The candidates themselves referred to the leadership debate as like going for an interview so it seems appropriate to see how Brown, Cameron and Clegg would have done had this been a real selection process for Britain's next boss.
To evaluate the candidates I used our (Pearn Kandola's) Leadership Radar process which breaks leadership down into three broad areas: Thought Leadership (e.g. ideas, vision), Task Leadership (e.g. setting objectives, delivery) and People Leadership (e.g. motivating others, empathy).
The clear winner overall and in all three categories was the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg. He scored highest in the People category. He connected with the people at many different levels: to the individual questioners, to the studio audience, to his fellow debaters and to the nation watching on TV. He clearly enjoys being in the spotlight and at the centre of attention but there are downsides to this which we need to keep an eye on over the next few weeks. Thought leadership was strong too: on virtually all of the questions he came at the issue from a different angle, displaying originality, freshness and openness to new ideas. His ideas were presented strongly and clearly. His weakest area was Task leadership which was to be expected I suppose given his lack of leadership experience but by focusing on his achievements as a constituency MP in Sheffield he was able to give examples of things that he had seen working and would like to see applied elsewhere.
Brown and Cameron were left in Clegg's wake by this analysis. Brown's vision of Britain was clear but ultimately was one based on negatives: we should fear anyone who suggests cutting public finances; under-performing schools and police forces will be taken over. You don't inspire by generating negative emotions in your followers. Cameron's vision on the other hand was very narrow and vague which he emphasised further by frequently repeating his concerns over the increase in National Insurance.
On the Task front the Prime Minister naturally has the advantage in that he has achievements he can refer to. For Cameron this was his weakest area: he listed few achievements and was not even clear about the specifics of what he would do if he were our next leader. Whilst it wasn't his poorest area, People leadership would have to be Cameron's most disappointing one. He is, by my analysis, someone who is good with other people: empowering, engaging and empathetic. These qualities came through too rarely in the debate. He appeared to be too scripted and too disengaged from the dynamics of the debate itself. His unwillingness to look at the other contestants directly made him appear arrogant if not a little shifty. His refusal to answer the questions about cuts which Brown posed to him on several occasions is the one guaranteed way of appearing untrustworthy- an issue ironically which he chose for his opening address.
Brown on the other hand came across reasonably well even if it did seem at times as if was working a process (Step 1.Look at the questioner; Step 2. Remember their name; Step 3. Smile).
Leaders have to display many qualities, but the great ones are able to combine all three of Thought, Task and People leadership. On this basis therefore you'd have to say that in the first part of this selection process it has been a great start for Clegg, an OK one for Brown and a poor one for Cameron.
Selection of staff is an imperfect and pressurised practice. You get a few hours at best to assess your candidates before having to make a decision. How much better if we could evaluate each person over several months, having them perform tasks that we have set them, observed by our most trusted aides. At the end of such a thorough and intensive selection process I think we'd all be confident about getting the right person wouldn't we? Not if you're Sir Alan Sugar you wouldn't. I have been following the latest series of the Apprentice eagerly. Last week saw the last five candidates being interviewed by Sir Alan's cronies. The conclusion of the programme saw the great man not being able to identify the two best people for the final, opting to choose four instead.
To say I was disappointed would be putting it mildly. How can you have that amount of information on each person and still be unable to make a decision?
Over and above that exactly what is he looking for? It seems clear that he wants someone who can buy and sell, is entrepreneurial, can lead a team and be led. He also wants someone he can mould. He seems to focus on those characteristics to such an extent that he seems extremely unconcerned about lying, cheating, bullying, bribing, scapegoating, scheming, conning and sheer uselessness. He prevaricates whilst the rest of the country is shouting at their TV screens "Fire them!"
One of the main reasons why I watch the series is because of Sir Alan himself. He has shown himself to be tough, astute, witty. Now though, whilst still tough and witty, his judgement should seriously be called into question.
Regardless of whoever wins the final I think the producers ought to say "With regret, Sir Alan, you're fired!"
Last year my colleague, Emma Trenier, and I had our heads buried in political biographies of the then Prime Minister Blair and his Chancellor Gordon Brown. We analysed the descriptions of the two of them and then drew up psychological profiles for them.
I was pleasantly surprised to find, one year on, that our analysis predicted Gordon Brown's plight pretty accurately. The conclusion of our detailed profile said:
"Brown's strengths are considerable, in particular, his analytical skills, his thoroughness, his diligence and conscientiousness. These should not be underestimated. There is a sense in which, given Tony Blair’s personality, these are precisely the qualities that number 10 and the Prime Minister has been lacking.
His biggest challenge, however will be to recreate a sense of unity within the cabinet. The best way Brown has of convincing the British public that he is a man to be trusted will not be through spin or trying to smile more often in public, it will be through the government delivering on its promises and achieving a degree of consistency and not engaging in exciting but politically misdirected adventures. He needs to create a cabinet where the others feel involved and valued. This is easy to say and difficult to do, especially for someone with the profile suggested here.
If he is to change he will need to be persuaded that there is something in it for him, he will need others to give him constructive and positive feedback on his behaviour. However, the change itself will be difficult. From a personality profile point of view it may be very difficult to achieve. If he does not, however, he may quickly lose support amongst those from whom he will need it most i.e. the Cabinet. This difficulty in establishing collaborative relationships with a broad range of people could be his undoing. If he can change, however, this could be his route to becoming and being seen as a truly effective premier."
Brown is not only under pressure and beleaguered he also appears to me to be confused. The Prime Minister's style, deficient as it may be in quite a number of ways, has got him to the top of the political pile. He may not have seen the need to change as a result. What is clear though is that what got him to the top may not be enough to keep him there.
(If you would like a copy of the detailed profile please feel free to email me.)
Feed
The candidates themselves referred to the leadership debate as like going for an interview so it seems appropriate to see how Brown, Cameron and Clegg would have done had this been a real selection process for Britain's next boss.