When I was eight years old, I got a new second hand bicycle for Christmas. Because there had been hints, I anticipated something. At five am on Christmas Day I was up and on the move. The bike was in the sunroom. I wobbled down the hall, through the lounge and smashed through the kitchen cupboard doors newly installed by my father. At the disciplinary hearing held just before breakfast, I argued that this was clearly a case where my father was at fault for being so cheap as to allow the installation of plywood doors. My mother (a woman and therefore easily capable of doing more than one thing at a time) laughed and clipped me on the ear.
It’s that time of year when we continue to espouse courageous leadership and at the same time panic about whether we’ve got our New Year resolutions right. Take responsibility personally I say but privately I blame Santa Claus.
Children eventually outgrow their belief in Santa Claus as the mythical, chubby, favourite uncle who brings us presents on the flimsiest of excuses – it’s warm outside or we’ve eaten all our vegetables. But the underlying lesson endures; we’re entitled to all these goodies just for living in an affluent society. It isn’t necessary to justify presents on the basis of merit. Thanks to Santa, we don’t have to earn special treatment, just not have mugged anyone or started any fires this year is enough to warrant favour. In the Labour Party this is called social policy.In theory only good children receive presents, but we all know just how far short of this theory reality can be. The baddies get a lot of good press. Have a look at this interesting letter to the Editor in the year 1604.
“Dear Sir,
Although I’m happy in my current job, having recently received a promotion (I’m the new Thane of Cawdor) that’s not enough for my wife who is eager for me to get ahead.
The castle that comes with the job is substantial, and forms a significant part of the salary package. As a monarch, I’m not lacking in ambition, but I am reluctant to do what it takes to climb higher – the long hours, the bloody murders. And yet, don’t I have a social obligation to consider my wife’s desires? We are, after all, a family.
Macbeth, Inverness, Scotland”
Mr Macbeth is clearly troubled. The potential for marital disharmony is evident, as he succumbs to pressure from others while trying to reason his way out of it. And I’ll bet the kitchen cupboards in castles are stronger than the ones my father installed. In Macbeth’s world he spent a bit much time being guided by the prophecy of the witches on the heath (think National Party economic forecasting unit) and not enough considering respect for individuals and social responsibility. Undone by ambition and greed, he is trapped in an increasing cycle of evil, covering his misdeeds as he goes. Strangely familiar you think. There’s an article in that somewhere….”Shakespeare and the Sub-prime”
Malcolm is ultimately victorious, and during the course of the play we see him embodying the defining essentials of stewardship: moral authority, conscience, sacrifice and humility. Yep, Malcolm is the good guy, but hey, who remembers Malcolm? He’s akin to those Political parties outside Parliament vainly trying to climb over the Electoral Finance Act. With proven answers to really challenging situations, but no means of even entering the fray. In 2009, the Democrats will be calling for stewardship and sustainability. For an end to bankers playing games at our great cost.
Stewardship in our workaday lives calls for ethical practice, respect for individuals and social responsibility manifested towards each other as individuals, the wider community and ultimately the planet on which we prosper. As we start in to 2009, spare a thought for whether we encourage our leaders to be Macbeth or Malcolm. Say to yourself: moral authority, conscience, sacrifice, humility. John Key? Helen’s successor…what’s his name with the glasses? You’ll find your mind drifting gently past a Tui billboard.
On a rising tide everyone floats, but when the tide goes out you can see who has been swimming naked. Professor Joseph Stieglitz, the Nobel prize-winning economist, says this may reflect another challenge facing policy-makers: not only are they inexperienced and swimming in uncharted waters, they are also unwilling to confront fundamental problems with the philosophy they have pursued for two decades.
'It is all based on a simplistic ideology,' he says. 'What these leaders are finding is that the heroes of the past 20 years have been the financial market wizards, and all of a sudden it's so obvious that the emperor has no clothes.' The lionising of the money men was 'ideology - and special interests, cloaked in ideology'. We need authentic leaders.
Authentic leaders are ordinary people able to draw on extraordinary talents. They are prepared to bring all of themselves to work, to stand up for what is important and to adapt appropriately to meet new situations. They develop others who choose to follow them; not because they have to but because they want to. They sustain their people and their culture appropriately, building a platform for long term success and high-impact performance.
Such leaders inspire consistently, tell compelling stories and lead others through complex problems to collaborative decisions. In short they are committed to leaving the world a better place. Otherwise they’ll be hearing from my mother.
Written by: Neville Aitchison, President, DSC