Leadership after Covid-19

by Matthew Taylor

I have been ploughing through articles about leadership in a post-Covid-19 world. A great deal is from management consultants and/or published by Forbes and, while I don’t want to seem overly harsh, two, often related, characteristics stand out:

• Crisis-enhanced confirmation bias; whereby everything in the crisis and its looming aftermath miraculously confirms all the ideas the consultant had before it started.
• Motherhood and apple pie syndrome; whereby, thankfully, new circumstances demand the characteristics that all reasonable people would surely want leaders to demonstrate (such as agility, empathy, authenticity and humility).

These tendencies often combine with a third:

• Conveniently Rememberable Acronym Patterning (CRAP for short) — in which lists of necessary leadership characteristics all fortuitously begin with the same letter, like ‘Adaptive’, ‘Agile’, ‘Authentic’, ‘Aspidistra’, or make up a suitably dynamic word like ‘SHARP’, ‘BEGIN’ ‘LEAD’ or ‘POMEGRANATE’.

Based on my own experience as CEO of an organisation, which has (IMHO) responded well to the crisis, and having spoken with leaders in public, private and third sector, can I do better? I know people want answers and who doesn’t need some good news right now, but it might be best to think of the leadership challenge in terms of wrestling with several difficult tensions. Here are four.

Key tensions of post-covid-19 leadership

First, raised expectations, diminished resources.

From central government to local shops, the way many organisations have responded to the crisis has demonstrated a willingness to throw the time-honoured playbook out of the window. Whether it is the mechanics of home-working or the cultural shift to relying on trust and collaborative initiative to get things done, people have had to operate very differently. I sense most have adapted better than they first feared.

Now, in the face of the desire to hold on to change or to suggest new ideas for new times, it is going to be whole lot harder for managers to tell staff “that’s not the way we do things round here”. The rallying cry for the advocates of change as they resist more rigid ways of working or the re-imposition of top-down performance management will be “remember what we did in lockdown!”

The feelings aroused by Black Lives Matter have further delegitimised excuses and delays. A new intolerance of unfairness or inertia means a broader perception that if organisations do not become part of the solution, they stay part of the problem. Although the government seems oddly reticent to demand anything from big businesses in return for its loans, the public pressure to behave ethically may be even greater on companies that have become dependent, or more dependent, on public funding to stay alive. See, for example, the anger at British Airways’ treatment of its staff.

For anyone who believes in progress, ambition and impatience are a force for good. But many of the organisations facing these expectations will also find themselves in in a fight for their lives. However compelling is the case for change, the priority will be survival. The Chief Operating Officer will not be presenting the CEO with a choice of new projects but a list of necessary cuts. Facing the aspirations of staff, many will feel like the exasperated government minister I once heard tell a meeting of people lobbying for more money; “we could all have eggs and ham, if only we had eggs, if only we had ham”.

While leadership is the art of the possible, leaders need to understand and appreciate people’s desire for change and progress. The best way to deal with anger or hope is not to dismiss it but to show that idealism does not have be the enemy of realism. Better to take one step on the right road than to charge down the wrong.

Legitimacy in leadership

Second, hierarchy is dead, long live the hierarchy.

In terms of impact on my life I count myself among the very lucky ones in this crisis. Nevertheless, since Tuesday I have been conducting meetings lying on a sofa. Sitting for weeks at a desk designed for a child on a chair made for someone with granite buttocks and a steel spine, my back has given way in disgust. An unsympathetic colleague, seeing me wince on my twenty-third Zoom call of the day, suggested that perhaps the weight of my ever thicker, ever longer hair might have subtly altered my posture.

Whether it is demanding children, bored spouses (‘behind every great leader there stands an incredulous partner’), garish soft furnishing, disobedient pets or copies of erotic novels (or, worse, Dan Brown hardbacks) winking unashamedly from the bookshelves, leaders have had to show their human side; this has made it harder for them to keep distance or exude authority. Maybe it has been a challenge for staff too; seeing the boss’ in the round. The idea that we all have more than one existence is obvious but a little subversive too. “Even the President of the United States must have to stand naked” as Dylan sang in a different era of questioning.

In case any (male) leader thinks the way to address possible vulnerability is to double down on authority; they need only look at the reputational wreckage of figures ranging from Weatherspoon’s Tim Martin to CrossFit’s Greg Glassman to see that macho management, if not dead, is surely on its last legs. Radicals and innovators have long critiqued hierarchy and bureaucracy but found themselves up against the iron logic of organisational life. As the task of leadership becomes even more complex and nuanced, these iron structures are too brittle to cope.

Post-pandemic culture and expectations may encourage strategists to reach for their copy of Reinventing Organisations, with Frederick Laloux’s inspiring case studies of hierarchy-free ‘holacracies’. Yet, a state of virtual emergency still tends to point in the opposite directions; tough times, tough decisions, tough leaders. The summoning up of external threats has always been a favoured tactic of the power-hungry leader. When the possible outcomes include disaster and the available choices involve painful restructuring, the natural inclination is for leaders to become more controlling and less open. Indeed, for HR and commercial reasons, some secrecy is almost inevitable.

The centralising impulse does not just come from the top down. I recall many years ago, in Birmingham, being on the board of a very leftist third sector organisation run on collective principles. Cuts in council funding meant we had to reduce the headcount. The well-meaning directors asked the staff to suggest a method for selecting redundancies; they not only refused but made clear they would vigorously oppose whatever method the board chose. We ended up putting names in a hat while the staff went on a symbolic 48-hour walkout. Pass the responsibility parcel is not a game to play in difficult times.

It is only just over a decade that investment bank bosses had specially designed lifts to take them to the top floor without having to meet anyone. Try that today and you will find the doors barricaded. In the post-pandemic era organisations need leadership that is strong but with a legitimacy based more on personal qualities and skills rather than simply power, position or ownership. Those in charge need to put on show the qualities that justify their authority.

Will debt be the enemy of innovation?

The third tension leaders face is that between invention and dependency.

If we assume things are going to be tough for a lot of organisations for some time to come, there is a premium on innovation. Rather than accepting a slow, lingering decline or an interminable struggle against the odds, leaders may be tempted by a radical shift. History shows crisis can be time of accelerated change. This may mean cranking up investment in technology to cut costs, a step change in a digital offer or even the development of new business models pivoting to growth niches and new customer groups.

Being bold is not easy at the best of times and, before the crisis, most sectors of British business had a poor record on investment, productivity and innovation. Many public services, and charities too, displayed structures that spoke more to path dependency than strategic ambition. Yet, at a time when leaders may need the freedom to be bold, they may find themselves even more hedged in than usual.

A big part of this is debt. As we saw following the financial crisis, its effect on most organisations was that they ended up limping towards zombie status rather than taking a leap into the unknown. With constant pressure from creditors and shareholders, the temptation is to gouge the customers you have rather than take the risk of finding new ones, to put the squeeze on desperate suppliers rather than exploring more creative collaborations. The sheer scale of government and bank debt will mean decisions about who to back and who to break will be made on the crudest of criteria.

There are other constraints on creative leadership. Saxton Bamfylde, a leading head-hunter company, reports that non-executive involvement in day-to-day decision-making has grown during the crisis and asks whether boards will be willing to return to strategic oversight. It takes time and headspace to convince boards to take risks yet many of our non-execs have multiple roles and will find themselves responding to several crises at once. Expect to see high rates of attrition on both sides of the board table.

Rise to the crisis, plan for the new normal

Fourth, lockdown performance was revealing but distorting.

Following a mixed time in Downing Street, I was expecting to be sacked after the 2005 election, especially as it was such a lacklustre campaign. But one day I got call from the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell: “Tony thinks you’ve had a good election” he said.

Most leaders I have spoken to tell me that some of their colleagues have ‘really come through’ (or some such phrase) during the lockdown period. If so, this shouldn’t be ignored. It will not just be the leader who has noticed the people who have shone; colleagues who have gone the extra mile will expect and will deserve to be acknowledged and — in time — rewarded. But we need to remember two things.

Firstly, how people have performed over the last three months is not just about talent and commitment. We know, for example, that women have shouldered by far the greater portion of the domestic burden. It has been tougher for parents of school children, those with elderly or sick relatives, those in shared accommodation or with bad broadband and nowhere suitable to sit.

Secondly, some people are suited better to the tempo and expectations of crisis than more normal times. They may have sapped their reserves of energy and turn out to be less productive when some kind of routine returns than those that kept a more even keel. The recovery team will need different qualities to the crisis-management one.

A recurring theme in these four tensions is the gap at many levels between what might be expected, desired and even necessary and what is likely to be possible with a damaged and fragile economy loaded with public and private debt and inhabited by exhausted and worried people. These tensions can be managed but it will require great leadership.

And here inevitably — after all, it is an essay about leadership — comes my own list. I’ve even got an acronym; LET, which gives me two potential soundtracks; ‘Let it go’ for fans of Frozen and ‘Let it be’ for those with a more classical bent.

Look after yourself

A board-led RSA management restructuring last year, about which I had mixed feelings, was partly sold to me on the grounds that I could devolve more operational responsibility and focus more on thinking, speaking and flag waving for the RSA. And so it was and so it worked. Until March.

Since then I have been working 55-hour weeks including some of the time every day during my holiday. Add to that the challenge and guilt of trying, and often failing, to be a good dad to a sad seven-year-old who misses school and friends intensely. In saying this I am acutely aware that I am both lucky and not alone.

However, I need a break and, more to the point, the RSA needs me to take a break. I know I should be having big thoughts about the opportunities and threats to the RSA in a post-Covid-19 world. But here is something we know but often forget; thoughts do not happen when you are thinking about them. Of course, being a competent leader means using data about the organisation and market conditions, but there is another kind of insight leaders should offer. It is the leap of imagination or the lateral shift, which reframes a situation and reveals new opportunities. In my experience these shafts of light a more likely to appear walking through a wood, taking a bath, slow cooking a meal or listening carefully to someone talk about something completely different to your own concerns, than to poke through the cracks in an executive meeting.

We all know by now that catching Covid-19 is not the only health and safety consideration arising from the pandemic. Before it became the subject of global dispute, the World Health Organisation had included ‘burn-out’ as an occupational phenomenon in its International Classification of Diseases. Over recent months responsible leaders have been forced by circumstances, boards or their own sense of duty to do all kinds of things. But with summer here, the thing they should be compelled more than anything to do is to look after themselves and take break. Because here is another often easily forgotten truism; if you really have become indispensable to your organisation you have already failed it.

Engage, engage, engage

‘People can deal with almost anything once they know where reality is,’ said the great American writer James Baldwin (although I’ve never been able to locate the precise quotation). The best material to bridge the gap between high hopes and expectations, on the one hand, and tough choices on the other, is truth. As far as possible share and trust your colleagues with the challenges the organisation faces.

The evidence linking engagement with productivity is strong. But no one likes bad news and some people are constitutionally suspicious, so do not engage to be popular, engage because it is the right thing to do and usually works. Engagement takes effort and commitment; wherever possible, give colleagues the time and support to contribute effectively to shaping decisions.

Among the organisations that coped best after the 2007/8 crash were those that agreed with staff the best way to make and apply difficult decisions; in some cases, staff volunteered for cuts in pay or hours to head off redundancies. Already in this crisis we have seen everyone from star sportspeople and company executives to shop floor workers agree cuts in hours or pay to protect their organisations and colleagues. Such voluntary sacrifices generally make teams stronger. Remember also that nothing damages engagement more than perceived unfairness. So be the first to make sacrifices if they are necessary and — as I said above — be careful if you are handing out plaudits and rewards to those who were able to perform well during lock-down.

And when, as is inevitable, there are good reasons why it is not possible to be open or to let colleagues into the decision-making, don’t hide it; be honest. The buck does stop with you and people get that. Remember, there is no greater falsehood than a truth half told.

There are worse things than failing

I’ve left the hardest lesson to last. The temptation for leaders is to do almost anything to ensure survival for themselves and their organisation. Of course, strategies will have to be rethought and goals amended, tough decision made, sacrifices accepted. But it is now — not the good times — where all that work you did on purpose and values matters. Like a winter coat, integrity is only tested in storm.

If leaders cannot name a limit, the line beyond which even closure or the sack is better than further compromise, they risk more than their self-esteem. Most corporate scandals start not with evil intent but with a ‘use all means necessary’ mindset, which soon percolates a whole culture. Don’t just draw that line in your head but to the board, your executive colleagues, staff, stakeholders, family, friends. Some might accuse you of being unrealistic, many more will be reassured and more strongly motivated to help sustain something of value. Again, this is not easy. To help yourself keep some perspective; think about what really matters in your life, read some history, remind yourself of what people regret on their death beds. Rebuilding a career is easy than repairing a soul.

Hopefully, most leaders who read this will not be facing immediate crisis but still, I think, the principles apply. And they reinforce each other; being good to yourself, respecting others and living up to your values are complementary virtues.

I’ll give the final word to a friend, an advisor to many leaders; I explained my argument: that I was trying to get across some of the tensions organisations may face in hard times. “No,” he replied. “It’s simpler than that; quite simply, owning those tensions is what defines leadership”.

Matthew Taylor is Chief Executive of the RSA.