13th June 2008
The Malta Independent - Friday Wisdom
It is true that good leaders tend to
grow when they are installed in their position. It is equally true that one of
the hallmarks of good leadership is the ability to resolve conflicts and
contradictions. It is also true that a smile, even when under stress, helps to
reduce tensions permitting more objective analysis of the obstacles to be
overcome.
But the contradictions that new Labour leader Dr Joseph Muscat has to resolve would take much more than a smiling solution. The analysis report about Labour 2008 defeat had counselled the new leader “to be tough with those who think that they own the party, or even worse, those who think that the party is indebted to them. The party has to cleanse itself from such infantile cliques before its professions of inclusiveness can be taken seriously”.
It is more than an impression that those who need to be cut to size before achieving the much aspired unity in Labour’s house are among those to whom the new leader is most grateful for having smoothened his way to success. Those who forced the other contestants to row upstream during the election contest while Muscat was permitted to row downstream.
Muscat’s leadership qualities will be put to test fairly soon. There are many true Labourites both inside and outside the party who feel that the leadership contest was unduly influenced by the incumbent administration. These people fear that change will be merely superficial and that in essence the more changes are made on the surface (hymn, logo, positive talk, smiles etc) the more things stay the same at their core where it really matters.
The new leader must prove their suspicions misplaced. He must show he has the emotional intelligence to eliminate all obstacles that stand between him and election victory by 2013, without fear or favour, without undue submissiveness to those who helped him make it to his post. Above all he must not surround himself with yes men who tell him only what he wants to hear and shield him from the reality that must never fall outside his purview.
Let’s give Muscat the benefit of the doubt and allow him space and time to roll out his leadership style, to do things his own way. But he must not take too long to prove he is his own man. This game is generally won or lost in the first 100 days so we may not have to wait long to pass judgement.
But we experienced another very dangerous contradiction last week courtesy of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. It seems that Mepa manages to surprise whether it approves or declines development applications.
I have no technical competence to add value to the debate whether the development at Fort Cambridge (ex Holiday Inn) is less offensive with 23 floors and a high plot ratio to allow more open spaces on the ground, than with 16 floor edifices occupying a larger footprint.
What however I have a firm opinion about, however, is that once Mepa takes a decision and approves an outline development permit (ODP) application with 23 floors it is highly damaging for its credibility, and for the proper development of business against reliable rules, to have second thoughts forcing the developer to a totally different configuration at the full development stage.
This dangerous precedent, unless immediately corrected, basically nullifies the scope of making ODP applications as these have now become wobbly and subject to further revisions at the full development stage. This means that banks henceforth will not process finance applications on the basis of ODPs and will insist on full development permits before considering finance. Given the substantial expense and time involved in processing full development applications developers will grow reluctant to undertake such investments without the comfort of bank finance availability which hitherto was forthcoming on the basis of ODPs.
Mepa must put its house in order. It should either abolish Outline Development Applications or live by its decisions irrespective of any second opinions that incoming board members may have on the actions of their predecessors. If this country adopts the system where incoming executives feel free to ignore commitments given by their predecessors simply because the new incumbents think they are more clever than their fore-runners, than this country will become a banana republic shunned by serious investors
But the contradictions that new Labour leader Dr Joseph Muscat has to resolve would take much more than a smiling solution. The analysis report about Labour 2008 defeat had counselled the new leader “to be tough with those who think that they own the party, or even worse, those who think that the party is indebted to them. The party has to cleanse itself from such infantile cliques before its professions of inclusiveness can be taken seriously”.
It is more than an impression that those who need to be cut to size before achieving the much aspired unity in Labour’s house are among those to whom the new leader is most grateful for having smoothened his way to success. Those who forced the other contestants to row upstream during the election contest while Muscat was permitted to row downstream.
Muscat’s leadership qualities will be put to test fairly soon. There are many true Labourites both inside and outside the party who feel that the leadership contest was unduly influenced by the incumbent administration. These people fear that change will be merely superficial and that in essence the more changes are made on the surface (hymn, logo, positive talk, smiles etc) the more things stay the same at their core where it really matters.
The new leader must prove their suspicions misplaced. He must show he has the emotional intelligence to eliminate all obstacles that stand between him and election victory by 2013, without fear or favour, without undue submissiveness to those who helped him make it to his post. Above all he must not surround himself with yes men who tell him only what he wants to hear and shield him from the reality that must never fall outside his purview.
Let’s give Muscat the benefit of the doubt and allow him space and time to roll out his leadership style, to do things his own way. But he must not take too long to prove he is his own man. This game is generally won or lost in the first 100 days so we may not have to wait long to pass judgement.
But we experienced another very dangerous contradiction last week courtesy of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. It seems that Mepa manages to surprise whether it approves or declines development applications.
I have no technical competence to add value to the debate whether the development at Fort Cambridge (ex Holiday Inn) is less offensive with 23 floors and a high plot ratio to allow more open spaces on the ground, than with 16 floor edifices occupying a larger footprint.
What however I have a firm opinion about, however, is that once Mepa takes a decision and approves an outline development permit (ODP) application with 23 floors it is highly damaging for its credibility, and for the proper development of business against reliable rules, to have second thoughts forcing the developer to a totally different configuration at the full development stage.
This dangerous precedent, unless immediately corrected, basically nullifies the scope of making ODP applications as these have now become wobbly and subject to further revisions at the full development stage. This means that banks henceforth will not process finance applications on the basis of ODPs and will insist on full development permits before considering finance. Given the substantial expense and time involved in processing full development applications developers will grow reluctant to undertake such investments without the comfort of bank finance availability which hitherto was forthcoming on the basis of ODPs.
Mepa must put its house in order. It should either abolish Outline Development Applications or live by its decisions irrespective of any second opinions that incoming board members may have on the actions of their predecessors. If this country adopts the system where incoming executives feel free to ignore commitments given by their predecessors simply because the new incumbents think they are more clever than their fore-runners, than this country will become a banana republic shunned by serious investors
No comments:
Post a Comment