2013-05-18T15:44:14-04:00 Stefan Stern http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=stefan-stern Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Stefan Stern Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3252921 2013-05-10T10:33:58-04:00 2013-05-11T19:15:37-04:00

Stefan Stern http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-stern/ the 1962 western "The man who shot Liberty Valance") quite a lot over the last few weeks. Myth-making, and myth-preservation, have been all around us. The facts have not been allowed to get in the way of a good story.

The clearest examples of this involved the death of Baroness Thatcher and the retirement of Sir Alex Ferguson. Mrs T received a grand send-off, which seemed part of an effort to ensure that the Maggie Myth remained intact, and was even enhanced. Fergie's retirement was marked by newspaper supplements and a wave of commentary and analysis, supplanting such minor stories as war in Syria, 1000 dead Bangladeshi factory workers and the British government's legislative programme for the year ahead. That's showbiz.

Myths can be enjoyable, even comforting. But some are harmful, and ought to be challenged. What the response to the death of Maggie and the end of Fergie told us is that the leadership myth is as strong as ever.

What do people think about when they hear the word "leadership"? I expect they think of decisiveness, firmness, and purposeful endeavour. All good things, no doubt. You can see how Mrs T and Mr F satisfied those criteria.

But what happens next? A crude and narrow version of leadership can take hold in people's minds. Subtlety and nuance lose out. The media reinforce the idea that leaders are simply tough people doing tough things, unflinchingly. A stereotype is formed.

It is in a way a tribute to Mrs Thatcher that a speech she gave over 30 years ago is still so influential in this regard. I'm referring of course to her Conservative party conference speech of October 1980, in which she declared: "U turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning." (I did a short piece on the telly about this last year.) Now, changing your mind is a good idea if things aren't working. But today politicians and business leaders find it quite hard to do so. They have fallen victim to the Maggie Myth. They do not dare perform a U turn.

While he was no political friend of hers, Sir Alex's intensity in pursuit of success was almost Thatcherite. One newspaper summed up his departure by putting a picture of a hairdryer on the front page, recalling his favoured technique of getting up close to players whom he felt had let him down and screaming his head off at them.

And thus the myths endure. And yet Maggie trimmed and turned and held back when necessary, while Sir Alex was capable of acts of great compassion and generosity. But these are the facts, not the legend. And, looking back, it's the legend that many people want to hear. We are dealing here with what one academic has called the "teleological deceptions of retrospect" - or, in plain English, rose-tinted hindsight. We oversimplify the past and fail to understand the causes of success. And the role of luck is scarcely ever mentioned. Leadership is hard, and success takes time. Both Maggie and Fergie were very close to being failures, not a thought that is ever dwelt on for very long. The cartoon version of their careers is more popular. But it is inaccurate.

Chuck in the Twitter/always-online factor of today and you have an even more dangerous phenomenon: the growing appetite for instant, simple leadership "solutions" to complicated problems. "Maggie would have known what to do", people declare. "I bet Fergie would have sorted him out sharpish," people say. But sometimes people are wrong.

Jeff Immelt, the chief executive of GE, one of the world's biggest and most successful companies, is a proven leader. He's the boss of a huge business that is operating in 160 countries worldwide. At an event hosted by the Wharton business school in New York recently he explained what he'd learned while climbing down Mount Kilimanjaro with his daughter a couple of years ago:

"You start coming down, and I must have fallen on my butt five times in the first 10 minutes," he said. "The guides have this expression in Swahili: 'puli, puli', which means, 'slowly, slowly'.
"This notion of 'puli, puli' has to do with resilience, persistence, and sticking with your vision and your goals... Essentially anything you want to do that is meaningful in life must be done over time. If you want to change big institutions, you've got to have incredible persistence and constancy of purpose. That's what I learned."

The public may think they want leaders who perform dramatic gestures and take very fast decisions that can be tweeted about and debated instantly and constantly. But leaders need to be thoughtful and reflective, as well as decisive. They need to be persistent, slow and steady, not merely theatrical.

Just like Maggie and Fergie were, in reality.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3061059 2013-04-11T10:26:58-04:00 2013-04-11T11:30:58-04:00

Stefan Stern http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-stern/
The signals have been there for years. But in a sequence of events that feels almost like a Biblical parable, the party has repeatedly rejected the signs sent to warn them that they needed to purge themselves and move on.

First there was Michael Portillo. He dared to suggest that a Thatcherite approach might not cut it anymore. He told Conservatives in October 2000: "We are a party for people, not against people." The Tories had to put Mrs T behind them and become modern. He was ignored, and in a subsequent leadership election, rejected.

Then came Theresa May. Two years later she told another Tory party conference: "There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us - the nasty party."

Much good that speech did her. She, too, was a prophet crying in the wilderness. Which is where she stayed for some time after that brave attempt to get her party to listen. Not nearly Thatcherish enough.

And then came Dave. As a fresh new leader in 2006 he told Tory delegates they should "let sunshine win the day". And, for a time, some of those Tories seemed to agree with him. They bit their tongues when Cameron talked about showing more compassion - even love - to angry young hoodies loitering at the side of the road.

But in the end sunshine did not win the day. And nor, in 2010, did the Tories. Dave's one, best chance to win a majority had gone. And Conservatives remained split on whether he had strayed too far from Maggie's marvellous legacy, or not far enough.

Now Mrs Thatcher has died. We brace ourselves for a ceremonial (if not quite a state) funeral. For some, the tug of nostalgia is hard to resist. And once again you hear the voices - not least of senior media figures - telling us that Maggie knew best, that Dave hasn't got it, that he pales in comparison with his vastly superior predecessor. It's so obvious what the Tories have to do! Rediscover their inner Thatcherites. Ignore mushy compromise. The people will be led if you give them a lead. The "centre ground"? No, no, no!

Even though she is dead, the Mummy has returned. I'm no Star Wars expert, but it reminds me of that bit in the original movie when Alec Guinness dies to make The Force stronger. Death has not, will not remove Mrs T from the playing field. The battle for her memory, and the party's future, continues.

Some leading Conservative figures, talking wistfully about Baroness Thatcher and what she could still do for the party, sound like heavy drinkers who cannot admit they have a problem. They keep going back for more. It is all they know. But until they deal with this Thatcher addiction they cannot win again.

The Tories need to go to political rehab, but they say no, no, no.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1777969 2012-08-15T05:52:35-04:00 2012-10-15T05:12:02-04:00

Stefan Stern http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-stern/
In an interview with The Independent yesterday, Mr Hammond conceded he had been forced to rethink some of his views about the public sector after his recent experiences as a minister. The secretary of state for defence said: "I came into the MoD with a prejudice that we have to look at the way the private sector does things to know how we should do things in government. But the story of G4S and the military rescue is quite informative."

Waddya know? It turns out that the public sector can and will do things that the private sector will not. The accident and emergency or intensive care units at your nearest hospital, most forms of social care, and the "final mile" from the mail sorting office to your door - these are some of the areas where the private sector fears to tread. Amusingly, I remember a leading opposition spokesman on Any Questions a few years back - his name was Philip Hammond - dismissing the idea of using the Royal Mail to deliver anything important. Maybe he has changed his mind about this too.

Over the past 30 years Britain was a pioneer of privatisation. The state had to get out of running gas or electricity companies because, well, private enterprise was bound to produce better results. Mrs Thatcher is supposed to have declared to a group of British Rail managers that if any of them were any good they would be working in the private sector. A botched rail privatisation followed soon after.

This "public bad, private good" orthodoxy shaped policy for years. But the defence secretary is not the only Conservative to start expressing doubts about that dodgy formula. Sir Merrick Cockell, head of the Local Government Association, told the FT last week that the public sector could boast many examples of good practice that the private sector could learn from.

The public sector is under pressure, still to undergo the overwhelming bulk of cuts set out by the coalition government. And yet the success of the Olympics - including the military's late-breaking role in it - has confirmed that public spending is both necessary and effective. Yes, a (non-combatant) army of volunteers made a vital contribution. But this "big society" effort succeeded on a state-supported platform.

The private sector can be good at offering us things that we want. The public sector is there to give us what we need. It is a distinction that got lost over the past three decades of market triumphalism. Truly "responsible capitalism" will involve a mixed economy with complementary public and private sectors. There should be rejoicing in heaven that at least one cabinet minister recognises this.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1705862 2012-07-26T11:26:38-04:00 2012-09-25T05:12:06-04:00

Stefan Stern http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-stern/
In response to the bad news the government stuck to its core message. There was no need to change course - indeed, that would be a sign of weakness and would betray a lack of resolve. No, no: it was rather time to press on with the austerity drive and "roll up our sleeves", as the prime minister likes to say. (He has now called on us to roll up our sleeves so often that I picture him on the tennis court in a Rafa Nadal-style sleeveless vest-top.)

In just over two years since the euphoric Downing Street garden press conference, during which the prime minister and his deputy joked about their (hastily formed) relationship and how they intended to govern, not much has gone right for the UK economy. The new government inherited a growing economy that has stalled and is now shrinking. True, unemployment has not risen as high as was feared, and there has been some reasonably good news on private sector jobs growth. But the terrible GDP and productivity data suggest a workforce that is hardly thriving. And the growth in part-time jobs and self-employment, along with falling inflation and ultra-low interest rates, hint at an economy that is underperforming badly.

In the face of all this evidence of policy failure, why the talk of no change, of "holding our nerve" and "staying the course"? It seems to me that Dave and George are playing out a role - that of resolute, Thatcher-inspired "strong leaders". It is almost 32 years since Mrs T's "U turn if you want to" speech, and yet that leadership model is still seen by many as the right (and only) approach to take. Osborne is known to have been influenced by both Lord [Geoffrey] Howe and Lord [Nigel] Lawson, Maggie's chancellors for most of her time in office, who believe that the extremely tough budget of 1981 was vindicated by the eventual return to growth in the UK economy in the mid-to-late 1980s.

The key verb in the last paragraph was "play". There is a fundamental lack of seriousness about Dave and George's approach. Yes, the government was formed in a hurry, and possibly received some bad advice from officials as to just how grave a position the country was in. But bad judgment and inexperience led our tyro leaders into adopting the wrong policy mix. Now they refuse to take seriously the evidence that is staring them in the face.

Osborne claims to be a "full-time" chancellor even as he heads a twice day to No.10 to chair so-called "strategy" (actually tactical and reactive) meetings. Cameron's breeziness knows no bounds. He will be at it again and again during the Olympics. But all he has to offer are glib assertions - "the greenest government ever", "the most family-friendly government ever", and, yes, "rolling up our sleeves" to "get the economy going". It is empty talk - PR positioning rather than meaningful policy. As the macro data get worse and worse, he sounds, as Gaby Hinsliff has said, like a school sports teacher giving a cheery half-time talk to a team that is obviously going to get slaughtered when it goes back onto the pitch.

There is a casual recklessness about Dave and George which cannot help but recall the notorious activities of the Bullingdon Club to which they both used to belong. But at least members of the Buller had the decency to get their cheque-books or trust funds out at the end of the evening to pay to repair the damage they had caused. The long-term costs of this "lost weekend" government are not yet clear. But the tidying up will take many years, and will come with a gigantic bill attached. This time daddy cannot afford to pay. That privilege will be ours.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1689610 2012-07-20T11:11:25-04:00 2012-09-19T05:12:38-04:00

Stefan Stern http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-stern/ Stephen Covey died this week.

You may not have heard of him, or even of his multi-million best-seller The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, which was published in 1989. But you will have worked for managers who, whether they knew it or not, were influenced by his work. And, sadly, you will certainly have been unable to avoid some of the monstrous language of business and "self-help" ideas that Covey unwittingly helped encourage with the success of his book.

Covey's publishing triumph provoked dozens of other wannabe sages into print. So there is, unfortunately, a circuitous but uninterrupted line running from this wise old man from Utah to the inanities of "The Office". That is not Covey's fault. Indeed, it shows how poorly his work has been understood.

Covey's seven habits are all to do with the development of character. This is not a book about surface impressions, or boosting your charisma, or fast-tracking your career. If anything it is the opposite. Covey said we had to work on our inner, private selves first before we started worrying about what the rest of the world thought about us.

The habits are simple and homespun. "Begin with the end in mind", he told us; "Seek to understand before you seek to be understood"; "Put first things first"; "Think win-win." But the simplicity belies Covey's thoughtfulness and thoroughness. He was a university professor before becoming a "guru". And he had studied widely before distilling what he had read into his basic messages.

We have to learn to manage ourselves before we can manage others, he argued. And the timeless fundamentals of life - basing our work and relationships on sound principles - are what matter, not a flashy striving for effect, or "quick wins". In short, it is character that counts, and not simply personality, Covey said.

Viewed this way, his argument can be seen as slightly quaint and not at all modern. Until the great financial crisis struck, we had been living though an extended boom that was brash and exuberant. Flashiness ruled. Having a "big personality", and displaying charisma, seemed to be what mattered.

Perhaps in these more serious times the appetite for brash confidence will lessen. Character will come to the fore, ahead of personality. We will want more sober and trustworthy people running our businesses and organisations.

And perhaps, in the political context, Labour leader Ed Miliband might draw some comfort from this thought too. At the Labour party's annual business reception this week I saw him ask quite humbly for support from business, but very much along Stephen Covey lines. Help us to make our policies better, he said. Miliband was thinking "win-win". He "sought to understand before seeking to be understood".

The test for the prime minister, on the other hand, is to show that beneath his smooth personality there is a character there that is up to the hard task he now faces. It may be the case that he started in government "with the end in mind". What he has to do now is persist, and prove that he can be a Highly Effective Prime Minister.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1667782 2012-07-12T09:24:22-04:00 2012-09-11T05:12:10-04:00

Stefan Stern http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-stern/
Diamond did not like jerks. If you didn't fit in, or didn't know how to behave, it meant you were a jerk and not welcome at Barclays. As Diamond explained to The Times last December: "You know what a jerk is when you see it. If we ever ignore the rule it always comes back to haunt us."

Leave aside the speculation that still surrounds Diamond's own behaviour and leadership at the bank. The question is: how wise a strategy is it to take such a hard line on people who are different, who are irritating, who make unwelcome observations and ask unwelcome questions?

To a domineering or unprincipled boss, anyone who gets in the way probably looks like a bit of a jerk. But who defines what a jerk is, anyway? Of course it is the people in positions of power and authority. The 'no jerk' rule almost guarantees cultural uniformity, and therefore a kind of stagnation. What may look like a source of strength - "alignment", "cohesion" - could lead to trouble.

Consider the recently published report into last year's nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan. Why hadn't employees at the power plant spoken up earlier about safety hazards and possible flaws in the system? The (uncharacteristically) blunt report, presented by Prof Kiyoshi Kurokawa, was clear:

"What must be admitted - very painfully - is that this was a disaster 'Made in Japan'. Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to 'sticking with the programme'; our groupism; and our insularity."

What kind of employee speaks up in a culture like that? A 'jerk', that's who. (Although as Naoko Shimazu of Birkbeck College has pointed out, the Japanese version of the report emphasises "regulatory capture" over cultural problems - which rather reinforces the argument made in the English language version!)

Only two out of the 12 board members at Barclays are women. That establishes the bank solidly as an average performer on board diversity in the FTSE100, where only 16% of directors are female. Are senior women executives "jerks", too? Must they be kept out for being too different, and should they only be allowed into the boardroom if they can behave more like men? You have to wonder.

Hidebound businesses and institutions need fresh thinking, different voices, new people. The world is changing and we need to change too. It is the mix and variety of people in a business that give it its strength and vitality. God save us from softly spoken, well-behaved organisations where everyone is the same and nothing ever changes. We need, if anything, more jerks, not fewer. Only a jerk has a 'no jerk' rule.]]>