Forget the wing - put Abbott at five-eighth

I've got a mate who's fond of observing Australian politics. He makes frequent informed comments, usually in the form of text messages from his phone after he has read a few things about a specific policy or event.

His recent text message, however, was puzzling. It read "Put the abbott on the right wing and give him a run".

The metaphor is easy – imagine opposition leader Tony Abbott as a rugby wing three quarter, give him some space and let him take the ball up to the goal line.

We can expand this into election imagery – running into space and scoring tries is the same as winning an election. All that's needed is room to move.

In real terms, however, Tony Abbott is already on the wing, running well and scoring tries.

In this he is a specific type of thought leader.

Herein lies his biggest barrier to diffuse popularity – and it is a barrier that he may not be able to step around in time to win the next federal election.

Mr Abbott is a homophilous thought leader. As if this is not bad enough he is also a monomorphic thought leader.

Homophily is a fundamental principle of human communication where ideas and innovations are more likely to be shared more frequently between people who are alike in beliefs, education and socioeconomic status.

The opposite of homophily is heterophily. This requires one to step outside ritual boundaries to take meaning from or communicate meaning to those with a different set of values or beliefs.

Monomorphic thought leaders tend to focus on a single issue. The alternative to a monomorphic thought leader is a polymorphic thought leader – obviously one who is comfortable being across a variety of issues.

Mr Abbott has accumulated a number of the important characteristics of a thought leader – great exposure to news media; broad interpersonal networks; extensive contact with change agents; and the capacity to always be 'on the edge', which means he is not on top of things but that he acts as a broker between groups.

These characteristics are representative of a homophilous monomorphic thought leader which is not a bad thing in a business or corporate head but can be dangerous for a political head.

Where Mr Abbott fails is in his capacity to accumulate two additional characteristics that could turn him into an electable polymorphic heterophil.

Mr Abbott is not innovative. Nor does he appear capable of becoming innovative when Australian society is in need of change (as it is right now) or of being less innovative when it does not require change.

He seems to underpin his ideological position with the notion that all change is bad.

This is not the traditional conservatism of Australian sociopolitics that embraced change through innovation at times of necessity.

The traditional norms of earlier Australian conservatism required thought leaders to be a separate bunch from the innovators and for thought leaders to contain their enthusiasm so that innovators were seen to be as valuable.

Malcolm Fraser, for example, spoke frequently of the need for diversity. In reconstructing the department of immigration after Gough Whitlam had bulldozed it, and including ethnic affairs in its remit, Fraser showed thought leadership that allowed the innovators to increase Australia's pool of skilled labour.

After 1983, when Fraser lost the treasury benches to Bob Hawke, remarkably unsuccessful interventions masquerading as innovation from the thought leaders began to surface. The Motor Industry Development Plan, or Button plan as it became known, was a government innovation designed to create a world-class competitive automotive industry. For the industry it was a disaster. Thought leadership and innovation from the same source did not work.

Paradoxically we have the situation today where we expect our thought leaders to also be innovators and our innovators to be erudite thought leaders – polymorphic heterophils.

Mr Abbott's monomorphic focus on specific issues during most of 2011 was a good strategy then but it will not hold for 2012.

He can no longer afford to act homophilously (preach to the choir) and expect to increase his coalition's vote.

The questions however, are whether or not he knows he is on the brink and whether thought leadership and innovation really matter.

The Australian automotive industry is preparing for America to shutter any number of local manufacturing plants.

Every Labor government since Whitlam's has talked incessantly about a knowledge economy that remains elusive.

And America, again, is putting the frighteners into local defence contractors as it talks of scaling back its international partnerships.

If Mr Abbott says he can't do anything about these global matters and that it's all Labor's doing, then he is going to miss a mighty big opportunity to demonstrate real thought leadership and real potential for innovative strategies.

We have an unrealistic expectation that our thought leaders will also be innovators.

Julia Gillard, by virtue of holding the top spot is, de facto, a thought leader but she is no innovator. To her credit she makes no claim to be; like Malcolm Fraser and John Howard she leaves the innovation to others. And therein lies the problem for Mr Abbott. Ms Gillard has snagged us with a traditionally conservative strategy.

So we are looking at Tony Abbott through an alternative lens. We want him to act differently.

This is why Malcolm Turnbull looked attractive. He gave the appearance of being polymorphic and heterophylic when in reality, he may be mildly heterophylic, but he was no more polymorphic than Mr Abbott. Which is why Mr Turnbull has been unable in reality to transform his monomorphic success in business and banking into politics.

We looked at Kevin Rudd through a similarly optimistic lens. As prime minister Mr Rudd gave a public appearance of being a polymorphic heterophil but history illustrates that the image was powder-coated in spin.

The Labor government is doing an appalling job in communicating policy innovations such as clean energy and the national broadband network, let alone demonstrating dynamic thought leadership for what's hot in the next two years.

There's a big space out there to be filled by a polymorphic heterophil who can play at five eight.