I’ve been contemplating the nature of leadership after
the death of Tessa Jowell. In the first
comments when it was announced, what came over was her ‘niceness’. ‘She got on with everybody’ was a common phrase,
‘a gem’, ‘a great person’, ‘her likeable personality’, she ‘exuded cheerfulness
and gave even those she had only just met the sense of being one of her old
friends’.
Further reading
demonstrated that she was an exceptional leader: respected by all regardless of
politics, class or ethnicity and she got things done. It seemed that no matter
the complexity of the issue, or the political sensitivity it generated, she was
the person who could deal with it.
She had the tricky task of dealing with the DoH, was
minister of state with responsibility for women, minister for employment, welfare to work and
equal opportunities. Following the drive
to improve standards she introduced health targets, maternity and paternity
leave and Sure Start which supported and empowered young mothers. She became
Culture Secretary and brought the Olympics to London, was given responsibility
for looking after the victims of 9/11 and the London bombings. She was in charge when the future of
broadcasting was in the headlines and introduced Ofcom and adroitly handled the
controversy of her husband’s involvement with Berlusconi. Then of course there was her campaign for
improved services for those afflicted with cancer.
It was a record that any leader would be proud of and who
can name any leader in the private sector who can say they were faced with the level
of challenges she faced and dealt with them as competently?
So why did people default to her ‘niceness’ when describing
her? Could it be that, because
leadership terminology is structured around male qualities of strength,
determination, drive, power, they did not have the language to describe her
undoubted leadership qualities? That by her
being female it revealed people’s unconscious biases about what constitutes
leadership?
Further reading revealed that people also noted her
ability to ask ‘penetrating questions’, her ‘passion, determination and a sense
of mission’, a ‘visionary’ who saw how things could be, a woman with ‘internal
steel’. She consummately combined those
qualities with a high degree of emotional intelligence to achieve what is now
being lauded throughout the country.
So yes, I would say that ‘niceness’ is a leadership
quality but it’s the niceness that’s also accompanied by a sharp intellect, a commitment
and belief that anything is possible and the ability to communicate that to
everyone within their sphere. Alas, there
are too few leaders like her, and too few who recognise and encourage that
potential within others.
