Comments on: In defence of Gordon’s silence over Libya http://paulseaman.eu/2009/08/in-defence-of-gordons-silence-over-libya/ I am a PR and love my trade. Nevertheless PR requires a reality check. We're about helping clients speak honestly, even robustly. People who run things have a lot of explaining to do in the next few years, so PR is crucial. I want a lively debate and I hope you’ll make it so. Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:07:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Heather Yaxley http://paulseaman.eu/2009/08/in-defence-of-gordons-silence-over-libya/comment-page-1/#comment-302 Heather Yaxley Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:51:08 +0000 http://paulseaman.eu/?p=4251#comment-302 Whilst agreeing there are times for a leader to remain silent (something that any salesperson knows well), I believe this is an approach that should be used carefully and definitely not too often. Murphy's game theory gives some useful considerations of a "wait and see" approach - but silence is like a vacuum and will be filled by others. This can be useful, but can also indicate weakness if the person who should be leading is not giving any guidance. I am also not a fan of the leadership approach that claims ignorance of a situation as a form of defence. If you are a leader, you should certainly be informed of important matters, and be responsible for delegating other areas. So the buck stops with you - and it is not good enough to claim that no-one told you, let alone adopt it as a strategy that you will not be informed so you can claim not to be informed. Regarding the "bigger picture", of course, that does not always mean "the ends justifies the means". There are times regardless of the possible outcome, that doing the right thing is more important than putting self-interest (or oil-interest) at the forefront of considerations. Values are things that you believe in even when it hurts. Of course, a certain level of pragmatism is often required, but "followers" (the public) need to feel that there are shared values between them and their leaders. Silence so often seems to indicate a forked-tongue approach of trying to keep everyone happy and actually pleasing none. Whilst agreeing there are times for a leader to remain silent (something that any salesperson knows well), I believe this is an approach that should be used carefully and definitely not too often. Murphy’s game theory gives some useful considerations of a “wait and see” approach – but silence is like a vacuum and will be filled by others. This can be useful, but can also indicate weakness if the person who should be leading is not giving any guidance.

I am also not a fan of the leadership approach that claims ignorance of a situation as a form of defence. If you are a leader, you should certainly be informed of important matters, and be responsible for delegating other areas. So the buck stops with you – and it is not good enough to claim that no-one told you, let alone adopt it as a strategy that you will not be informed so you can claim not to be informed.

Regarding the “bigger picture”, of course, that does not always mean “the ends justifies the means”. There are times regardless of the possible outcome, that doing the right thing is more important than putting self-interest (or oil-interest) at the forefront of considerations.

Values are things that you believe in even when it hurts. Of course, a certain level of pragmatism is often required, but “followers” (the public) need to feel that there are shared values between them and their leaders. Silence so often seems to indicate a forked-tongue approach of trying to keep everyone happy and actually pleasing none.

]]> By: Tim http://paulseaman.eu/2009/08/in-defence-of-gordons-silence-over-libya/comment-page-1/#comment-292 Tim Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:39:14 +0000 http://paulseaman.eu/?p=4251#comment-292 Interesting piece Paul. Yes the PM couldn't really comment; on the one hand he is scottish and perhaps through some misguided patriotism would not want to take power away from Scotland. It also acts as a smoke screen for the British government; conveniently lay blame on the Scottish system, whilst conveniently allowing Libya to come further in from the cold. It is within the interest of UK to have allowed this release and though the facts are not entirely clear according to the Sunday Times report tomorrow there is a link around an Oil exploration deal, which was muted a couple of years ago. As you say its not about the battle but the long term war and which compromise is chosen to be made for longer term goals. Often in these times we live in, the compromise is necessary when economic activities are at risk. The Iraq war was a similair decision I believe. Unfortunately it is often those that are not involved in politics, this time the people of Lockerbie the families of victims and indeed Megrahi who are pawns in a far greater game. I read today that Megrahi has called for a public enquiry in the UK and offered to supply documents related to the event. Is this a PR stunt by Libya, or himself? Either way Brown had chosen to react he would and has come in for a lot of stick from the public, opposition and press. I am sure there will be more to be come in this case. Interesting piece Paul.
Yes the PM couldn’t really comment; on the one hand he is scottish and perhaps through some misguided patriotism would not want to take power away from Scotland. It also acts as a smoke screen for the British government; conveniently lay blame on the Scottish system, whilst conveniently allowing Libya to come further in from the cold.

It is within the interest of UK to have allowed this release and though the facts are not entirely clear according to the Sunday Times report tomorrow there is a link around an Oil exploration deal, which was muted a couple of years ago.
As you say its not about the battle but the long term war and which compromise is chosen to be made for longer term goals.
Often in these times we live in, the compromise is necessary when economic activities are at risk. The Iraq war was a similair decision I believe.
Unfortunately it is often those that are not involved in politics, this time the people of Lockerbie the families of victims and indeed Megrahi who are pawns in a far greater game. I read today that Megrahi has called for a public enquiry in the UK and offered to supply documents related to the event. Is this a PR stunt by Libya, or himself? Either way Brown had chosen to react he would and has come in for a lot of stick from the public, opposition and press. I am sure there will be more to be come in this case.

]]>