Recent decades have seen a rapid expansion of the study of the world of intelligence. Some aspects are yet to be fully understood and explored. Intelligence leadership is one of those aspects. The King’s Centre for the Study of Intelligence (KCSI) recently hosted three former intelligence leaders to talk about their experiences of intelligence leadership. They discussed a range of issues. What makes a good intelligence leader? Is intelligence leadership distinctive to that outside the intelligence world? How do intelligence leaders navigate a crisis? My own research has looked at leadership of the UK’s intelligence community through functions like the National Security Council, the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Cabinet Office. The KCSI event, however, was focused on leadership by individuals within intelligence. This blog reflects on what was discussed during the event which resonated with me as a scholar of intelligence leadership, and brings together my own thoughts about specific issues raised during the event.
The world of organisational studies is awash with theories about leadership. As many contemporary leadership scholars will tell you, context is king – whether that be organisational, situational or cultural. In the context of conflict and security threats in Europe in the 16th century, Niccolo Machiavelli explained in The Prince that the most important role of leaders was to do everything they could to protect their community. Fast forward a few centuries to the 19th century and the description of good leadership evolved to match the rise of industrialised societies. During this time the model of heroic masculine leader was central to effective leadership. Towards the end of that century and into the 20th century this developed into a focus on systems and processes, seeing organisations, for example, as machines which needed a bureaucratic approach to leadership. The global rise of fascism in the 1930s saw the return of the importance of a strong male leader, evolving from the time of Machiavelli into an almost cultish theory of leadership. Scholars in the second half of the twentieth century moved away from trying to pin down the generalisation of effective leadership to instead focus on context, not just how it dictates what type of leader is required but also that it is possible for leaders themselves to demonstrate different types of leadership to match the different situations they face.
There are times when leaders are chosen to match a specific context. Sir John Sawers was appointed as Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in 2009, an unusual appointment at the time because, despite starting his career at SIS, he spent the majority of his career at in the Diplomat Service. His tenure saw a more open approach to discussing the role of SIS and intelligence governance in public, something which perhaps the government at the time saw as important after the dust had settled following the furore about the use of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in 2002 and 2003. In that sense the choice of Sawers was contextual. However, most intelligence leaders do need to flex their own leadership style depending on the situation. They will undoubtedly be faced with crises, during which the requirements of them will change from strategic planning to adopting a different leadership style.
What distinguishes intelligence leadership from leadership outside intelligence is partly the aspect of secrecy. This secrecy can make the lives of officers more stressful because they are unable to discuss the day-to-day stresses at work with loved ones like those outside the intelligence sphere can. Secrecy can also make defending intelligence organisations more difficult for intelligence leaders. The myriad successes intelligence agencies have is never celebrated publicly, in the UK context at least. Public attention instead comes when something has gone wrong. Intelligence agencies are sometimes seen in the public’s eye as being omnipotent. When a terrorist attack happens, for example, fingers are pointed at the intelligence agencies rather than attributing blame for attacks on the terrorists themselves. It is the job of intelligence leaders to stand up for their staff when criticism is coming at them.
The challenge of secrecy can even apply within intelligence organisations. Due to necessary compartmentalisation of information and the ‘need to know’ principle, sometimes crises are happening within intelligence organisations which only some of its staff are party to. One can only imagine the pressure on intelligence leaders who must undertake business as usual whilst faced with one or several ongoing crises, especially if those are not widely known about. In such situations it was pointed out by panellists that authentic leadership – which involves leaders being honest, sincere and transparent in the way they undertake their leadership – has to take a back seat whilst the leader maintains an air of calm to inspire confidence in the team working on the crisis.
The building of effective teams was seen as a crucial function of intelligence leaders. Around the world many intelligence organisations are, or have evolved from, military organisations. This means they have a hierarchical structure. What was stressed by the panellists was that it works to have an ‘experience pyramid’ but not a ‘wisdom and judgement pyramid’, meaning that the opinions of those at all levels of intelligence organisations are valid and should be welcomed as a challenge function. In a similar way the importance of diversity within intelligence organisations was made clear – not as a token addition but because diversity of background and experience translates into diversity of thought, which particularly in the context of closed organisations is imperative to encourage challenge, prevent groupthink, and foster creativity. UK intelligence agencies have made progress encouraging more females and ethnic minorities to join their forces. Perhaps the next hurdle is how to attract the right mix of varied socio-economic and geographic (in terms of the UK regions) backgrounds – a very difficult task to achieve when two out of the three agencies continue to be based in London.
Another aspect particular to the intelligence sphere is the ethical challenges involved in its leadership. For example, intelligence leaders must often weigh up the benefit of acquiring a certain piece of information with the risk of doing so. Other ethical challenges arise in the context of the relationships intelligence leaders must have with their equivalents in other countries, some of which might not have the same legal framework and ethical position on intelligence collection practices, for example. In some cases, one panel member explained that such relationships stay at a transactional level, exchanging what information a country can legally (and just as importantly ethically) accept from countries whose standards might differ from their own. Panellists highlighted that it is crucial that intelligence leaders communicate the nature of these ethical dilemmas and how intelligence agencies operate within a legal framework.
In terms of different leadership skills within the hierarchies of intelligence organisations, panellists pointed out that leadership at the executive levels of intelligence organisations has an additional requirement – the leader needing become more politically astute in order to ensure the outputs of their organisations meet expectations (and communicate appropriately when and why they might not). Linked to this is the effective prioritisation of tasks and resources – and communication of those priorities. Perhaps unlike leadership outside the intelligence sphere, often that prioritisation comes at a cost, or involves a trade-off between speed and accuracy of an intelligence product.
One aspect of leadership that was not discussed at KCSI’s panel event was the impact of gender on intelligence leadership. Next year (2025) we will likely see the appointment of a new Chief of SIS. Unlike its sister agencies MI5 and GCHQ, SIS has never had a female leader (MI5 has had two – Eliza Manningham-Buller and Stella Rimington – and GCHQ currently has its first female leader – Anne Keast-Butler). Will 2025 be the year to make UK intelligence history through the appointment of the first female SIS Chief? If so, it will mark another milestone in the history of intelligence leadership in the UK, and will give future researchers the opportunity to analyse the impact of gender on intelligence leadership.
Written by:
