Few positions sum up the difficulties of both leadership and management better than the role of Prime Minister.
The best thing for the country is not always the best thing for their political party, and their ambitions of staying in power. Yet they would argue that staying in power is ultimately the best thing for the country – making their decisions a bit of a catch-22.
The past couple of weeks have proved an effective case study in the perils of this leadership approach. A series of difficult decisions by Rishi Sunak’s government have caused headlines aplenty, and drawn criticism from all quarters, including the Prime Minister’s own party. So what went wrong – and what might they learn from a bit of leadership & management training?
Hero to net zero
The first challenge faced by the Prime Minister was a particularly contentious one. A decision to push back two key ‘net zero’ targets by five years to 2035 was leaked early to the BBC: ending the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles, and ending the sale of gas boilers. The announcement was then brought forward, with the Prime Minister setting out a broad slate of sustainability measures in a hastily-organised press conference.
The decision to push the targets back was couched as a pragmatic choice, designed both to save people money in the short term, and ensure that the public was not turned against the broader push for net zero emissions. This line of reasoning won many people over, but there was also a significant backlash. Those on the right of the Prime Minister’s own party baulked at keeping the deadlines at all, while supporters of Boris Johnson – for whom the targets were a flagship policy – felt it was a betrayal.
Environmentally-minded Tory MPs saw the decision as surrendering the international initiative on climate change and pollution. Others felt the announcement should have been made in Parliament, rather than at a press conference. Business-conscious MPs pointed to the reaction of carmakers, who roundly criticised the uncertainty it had introduced. And unsurprisingly, the opposition leapt on it, criticising the impact on climate change, the U-turn on an established policy, and the idea that delaying a ban on new cars would save the average person money.
A high-speed train wreck
The dust had barely settled on that issue when another one came lumbering into view. Beset by spiralling costs and multiple revisions, another leak suggested that Sunak was planning to scrap yet another part of HS2, the planned high-speed rail line. Having already scaled back ambitions to connect HS2 to HS1, Leeds, York, and the West Coast Main Line, the government was apparently prepared to scrap its connections to London Euston and Manchester, too.
Given present economic conditions, the argument for saving billions of pounds in construction costs and land acquisition seems obvious. However, critics quickly framed this as a betrayal of the government’s flagship ‘Northern Powerhouse’ policy, and another limitation on the usefulness and future benefits of the line. When Sunak attempted to switch focus to motorists – talking about fixing potholes and reducing speed limit restrictions – he was accused of prioritising a dirty transport method over a clean one.
As of writing, the Prime Minister has just made his decision to scale back HS2 public, having stated that he wouldn’t be rushed into it. Once again, it can be seen through two lenses: an attempt to appear pragmatic and in touch with concerns about the economy, while also appealing to motorists. Yet the early results seem to be yet more criticism, and more internal strife. So what could Sunak and other leading politicians have done differently?
Managing tough situations
It’s never possible to please everyone in leadership, and the right decision often isn’t a popular one. To a certain extent, business leaders are insulated against this in a way politicians aren’t: they can’t be voted out, at least not by customers. But customers can vote with their wallets, and employees can vote with their feet. It’s still contingent on leaders to make decisions that will benefit a majority of people, while still advancing the needs of the business.
Part of this is about managing expectations. Optimism and positivity is valuable, but it should also be tempered with a sense of realism. Sacrifices occasionally have to be made to ensure growth, and the pace of improvement sometimes has to be reined in to ensure that it is sustainable. In both business and government, not disappointing people by changing targets starts by not setting them so high in the first place.
However, any major decision should also be made with as much insight and input as possible. A policy shift or big idea only succeeds if the vast majority of people get behind it, and are enthused about contributing to its success. Developing these ideas with input from a diverse range of voices also ensures that any glaring flaws are highlighted, and allows pie in the sky ideas to be finessed, and brought down to a safer altitude.
Knowing your audience
The net zero decision seems to have been made on the back of a local election victory fought over ULEZ, and the sense that motorists were rebelling against the issue. But there were two problems with this. First, the issue was a local one that couldn’t easily be extended to the rest of the country. And second, it pertained to a cost that a majority of people would have to shoulder. With new cars and gas boilers, the cost would only hit those who had to buy a new one, a much smaller group of people.
Making such a big call around climate change is also a risky move. As many businesses are noticing, there is an increasing pressure to take a stand on issues such as climate change or LGBTQ+ rights, as sitting on the fence can be considered as bad as doing nothing. Boris Johnson seemed to realise this, and positioned the Conservatives as world leaders on climate action, assuming some of the ground traditionally held by rival parties. Pushing back these deadlines was the political equivalent of fence-sitting, and seemed out of step with public polling on the issue.
The leaks and internal strife since hint at the difficulties the Prime Minister has had with managing both of these issues. Even if the decisions caused some disagreement internally, good management would ensure that the party put up a unified front, convinced that the judgement of senior leadership was ultimately beneficial for the whole. The public disagreements since the statement – and conflicting statements from senior ministers – suggest that internal communication has been less than ideal.
Sticking to your guns
None of this is to make a political statement (indeed, the opposition has faced similar rifts in recent years). But in many ways, politics is business on the macro scale. The products and services are more important, but the ultimate aim is similar: make money, sustain growth, and keep people happy. A PR event like this one is an insight into the workings of government, and how the principles of leadership and management extend to both.
Perhaps the most obvious problem with both decisions is that they have broken promises, and changed previous targets. It’s understandable that a new CEO (or Prime Minister, in this case) might want to change focus, and realign the business in a way that both helps it and cements their position. Yet such last-minute changes can have the opposite effect. Car manufacturers and early adopters have been blindsided by the EV decision, which could limit EV uptake and the building of charging infrastructure. HS2 meanwhile has been more than a decade in the making, while much money has been spent on both.
The sunk-cost fallacy is relevant here, and continuing full steam ahead on a failing project is often the wrong decision. But the potential loss here isn’t just financial, but reputational. HS2 is the largest infrastructure project in Europe, and has the capacity to facilitate low-emission rail travel between the North and the continent for decades to come. The deadline for electric vehicles meanwhile was the earliest in Europe, continuing the UK’s good work on emission reduction. Both of these positions may have been surrendered for sound economic reasons, but the effect could be to diminish the role and reputation of the country.
This is perhaps the clearest lesson of all: the need for long-term planning. Having a clear road map makes leadership decisions easier, as it provides both a clarity of vision and of expectations. Employees, customers and clients alike will know what to expect, and feel secure in their positions or investments. Any difficult decisions you do have to make can be couched within those plans, and positioned as a route to achieving them, rather than a diversion from them. When people believe that you believe in your planning – and show this in your words and actions – they are more likely to follow in step.
The Prime Minister’s recent troubles shouldn’t just be seen in a political context, but as a broader parable on leadership & management. Like any leader, his decisions can’t just be seen in their immediate context, but that of the leaders and decision makers before him. Trust in politicians is generally low, and a long-serving government is more prone to this than most. Whatever you think of these recent decisions or the reaction to them, the different directions taken by Sunak’s predecessors have dealt him a poor hand.
But it’s also here that great leaders work to rebuild trust. This means delivering for the majority of people, yes, but also focusing on the things you do well, and that people have historically appreciated. A conservative approach might have been to stick with policies that Boris had won the fight for. By moving against HS2 and electric vehicles – two ideas he’d championed – the PM may struggle to bring people along for the ride.
