ThinkNick

Watching – and sharing – the anger at the abuse of privilege shown by the UK’s MPs, it’s remarkable how much time it’s taken for any of the main party leaders to take a credible position. Today, as the second set of details of his members’ expenses are made public, the leader of the opposition has declared that he will consider imposing penalties on his party. Meanwhile the Prime Minister has finally managed to say sorry, but has made no public statement about restitution or punishment.

At the moment, the leadership opportunity is to mitigate and minimise damage. Whilst Gordon Brown lurks, not just his party’s, but parliament’s reputation continues to freefall.

picture: OakleyOriginals

I recently started singing with a local choir. A vote was taken at the last rehearsal about dress code for performances. Talking to other members, it was clear that a debate about this had rumbled on for many months. In the end, the vote was to choose between ‘no change’ (all black), or going to a mandatory white blouse for the women.

It would be easy to satirise this. But it’s not easy to handle in real life. Everyone has an opinion, it’s all subjective, so how do you reach a decision? Consensus is difficult, a ‘leadership’ decision may not be acceptable (perversely because it’s not a very important issue), so what is the best course of action? Perhaps uncomfortable compromise is the occasional price of democracy.

Much talk at the moment about Gordon Brown’s leadership, and about the members of his cabinet who are openly supporting him, and those who are unavailable for comment. In commentary, Alan Sugar has said that everyone has to be onside for you to run a company (see here for the BBC story).

I don’t think you necessarily need everyone onside. You stand a better chance of long-term success if you have a way of tolerating, moderating and incorporating alternative views. What makes it difficult is when people are broadcasting their views to the outside world, and not discussing them internally. It’s more important to have everyone inside than onside.

How could a massive project go wrong so unexpectedly? One day, perhaps, we will understand why British Airways (BA) managed to make such a mess of the launch of Terminal 5 (T5). Until then, I have a theory …

Thousands of people worked on this project for years. The whole thing was tested, using members of the public, in advance of the launch. What did they miss?

And then I read a profile of the Chief Executive, Willie Walsh, in ‘The Economist’. It talked about how important T5 was to him, how often he referred to it, and how he knew, to the hour, how much time remained before launch.

Now I had my theory. Something in the culture of BA translated the CEO’s message about the critical importance of a project, into a corporate refusal to accept any bad news about it. I am certain that within BA, a lot of knowledgeable people knew very well that the launch was likely to fail; believing that failure was not an option, they had decided to keep quiet.

It’s a tough challenge for a leader. How do you show strong leadership across a massive organisation, whilst allowing time and space to hear clear messages coming back the other way?