Australia’s political culture mistakes authority, comfort and continuity for leadership. Without the courage to create disequilibrium and confront hard choices, real reform remains impossible.

Sussan Ley was never given a real chance by the pale, male and stale of the Liberal Party.

But she made a serious mistake in trying keep the peace not only within her own Party but with the crazies in the National Party who have sold out to the miners. David Littleproud did more damage to Sussan Ley than members of her own party.

A break from the National Party, at least in opposition, would have given the Liberal Party an opportunity and time to sort out its own problems. Some shake up, some disequilibrium instead of peace in our time would have helped.

At least she would have gone down fighting had she decided to break from the Nationals.

The Liberal Party must win urban seats, and the National Party is a hindrance in doing that.

Unfortunately, we often confuse leadership with authority. Sussan Ley had authority but maybe not much in the way of leadership qualities. Chris Minns has authority but is there much beyond the evening television sound bites.

Or Anthony Albanese in treatment of Australian mothers and children in Syria. Hardly leadership!

Good leadership is about facing the group up to hard issues. Without clearly defining why and how we need to change and creating some disequilibrium there will be no worthwhile change. That is what happened when we lost our way on climate change.

We have an unfortunate habit of thinking that if only we could change our leaders, we could solve our problems. Yet after disposing leaders we are often no better off.

Will that now be the case with Angus Taylor? He has an impressive CV but is there more? Malcolm Turnbull doubts that there is.

Paul Keating did not have an impressive CV but he got things done. He shook us up and created disequilibrium – a recession we had to have and that if we didn’t change, we would become a banana republic.

The monuments to Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam are everywhere. What is the point of power if it is not used!

Leadership is a set of activities in which the group – small or large, corporate, government, religious or social – is persuaded to make necessary but difficult and painful changes. Some will be disadvantaged. That fact must be faced.

It is about asking the hard questions and pursuing them until a resolution is found. It requires disequilibrium to force us outside our comfort zone.

Change and reform does not occur in comfort zones. Vested interests whether in business, politics, media or church will invariably oppose change to maintain their power and privileges. They want to keep us comfortable with the status quo.

Good leaders guide the process and do not stipulate the result in advance. Will Jim Chalmers set out that if we want to maintain existing or improve public services we will have to increase taxes? What about a wealth tax?

The test of good leadership is to achieve a difficult outcome in which the group can in the end claim ‘we did it ourselves’ – that is, it wasn’t imposed by a strong or charismatic leader. Ownership of the problem and the solution by the group is essential.

Authority is designed to keep the organisation on an even keel and to observe the ceremonial. Authority figures like the group to be quiet and comfortable. They may have ‘authority’ but not leadership qualities. Such authority figures usually discourage people who challenge or ask hard questions. Authority figures like the group to be relaxed and comfortable like John Howard urged us.

Leadership is also not the same as charisma. Some charismatic people like Bin Laden, were clearly mad. Obama’s problem may have been that he was too charismatic. For some Donald Trump is charismatic but probably a solopsist who craves attention. Winston Churchill was certainly charismatic but rejected in 1945 as being unsuitable for post war reconstruction. Clem Atlee who replaced him was regarded by many as dull and boring. But he got things done and was described by many historians as Britain’s most successful post WW2 Prime Minister.

Ben Chifley was not charismatic. Like John Curtin, he was regarded as genuine and laid the basis for Australia’s post war social and economic prosperity.

Leadership is particularly necessary when we accept that it will be very hard to change strongly entrenched attitudes and self-interest, such as on climate change or the preservation of property values for property owners at the expense of non-property owners. Other hard questions include budget repair, drugs, and reconciliation with Indigenous people. In addressing these hard issues, we must adapt, and undergo painful change, even changes in our privileges and lifestyle. That is when leadership is essential.

Compromised leadership and avoiding painful change takes many forms:

• change the subject… from genocide to antisemitism.
• scare campaigns. ..blame China.
• don’t discuss the issue .. AUKUS.
• deny the problem…climate change is ‘crap’.
• sacrificing the good for the perfect…. tax changes.
• define the problem as a technical one…‘clean’ coal .
• don’t bring world problems here …. then invite a head of state of a country responsible for war crimes.
• change the ‘leader’… and hope for an easy solution.

Leaders promote disequilibrium. Without his ‘crash through or crash’, Gough Whitlam would never have changed the ALP. He brought the group/public along with him. The ALPs “whitless men” were forced to follow.  But perhaps he created too much disequilibrium?

Some features of good leadership that I think are important:

• A determined courage to keep the group focused on the key issues – the future of the US alliance.
• Help the group clarify the problem and why we need to change – e.g. climate change.
• Describe the values and vision that must be pursued e.g. protection of the planet for our grandchildren.
• Keep out of the detail and listen to the group.
• Don’t attempt to solve the group’s problem or make decisions ahead of the group. Don’t rush it
• To secure change it is necessary to create some disequilibrium. The powerful and privileged will resist. The leader says ‘we must change, and some will be disadvantaged’.
• Use allies and supporters rather than placate opponents.
• Good leaders have a broad range of interests and knowledge – not just politics, business or religion but familiar with the world of ideas, philosophy and history.
• Integrate public and private values. We will tolerate mistakes but not phoniness.

Lao Tzu wrote:

“‘As for the best leaders, people do not notice their existence … when the best leaders’ work is done, the people say “we did it ourselves”’

That is what ‘adaptive leadership’ is about as Ronald Heifetz at John F Kennedy School at Harvard University described it– encouraging the group to focus on the hard questions and encourage it to find solutions.

In Australia, we have an abundance of people with authority in politics, media, universities and churches. But leaders are in short supply.

Some courage would also help.

An updated post from 17 September 2018:

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2018/08/john-menadue-ian-mcauley-a-new-leader-but-no-sight-of-leadership/