Good Leadership Includes Knowing When to Go

However, in a moment of unusual coincidence, the vitality of both Prime Minister Trudeau and President Biden’s hold on political leadership of their parties is in question. I’m going to skip any speculation as to how either of these situations will resolve themselves. Instead, let’s step back and reflect together on the assumptions about both leadership and the modern political party that are shaping these conversations.

Let’s start with leadership. I found Rudyard Griffith’s musings at The Hub insightful. In his account, the problem is accountability. Griffiths included France’s recent elections in his argument, suggesting that the “trifecta of elite blow-ups in the US, Canada, and France revealed just how deep the neurosis of ‘blame avoidance’ currently is within the commanding heights of our politics, media, and governments.  The consequences are far-reaching and will reverberate for months to come.” His argument is that there is “a persistent, if not intensifying, bias among our political elites to blame outside groups and forces for their failures, real or perceived.” While some frame the reluctance of President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau to make room for a successor as “holding onto leadership,” in Griffith’s account leadership would be knowing when it is time to go and acting accordingly, taking responsibility for the situation rather than blaming others.

There’s lots of media speculation as to who in their inner circles is either telling or withholding crucial information from these leaders. There’s a school of thought in Canada that the Liberals lag behind so far in the polls that a comeback is impossible. Rather than stepping aside and having his replacement face inevitable defeat, Trudeau is acting as a leader in staying on to wear the defeat in the next election to clear the deck for a successor. In that narrative, his staying on is an act of loyalty to the Liberal Party to better position it for recovery over the longer term.

It is interesting to hear party members of both the Canadian Liberal and American Democratic parties frame the question in terms of loyalty. Variations of the “he brought us here, he has earned the position, and therefore it’s up to him when he wants to leave” and “pushing him out is disloyal” arguments are common. Implicit in this is a version of a “great leader” philosophy. “The leader is the leader” is Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne's response, implying that achieving a position of leadership is in itself proof of worthiness. Forget the question as to whether four or ten years later this person is still the best option going forward. You don’t get to ask that question unless the person holding the position has determined it is time to move on. It’s a “deference to existing leadership” view of the world.

While that view is prominent, it is by no means the exclusive view. There are many, on both sides of the 49^th parallel who are adopting a “preservationist” view of leadership. Liberals in Canada and Democrats in the US can point to significant accomplishments from their time in office. The question as to who should lead them in the next election should be made with a view to preserving and embedding what they view as good things. Ironically, while both the Liberals and the Democrats are advocating issues that are more progressive, their argument is essentially conservative. The Prime Minister’s staffers are peddling a "need to finish the job" argument, even as there is scuttlebutt around town that various folks are busy "Pierre-proofing" the government’s accomplishments. Leadership in this view is less about the person than the issues at stake in a transition.

There’s also a third category of argument. It’s about responding to the moment and adapting to changing circumstances. If pitching the carbon tax is the way to advance the climate change agenda, do what you need to do. Respond to public opinion. Former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein famously advocated this philosophy of leadership: “See which way the parade is headed, and jump in front.” 

Many of the public arguments fit into these three categories. Less explicit, but probably of equal or greater influence, are the considerations of what the decision to hold onto leadership means for others. What changed the results of the Toronto—St. Paul’s by-election (ordinarily a non-event on the political calendar) into an existential crisis for the Liberal Party was the perception that if the Grits could lose a safe seat like St. Paul’s, there were no safe seats left for them. Whatever hopes incumbent MPs and their staffers might have had of holding onto their positions in the next general election became far more tenuous after that by-election result. Similarly in the United States, the perception is that after President Biden’s debate performance, there is no hope of his winning the election and he’d be taking the Democrats down with him. And while that sounds selfish, it is understandable. While engaged in public service, these individuals rely on winning elections for their paycheques and have career ambitions. Losing elections rarely contributes to either cause.

While the above framework applies to most leadership positions (and not just those who lead political parties), there is an overriding institutional question that overshadows this specific debate. The contexts are different, but it is striking how the political party each politician leads is practically incapable of forcing the decision. Having unclear formal structures and the decline of party institutions complicate this matter of succession.

Good leadership structures have a clear decision-maker. The buck needs to stop with someone and everyone should know who that is. But an institution also needs to be bigger than any one person. Good leadership relies on accountability structures in which there are meaningful ways to force the leader to make decisions that serve the good of the institution, and not rely solely on the leader’s goodwill or desires of the moment. Neither the Liberals in Canada nor the Democrats in the US appear to be well-served by their current structures. So, we are left with a public pleading for the leader to make the right decision but with little influence and few ways to force it.

Each leader faces a problem: how will a replacement be selected in a timely manner? The last time an American presidential nominee withdrew from the ballot was in 1968. When Lyndon Johnson withdrew, an unruly convention process selected Vice-President Hubert Humphrey to replace him, and that decision is responsible, according to many, for the Democrats losing the 1968 presidential election. There seems to be a process for replacing President Biden against his will, but in reality, this appears very complicated.

Institutional decline is clearest in Canada’s Liberal Party. It has undertaken a "road map to renewal", part of which has ended defined party memberships. So, unless the rules are changed (and there is little time to do that before the next election) any leadership race is open to the person who can recruit the most supporters. Special interest groups will have an organisational advantage over any leadership contestant and the risk is real (some say even likely) that such a race would become a referendum on the Middle East with anti-Isreal groups (already organised and passionately protesting) being able to use that process to elect a leader sympathetic to their cause.

So, unclear structures, organisational carelessness, and institutional decline leave Liberals and Democrats in a pickle.

It’s impossible to responsibly predict what will happen on either side of the border, but watching the machinations unfold publicly does expose the dangers that come with tinkering with institutional mechanisms. Institutions and structures matter. They are part of the way people become leaders. But when we divorce our concepts of leadership from the institutions themselves, and instead make leadership all about a person or cause, without appropriate accountability, we end up in the situation both Liberal and Democrat supporters find themselves in.

Dissension needs a process to sort itself out if leaders are to maintain their positions credibly and keep the support of their teams. Failure to establish clear institutional processes of accountability in good times makes the difficult times much harder. One of the dimensions of good leadership is being ready to leave and putting in place the means for your successor to build on the work you have done. Regardless of who stays or goes, the very existence of this situation is itself evidence of less-than-ideal leadership.