Sturgeon, who has served as First Minister of Scotland since 2014, announced that she would be ... [+]
Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s decision to step down, amid the increasingly unsustainable personal pressures that come with being a politician, is being praised by management experts and executive coaches as evidence that vulnerability in leadership might be becoming more normalized—even at the highest levels of power.
On Wednesday, Sturgeon, who has served as First Minister of Scotland since 2014, announced that she would be resigning. She cited an increasingly polarized political climate, but also her diminishing energy levels.
“Giving absolutely everything of yourself to this job is the only way to do it,” she said in a speech. “The country deserves nothing less. But, in truth, that can only be done, by anyone, for so long. For me, it is now in danger of becoming too long,” she said.
She added that the nature of her job is never to be “off duty” and noted that, “particularly in this day and age, there is virtually no privacy.” She also commented that “the nature and form of modern political discourse means there is a much greater intensity – dare I say it, brutality – to life as a politician than in years gone by.”
Her decision comes just weeks after Jacinda Ardern, announced that she would be standing down from office as New Zealand’s Prime Minister. Her term had been defined by the country’s worst ever mass shooting, a disastrous volcanic eruption and the Covid-19 pandemic. “Politicians are human. We give all that we can, for as long as we can, and then it’s time,” Ardern said on January 19. “And for me, it’s time.”
Now, academics and other management experts are applauding both Ardern and Sturgeon for their self-awareness, as well as their transparency and honesty in relation to their respective decisions to step down.
Michael Smets, Professor of Management at Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford, said that the politicians should be commended for “their refusal to cling to their jobs for power or prestige alone.”
“The world in its current state simply cannot afford leaders who know they don’t have the energy to fully commit to our planet’s pressing problems,” said Smets. “Nicola Sturgeon and Jacinda Ardern have defied our obsession with sticking it out, even in the face of burnout and the ‘physical and mental impact’ their role has had on them,” he added. “This is a step in the right direction. In the end, great leaders are human first and foremost – and I hope we tell the stories of their leadership – and its ending – with the human embrace they deserve.”
‘The weight of responsibility’
Sturgeon, in her speech on Wednesday, acknowledged that leading a country through the Covid-19 pandemic had been the toughest challenge she’d ever faced — “by far.” “Now, by no stretch of the imagination was my job the hardest in the country during that time. But the weight of responsibility was immense,” she said. “And it’s only very recently, I think, that I’ve started to comprehend, let alone process, the physical and mental impact of it on me.”
Michael Phelan, a consultant psychiatrist at The Soke, a London-based private clinic integrating mental health care, wellbeing, support and performance coaching, said that this direct and explicit reference to mental health was important. “Sturgeon’s resignation helps to emphasize that we are all vulnerable to a greater or lesser extent when it comes to mental health issues,” he said.
But Phelan also noted that, as a leader, talking openly about mental health and admitting one’s own vulnerability necessarily involves a balancing act.
“To survive as a high-profile leader, especially in today's world, you need to have strong defense mechanisms [and] in particular a degree of narcissism. The fact is that the very characteristics that help leaders survive and cope with the pressures are those that lead to hubris, and the longer they are in power the more this develops,” he says.
To that end, he said, it’s important for leaders to tow a line. They need to “show that they are ‘human’” but they also “cannot afford to be too honest about their vulnerabilities when in power, they need to be seen as ‘strong leaders,’” Phelan said. “And this will often require some covering up of their true state of mind.”
