The Leadership Deficit

Jun 30, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

While we are all preoccupied with the pros and cons of what is seen of the political dilemma in which the country is enmeshed, it seems to be overlooked that the deeper fundamental issue resides in the demonstrably indifferent quality of management, and, more critically, leadership which obtain. In the latter regard the private sector as a whole should not consider itself excepted. It is just that their leadership qualities are not as exposed, and therefore not as scrutinised as their public sector counterparts, to whom, if they wished, they could be exemplars.
But I have recently been re-reading Jim Collins’ old bestseller ‘Good to Great’. I could not help being engaged with the relevance of the following first three paragraphs in his book: “Good is the enemy of great. And that is one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great. We don’t have great schools, principally because we have good schools. We don’t have great government, principally because we have good government. Few people attain great lives, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life. The vast majority of companies never become great, precisely because the cast majority become quite good – and that is their main problem.”
‘Good to Great’ was the result of a most comprehensive research project, penultimately of nineteen good companies of which eleven finally satisfied the criteria for being ‘great’.
Admittedly, the book was published in 2001, but that is not to say that it does not contain truisms from which decision-makers in our developing construct cannot learn. One ventures to suggest that given the range of public sector agencies in respect of whom critical far-reaching decisions have to be made, the criteria for leadership greatness is even more applicable.
The author, Jim Collins, expressed surprise at discovering that the good-to-great leaders gave priority to getting ‘the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats’ vis-à-vis ‘setting a new vision and strategy’. In short therefore: it is the right people who are the most important asset.
Hopefully, this is a lesson to be learnt by the current administration, in which newcomers in critically important positions constitute an embarrassment to efficiency and effectiveness.
‘Good to Great’ can be described as a most comprehensive tribute to what emerged as Level 5 leadership during Collins’ research. Some of the attributes are identified as follows:
• “Level 5” refers to a five-level hierarchy of executive capabilities, with Level 5 at the top. Level 5 leaders embody a paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will. They are ambitious, to be sure, but ambitious first and foremost for the company, not themselves.
• Level 5 leaders set up their successors for even greater success in the next generation, whereas egocentric Level 4 leaders often set up their successors for failure.
• Level 5 Leaders display a compelling modesty, are self-effacing and understated….
• Level 5 leaders are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce sustained results. They are resolved to do whatever it takes to make the company great, no matter how big or hard the decisions.
• Level 5 leaders display a workmanlike diligence – more plow horse than show horse.
• Level 5 leaders look out the window to attribute success to factors other than themselves. When things go poorly, however, they look in the mirror and blame themselves, taking full responsibility….”
Not only in the current governance structure, but it is also palpable in private organisations, where so-called customer service has replaced effective communication, between and amongst human beings. In either case, the attribute of listening being the most critical part of the communication is much under-valued. But follows this commentary from ‘Good to Great’.
“But leadership is equally about creating a climate where the truth is heard and the brutal facts confronted. There’s a huge difference between the opportunity to “have your say” and the opportunity to be heard. The good-to-great leaders understood this distinction, creating a culture wherein people had a tremendous opportunity to be heard and, ultimately, for the truth to be heard.”
Then there is the issue of discipline, or moreso self-discipline. Reflect then on the following extracts:
“Sustained great results depend upon building a culture full of self-disciplined people who take disciplined action, fanatically consistent with the three circles.
Bureaucratic cultures arise to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline, which arise from having the wrong people on the bus in the first place. If you get the right people on the bus, and the wrong people off, you don’t need stultifying bureaucracy.
A culture of discipline involves a duality. On the one hand, it requires people who adhere to a consistent system; yet, on the other hand, it gives people freedom and responsibility within the framework of that system.
A culture of discipline is not just about action. It is getting disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and who then take disciplined action.”
And so to the final critical quote – considered most applicable in our circumstances in which the actual agencies can adapt their behaviours.
“Level 5 leaders channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest, they are incredibly ambitious – but their ambition is first foremost for the institution, not themselves.”
Our leaders must understand and emulate.
Hopefully, the following quote is not totally irrelevant.
“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out fake hopes soon to be swept away.”
Winston Churchill
‘The Hinge of Faith’

E.B. John

---

---