Leadership means different things to different people. In the world of politics, we prefer our leaders to be inspirational. Indeed many UK voters are still holding out for the UK's Obama to emerge. Someone with visionary swagger, a big idea and a long-term plan. This year's conference season may have marked the start of a marathon election campaign, but despite the best efforts of all three leaders, the whole thing left most non-partisan onlookers a little deflated.
All three leaders followed the standard recipe for conference speeches, written as much for soundbites as substance. This involves taking a handful of gentle, personal, emotional stories, adding a rant at the opposition and—if you're Labour or Tory—a further dash of sarcasm aimed at the Lib Dems. Then you simply beat in a string of policy announcements that don't have to add up to a coherent vision and garnish with some bland statements and empty promises about the future greatness of Britain being in safe hands.
None of this is new for 2009. But what is striking is the apparent lack of enthusiasm among voters. Despite the official "taking nothing for granted" line, David Cameron knows it's his to lose. This partly explains the lack of real policy detail. Why bother laying it out when you risk annoying someone who might vote for you, just to get rid of that other bloke?
Thus the age of "managerial politics" lives on. But is this such a bad thing? A quick look at the world of business suggests that bombastic, heroic leaders don't always get the best results. In fact, we're less certain than ever what good leadership looks like. While the search for the perfect leader preoccupies business writers, long-time management champion Henry Mintzberg suggests in this issue (page 10) that the obsession with ego-centric leaders as the beating heart of all businesses has damaged management and undermined our understanding of how organisations work.
Indeed, the idea of the leader as headstrong, decision-making hero, brooking no challenge to their authority, is under pressure from all sides. As Jane Simms considers on page 48, the most recent research suggests that boardroom conflict—provided it is handled correctly—is an essential ingredient in successful strategy. Are you listening, Gordon?
Richard Cree
Click here to read previous comments