MARK BARNES: Real leadership is not about a popularity contest

The pursuit of popularity is futile. If you set out with the sole purpose of becoming popular, whatever that takes, you’ll disappoint yourself, for sure — either by failing to get there or by hating the person you had to become. If you win by not being who you are, get ready for a lonely life as the most popular fraud in the room. It must take unbearable vigilance to pretend every day. That’s not power, that’s prison.

It used to be that evidence of the action preceded the identity of the individual. We first watched sports, saw buildings go up, saw the products of effort and the results of actions that defined and separated the winning teams, strategies and companies, then we made choices. How was that new Lions player that scored the two tries in the dying minutes of the game?! What’s-his-name — they’ll come looking for him soon enough.

Groundbreaking changes and advances in business and society generally are not made after seeking approval, after covering all of the bases, after making sure. They’re made precisely because they require taking risk, outside of the tried and tested, in search of improvement and discovery.

There is no better teacher than trial and error. There is no surer way to gain experience than to make mistakes, and learn from them. Don’t expect a discovery from a poll.

Democracy, around the world (where it still forms the basis for elected government) has yielded leaders that follow, that seek out mass opinion in the formulation of their manifestos. Leaders who ask us what to do, and then get elected because they promise to do just that.

It’s supposed to be the other way around. Leaders earned that position by virtue of things they had either done or demonstrably stood for. I ignore in this analysis leaders ordained by birthright, or dictate, for whom I have no regard.

There is a difference between leaders who follow and leaders who serve. Put a follower in front, in charge, and you can be assured you’ll be going nowhere — the contradictions are obvious. You’ll find follower-leaders to be insecure, always looking over their shoulders to see if they still have your support — looking for direction instead of giving it, reading prepared speeches instead of saying what they think. Inevitably this leads to indecision, which is never okay, never.

Standing still makes you an easy target for your enemies, economic or political. Eventually you will be overrun by forces seeking movement — good or evil.

Servant leadership, on the other hand, is neither about standing still nor about being popular. It is about actively seeking and implementing solutions in the best interest of the population that elected you to serve them, because of your evidenced ability.

It is not just about dealing with the circumstances of the moment, the challenges of the day, or events of the week. Rather, it is about your capacity to deal with anything that comes your way, while you’re busy with the task of building our assured future.

It can only work if you have a core of values and boundaries with and within which to make decisions. You only have to agree the grid, not the specifics, whether it’s shareholder value creation or dealing with economic inequality. Every decision is measured against that grid, its popularity is secondary. To remain in power cannot be part of the measure.

I can’t remember ever seeing so rapid a decline into political mess as we are witnessing in the UK. I think Boris Johnson will say anything to get in power and stay in power. His opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, is just as bad. How will either of them deal with, let alone resolve, the mistake that is Brexit?

In a world where nobody in a position of leadership is sufficiently empowered to “call it”, to exercise the very judgment we thought they’d have, decisions are deferred to the courts. At all levels, from the local district to the Constitutional Court, we, the public, have now been invited into those hallowed rooms, to watch and deliberate what have become television series, as if we’re a qualified jury, which we are not. Even political decisions, which have no place in courts of law, find themselves being aired, if not resolved, there.

Let us choose carefully who plays in which position in our quest for shared economic prosperity and social justice, based on their track record, not speeches written by others, and let them lead us, and get on with it already.