Leadocracy

Steve Jobs said "Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower."

Shirley Chisholm said, "You make progress by implementing ideas."

Innovation and progress is about change. If you don't want change, if you don't want more to be asked of you, if you don't want risk, if you don't want things scrappy and half-baked, if you don't want to face the unknown, if you don't want to fail, if you don't want to work harder, give more, and take on more responsibility, then you don't want a leader.

What role do "Leaders " play in Canadian society, among the first mature democracies in history?

Maybe the story starts with sorting out Leader, leader and leadership.

Arguably Churchill, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini we all great Leaders, and there is a portion of the population who worship power and control who would love to see more Leaders in this sense. We suspect Donald Trump might be a Leader. In spite of our most modest flirtation with this kind of Leadership, what I'll call strong arm leadership, in the Harper years, I don't think Canada is much interested in Leaders.

Small "L" leaders are more our thing and I think Mr. Trudeau is a good example. He's a leader in the sense that he symbolizes and represents who we want to be and where we want to go. This kind of leader is out ahead, a figurehead, representing ideas, culture, and business as we want it to be.

One of the hallmarks that distinguishes this leader from Leaders is argument.  Open discussions and disagreements must be encouraged, so that all sides of an issue are fully explored. These kinds are folks we rarely see in politics because they have a lot of better things they could be doing. 

Many view the greatest leader of this sort in modern American history to be Adm. H. G. Rickover, USN. A generation after his work was done Americans learning leadership study his work and marvel at what he accomplished. Here's what he wrote about HOW leadership worked.

These folks are interesting to us because they display a mix of attractive qualities we admire and are drawn to. In this sense leadership is a practical skill. It is simply the ability to lead or guide individuals and groups. How that is done is much more complex and represents a whole field of study. Is leadership breed or learned? Are there 'tricks' to it? Does it depend on looks, strength, IQ? How should leaders be rewarded? Should we even want leaders or should we resist these social structures as outmoded?

We can think of leaders in the political sense, or as explorers and adventurers, or as executives in business. In the creative world leaders are people who, through their personality, style and presentation attract people. Even a city can be a leader - it can expect more of you, it can be insistent, it can demand excellence and punish mediocrity.

Leadership means different things to different people around the world, and different things in different situations. For example, it could relate to community leadership, religious leadership, political leadership, and leadership of campaigning groups.

Though how leaders do what they do may be infinity varied we can see what they do simply.

1. Leaders create an inspiring vision of the future.
2. Leaders motivate and inspires people to engage with that vision and be part of something.
3. Leaders manages, shape and guide, delivery of the vision.
4. Leaders pick, choose, coaches, builds a team, so that it is more effective at achieving the vision.

 5. Leaders bring together the skills, ideas and people needed to do these things.

Taken together all these things 'lead' to change. Very few people have become strong or famous leaders by keeping things exactly as they are. Leadership, therefore, is about change.

The number one problem in our province today is broken government. Government is on the wrong path and that path is marked by a sign that says BUREAUCRACY. The hallmark of government today is lack of dynamic change, new ideas, and risk. In Nova Scotia we rarely hear even the suggestion of big new or different ideas. Even the most "bold" political statements are just the same old things, cribbed from other places, learned from dusty old professors, and repeated since the sixties.

So the first question of leadership might be, "Do we really want leaders?" Generally, I don't think we do. I think too many people have it too good. In spite of our complaints about high prices and taxes most among us have more and better than any previous generation. In this sense calls for leaders and change are just a way of talking, griping, not something we would seriously consider. Why rock the boat when we're getting our cut?

But... say we did want leaders in government. How would that work. Well, first of all, we actually would not want to distract leaders too much... they are the ones out working, creating, employing, generating new wealth and attracting capital to our region. They may be far more valuable to society in the market rather than in a cabinet room.

In his book Leadocracy, Jeff Smart presents a way to get real leaders and leadership into government. 
 
The solution, he argues, is hiring great leaders into government and empowering them to work. If we can replace bureaucratic non-leaders with great leaders who have the courage to act and be responsible we can improve Nova Scotia.
 
So, if it’s this simple what’s the problem? Let’s just do it. Well, there is an obstacle in the way and it’s not the obvious one.
 
What’s really stopping us from improving government bureaucracy through a “leadocracy”? What is stopping our best leaders from engaging in government?
 
Money is an issue; government being held in low regard, ill-repute even, are issues. The loss of privacy; being exposed to public criticism, are issues. But these are easily overcome. Leaders need only offer a term, a couple years – it won’t have much effect on their lifetime earnings. We can surely muster the public tact to appreciate and thank leaders for their public service and define systems to respect their efforts even in a wild media age.

The real problem is the notion of empowerment. Why would leaders even try in a system they know is impervious to improvement or change of any kind?
 
In Nova Scotia we’ve fundamentally eliminated risk and responsibility from public life and government. No one is responsible. No one can be held accountable. No one can be fired no matter how abysmally mediocre their effort. The new trend to extensive public consultation, though wonderful on the surface, is making things much worse. It is actually replacing democracy with a type of paralysis marked by complete absence of responsibility in decision-making even in our elected officials – the very core value of democracy. When more than one person is responsible, no one is responsible.
 
Leaders are smart. They can see this and they steer clear. This is what has to change if we really want change.
 
Leaders are also good-hearted and concerned. So what happens? Leaders ‘softly contribute’. They join political parties. Give to charities. They join boards, commissions and taskforces (***cough, Ivany, cough***). They offer their time and their support. And here’s the tragedy. In going along with the system, but without taking real responsibility for the outcome, they become part of the problem. The history of our province is paved with reports – mere observation by people who were born to act decisively. The bureaucracy, like a zombie hoard, transforms our greatest leaders into bureaucrats, consultants, advisors and board members. Slapping on the back, congratulating and rewarding them generously for mediocrity. Exactly the opposite of what we need.

Nowhere is this more poignantly painted than in the story of one of Nova Scotia's first great leaders, Joseph Howe.
 
To give an example; imagine instead of being invited to sit on a panel and toss around some ideas, or asked to contribute to this charity or that, Al MacPhee, a local Auto impresario, was empowered to be Minister of Highways for a four year term. And imagine he was empowered to institute more efficient and effective policies, laws and management practices based on his leadership skills and experience. Imagine that he was asked to be responsible and accountable for this work as he has been for hundreds and thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in business.
 
Government is broken. We can fix it by stopping it and, where it is necessary, putting leaders from outside politics and government into the position of responsibility with the terms and with the tools to fix it.
 
We can build a Leadocracy... if we actually want change. My personal view is that we don't want leaders because as citizens we're not willing to take on the responsibility and work of change.