Impact

Leadership and the UK General Election 2017 Impact
(Photo: Descrier/Flickr/CC BY 2.0)

Leadership and the UK General Election 2017

June 2, 2017 2037

Polling place

(Photo: Descrier/Flickr/CC BY 2.0)

The current UK General Election campaign is marked by the way in which the main party leaders, Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May, are offering radically different visions of what it takes to do that job. In doing so, they are also exposing an important gap between the best academic research and public understanding.

There is now quite a substantial body of evidence on leadership. This convincingly establishes that shouting, bullying, and autocratic behaviour really do not produce effective organizations. The best leaders consult, listen, form a consensus and then persuade others to follow. They are concerned to manage and resolve conflict rather than to provoke it. This does not mean they lack a clear vision or sense of direction, but that they recognize this only works if others can be induced to share it and follow willingly.

Although there were, and may still be, concerns over the extent to which Jeremy Corbyn enacts this model, part of his unexpected success in the campaign clearly reflects his ability to project this kind of leadership style. UK media rules for election coverage have helped by allowing voters to see much more of him without the intervention of journalists bound by prior hostile agendas. When he has been interviewed, he has been candid and relaxed, unafraid to admit that he has changed his mind on some issues or been unable to win arguments on others. He may personally want to scrap nuclear weapons – but he cannot carry his party on this and is ready to accept their consensus, for example. He has shown flashes of humour and a concern for life beyond politics – as in a desire to retain his allotment (community garden) if he were to become prime minister. In effect, he is acting pretty much as the leadership textbooks would prescribe. He projects a sense of humanity and treats the voters as grown-ups.

Theresa May, on the other hand, seems to be struggling because she has adopted The Apprentice model from television. While this may have worked for Donald Trump, she does not have the charisma to pull it off. Her decision-making is very personalized and confined to a narrow circle. Her speeches are robotic and her responses to questions simply repeat platitudes and clichés – even right-wing media have begun to complain about this. Having launched a presidential-style campaign that has failed to gain the expected traction, a partial retreat to a more collective approach lacks credibility. When other leading figures are sent along to TV or radio events, this appears less a matter of collective leadership than of hiding from stressful experiences.

The Apprentice model has been fairly disastrous for those organizations that have adopted it. In the short-term it may work for start-up companies but, as Max Weber pointed out nearly a century ago, it is not a sustainable basis for continuing growth and development. Collegiality and engagement are much more important. When we hear vox pop interviews, however, we still find many voters for whom this is the preferred model of leadership. It is what they imagine successful leadership to look like. Their expressed preference for Theresa May is framed in terms of her appearance of strength and her demand for unconditional trust – without any account of what she might do with that faith. She does not need to spell out the details of her approach to Brexit or the costs of her policies precisely because ‘strong leaders’ do not do that: they simply command and others bend to their will.

The outcome of the election is unknown as I write this. However, it is clearly not going to be the shoo-in that Theresa May expected when she called it. There are important lessons for both politicians and social scientists here.

For the politicians, in the UK at least, there is a pointed reminder that we do not have a presidential system of government. The Conservative campaign tried to work on this basis: indeed early election literature barely mentioned the party but only referred to Theresa May. It is only since this approach faltered that we now see the words ‘Theresa May and the Conservatives’ appearing on party communications. While the media has balanced this with a comparable focus on Jeremy Corbyn, he has consistently represented himself as the leader, or even occasionally as the servant, of his party. Where Theresa May repeatedly uses first person pronouns – I, me, mine – Jeremy Corbyn favours we and us.  He is the representative of a collective that embraces the audience rather than someone demanding adherence.

For social scientists, there must be a concern that a generation’s worth of accumulated empirical evidence on effective leadership has made so little impact compared with a popular reality TV show. The consequences are apparent in the USA, where the behaviour Donald Trump modelled as a TV host has proved seriously ineffective when transferred to the real world. It remains to be seen whether the UK will be spared the same experience but we do need to find a way of convincing voters that the images of leadership in popular media may make good entertainment but are likely to fail in most practice conditions. We also need to recognize that the implications of this style are likely to deter many people who would actually make good leaders from seeking that position. If those who choose not to bully other people stand back, the field is left clear for those who are ready to do so.

Whatever the outcome of the UK election, the experience of the campaigns and their unexpected twists should prompt some thoughts about what party leadership really requires – and how voters can be encouraged to choose those candidates who are more likely to be effective.


Robert Dingwall is an emeritus professor of sociology at Nottingham Trent University. He also serves as a consulting sociologist, providing research and advisory services particularly in relation to organizational strategy, public engagement and knowledge transfer. He is co-editor of the SAGE Handbook of Research Management.

View all posts by Robert Dingwall

Related Articles

Pandemic Nemesis: Illich reconsidered
News
June 14, 2024

Pandemic Nemesis: Illich reconsidered

Read Now
How ‘Dad Jokes’ Help Children Learn How To Handle Embarrassment
Insights
June 14, 2024

How ‘Dad Jokes’ Help Children Learn How To Handle Embarrassment

Read Now
Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?
Business and Management INK
June 4, 2024

Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Read Now
Rob Ford on Immigration
Public Policy
June 3, 2024

Rob Ford on Immigration

Read Now
Why Social Science? Because It Can Help Contribute to AI That Benefits Society

Why Social Science? Because It Can Help Contribute to AI That Benefits Society

Social sciences can also inform the design and creation of ethical frameworks and guidelines for AI development and for deployment into systems. Social scientists can contribute expertise: on data quality, equity, and reliability; on how bias manifests in AI algorithms and decision-making processes; on how AI technologies impact marginalized communities and exacerbate existing inequities; and on topics such as fairness, transparency, privacy, and accountability.

Read Now
Digital Scholarly Records are Facing New Risks

Digital Scholarly Records are Facing New Risks

Drawing on a study of Crossref DOI data, Martin Eve finds evidence to suggest that the current standard of digital preservation could fall worryingly short of ensuring persistent accurate record of scholarly works.

Read Now
Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy

Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy

U.S. President Joseph Biden’s administration has laid down a marker buttressing the use of social and behavioral science in crafting policies for the federal government by releasing a 102-page Blueprint for the Use of Social and Behavioral Science to Advance Evidence-Based Policymaking.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments