obtained from the Agency chiefs in the past].
RW said he [wanted to and ] would be transparent.

A few reflections

The notes above help me keep my reflections more aligned with initial observations [good for transparency?].

The committee now has to consider the testimonies and explore them for credibility. Beyond the rationality of the arguments is the impression made by the two main protagonists.

Two elements within Mr Whiteman’s testimony made an impression on me. He found it difficult to accept an invitation to acknowledge Mr Clark’s distinguished career. Secondly, his explanation of the manner of his suspension of Brodie Clark did not stack up with my experience of studying organizations over a lengthy period. His statement that the procedure was ‘normal in organizations’ cried out for a follow-up question. It was far from normal leadership behaviour in the hundreds of organisations with which I am familiar.

The Political Soap

The wider story has the makings of a political soap. Meryl Streep, of course, would make a very suitable Theresa May. I’m still working on the other leading players…

The news stream flickers by as Papandreou grapples with his greatest leadership dilemma

As the day progressed, news of Papandreou’s struggles with his greatest leadership dilemma seemed to change by the hour…

Thursday November 3rd 2011. The Coffee Shop, Manchester Business School West.

A small group of business academics were holding a meeting, ironically enough, on leadership. Above them, the most critical leadership story of the day, and maybe the year, was being played out silently on a TV screen. Images of Prime Minister George Papandreou of Greece, and of the other political leaders meeting at Cannes, were accompanied by a news stream, which was informing us of the rapidly-changing sequence of events

The looming debt crisis

The previous days had seen the tortuous effort of the European leaders seeking steps to reassure world markets they were dealing in a coordinated fashion with a looming debt crisis. This had become focussed on the plight of the Greek economy, and in domino-like fashion, the other weakest States of the EU and their banks.

As agreement appeared to have been reached, Then Papandreou had seemed to catch everyone by surprise, even his own colleagues, by an announcement that he intended to call for a referendum in Greece to ‘let the people decide’ on the matter.

He’s resigned. Or has he?

As the MBS coffee-shop meeting got underway, we learned that the Greek Prime Minister had resigned. Less than an hour later, the news reported that he had not resigned but was preparing to meet the country’s President, to confirm plans for the referendum.

By the time we broke for lunch, Papandreou, facing opposition from his own colleagues, also faced the possibility of being forced to resign. Early afternoon, the news stream reported that the referendum was not now going to take place.

Small potatoes

It made our agenda of reviewing progress on our marking responsibilities feel pretty small potatoes. We ended the meeting with the fate of George Papandreou, and maybe the fate of the European Community still in the balance.

His greatest dilemma

The news from Cannes and Athens continued to change rapidly throughout the day. In the evening, Papandreou was quoted [Sky News] as saying he had been struggling with ‘the biggest dilemma of his life… It was either obtaining complete unity [among his government colleagues], or a referendum’.

With a little help from our friends

Other reports were emphasising the influence being brought to bear by the other leaders, and particularly by Germany’s Angela Merkel, and her closest political ally Nicolas Sarcozy of France:

The linkage between a possible No vote and continuing membership of the union proved too much for many of Mr Papandreou’s supporters, including his Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos, who this morning [as we watched he news unfold at MBS] withdrew his support from the referendum plan.

Many Greeks still feel they should be at the heart of Europe, and the sharp response to Mr Papandreou’s referendum plan – particularly from France and Germany – put that role in jeopardy.
Speaking to his party in parliament [that evening], the Greek leader said he had been told during those Cannes talks that not only would a “no” in the referendum mean leaving the euro, but that the question of rejoining would be off the agenda for at least a decade.

Even bigger than Steve Jobs

During the day at our tutors’ meeting, we had discovered that our business students around the world had selected one news item above all others to write about recently. That was the sad death of Steve Jobs. At least, one of us commented, the EU crisis would have given them an option with even richer possibilities for studying leadership and its dilemmas.

Willful blindness?

See the comments below for a discussion on leadership and wullful blindness

Prime Minister George Papandreou wrestles with his biggest leadership dilemma

When a leader’s actions seem irrational, it’s time to look for the toughest decision that has to be made

The tumultuous events in Europe’s financial markets took a turn for the worse as Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou appeared to agree the refinancing plan in Brussels and then appeared to destroy it in returning to Athens.

What’s his biggest dilemma?

Ekathimerini suggests he faces political extinction if he goes along with the EU plan, and maybe political extinction if he rejects it:

A day after calling for a referendum on whether Greece should adopt the debt deal it agreed with its eurozone partners last week, Prime Minister George Papandreou faced a fight for his political survival as he came under intense pressure from within his own party and from opposition politicians to ditch the idea and call snap elections or form a coalition government.

The prime minister appears to have challenged the ministers who disagree with him to bring his government down in Friday’s vote. Sources said that Health Minister Andreas Loverdos, Education Minister Anna Diamantopoulou and Transport Minister Yiannis Ragousis expressed objections to the idea of holding a referendum.

The first setback ahead of Friday’s ballot was dealt when Socialist deputy Milena Apostolaki said that she was quitting PASOK’s parliamentary group to become an independent. She referred to the referendum proposal as “wrong and divisive.” Her decision reduced the government’s presence in the 300-seat Parliament to just 152.
A further blow to PASOK’s majority before the vote cannot be discounted but even if the government survives Friday’s ballot, Papandreou’s referendum proposal will have to be put to another vote in Parliament. Again, a simple majority would be needed but it seems unlikely that the government would be able to garner even this.

The referendum and vote of confidence

Severe internal pressures for him to resign meant that he had to find some action to fight for his political life. If he could only find some way of showing he was on the side of the Greek people and their ancient commitment to democracy that has been so troubled from time to time. How about a referendum?

Creative leadership?

Perversity? Duplicity towards his EU partners? You could even say it’s a creative move in a desperate position. And like chess, the political game can drag on into a stalemate where there is no win/lose outcome, but everyone escapes with something to show for their efforts.

The Qantas lockout: What is it with Leaders of Airlines?

Qantas announces a lockout of its employees in a move reminiscent of recent British Airways disputes. The so-called legacy airlines seem to be prone to legacy labour relations

With no prior warnings to passengers, the long-running dispute at Qantas erupted into a world-wide lock out over the weekend [Oct 29-30th 2011]. All flights were grounded, leaving many international passengers stranded.

The Leadership decision

As the fury of employees and stranded passengers grew, CEO Alan Joyce defended the need for the action as a response to a protracted industrial dispute with its employees. Hopes for an early return to the air rested with an industrial tribunal hearing at Fair Work Australia (FWA). Richard Woodwood, Vice President of the Australian & International Pilots’ Union, described the decision to lockout all pilots as insane and arrogant.

Fair Work Australia intervenes

The independent arbitration authority, Fair Work Australia (FWA) quickly ruled against the lockout:

On the surface of things, the [FWA] ruling looks like a humiliation for Qantas CEO Alan Joyce as his airline is ordered back into the skies – having been unilaterally grounded by the airline’s management. But it could in fact be a strategic victory [for Mr Joyce]. Having failed to get the main unions at Qantas (baggage handlers, engineers and pilots) to engage in meaningful talks since a massive restructuring plan was announced in August, Qantas’s warring sides have now been ordered by the FWA tribunal to do exactly that.

FWA has in effect locked the company and its unions in until such time as they come up with a long term solution to their awful industrial relations record. While it may be a strategic victory, it certainly won’t be a financial one for Qantas. Each day that the planes were grounded cost it £13m. That’s on top of the £48m that the strikes since August have cost. But the reputation damage inflicted by this dispute on Qantas could be very profound and way more expensive.

The strategic direction of Qantas remains towards East Asia. Its wholly owned subsidiary Jetstar, based in Vietnam and Singapore, is the model for future growth. Jetstar is more profitable per customer than Qantas.

The British Airways disputes

In leadership style there are similarities with dramas played out at British Airways which Leaders we deserve posts have tracked. These also involved industrial disputes and confrontation between CEO Willie Walsh and the company’s unions.

Airlines new and old

Commentators have labelled the troubles at BA and Qantas as Legacy difficulties. Older State airlines such as BA and Qantas have been unable to restructure and negotiate with employees in a way that retained competitiveness against younger market entries such as Emirates.

The problems with ‘tough’ leadership

‘Tough’ leadership has tended to be the strategy of choice. Willie Walsh was brought in to BA to apply just such an approach based on his previous track record. The dilemma facing such leaders appears to be one which requires such a leadership style to avert economic ruin from continuing with an uneconomic business model. Incidentally, there are more similarities between the backgrounds of the two leaders, both of whom have Irish roots, and cvs showing links with the Irish airline industry. It takes only a leap of imaginatiuon to presume that Willie Walsh may have been directly or indirectly approached during the head-hunting prior to the appointment of AlanJoyce.

According to game theory, the leaders of Qantas and of its employee unions seem to be locked in, not out, to a mutual destruction strategy.

Leadership theorists point to the dangers of such ‘either-or’ thinking, and by implication the need for more creative behaviours.

Obama’s Obituary for Gadaffi and justification for his ‘leading from behind’ policy

President Obama offered an obituary on Muammar Gaddafi which permits reflection on American foreign policy of “leading from behind”. It indicates the dilemmas of leadership within the context of the death of a political enemy

The snippet of his speech above also provides links to various other videos of the President and Colonel Gadaffi.

Mardell’s analysis for the BBC

Mark Mardell of the BBC offered a thoughtful critique of President Obama’s foreign policy based on his speech which had been made within hours of Gadaffi’s capture and death. Mardell speculated on why the President spoke as he did. It indicates the dilemmas of leadership within the context of the death of political enemy. What follows is an abbreviated version of his analysis:

Gaddafi’s death will be a relief to President Obama and his administration. That’s on the fairly simple grounds that he backed NATO action, called for him to go, and now he’s gone. In an awkward phrase, coined by an anonymous official, the policy was “to lead from behind.”

The road that led us to this day tells us a lot about Barack Obama’s foreign policy as a whole, and its sometimes uncomfortable mix of idealism and realism. [This policy] is driven by a sense that, particularly in the Arab world, the US must step back a pace, not be seen as a bully, always hectoring or imposing its will using physical force.

Even though they didn’t shout about it from the rooftops, American forces were deeply involved. The total cost to the US so far stands at just over $1bn. Without American involvement behind the scenes it probably couldn’t have been done.

A good deal of muddle

The perception of the American position wasn’t all deliberate. There really was a good deal of muddle. As so often Obama took a while to decide what to do. Crucial allies like the UK and France were kept in the dark as some argued for intervention to prevent a humanitarian crisis, while others said that America could not afford, in any sense, another military adventure in the Arab world.

Fear of moral failure

In the end it was fear of being judged a moral failure that drove the decision. The president was told that thousands could die in a massacre in Benghazi and he wasn’t going to be held responsible for that.

But if President Obama’s policy has been a success on its own terms, it leaves others in the US deeply worried. They don’t think their country should encourage, cajole, help and guide. They think it should [be seen] to lead in fact and in deed. There are others who think that backing the people in the Arab world, however quietly, is paving the way for jihadist regimes that will be hostile to American interests.

Dilemmas of leadership

Students of leadership may find it instructive to takes these seven short paragraphs and make sense of them by identifying the dilemmas facing President Obama as he offered his public statement on the capture and death of his political enemy.

The English edition of Aljazeera summarised quotes from around the world. The article concluded with the words of Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the US Congress:

“Libyans are safer now after Gaddafi’s death and the Arab world is breaking free. But never celebrate death of anyone, even bad people.”