How not to choose a leader

With the forced departure of Charles Kennedy, all three of Britain’s major political parties have either changed leaders or undertaken to do so, i.e. Tony Blair. In all three cases, wobbly performance played a major part in the rise of discontent.

Blair’s massive folly, the Iraq war and its hideous aftermath, has been compounded by reaction against his government’s incessant fiddling with national institutions and laws, all under the pretext of ‘reform’. Michael Howard failed to deliver a powerful Conservative performance at the last election, which was a lot to expect of a man in his mid-sixties. And yet here are the Liberal Democrats looking to another sexagenarian, Sir Menzies Campbell, as a possible choice to revive their fortunes.

Then there’s Blair, carrying on as if he’s going to last for ever. That may be his secret agenda. But if he does go on schedule, i.e before the next election, he will leave the electorate the choice between Gordon Brown and…..…well, Gordon Brown. Such faits accomplis are often disasters – as when Eden succeeded Churchill or Major followed Thatcher. The outgoing hero or heroine subconsciously selects an heir who will be or be seen as markedly inferior to the Great One.

Given the sad procession of Conservative leaders since Thatcher, finding an inferior successor to Major should have been difficult. But the Tories managed it with ease. Hague, Duncan-Smith and Howard were walking recipes for disaster. In David Cameron the party has again, as with Hague, gone for a young, inexperienced politician, with no great track record in or out of government. It’s a gamble, whichever way you look at it.

It all adds up to a textbook demonstration of how not to choose a leader. The same principles apply to business as apply in politics. You want somebody who has the support of the high and mighty, the rank and file and the middle echelons. They must have a track record of proven success, and they must have personal qualities which encourage a vital but seldom noted need: followership. Will people like to work with and for this man/woman? You need people at the top who can and will delegate, while still keeping strong fingers on the pulse of the organisation.

You also need to have a clear idea of where a potential leader will lead the organisation. When Churchill took over from Chamberlain in 1940, there were no doubts on this issue. His strategy was Victory. But peacetime politics, like business, seldom supplies such clear-cut, overarching goals. In Cameron’s case, though, the objective is blatantly obvious: to arrest the decline of his party and launch a strong revival that will carry through to the next election. What he mustn’t do is start fighting that election now. Which, with little doubt, he will start doing with might and main – and Ultimate failure.