Have we lost ‘got-your-back’ leadership? – Part 1: Jennifer Andrewes on championing collegial leaders that ask questions

Jennifer Andrewes has sat in many a boardroom, delivered many a-presentation, and authored many a-report as high-level management in government. But it’s the way she got there, the culture she wouldn’t accept, and how she navigated an early diagnosis of Parkinson’s that means Andrewes has a story to tell. More importantly, it’s one to be listened to. 

In its candour and humanity, it’s a take on leadership that aged care leaders need to hear, without falling in the pit of pithy or straight-jacket of sterile. For a sector consistently buffeted by change, an underlying sentiment is felt, those within aged care’s ‘lane’ should get on with the job of leading without any more ‘voicing’. In the face of reform, wanted and not, critique, deserved and not, and pronouncements on the quality of leadership, insightful or not, the tacit (or not) implication is for leaders to stop impeding quality care. More so, many bet their bottom dollar, eyes are on the lookout for the next misstep. Within such an atmosphere of expected perfection, devoid of collaboration and innovation on the ground, leadership cannot thrive. Andrewes has lived this impact and didn’t settle for it.

It is here that Andrewes’ story is a moving witness to leadership of best fit, openness, of collegial partnership and safety to leverage that very partnership. For Andrewes these words weren’t platitudes on a new initiative poster, they were solidified in leadership opportunities after her diagnosis was known, it was seeing a team thrive when the rigidity of perfection was ousted for the rewards of partnership.

Interest-led ascension

“Compared to some people I knew, who had their career fully mapped out early on, well, I’ve always been more instinctively spontaneous, opportunity-driven and if things pop up that you think look interesting and exciting and serendipitous, they’ve been part of my value set”.

Andrewes not only champions leaders, young and otherwise, to choose career opportunities with value sets of “interesting”, “exciting” and “spontaneous”– she has lived it. Particularly for aged care, inviting in new talent, new eyes, ready to innovate and try new approaches to old problems, it is worthwhile to lean into the counter-narrative, that within the sector these value sets are found.

The pervasive feeling that aged care cannot sustain a fulfilling career is a damaging trope that needs trouncing. A nod to Anthony Nguyen’s ‘bringing sexy back to aged care’ ad, showed just how spirited, good-natured and ready for a laugh many within the sector are. 

Andrewes is clear, going into any leadership role, it is valid, appropriate and beneficial to apply the test of best-fit, “it had to feel right”. 

She affirms that for all those considering new opportunities, even strange ones out of left field, perhaps even a leader outside of aged care deciding on entering, an important guiding star is, “being clear, in your own mind, about what it is that you’re interested in, and having a range of things you’re interested in”. 

For Andrewes there is no such thing as staying in a lane. Leadership, and how you get there cannot be distilled into ‘A,B and C’. People, opportunities and sectors, particularly aged care, are too eccentric, wonderful and dynamic for that. 

Aged care leaders from across the spectrum, profit and not-for, are unanimous: new leaders must be welcome into aged care. Changing the narrative, that all backgrounds can come to aged care and find a vibrant working life, is as important as funding for the sector’s future health.

Chucking out ‘perfection’

After refuting the ‘one lane’ approach to career progression, Andrewes, with a smile and a laugh, takes aim at the absurdity of leaders expecting, of themselves, and each other, to be perfect. This way lies dragons, and most likely being badly singed by failure, complete with starched collars smoking, for, “who could ever be perfect?”

But before this is brought to aged care, the largely unsaid must be named; There is an almost silent murmur around, within and throughout aged care. From outsiders looking in, and some within, that missteps can only derive from nefarious intentions and willful neglect. Yet this premise hangs ever so heavily on the leaders within aged care being perfect. 

For leaders who have spoken to Helloleaders on and off the record, there is usually a good-natured guffaw at the thought of the perfect aged care leader. To name it is a start, to pop this bubble of pressure is progress. 

Andrewes from very early on in her career instinctually knew that imposing leadership on a team wouldn’t yield the environment or results she or the department wanted. Pronounced in her mind she chuckles, she knew she was not perfect. Even as a 20-something, “managing a large team of people, full time and part time, older than me and younger, all backgrounds and walks of life, I never felt like I could or needed to impose leadership on them”.

Andrewes candidly and kindly steps into the conversation of imperfect leaders. This is not informal, ‘pal’ leadership, where the pendulum has swung so far from perfect-imposing ‘czar’ to chummy pal. There is, she mused and found, another narrow path – that of taking the ultimate responsibility if things went wrong, of showing up first when they really were belly-up, and doing so all in honesty of needing and encouraging all within the team to contribute their skills and insight.

“I think a lot of leaders out there, and managers, and I’ve experienced some myself and I’ve made mistakes myself, you go into a job as a manager and you think, I have to know everything. ‘I have to be the one that directs how things happen because I’m the manager, I’m the senior.’ ‘I’m the one they look to with the experience, which is absolute.’”

Andrewes is joyously frank, “you know, what rubbish.”

Second guessing eggshells

For a sector that has seen high employee turnover, even among leaders, Andrewes’ story is one of head and heart wrapped in the results of getting things done.

“I have naturally leaned into the team I’ve had, their expertise and assumed that they were just as knowledgeable as I was. I knew it was a team effort. That’s always been something that’s really important to me”.

And importantly, this tack, of having each other’s backs, extends beyond building up a team to leverage varied and equally passionate contributions. It touches on how leaders relate to each other.

Andrewes candour is particularly valuable for aged care here, “I worked in a scenario where I was in quite a senior position and managing a small team within a wider comms team under a general manager. And there were probably like six of us comms managers looking after different parts of the business with our own teams. And so we had this concentrated leadership team of six of us.”

She encountered a prolific push-back to her leadership style in this setting. Andrewes value set – where all are valued to contribute, and leaders are open to hear different angles – and be secure in that ‘imperfection’, was not championed in this government setting.

“I’m fairly collegial, as I’ve developed as a leader, I’ve always thought, we all bring different skills, and the team brings these skills together, so let’s have each other’s backs”.

What was transpiring was, “a very competitive environment, a team of leaders, who turned into individuals, who were concentrating on getting on and protecting their own patch”.

“There wasn’t a lot of collegial sport, and quite quickly, I realised the expectation on me at a leadership level from team members and other leaders, was to know everything and to direct my team completely”.

Andrewes names where this landed, “immediately it led to a scenario where you doubt, you start to doubt yourself and [constant] second guessing, because who can know everything, right? That’s impossible.”

Cutting off diverse insight

Andrewes shares that in this environment she suppressed and constrained her natural inclinations, to ask, facilitate and leverage the insights that others could bring.

“Inevitably, you’ll be in discussion about something, a challenge to overcome, and you’ve never experienced it yourself, and somebody else in the team alongside has, but in this leadership cultural environment, I didn’t feel like it was safe for me to say, ‘Oh, I haven’t experienced that myself, I’m not sure what to do with this, because I’ve never worked through this, what do you think?’”

She names the feelings that are echoed, likely as not, in the guarded recesses of leaders across the world, “it leads to the feeling of [trapped scrutiny], ‘how come she’s in the role? She’s not perfect? She doesn’t know what she’s doing in every circumstance’. It led to me feeling really uncomfortable”.

Andrewes made the decision that she wouldn’t stand or stay for this. She moved, and her witness should be a valuable and valid marker for many who are hearing recognisable bells, “I moved to another government department where it was completely the reverse.”

“There were lots of chats, it was very collegial, very supportive”.

For leadership retention, cohesiveness of projects, a supportive environment, where the substance of this is in the safety of sharing gaps and readiness to learn. By leveraging all backgrounds to tackle a multi-faceted problem, these intangible culture points translate to staff staying. The benefits are tangible and translate to a healthy bottom line.

For Andrewes the move to a team that buoyed up her naturally inquisitive nature to learn and adapt, and allow all team-members to shine, was even more pronounced as it coincided with her diagnosis.

Part two to follow next week: In simplicity and boldness, Jennifer Andrewes shares a stark point in a leadership environment of, decidedly, lacklustre best fit. She decides for herself, and as a leader, what she will accept. Through diagnosis and beyond, her story is a testament to leadership of substance, in all shapes and sizes. And of course, pairing that with walking the walk.