Leadership

Sue Rubenstein

Sue has decades long career in public service and non-profit consultancy with deep expertise in leadership and organisational development and board and governance effectiveness. She is an experienced non-executive director in both the NHS and non-profit sectors.

The one thing that Andy Burnham is plainly not short of is advice. But after a career spent supporting the development of leaders of a range of public services, I am struck by the prevailing view that the personal attributes and frailties of political leaders are somehow immutable. Commentators promote certainties on what Andy Burnham offers (or might fail to offer) that often go back two decades. As if he must obviously be the same leader now as he was then. That the 10 years as Mayor will not materially have changed him. A perspective that finds its corollary in the ‘Mary Poppins School of Political Leadership’ which seems to insist that the heroic leader swooping down to save the day must show up practically perfect in every way.

It’s baffling because in no other organisational context is this the prevailing wisdom. In the world beyond Westminster we know that leadership is a craft that can be honed, with leaders enabled to expand their skills and develop the reflective, self-aware psychological armature that is critical to effective leadership.

In other settings the journey to senior leadership is strewn with development programmes, coaches and a panoply of psychometric instruments aimed at revealing, and more importantly, broadening leadership skills and styles. And yet a systematic approach to leadership development still appears to be anathema in our political culture and so, in its absence, I offer five thoughts on capable leadership – my advice to add to the growing pile.

Recognise that leadership is situational. Sounds obvious right? Except that this looks like an unexplored lesson from the Starmer project. This was a political project forged in years of brutal hand-to-hand combat as it fought to rescue the Labour Party from oblivion. Is it any wonder that it arrived in government tactical, pugilistic and frankly a little paranoid? Is it any wonder that it would read ‘contest of ideas’ as ‘threat to authority’? Is it a surprise that it would see the imposition of unquestioning loyalty and discipline as a survival strategy?

All this apparently unexamined baggage came into government with them. Bringing it to awareness, recognising its impact on behaviour, exploring its usefulness in this new situation was characterised as navel-gazing. Whereas it is, in reality, an essential discipline for leaders if they are not to be driven by embedded habits and practices that no longer serve them or their purpose . Andy Burnham will bring different baggage but no less need to reflect on whether this will or will not be functional for him and the team he builds around him.

Understand ‘authenticity’. We want leaders, and especially political leaders, to be anchored in a set of values - an answer to the deceptively simple question ‘What really matters most to me?’ We want to see those values reflected in both policy and behaviour. But commentators should not mistake Andy Burnham’s relaxed sociability for authenticity, especially contrasted with Keir Starmer’s restrained, occasionally awkward personal style. Neither have anything to do with authenticity. Voters came to see Keir Starmer as inauthentic because of the gap that opened up between the values that he espoused and the choices that he either made or allowed. And if Andy Burnham makes the same mistake, no amount of surface charm will save him.

In my work supporting leaders I often hear ‘but this is just the real me – my authentic style’. My question in response is ‘And is the purpose of leadership to express the real you or is it to discern what is needed from you in service of the organisation’s mission?’ When ‘this is just who I am’ gets in the way of challenging reflection on what is needed from you - and doing the work of growing your capability as a leader – that’s not authenticity, it’s defensiveness.

Perspicacious readers will be detecting a theme. Effective leadership calls, almost more than anything else, for a constant replenishing of deep reserves of self-awareness. I hope that Andy Burnham will find regular, safe moments for personal reflection , to seek out and embrace constructive challenge, and to keep calibrating judgements about what is needed from him.

Know that organisational culture does not land mysteriously from Mars. Behaviour over time hardens into culture. And behaviour in its widest definition. The personal conduct that leaders model; the conduct they permit and reward; the conduct that they turn a blind eye to; the priorities that they set; the decisions that they make and the way that they make them; the things they talk about and the people they invite (or fail to invite) into those conversations.

Persistent press briefing would have us believe that No 10 has a ‘culture’ problem. The good news is that culture can be reshaped though consistent, rigorous, disciplined, intentional leadership. If leaders believe that a different culture will better serve their purpose they have to work with colleagues to describe a different aspiration and then prioritise consistency, rigour and discipline in the delivery of that intention.

Crisis (and failure) comes with the territory. Screeds have been written about when, why and how the Starmer government failed. My observation is that this was a leader and a project that seemed psychologically unprepared to manage ‘crisis’.

The risk of failure/crisis produces anxiety. Anxiety drives restless activity. It tells leaders that they have to keep moving, keep doing. Once anxiety takes hold, entertaining a slower, more reflective process becomes fraught with risk, opening leaders up to intrusive thoughts that threaten to overwhelm. Psychoanalysis refers to this as a ‘manic defence’. A psychological mechanism that allows individuals to defend against feelings of loss, shame and helplessness that threaten their sense of competence and authority. A defence mechanism that manifests as a flurry of activity.

These are leaders who have mostly only known success, mastery and agency. The combination of holding apex power whilst simultaneously experiencing themselves as powerless, at the mercy of events and forces beyond their control, is profoundly unmooring. The internal coordinates by which leaders orient themselves – control and competence – suddenly feel like they no longer hold. In the face of incipient failure, it really matters that leaders explore the question ‘How do I feel?’ because bringing feelings into awareness allows leaders to respond rather than react. In psychological terms, the task is to process those feelings rather than convert them into impulsive action.

Leaders (and teams) psychologically resilient to failure or crisis have agreed protocols for how to respond. Organisationally, this usually means maintaining rather than jettisoning organisational habits and routines. Resisting the ‘sugar rush’ surge of frenetic ad hoc emergency meetings and calls in favour of personal and organisational rhythms that recognise that humans are overall better wired for predictability. Stress is a physiological response expressly designed to de-activate functions not critical for survival. Persistently elevated (chronic) stress is profoundly unhealthy but it also impacts on effectiveness. Particularly tasks that require divided attention, juggling and complex decision making.

Reflection and self-awareness to allow leaders and their teams to move from a leadership of brittle certainties to one of supple, adaptable, compelling confidence. Leading through crisis is not perhaps fundamentally about speed or certainty. It is about the capacity to remain psychologically alert and open when the ground feels unstable. Leaders who can tolerate shame without displacement, anxiety without frantic activity and uncertainty without retreating into brittle omnipotence create the conditions for finding a path forward. Crisis does not so much test technical competence as it exposes emotional architecture. The strength of the foundations of that architecture determine whether leaders, and their team, emerge diminished or enlarged by the experience

What it takes to have an argument. Politicians and political pundits alike are coalescing around the view that a key failure of the Starmer project was its unwillingness to make and have an argument. Sounds plausible but arguably one dimension of this is that this crop of leaders don’t actually know what it takes to enable the kind of generative conversations critical to the shaping of an argument. Because thinking together really does not come naturally for most teams. Even less so for politicians marinated in a culture that encourages superficial bombast, brittle certainties in a team climate riven with personal ambition and rivalry.

In most organisations, team processes are usually best described as theatre. Well-worn conversations typified by people saying the things that they have said before, downloading stories, ideas, and opinions. To begin to think together, this pattern must break down. Team members need to be challenged to reflect on deeply held thoughts and positions. There are known individual disciplines and practices that can help with this.

• Actively listen – seek to understand before being understood. Are you waiting for your chance to say what you planned to say?

• Notice and reflect on your assumptions – Pay attention to your internal reactions to others’ contributions.

• Suspend the rush to judgement – are you forming responses in your head while the other person is speaking?

• Balance opinion and enquiry – get comfortable with not being right or having the solution

• Embrace the unknown - welcome uncertainty – choose to learn more deeply by releasing what you think you know (or think you are expected to know)

These sorts of processes in turn depend on the overall approach taken to shaping the nurturing, curious, imaginative, collaborative team culture that is a pre-requisite for creativity and innovation. What it takes to build this kind of team is perhaps unsolicited advice for another day.