Leaders often say things in public that do not reflect reality. This is a real problem when they stop caring and do this knowingly.
I
Photo: ITVI once had a boss who pulled me aside during one of our work trips. “We have a problem,” she said to me, “our programs are not working. They are not doing what we are saying.”
Most of the briefings and talking points we had received to do our public communication were wishful thinking for the future. They had in a complex editing process (with very many cooks in the kitchen/organisation) been stretched in many directions.
A simple fix would have been to change our talking points and communication. I (very naively) suggested this. I was immediately vetoed, as this wouldn’t work for fundraising. And this was not the image and legacy my boss wanted to have and leave: heading programs working on the margins, not the silver bullet transformation that changes the world.
Another more complex solution would have been to reform our programs. But our claims were so extraordinarily ambitious.
So we all lived with this knowledge (some of us for a shorter time, some longer): we were not doing what we were saying.
What leaders communicate, and why
The above anecdote will resonate with many people, working in government, private sector, multilateral organisations, and NGOs.
In government and politics, it’s common to criticise “lying politicians” who stretch truths (especially before elections) to gain or stay in power.
In the private sector, it’s known that there is always some fine print (often in hidden annexes and contracts) that fully contradicts grand promises.
In many multilaterals and NGOs, fundraising often drives public communication, not the reality of programs.
There are of course leaders who are simply ignorant of the fact that what has been drafted for them isn’t true. Middle managers and staff who are fearful to speak out keep toeing the line. Some who try may be reprimanded that they do not see “the full picture”, and it may indeed be the case that their specific part needs some edits, but that’s because of their own poor performance.
Other leaders knowingly stretch the truth (or leave out critically important information), because their boards expect them to do this. Leaders’ KPIs (and triggers whether they get to keep their leadership positions) are often based on growth, profits, and visibility – not on creating change. The latter is a problem left to programming and implementation.
Some leaders may grapple with this tension personally, but put up a stoic face to justify their claims in public. A grave problem arises when leaders stop caring. As long as the limelight is there, their legacy is a step to another leadership position, or keeps them in power, all means are justified for these ends.
Reality – whose reality?
Some leaders suffer from a reality disconnect. They work in large organisations and hierarchies, and reality is buffered through so many middle managers. They may be receiving fully contradictory or incomplete information. And you just need one weak link, just as in the game “telephone”, where one wrong or knowingly distorted whisper results in wrong messaging.
Some leaders also prefer spending their time and energy engaging with other leaders. They spend so much time planning what they would like to say compared to others that they don’t have time or capacity to listen or digest what their organisations are actually doing or can do.
Other leaders believe that what they say will become reality. It’s just the reality in the future, which others much figure out how to implement.
And finally, information on “reality” may simply not be available to leaders or entire organisations. Data may not be available, or may only become evident later, or may not be accessible or of sufficiently reliable quality. Without data (quantitative or qualitative), leaders and entire organisations may be (for some conveniently) flying blind.
Values and integrity
Ultimately, leadership communication comes down to values and integrity.
Does a leader know what they are trying to change, and are they honest about where things stand in reality right now?
When something does not work, is a leader willing to take the ultimate responsibility (and be willing to step down)?
Are leaders willing to be transparent about all information? Or do they cut and try to hide what is less shiny in the fine print. Do they correct media which distorts or gets information wrong?
And are leaders and organisations open to honest communication from staff and middle managers, including whistleblowing where needed?
The case of G7 and Covid19 vaccines
Right now, G7 leaders are meeting in the UK. We’re seeing a live example of rhetoric not matching reality.
UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson is issuing statement after statement about “landmark global leadership” of the UK, while simultaneously pushing the largest ODA cuts in recent UK history.
And nearly all G7 members are making grand pledges to donate funds (and some, vaccine doses) to the global multilateral vaccine mechanism for Covid19, Covax. Most adding qualifier clauses (“when domestic situations permit”), or dropping timelines (perhaps one day, in 2040?). Even when timelines are mentioned, the “domestic situation” qualifier clause is included (such as the recent US pledge of 500 million doses to Covax).
In these cases, G7 leaders are very knowingly trying to mislead citizens, media, and also multilateral and civil society organisations.
Sometimes, neither side cares. Applause for donors, success stories for multilateral fundraising? Tick.
This is a prime example of a moral failure. It will cost lives. Is that really the price of limelight, some initial media and civil society applause, and power?
If the answer is yes, is this the leadership you want?
Katri Bertram 