Tony Blair: Leadership Lessons from The Journey
Courage
I had discovered long ago the first lesson of political courage: to think anew. I had then learned the second: to be prepared to lead and to decide. I was now studying the third: how to take the calculated risk. I was going to alienate some people, like it or not. The moment you decide, you divide. However, I would calculate the upset, calibrate it, understand its dimensions, assess its magnitude, ameliorate its consequences. And so I got over the surprise of the onslaught and became used to the derision, began to develop the carapace of near indifference to dispute that is so dangerous in a leader yet so necessary for survival. (30)There are people I’ve come across who are shorn of such doubt, who have that inner courage to step out instinctively and without forethought, and for whom it is as natural as breathing. Their problem is rather different: mine is about the battle between courage and fear, while theirs is the consequence of being fearless. Fear makes you calculate and calculation can sometimes save you (though over-calculation finished you off); for those who don’t calculate at all but go headlong, the risk can be foolhardy and lead to downfall. But I always admired that temperament, liked its swagger and absence of manipulation. (33)
Loyalty
It’s a strange thing, the power of the appeal to loyalty in respect of a leader. You have to be very wary of it. In particular, you have to define what it is and what it isn’t, or rather what is should be and what is shouldn’t. When prime minister, and in the darker days when I was under fairly much routine attack by [colleagues], my close supporters would sometimes complain that [they] were disloyal. I would always respond that they were perfectly entitled to challenge me, to put forward an alternative, and to say I should go. What they shouldn’t do is undermine me. In other words – and obviously not trivially or serially – if you come to the conclusion the leader is not up to it or is taking the [organization] fundamentally in the wrong direction, there is nothing disloyal in being open and mounting a challenge. If the criticism is right, the challenge comes out of loyalty to the bigger cause: the [organizationi] itself and its purpose. . . What is always unacceptable is to chip away, to refuse the open challenge, to corrode. That is disloyal because it weakens the [organization] it doesn’t change it or redirect it. (102-3)Conflict Resolution
Principles of Conflict Resolution – Northern Ireland
- At the heart of any conflict resolution must be a framework based on agreed principles. One of the things I always try to do in politics is to go back to first principles: what is it really about? What are we trying to achieve? What is at the heart of the matter.
- Then to proceed to resolution, the thing needs to be gripped and focused on. Continually. Inexhaustibly. Relentlessly. Day by day by day by day.
- In conflict resolution, small things can be big things. . .it is about putting aside your view of what is important in favour of theirs . . .Your pay grade covers anything important to the parties you are serving; as defined by them.
- Be creative. Use the big or small things, singly or in combination and if necessary invent a few more, to unblock progress.
- The conflict won’t be resolved by the parties if left to themselves. If it were possible for them to resolve it on their own, they would have done so.
- Realise that for both sides resolving the conflict is a journey, a processs, not an event. Each side takes time to leave the past behind. A conflict is not simply a disagreement characterized by violence. It has a history and it creates a culture, with traditions, ritual and doctrine. It has a mind and soul as well as a body. It is enduring, and it is deep. Changing all of that is an undertaking of immense ambition and intense introspection.
- The path to peace will be deliberately disrupted by those who believe the conflict must continue. Be prepared for such disruption. Do not be deflated by it.
- Leaders matter. Any peace process calls for political risks, even a sense of political adventure and certainly political courage, sometimes even personal courage. The quality of leadership matter; it is a sine qua non.
- The external circumstances must militate in favour of, not against, peace.
- Never give up. Simple but essential; never stop working on it and never give up on it. This is not just about gripping the conflict; it is about refusing to accept defeat. . .A peace process never stands still – it goes forward or back. You have to believe a solution is possible even when others don’t, even when conventional wisdom is against you, even when those most intimately concerned – the parties themselves – have given up hope. And remember: it is better to try and fail than not to try at all. (181-198)
Decisions
Here is what is interesting about leadership. These are the decisions that define. They separate out. They are the distinguishing features of high command.It goes like this. You have a strategic objective. Let us say you have embarked on achieving it. You come to an obstacle. The cost of removing it seems vast. Everyone not sitting in the leader’s chair can have a discussion about it. The cost is very high, says one; the objective is very important, says another; the pros and cons are mighty, says a third. The leader has to decide whether the objective is worth the cost. What’s more, he or she must do so unsure of what the exact cost might be, or the exact price of failing to meet the objective. Both of these have to be judged and measured according to an inexact science. Those not in the seat can point to the cost or the price, but they don’t have to say which prevails. Their responsibility may be acute, but it isn’t ultimate. That responsibility sits with the leader.
In this context, by the way, indecision is also decision. Inaction is also action. Omission and commission both have consequences. (238)
Political Judgment
I learned a lesson: never try to keep someone who’s moved on in their mind or who wants to go. (337)Politics today works by reference to paradigms of opinion that are formed, harden fast and then become virtually unchallengeable. People have a short time to reflect and consider; issues are weighed quickly, little care is put into what goes on the scales and so judgements are made with a speed and severity that a more deliberative process would eschew. Once such judgements are made, stories are written that tend to reinforce the judgement. Stories to the contrary are ignored, until eventually to challenge the judgement is deemed almost delusional. Balance is an alien concept in today’s world. It wants opinions that are certain and are made fast.
For these purposes, therefore, my task is a modest one: not to persuade the reader of the rightness of the cause, but merely to persuade that such a cause can be made out. It is to open the mind. I have often reflected as to whether I was wrong. I ask you to reflect as to whether I may have been right. (374)
[To] succeed in U.S. politics, or that of the UK, you have to be more than clever. You have to be able to connect and you have to be able to articulate that connection in plain language. The plainness of the language then leads people to look past the brainpower involved. Reagan was clever. Thatcher was clever. And sometimes the very plainness touches something else: a simplicity that is the product of a decisive nature. Now that simplicity can be impulsive; or it can ignore the complexity of the issue; and it can, of course, sometimes lead to the wrong decision. But it isn’t born of dumbness. And you can produce a clarity of decision and action that, in situations calling for such clarity, is both powerful and beneficial. There are leaders who agonise too much; who are forever weighing up; whose consideration of the options becomes an end in itself and a substitute for clarity of decision. Of course it’s good to think before you act, but the thinking has to be of finite duration and the action must follow. This is true in and of itself, but it is also true because when leading a country, or indeed any organization, failure to act is an action with consequence. Inaction is a decision to maintain the status quo. Maintenance of the status quo has its own result, and usually its own dynamic. (393)
[An] object lesson in the progress of reform: the change is proposed; it is denounced as a disaster; it proceeds with vast chipping away and opposition; it is unpopular; it comes about; within a short space of time, it is as if it had always been so.
The lesson is also instructive: if you think a change is right, go with it. The opposition is inevitable, but rarely is it unbeatable. There will be many silent supporters among the many vocal detractors. And leadership is all about the decisions that change. If you can’t handle that, don’t become a leader. (477)
Meetings
In the course of the meetings, I learned yet again how important it is to listen as well as talk. Knowing when to shut up is one of the most vital rules in life, never mind politics. Basically, most people are psychological itinerants in search of someone who wants to hear about them, who is interested in what they have to say, and who will regard what they say as both sage and stimulating. This applies at any level. In fact, the more elevated the level, the truer it is. In most of my meetings with other leaders – less so those whom I knew really well, or when there was real immediate business to transact – I would listen or ask them questions to get them talking, so that I could listen. A good meeting is one where you have listened more than you have spoken.Also, know when to disagree and when to let a comment pass. If it matters and there will be a frightful misunderstanding, you have to step in and contradict; but frequently, even if your interlocutor makes some completely ludicrous assertion, contradiction will only lead to a futile, sterile disagreement which it is then embarrassing to move on from. Unless it is germane to the real issue at hand, let it pass. (541-2)
Lessons Learned
You must beware of resentment in politics even more than in life outside it. First, it is a bad and distorting emotion. Second, it is an unhealthy emotion in a leader. Third, you usually have little overall cause for complaint given the overwhelming privileges leadership bestows. (597)The difference between the TB of 1997 and the TB of 2007 was this: faced with this opposition across such a broad spectrum in 1997, I would have tacked to get the wind back behind me. Now I was not doing it. I was prepared to go full into it if I thought it was the only way to get to my destination. “Being in touch” with opinion was no longer the lodestar. “Doing what was right” had replaced it. (651)
I had started by buying the notion, and then selling the notion, that to be in touch with opinion was the definition of good leadership. I was ending by counting such a notion of little value and defining leadership not as knowing what people wanted and trying to satisfy them, but knowing what I thought was in their best interests and trying to do it. Pleasing all of the people all of the time was not possible; but even if it had been, it was a worthless ambition. In the name of leadership, it devalued leadership.
None of this meant or means that the leader should not seek to persuade, and in doing so use all the powers of charm, argument and persuasion at their command. That’s tactics, and they should be deployed effectively and competently. The strategy should be to point to where the best future lies and get people to move in that direction. (652)
