In an earlier column this year, I noted the fact that we are in an election year and enthused about the prospects of what fascinating machinations lay ahead of us. Last week my predictions came true with the Labor Party’s careful orchestration of announcing Peter Garrett as a potential candidate.
In an earlier column this year, I noted the fact that we are in an election year and enthused about the prospects of what fascinating machinations lay ahead of us. Last week my predictions came true with the Labor Party’s careful orchestration of announcing Peter Garrett as a potential candidate.
Apart from being an excuse for the papers to come up with clichéd headlines worse than mine above, the former Midnight Oil frontman’s second tilt at federal politics provides a few nice examinations of leadership, priorities and aspirations that are very analogous to HR and management in general.
On the one hand there is Peter Garrett – to many, as close to a folk hero as you can get in Australia. He’s a celebrity through and through and what’s so attractive to Labor is that he is a celebrity who has become so on a plank of principles, strong views and values. In short, he could be the knockout blow that Mark Latham has been looking for. Not only would he bring a large proportion of the green vote, he has the respect of indigenous people as well as a majority of Australians. He is quite possibly an election winner.
On the other hand, there is the line being argued by the rank and file of the Kingsford-Smith electorate. They have worked hard to represent the people of the area and should be able to put forth one of their own. After all, why be a member of a political party to only have an outsider parachuted into your seat?
This question cuts to the heart of leadership. In a corporate environment, we are constantly hearing about the virtues of growing your own leaders. Bringing in an outsider does not send a good message to the rank and file of a corporation – your hard work will not eventually be rewarded with a leadership position. Not very motivating or loyalty evoking.
However a corporation has a responsibility to its staff and shareholders alike to secure the very best leaders it can – homegrown or imported.
What is the right answer? Surely the bigger picture must be taken into account. It’s difficult to effect change from opposition. Is not the healthy reason for being part of a political party the result of an overriding desire to make this country a better place. Is it not a case of putting the best team on the field to allow that change to come about?
Great stuff.
