In April 2000, Nick Griffin shared his vision with a group of white nationalists in the US: “perhaps one day, by being rather more subtle, we’ll get ourselves into a position where we control the British broadcasting media”. Tonight, Griffin is due to appear as a panellist on BBC’s Question Time. So, has he achieved his vision?
There is no doubt that since his conviction for inciting racial hatred in 1998, Griffin’s tactics have changed. He talks about using “saleable” words to win British votes, such as “security” and “identity” rather than “racial purity”. He takes every opportunity to insist that the BNP is not a racist party. But Griffin’s insistence that the party is not racist does not make it so. Even on its own website there is an ongoing debate amongst BNP members about whether they are members of a racist party of not. One member comments “I don't like what Muslims (sic) believe in, practice or preach. I don't want them in our country and I certainly don't want them as a neighbour.” Another states “What is of interest to us, though, is whether THE BNP is racist - and it would help if this website, above all, was able to answer the question honestly. I think the answer must be yes…. I mean, if we're racist, we're racist. And I don't mean this in an unfriendly way at all...”
I prefer this level of honesty and would rather have a debate with someone who is willing to be open about what they believe in, rather than Griffin’s spun comments around racial purity, when in his own words, he is looking for British people to “change their mind and say ‘every last one of them must go’”.
What this level of honesty makes clear, though, is that whilst Griffin might be becoming more politically canny, the remainders of the BNP are still many steps behind him and it is no surprise that Griffin is the only spokesperson that the BNP is willing to put forward in front of the media.
So is it an atrocity for Griffin to be being a panel member on Question Time? No. Whilst he may be more polished in his spin of BNP values, at the heart of it, Griffin still represents a party of hatred, not a party of governance, as even a cursory look through their manifesto makes clear. I do believe in the freedom of speech, even for odious people like Griffin. I also believe that people need to hear what Griffin and his party stand for so that they fully appreciate just how racist the BNP actually is and whether they really want these people to take decisions on their behalf. After all, who knows which groups of society they could focus on next?
Nappies, dog food and re-plastering. No, not my latest wish list on Amazon, but examples of items that appeared on the MPs expenses list this weekend and that have been causing a furore in Westminster. The politicians seem bemused as to what all the fuss is about, but even the most basic understanding of leadership will include an element of integrity and trust. Our political leaders seem to have totally misread the expectations of their followers. More importantly, what impact has this had on our opinion of the nation's leaders?
Let's start with the facts, as this is where Cabinet Ministers seem to have focused in their response. We know that employees, in the course of their work, inevitably incur expenses, and that MPs are employees of Her Majesty's Government. We also know, because it has been repeated in mantra-like fashion that most MPs require a second home in London to be able to deliver their responsibilities in the capital. We also know that there is an agreed expenses system - a rule-based process that has existed for many years and that has rarely been brought into question before now.
So given these facts, what's the problem? Well, the single biggest problem is that while MPs may be technically correct in their application of the rules, this is not enough. It leads us to feel that we are being duped and manipulated by some clever interpretation of the rules. A little like clever accounting that evades a tax payment: we know such actions are within the rules, yet they create a psychological tension (leading to disappointment, frustration and anger) that further reduces our belief in the value system of those who lead us.
Ask any employee - or, in this case, any member of the public - what they look for in a leader and the top three qualities will be fairly consistent. They will be, in no particular order: a sense of vision; an ability to inspire and motivate; and trustworthiness. Our own research into leadership focused on the single-most important quality for remote leaders - trust.
We found that many leaders often confuse trust with facts. In other words, by telling everyone the facts of the situation, they will believe me and follow my lead. Thus, many leaders believe that communicating facts via email is often enough - as it gets the important facts across.
What they underestimate is the affective or emotional element of trust. The part of trust that says ‘I understand what you're saying and I believe that you're saying it for the right reasons'. And this seems to be where the greatest misjudgement lies. Many people know the facts about MPs expenses and understand what they're being told. They simply don't believe those who are telling them.
The occasion of Gordon Brown's first meeting with Barack Obama since the latter's inauguration makes you wonder about the nature of the so called "special relationship" between the two countries and how it will fare in the hands of the two leaders.
First of all it should be noted that they do share several ersonality characteristics in common. Both are highly analytical, long-term, strategic thinkers. In addition, they are both values driven and have a good understanding of what they believe in and stand for.
They also share some shortcomings. Their strengths in analysis make it difficult for them to make spontaneous decisions and as a result this can be an area where they can get unstuck. There is also a tendency for both men to become somewhat aloof under pressure.
But there are also considerable differences. Brown, for example, is confident, has a great ability to focus and as a result is able to get things done. His belief in his own abilities though can make him appear arrogant and at times perhaps even rather strident. He is naturally mistrustful and rather suspicious of others but also has a need for control. Empathy is not something that comes easily to him.
Obama on the other hand works to understand others and to persuade them. He is able to see others' perspective and generally has a far more open style. Interestingly there is anxiety here too, in particular a fear of failure and under pressure he can become judgemental and withdrawn. Obama's openness to feedback, argument and ideas to others' styles of working certainly makes him a more complete leader.
How will they work together? Well, they don't seem to be an ideal working combination. On the other hand how closely do they really have to work with each other? The first meeting of the two as leaders will be mannered and studied. Brown will want to be seen as a peer and not as a lapdog. This natural suspiciousness will probably get in the way of establishing strong bonds. The relationship, as far as we can tell, will be one of wariness and personal distance.
The context of the meeting is also important. Brown is beleaguered, behind in the polls and with his government's competence being questioned. Obama on the other hand is charismatic, popular and seen as a welcome breath of fresh air.
Their personality styles then do not auger well for the special relationship. If it is to flourish Obama must make Brown feel like an equal in private as well as in public. He will need to follow through on commitments and see their relationship as mutually beneficial.
The area which provides hope is their values. The way they view the world appears to be very similar. If they can agree on what they jointly want to achieve, which is certainly possible, then their personality differences will not present such a great issue.
The emergence of Barack Obama brings with it a new age of leadership. His profile matches the theoretical framework for great leadership and in a sense his success or otherwise may well be the most interesting real time psychological experiment of our time.
Against all the known frameworks for leadership Obama is a close match. So quite apart from the small task of attempting to rescue the world from an economic meltdown he is helping to define leadership in the 21st century. If he succeeds we know we have the right model for political and also importantly for corporate leadership- the latter having taken something of a pounding recently.
Our research shows leadership to exist on three dimensions which we summarise as Thought, Task and People. For the Thought area you need to be able to create a vision of where you want to be which requires levels of insight and intelligence. The 'g' factor (intelligence factor) is an important factor in leadership and this is evident in president Obama. It does not relate solely to your GMAT (MBA entrance exams) or other test scores but relates to your intelligence, your ability to see links between different sources of information and set out possibilities.
The Task area relates to the drive and determination a leader can bring to their role combined with the ability to put in place structures to make things happen. In President Obama's case this may be the area where he has still to prove his leadership in results and was an area targeted as a weakness by his electoral opponents. So does he have the credentials to be a successful task leader ? His level of drive and energy is obvious by his first day's work schedule with a workout before breakfast at 5 am! However, more importantly he has been swift to show decision making and to deliver on some pre-election commitments. However, the most important thing that makes him stand out as a potentially great leader in this area is that he sees it as the one he needs to develop. He has appointed a range of advisors, is prepared to listen to them and has made it clear he will then take decisions based on their input. He has also appointed people who are good at carrying out tasks and getting results in their chosen field.
It is in the area of People that Barack Obama brings the most interesting perspective. The key to his success in this area may not be his undoubted charisma, his ability to speak well in public or his presence and manner, characteristics which are often thought of as being the mark of a good leader but nonetheless can be trained. Instead what he brings to a new era of leadership is a genuine 'inclusivity'. He has already been reported as describing one European leader as 'lightweight' because their view was too parochial, being only concerned with protecting their own patch. Inclusivity is at the heart of his speeches but the difference for him as a leader is that it comes across as sincere.
It is interesting how many groups are claiming a part of Barack Obama. In Kenya, for instance tourism has increased significantly since his appointment. He has ancestors from Moneygall a small village in Tipperary in Ireland. The first African American in the White House and so on. The global inclusivity is not only in his background but is also at the heart of what he stands for.
Obama's approach to inclusivity takes Goleman's Emotional Intelligence factor (EQ) to a new level and when combined with a 'g' factor the potential in Obama's leadership is enormous. The essence of this approach in organisations will give CEO's and senior executives a blueprint for their own leadership style in wider framework of inclusivity and corporate decision making. Corporate social responsibility is likely to be redefined and become central to a new emerging leadership.
So can we use this knowledge about the new President's style to predict, select and develop future leaders? The answer to this is yes we can !
Rachida Dati is an interesting woman: she is the first senior minister of North African origin, she has enjoyed an accelerated and controversial rise to her position as Justice Minister and was the subject of many gossip columns due to her 'mysterious' pregnancy.
What the papers are excited about now is Dati's speedy return to work five days after the birth of her daughter, Zohra.
Whilst some french magazines have applauded her vitality and particularly, how slender she looks, the majority of views expressed are resolutely critical of her "wanting to play superwoman".
As a nation with a cultural emphasis on the family and motherhood, the French press is busy heaping guilt on her decision to abandon her newborn in favour of her ministerial duties, whilst the British press are speculating that fear over losing her job has driven her back to work.
The question is; why is her decision so scandalous?
I don't remember anyone commenting on how soon Gordon Brown was back at work after his baby was born! Society has rigid ideals about what it means to be a good mother and 'woe betide' any public figure if they step outside of this norm. But wouldn't she have been equally criticised for neglecting her role in government during a major judicial reform?
Yes, Rachida Dati is an important role model as a talented, female politician from an unprivileged background but isn't it her business what kind of mother she is?
Companies face similar moral dilemmas with their staff: to what degree should women be implicitly encouraged to come back to work a.s.a.p.? If a business recruits 50% women, what will they do if they all take maternity leave?
These are real questions that won't go away but we can at least remove gender as much as possible from childcare policy and give couples more flexibility about how they care for baby - after all it is a bit unfair that men don't have the same options as women to take time to look after their infants.
As a dynamic, influential politician, I don't think there is anything wrong with Dati's decision to attend a reform meeting soon after giving birth - as with any work-life balance issue, what is important is her right to choose. And as her fellow politician said in her support "you don't have to be menopausal to be a minister".
Feed