Leaving at the top (or bottom) of your game
In the space of two days in the first week of November, two high profile politicians resigned—one at the top of his game and one decidedly at the bottom. It raises the question of when leaders should quit.
No one was terribly surprised, although no doubt some were relieved, when B.C. premier, Gordon Campbell, resigned. He was polling at nine per cent popularity, even worse than Brian Mulroney who set the federal record at 11 per cent popularity.
The introduction of HST set off a tax revolt in British Columbia. Oddly enough, Ontarians—who are also paying a new HST tax—seem to accept it quite readily even though it is one per cent more than B.C.'s tax. Be that as it may, the HST brought down Gordon Campbell but not Dalton McGuinty.
Campbell was also facing a Cabinet revolt. Some Cabinet members were openly questioning his leadership. There was some suggestion that if Campbell did not go, he would have been pushed.
Jim Prentice, on the other hand, announced only one day later that he was resigning his position as federal Minister of the Environment to take a senior executive position with CIBC. Representing a Calgary riding, it is not surprising that Prentice cited family reasons for his departure. Cabinet ministers must balance competing demands of riding, and ministerial priorities, leaving little time for family.
Prentice himself said, "I've also been of the view that you should leave at the top of your game."
That is an admirable idea. No doubt many leaders want to leave a leadership position at the top of their games. But it is about as difficult as predicting the top of the stock market.
Think for a moment of some past Canadian leaders and how they left office. Jean Chretien was forced out of the prime minister's office by his Cabinet. His successor, Paul Martin, lost after one term in a minority Parliament.
Brian Mulroney, left with the lowest approval rating for a federal leader in history. His successor, Kim Campbell, lost her first election after being prime minister for only one summer.
Even in the Christian community, some leaders have left only when pushed out the door.
James Dobson was supposed to be the shining exception, leaving Focus on the Family after grooming his successor. This was so unique that Focus on the Family ran seminars on how to leave leadership well. That is, until Dobson started a new ministry similar to Focus on the Family, called "Family Forum."
Apparently, it is hard to go from the "top of your game" to anonymity. Once leaders have a taste of the limelight, it seems to be addictive.
I was mentored in leadership through Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, a university ministry. Because university is only a few years, it was drilled into us that one of our leadership requirements was to make sure to replace oneself. In fact, it was considered a leadership failure not to replace oneself.
Clearly, students graduate from university, leading to a critical need to find and nurture replacement leadership. Yet I would argue that this is fundamental to every leadership position.
No doubt there is a fear that nurturing new leaders will lead to the "old guy" getting pushed out before he is ready. Even Christians want to play it safe.
We never know when we will no longer be physically or mentally able to fulfill a leadership position. Cancer and car accidents do not recognize age or importance. I have seen many that I thought were indispensable suddenly gone.
We can't all leave at the top of our game. But good leaders will leave before they are forced. And good leaders make sure that new leaders have been brought along to replace them.
Janet Epp Buckingham is the director of the Laurentian Leadership Centre, the Ottawa program of Trinity Western University.
Dear Readers:
ChristianWeek relies on your generous support. please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.
Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.Thank you, from Christianweek.
