by Michael Stuber || 15. October 2024 || Leadership & Culture, Policy & Politics

Responsible leadership is also needed in Politics and Society

Juridical frameworks and societal values used to serve as reference points for corporate DEI strategies. They have, however, become challenging forces with drastic impact in some respects.

Politicians who perceive diversity to incompatible with meritocracy, activists who condemn older men across the board or the media who predominantly portray migration as a ‘problem’. Is all this part of a healthy, diverse reality or are these unfortunate social slips? Are we experiencing a new ‘quality’ in this discourse or has this fight always existed? And does a constructive, pragmatic alternative to this ideology-led approach exist in the first place?

From my current work on ‘DEI Leadership in companies’, the following critical review of leadership in politics and society seems important as it shows current and future needs.

About living together and surviving together

The history of mankind is based on migration and diversity. Tribes had to or wanted to live elsewhere, and they had to or wanted to come to an agreement with each other as to whether and how this could be achieved together. Genetic diversity ultimately led to higher development and the greater the challenges became, be it technical or related to the curiosity to discover the world, the more important collaboration across all kinds of borders became.

The challenges we face today, from climate change to health, food supply or security, affect societies around the world and require – I always thought this would be obvious – joint efforts. Instead, for some eight years, I have been observing ever more and ever new tendencies towards division, driven by both political and social leaders. The spectrum ranges from ideological parties and social activists to the media and public administration. What they all seem to have in common is a drive in favour of their own interests or those of their reference group. This inevitably fuels dispute and while not helping to solve major, complex challenges. These require, as mentioned, joint efforts and, in order to get there: responsible leadership.

Toxic politics of boogeymen

Finding the best solutions for almost anything requires, evidently, a combination of diverse competences and perspectives which, at times, entails intense debate. If there is a lack of will, expertise or other factors, politicians of all eras have found another way to win votes and enlist active following – and bonding (fascio): The scapegoat strategy.

Up until 2016, especially small parties, dismissed as extremist, used the methodology of blaming certain groups in a stereotypical way. The fact that Donald Trump was successful with a hate-filled, demagogic election campaign against a number of social groups (who would still vote for him) and that the Brexit referendum was adopted following a similar strategy, this all triggered a domino effect.

Since then, political and social forces have been successfully campaigning and agitating with accusation and blame, mostly directed against certain groups. From the Middle Ages to the 1930s, Jews served as scapegoats; today it is mostly migrants (although, only those from recent decades) or, depending on the topic and situation, the older generation, the Greens, the rich, the woke, the unemployed or LGBT+.

This list may well be disturbing, and it should be. Because despite the diversity of the contexts, the common mechanism of assigning blame on the basis of stereotypical assumptions is obvious, at least to me. Social shortcuts will probably always exist when people meet. However, we are currently seeing a dangerous normalisation of such accusation strategies in several environments.

Counterproductive political leadership

For years, racist or nationalist movements and parties were demonised as neo-Nazism. However, since they became successful with intelligent strategies, other parties have adopted their themes or rhetoric. Depending on the spectrum different effects show up:

Parties on the left have enjoyed similar success to those on the right
Centre-right parties, though, have primarily consolidated their core electorate, while they do not see the hoped-for gains

The problematic effects of imitating or joining these strategies are, firstly, that derogatory approaches are made acceptable and get implicitly approved and, secondly, that new space is created for even more drastic positions – because the previously extreme content has already become mainstream.

This is where I miss responsible leadership from opinion leaders such as, for example in Germany, Friedrich Merz, Markus Söder or Christian Lindner. They have recently damaged the political and social climate with unacceptable divisive and even polarising messages. Instead of presenting constructive ideas or positive vision of our (!) future that do justice to complex challenges and are valuable for everyone, they grapple with ‘others’ to score points.

Well-intentioned activism with side effects

Social protest appears to take a completely different approach. From climate emergency to #MeToo, #BLM or Pride, people are campaigning for issues that they consider relevant for a larger group, for entire societies or the whole world. This commitment appears altruistic by definition and any criticism – even of the activists disrupting public life or damaging art – provokes the suspicion of being reactionary.

In the context of responsible leadership, however, the question must be asked as to what broader, holistic view the respective opinion leaders have of all affected groups or issues. For example, the clearly ageist narratives of several movements are rarely challenged. It took anti-Semitic statements from activists to make people jump (for a second). Disproportionately high levels of sympathy for extreme parties among young voters ultimately (in some regions) have in the meantime revealed a fundamental alienation.

In activist environments, responsible leadership should strengthen a wider view of things, consider interdependencies between topics and groups and, above all, demand a clear coherence of values. Sweeping accusations must be a no-go, otherwise the credibility of entire movements will (further) erode.

Media, education and the public sector as crucial links

With their broad, almost universal remit, the media, educational institutions and public bodies should actually balance or counterbalance divisive tendencies or polarisation. As I write this, I realise that – from a global perspective – this might well be an idealised, romantic notion. Nevertheless, I am sticking to it, at least for the EU, for Europe and the so-called Western world.

There, I observe with great irritation

Media reports that overemphasise one point of view or do not ask critical questions (often in private media, but also in public niche formats).
Educational programmes that present selected, particular narratives while not offering assistance to take on other perspectives.
Public bodies, such as the police or administration that openly use racist elements in their processes, messages or behaviour and show little willingness to even reflect this.

In these important areas, responsible leadership must develop more awareness of the impact and hence the vast relevance of seemingly small biases. Consistent, self-critical scrutiny of common approaches or messages is key to overcoming the ongoing divisiveness.

Successful models of togetherness and positive vision

As I keep remarking that criticism is much easier than constructive suggestions, I want to provide constructive suggestions and positive examples of responsible leadership from three different areas.

The EU and pan-European collaboration

Even if Europe continues to be criticised from all sides (!) in the context of the all the trends described above: Looking at the facts, it is a political, social and economic success model. All countries, not only in the EU, have benefited, increasingly and over decades, peace has (by and large) become more stable and Europe is gradually assuming more of its global responsibility (e.g. post-colonial or climate-related). The fact that ‘unity in diversity’ is a central motto of the EU is sometimes forgotten and yet it describes a guiding principle for responsible leadership: always having the overall project in mind and what it needs in terms of joint efforts, while at the same time taking into account the diverse participants, their different perspectives and needs. Combined, the result is a socio-political squaring of the circle to the extent that all the usual points of criticism are neutralised. However, more clear words, based on strong attitudes are needed which must include strong opposition to those who want to undermine our joint basic values.

Kunstfest Weimar: What we are fighting for

A completely different example made a lasting impression on me this summer in Saxony. An opening speech at the art festival explained the event motto ‘What we are fighting for’ word for word and described in an impressive way the enormous power and importance of clear, positive ideas about the future: What are we committed to together? A constructive, joint approach to the times ahead can have a much greater impact than simplistic accusations. This requires responsible leadership that communicates appropriate messages and takes decisions accordingly. In Weimar, one of the decisions was to present an intercultural mixed-ability dance performance as the opening piece, which dealt with German cultural heritage (Orff’s Carmina Burana) and collective responsibility (Buchenwald is near) in a symbolic place (with Goethe and Schiller statutes). From the cast to the production to the stage design with (camp) ramp and (guard) tower, the Forward Dance Company succeeded in combining art, society and politics in the most contemporary way. We need many more of these kinds of clear and powerful statements to pursue the mission describe in this article.

Integrative D&I management in companies

In the course of heated debates about representation targets, affirmative action or rainbow flags, we forget that D&I was originally designed, in essence, as the inclusive, business-compatible version of equality – and it still is in many places. Ideally, it unties people from different backgrounds, identities or groups under a shared (corporate) vision where all will belong and contribute. In doing so, we leverage a common value base and organise collaboration in an inclusive way, hence propelling performance. Responsible leadership helps managers to master complexities, recognise and take into account different needs and always offer a positive sense of purpose as an intrinsic driver. Externally, consistent D&I management illustrates the values of an organisation (‘What we stand for’) and contributes to society and politics in a responsible way. I would like to make the caveat that the D&I programmes of many companies are currently not complying with these inclusive ideas but we see increasing learning from the challenges created in recent years.

The collective future

In the aftermath of the 2016 events mentioned above, we saw a need to redevelop our ‘European Diversity’ mission and created ‘Engineering D&I’. In 2017, I presented initial key ideas in the Mumbai keynote ‘The Future of D&I’ which became the first DEI Trilogy. Since then, I have used every opportunity to warn against divisive dynamics, polarisation or camp creation (including inside the D&I field). In the meantime – under the impression of anti-woke boycotts, gender bans or the prohibition of rainbow armbands and much more – all DEI experts should have realised that the agenda of the last ten years cannot be stubbornly continued. Politics, business and society must focus on their common future and recognise that mastering our complex challenges cannot be subordinated to special interests.

Managers have an even greater role to play here than ever before. They need to look beyond their personal preferences and always consider the full picture, insist on values and promote inclusive mechanisms that foster togetherness. In this respect, responsible leadership is more similar across politics, society and business than people tend to think. And that’s why one thing should drive all of them: The collective future.