I understand, Mr. Rudd. I really do. You wanted the job, possibly even more than you ever wanted the prime ministership (We’re just a small island in Asia after all). You hoped for endorsement from the government of the day. You needed it to have any chance of being appointed to the top job at the UN.
You didn’t get it. You’re sore. Totally understandable.
So sore that you sat down to write what we might call the “WorkCover letter” which can often be genuine and necessary. You chronicled your beefs, the conversations that took place; at least how you recall they went down. There was the selective recall of significant events and the evidence base, all of which led to your incontrovertible conclusion that a) you should have been picked b) you were wronged and c) that you’re very aggrieved/stressed/shocked.
Please don’t misunderstand me. It is possible Mr. Turnbull did indicate over previous months that he would support you. In one of your leaked letters, Mr Rudd, you confirm you understood the decision would have to go to Cabinet so no-one lied there. You may have imagined the decision was a foregone conclusion. Perhaps Mr. Turnbull really did believe you’d get the nod and overreached in his assurances. Perhaps he did a poor job of managing your expectations. Perhaps his language was “careless”. The Libs now admit the matter could have been handled better.
It seems clear that Mr Rudd, much of the media and certainly a large number of readers assumed the PM was simply being spiteful… and that he made the decision alone. It’s a juicier story and certainly easier for Mr Rudd to rationalise that it was one man playing party politics vs. the notion that Mr Rudd wasn’t a great candidate and maybe lots of people thought so.
What does a good leader do when they have failed to manage expectations? When they exercise their assertive right to change their mind? When they re-examine an issue/belief/mooted change some time later in a shifted context? When they consult others and examine said issue with fresh eyes only to receive compelling contrarian views? In other words, when they are given genuine cause for pause? They don’t hold steadfast to the previous position if it now makes no sense (if indeed it was that fixed in the first place). The good leader has to be prepared to wear the backlash and to accept that in any of those previous conversations, the psychology of ego and self-belief – and those who seek and accept jobs like Prime Minister tend not to be short on self belief – means that people will have heard what they want to hear and seen what they want to see and are even capable of unethical (even unconscious) reconstructions of events to suit their own purposes. In this case, this could equally be said of both Mr Rudd (“But you told me you’d support me”) and Mr. Turnbull (“But I never told you it was a done deal”). Remember, the human brain doesn’t need to be logical, but it needs to be right.
I will never know whether or not Cory Bernardi really did get all those text messages and phone calls from Labor frontbenchers thanking the government for determining Mr Rudd would reportedly have been a bad choice for Australia. We can be sure Mr Rudd will not choose to publish any of that correspondence if he could obtain it!
A decision based on merit is never the wrong decision.
A leader who consults, weighs up the input of trusted advisers and then has the courage to make a final call in light of that feedback, is a good one. A brave one.
As I teach often in EEO training, the “unpopular” decision is not the same as “unlawful”. Just unpopular. In this instance, the Cabinet didn’t say: “We have someone better.” It gave Mr. Rudd the same unsuccessful message managers have been giving since the year dot. “You weren’t well suited to the job.” The PM could have have crafted a more politically astute message. That there was a lot of depth to the field this time. That Eastern European nations would likely hold sway. That actively supporting Mr Rudd’s candidature would absorb a lot of time and energy for a low probability of success etc etc. Indeed, the feedback was unflinchingly honest, albeit not very comprehensive and I respect that honesty even if Mr. Rudd doesn’t.
The construction of Mr. Rudd’s “WorkCover letter”, probably designed to hang Mr Turnbull for misrepresentation and megalomania (#irony) was a most human but the least emotionally intelligent thing Mr Rudd could have done other than stick his foot out and trip up Mr Turnbull on the pavement outside Parliament House.
Perhaps his decision to publish his letters constructed after the fact was the ultimate validation of a decision not to recommend Mr. Rudd for the job.
According to the United Nations website, the role of Secretary General is “equal parts diplomat and advocate, civil servant and CEO”.