Breaking political orthodoxies

Tari Lang LinkedIn post 3 June 2017

Two leaders, both new, both having won office by breaking political orthodoxies and appealing to the popular vote through mass communications and sustained social media. Here the similarities end. One ploughs a single path of achieving personal and tribal (aka his own business) goals, seemingly impervious to the the approval from anyone but his own supporters and tribes, while desperately seeking approval for his own personal attributes. The other opens his sphere of influence and support, works on winning hearts and minds, communicates on issues and not his own personal characteristics. Like or hate their politics, these are leadership case studies worthy of close scrutiny. At the end of their respective tenures, which goals will they each have achieved? Their own personal objectives? The country they are designated to serve? The international community around them? The safety and prosperity of the planet?

Comments

Power or gender?

Recently I went to a concert at Edinburgh's Usher Hall where one of the soloists was an incredibly handsome and talented young Macedonian guitarist. I was introduced to him at the interval and told him enthusiastically how much I appreciated his playing. I also told him how gorgeous I thought he was. To be exact, I told him that I'd marry him and leave my husband (this was clearly banter, and my husband was standing beside me at the time). He took it warmly and charmingly and responded with matching repartee. So here's the question. Had I been a 61 year old man and he a gorgeous young female artist, would I be accused of sexism, of being patronising? Is it okay for a 61 year old woman to say these things because I believe my guitarist to be perfectly safe from any power play from me? Because I believe there is zero chance that anything I might say to him would be received with any real or threatening sexual connotation? Social norms of course change all the time, as we...

Of leaders, lies and euphemisms

We can describe lying in as many ways as we like... I love Lucy Kellaway's FT columns, this one from February last year is a classic. I got to thinking about leaders and lies, and how lies are euphemistically described when Sir John Chilcot today described Tony Blair as "not straight with the nation" on the Iraq war when he was British Prime Minister. Sir Robert Armstrong, British Cabinet Secretary said during the 'Spycatcher' trial in 1986 that a book written by a former MI5 employee "...contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.". More recently Kellyanne Conway introduced us to the notion of "alternative facts" http://bit.do/dySAA Is it no surprise therefore that Edelman's 2017 Trust barometer finds "that trust is in crisis around the world. The general population’s trust in all four key institutions — business, government, NGOs, and media — has declined broadly, a phenomenon not report...

Panic and the absence of leadership

I often borrow a line commonly used in crime movies when I see yet another leadership organisation fall from grace: "You could have done this the easy way, but you chose to do it the hard way". Oxfam was a hitherto admired institution, having done impressive work around the world for more than 75 years, respected for its engagement with donors big and small, its courage in working in war- and disaster-torn regions, and its commitment to equality and fairness. The Haiti scandal has rocked it to its core, putting into question its ability to continue its operations, as governments are rethinking funding levels, donors withdrawing sponsorship and customers pulling out of their shops. In other words, it is losing its licence to operate. There are so many lessons that can be learned from brands which fail to protect their culture, vision and reputation. United Airlines CEO's response to the treatment of one of its passengers on a flight, Bell Pottinger's colla...

Tari's Patch

Search This Blog