I have had several reasons to think about confrontation of late. Let me put that in context: events, conversations and responses to them have reminded that much of my work has been disruptive. In that it has been intended to create change, which most people really do not wish for, then it is bound to be so.
What, then, are the parameters on disruption? I ask the question for two reasons.
One is Chilcot: Blair has been criticised for his 'sofa style' of governing where the risk of robust challenge was eliminated. What that makes clear is that disruptive thinking is not only useful but can be essential to proper processes, even if it is very rarely well received and as a result happens far too often.
That in turn reminded me of how often I have been told that if only I was more amenable I would get on so much better. Maybe that is true in the terms of the person offering the comment but I have always suspected that those offering it have both high regard for the status quo and have never tried to change much. As a consequence I have always, and quite happily, rejected the advice.
Saying that I do not undeestimate the value of agreement. But equally I caution against a too ready acceptance of it, at least in the early stages of decision making. The culture of 'team playing' can be and is, in my opinion, over valued when decision making on serious issues is required.
I would argue that any successful organisation, process and change has to make space for, and be willing to listen to the contrarian, disruptive, view. What is more it has, in the process, to embrace the sometimes abrasive way of the contrarian, whose position may make everyone (themselves included) uncomfortable but whose role is necessary if real change is to be created. Getting heard when challenging ingrained perception is hard. Rocking the boat can be the way to do it.
We would have all been better off if those who tried to dislodge Tony Blair's certainties on Iraq had succeeded. Robin Cook and John Denham had to resign to try to do that. It would have been so much better if they had been listened to. Being difficult can be tough, and certainly isolating. But suppose they had succeeded with their contrarian views when what Blair did was try to reinforce the ingrained acceptance of the 'special relationship'?
I am inevitably reminded of the George Bernard Shaw quote:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
I do, of course, realise the language is now out of date; the sentiment remains true.
We paid a very high price for Blair's reasonableness to Bush.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well said, Richard. I rather Jeremy Corbyn feels much the same, don’t you?
Maybe
But I doubt the contrarian can also be the leader
The roles do not work like that
‘But I doubt the contrarian can also be the leader’
certainly the contrarian can’t be leader of the thing he/she is contrary to.
To me it seems clear that ONCE the Labour party has split and a transition taken place, then Corbyn could step down. Corbyn IS the transition figure.
I think we all know that now
The question is what transition and to where?
Richard,Alan Simpson (ex MP for Nots South) put it well, framing mcDonell’s idea that ‘the next parliament needs to be a ‘transitionary’ one followed by a parliament that implements that transformation’ (paraphrase):
Worth a listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKQgYP4q0Ms
I have a lot of time for Alan, a very old friend and once a co-author
“History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme”
I give you Blair – Sykes/Picot
If we want new poetry we need new poets. More power to your elbow Richard.
I wish I was a poet
There is a place for the contrarian, who argues everything for the sake of the argument (guilty!) on the principle that challenge is always good. There is a slightly different place for the zealot who argues a cause in which they believe, regardless of the personal cost.
The contrarians role is to improve the general quality of decision making, whereas the zealot exists to get a particular set of decisions made, by hook or by crook.
I have always seen you as a positive proponent of a single coherent idea (a rational economic strategy), rather than someone who has to challenge whatever others are saying.
I so,etimes agree with people
Like you, now
Well we’ve got the disruption now! Let the Labour Party split and rebuild with a narrative that represents change. Anything else will be the ‘repetition of the same.’
let’s not paper over the real crisis.
Being genuinely open to alternative – and conflicting – views is not easy for most people, whatever their station in life. We all have some irrational prejudices to overcome. One of them is friendships, which appears to have been a factor in this particular case. Personal friendship can work both ways in reaching a solution to issues. They can assist positively in overcoming ‘external’ divisions such as race, religion, nationality etc. But, at the same time, they can unite people to further bad decisions in a negative way. We see this in everyday life, when we stand by ‘our friend’ against what we know to be wrong. It’s a form of misplaced loyalty.
From what we read, Bush & Blair did connect on a personal level which would have clouded rational judgement. Blair’s letter stating that ‘I will be with you whatever …’ suggests an emotional element in what should otherwise have been a totally objective and rational statement of the UK government’s policy.
It is often suggested that Thatcher and Reagan enjoyed some sort of personal rapport which may have facilitated the introduction of Neoliberal economics into the UK. Who knows? I’m sure history is littered with such examples. Conversely, I believe there was little love lost between Roosevelt & Churchill – a political association that saved the nation.
In political life it must be very difficult to surround oneself with colleagues who have ‘contrary’ views. I have no quick solution as to how this can be avoided other than by electing people to high office who have undergone appropriate character & managerial training. The more we run presidential-style elections the less likely this will be so. Additionally, a swing away from professionalism to popularism will increase the risk. In any event, people tend to elect personalities they ‘like’; not those who are necessarily more competent.
Religious affinity is especially difficult to overcome. Was this an issue with Blair & Bush? Maybe if they had been Quaker or Buddhist they could have learned how to be more ‘mindful’ of their actions … but let’s not go down that contraversial road.
It is essential in the face of embedded groupthink, which we have in the cabinet, in parties, in the media – and regrettably during the brexit debacle. Hence why unwelcome truths are not allowed to break through.
Very thoughtful piece.
I still believe that politics these days is dominated by the desire to win at all costs – that winning (by no matter how narrow the margin and also using the numbers game to disregard other voices) is the definition of political accomplishment.
I still see politics as the art of compromise and inclusivity. Too many modern politicians don’t see it this way I’m afraid.
They really are behind the times.
I think PSR you are talking mostly about the fundamental difference between the art of politics and the art of leadership, which are arguably very different things.
For example, it could be argued that Blair was a good leader (he certainly knew how to attract followers for many years), but in many cases was a bad politician when his beliefs conflicted with reality. He got what he wanted on Iraq (or perhaps what he was forced to by Bush) by hook or by crook, even though it was the wrong thing for millions of people across the world. Is that strong leadership, even though misguided?
I can think of lots of other historical and current examples of strong leaders who show tendencies to extreme beliefs verging on insanity. They would never make effective politicians in a truly democratic system, but their system of governance allows them to override any objections.
And perhaps more importantly it highlights the often corrosive role and nature of competition, whether in business or politics. It still fundamentally reflects the art of warfare, the strong commanding general as leader, the need to kill or be killed, the desire always to win no matter what the costs.
A politician knows that it is perfectly acceptable to lose a battle if it allows you to win the war. A leader never wants to lose anything as it shows weakness and threatens their position of power.
For that reason I would categorise Corbyn as a good politician, who has no desire to display or follow traditional forms of leadership, which is probably all part of his vision of a new form of politics. Which sadly the PLP still seems unwilling to accept even when many of their own CLP’s are backing Corbyn rather than their own MP’s.
Interesting times, but change always is!
Hmm – I do not believe that there is an over-riding style of leadership that works for every circumstance.
I subscribe to the view that all good leadership is situational and is a product of a certain set of circumstances. A good leader needs to be flexible and not approach each task or problem from the same position every time.
Not only that, good leadership also has a strong element of teamsmanship about it.
No one person can have all of the answers.
Therefore a good leader knows how to listen to others and also how to work with people and utilise people’s strengths where they are better than their own in certain areas.
Finally, a good leader serves his team or his or her cause; they unblock uncertainties and keeps everyone on track with the objectives. They are a resource to those who serve beneath them.
Couldn’t agree more. A dissenter, a contraction, regardless of their motivation, will be far more likely to test proposed courses of action robustly than those who are “going along to get along”.
There’s a biological advantage to difference, to mutants. It’s the basis for evolution. When the environment changes some turn out to be pre-adapted to the change. Like him (as a leader) or not, what happened with the elevation of Corbyn in the Labour Party was an example of an environmental change. Ideas (memes) out of fashion one day can become current very quickly. At least, unlike Robin Cooke, he lived to see his position accepted.
When Morgan Kelly said the 2007 Irish housing market was a bubble the reaction was extremely negative (it was even suggested that it was surprising he hadn’t killed himself). He was vindicated later, of course.
The person championing transparency has a harder job pointing up the madness of a crowd because of the vested interests on the other side. It takes dramatic events to overpower those forces. Snowden, an economic crash, a failed war etc.
Digital technology is driving transparency now and will continue to do so. Whether it’s uncovering a fraudulent CV of a candidate for prime minister in the UK; inappropriate use a mail server by a candidate for President in the US; police assassinations of unarmed black citizens in the US etc.
I believe that there would be a revolution in the UK if people could see and apprehend how the 0.01% have rigged their tax affairs. They get away with it because of the complicity of the next few % who benefit by facilitating their affairs (lawyers, solicitors, accountants etc) and who seek to emulate them — becoming buy to let landlords using offshore companies based in the BVI e.g.
Change is not going to come from the media, which is largely in the pocket of the very rich (Murdoch, Lebedev, Harmsworth etc). It must come from, as Bernard Shaw put it, the unreasonable man
(the reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man refuses to do do, and therefore all progress depends upon him).
Please carry on the fight. You have support.
That should have been “a dissenter, a contrarian” not “a dissenter, a contraction”, damned autocorrect!
Great quote. I hadn’t heard that one before.
G. B. Shaw:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Keep doing what you are doing. The ‘be more amenable’ argument is a nonsense.
I keep getting “duplicate message error” when I try to post on here now..
Sorry
Anyone else suffering this?
I am not
it seems to happen obsessionally but usually clears up.
Obsessionally? Spell checker not a Freudian slip!
Benzo – try clearing out all your browser cookies, cache and history, then restart your browser and see if that fixes it. If not do it again and re-start your PC/device.
If not throw your machine away and buy a new one! (only kidding)
While I am very tempted to be very unreasonable about your comments on challenge, you are of course spot on. There are very real parallels with the Vietnam war where LBJ could not tolerate dissention and the lone voices saying that full scale invasion/bombing would end in disaster were pushed to one side. (He once famously said “when you bend down and kiss my arse, I expect you to come up and tell me it smells like roses”).
Sure, challenge is painful and we all avoid it like the plague but a “leader” will encourage and consider challenge and even appoint people who actively disagree with him (e.g. Lincoln). Of course the whole culture in politics is to dismiss your opponent’s views (e.g. PMQs) so dissent and alternative views are supressed as part of the way we do things in politics, a very dangerous culture. Keep speaking up for what you feel is right. We do not have to agree with you but it is a much better culture to accept criticism and deal with it in a positive way than ignore the wisdom it might contain.
Wish I could spell better … controversial!
I was reading an article in HBR the other day and it was discussing how organisations often say they are looking for talented people to internally promote who can facilitate change.
The author of the article suggested what organisations are really saying is they are looking for people who ‘fit in’ and comply to the organisations norms – totally the wrong people to facilitate change.
https://hbr.org/2016/07/3-reasons-why-talent-management-isnt-working-anymore?utm_campaign=HBR&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
You are absolutely right
I’m sorry George Bernard Shaw, contrariness may have its place, but only as long as one does not contradict oneself.
Suppose the quote were true, that progress depends on the unreasonable person. Then I might try to bring about change by persisting in unreasonableness in trying to adapt the world to myself. But in doing so, I would be adapting myself to the statement that all progress depends on the unreasonable person, which if it were true, would be an entirely reasonable thing to do. So in fact I would not be unreasonable at all.
And yet, what is the sentiment that rings true in his assertion? It is that the world, or society, is imperfect. By adapting him or herself to the world, the reasonable person is in fact sanctioning the sorry state of affairs we live in. It is to nod at the corruption that goes on in high places, to turn a blind eye to injustices, to maintain an unspoken peace with the forces of anarchy. The unreasonable person, on the other hand, by challenging and disrupting the status quo, believes in better. Exactly because the world is imperfect, it is possible for it to change and improve, and it comes about by fighting for the change we believe in.
I suggest we need to reappraise our notion of reasonableness. Tagging the line and doing as I say is not the mark of a reasonable person. Reasonableness is orientated towards the truth. If I am doing the right thing, then it is entirely reasonable for you to agree with me. If I am not, then it is entirely reasonable for you to challenge and disrupt, to rock the boat and do everything possible to ensure your views are heard. And if I am to be reasonable in turn, then the least I must do is listen to sound reason and argument, then judge on the merits of the available evidence, not the position I would prefer to espouse.
Yet contrariness is also orientated to the truth. To object to everything for the sake of disruption will lead to us being taken as seriously as the boy who kept crying wolf. Herein lies a powerful tool for change, but it must begin by acknowledging what is right and true in our opponents’ positions. Persistence in building on the common ground and weeding out the error is not the work of an unreasonable person, but George Bernard Shaw was correct that all progress depends on it.
“Contrarian disruption has its place” says Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK – yes indeed it does and so does non violent civil disobedience while rents continue to take up and ever more damaging proportion of the lowest incomes of landless tenants. It leads to evictions, homelessness, hunger and ill health, while the wealth of people who own land has multiplied since the 1980’s.
I agree Paul
A good leader enables dissent and also enables it to be heard and taken seriously (as I mentioned in terms of being ‘inclusive’ as a required leadership trait).
A number of risk managers in the financial institutions of the USA and the UK who warned of the risks that caused the 2008 meltdown were ignored and even invited to leave their organisations because they spoke out.
People at Enron knew there was a problem and were ignored until it was too late.
The crusty old dim wits at Barings Bank wanted to believe the impossible and paid the price.
When the rewards are too high, morality and due diligence go out of the window.
That’s all you need to know about leadership in those sectors.
This looks a fairly contrarian and disruptive approach to UK constitutional reform, add in potential PR for all elections and it seems more localised democracy is back on the agenda again.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/brexit-vote-paves-way-for-federal-union-says-all-party-group
Staggeringly worryingly – who manages macroeconomic policy?
This is very, very dangerous
I presume there would still be a central Treasury and Bank of England (heavily influenced by the City of London as today), but the draft Act of Union bill will make interesting reading when it is published next week.
“The group proposes that the shared UK functions would include the monarchy as head of state, foreign affairs, defence, national security, immigration, international treaties, human rights, the supreme court, a single currency, a central bank function, financial services regulation, income and corporation tax powers, and the civil service.”
So control from a small centre then