Dirty Hands and Clean Heels: 21 days of political leadership in the UK

Abstract

The paper discusses 21 days of political leadership in the UK following the EU referendum, the publication of the Chilcot Report on the Iraq War, and the appointment of a new cabinet by the new Prime Minister, Theresa May. It begins by modelling four possible approaches to political decision-making by taking into account the intent of the decision-maker, their acceptance or avoidance of responsibility, and the nature of the consequences. It suggests 'Dirty Hands' exists when the decision-maker recognizes the deleterious consequences of what they deem to be necessary action -and intends to engender these -but takes responsibility. Clean Heels embodies a decision where the decision-maker recognizes the consequences might be deleterious, and intends them to be so, but avoids all responsibility. Mea Culpa describes a decision-maker who did not intend deleterious consequences but having seen them occur takes responsibility. Finally, the Spectator is someone who has no intention of making any difference to anything and thus takes no responsibility, but often plays a destructively critical role from the sidelines. This heuristic -and it is no more than a heuristic -is then illustrated by considering the actions of four decisionmakers during this period:

Ukraine 2022, through the leadership binoculars

“…The re-composition of the cognitive framing of the past and the emergence of "blame games" has occasioned different types of coping mechanisms. Some decision-makers, such as the German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier, attempted a Mea Culpa (Grint, 2016). Steinmeier's line of argument was that he always acted in the best of intentions, and that he was not alone in getting Putin wrong.…”

“…Merkel is finding herself in a situation similar to that of British Prime Minister Cameron, following the debacle of the Brexit referendum in 2016; only that she is luckier, as the trainwreck did not occur on her watch. Her answer to the underestimation of Russian aggression is a resounding silence, which, by the way, adds a fifth variant to the political decision-making heuristic proposed by Grint (2016).…”

Brexiting CMS

“…More broadly, it would involve investigating the role of the wide range of organizations, institutions, social movements and individuals (e.g. media and social media, financial institutions, local, national and supranational governments, NGOs, political and business leaders (Grint, 2016), think tanks, universities, academics) in shaping and/or failing to shape popular and political opinion underpinning heritage populism and its alternatives. The stance of political performativity would foster the view of CMS and CMS scholars as actors among many in these wider networks of power, and thus as possessing no greater nor lesser a priori entitlement to influence and impact the sociomaterial arrangements of which they are a part than anyone else.…”

Call for papers – Special Paper Series of Organization: Populist responses to austerity and cultural change: Brexit, Trumpism and beyond

“…1. Critical analyses of populism, Brexit, Trumpism, and beyond ○ ○ Analyses of underlying structural issues, causes and reasons relating to the Brexit and Trump votes; ○ ○ Studies of the organisation of the EU referendum and US election campaigns, the branding and marketing of Brexit and Trumpism; ○ ○ Analyses of the subsequent management of Brexit, Trump presidency and the role of political leaders (see Grint, 2016); ○ ○ Critical studies of media and social media and their role in populist victories, through the shaping and/or failing to shape public and political opinion; ○ ○ Examinations of the impact of Brexit, Trumpism and so on, on organisations, organisational reactions and their consequences; ○ ○ Examinations of the role of organisations in shaping populist rebellions; the role of organisations in shaping and/or failing to shape popular and political opinion; ○ ○ Analyses of absences, silences and margins -for example, the voices of the disenfranchised, those who live and work in the United Kingdom and the United States who were not allowed to vote but who experience the consequences of the votes (most) acutely; ○ ○ Studies of populism and the workplace: tensions between colleagues and emotions at work; ○ ○ Analyses of the behaviour of financial institutions, for example, the role of the financial crisis, the City of London and the effect of the fall of the pound (see Pettifor, 2016); ○ ○ Critiques of EU management/governance from European and non-European perspectives; ○ ○ Analyses of efforts to re-organise and repair after populist victories, the role of social movements and civil society; ○ ○ Theorisations of (post)populist futures: what sort of world of work and organisational lives are we heading towards?…”