Why acuity is your leadership superpower

At the beginning of 2020 I was hosting a course for high-potential leaders in London.? They had traveled from all over the world, and during the course, news stories began to emerge of a virus outbreak in Wuhan, China.? I had no real sense of what was to come next, but I do remember chuckling and brushing off the views of a Russian executive.? She blithely suggested to us that the virus was likely manufactured, that the contagion would spread and that large pharmaceutical companies would be the main beneficiary.

Four years later, the world is still coming to terms with what happened and the fallout of longer-term non-Covid health impacts, the economic cost, and the deleterious educational and mental health outcomes for young people is still being felt.? Only this week I read that over half a million under 18’s in the UK are on some form of prescription antidepressant. It is too easy to go down the rabbit hole of social media, and depending on your preferences, cheer what was seen as a demonstration of communal societal heroics, and/or, despair at the collective madness of a governments’ pandemic overreach.

So how might we learn from what happened?

In the UK, we have a done a very British thing and set up a heavily lawyered Public Enquiry, reached out to the nation for submissions, and over what might be the next half-decade or more, have sought to unravel what happened, why policy makers responded in the way they did, and what lessons might be learned.? Much of the Enquiry’s approach will be about listening to, and challenging the decision makers at the heart of the policy response.

In the recent past similar public enquiries have leaned heavily on formal documentation, minutes from meetings, reviewing memos and emails for detail, context and clarity.? This particular enquiry is more modern, seeking to source and analyse the real-time WhatsApp messages exchanged between decision makers during the crisis.? Where these have been shared, it is possible to gain some powerful insights into the making of decisions, sense the hubris, as well as the debilitating nature of an unfolding crisis.

Much attention has been focused on Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister in 2020, who despite himself being ill with the virus earlier in the year, was wholly unconvinced by the autumn that lockdowns worked and the government needed to “recalibrate”.? In mid-October 2020 Johnson said he was “rocked” by analysis that the average age of those dying was over 80, adding: "That is above life expectancy. So get Covid and live longer.”? He went on to say “I no longer buy all this NHS overwhelmed stuff”. He had apparently lost faith in the central argument for lockdown and that it was necessary to limit the number of cases to a level the health service could cope with.? But on 31 October, just over a fortnight after the exchange, the government announced another lockdown in England.

His political advisor Lee Cain seemed to hint at the real reason, which was nothing to do with modelled health outcomes, or rational science, but (keeping open) “was not politically viable”. Polling showed that lockdowns, furlough, banning sports attendance, even school closures, were politically popular. Why would the UK stay open when much of the world was similarly inured by the same logic?

Different voices

A key moment in the decision-making drama seems to be in late September when Johnson met three key individuals with a very different view of the prevailing advice in favour of stricter lockdowns, social distancing and travel restrictions.? Johnson met with Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Professor Sunetra Gupta?of the?University of Oxford and an international viewpoint was sought from Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell. Under the direction of Tegnell, Sweden had been a regarded as an “outlier” during the pandemic and had imposed only relatively mild public restrictions, while relying on citizens to behave in a way that made sense to them. Even now, with the hindsight of lockdown impacts and unintended consequences, these are often regarded as controversial for their scepticism about lockdowns.? ?

But despite the likely controversy, Johnson and his Chancellor (now PM) Rishi Sunak, attended the meeting and the decision to lockdown after a summer relaxation was delayed while the ‘politics’ of staying open was debated on WhatsApp.? But only weeks later, lockdowns were enforced with wonderfully contrived public restrictions such as the “rule of six”, a four-tiered system of containment and a media communication blitz that closed much of the country, effectively cancelled Christmas and, enhanced by travel and border restrictions, remained in place for another nine months until July 2021.? Subsequently there seems much evidence that Johnson, and many of those working most closely with him had little regard, or indeed any actual fear, of Covid, and partied throughout the Christmas period. Ultimately that hypocrisy cost Johnson his premiership.

So, why scribe so many words (thus far) on retelling such a miserable episode from the UK?? Johnson was deeply flawed, but to his credit here, he at least sought some contrarian views.? The world of leadership and business is full of stories of indefatigable alpha types who steam ahead with a fixed dogmatic approach, or an inflexible strategy without using their inbuilt radar to sense check, encourage and seek a contrarian view.

The risks of single-minded determinism

Resolving the thorny dilemmas that arise in deciding on a new strategy, executing a plan, or leading change tend not to be epoch-making binary decisions, but finer margin calls, requiring careful judgement. They rely helpfully on gut feeling, but also on good data, critical evaluation, impartial advice and a practiced wariness of the ‘bias’ traps of confirmation, escalation and commitment.??

Most of all, good decisions are best not taken in an echo chamber of nodding assent, but among diverse colleagues who feel able to challenge the way we see the world.? Famously, Fred Goodwin, the CEO of RBS before its collapse, was reputably “cold, analytical and unsympathetic” in his manner and while he may have sought other’s views, it could have been that his ferocious reputation meant views he didn’t want to hear were seldom volunteered.

No one wants to work for an ogre, or an imbecile.? We want our leaders to be honest, fair and purposeful, but also to be rigorous, good decision-makers, who demonstrate agility, humility and authenticity, whilst exercising their curiosity in wrestling with the demands of a complicated world!? Such leadership is enormously demanding, but given the experience of recent years, I am doubling-down on the vital importance of one particular leadership quality.? Great leaders will be those who can also demonstrate acuity.?

The need for acuity

Only the very best leaders demonstrate something called acuity.? My online dictionary defines acuity as "a sharpness, or keenness of thought, vision or hearing”. But the applications of the word are much broader, suggesting acuteness of perception, increased sensitivity or sharpness, an exactitude and discernment of receptivity both in vision and aurally.? Leaders need to hear with acuity, as well as being able to clearly share their thoughts and vision with others.? Discernment of what is valid and what is just more “noise” represents an extraordinary challenge for all of us.? Acuity becomes more vital in a world of hybrid and remote working, where we are over-supplied with Artificial Intelligence, data, news feeds, customer feedback and analytical overload.

There are ways leaders can role-model their keen attentiveness and their sense of acuity can be made more obvious for others. For example, those who seem to see the world with greatest clarity appear to invest much time in exploring it through the eyes, ears and feelings of others - actively listening, seeking views, being widely connected, sensing the pulse, the gossip, the tone and mood of the firm. They encourage ideas as well as hear dissent.

Leaders who lead us through the fog.

As we enter the next stage of this decade, we must prepare for thick fog, heavy mist and smoke. In a critical election year for much of the planet, business leaders will need a to keep a keen eye on politics.? In our workplaces we need leaders who lead us through the fog.? Amid much noise, discord and an increasingly politicised debate about trust, leaders in business are most likely to be regarded as a trusted truth-teller, not through their written communication channels, but through the ways they are seen to behave.

These leaders will be seen as accessible and actively engaged in different internal and external communities, well read, in touch with society (not just socially well connected) and comfortable with diversity and dissension. They will leave time to explore ambiguity and listen, but, after some reflection, will communicate a clear, compelling, sense of the right ways to tackle the challenges of the future. Maybe this is too high a bar for our politicians, whatever their party or flavour. I will also concede that this might describe an extraordinarily high bar for the already exhausted business leader to aspire to.?

But can you imagine working for someone like that? Join the queue.?

John Dore, March 2024

This article includes a segment from an article which appeared in THINK, the thought-leadership journal for London Business School in March 2020, and refers to a section of my book GLUE" Transforming Leadership in a Hybrid World.