In a sense, 'we were putting leadership on trial', wrote Carol Stephenson, dean of Richard Ivey School of Business. 'Our aim was not to identify and assign blame. Rather, we examined leadership during this critical period in recent history to learn what we could and to use the learning to improve the practice of leadership today and the development of next-generation leaders.'
As the team of Ivey professors analysed the role that leadership played in the recent financial crisis, they kept one key question in mind: 'Would better leadership have made a difference?' The answer they came up with was an unequivocal 'yes'.
'Our thoughts and conclusions are published in a book entitled Leadership on Trial,' Stephenson wrote. 'This book is a public statement of principles - a manifesto that addresses what good leaders do, who they are and how they can be developed in organisations. The fact that there were really good leaders who steered their organisations clear of many of the excesses and poor practices that got others into trouble has tended to be ignored in the popular media. Their sound leadership is reflected in the principles of good leadership we present in the book.'
In their book, they used the events of 2007-09 to reflect on leadership of business organisations. They turned up some very interesting insights.
'It forced us to confront the gaps between what we know about good leadership and the state of practice,' Stephenson wrote. 'Our research supports the view that good leadership is about the competencies, character and commitment of leaders, and how these are reflected in decisions made and implemented in continually changing contexts.'
They started by hypothesising that good leadership would have made a difference in what happened. This included both the build-up to the crisis and the way that individuals and enterprises managed the outcomes.