Introduction: The Leadership Challenge in Australasia

Michael Bunting

Founder of WorkSmart Australia

AFTER 21 YEARS OF ADVANCED psychological and mindfulness study and practice, starting and running three successful companies, coaching and training thousands of people, and a lifetime dedicated to learning and teaching leadership, the greatest lesson I've learned about leadership is this: it is profoundly difficult to lead really well. And after more than a decade of coaching and training leaders in Australia and New Zealand, I can tell you this: leadership in our region poses unique cultural challenges.

This is true for many reasons, not the least of which is the 'tall poppy syndrome', which permeates the culture and goes a long way towards explaining why Australians and New Zealanders tend to mark their leaders 13 to 20 percentiles lower on leadership assessments compared to what's reported around the globe.1 According to The Australian National Dictionary, a tall poppy is, 'a person who is conspicuously successful, frequently one whose distinction, rank, or wealth attracts envious notice or hostility'.2 The Penguin Book of Australian Slang describes a tall poppy as a 'very important or influential person, or person with status, often held in contempt by others who try to bring about this person's downfall or ruin'.3

Australians are fiercely egalitarian. This is evidenced in many ways, including the informal way of speaking with each other across hierarchies. In a famous example, when cricketer Dennis Lillee met the Queen of England, he greeted her with a handshake and a friendly, 'G'day, how ya goin'?'4

New Zealanders also prefer an approach that is less hierarchical. As Rodger Spiller - a colleague and expert in New Zealand leadership - explains, Kiwis often want 'a more collaborative, inclusive, and participatory approach with engagement and real consultation rather than strict autocratic and bureaucratic leadership with dictatorial edicts'.5

Consequently, the worst thing Australasian leaders can do is to 'pull rank' - that is, to assert authority based on title or position. It's counter-productive. The managing director of one of my Australian clients, for example, told me a story that illustrates this point well. When his company tried to implement customer-relationship management software for its sales force, it met with a lot of resistance. It required considerable time, effort and a change in management skills to get this done. It was a major project. But when the company went to a country in Asia to do the exact same thing, it was done in an hour. Everyone in that vastly different culture simply accepted the mandate from the top and got on with it.

In many ways, the Australasian attitude is actually a good thing: it means leaders must lead on the basis of authentic values, skills and behaviours, rather than simply depending on their title to get things done. In short, Australasian leaders must actually lead and serve, rather than issue commands and expect that they will be routinely followed. They must earn their leadership authority, rather than having it bestowed upon them by virtue of their position.

On the other hand, this way of thinking also means that, simply by virtue of holding a leadership position, you probably have one strike against you. In every culture, respect and trust certainly have to be earned. But in few other places in the world will you find such an active distrust towards people in leadership positions. So here, not only are you struggling with the fundamental leadership challenges that every leader in every culture faces, you are also struggling against a deeply ingrained cultural bias.

This cultural bias has its roots in Australia's history as a convict colony. In the founding era, convicts were treated incredibly cruelly and deprived of their basic human rights by authorities. Members of the convict class were prevented from serving in civic positions, which were reserved for the Exclusives (non-convicts). They were also excluded from receiving land grants offered to free immigrants. Australia became an egalitarian society because its second-class citizens refused to accept that they were in any way inferior.6

Two more sad chapters in our history are worth mentioning: the Stolen Generations and the Forgotten Australians. Between 1909 and 1969 it was the government's policy to forcibly remove
Aboriginal children from their homes and families. It is estimated that 100 000 children were removed in this period. Geoff Aigner and Liz Skelton write in their book, The Australian Leadership Paradox:

[t]he nation which began through a process of 'forced removal' by authority in the United Kingdom in turn forcibly removed Indigenous children from their families and Indigenous people from their own land. The jailed whites became the de facto jailers of black Australia. Abuse of power and authority lingers like a ghost and has repeated over time and culture.7

The Forgotten Australians are the 500 000 children who were removed from their families in the UK between 1920 and 1960 and placed in Australian institutions or foster care. Their egregious abuse is well documented. As Geoff and Liz explain:

This failure of authority to fulfil its core role of providing protection, direction and order has been part of the Australian story for a long time.8

This explains why people are so sensitive to abuse by authorities. One client company bussed its entire organisation to an offsite company event. At the end of the day they were all supposed to catch the bus back to the office. But a few members of the executive team had arranged for taxis, paid for by the company, to take only them back to the office. I witnessed the dissonance and strife this caused in their culture because this was viewed as a total abuse of authority. We're not okay with senior leaders acting above others. It compounds the story of 'us versus them'.

In contrast to this experience, one day I walked into Macquarie Bank to meet with Peter Maher, former managing director of the Banking and Finance Services division, and a client of mine. The bank had created a totally open floor plan using active work stations. In the middle of the division I saw Peter sitting at a desk. Right next to him, working away, was a junior employee. It made Peter accessible, normal, one of the team. If he needed to make or take confidential calls, there were private rooms he could pop into. This is one of the reasons why he was so loved in his organisation. Now, don't take from this that I'm insinuating that having offices is wrong. That's not the point. The point is that, as a leader, connecting as a human being on equal footing with your team members is crucial.

It's because of our history that we both distrust authority and we are leery of taking on authority roles for fear of how we will be perceived by our peers. When I interviewed Geoff Aigner for his insights into the modern-day challenges of applying leadership practices in our region, his immediate response was, 'It's our ambivalence around power. When it comes to taking on roles of authority or leadership here, people want it and don't want it at the same time'.

Rich Hirst, a director at CEO Forum Group - which provides services to CEOs, CFOs and HR directors leading the Australian subsidiary of foreign-owned multinationals - echoes this:

We don't like to grandstand here and it tends not to be well received by others. This is related to that 'tall poppy' dynamic, an unspoken national ethos whereby those that assume authority risk being cut down to the same size as others. Successful executives in Australia tend to lead more collegially, combining mateship with humility while providing a compelling and clear vision of the future to benefit all.

Obviously, this dynamic creates a dilemma because when people think about providing leadership, and even stepping into official leadership positions and roles, they are hesitant to assert leadership. They can be reluctant to hold people accountable for fear of disrupting relationships.9

It's also interesting to note that Australians on the one hand take great pride in their 'fair dinkum' honesty (we say that we tell it like it is). People are tremendously sensitive to 'bull' or inauthenticity. Yet, paradoxically, there is a subtle cultural norm to avoid confrontation, to circumvent blame and to evade taking personal responsibility, deferring to collective responsibility. Shaun McCarthy, Chairman of Human Synergistics in Australia and New Zealand, provides an example of this phenomenon:

So, if I'm sitting in a meeting with you and I disagree with something you say, I won't always challenge you openly, but I might sigh and roll my eyes. We behave in a way that is non-supportive and non-constructive in an aggressive manner, but we use passive strategies to do it.

In other words, while honesty and authenticity are valued deeply, people often skirt issues or, when it comes to leadership, display honesty in a passive-aggressive way. As Geoff Aigner puts it, 'I think we are more straight with each other when our power is equal (or we think it is). But we have a hard time speaking upwards...