Really great leaders keep rivals close: so why can’t Trump?

Donald Trump should have kept rival Elon Musk close. Picture: Supplied.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

One of the most compelling studies of true leadership is Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin, chronicling how Abraham Lincoln forged one of history’s strongest governments by including in it his three most bitter opponents for his party’s presidential nomination. In 1861, with the United States facing its greatest crisis and the Civil War looming, Lincoln made his rivals, all of whom had been shocked at losing to him, secretary of state, attorney-General and secretary of the Treasury.

Asked why he had done this, Lincoln explained “we needed the strongest men of the party in the cabinet” and that since these were “the very strongest”, he thought he “had no right to deprive the country of their services”. That judgment was vindicated, as was the enormous trouble Lincoln took to make sure they became an effective team, one that held together for the following four years as they ended slavery and saved the Union.

Lincoln’s ability to stand for clear principles and advocate them eloquently, while leading an exceptional group of strong-willed subordinates, has been one history’s most inspirational examples of effective leadership. He would presumably be stunned to see how the White House is run today, where rivals are systematically excluded and the one instance of working with a strong figure who has his own power base – Elon Musk – has just disintegrated spectacularly.

It would have been astonishing, of course, if the Trump-Musk collaboration had lasted long, since both of them were so obviously unsuited to it – both are used to having their own way and stating opinions without prior consultation with others. Moreover, Musk was given a task, to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, for which despite all his brilliance in other matters he had neither the temperament nor the experience. The result is that a worthy attempt to reduce the cost of bureaucracy has been seriously mismanaged, with arbitrary cuts to some essential functions while most spending carries on as before. Musk is now off on a vengeful attempt to form a new political party that will be an even greater waste of his valuable time.

The full cost to America of abandoning any model of leadership Lincoln might have recognised can only be known in future years but if, for instance, there is a financial crisis because no one dared to argue with the President on borrowing additional trillions of dollars or boosting cryptocurrencies, then that cost will be very high. Yet, by contrast, the political cost of manifestly not assembling a team of weighty rivals is low to nonexistent. Trump’s popularity ratings will be little affected by the blowing up of the great Musk bromance. Today’s media and voters attach diminishing importance to the ability of leaders to assemble and manage a team.

Capacity to lead a strong team has become an essential criterion in appointing leaders of most organisations. Few of us would think it a good idea to make someone a CEO of a major company, or captain of a sports team, or chair of a local charity, if they were manifestly unsuited to working with strong colleagues around them. It is a paradox of our times that just as this thinking has become the accepted wisdom, we have become less interested in whether powerful political leaders show any aptitude for effective teamwork.

Such loss of focus on a vital attribute of leadership is probably the result of the dominance of 24-hour news coverage and social media. The instant opinion of a leader can be communicated on any issue at any time, with far less need for a lieutenant to deputise during their physical absence or explain matters to a local newspaper. Televised debates between party leaders have given voters the strong impression that only one person in each party really matters. As a result, there is little penalty for leaders who surround themselves with weak figures or cannot lead a team, as long as they are left standing after each bout of chaos this produces.

Nigel Farage is a good example, riding high in opinion polls despite the long parade of formerly close colleagues who depart with furious declarations that they cannot work with him. When Ben Habib, a former deputy leader of Reform, quit the party last year saying it “should not be controlled by one man”, Farage observed that this departure would have no impact whatsoever. He was right. As of last weekend, only three of the five Reform MPs elected a year ago still have the party whip, for varying reasons including one saying Farage acted like a “messiah”. Yet polls say there would be 290 MPs – almost an outright majority – of that party if an election were held now.

Voters can hardly be blamed for such trends when both Britain’s main parties have sometimes veered away from effective teamwork in recent years. Neither Liz Truss nor Jeremy Corbyn was interested in assembling a team of rivals, with disastrous results, but it did not stop their parties electing them as leaders.

In the past few days, Corbyn has even been caught up in an appropriately extreme version of this problem, with leading figures in a party refusing to work together even before it has been formed. Only minutes after a new party of the left was announced on Thursday with two co-leaders, it was clear he hadn’t agreed to the other one.

Britain’s most enduring governments in recent times have had strong figures at the top who managed to work together in their opening years. As a young speechwriter, I watched Geoffrey Howe as chancellor work with Margaret Thatcher – a partnership that was sustained for many years because they had complementary skills: the chancellor made detailed economic decisions but with a sharp eye for politics, while the prime minister maintained a sense of political purpose but with enough interest in economics to spot potential mistakes. Sir Keir Starmer’s current problems over Rachel Reeves are not because of any lack of willingness to be a team but because their combination is not producing an equivalent sense of direction, along with sure-footed decisions.

Teamwork is not an end in itself – it has to produce results. We would not revere Lincoln’s team today if the confederacy had defeated it. He didn’t just assemble a team, but spent many hours with each member of that team, making it work. In the 21st century that matters more than ever, with challenges too complex for any leader to understand and master on their own. Yet the current global trend, in democracies as well as more authoritarian systems, is towards the cult of the dominant leader who disdains strong colleagues. We will need to rediscover the power of teams of rivals, and show they work, before it is too late.

The Times