True Leadership Means Inviting Review of yourself
Introduction
When a Premier takes the step to review the performance of ministers, it sends an important message: leadership matters, accountability matters and results matter. But for accountability, leadership and results to be credible, there must be consistency. If ministers are reviewed by the Premier, then it is reasonable and healthy to ask whether the Premier himself should also be reviewed.
This question should not be seen as criticism or political hostility. It should be framed as leadership maturity.
Who will review the Premier?
I support performance reviews, provided they are done properly, and believe the Premier should be included as well. One practical solution already exists, and it is widely used in the private sector: discrete, anonymous peer review. In many professional environments, senior executives invite feedback from colleagues, direct reports, and boards through confidential surveys or 360-degree reviews. Names are not attached. Responses are aggregated. The purpose is not embarrassment, but insight. There is no reason this approach cannot translate to political leadership.
A Premier does not operate in isolation. Cabinet colleagues experience leadership style, communication habits, decision-making processes, openness to dissent, and crisis management firsthand. Their collective perspective captured confidentially would provide valuable feedback that no public speech, press conference, or election result can offer.
Importantly, anonymity matters. Without it, feedback becomes filtered, cautious, and performative. With it, honesty increases. This is not about encouraging disloyalty; it is about encouraging truth. In the private sector, leaders who invite anonymous feedback are often the strongest ones because they are confident enough to listen.
Such a process could be handled quietly and professionally. An independent facilitator could collect responses. Questions could focus on leadership effectiveness, clarity of direction, collaboration, respect for institutions, and support for ministers in executing their portfolios. The findings would belong to the Premier alone, unless he chose otherwise. No public spectacle. No political theatre.
Critically, this kind of review would not undermine authority. It would strengthen it. Leaders who demonstrate willingness to be evaluated send a powerful message: accountability applies to everyone. That message filters downward through government, reinforcing trust in institutions and setting a tone of openness across the public service.
Some will argue that elections are the Premier’s review. But elections are infrequent, blunt, and political by nature. They do not provide the timely, specific, actionable feedback that leadership improvement requires. Anonymous peer review serves to enhance, rather than substitute for, democratic accountability.
Conclusion
The strongest leaders are not those who avoid scrutiny, but those who invite it early, privately, and constructively. If performance reviews are genuinely about improvement, not control, then extending that principle to the highest office is not radical. It is responsible.
A Premier who invites his colleagues to review him quietly, respectfully, and anonymously would not be showing weakness. He would be showing confidence, self-awareness, and a commitment to leading by example. Ultimately, that is what good leadership looks like.