Hard-nosed business approach fails to deliver for Turnbull

STEERING the opposition requires a different set of skills to those required for driving a business, writes Peter Van Onselen.

IT was a hostile takeover when Malcolm Turnbull beat Brendan Nelson for the Liberal leadership 14 months ago and that meant Turnbull needed fresh faces on the board and a new management approach.

The previous incarnation of the company (read Liberal Party) was not operating at maximum capacity and needed an overhaul.

So it was out with the old and in with the new.

Turnbull brought his ally Christopher Pyne in as manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives, he promoted some of his allies into the shadow cabinet and outer ministry, and demoted known Nelson supporters such as Tony Smith.

In business, that is the right thing to do to try and turn around an ailing company.

But in politics it can increase tensions and destabilise a new leader.

Consensus might be the approach Liberals have used in their partyroom for decades, but it is also the style a leader must adopt in his dealings with colleagues more generally, especially in opposition.

Tony Abbott felt marginalised by the new arrangements and wasn't happy at being overlooked for the role as manager of opposition business that he had similarly operated in as manager of government business during the Howard years.

I suspect memory will prevent Abbott making the same mistake when he reshuffles his frontbench line-up in the days ahead.

Had Turnbull been a student of political history he would have known to be more careful.

In 1985, John Howard made the same mistake of making too many changes to the frontbench line-up when he was elected leader after Andrew Peacock resigned.

Howard learnt from that mistake and ensured he kept a reasonable collection of moderate voices in his ministry during his time in government.

If Howard can learn such a lesson, so can Turnbull.

Turnbull told the assembled media yesterday that he would not be forcing a by-election in Wentworth and would use the days ahead to discuss his political future with his family.

Maybe he is contemplating a comeback? It would make Howard's Lazarus effort look positively wimpish.

Leader of the opposition is the toughest job in politics but the leader's style and approach makes an enormous difference to how tough the job ends up being.

And business practice is not an appropriate way to manage the Coalition in opposition.

One of the frustrating things for political newcomers who rise quickly to become political leaders is the very different skills sets needed to manage a political party and to develop good policy. They are not the same.

Business people with their hard-edged management experience can be good at one but not the other.

A political party, in particular the collection of representatives a leader must manage, includes a diversity of opinions, experiences and approaches.

Some MPs need their egos stroked, others need to be listened to, and others need to be given freedom to do their own thing and not be burdened by too much oversight.

In short, if an opposition leader wants to maintain a healthy relationship with such a broad cross section of people, he needs to have an open-door policy and devote a good deal of time to the back bench.

That was Howard's method: he would let backbench partyroom discussions run almost indefinitely, but only after having already had many discussions and meetings with his team.

He would have his staff talk to backbenchers and report back on what they were thinking.

The act of listening to the back bench in politics is as much about the MPs feeling listened to as their views actually being acted on.

In sharp contrast, Turnbull treated his back bench like minority shareholders.

He, as leader, was the majority shareholder, perhaps in concert with his front bench.

In business terms, minority shareholders get an annual general meeting and dividend cheques; they don't get much feeling of being included in the decision-making processes of the company.

That is how Liberal MPs felt as Turnbull went about devising policies and the strategy for negotiating with the government over the emissions trading scheme.

Turnbull's business-like approach to his dealings with colleagues helps explain the diverging views on his style as a leader.

Most backbenchers will say he was autocratic and didn't listen, whereas most frontbenchers considered him courteous and approachable.

The reason for the different views comes back to whether, in Turnbull's eyes, an MP was a minority shareholder or one of the majority shareholders in the shadow cabinet.

The tragedy of Turnbull's demise is that it will discourage business people from going into politics; many will look at the pay cut and the political gamesmanship and decide it just isn't for them.

For a business person not willing to adapt, that is probably a good call, but for anyone from the business community prepared to be patient and learn the trade of politics, although his or her management style may not naturally fit neatly with party politics, the person's experience is something the parliament can benefit from.

But make no mistake. The two professions are vastly different. Just ask Malcolm Turnbull.