We’d all prefer to play life like a game of chess, plotting each move on a grid we oversee, governed by known rules.
But what happens when someone flips the board and all the pieces fly up in the air.
Chaos, tumult, worry and fear.
It’s Julia Gillard’s prerogative as Prime Minister to set the date for the next election, and most PMs like springing it on the Opposition to their own advantage.
But last week, Julia Gillard tried to return “certainty” to political life by setting the date for the 2013 election months before she needed to:
Not everything about the tenor and temperature of debate this year is in my control. But I can act to clear away the carry-on that comes with speculation about when the election will be held… I can act so Australia’s Parliament and Government serves their full three-year term and it is clear and certain when the election will be held.
The next few days saw a reshuffle as two senior members of the Government resigned. A “body blow.”
And yesterday we saw one of the worst polls Labor’s faced.
It seems like uncertainty in the only certainty in life. And it’s everywhere we look.
Founder of political consultancy Crosby | Textor, Mark Textor (@markatextor) (who helped Prime Minister John Howard win his many election victories) explored the precious quality of certainty in political life in an article he wrote for the SMH in 2011.
In Chaos Theory and its Application in Political Science, Joan Pere Plaza from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Dandoy Ré´gis from the University of Louvain, Belgium, explain the growing use of chaos theory and complexity science and how its use “can be explained by human psychology and by perception[s]“.
They note how voters’ greater awareness of the chaos and division in modern politics “via the news media” – and I’d contend social media – frustrates their driving desire to feel secure and “creates a more intense focus on order as a prime value” . “In other words”, they noted, “the public becomes more sensitive to the disorder”.
They found “our fear of disorder therefore makes it inevitable that we will either find or create an endless supply of it”.
So did Julia Gillard do the right thing trying to wrest control of the agenda?
Not according to Textor, who believes “the only certainty Prime Minister Julia Gillard has provided is a continuation of instability for the rest of us until polling day.”
But we’d make a case for yes.
First, she took a decision. Being decisive is a good quality in a leader. Firm leadership and a steady hand is a key buffer against uncertainty.
Second, it showed confidence. She gave up an asset she had in her back pocket (the ability to call an election at a moment’s notice) and said she didn’t need it. Tony Abbott is back on form now but the morning after her announcement he was shaky on the morning shows. “If she can give this up, what other strengths does she have I don’t know about?” He was rattled.
And third, she did the only thing a leader can do in the face of uncertainty. Take action.
Uncertainty is no excuse.
As Roger Martin wrote for the Harvard Business Review blog, poor leaders use uncertainty as an excuse to keep on doing business as usual.
Life is and always has been uncertain. If we live in an uncertain, fast-moving, turbulent world today, why would it be any different a week, a month or a year from now? If the world is too uncertain to choose today, what is it about the future than will make things more certain? At some point, do we simply declare the world to be certain enough to make strategy choices? How will we know it is the day? What criteria will we use to decide the requisite level of certainty has been reached? Or will we simply put off choosing forever, because certainty is utterly unachievable at any stage?
By boldly aiming towards September 14, Gillard’s recognised uncertainty is everywhere.
The key is to have the strategy and vision to act anyway.
Well, that’s the theory. And we have over 200 days (ugh) to see how it goes.
You might also like Leadership without easy answers in a time of spiralling complexity.