A New Leadership Crisis: Parliament and Country

Once more we find ourselves in the depths of a leadership crisis.  This time though, it is not one individual person that is providing the problem. It is the entire parliamentary body and some have said that it threatens the credibility of the house itself.

Let’s consider the situation that the country currently finds itself in. We have a recession where people of all levels are being forced to change their habits, and in a way that has not been seen for years count the costs in terms of jobs and money. People are genuinely anxious about what is happening at the moment.  What is needed in such times is clear decisive leadership. We need to be able to look to our leaders for direction, example, inspiration and a sense of purpose. What has happened is that we have got a scandal and a leadership response that has been decidedly average. We have got a scandal that would appear to show that a significant group of elected representatives who whilst apparently behaving within the rules have actually been blatantly abusing the expenses for self-gain. There is no doubt that there has been some disgraceful, irresponsible and downright fraudulent behaviour.  This does not fit anybody’s definition of good leadership.

On September 5, 1983 I entered the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst as an officer cadet. The motto of Sandhurst is “Serve to Lead”. It is a simple motto but one that contains the single biggest truism of leadership. If you want to lead people you might have the attitude of mind that you work for them. Not the other way around. I was taught simple things such as ensuring that my soldiers had eaten first before I ate, that their welfare was more important than my own. When I was in a position of leadership or management responsibility where I was looking after the welfare, lives and needs of other human beings I had a job of real responsibility. I was also taught that it was not simply sufficient to do what was right but that I had to do what was morally right and also to be seen to be morally right. It would seem on the surface that more than a few members of Parliament could do with some Sandhurst training. 

In their 1995 book “The Leadership Challenge”, James Kouzes and Barry Posner put forward their ideas about what people expect of their leaders. They highlighted in particular four key characteristics: honesty, forward-looking, inspiring and competent. It is hard with today’s news to look at these with anything except grim acknowledgement.  In today’s blog I want to focus on the first of these characteristics.  Under honesty what they highlighted was that if we want to follow someone “we first want to assure ourselves that the person is worthy of our trust”.   What was meant by this was the real and genuine requirement for leaders not just to say what they are going to do or how they are going to behave but to actually deliver it and do it. This is about people’s integrity and what was called at Sandhurst moral courage. To do what was right, not what suited the individual.  We want leaders who do not operate to a different set of rules themselves but are prepared to live by their own decisions. Field Marshal Viscount Slim in his book “Defeat into Victory”, talks about the times in the burma campaign in 44/45 when he had to put his forward divisions onto half rations. He did not hesitate when this was the case to likewise put himself and his headquarters onto half rations. He did not see how he could possibly take such a decision for others and not feel the consequences himself. It is not sufficient to be honest,  you must be seen to be honest. What we have seen recently in Parliament is a situation which in leadership terms is nothing short of disgraceful.

Once again it has been interesting to see the differing responses of the party leaders. From a pure leadership standpoint it must be said that to David Cameron has stood out in both his style and content. When there is a crisis there is a requirement for strong decisive leadership. David Cameron sensing the situation, was quick to impose his own rules of the Conservative party. It was swift, uncompromising and unbiased. I was, from a leadership standpoint particularly impressed by the speed with which he held conservative members of Parliament accountable for their actions. Party loyalty did not count. He was aware that in order for not just the Conservative party but for this parliament to survive with any credibility, swift, decisive and very visible action was needed.   Once again this completely outclassed the response of Gordon Brown.  Gordon Brown again looks ponderous and out of his depth.. Gordon Brown was an excellent second-in-command. He is not a leader. 

This country is in a crisis of leadership.  Not just at the individual level but collectively at the strategic level.  It is time for the leaders to stand up and be counted.

Advertisement