We don’t need another hero but a new leadership model
Do you want a longer term solution for instability, crisis, lack of morale and disenfranchised followers in your organisation/community/region/country? Would you like leadership to last beyond a single election cycle, a single leader or single organisational restructure?
It would seem that most of us would, and although we often bemoan the above problems, at the same time we contribute to them by being part of and surrounded by leadership and governance models which continue to promote these problems.
A key element of the problem is our over-reliance on ‘hero’ or ‘transformational’ leadership. The idea that our best leadership option, and predominant models of leadership, inevitably involve individual ‘saviours’ or leaders with special traits to deliver us to a better place/organisation/economic outcome/country etc etc.
The ‘hero’ leadership model has been around a while – think historical Greek and Roman tomes – and is commonly found today in the way the news media, television and movies report on and portray our leaders, and our hierarchical structures at work and in politics. It is inescapable.
Yes you do need leaders of some description to 'drive the bus'. Good reasons for having such models in place include when significant individuals (‘messiahs’) drive innovation and transform organisations and industries (the usual example being Steve Jobs and more recently Elon Musk).
But as our world becomes more and more interconnected and complex, the idea that every problem is a nail able to be hit with a ‘hero-style’ hammer just doesn’t work.
Worldwide responses to COVID-19 provide a useful example of this. In an earlier post I referred to an article by Keith Grint about the need for truth in leadership despite the negative popularity consequences for leaders. Strong leadership is needed in times of crisis, but it is a mistake to think that this leadership depends solely on the whims/traits/personality/ideas/morals of the leader only. Yet that is the prevalent dynamic - heroes don’t have to apologise, invite others to the table or accept differing points of view. They are voted in/employed to DECIDE the way forward, the next step, the next strategy.
Yet other variations of leadership can, and do, work. A recent article on the New Zealand Government’s leadership approach to the COVID-19 pandemic (Wilson, 2020, pp. 279–293) identified a slightly different approach. The key leadership elements identified as contributing to a successful management of the crisis in New Zealand were:
fostering a shared purpose (minimising harm to lives and livelihoods)
adopting a science/expertise led approach
mobilising a collective effort through social media (including Jacinda Adern’s use of Facebook and other media)
the use of motivating language such as ‘unite’
enabling coping and sensemaking through the use of alert levels and strong and clear messaging)
building trust by pulling no punches with messages about risks and not being defensive during press conference questioning, and
encouraging kindness towards each other.
While it seems the Australian experience of COVID-19 is somewhat similar (in part due to our luck in both countries being islands), the extent will depend on your point of view and your experiences in the jurisdiction you live in.
However to my mind, in looking at the federal response, it remains somewhat fixated on the Commonwealth/State and political divide (noting that New Zealand doesn’t have the same problem in this regard) and on an economic response in preference to a human one. More could have and should be done to better involve and inform Australian communities, build trust through more truthful communication, avoid defensiveness when questioned, and encourage a stronger consensus and united purpose.
But why do we need a slightly different leadership model to the ‘hero’ model? Didn’t the above response work well enough?
My point goes to the sustainability of the response. If all you have is a leader that tells you what to do, and how and when to do it, then all you have is a short-term reflex to a directive. Therefore if you change the leader, you change the response. And often with democratically elected officials, that is just what happens. They promise a 'solution' and when they don't provide it (or more likely are never able to) they are traded for the next heroic problem solver.
And this is just as applicable to any leadership situation ranging from local community to multi-national..
But if (like the NZ response) you also allow for and accept that those affected by the response/strategy need to understand the true situation, are told the likely consequences of various options, are provided with clear and unambiguous messaging about what they need to do and what they can do themselves to assist the situation, then several things happen. People understand the problem better, they are more likely to support response initiatives and stay the course with them, they are more likely to support others and the response is more likely to adopted for longer due to a belief in and acceptance of the situation.
It becomes a collective (and owned) leadership response, which is more sustainable – instead of a heroic, responsive and short term one.
Want to know more about sustainable leadership?
Watch this space..