Professor Richard Bolden shares his views with the International Leadership Association (ILA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Blog post orginally posted on the ILA wesbite<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2014 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) \u2014 Liz Truss unceremoniously stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no shortage of journalists and political commentators writing their own accounts of what\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Without doubt, the most common way in which Liz Truss\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the past few days, I\u2019ve heard her described as \u201ctin eared,\u201d \u201cna\u00efve,\u201d \u201carrogant,\u201d \u201cstupid,\u201d \u201ctalentless,\u201d 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019ve 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\u2019s 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\u2019s a mistake to lay the blame wholly on the individual leader her\/himself \u2014 indeed we may need to take a closer look at ourselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cglass cliff\u201d 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\u2019s government: \u201cIt was triggered by the immediate causes: bad political judgement, naivet\u00e9 about markets, personal arrogance and cliquishness. Truss is simply not good enough \u2014 not shrewd enough in judgement, not persuasive enough as a communicator \u2014 to be prime minister. But this is the failure of an idea that would have collapsed even had Britain been led by better politicians\u201d (Marr, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201ca fighter not a quitter\u201d and \u201cnot for turning\u201d\u2026 until the markets and public opinion forced her to U-turn on pretty much everything she\u2019d put in place during her time in office. We expect a lot of our leaders \u2014 including the ultimate act of self-sacrifice when things turn bad (Grint, 2010).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cback bench\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The origins of the UK structure of government dates back to the 13th<\/sup> and 14th<\/sup> centuries, with current arrangements largely unchanged for over 100 years. Unlike typical organizations, the PM\u2019s 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\u2019s membership of the European Union in 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Within such an environment, the ability of the PM to instill a sense of \u201cconfidence\u201d and maintain \u201cdiscipline\u201d 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<\/sup> October 2022 that descended into chaos when Conservative MPs were informed that it was a \u201cconfidence vote\u201d and they were expected to vote \u201cno\u201d 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 \u201cwhips\u201d and senior Cabinet members to encourage (force) members to vote as directed, 32 (nearly 10%) did not register a vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2014 particularly Brexit \u2014 seemed to further cement divisions within the Party and have led to widespread resistance and challenge across the different sub-groups \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Commentators suggest that the Conservatives need to find a \u201cunity candidate\u201d 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 \u2014 Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordant, and (the former PM) Boris Johnson \u2014 are all divisive given that they represent the interests of particular stakeholders rather than the whole party\u2026 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the end of the day, leadership is about building, rather than burning, bridges.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cus.\u201d 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 \u201cus\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This mirrors evidence from the Center for Creative Leadership on the nature and importance of \u201cboundary spanning\u201d leadership \u2014 defined as \u201cthe ability to create direction, alignment, and commitment across boundaries in service of a higher vision or goal\u201d (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 \u2014 \u201cI\u2019ve had enough of talentless people putting their tick in the box, not because it\u2019s in the national interest but because it\u2019s in their own personal interest\u201d (Walker, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n To understand Liz Truss\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cSingapore on Thames\u201d and others as \u201cTrussonomics\u201d \u2014 the approach is founded on the idea of cutting red tape and taxes to drive economic growth. This \u201ctrickle down\u201d 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\u2019s campaign to be elected as Party leader and was presented as confident and optimistic in the face of her opponent, Rishi Sunak\u2019s, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While those Conservative party members who voted for her, however, may have been persuaded by her argument, the \u201cmarkets\u201d were far less sympathetic \u2014 particularly when her (then) Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, announced a \u201cmini budget\u201d on 23rd<\/sup> September 2022 that included \u00a345 billion of unfunded tax cuts. This \u201cspooked\u201d 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\u2019s public finance) further undermined confidence \u2014 leaving many to assume that the government\u2019s plans were not based on robust analysis and would leave a large gap in the UK economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today we find ourselves turning to a new leader of the Conservative Party \u2014 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 \u2014 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the primary focus of the current crisis in UK politics is \u201cleadership,\u201d we may, perhaps, be advised to spend more time thinking about the importance of \u201cfollowership.\u201d 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 \u2014 including his own party, business and financial services, the public sector and the wider UK population \u2014 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 \u201cthere go my people\u2026 I must go after them, so I can find out where they want me to lead them!\u201d (Witzel, 2016) \u2014 the key to political leadership is to follow the \u201cwill of the people.\u201d Whether or not anyone in the current UK government has the willingness or capacity to do this is yet to be seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Richard Bolden<\/strong> has been Professor of Leadership and Management and Director of Bristol Leadership and Change Centre<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 \u2014 two weeks less than the election process … Continue reading “What Just Happened in UK Politics?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"wds_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[377,46,21,16,17,481,96],"class_list":["post-1243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bristol-leadership-and-change-centre","tag-blcc","tag-bristol-business-school","tag-bristol-leadership-and-change-centre","tag-leadership","tag-management","tag-politics","tag-professor-richard-bolden"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/39"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1243"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1245,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1243\/revisions\/1245"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/leadership-and-change\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}An Individual Perspective: The Fall of Liz Truss<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
An Organizational Perspective: A Divided Party<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A Societal Perspective: Uniting Around a Shared Purpose<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Where Next?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
References and Further Reading<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n