I remember a university discussion about leadership which referred to the behaviours of buffalo when moving as a pack.
When the herd is on the move the strongest bulls run at the front and on the flanks, forming a protective shield to safeguard the herd. Other strong bulls watch over the stragglers at the back and make sure that none are left behind. The goal is always in the best interests of the herd.
That is until the herd is at risk. Once there is a threat, usually in the form of predators such as lions or hyenas, they will let the weakest go. It’s a fine balance between unity and survival. But the survival of the herd is paramount.
I was reminded of the buffalo by this week’s developments in the over-hyped TV news event that was the National Party leadership crisis.
We learned this week that, while one of the senior members of the National Party caucus may have fancied his chances as a challenger for the leadership, the much-hyped coup attempt appeared to involve a small group of comparatively junior MPs, who, in my view, may be acting out their frustrations at not seeing their own careers igniting nor their talents recognised through promotion.
The good thing that came out of the flare-up was that Mike Hosking named the five MPs live on Newstalk ZB on Tuesday morning. And then, at last, the issue was brought into the open.
It turns out that the “not so famous five” are not so hot either.
One of the five had previously resigned from a ministerial role following publicly reported concerns about conduct, a matter that was widely covered at the time. Some commentators speculated at the time about leadership handling of that resignation, though reporting also suggested it occurred before any formal intervention.
The other four make interesting reading. All are electorate MPs, and based on publicly available party list rankings, sat well down the list at the last election.
A couple appear to have been demoted in the list lineup before the 2023 election. Can you see the pattern? Most people who go into politics dream of becoming Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister at least. This group may well have concluded that that’s not going to happen to them.
So why not put a bit of energy into promoting someone who might give your career a leg up?
The All Blacks have a well-advertised discipline that says “no dickheads”. Elsewhere, I once heard a business leader say “don’t send your turkeys to eagle school”. What I’ll call the “Flakey Five” should take note.
At this week’s caucus meeting, it seems that the Prime Minister called out the behaviour. He put his leadership to the vote. He’s been retained. That should be the end of it.
I was reminded of the buffalo by this week’s developments in the over-hyped TV news event that was the National Party leadership crisis.
We learned this week that, while one of the senior members of the National Party caucus may have fancied his chances as a challenger for the leadership, the much-hyped coup attempt appeared to involve a small group of comparatively junior MPs, who, in my view, may be acting out their frustrations at not seeing their own careers igniting nor their talents recognised through promotion.
The good thing that came out of the flare-up was that Mike Hosking named the five MPs live on Newstalk ZB on Tuesday morning. And then, at last, the issue was brought into the open.
It turns out that the “not so famous five” are not so hot either.
One of the five had previously resigned from a ministerial role following publicly reported concerns about conduct, a matter that was widely covered at the time. Some commentators speculated at the time about leadership handling of that resignation, though reporting also suggested it occurred before any formal intervention.
The other four make interesting reading. All are electorate MPs, and based on publicly available party list rankings, sat well down the list at the last election.
A couple appear to have been demoted in the list lineup before the 2023 election. Can you see the pattern? Most people who go into politics dream of becoming Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister at least. This group may well have concluded that that’s not going to happen to them.
So why not put a bit of energy into promoting someone who might give your career a leg up?
The All Blacks have a well-advertised discipline that says “no dickheads”. Elsewhere, I once heard a business leader say “don’t send your turkeys to eagle school”. What I’ll call the “Flakey Five” should take note.
At this week’s caucus meeting, it seems that the Prime Minister called out the behaviour. He put his leadership to the vote. He’s been retained. That should be the end of it.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon appears on Newstalk ZB
Mike Hosking Breakfast this week. Photo / Michael Craig
Let’s be honest. Christopher Luxon is not perfect. He’s said himself that he’s not that great at the eight-second sound-bite and his business background means that he’s not dripping in political experience. He sometimes gets flustered and muddles his words too.
But you can’t deny his passion for the betterment of the country, and right now we need as much of that as we can get.
Luxon’s holding a challenging coalition together, largely without incident. And we shouldn’t overlook the progress on education, trade or infrastructure either. You’d probably suggest that the Government is handling the fuel crisis pretty well, too, although it’s not getting any credit for it. A number of his key people are stepping up and performing well.
And yet, here he is, with what I see as some of the weakest members of his herd, putting the herd at risk. What would the lead buffalo do?
Sadly, the situation we’ve watched unfold is not unique to our parliamentary environment. I’ve seen plenty of similar behaviour in various corners of our communities, businesses, councils and government departments.
In short, we have too many people in positions of authority or responsibility, who aren’t good enough, in my opinion. I’ve seen this over the years in boardrooms, charitable organisations and appointment panels, and the situation has become worse as the DEI movement gained control of the appointment process. This week, we’ve seen the impact of our underperformers in the political sphere. But it’s not limited to politics.
Those who aren’t good enough make their way by criticising rather than contributing. They stand against plenty of things but seldom make anything positive happen. Their career is usually advanced through their support of others rather than anything they might bring themselves.
They network their way in, often volunteering where the barriers are lowest. They hang around and they don’t upset the apple cart. Next thing you know, they’re in positions of responsibility, positions they’re not up to.
The problem is not that we don’t have enough good people. We have plenty of good people in this country. The problem is that they either don’t put their hand up or they don’t get selected.
To those who don’t put their hands up, I get it. When it comes to politics, I can understand the reluctance to put yourselves in such a position. Why would you do it?
However, when the best person for the job doesn’t get selected, that’s when the enterprise and its stakeholders are the losers.
Good government is a team effort. Sure, like any enterprise, the leader carries the bulk of the pressure. But any leader is only as good as the team around them. That team has an obligation to contribute. To “make the boat go faster”.
Let’s be honest. Christopher Luxon is not perfect. He’s said himself that he’s not that great at the eight-second sound-bite and his business background means that he’s not dripping in political experience. He sometimes gets flustered and muddles his words too.
But you can’t deny his passion for the betterment of the country, and right now we need as much of that as we can get.
Luxon’s holding a challenging coalition together, largely without incident. And we shouldn’t overlook the progress on education, trade or infrastructure either. You’d probably suggest that the Government is handling the fuel crisis pretty well, too, although it’s not getting any credit for it. A number of his key people are stepping up and performing well.
And yet, here he is, with what I see as some of the weakest members of his herd, putting the herd at risk. What would the lead buffalo do?
Sadly, the situation we’ve watched unfold is not unique to our parliamentary environment. I’ve seen plenty of similar behaviour in various corners of our communities, businesses, councils and government departments.
In short, we have too many people in positions of authority or responsibility, who aren’t good enough, in my opinion. I’ve seen this over the years in boardrooms, charitable organisations and appointment panels, and the situation has become worse as the DEI movement gained control of the appointment process. This week, we’ve seen the impact of our underperformers in the political sphere. But it’s not limited to politics.
Those who aren’t good enough make their way by criticising rather than contributing. They stand against plenty of things but seldom make anything positive happen. Their career is usually advanced through their support of others rather than anything they might bring themselves.
They network their way in, often volunteering where the barriers are lowest. They hang around and they don’t upset the apple cart. Next thing you know, they’re in positions of responsibility, positions they’re not up to.
The problem is not that we don’t have enough good people. We have plenty of good people in this country. The problem is that they either don’t put their hand up or they don’t get selected.
To those who don’t put their hands up, I get it. When it comes to politics, I can understand the reluctance to put yourselves in such a position. Why would you do it?
However, when the best person for the job doesn’t get selected, that’s when the enterprise and its stakeholders are the losers.
Good government is a team effort. Sure, like any enterprise, the leader carries the bulk of the pressure. But any leader is only as good as the team around them. That team has an obligation to contribute. To “make the boat go faster”.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon reading his statement
to the media after the National caucus vote. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Being a team player doesn’t mean you can’t ask the tough questions. Someone once said to me that if you want better outcomes, you should stress test your ideas under tension. That tension comes from robust discussion. I would expect any Cabinet to debate their decisions vigorously.
That means that the people we need in leadership roles are the people who ask tough questions. People who challenge the status quo and look for a better way. These people, by and large, are not appeasers; they are challengers. But they are needed in every team. They are especially needed given the wide challenges of government.
There’s a fine line between challenging and criticising. What you don’t need inside the team is criticism, especially if it comes from people who don’t bring alternative suggestions.
The antics of the Flakey Five suggest to me that there are MPs who may be more focused on advancing their own careers than serving the country. My guess is that we have a lot of them.
At its worst, such behaviour is demonstrated overseas. Clampdowns on free speech, primarily for the purpose of eliminating open dialogue challenging government policy, is a survival strategy being employed by politicians in some countries. Elsewhere, political leaders turning a blind eye to ridiculous levels of immigration in order to generate votes from the new arrivals is another such example.
For the moment, we don’t have those types of “worst behaviours”. And long may that continue.
However, as we have seen over many years, we do have people right across our Parliament who are not there for us. They are there for themselves.
At the end of the year, we will be asked to vote for the next Government. My vote will go to the group of people who I think have the desire and capability to deliver the best for New Zealand.
Because if we get the best for the country, the country has the best chance of delivering for the causes we hold as important. A better health system, education improvements and trade opportunities will come if we have the right people in the right places doing the right things, right. Not for themselves, but for us.
But if those people are only there for their own agendas, or pursuing support for their own narrow interest groups, we will not get the best outcomes for the country.
Perhaps the Flakey Five don’t understand that it’s not about them and nor is it about their careers. I’m sure that rolling a sitting PM, the one who put you into Government no less, and supporting a likely challenger, might have resulted in a better place on the ladder, a place more suited to one’s aspirations, if that challenger won. But he didn’t. Instead, they’ll carry only the wounds of defeat.
And we know what the buffalo do with the wounded animals. When the survival of the herd is at risk, the herd leave the wounded behind.
These people risked the survival of the herd.
Bruce Cotterill, a five time CEO and current Company Chairman and Director with extensive experience across a range of industries including real estate, media, financial services, technology and retail. Bruce regularly blogs on brucecotterill.com - where this article was sourced
Being a team player doesn’t mean you can’t ask the tough questions. Someone once said to me that if you want better outcomes, you should stress test your ideas under tension. That tension comes from robust discussion. I would expect any Cabinet to debate their decisions vigorously.
That means that the people we need in leadership roles are the people who ask tough questions. People who challenge the status quo and look for a better way. These people, by and large, are not appeasers; they are challengers. But they are needed in every team. They are especially needed given the wide challenges of government.
There’s a fine line between challenging and criticising. What you don’t need inside the team is criticism, especially if it comes from people who don’t bring alternative suggestions.
The antics of the Flakey Five suggest to me that there are MPs who may be more focused on advancing their own careers than serving the country. My guess is that we have a lot of them.
At its worst, such behaviour is demonstrated overseas. Clampdowns on free speech, primarily for the purpose of eliminating open dialogue challenging government policy, is a survival strategy being employed by politicians in some countries. Elsewhere, political leaders turning a blind eye to ridiculous levels of immigration in order to generate votes from the new arrivals is another such example.
For the moment, we don’t have those types of “worst behaviours”. And long may that continue.
However, as we have seen over many years, we do have people right across our Parliament who are not there for us. They are there for themselves.
At the end of the year, we will be asked to vote for the next Government. My vote will go to the group of people who I think have the desire and capability to deliver the best for New Zealand.
Because if we get the best for the country, the country has the best chance of delivering for the causes we hold as important. A better health system, education improvements and trade opportunities will come if we have the right people in the right places doing the right things, right. Not for themselves, but for us.
But if those people are only there for their own agendas, or pursuing support for their own narrow interest groups, we will not get the best outcomes for the country.
Perhaps the Flakey Five don’t understand that it’s not about them and nor is it about their careers. I’m sure that rolling a sitting PM, the one who put you into Government no less, and supporting a likely challenger, might have resulted in a better place on the ladder, a place more suited to one’s aspirations, if that challenger won. But he didn’t. Instead, they’ll carry only the wounds of defeat.
And we know what the buffalo do with the wounded animals. When the survival of the herd is at risk, the herd leave the wounded behind.
These people risked the survival of the herd.
Bruce Cotterill, a five time CEO and current Company Chairman and Director with extensive experience across a range of industries including real estate, media, financial services, technology and retail. Bruce regularly blogs on brucecotterill.com - where this article was sourced
6 comments:
If you are a businessman then no doubt you have every reason to support National. However, for many New Zealanders who see the slow creep to tribalism depriving them of equal opportunities, Luxon does not appear to be the answer.
This inequality is evident in our very language, healthcare, the recent "water care" controversy, education and university content, business contracts and land rights. All very subtle to be sure but happening none the less.
Maybe the five MPs are genuinely concerned for their fellow citizens? Maybe they see entering politics being a complete waste of time if they or their colleagues are going to lose their seats and income at the next election?
As a voter, I am very pleased that we have at least a couple of MPs prepared to question the very dubious co-governance direction.
It looks like Hosking got the names from Luxon.
Michael Laws Breaks Down Luxon’s Leadership & His Real Ongoing Problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XENd91__2fE
I know two of the MPs well. One is my local MP. They and the others say they did not leak. I certainly believe the two I know.
Luxon would not have this problem if he had stood by his election mandate concerning the ongoing racist division.
Until he openly addressing that he is toast.
You’ve put your finger on the problem Bruce, but you don’t actually have a solution, with the possible exception of just hoping harder. There is no prospect of improving our governance under the existing dysfunctional system.
Hmmm. - feeling quite charmed by your buffalo metaphor - then wake up and think, "that's not Luxon at all - a herdsman " Think again - maybe that's precisely what he is, doing this deal in secret without seeking the understanding and agreement of hoi polloi to what will be a very significant social, as well as financial, international connexion.
So Luxon is some top level CEI, but gets flustered. The leader should be up for robust discussions, but he gets flustered.
There is as much proof that the five are who was claimed as there is Luxon dropped them in the excrement. Not the move of a leader who can do anything but be flustered.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.