That's not a critic saying it. That's his own biographer, Tom Baldwin, in a book Starmer cooperated with. The man dislikes the word, dislikes the conversation, dislikes the whole exercise.
Here he is on a leadership podcast in his own words: "I've always been very focused on an outcome, what am I trying to achieve, where's the goal, how do we get to that goal, rather than having that conversation with myself about, what does this all mean?"
And here he is again, in case there's any doubt: "What I can't stand is people who can describe a problem very, very well. We've all got an idea of what the problem is, but how are we actually going to fix it?"
Read those quotes again with a manager's hat on.
That's not a politician. That's an exec. A really good exec. The kind every business has at least one of, the kind who get the work done, hit the targets, stay calm in a crisis, and look at the strategy off-site on the calendar with visible irritation.
I know, because for about ten of my sixteen years helping to scale a political intelligence business, I was him.
What just happened
Last week the country handed Starmer the bill for that approach.
Labour lost over 1,100 council seats. Lost Wales to Plaid Cymru for the first time in over a hundred years. Reform picked up over 1,400 seats. Nearly forty Labour MPs are now calling for his exit plan.
His response on Sunday? "I'm not going to walk away. We're a 10-year project of renewal."
A 10-year project of renewal is not a vision. It's a Gantt chart with a deadline.
Every leadership contender already circling him, Streeting, Burnham, Rayner, has landed on the same diagnosis. They're not arguing he's a bad manager. They're saying he can't tell you what Britain looks like in five or ten years. He can't finish the sentence. And neither can anyone in his cabinet.
His aides have been working around this for three years. Briefing papers with only one option on them, so he doesn't have to engage with the strategic choice. That's not a man who can't do vision. That's a man whose whole operation has reorganised itself to avoid asking him to.
Why this is your problem too
I've worked with dozens of managers now. The most common version of this isn't the loud, unpleasant one. It's the competent one.
The ops director who genuinely believes their job is execution and the CEO's job is the why, even though they've been promoted twice past that line. The team lead who thinks vision is a marketing word and quietly rolls their eyes when it comes up at the company day.
These people aren't lazy. They're often the hardest workers in the building. They just genuinely think the strategy and vision stuff is fluff. They want the outcome. They want the goal. They want to know how we're going to fix it.
And just like Starmer, they're convinced that being good at the work is the same thing as leading.
It isn't.
Goleman's research on leadership style, which I've built our whole assessment around, found that the visionary style has the strongest positive impact on team climate of any of the six. Stronger than coaching. Stronger than affiliative. And climate accounts for nearly 30% of business performance.
Read that twice. A third of how your team performs comes down to whether they know where you're taking them. Not the plan. The direction. The North Star. The "we exist to..." sentence.
Outcomes without a vision get you compliance. Vision plus outcomes gets you commitment. You can run a team on compliance for a while. You cannot run a country on it, and increasingly you can't run a business on it either.
I've been there
As a middle manager, you assume the “vision stuff” just belongs to the CEO. But what is your team’s role in that vision - is that the CEO’s job to communicate that to them as well? What about your vision for the team?
I ignored this stuff for years. Then one day someone in my team said “we just send emails, that’s literally all we do.” I was horrified.
I knew why my team existed and knew what we did was important, so I just assumed others got it too. But I had never really spoken about why what we did was important, let alone set out a vision for how the team would evolve.
I don't write that to beat myself up. I write it because it's the most common pattern I see. Operationally excellent leader, secretly allergic to vision work, slowly haemorrhaging the people who needed it most.
What to do this week
Write down, in one sentence, what they exist to build over the next two years. Not your targets. Not your projects. The destination.
Then ask each of your team, in their next 1:1, what they think the team is for.
If the answers don't match, you're closer to Starmer than you'd like to admit.
The Prime Minister is going to find out the hard way that being good at outcomes (it’d help if he had some of those to point too) is not the same as being a leader. You can find it out before your team starts looking for the door.
|
|
Arran Russell
Founder, Set The Tone
|
Ps: If you suspect you're more "outcome guy" than "vision guy" and you want to actually see it on paper, I built a free leadership style assessment based on Goleman's six styles. Four minutes. Detailed report at the end. Shows you which style you default to, which one is missing, and what to do about it.
