Reclaiming Leadership in Higher Education

Posted on

This is a re-blog from Richard Bolden on the ILA blog in which he discusses the challenges facing higher education leadership and asks those of us working in HE to reflect on what we can do to reclaim our role(s) and responsibilities as leaders in our organizations.

I have spent the past two and a half decades working as a leadership researcher and educator in UK universities. Throughout much of this time I have studied leadership in higher education (HE) as well as experiencing it first-hand. I have taken on leadership roles — both formal and informal — and have witnessed the trials and tribulations of colleagues as they have endeavoured to navigate the complexities of this context. In this article I share reflections on what I have learnt, why it matters, and what we can (all) do to enhance the quality and inclusiveness of leadership in this important sector.

Why Higher Education Leadership Matters

To begin it’s worth considering why HE matters for leadership theory, practice, and development. My own interest in researching leadership in this context was sparked by early work on distributed leadership in schools (e.g., Gronn, 2003; Spillane et al., 2004). HE provided an obvious testbed for exploring how such ideas might apply to other educational settings — particularly those with more complex structures, cultures, identities, and performance outcomes. Although there is fairly widespread agreement that the key purpose of effective school leadership is to improve pupil outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2006), the same does not apply to universities. Whilst student outcomes are undoubtably important metrics — and if you are a student, parent, or potential employer, perhaps the ones that concerns you most — this is not the only criterion by which HE institutions (and their staff) are evaluated. Another essential area of activity for universities is research — typically assessed in terms of “high quality” publications as well as by the volume of funding secured. Alongside this are agendas for external engagement and impact, not to mention the very real concerns of keeping universities running as viable businesses. Together, the diversity of stakeholders and priorities in HE produces a complex and contested environment where people and organizations may feel pulled in different directions. Such issues are not unique to HE but do make it an interesting context in which to study leadership, with important insights for emerging areas of scholarship, including complexity leadership (Uhl Bien, 2021), paradoxical leadership (Smith, et al., 2016) and collective leadership (Ospina et al., 2020).

At the center of any analysis of leadership is the interconnection between purpose, values, and identity, yet the somewhat schizophrenic nature of academia disrupts these dynamics in ways that can produce a sense of disenchantment, disengagement, and alienation. The HE system (in the UK and elsewhere) is founded on competing values systems — emphasizing both normative aspects (such as public service, professional autonomy, collegial practice, and traditions) and utilitarian principles (such as profit-making, corporate management, customer service, and change), such that a university “considers itself (and others consider it), alternatively, or even simultaneously, to be different types of organisations” (Albert & Whetten, 1985, p. 270).

The hybrid nature of HE poses particular challenges for leaders trying to establish credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of those they seek to influence, as different stakeholders identify “more with members of their own subcultures rather than as members of the university” (Winter & O’Donohue, 2012, p. 566). This is particularly true of academics who, as knowledge workers, carry professional identities and affiliations that extend well beyond their immediate employer. Whilst these, and other factors, make HE a particularly rich and rewarding context in which to study leadership there remains surprisingly little robust empirical research in this area and the HE leadership literature tends to be fragmented according to the perspectives and ideologies of different groups (Macfalane, et al., 2024).

Crisis, What Crisis?

The conceptual complexities of leadership in HE may, in part, help explain some of the difficulties facing the sector. Universities were particularly hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic (PWC, 2021) and whilst the immediate crisis may have passed, it has exposed deep-seated issues that have (by and large) remained below the surface for many years. In particular, accounts of “toxic” management are linked to widescale dissatisfaction, industrial action, and recruitment challenges in the sector (Watermeyer et al., 2021).

In a series of focus groups conducted as part of a project for Advance HE in Sept-Dec 2021 colleagues and I asked participants about the shifting context of global higher education (Watermeyer et al., 2022). Five key areas — policy, society, funding, students, and staff — were highlighted as impacting perceptions, experiences, and practices of leadership in contemporary HE. While the specifics of contextual issues varied between institutions and countries, there was strong agreement across the groups that current changes are producing tensions and challenges that are hard to resolve, as outlined in the following quote from a participant in Roundtable 1 with Heads of Departments and Deans.

“What we’ve seen… is this need [to]be agile and really responding to what is happening, straight now, but at the same time be someone who is looking ahead, at the same time as somebody who has that emotional intelligence to deal with not only their student population who is changing dramatically, but the needs of our staff and our whole pedagogy is changing? What do leaders need to do? How do they need to act? How do they need to be?” (p. 27).

In Britain, declining numbers of international students are putting huge pressures on a funding system dictated by government such that a third of universities are estimated to be trading at a deficit (Jenkins, 2023). In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that “bottom-line” financial performance metrics are of primary concern to senior institutional leaders, as are ranking schemes that determine the relative attractiveness of institutions to potential students.

Such measures, however, tend to be of far less significance to academics themselves in terms of what motivates and inspires them to work in HE. The growing divide between academics and managers is reported to be fueling extensive discontent within the sector, as indicated by unprecedented levels of industrial action across the UK (and elsewhere) throughout 2023 and reports of a “great resignation” (Ross, 2022).

Follower Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education

Within the Advance HE scoping study mentioned earlier, participants were asked to identify “what new or future leadership skills/competencies/behaviours are required within your organisation, professional area and/or wider sector?” Thematic coding identified 11 categories, which were incorporated into a subsequent survey completed by 553 respondents from around the World (Neves & Parkin, 2023). Figure 1 shows the proportion of respondents who strongly agreed that these qualities were important for good leaders within HE, as well as the extent to which they felt they demonstrated these qualities themselves (when leading) or observed these qualities within the people they were expected to follow (being led).

Chart for Richard Bolden Blog. Strongly Agree that these qualities are important/demonstrated. Green - A good leader should have these qualities Yellow - Being led - qualities are displayed Red - Leading - qualities are displayed. Adaptable. Green 80%; Red 53%; Yellow 10%. Collaborative. Green 80%, Red. 58%, Yellow 10% Credible: Green 78%. Red 52%. Yellow 14%. Authentic. Green 75%. Red. 68%. Yellow 11% Inclusive: Green 75%. Red 56%. Yellow 14% Self reflective. Green 70%. Red. 53%. Yellow 5%. Compassionate. Green 64%. Red 58%. Yellow 9%. Decisive. Green 52%. Red 35%. Yellow 18%. Creative. Green 44%. Red. 37%. Yellow 8%. Digitally engaged. Green 32%. Red. 35%. Yellow 10%.

Figure 1 – Chart based on those who “agree strongly” with each statement — the top point on a five-point agreement scale. Ranked in order of whether a good leader should have these qualities (Neves & Parkin, 2023: 9) [Reproduced with permission from Advance HE]

There is a clear pattern within the data, whereby good HE leaders are expected to be adaptable, collaborative, credible, authentic, inclusive, and self-reflective (with compassion also ranked highly). Participants rated their own capacity moderately highly on each of these qualities (albeit it consistently lower than the ideal). The most striking finding from this graph, however, is the huge gap between each of these rankings and perceptions of those people currently in leadership roles.

Follower perspectives (“being led”) suggest a gulf in expectations and experiences of leadership. Whilst it should be noted that there is no evidence to suggest that these negative assessments are reflective of the actual skills/qualities of senior leaders (indeed it is quite possible that many of these people are amongst those who rated their own capacity moderately highly) it highlights a significant issue to which senior leaders would be advised to pay attention.

Reclaiming Leadership in Higher Education

Follower-centric perspectives on leadership stress the importance of building strong relationships between leaders and followers that are founded on trust, respect, and a shared sense of purpose. The evidence outlined above suggests that this is not the experience of many people currently working in HE — a situation that has significant implications for the sector.

If we continue along the current trajectory the chances are that HE may slip into terminal decline (Fleming, 2021). A chasm between the values and priorities of those in formal leadership and management roles and those of academics involved in teaching, research, and/or external engagement will lead to further disillusionment with the academic profession and a corresponding deterioration in the quality and significance of academic work. This is a trend that has been well documented in critiques of neoliberalism and new public management in universities. So, what might we as academics (with or without management responsibilities) do to improve the situation?

First, we should acknowledge our rights and responsibilities as “citizens of the academic community” (Bolden et al., 2014) to play an active role in the governance of our HE institutions and the wider sector. Disengagement, whilst understandable, leaves space and opportunities for toxic management to thrive and may render us complicit in the process.

Second, as part of this we would do well to create and sustain spaces for critical and constructive debate around the nature and purpose(s) of HE in contemporary society. Whilst this should allude to and promote core values (such as academic freedom) it should also engage with the very real challenges facing many universities around financial sustainability and market position. Only through an honest and open dialogue can we hope to transcend the current fractures that characterize the sector.

Third, we need to ensure that a plurality of voices, perspectives, and lived experience infuse HE policy and practice. Genuine inclusion needs to be put at the heart of the educational mission of universities and used as a driver for continuity and/or change within the sector (see Bolden et al., 2019 for a similar argument about healthcare).

Fourth, we should rebuild our sense of community — to develop human relationships that have been fractured during the COVID pandemic, to mentor and support one another, and to celebrate collegiality and collective endeavour.

And fifth, we should find ways of (re)energizing and (re)inspiring current and future academics to embrace the privilege and opportunities of working in a sector that has such a huge impact on the lives of so many. Education and research are vehicles for individual and collective transformation and change and are the primary mechanisms through which we are likely to address global challenges such as climate change.

In relation to the last of these I was inspired by a recent LinkedIn post by colleague that reiterated his passion for the job (see below). As we reflect on the year that’s passed and consider the year ahead, I urge each of us to think on what WE can do and how, in our own (small) way, we can reclaim our role(s) and responsibilities as leaders in higher education.

Another term draws to a close 🌱

Each year, as September rolls around I always find myself thinking “I hope that I still love teaching and learning as much this year”. The sign that I finish off the term being simultaneously proud of students; grateful for the opportunity to be a small part of their journey; inspired by conversations; excited by the content; and sad for it to be over is a good one.

It’s no doubt that our world faces multiple crises, and that will continue, but being in this environment fills me with hope that generations want to understand what is happening in our landscape and want to put good into the world. Spending the time to delve into the human condition and understand new possibilities is what university is all about, and why I love this job.

So – here’s to accepting the feeling of sadness as a term draws to a close, but hope for what comes next 🌱

Dr Neil SutherlandLinkedIn – 13 December 2023 [Reproduced with author’s permission]

References

Albert, S., & Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational Identity. In L.L. Cummings & M.M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 (pp. 263‒295). JAI Press.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., & O’Brien, A. (2014). Citizens of the Academic Community: A Societal Perspective on Leadership in UK Higher Education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 754-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.754855

Bolden, R., Adelaine, A., Warren, S., Gulati, A., Conley, H., & Jarvis, C. (2019) Inclusion: The DNA of Leadership and Change. UWE, Bristol on behalf of NHS Leadership Academy, Leeds. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/852067/inclusion-the-dna-of-leadership-and-change

Fleming, P. (2021) Dark Academia: How Universities Die. Pluto Press.

Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who Needs It? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 267-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000112784

Jenkins, S. (2023, February 6). British Universities Can No Longer Financially Depend on Foreign Students. They Must Reform to Survive. The Guardianhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/02/british-universities-foreign-students-deficits-government-higher-education

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins. D. (2006). Successful School Leadership What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning. National College for School Leadership. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/6617/2/media-3f6-2b-what-we-know-about-school-leadership-full-report.pdf

Macfalane, B., Bolden, R., & Watermeyer, R. (2024) [Forthcoming]. Three Perspectives on Leadership in Higher Education: Traditionalist, Reformist and Pragmatist. Higher Educationhttps://link.springer.com/journal/10734

Neves, J., & Parkin, D. (2023). Leadership Survey for Higher Education. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/leadership-survey-higher-education

Ospina, S.M., Foldy, E.G., Fairhurst, G.T., & Jackson, B. (2020). Collective Dimensions of Leadership: Connecting Theory and Method. Human Relations, 73(4), 442-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719899714

PWC. (2021). Global Crisis Survey 2021: Building Resilience for the Future. PWC Research. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/crisis-solutions/global-crisis-survey-2021.html

Ross, J. (2022, July 8). ‘Do It All’ Culture ‘Driving Great Resignation’ in Academia. Times Higher Educationhttps://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/do-it-all-culture-driving-great-resignation-academia

Smith, W.K., Lewis, M.W., & Tushman, M.L. (2016). ‘Both/And’ Leadership. Harvard Business Review94(5), 66-70. https://hbr.org/2016/05/both-and-leadership

Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2004). Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726

Uhl-Bien, M. (2021). Complexity Leadership and Followership: Changed Leadership in a Changed World. Journal of Change Management, 21(2), 144-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2021.1917490

Watermeyer, R., Bolden, R., Knight, C., & Holm, J. (2022). Leadership in Global Higher Education: Findings From a Scoping Study. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/leadership-global-higher-education-findings-scoping-study

Watermeyer, R., Shankar, K., Crick, T., Knight, C., McGaughey, F., Hardman, J., Suri, V., Chung, R., & Phelan, D. (2021). ‘Pandemia’: A Reckoning of UK Universities’ Corporate Response to COVID-19 and Its Academic Fallout. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(5-6), 651-666. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2021.1937058

Winter, R.P., & O’Donohue, W. (2012). Academic Identity Tensions in the Public University: Which Values Really Matter? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(6), 565-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.716005

Rise of the Machines

Posted on

Blog post originally posted on the ILA wesbite 11th April 2023 by Professor Richard Bolden

Whether or not we are aware of it, over recent years Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of our lives — from the smart speaker in your lounge to the apps you use to order your takeaways and far more besides. For the most part, these changes have been incremental and largely hidden from view. In the last few months, however, stories about the rapid acceleration of AI technology have made headlines around the world — highlighting the potential benefits, as well as the risks, of this technology.

The launch of ChatGPT-3 in November 2022 meant that for the first time anyone could access and experience this technology for themselves. Whilst people were impressed with its capabilities, it was the launch of Version 4 on 14th March 2023 that has garnered most attention. Initial admiration turned to concern as the true potential of this technology became clear, with researchers noting that it shows “sparks of artificial general intelligence” that “is strikingly close to human-level performance” (Bubek et al., 2023). In response, over 1000 high profile individuals — including Steve Wozniak (co-founder of Apple) and Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla, Twitter and SpaceX and co-founder of OpenAI, the company that developed ChatGPT) — signed a public letter asking for an immediate pause of at least six months in the development of advanced AI. The letter suggested that advanced AI “can pose profound risks to society and humanity” and “should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources” (Future of Life Institute, 2023).

Whatever your understanding of, and opinions on, this technology, it poses significant issues that leaders, and leadership educators, need to pay attention to. A recent report by Goldman Sachs, for example, suggests that generative AI (AI that can automatically generate text and other content in response to user prompts) has the potential to automate around 300 million full-time jobs worldwide (Hatzius et al., 2023). For educators, there are serious concerns around the implications for teaching and assessment (Williams, 2023). Much as with the advent of the Printing Press and the Internet, however, there are likely to be far broader implications than we can even imagine, and despite calls for stronger regulation, the rate of change appears to have already exceeded our capacity to predict or control what happens next (see, for example, Bolden and O’Regan, 2016).

Some readers may note that the title of this blog post alludes to the Terminator movie franchise — where a malign AI system triggers global conflict and deploys advanced robots into the past to eradicate the leaders of the resistance before they become a threat. Whilst I very much hope that this is not the beginning of the story that we now see playing out — the concerns raised by Musk, Wozniak, and others should give us pause for thought and encourage us to prepare for the disruption that is already beginning to unfold.

In producing this blog post, I asked ChatGPT-4 to identify the implications of AI for leadership, drawing parallels with the film Terminator. It did a remarkably good job, highlighting four main areas of concern:

Jobs losses leading to “widespread economic and social disruption, as people lose their livelihoods.”

Potential bias where AI algorithms “can perpetuate or even amplify existing biases, creating a more unequal and divided society.”

Loss of control where, “as AI becomes more autonomous and self-aware, it may become difficult for humans to exert control over its actions [which] could have catastrophic consequences, as AI could take actions that are harmful to humans, either intentionally or unintentionally.”

An AI arms race where “just as nations have raced to develop nuclear weapons, there is a risk that countries will engage in an AI arms race, seeking to gain a strategic advantage over their rivals [which] could lead to an escalation of tensions and potentially, armed conflict.”

Unsurprisingly, these issues have been widely reported through the media and other outlets as people grapple to recognize the implications of this new level of AI. A key theme across each of these risks is inequality. Groups and communities that are already vulnerable and/or marginalized are those that are most likely to suffer the adverse effects of the disruptive change that advanced AI will inevitably produce. Whilst Musk, Wozniak, and other business leaders may be concerned about how to best harness the power of advanced AI, most people are well behind the curve — struggling to catch up and respond proactively to something that is largely beyond their reach.

Responding to the advent of advanced AI, however, is not simply a case of brushing up on technical skills but of tapping into our capacity for adaptation and working with complexity. In her powerful TED Talk, Margaret Heffernan (2019) identifies “The human skills we need in an unpredictable world,” in particular “preparedness, coalition-building, imagination, experiments, bravery.” Whilst her talk was recorded before the recent advances in AI, her warnings about over-dependence on technological fixes seem most timely.

“But in our growing dependence on technology, we’re asset-stripping those skills. Every time we use technology to nudge us through a decision or a choice or to interpret how somebody’s feeling or to guide us through a conversation, we outsource to a machine what we could, can do ourselves, and it’s an expensive trade-off. The more we let machines think for us, the less we can think for ourselves.” 

Within such a context, as leadership researchers, educators, and practitioners, we need to place even greater emphasis on critical thinking and reflection, diversity and inclusion, as well as ethics and values, in all that we do. We need to create opportunities for debate and discussion across difference, to foster collaboration and community building, and to challenge abuses of power and the assumptions and practices that underpin them. Only then might we be able to embrace the potential for AI as a force for good rather than a recipe for disaster.


References and Further Reading

Bolden, R., Adelaine, A., Warren, S., Gulati, A., Conley, H., & Jarvis, C. (2019). Inclusion: The DNA of Leadership and Change. UWE, Bristol on behalf of NHS Leadership Academy. https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/852067/inclusion-the-dna-of-leadership-and-change

Bolden, R., & O’Regan, N. (2016). Digital Disruption and the Future of Leadership: An Interview with Rick Haythornthwaite, Chairman of Centrica and MasterCard, Journal of Management Inquiry, 25(4), 438–446. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1056492616638173

Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Tat Lee, Y., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., Nori, H., Palangi, H., Tulio Ribeiro, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4, Microsoft Research, URL:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712  

Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The Role of Leadership in a Digitalized World: A Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:1398. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01938

Future of Life Institute. (2023). Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter. https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/

Hatzius, J., Briggs, J., Kodnani, D., & Pierdomenico, G. (2023). The Potentially Large Effects of Artificial Intelligence on Economic Growth. Goldman Sachs Economics Research, 26/03/2023. https://www.key4biz.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Global-Economics-Analyst_-The-Potentially-Large-Effects-of-Artificial-Intelligence-on-Economic-Growth-Briggs_Kodnani.pdf

Heffernan, M. (2019). The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World. [Video]. TED Conferences.https://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_the_human_skills_we_need_in_an_unpredictable_world

Rahman, H. A. (2021). The Invisible Cage: Workers’ Reactivity to Opaque Algorithmic Evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(4), 945–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/000183922110101

Schmidt, G.B, & Van Dellen, S.A. (2022). Leadership of Place in Virtual Environments. Leadership, 18(1), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/17427150211045153 Williams, T. (2023, March 23). GPT-4’s Launch ‘Another Step Change’ for AI and Higher Education. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/gpt-4s-launch-another-step-change-ai-and-higher-education


Leadership for the Greater Good: Reflections on Today’s Challenges From Around the Globe: Leaving Leadership

Posted on

Professor Richard Bolden delves into what the surprise resignations of Nicola Sturgeon and Jacinda Ardern reveal about today’s toxic leadership contexts, what it means to be a “strong leader,” and how leaders transition out of their roles.

Blog post originally posted on the ILA wesbite.


The surprise resignation of Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister of Scotland, less than a month after Jacinda Ardern stepped down as Prime Minister of New Zealand, provides a sobering insight into the immense scrutiny and pressure that senior leaders now face. Both had seen high levels of popularity and had been widely praised for their handling of the COVID pandemic. They have also experienced a barrage of criticism and declining popularity more recently. Each has shown huge commitment and resilience yet note that there comes a point when it’s time to step aside and make room for someone else to lead.

“It’s time, I’m leaving, because with such a privileged role comes responsibility. The responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not. I know what this job takes. And I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It’s that simple.” (Jacinda Ardern, 18 January 2023)

“Since my very first moments in the job I have believed a part of serving well would be to know almost instinctively when the time is right to make way for someone else. In my head and in my heart, I know that time is now. That it’s right for me, for my party and my country.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)


Both Sturgeon and Ardern are values-based leaders who demonstrated a firm commitment to ethical and moral principles. Their championing of kindness, compassion, and inclusion has led to some commentators attributing their stepping down to a failure of “woke” politics (e.g., Sky News Australia, 2023 and Morgan, 2023), but this is a gross simplification of the issues and fuels the culture wars that seem to characterize contemporary political discourse. As Sturgeon stated in her resignation speech:

“I have spent almost three decades in front line politics – a decade and a half on the top or second top rung of government. When it comes to navigating choppy waters, resolving seemingly intractable issues, or soldiering on when walking away would be the simpler option, I have plenty experience to draw on.

So, if this was just a question of my ability – or my resilience – to get through the latest period of pressure, I would not be standing here today.

But it’s not.

This decision comes from a deeper and longer-term assessment.

And the nature and form of modern political discourse means there is a much greater intensity – dare I say it, brutality – to life as a politician than in years gone by.

All in all – and for a long time without it being apparent – it takes its toll, on you and on those around you.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)


Whilst much leadership theory and research focuses on the dysfunctional characteristics of “toxic”, “narcissistic” and/or “psychopathic” leaders, far less attention tends to be given to the toxic environment in which senior leaders often find themselves. Padilla and colleagues (2007) work on the “toxic triangle” goes some way towards addressing this by highlighting the interdependencies between destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conductive environments, yet it continues to emphasize the psychopathology of individual leaders as a key ingredient in the process. Whilst there are, no doubt, plenty of examples where this is the case, what of the situations where fundamentally “good” people are exposed to unsustainable demands?

In their resignation speeches both Sturgeon and Ardern made a point of saying that they are “human” and that their decision to step down was, in part, made to protect the wellbeing of themselves and their families/loved ones.

Peter Frost’s (2003) notion of leaders as “toxin handlers” comes perhaps closer to capturing what happens in such situations. As with people who work in environments where they come into contact with hazardous substances, leaders may find themselves dealing with situations that are harmful to their health (for further elaboration see Hartley and Bolden, 2022). In their resignation speeches both Sturgeon and Ardern made a point of saying that they are “human” and that their decision to step down was, in part, made to protect the wellbeing of themselves and their families/loved ones. They also noted that it was in the best interests of their respective countries due to the fact that they no longer felt they had the energy required to sustain such a role.

Such an approach stands in stark contrast to the defiance of Donald Trump, Jose Bolsonaro, and Boris Johnson when they were required to stand aside and the subsequent attempts by their followers to get them reinstated. Whilst “strong” leadership continues to be associated with determination and persistence, Sturgeon and Ardern provide examples of how strength can also be demonstrated by knowing when to pass on the leadership baton to someone else. In so doing, they may also hope to retain a degree of dignity and respect that can so rapidly be eroded by desperate attempts to cling on to power.


In reflecting on the examples of Ardern and Sturgeon, I am reminded of a piece of work that I and colleagues conducted over a decade ago (Brookes et al., 2011), where we explored the experiences of people transitioning from senior leadership roles and the associated identity dynamics of “becoming an ex” (Fuchs Ebaugh, 1988). It struck us that, whilst a lot of attention is given to preparing (or persuading) people to take on leadership roles, far less attention tends to be given to supporting their transition out of such roles. Van Gennep’s (1960) work on rites of passage provided us with a useful framework for considering how any role transition involves going through a process of separation from an established identity, followed by a liminal period (where identities are fluid and uncertain), and, ultimately, arriving at a point of reincorporation where new identities are formed. Such notions underpin Ibarra et al.’s (2010) work on “identity-based leadership development” and the importance of “identity work” (Sinclair, 2011) in the process(es) of becoming (and unbecoming) “a leader.”

Nicola Sturgeon concluded her resignation speech as follows:

“So, to the people of Scotland – to all of the people of Scotland – whether you voted for me or not – please know that being your First Minister has been the privilege of my life. Nothing – absolutely nothing – I do in future will ever come close.” (Nicola Sturgeon, 15 February 2023)

For Ardern and Sturgeon, coming to terms with their new identities as former Prime/First Ministers is a journey they are only just beginning. We should watch and learn how they manage this transition and use it to inform our own work as leaders and leadership developers.


References:

Newshub. (2023, January 18). NZ PM Jacinda Ardern Announced Resignation [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGqVT8Vb9UM

Sky News Australia. (2023, January 19). Ardern’s Resignations ‘Marks a Failure of Woke Politics’ [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc6mI-wG-0o

Brookes, V., Hooper, A., Bolden, R., Hawkins, B. and Taylor, S. (2011). The Mid-Life Career Transition “… and so what do you do?” Working Paper for the Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter Business School.

Frost, P. (2003). Toxic Emotions at Work: How Compassionate Managers Handle Pain and Conflict. Harvard Business School Press.

Fuchs Ebaugh, H.R. (1988). Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. University of Chicago Press.

Hartley, L., & Bolden R. (2022). Addicted to Leadership: From Crisis to Recovery. In M. Witzel (Ed.), Post-Pandemic Leadership: Exploring Solutions to a Crisis. Routledge.

Ibarra, H., Snook, S., & Ramo, L.G. (2010). Identity Based Leadership Development. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice (pp. 657-678). Harvard Business Press.

Morgan, P. (2023, February 15). The Seven Deadly Words Highly Intelligent Nicola Sturgeon Couldn’t Bring Herself to Say Which Caused Her Downfall. The Sunhttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21395237/piers-morgan-nicola-sturgeon-gender-women-transgender/

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders, Susceptible Followers, and Conducive Environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.

Sinclair, A. (2011). Being Leaders: Identities and Identity Work in Leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Leadership (pp. 508-517). Sage.

Daily Record. (2023, February 15). Nicola Sturgeon Resignation Speech in Full as First Minister Gives Surprise Decision [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y-WCD3sj1Y

Van Gennep, A. (1960). The Rites of Passage (M.B. Vizedom, & G.L. Cafee, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1908).

ISLC 2022 – Leadership and the future of humanity

Posted on

Bristol Business School at the ISLC

Several representatives from Bristol Business School at UWE Bristol are attending this years International Studying Leadership Conference (ISLC) in December. We are delighted that this year’s conference will be held in person, the first able to do so since Bristol Business School hosted the ISLC in 2019, where we hosted over 140 delegates from across the globe to discuss “Putting Leadership in its Place “. The conference featured three keynote addresses and five parallel streams (including almost 90 separate papers) exploring Place in leadership theory and practice and led to the publication of special issue of the journal leadership, which can be accessed here.

This year’s conference hosted by the University of Sussex Business School, in the city of Brighton and Hove continues to challenge the status quo of leadership research. Looking to explore ‘’Leadership and the future of humanity’’, the ISLC has put a spotlight on the need to develop better models of leadership more widely, not only within business organisations but also political networks, communities and countries. This conference will examine new ways of theorising about leadership that challenge mainstream approaches by showcasing papers that ask big questions about important issues such as leadership in politics, the issue of climate change, the growth of social inequality and other significant global issues. Further details can be found here.

Bristol Business School has always had a strong presence at the ILSC conference, this year is no different with four papers by academics and research leads from Bristol Leadership and Change Centre that will be discussed at the conference.


Apocalypse then and now: ‘End of the world’ cosmologies and the future of humanity

Jonathan Gosling, Visiting Professor, UWE Bristol

Peter Case, Professor of Organisation Studies, UWE, Bristol

This paper examines the ways in which collapse is understood, the prescriptions that follow, the kinds of organising and leading around these prescriptions. We want to enumerate the cosmologies at play here, and how they influence the ways in which collapse is foreseen and the responses they invoke. Our working hypothesis is that some responses will be characteristic of ‘apocalyptic cosmologies’ that construe time as leading towards an ‘end of days’ in which collapse is a kind of fulfilment – an end in itself, or possibly a gateway to some other-worldly resurrection and salvation.

Developing previous work on climate change and apocalypse (Gosling & Case, 2011; Bendell, 2018) and our interests in premodern thought and practice (Case & Gosling, 2007), we seek to show by way of salient historical comparison how collective patterns of response emerge frequently enough to be seen as typical of European culture when facing existential threat and imminent collapse.

We conclude with a re-examination of contemporary responses to the so-called climate emergency, and some proposals for how we citizens can contribute in constructive ways informed by a more diverse cosmological repertoire. Our paper will contribute an analysis of what might happen to leadership, as well as how leadership might assist a ‘better collapse’. 


Tackling severe and multiple disadvantage through systems change

Richard Bolden, Professor of Leadership and Management, UWE Bristol

This paper presents insights from an eight-year longitudinal evaluation of a collaborative partnership project designed to transform the design and provision of services for people with severe and multiple disadvantage (SMD) in the city of Bristol in the UK. The research was informed by ‘realist evaluation’ principles, whereby we sought to understand the mechanisms through which interventions produce outcomes within particular contexts (Pawson and Tilley, 1997).  As appropriate for evaluating complex interventions (Skivington et al., 2021), we captured multiple perspectives, experiences and outcomes over time through a combination of methodologies underpinned by a theory of change.

Whilst a diverse range of findings, recommendations and conclusions have been reported, within this paper I will focus on insights around how the programme has facilitated systems change – ‘an intentional process designed to alter the status quo by shifting the function or structure of an identified system with purposeful interventions’ (Abercrombie et al., 2015). A review of evaluation insights, alongside learning from the team leading the initiative, has revealed seven key enablers of systems changeor SMD that might be used by people developing or running systems change activities


The post truth games of populist leaders: Insights from Franz Kafka

Leah TomkinsVisiting Professor, UWE Bristol

When we reflect on the conference theme of leadership and the future of humanity, we may find it hard to feel anything but despair. The world feels unstable, and many of its most prominent leaders seem to pander to their constituents’ grievances rather than exercising anything we might call ‘ethical leadership’ (Ciulla, 2020). In such a climate, truth often has less clout than ‘post-truth’, and this is often linked to a dismissal of experts (Foroughi et al., 2019). Amplified by social media spats, post-truth approaches suggest that everyone is entitled to their own preferred version of events. Most notorious in this narrative space is the ‘alternative facts’ discourse of former US President, Donald Trump; but other populist leaders have also relished the fact that their words do not have to be true – indeed, they can often be palpably false – to be effective.

This paper draws on the fiction of Franz Kafka (1883-1924) to explore the tactics of post-truth leadership. Kafka has extraordinary relevance for leadership, not least because “of all writers, Kafka is the greatest expert on power” (Canetti, 1982, p.62). Kafka has long been heralded for his unique perspective on many of the past century’s most pressing issues – bureaucracy, technology, violence, alienation, and the institutions of work, family, religion and the law. Kafka’s work interweaves, amplifies, undercuts and distorts these themes, revealing their often-terrible relation with power. Recent Kafka scholarship has challenged popular understandings of Kafka as under-dog or victim of the System, arguing instead that both Kafka and his protagonists are agents as much as victims of power (Corngold et al., 2009; Tomkins, 2024). Kafka’s world is one where ‘facts’ are often insignificant in comparison with ‘alternative facts’ in skilful hands, whether these hands belong to the overtly powerful or the apparently powerless.


Using visual methods to understand the translation of inclusive leadership across different language context

Doris Schedlitzki, Professor of Organisational Leadership, London Metropolitan University

Sylwia Ciuk, Senior Lecturer in Organisation Studies, Oxford Brookes University

Gareth Edwards, Professor of Leadership and Community Studies, UWE Bristol

Harriet ShorttAssociate Professor in Organisation Studies, UWE Bristol

In this presentation, we will provide practical examples from our project to illustrate how we have used Participant-led Photography (Shortt and Warren, 2019) to research the social construction and translation of inclusive leadership narratives across three different languages within the work context of a multinational organisation. In particular, we will show how this innovative method, which has not been applied to translation and leadership studies before, has given participants a verbal and non-verbal way of expressing – and reflexively exploring – the intangible aspects of inclusive leadership practice. The inclusion of visual data in our analysis also helps to challenge the use of English as the only ‘valid’ language to carry and share leadership knowledge.

We will further provide examples from our analysis to date to show how this methodological approach enables us to take a rigorous approach to inductive theorising. Data analysis involves identification of themes in both narrative and visual data using a new visual methodological/ analytical approach – Grounded Visual Pattern Analysis (GVPA) (Shortt and Warren 2019). This methodology enables a multi-modal translation and interpretation of leadership, since GVPA provides researchers with the opportunity to systematically analyse the narrative and visual data whilst privileging the meanings the participants ascribe to their photographs. Building on such a comprehensive and detailed analysis of participants’ experiences and practices enables us to understand better how they translate (linguistically and through practice) inclusive forms of leadership.


What Just Happened in UK Politics?

Posted on

Professor Richard Bolden shares his views with the International Leadership Association (ILA).

Blog post orginally posted on the ILA wesbite.

Over the past seven weeks the world watched on as Liz Truss crashed and burned as Prime Minister of the UK. After just 45 days in office — two weeks less than the election process through which she was appointed and, if you take out the period of national mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, shorter than the average shelf life of a lettuce (Economist, 2022, Daily Star, 2022) — Liz Truss unceremoniously stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party.

There is no shortage of journalists and political commentators writing their own accounts of what’s happened but, in this blog post, I would like to reflect on this as a leadership researcher and educator. To do this, I will consider the case from individual, organizational and societal perspectives.

An Individual Perspective: The Fall of Liz Truss

Without doubt, the most common way in which Liz Truss’s time in office will be analyzed is in relation to her own shortcomings and failures as a leader. The benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing and there are many people coming forward to express the concerns they had about her character and suitability for the role of Prime Minister.

Over the past few days, I’ve heard her described as “tin eared,” “naïve,” “arrogant,” “stupid,” “talentless,” and many more things beside. Whilst these may or may not be a fair assessment of her qualities, they beg the question of why on earth her candidacy was supported by so many ministers and members of the Conservative Party if this is how they felt about her. Surely there was some evidence of this, or an attempt to assess her suitability, before she was given the biggest job in UK politics?

I’ve always been dubious about the motivations of anyone who would wish to become PM or President given the immense responsibility and public scrutiny such roles carry. Indeed, in a reverse Catch-22 type scenario, anyone ambitious enough to put themselves forward should perhaps be deemed unsuitable and hence ineligible for the role. There’s plenty of research evidence on the psychopathology of leadership and the risks of narcissism, greed, and corruption amongst senior leaders in all walks of life. Such toxicity is clearly not healthy, but it’s a mistake to lay the blame wholly on the individual leader her/himself — indeed we may need to take a closer look at ourselves.

The psychodrama of Westminster over the past weeks, months, years says perhaps as much about our own relationship to leaders and leadership as the individual protagonists themselves. In a recent book chapter I co-authored with Lucie Hartley, drawing on insights from her time as CEO of a drug and alcohol charity, we reflected on the addictive nature of leadership (Hartley & Bolden, 2022). While individual leaders may become trapped in destructive cycles of addictive behavior, the causes and consequences are not entirely of their own making. The tendency to romanticize leadership and the heroic qualities of successful leaders disguises the fact that we frequently place people in situations that would turn even the most admirable individual into something else.

While I have no doubt that Liz Truss willingly and enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to be Prime Minister, she did so at a time of extreme turbulence. Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam (2005) coined the term the “glass cliff” to describe the circumstances in which female leaders and leaders from minority backgrounds are disproportionately more likely to be appointed to senior leadership roles in times of significant risk. While there are a number of possible explanations for this trend, it means that these individuals are placed in particularly precarious situations where the likelihood of failure is at its greatest. As the political commentator Andrew Marr stated in relation to the unraveling of Liz Truss’s government: “It was triggered by the immediate causes: bad political judgement, naiveté about markets, personal arrogance and cliquishness. Truss is simply not good enough — not shrewd enough in judgement, not persuasive enough as a communicator — to be prime minister. But this is the failure of an idea that would have collapsed even had Britain been led by better politicians” (Marr, 2022).

While I have no desire to present Truss as a victim, she became the embodiment of a set of ideals promoted by certain factions of her Party that were fundamentally out of step with the realities of the markets and wider society. She stated that in her commitment to growth she was prepared to do things that might be considered unpopular. Modeling herself on Margaret Thatcher, she claimed to be “a fighter not a quitter” and “not for turning”… until the markets and public opinion forced her to U-turn on pretty much everything she’d put in place during her time in office. We expect a lot of our leaders — including the ultimate act of self-sacrifice when things turn bad (Grint, 2010).

An Organizational Perspective: A Divided Party

The Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain is one of the main political parties in the UK. It represents the right-of-centre political interests and agendas and, within England at least, faces its main opposition from the left-of-centre Labour Party. There are currently 357 Conservative ministers, representing around 55% of all members of the House of Commons. The government comprises a Cabinet of senior leaders appointed by the PM and a large group of “back bench” members of parliament (MPs) elected to represent the interests of their local constituencies. An oppositional form of government is maintained, whereby, the party in power sits opposite the opposition parties in the main chamber of the House of Commons and legislation and policies are debated and voted on by members.

The origins of the UK structure of government dates back to the 13th and 14th centuries, with current arrangements largely unchanged for over 100 years. Unlike typical organizations, the PM’s authority comes from the mandate gained through General Elections, which occur every 4-5 years, where the public get to vote for their preferred party/candidate. These are supplemented by local elections to approve changes in representation between the national election cycle and by occasional national referendums on key issues, such as the UK’s membership of the European Union in 2016.

Within such an environment, the ability of the PM to instill a sense of “confidence” and maintain “discipline” is key. While MPs usually vote along party lines, within a democratic system of government they have the freedom to vote in the way they believe best serves the interests of the electorate. There are occasional exceptions to this, such as the vote on fracking on the evening of Wednesday 19th October 2022 that descended into chaos when Conservative MPs were informed that it was a “confidence vote” and they were expected to vote “no” to a motion to ban fracking no matter what their personal opinion on the matter or the views of their constituents. Despite the attempts of party “whips” and senior Cabinet members to encourage (force) members to vote as directed, 32 (nearly 10%) did not register a vote.

The events of the past few weeks have highlighted deep divisions within the Party that have existed for many years. Rather than all Conservatives sharing a unified set of beliefs, values, and priorities it is a loose affiliation of divided factions. These are the issues that David Cameron was trying to resolve when he called the national referendums, firstly on Scottish independence in 2015 and then membership in the EU in 2016. He hoped that once they had been decided through a public vote, MPs would fall into line and follow the guidance of the PM and Cabinet. In reality, however, such votes — particularly Brexit — seemed to further cement divisions within the Party and have led to widespread resistance and challenge across the different sub-groups — fueling, in large part, the churn of senior leaders, including three Prime Ministers and four Chancellors of the Exchequer (responsible for managing the national budget) in the last few months.

Commentators suggest that the Conservatives need to find a “unity candidate” to replace Liz Truss, someone who can lead and engage people from across the whole party, but such people are in short supply. The contenders — Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordant, and (the former PM) Boris Johnson — are all divisive given that they represent the interests of particular stakeholders rather than the whole party… not to mention the wider country. While Sunak, the runner up in the previous election campaign, has now gained sufficient support to be named the new leader, he has a significant challenge ahead in engaging those who hold him personally responsible for the departure of Boris Johnson and the drama that has since unfolded.

At the end of the day, leadership is about building, rather than burning, bridges.

The social identity approach to leadership, outlined by Alex Haslam and colleagues (2020), highlights the need for leaders to be seen to represent the interests and identity of a collective and to be doing it for “us.” Application of these ideas to the COVID-19 pandemic by Jetten et al. (2020) goes further, suggesting that (1) leaders need to represent us, and in a crisis “us” becomes more inclusive; (2) leaders need to be seen to do it for us, and there is no place for leader exceptionalism; and (3) leaders need to craft and embed a sense of us, and this creates a platform for citizenship.

This mirrors evidence from the Center for Creative Leadership on the nature and importance of “boundary spanning” leadership — defined as “the ability to create direction, alignment, and commitment across boundaries in service of a higher vision or goal” (Ernst & Yip, 2009). Direction, alignment, and commitment are far from evident within UK politics at the moment, and with its absence, the sense of shared purpose and capacity for collaboration needed for effective leadership and governance have evaporated. As the long-standing Tory MP Charles Walker stated following the chaotic vote on 19 October — “I’ve had enough of talentless people putting their tick in the box, not because it’s in the national interest but because it’s in their own personal interest” (Walker, 2022).

A Societal Perspective: Uniting Around a Shared Purpose

To understand Liz Truss’s spectacular failure, however, it is not sufficient to just consider individual and organizational factors. The speed and scale of her demise was largely shaped by factors beyond the direct control of either her or her colleagues.

She came into her position at a time of significant economic and geopolitical turmoil. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and a number of related factors (including the legacy of COVID-19) had driven up fuel costs and impacted food production, which had a direct impact on the cost of living for people across the UK. There were urgent calls for support in helping businesses and working families as well as those already receiving benefits, to cope with the rising cost of bills for fuel, food, and a wide range of essentials. Rapid action was required to put systems and processes in place before the winter in order to minimize the adverse effects.

The policy advocated by Liz Truss and her allies was one of establishing the UK as a high growth, low tax economy. Described by some as “Singapore on Thames” and others as “Trussonomics” — the approach is founded on the idea of cutting red tape and taxes to drive economic growth. This “trickle down” approach proposed that cutting taxes for the wealthiest would benefit those on lower incomes by mobilizing spending and job opportunities. This vision was core to Truss’s campaign to be elected as Party leader and was presented as confident and optimistic in the face of her opponent, Rishi Sunak’s, campaign that spoke of hard times ahead and the need to reign in public spending. When 141,000 Conservative members voted on whom to elect as party leader in September 2022, 57.4% chose Truss over Sunak (Statista, 2022), quite probably because of the more inspiring vision she set out of a post-Brexit Britain.

While those Conservative party members who voted for her, however, may have been persuaded by her argument, the “markets” were far less sympathetic — particularly when her (then) Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, announced a “mini budget” on 23rd September 2022 that included £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts. This “spooked” the markets and led to a rapid drop in the value of the pound, forcing the Bank of England to intervene, increasing interest rates and buying government bonds. The crisis in the financial markets was fueled, to a large extent, by the lack of communication and engagement between Truss and Kwarteng with the business and financial sector (including the Bank of England and, indeed, their own MPs) in advance of the announcements. The unusual decision not to check projections with the Office for Budget Responsibility (established to give independent advice on the UK’s public finance) further undermined confidence — leaving many to assume that the government’s plans were not based on robust analysis and would leave a large gap in the UK economy.

Together, these factors demonstrate the importance of building consensus and support with key stakeholders beyond the immediate team/organization before launching a significant shift in strategy. Without this, the perceived competence, credibility, and legitimacy of leaders can quickly evaporate, making it very hard (or impossible) to regain sufficient support to move forward. The series of U-turns on the policies within the mini-budget, while essential to rebuilding some kind of stability within the markets, whittled away what remaining authority Truss held such that there was no option than to eventually resign.

Where Next?

Today we find ourselves turning to a new leader of the Conservative Party — someone who will also take on the role of Prime Minister. Recent events illustrate the ambivalent relationship to leadership we have in the UK (Bolden & Witzel, 2018). We appear to love and hate our leaders in equal measure — to put them on a pedestal and then topple them when they fail to behave in ways, or to deliver, what we expect (despite the warning signs that might already exist or the incredible demands they face).

While the primary focus of the current crisis in UK politics is “leadership,” we may, perhaps, be advised to spend more time thinking about the importance of “followership.” While each of the contenders for the role of Prime Minister had their own group of loyal advocates, to be successful Rishi Sunak will have to gain the support of a diverse range of stakeholders — including his own party, business and financial services, the public sector and the wider UK population — and demonstrate how he will represent and deliver against their needs and aspirations rather than those of a narrow clique. At the end of the day, leadership is about building, rather than burning, bridges. It is about articulating and working towards a shared purpose that unites, rather than divides, those around them. Ultimately, this might require those in senior leadership positions to put aside their own personal ambitions in the pursuit of a genuinely collective endeavor. As with the apocryphal quote of a Roman Senator claiming “there go my people… I must go after them, so I can find out where they want me to lead them!” (Witzel, 2016) — the key to political leadership is to follow the “will of the people.” Whether or not anyone in the current UK government has the willingness or capacity to do this is yet to be seen.

References and Further Reading

  • Bolden, R. and Witzel, M. (2018) ‘Dis-United Kingdom? Leadership at a crossroads’ in S. Western and E.J. Garcia (eds) Global Leadership Perspectives: Insights and Analysis, London: Sage Publications, pp 161-169.
  • Bolden, R., Hawkins, B., Gosling, J. and Taylor, S. (2011) Exploring Leadership: Individual, organizational and societal perspectives.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. – Second edition to be published in March 2023.
  • Daily Star (2022) LIVE: Can Liz Truss outlast a lettuce? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm-RE95lKJ0
  • Eardley, N. (2022) How big-bang economic plan and political turmoil sank Liz Truss, BBC News, 20/10/2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63335671
  • Economist, The (2022) Liz Truss has made Britain a riskier bet for bond investors, 11/10/2022 https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/11/liz-truss-has-made-britain-a-riskier-bet-for-bond-investors
  • Ernst, C. and Yip, J. (2009) Bridging Boundaries: Meeting the Challenge of Workplace Diversity, Leadership in Action, 28(1), 3-6.
  • Grint, K., (2010) The Sacred in Leadership: Separation, Sacrifice, and Silence, Organization Studies, 31, 89-107.
  • Hartley, L. and Bolden R. (2022) ‘Addicted to Leadership: From crisis to recovery’ in Morgen Witzel (ed.) Post-Pandemic Leadership: Exploring solutions to a crisis, London: Routledge.
  • Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D. & Platow, M. J. (2020). The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, influence and power, 2nd Edition. London & New York: Psychology Press.
  • Jetten, J., Reicher, S.D., Haslam, S.A. and Cruwys, T. (2020) Together Apart: The Psychology of COVID-19. London: Sage.
  • Kuenssberg, L. (2022) Tory leadership: Why would anyone want to be prime minister now anyway? BBC News, 22/10/2022 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63343723
  • Marr, A. (2022) The death of global Britain, New Statesman, 19/10/2022 https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2022/10/andrew-marr-death-global-britain 
  • Ryan, M. and Haslam, S. A. (2005) The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions, British Journal of Management, 16, 81-90.
  • Statista (2022) Percentage of votes won in the Conservative party leadership elections in the United Kingdom in 2022, by round.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1323720/uk-conservative-leadership-leadership-elections/
  • Walker, C. (2022) I’ve had enough of talentless people, BBC News, 19/10/2022, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-63320605
  • Witzel, M. (2016) The first paradox of leadership is – leadership! In R. Bolden, M. Witzel and N. Linacre (eds) Leadership Paradoxes: Rethinking leadership for an uncertain world. London: Routledge.

Dr. Richard Bolden has been Professor of Leadership and Management and Director of Bristol Leadership and Change Centre at Bristol Business School, University of the West of England (UWE) since 2013. Prior to this he worked at the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University of Exeter Business School for over a decade and has also worked as an independent consultant, research psychologist and in software development in the UK and overseas.

His research explores the interface between individual and collective approaches to leadership and leadership development in a range of sectors, including higher education, healthcare and public services. He has published widely on topics including distributed, shared and systems leadership; leadership paradoxes and complexity; cross-cultural leadership; and leadership and change. He is Associate Editor of the journal Leadership.

Richard has secured funded research and evaluation projects for organisations including the NHS Leadership Academy, Public Health England, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, Singapore Civil Service College and Bristol Golden Key and regularly engages with external organisations. 

What works for leadership in higher education?

Posted on

Over the past year Professor Richard Bolden, along with colleagues at the University of Bristol, has been conducting a scoping study on “leadership in global higher education”.

The report, published by Advance HE on 6th September 2022, presents an overview of insights and findings from 11 round tables and four dissemination and engagement events conducted between October 2021 and March 2022.

These conversations “provided rich and revealing insights into a turbulent and changing HE landscape” and hold significant implications for effective leadership across the sector. The report forms the basis for a major survey of HE leadership, to be launched by Advance HE later this month.

Further Details

Download the full report

Build Back Better….With Care and Compassion

Posted on

Written by Professor Richard Bolden, UWE Bristol, 23/03/2022 for the International Leadership Association

It is now over two years since the arrival of Covid-19, which plunged much of the world into lockdown and caused immense social and economic disruption and loss. On 11th March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a pandemic and as of 22nd March 2022, there have been over 470 million recorded cases and 6.1 million Covid-related deaths worldwide (World Health Organization, n.d.).

As governments in London, Washington D.C., and elsewhere call to “build back better,” and numerous organizations follow suit, it is easy to become so focussed on the future that we forget what we’ve been through. Without doubt, now is a time of both opportunity and need, but levels of physical and emotional exhaustion are at an all-time high. A report published in March 2022 notes a 25% increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression worldwide since the outbreak of the pandemic (World Health Organization, 2022). The impacts of Covid, however, are not equally distributed. We are, of course, now painfully aware of the disproportionate impact of the virus on people of Black, Asian, Indigenous, and minority ethnic backgrounds, but the lasting effects on them and other populations are harder to discern (Tai et al., 2021). Research on staff who worked in intensive care units at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, shows a 40% likelihood of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — twice that of military veterans recently engaged in combat (Greenberg et al., 2021).

Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to work with professionals from a range of contexts and have been struck by the levels of exhaustion reported. This is particularly prominent amongst people working in health and care — many of whom had to keep working through the pandemic, often on the Covid “frontline” facing considerable personal risk and witnessing unimaginable trauma. In a series of reflective sensemaking discussions I had with staff from the National Health Service in England in Spring/Summer 2021, people compared their experiences to “clinging to a lifeboat” following a shipwreck or “being thrown out of a perfectly good airplane without a parachute.” A veteran from the UK armed forces, now working as an NHS Manager, described the height of the pandemic as worse than anything he had witnessed during the Helmand province campaign in Afghanistan. Another participant, a Black female NHS administrator, described her experiences of working through the pandemic whilst her brother and three other family members passed away, summing up with the observation that “This year has been about so much more than work!”

The emotional labour (Hochschild, 1983) of “putting on a brave face” and telling others “we can get through this” is an additional burden that has been carried. As one NHS leader said:

One day feels everything is doom and gloom and you know you’ve got a huge burden to try to deal with… and then you are trying to be optimistic as the leader… the rest of the staff look to you and how you’re coping, which often has been a huge influence on how the rest of the team are feeling… so you often have to wear a full smile and you know, the false positive to say “you know we can get through this.” You know try and support each other, But you’re carrying that burden yourself and it can be feeling very isolating.

More recent discussions with staff from higher education institutions around the world paint a similar picture, albeit usually without the same degree of personal risk (Parkin et al., 2021). Nonetheless, people describe the immense turbulence and uncertainty of the past two years and the repeated need to adapt to changing circumstances and demands. Whilst some might question the accuracy of such accounts, it is worth noting that the PwC Global Crisis Survey 2021 ranks the higher education sector as the second hardest hit by the pandemic (just behind hospitality and leisure), with 83% of organisations reporting a “negative” or “significant negative” impact (PwC, 2021).

In a TED talk titled The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World, recorded just six months before the outbreak of the pandemic, Margaret Heffernan (2019) contrasts resilience with robustness. Her argument is that sectors such as healthcare, law and order, and the supply of essential services such as food, water, and energy, need to focus not just on the ability to get back up after a set-back but on the ability not to break under pressure in the first place. In order to do this, she suggests, we must abandon our obsession with efficiency and focus instead on “preparedness, coalition-building, imagination, experiments, bravery” that underpin our “capacity for adaptation, variation and invention.”

This is precisely what many organizations are now doing — including the healthcare and higher education institutions mentioned earlier — but in the wake of the pandemic there is a further “R” that requires attention. The physical and emotional exhaustion that now permeates many workplaces and communities also requires a significant investment in recovery. I’m not talking here of the economic recovery stressed by politicians and business leaders (although that is undoubtedly important) but of the slow and challenging process of human healing. In order to achieve this, we need to move beyond a rhetoric of “compassion” to a genuine “ethic of care” that “reconnects experiences across the so-called work-life boundary” (Tomkins & Simpson, 2017).

Recognition of the pain and suffering that accompanies change is not new. Indeed, Heifetz and colleagues (2009) made precisely this point when outlining their theory of adaptive leadership, arguing that “Honoring the reality that adaptive processes will be accompanied by distress means having compassion for the pain that comes with deep change” (p. 29). West and colleagues (2017), writing on compassionate leadership in healthcare, conclude that “In order to nurture a culture of compassion, organisations require their leaders — as the carriers of culture — to embody compassion in their leadership” (p. 4). Yet, as Maak and colleagues (2021), reflecting on insights from the pandemic, argue “It cannot be overstated, how demanding it is for a leader to make space for human moments, and to be present for and attentive to those who suffer in a situation in which pressure on the leader is relentless” (p. 74).

At a time when we are still figuring out how best to move forward from the pandemic it is worth remembering the saying, “In a world where you can be anything, be kind.” Kindness and compassion require a conscious choice — to look beyond our own preoccupations to consider the perspectives and experiences of others. The mobilization of groups and communities throughout the pandemic, as well as the near global solidarity and support shown for the Ukrainian population following the unprovoked attack by Russia, demonstrate our capacity for empathy and care. The question now remains how we can carry this forward. Then, and only then, will we have demonstrated our capacity to “build back better.”

Interested in learning more about this topic? On 12-13 July 2022, the Bristol Leadership and Change Centre will be hosting the 12th Developing Leadership Capacity Conference, with a theme of “Leading to Care – Foregrounding Health and Well-being in Leadership Development and Education.” Confirmed keynote speakers include Michael West and Leah Tomkins (mentioned above) as well as Tracie Jolliff. The event will be run online with no registration fee in order to enable wide attendance. The call for papers is now open. The extended deadline to submit is 3rd May. Further details at https://lnkd.in/dJpE7Ekk.

References

Greenberg, N., Weston, D., Hall, C., Caulfield, T., Williamson, V., & Fong, K. (2021). Mental Health of Staff Working in Intensive Care During Covid-19. Occupational Medicine, 71(2), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqaa220

Heffernan, M. (2019 July). The Human Skills We Need in an Unpredictable World [Video]. TEDSummit2019. https://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_the_human_skills_we_need_in_an_unpredictable_world

Heifetz, R. A., Linsky, M., & Grashow, A. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press.

Maak, T., Pless, N. M., & Wohlgezogen, F. (2021). The Fault Lines of Leadership: Lessons From the Global Covid-19 Crisis. Journal of Change Management, 21(1), 66–86.

Parkin, D., Bolden, R., Watermeyer, R., & Outhart, K. (2021 December 16). Perspectives on Leadership in Global Higher Education – Reflections From the Roundtables. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/news-and-views/perspectives-leadership-global-higher-education-reflections-roundtables

PwC. (2021 March). Global Crisis Survey 2021: Building Resilience for the Futurehttps://www.pwc.com/gx/en/crisis/pwc-global-crisis-survey-2021.pdf

Tai, D.B.G., Sia, I.G., Doubeni, C.A., & Wieland, M.L. (2021, October 13). Disproportionate Impact of COVID-19 on Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in the United States: A 2021 Update. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparitieshttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01170-w

Tomkins, L., & Simpson, P. (2017). An Ethic of Care: Reconnecting the Private and the Public. In D. Knights, & C. Mabey (Eds.), Leadership Matters: Finding Voice, Connection and Meaning in the 21st Century (pp. 89-101). Routledge.

West, M., Eckert, R., Collins, B., & Chowla, R. (2017). Caring to Change. The Kings Fund.

World Health Organization. (n.d.) WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard as of 5:27pm CET, 22 March 2022. https://covid19.who.int

World Health Organization. (2022, March 2). COVID-19 Pandemic Triggers 25% Increase in Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression Worldwide. https://www.who.int/news/item/02-03-2022-covid-19-pandemic-triggers-25-increase-in-prevalence-of-anxiety-and-depression-worldwide

End of the Age of Arrogance?

Posted on

Written by Professor Richard Bolden, UWE, Bristol, 14/01/2022 for the International Leadership Association

“In reality they all lived in a kind of hieroglyphic world, where the real thing was never said or done or even thought, but only represented by a set of arbitrary signs.”

Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence, 1920

Over the past few weeks a series of stories have dominated news headlines around the world that, whilst in different contexts, bear a number of striking similarities.

The first of these concerns revelations about a string of parties hosted at 10 Downing Street during the pandemic. Whilst Prime Minister Boris Johnson has consistently attempted to deflect allegations and blame, arguing that these were work events and that Covid restrictions were followed at all times, the public and indeed his own party have become increasingly frustrated by his unwillingness to apologise and take responsibility, and his apparent disregard for the rules that he and colleagues had imposed across the country.

The second regards the ability of unvaccinated tennis star Novak Djokovic to enter Australia to play in the Australian Open. For Djokovic this would enable him not only to defend his title but also to potentially achieve the highest ever number of Grand Slam titles in men’s tennis. His Visa application, however, has been contested on the basis of him breaching Australian Immigration rules around COVID vaccination status, as well as an error in the reporting of prior travel on his Visa form.

And the third relates to whether or not Prince Andrew will face trial for alleged illegal sexual activity. Needless to say, the Prince has consistently denied these allegations – publicly stating that he’d never met his accuser (despite photographic evidence to the contrary) and even taking part in a televised interview where he endorsed his position by stating that he was ‘unable to sweat’ and was picking up his daughter from pizza restaurant on the evening of one of the suggested incidents (despite no substantive evidence to support either claim).

Headlines on the BBC News website, at 11:00 on 14/01/2022

These stories have been widely reported, not just in mainstream media but also through the internet and social media where each has fuelled a storm of opinion and memes. Despite their obvious differences, what each of these stories has in common is the sense that people in positions of power and influence believe that they are free to operate beyond the rules that govern the ways that others are expected to live their lives. Whilst these are just the latest in a long history of examples of privilege and inequality what is notable this time is the turning tide of public opinion. Whilst there remain those that support and defend the protagonists our collective willingness to forgive and forget is in rapid decline. In each case people are frustrated not just by the incidents themselves but the lack of respect that the continued avoidance of accountability demonstrates. Trust has been broken and, whatever the outcome of any of these sagas, will be difficult to rebuild – not just for the individuals themselves but also the institutions they represent.

Together, these cases illustrate the reciprocal and relational nature of leadership. As Professor Joanne Ciulla argues: “Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relationship between people, based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a shared vision of the good.”[i] In each of these examples the moral foundation of these individuals (and their institutions) has been brought into question, which erodes their credibility, authority and ability to influence others.

Linked to this is the sense of one set of rules for them and another set of rules of the rest of us. A fundamental premise of the social identity approach is that leaders must demonstrate that ‘we’re in this together’. Professor Stephen Reicher and colleagues have spoken particularly about the need for identity-based leadership through the pandemic and highlighted the consequences of failing to do so[ii]. The (post) pandemic situation is particularly pertinent in the cases of Boris Johnson and Novak Djokovic where the tough lockdown conditions and personal loss endured by populations in the UK and Australia make breaches of the regulations – and the apparently dismissive ways in which they have been responded to – particularly egregious.

These cases also highlight the complex, systemic nature of leadership and the need to focus attention on small details as well as broader patterns[iii]. Whilst Boris Johnson, for example, may have weathered many a storm during his career an overt breach of Covid regulations may well be enough to unseat him his position in parliament (much as it has for others in the government). For Djokovic, a failure to complete his Visa application correctly may put pay to his ambitions to win the 2022 Australian Open. And whilst not wishing to defend his actions, differences between legal systems in the UK and USA may have contributed to Prince Andrew being indictable for alleged crimes in New York.

Overall, these stories demonstrate shifting social trends around our relationship with and deference towards people in positions of power and authority. Whilst I believe we are still far from a world of ‘post-heroic leadership’, our collective tolerance for people who appear arrogant, or elitist appears to be waning. As leadership scholars, educators and practitioners, however, we must also be careful not to be drawn in the polarizing vortex of opinion that such stories fuel. Whilst these particular examples may be playing out in public view – exposing the sordid intricacies for all to see – we must also remain alert for the stories that remain hidden from view. On the day that I am writing this article, for example, the journalist Carole Cadwalladr is appearing in the High Court to defend her decision to publish and share her account of the ways in which Trump, Farage, Banks and others used Facebook to spread misinformation to influence the outcome of Brexit vote[iv]. Such cases are risky and expensive yet, unless people are willing to speak-up we may find democracy slipping away.

I began this article with a quote from Edith Wharton’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel ‘The Age of Innocence’, which highlighted the tensions and ambiguities within a world undergoing social and political change. There are many that would argue we are at a similar turning point in history – facing the combined challenges of COVID-19, climate change, and social inequality that call for a reappraisal of who ‘we’ are, what ‘we’ stand for and who ‘we’ are willing to follow. In the words of Wharton, if we are not content with the answers that we find then we have the capacity to redraw the boundaries within which we find ourselves.

“Who’s ‘they’? Why don’t you all get together and be ‘they’ yourselves?”

Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence, 1920

[i] Ciulla, J. B. (ed.) (1998) Ethics: The Heart of Leadership. Westport, CT: Quorum. P. xv.

[ii] See, for example, Jetten, J., Reicher, S., Haslam, S.A. and Crowys, T. (2020) Together Apart: The Psychology of COVID-19. London: Sage.

[iii] See, for example, French, R. and Simpson, P. (2014). Attention, Cooperation, Purpose: An approach to working in groups using insights from Wilfred Bion. Karnac.

[iv] For further details see https://www.gofundme.com/f/democracy-the-fight-back and https://www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy

The Fall of Edward Colston and the Rise of Inclusive Place-Based Leadership

Posted on

by Professor Richard Bolden

The killing of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis, USA on 25th May 2020 triggered a wave of protests about racial inequality that have spread around the world. In my home city of Bristol, UK the Black Lives Matter march on 7th June led to the toppling of the statue of Edward Colston, a 17th-century slave trader whose sculpture had stood in pride of place in the city centre for 125 years.  The ironic fact that the bronze cast was then dragged to the quayside and unceremoniously dumped into the water at almost precisely the same place as his ships had docked over three hundred years ago did not go unnoticed[1].

Colston, who was born in Bristol in 1636 and lived there for much of his life, made his fortune as a merchant – initially trading wine, fruits and cloth before becoming involved in the slave trade. From 1680-1692 he worked for the Royal Africa Company, which held a monopoly for trading along Africa’s west coast, serving as deputy governor from 1689 to 1690. During his time at the company around 84,000 Africans were transported into slavery, with an estimated 19,000 perishing in the process[2]. Despite his involvement in this abhorrent trade, Colston was widely celebrated for endowing significant sums of money to local schools, hospitals, alms-houses and churches. His statue was erected by the Victorians in 1895 to commemorate his philanthropy and his name still features on many city landmarks.

The actions of the protesters that day drew a range of reactions. Whilst the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, described it as ‘utterly disgraceful’ and the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, called it a ‘criminal act’ others took a more nuanced approach.  Marvin Rees, the elected Mayor of Bristol, whilst not condoning the wilful damage of public property said the statue had been a ‘personal affront’ to him and many other people for years and that he ‘did not feel any sense of loss’[3].  As televised interviews for Channel 4 and BBC later that day pushed Rees to give a binary response to questions about the repercussions of the incident, he took the opportunity to lay-out the complexities of the context in which it had occurred. Rees outlined the sensitivities and challenges and the need for an open and honest debate about the history of race and inequality in the city. As the first elected Mayor of Afro-Caribbean descent in Europe, who took up his post in 2016 amidst the effects of the Brexit vote and sustained cuts to local government funding, he needed to mobilise the support of a diverse (and divided) population and a wide range of stakeholders. Whilst he actively supported campaigns to review Colston’s legacy, including a decision to rename the city’s Colston Hall music venue, attempts to remove Colston’s statue (or, at the very least, install a new plaque describing the atrocities that he had committed) had thus far been undermined[4]. With a finite amount of time, resource and political capital, Rees had many other priorities to attend to in order to address the challenges and divisions within the city[5].

Whilst some expressed outrage that the statue was pulled down David Olusoga, Professor of Public History at University of Manchester and a resident of Bristol, pointed out that the real question was why “21st-century Bristol still had a statue of a slave trader on public display” in the first place[6]. To those who suggested that removing Colston’s statue was an attempt to erase the city’s past, he responded “the toppling of Edward Colston’s statue is not an attack on history – it is history”. The legacy of Colston is writ large across the city and will not be forgotten simply because his image no longer gazes down upon those who walk the city’s streets. In an interview for the BBC on the day of the protests Olusoga argued “statues aren’t about history they are about adoration. This man was not great, he was a slave trader and a murderer”[7].

The speed with which other cities across the country have responded by reviewing and removing statues that fail to reflect the multi-cultural nature of contemporary Britain shows that these thoughts are finally being heard[8]. The history of colonisation and slavery that fuelled Britain’s economic, cultural and political influence for many centuries has become woven into the fabric of our institutions and society leaving many of us blind to the day-to-day racism and inequality it perpetuates.

Speaking at the funeral of George Floyd on 9th June Rev. Bill Lawson, who had campaigned alongside Rev. Martin Luther King Jr in the 1960’s, said “back in the days when I used to be part of marches, all the marchers were black, but now there are white people who know the story and there are Hispanics who know the story and there are Asians who know the story”[9].  He went on to say “Out of his [George Floyd’s] death has come a movement, a worldwide movement. But that movement is not going to stop after two weeks, three weeks, a month. That movement is going to change the world.”

The events of the past few weeks have a great deal to tell us about the nature and purpose of good leadership in contemporary society. Firstly, they demonstrate that in the second decade of the 21st Century we are still far from the ‘post-racial’ society that some may claim. The roots of racism go back many years and will no doubt take many more to rectify. The diversity of our workforce and communities is widely acknowledged as a significant source of creativity, innovation and competitive advantage yet the relatively superficial attempts to tackle unconscious bias within organisations barely scratches the surface of the discrimination experienced by black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) individuals on a daily basis. The role of leaders in a progressive, multi-cultural society is to actively foster and promote diversity in all its forms and to dismantle systems, structures and processes that “inhibit the full and equal engagement of all individuals”[10]. This is difficult and demanding work that requires significant time and emotional investment. It requires listening to and learning from the lived experience of others, and to actively champion and support marginalised individuals and groups. To quote Ruth Hunt, former CEO of the LGBT rights organisation Stonewall, “if you have any power whatsoever, think about how you can share it”[11].

Secondly it shows the need for a deep appreciation of context, informed by genuine respect for the plurality of perspectives on any particular issue. The Police Superintendent for Bristol, Andy Bennett, noted that whilst his officers were present when the statue of Colston was removed and pushed into the harbour, a decision was taken not to intervene as doing so was likely to lead to further disorder. In explaining this decision, he said “whilst I’m disappointed people would damage one of our statues, I do understand why it has happened, it is very symbolic” [12].  Bennett, like Rees, demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the issues and the potential for unintended consequences from his actions. Whilst, of course, attention would have been given to the immediate context of the situation it is highly likely that he also considered the wider context of policing and criminal justice within the city.  Bennett and his colleagues had invested considerable time and effort over many years building and strengthening relationships, trust and collaboration between diverse groups and communities and would, no doubt, be well aware of the long-term knock-on effect of heavy-handed policing in a situation such as this. For those protesting that day the statue of Colston was a vivid symbol of oppression and a reminder of the lack of progress that had been made in tackling systemic inequality[13].

And thirdly it demonstrates the importance of genuine, open discussion in mobilising and sustaining social change. Both Rees and Bennett’s response to the incidents in Bristol on 7th June show a real awareness of the importance of shifting the narrative from blame to reconciliation. The day after the protest Bristol City Council announced its intent to create a new exhibition at the city’s MShed Museum featuring placards and banners from the march, most likely alongside the despoiled statue of Edward Colston once retrieved from the harbour. A day later, Rees announced the launch of a new commission to document and share the ‘true history’ of Bristol[14].

Recognition of the disproportionate impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on BAME communities – both in health and economic terms – alongside a growing sense that not enough is being done at national level to address this is, of course, another key part of the backdrop to recent events[15]. At the time of the Black Lives Matter protests, the UK was still experiencing high numbers of infections and deaths from Covid-19 and laws were in place to enforce social distancing and prohibit gatherings of more than six people. The fact that so many people still took to the streets demonstrated the strength of emotion and level of concern about racial inequality.

Following the suffering and disruption caused by Covid-19 and the trauma of George Floyd’s death there is perhaps a glimmer of hope. Back in April Rees argued that the post-Covid recovery in Bristol should focus on building a “more sustainable, more inclusive, more fair and more just” economy and had begun rallying support for this across the city[16]. Indeed, the groundwork for such an approach had already been laid over the past few years through the development of the One City Approach[17] and the launch of the One City Plan in January 2019. This bold vision and action plan was inspired by a similar initiative in New York that set out a long-term strategy, co-produced with diverse communities and stakeholders, to build a thriving and inclusive city aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals[18]. The three aspects of inclusive place-based leadership outlined above – allyship, understanding and dialogue – will undoubtedly form the bedrock of Bristol’s recovery plan as it emerges from lockdown into a post-Covid world, hopefully building a stronger sense of shared purpose and commitment to learning from our past and moving forward in a caring and considered way.

Note

Whilst the opinions expressed in this article are my own, they are informed by my work with number of colleagues, including Anita Gulati, Dr. Addy Adelaine, Professor Carol Jarvis and Stella Warren, whose own ideas have greatly influenced my awareness and understanding of leadership and inclusion. My reflections on the leadership of Marvin Rees and Andy Bennett are informed not only by media reports but also through engaging directly with each of them on citywide initiatives, including the Bristol One City Approach, Bristol Leadership Challenge and Bristol Golden Key.


[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/08/edward-colston-statue-history-slave-trader-bristol-protest

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston

[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bristol-mayor-edward-colston-statue-black-lives-matter-protest-marvin-rees-a9554646.html

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-47670756

[5] https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/bristol-tale-two-cities/

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/08/edward-colston-statue-history-slave-trader-bristol-protest

[7] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edward-colston-bristol-controversial-statues-uk-cecil-rhodes-a9554421.html

[8] https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/jun/09/uk-protests-black-lives-matter-colston-statue-rhodes-live

[9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpOO7OzntN8

[10] https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/852067

[11] https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/5999310  

[12] https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/right-wing-people-came-down-4205570

[13] https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/how-city-failed-remove-edward-4211771

[14] https://news.bristol.gov.uk/news/bristols-real-story-must-be-told

[15] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/06/labour-accuses-government-of-cover-up-over-bame-covid-19-report

[16] https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/rees-lets-rebuild-a-fairer-inclusive-and-more-sustainable-economy/

[17] https://www.bristolonecity.com

[18] http://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us

18th International Studying Leadership Conference

Posted on

From 13-15 December 2019 Bristol Leadership and Change Centre hosted the 18th International Studying Leadership Conference, which was attended by around 140 delegates from 13 different countries.

The conference featured three keynote addresses (Prof Peter Case from UWE, Prof Sonia Ospina from the NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and Prof Elena Antonacopoulou from the University of Liverpool), a panel discussion at City Hall (chaired by Prof Robin Hambleton with contributions from Mayor Marvin Rees, Kalpna Woolf and Andy Street), five parallel streams (including almost 90 separate papers) and a gala dinner at the Marriott Royal Hotel on College Green.

Participants have been invited to submit their papers for a special issue of the journal Leadership on the conference theme of ‘Putting leadership in its place’, which will be edited by Neil Sutherland, Gareth Edwards, Doris Schedlitzki and Richard Bolden.

Back to top