I once sat down on one of London’s landmark big bridges. Right on the road, I mean. During rush hour.
I was sitting with my fellow students from university to protest the
stand of the government of the United Kingdom, and in particular that of
its leader at the time, one Margaret Thatcher, on the issue of
apartheid in South Africa.
As I write this, Baroness Thatcher is being laid to rest in a state
funeral. She remains, in death as in life, a figure of controversy. It
is almost not possible to have a balanced opinion on the ‘Iron Lady:’
you are either her devotee or her sworn enemy.
This lady caused more division of opinion than I have seen from any
other leader I have studied. In my student days, my fellows and I were
against anything she said or did: her assaults on the state and the
poor; her unyielding belief in capitalism of the crudest type; her
lamentable dismissal of African freedom fighters and support for brutal
dictators.
Her fans are just as strident in pointing out that this leader
rescued her nation from the throes of a failed socialism, and gave her
people belief and purpose again. With the benefit of more years of
experience today, I can see the truth in much of this.
Yet the people of Britain remain divided to the core on what Margaret
Thatcher’s true legacy is. The vitriol emerging on social media and the
streets after her death is truly shocking; a hate-filled song is even
being promoted to record her passing.
I come here this Sunday neither to damn the late leader nor to praise
her. I wish simply to comment on her leadership qualities. Even her
most bitter enemies would agree that this was a lady of unique courage
and determination, and a formidable adversary.
Where did this determination come from? If there was one thing I
appreciated in Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, and do so even more
strongly now, it is this: she did not care about being popular.
Think that over. Most of politics is about getting votes, and most
politicians bend over backwards to propose things that they gauge will
be popular. Margaret Thatcher, from the get-go, was just not like that.
She didn’t care if you liked her. She gave not a damn if you thought she
was right. She knew she was right, and she was bloody well going to
show you and convince you.
This is a forgotten attribute of leadership. These days, PR advisors
and market research firms run politics via focus groups and policy
testing. We are approaching the dumbest level of democracy, where things
are done simply because most people want them to be done.
The lady herself was unpopular as a minister and even more so as a
premier, as her strident cost-cuttings and bold privatizations ignited
massive opprobrium. She faced riots and protests throughout her early
days, as well as the distaste of the aristocracy and the disdain of the
intellectual class.
But the lady, as she declared proudly, was “not for turning.” She
plunged on regardless, and won two more terms, having convinced an
initially reluctant electorate that she was doing the right thing.
This is something to think about in leadership. Too many leaders are
way too concerned about being popular, or even about being liked. Too
often, the need for applause prevents us from doing our best work in
life, for we keep looking over our shoulders for approval from a crowd
that knows little about what is needed.
Absolute conviction can be a terrible thing when the convictions are
unsound and dangerous. Margaret Thatcher had many of those. But a
weak-kneed need for popular applause is as much a danger in leadership,
for it generates only timidity, populism and banality.
Look at source
