What Makes a Good Leader?
It is general election season, and we are asked once again: Who do we want to run our country? You can look at policy if you want, or the individual that best represents the needs and values of the area where you live. These are very important factors that must be considered come June 8th. However, the powers that be seem to want to make a case on leadership and the credentials of each party’s leader when it comes to running the country. Even the Conservative's Day 1 slogan reads “strong and stable leadership”:
So it begs the question, what is strong and stable leadership? Theresa May is already under review, and her chief opposition is the subject of questioning from most sides. He has already survived one vote of no confidence and continues to survive the reckless media embattlement. Let us then put our allegiances aside and ask objectively, what makes a good leader?
A quick google will lead us to the definition of: “the action of leading a group of people or an organisation, or the ability to do this”. I’m glad that was cleared up then.
Leadership means many things to many people. The Navy SEALs for example adopt a fluid response to leadership. In the book ‘Stealing Fire’ Steven Kotler explains how, in the example of clearing a building, the Navy SEALs will change the squad as and when it is deemed necessary. When clearing rooms, it is inefficient for the first man in to come out and continue the process down the hall. The role is taken over by whomever is in the best position to do so. A SEAL team is attuned to the way each individual works within the squad and thus each individual is fully equipped to be a leader.
So what does leadership mean to a SEAL, in their own words. Jocko Wilink, an ex-SEAL has written a book on it and Business Insider outlined the key concepts within. “A leader must lead but also be ready to follow”. “A leader must be aggressive but not overbearing”. “Calm but not robotic”. “Confident but not cocky”. “Brave but not foolhardy”. “A competitive spirit but also a gracious loser” This point implies taking ownership of your failures. “A leader must be attentive to details but not obsessed with them”. “Strong with physical and mental endurance”. “Humble but not passive; quiet but not silent”. These are a choice selection. So ask yourself how your leader stacks up?
For Corbyn; he is leading, the jury is out on whether he can follow, he is by no means aggressive but what I personally that his ‘zen’ can be interpreted as aggression, calm? see the last ‘zen’ point, his confidence (although it may be an act) is certainly on show, bravery? I couldn’t say, he is certainly competitive and he has graciously accepted the result of Brexit for example despite his forthcoming. He has obsessed somewhat over the details of ‘simple’ questions, although some of these question require an element of obsession given the consequences of the final choice. He has also been silent on numerous controversial topics, here’s the first link from a google of “silent corbyn”.
For his counterpart Theresa May; she leads tremendously like the horse driving the chariot, her ability to follow is in question much like Corbyn, her tone is nothing but aggressive and you can see this in the style of reporting that follows her both from support and from those against, calm but not robotic? The repition of the rhetoric of ‘strong economy’ and ‘strong leadership’ may seem robotic to many, confident but not cocky? We are having an election three years early to secure more seats for her party because the polls look so good (or at least so we are lead to believe), the same is said for her bravery in calling the election all will be seen in with time. She is not in the slightest bit competitive, by refusing the opportunity to debate the opposition leaders, she refuses competition. Strong physically and mentally? Questions can be asked on why she has been so silent so far, likewise she is quiet and silent most of the campaign so far. I do not expect this to continue.
So that’s that SEALs response. Perhaps we can look at the Greek philosophy of Stoicism to see how our elected leader will cope under the strains of running a country and negotiating their way through the snares of Brexit. Stoicism as defined by google: is “the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and complaint”.
Stoics are taught about self-control and fortitude, this is the method they use to overcome the hardship and destructive emotions which human life, let alone the emotions of a leader of a country. The Stoic’s philosophy holds that if you can think clear and unbiased thoughts then you will understand the universal reason; known as Logos.
There are difficulties in interpreting the definition of Logos as the philosophers have used it to mean many different things. For the Stoic’s it meant universal order, the nature of the universal order, as if Newton’s laws of motion were concerned by ethics. However, the ‘universal order’ depends on where you think the universe comes from. The devout christian sees order in God’s creation (Tim Farron and Theresa May share something here) their ‘order’ is dictated by the rules written in the bible. However, as is typical with the hard-left Corbyn appears to adhere to values of Humanism, that the human is divine and thus is most important.
For May, her Stoic order is decidedly non-existent. She believes her fait in god gives her confidence she is ‘doing the right thing’ with regards to Brexit. This is despite her campaigning to remain in the EU. Time will tell if her decision to call an election was ‘level headed’. Calling for the election, running the risk of losing, is clearly not based in rational thought. She has a workable majority, she can in theory do what she wants. The idea that the larger majority is important within British politics and it is true more seats in her government will cover any backbench revolt. But I must emphasise, running the risk of losing your job as leader for a few extra seats is clearly an emotional, knee-jerk, response; and if this is the kind of decision making our leader does for more power, please imagine the decision making when the worst happens, when lives are at risk.
For Corbyn, the embattled leader. He has suffered a vote of no-confidence, and the subsequent leadership election, and the afore mentioned media attacks. The wise-man might say clearly he must step aside, however he sits in opposition government that has seen the ruling party in one case violate the rights of disabled people and in another case sit idly by when homelessness rises. In this instance Corbyn clearly believes that he is the one to bring his universal order of human equality to bear and thus he Stoicly withstands attacks to continue ruling the official opposition. So, in the pressure situation he will find himself in as prime minister, his record shows his beliefs are firm and he will stick with them in perpertuity. Just look at his voting record.
There are a few notable examples I would like to pick-on to round out your guide. Firstly Stanley McChrystal, General in command of Joint Special Operations Command in the mid-2000's. His role was to coordinate and delegate the objectives and tasks of the United States Army, special forces and intelligence services to aid their campaign in Iraq. There is one notable story (taken from his interview with Tony Robbins) where he describes a unit working in the farmland of Iraq. He describes a maze of large mud-walls, which stretched as far as one could see. The walls were used to support trees as wood was in short supply, they were now used as prime ambush spots and had to be cleared out row by row. The commander in the area requested additional air-support among other things. Before the resources were potentially wasted, McChrystal went to the province and spent a day with the troops clearing the lines of mud walls. The air-support was granted shortly afterwards. Corbyn has spent most of his campaign so far on the road, talking to regular folk and asking them about their problems. May on the other hand has travelled everywhere by helicopter and is denied access to her events for the press and public.
There is also tale of Japan Airlines former CEO. The man who took the bus to work and gave himself a salary less than some of his employees. This reminds me of the poem ‘IF’ by Rudyard Kipling, and specifically the first two lines of the final stanza;
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch.
I would ask then in this instance, whose is the earth and everything that’s in it? That those who can talk with crowds with virtue and those who walk with kings, without losing the common touch are far more suited for the roll of prime minister.
In the end we are given a choice on June 8th. That choice is for who will run the country for the next five years. Who will be our voice in the coming negotiations for divorcing ourselves from the European Union? You can choose a leader with an iron fist, Mao Zedong for example. He was liked by many at the time, even through fear, and is widely still revered in the country. There is also the old adage that “even Mussolini made the trains run on time.” Their are also leaders like Ghandi or Mandela, who’s names are so carved in our history that you do not need know their first name. I may ask you also to look at where you live; look at your church leaders, the teachers at your child’s school, who do they remind you of? In the end the choice is yours and I hope I’ve given you enough to think about, so that when you wade through the murky waters of the media you can think a little more clearly and make an educated choice come June 8th.
