A trait of senior executives should be political acumen. But too many either see working with Government as a distraction or believe that they can do it all themselves. Both offer the very real prospect of reputational damage.
According to a recent Harvard Business Review blog based on research by professors Laura Empson (Cass Business School, London) and Johan Alvehus (University of Lund, Sweden), there are three traits that enable leaders to rise up through the ranks – competence, a willingness to delegate some leadership responsibilities to colleagues, and political wherewithal.
This last point is mainly applied internally but the best leaders also understand that politics at large impact directly on their own personal success and that of the organisation they lead.
But often leaders fall into feelings of politics being largely irrelevant or well within their own capabilities. Leaders are not alone in this and it is not totally their fault either. It can be a problem of politicians failing to talk the right language, being seen to be using organisations to their own ends or having nothing of interest on offer.
That is though no excuse for failing to take Government seriously. Their ability to change regulations, policies, approaches or place a spotlight on a sector can impact on reputations, fundraising and the bottom-line. It is a risk to be considered and managed just as others are.
REPUTATION
Take the example of appearing before a Parliamentary Select Committee. There are numerous examples of senior executives simply misreading the position or failing to comprehend the often adversarial nature of the questioning they are liable to face. The proceedings are public and are broadcast. For really interesting sessions, the news media will be in attendance as well. The words, actions, failure to respond or aggressive questioning by a Member can be the first item on the news.
But it remains the case that some senior executives think they can handle it all. The real measure of a leader though is knowing when they need help and support and this is one of those times.
Similarly when a problem arises with Government, the default instinct of some executives can be to make contact with Ministers – to talk to the top person. But that misunderstands how Government works, especially in a time of Coalition. Letters to the Times or FT from a Chief Executive can be cathartic but does it serve any purpose. It can actually be counterproductive.
DEPLOYMENT
The example of Virgin’s challenge of the West Coast Rail franchise is a great example of when and where a leader should be involved. Richard Branson didn’t throw his toys out of the pram but instead wanted to be seen as standing up for passengers and helping Government through the problem. Virgin had, in effect, been ‘forced’ to take legal action. Branson intervened but at the right times. The campaign has been widely cited and has won numerous awards.
PLANNED ENGAGEMENT
As with other parts of an organisation’s activities, engagement with Government should not be knee-jerk and instinctive or, at worst, ignored but should be considered and planned.
Senior executives can still get to the schmoozing and hanging out with senior politicians and there is nothing wrong with them attending events. But they need to be deployed at the right time, in line with the needs of strategic aims and objectives of the organisation. They need to be managed and, critically, be prepared to be managed.
The public affairs team can provide the key messages to deliver and points to raise but the executives need to be involved and given a proper role. Critically the public affairs team can consider the wider party political issues potentially at stake as well which executives can often miss.
Not taking this approach runs unnecessary and preventable risks and reputation damage. Organisations need leaders that understand the importance of politics internally and externally.