How Many Leaders at the Top of Governments and OrganisationsAre Actually the Best Possible?

Discussion article. Part of The Thinking Upgrade.

‍

First, let us recognise what it takes to get there.

Leading a country, a local authority, a business or a major organisation is an enormous responsibility. Reaching those positions can take years of dedication, difficult decisions, personal sacrifices and perseverance. Many people at the top work extraordinarily hard, care deeply about their responsibilities and carry pressures that most of us never see.

They deserve recognition for that. It is much easier to criticise from the sidelines than to take responsibility for decisions that affect thousands, sometimes millions, of lives.

But recognising the achievement of reaching the top should open an important conversation:

How many people at the top are actually the best possible leaders they could be – and what would help them lead better?

The question matters because the success, wellbeing and positive impact of our organisations and countries are heavily influenced by the people leading them. Their decisions shape livelihoods, opportunities, public services, communities, the environment and the future.

When their thinking is thoughtful, informed and imaginative,possibilities open up. When it is narrow, defensive or outdated, opportunitiescan disappear before anyone has properly considered them.

The consequences extend far beyond the people sitting around the leadership table.

And yet those people are only human.

They have limited time, energy, attention and memory. They cannot know everything, understand every perspective or personally oversee everything happening under their leadership. They have histories, fears, loyalties, habits and blind spots. Their worldviews influence what they notice and how they interpret it. Their egos can make challenge uncomfortable. Their previous successes can make familiar approaches feel more appropriate than they really are.

Like the rest of us, they can confuse confidence with understanding, activity with progress and agreement with evidence that they are right.

A senior title does not remove any of these human limitations. It can make them harder for others to point out.

Who tells the person at the top that they are not listening? That their understanding is out of date? That their behaviour is discouraging honesty? That a practice they introduced is now wasting everyone’s time?

And what happens to the person who does?

Reaching the top and being the best possible in the role are different achievements.

The capabilities that help someone win an election, secure apromotion or build a business do not automatically equip them for every responsibility that follows. Persuading people to appoint you is one challenge. Consistently serving them well is another.

Nor does being the best available candidate at one momentmean remaining the right person indefinitely. The world changes. The role changes. The organisation’s needs change. Other people develop.

This is why ‘best possible’ needs to be an ongoing practice. It means continually developing the understanding, capabilities, qualities and support needed to fulfil the responsibility well, within real circumstances and constraints.

It also means being willing to ask: Am I still the right person for this role?

There is a useful comparison with Olympic athletes.

We would not expect someone to perform at an Olympic level simply because they had ambition, worked long hours and had once produced an excellent result. Nor would we expect them to sustain exceptional performance entirely by themselves.

We recognise the importance of coaching, preparation, feedback, recovery, specialist support and careful attention to performance.

Why should our expectations of support for those leading countries and powerful organisations be less demanding?

Leadership is more complex than a sporting event. There is no single stopwatch or medal table that tells us whether someone is doing well. Leaders must navigate competing needs, uncertainty and consequences that may take years to emerge.

That complexity makes thoughtful support and scrutiny even more important.

Exceptional responsibility should come with exceptional preparation, support and accountability.

‍

A starting point is how well leaders know and manage themselves.

Self-awareness involves noticing what is happening within us and how we are affecting others. Self-knowledge includes knowing our patterns, strengths, limitations, values and capabilities. Self-understanding means exploring why we think, feel and behave as we do. Self-management involves using that understanding to guide our behaviour and choices.

For someone at the top, these are practical leadership requirements.

Can they recognise when tiredness is affecting their judgement? When a personal dislike is shaping their assessment of an idea? When loyalty is protecting an underperforming colleague? When their need to appear decisive is preventing them from acknowledging uncertainty?

Can they remain open when challenged? Admit a mistake without making excuses? Change their mind without treating it as a loss of status?

An equally important question is whether they understand the boundaries of their knowledge.

A leader does not need to know everything. They do need ways to identify what they do not know, what they may have misunderstood and whose knowledge is missing from the conversation.

“I don’t know enough yet” can be a responsible statement from someone with power – provided it leads to appropriate investigation, help and action.

The same discipline should apply to time, energy and focus.

A full diary does not tell us whether a leader is spending time on what matters most. Endless meetings may leave little room to think. Constant updates may crowd out meaningful learning. Urgent demands may repeatedly displace important work on the future.

Who helps leaders examine where their attention is going? Who challenges meetings, reports and rituals that no longer serve a useful purpose? Who protects time for learning, reflection, relationships and recovery?

Stamina matters. So does recognising that it cannot be sustained through exhaustion.

Around-the-clock responsibility calls for support that is available whenever needed, shared responsibility and reliable cover. It also calls for agreed monitoring of workload, decision quality and performance, with appropriate boundaries and respect for privacy. A system that depends on one exhausted person being permanently available is itself a leadership problem.

Technology can help leaders organise knowledge, retrieve information, track commitments and explore alternatives. Used carefully, AI can support preparation, learning and the examination of assumptions. Its output sstill need checking, and responsibility for decisions remains with people.

The human support matters just as much.

Leaders need people who can challenge them constructively, bring expertise they lack and tell them what they would otherwise never hear. They need contact with the realities experienced by employees, citizens, customers and communities.

A room full of impressive people is of limited value if everyone is managing the leader’s reaction.

The test is whether the support around a leader improves their thinking and conduct - and whether they allow it to.

This includes a willingness to name and address outdated or poor practices, including practices the leader personally created or defended.

How much energy is spent preserving arrangements that no longer work? How many opportunities are delayed because someone senior is uncomfortable with change? How often does “we have always done it this way” carry more weight than a serious examination of what would serve people better?

People at the top can be powerful enablers. They can make it easier for others to contribute, experiment, learn and improve. They can model curiosity, fairness, responsibility and openness.

They can also become blockers, making progress dependent on their preferences, availability or approval.

‍

Leadership should include asking: What is my presence making possible – and what might it be preventing?

We should apply that question to leadership teams as well as individuals. Even an outstanding leader needs a team with complementary capabilities, constructive disagreement and shared responsibility. And no individual can compensate indefinitely for weak governance or a culture that rewards concealment.

‍

If we want to improve the world, examining the quality of leadership at the top is a sensible place to focus serious attention.

‍

That means national and local government. Boards and executive teams. Public bodies, businesses, charities and other influential organisations.

It means looking beyond reputation, charisma, qualifications or a small number of headline results. What are these leaders making possible? For whom? At what cost? With what consequences for the future?

And are they strengthening the people and institutions that will remain after they leave?

One of the clearest expressions of that responsibility is succession.

People at the top should be continuously developing others and looking for people who could eventually do the role better. Sometimes that person will already be nearby. Sometimes they will bring experience o rperspectives the existing leadership has overlooked.

Knowing when to step down requires judgement, self-understanding and courage. So does preparing a successor well enough that the organisation no longer depends on you.

A leader’s commitment to the future becomes particularly visible when serving it means handing over their position.

‍

So, how many leaders at the top are actually the best possible?

‍

We cannot responsibly give a number without clear criteria and credible assessment. But we can ask whether we take the question seriously enough – and whether we have created the conditions for leaders to keep improving.

Some questions worth discussing:

What would ‘being the best possible’ look like in the leadership roles that most affect our lives?

How would we assess leaders’ competence, conduct and impact fairly, beyond their own accounts of their performance?

Who can challenge the people at the top safely – and what evidence shows that they listen?

What support would help them use their time, energy and attention more wisely?

Are they enabling other people to excel, or making progress unnecessarily dependent on themselves?

What should tell a leader that it is time to hand over?

‍

People who accept the responsibility of leadership deserve serious support. The people affected by their leadership deserve serious standards.

Imagine the possibilities if more of those at the top were deeply committed to both: continually strengthening their own leadership, welcoming scrutiny and developing people who could one day lead even better.

Getting to the top is a significant achievement. What matters to everyone else is what you make possible while you are there – and what you leave possible after you go.

‍

Thanks for reading.

Best,

Rob

‍