Do you want to be a leader or a winner?

Behind the world-beating initiatives and glossy CEO

We’ve lost count of the number of times that British politicians have talked of their ambitions for the country to be a leader in this, or to have a world-beating that. What does it mean, is it useful and what does it tell us about ambition in the corporate or professional worlds?

Donald Trump may hold the key. He appears to have shifted the goal from leading to winning, explicitly abandoning the role of global policeman in favour of “mak[ing] America great again”. For him, it’s not about where your peers rank you in an index of whatever-it-is-today, but what it does for your bottom line, or popularity in the polls. I’m not taking a view on the latest moves from Washington (doing so would mean that this piece would be out of date before you read it), but at the very least his approach raises a valid question: should we be a leader or a winner?

It’s a question that applies in business and other walks of life as much as in superpower (and other) geopolitics. The two may of course overlap. If we define the "leading car manufacturer” as the one which is making the most money from selling cars, the overlap (assuming that the company has shareholders to please) may be more or less total. But for the car manufacturer “leading” could be defined in many ways: selling the most cars (conceivably at a loss), selling the cars most respected (by someone) but perhaps not necessarily very many of them, or even selling the rarest and most unusual cars (unlikely to be a financial success). In business, reputation can be both a vital contributor to and indicator of success, but a good reputation doesn’t guarantee you’re a winner. There’s an old saying that a company whose CEO is regularly on the cover of glossy magazines may not be the best investment prospect, if it suggests that the boss isn’t focusing on the day job.

Reputation, for companies and countries, is like beauty in the eye of the beholder. When you read about the “best” (say) law firm or the winner of an industry award, you would be wise to ask who has made the choice and whether their interests are aligned with yours. Similarly for countries, you may “soft power” in its broadest sense - professional services and standards, alongside culture and sport - but measuring its impact depends very much on who you ask. Whose estimation matters most? Today’s buyers and partners or tomorrow’s leaders? Are the most respected countries the most successful? The trouble is that when there are many metrics for ‘success’, the argument about leadership becomes circular.

There’s often a big difference between how politicians are seen by their foreign counterparts and by their own citizens. “Producers” - of politics or anything - tend to see the world differently from “consumers”, so whose ranking really matters?

“Leading” is what leaders do - and what they like to be judged on by their peers. “Winning” is - or should be - be the consequence of what they’re doing on behalf of their customers or voters. Talk of “leading” - whether in defence, or “climate action” just as much as in a trade or profession reflects the perspective of the producer or professional, rather than the consumer, citizen or (conceivably) the planet. We should be wary, especially in today’s more competitive world, of confusing leading and winning, especially when the field of play is political. For leaders, it’s great to be recognised among your peers. But are your peers’ interests the same as your customers’ or citizens? It’s often the case that politicians who score highly with their foreign peers are unceremoniously ejected by their own electorates. Is leadership more like focusing on the glossy cover than the bottom line?

So what does leadership mean and how is it measured?

Leadership is too often based on inputs – how much we invest in a particular sector, either in absolute terms or, more likely, as a proportion of GDP, or in relation to population size. But while it shows commitment and makes for a good Ministerial statement, there’s a risk it becomes the end rather than the means and doesn’t incentivise delivering either the best results or value for money.

Can leadership better be based on outputs, in which case how are they measured? Are we looking for a return for the UK or more widely? Climate leadership might be measured in terms of CO2 emissions reduced, though the metrics may be contested, especially if they’re created by producer interests. Soft power could be measured in terms of revenue from tourism or cultural activities, but that seems only half the story. Perhaps we can measure leadership not only by how much the UK contributes directly, but by how much our involvement leverages engagement from others. It sounds good, but again looks an inadequate way to hold leaders to account.

Talking about leadership is more complex than it seems. But it can sometimes also be counterproductive. In economic terms, what’s the opportunity cost of leadership for other potential areas of expenditure? Is it driven by national interests or the bargaining power of the sector in question? In terms of international relationships, for a country like the UK it may come across as arrogant (“who does Britain think it is?”).

Should we take it for granted that the UK wants to be a leader? It’s worth at least asking the question and digging into how we’ll know whether we’ve succeeded, rather than taking others’ word for it.