Category: Leadership

Posted on

Match of The Day and the Whistle of Free Speech

This weekend, the BBC’s flagship soccer or football program, Match of the Day, aired without any of its celebrity presenters. For almost sixty years, MOTD has been the most popular football show in the UK and, indeed, worldwide. Its long-time host, Gary Lineker is a national hero and former winner of the Golden Boot, the equivalent of the Most Valuable Player in the League – he’s also a vocal user of social media, with a following that matches his public profile. And it is this that has brought him into conflict with his employer. 

What happened with Match of the Day and Lineker

Last week, Lineker posted a personal tweet expressing heartfelt outrage at the UK Government’s proposals to deport thousands of migrants and asylum seekers to Rwanda or their country of origin. He believes the policy to be ‘immeasurably cruel’ and said as much; the BBC, in its turn, suspended him from the air, and his co-host refused to act as stand-in.

The Match of the Day Fall-Out 

In events reminiscent of a satirical farce, the situation has been so mismanaged that other presenters and journalist withdrew their services, resulting in the cancellation of several more flagship programs. The BBC hierarchy has been widely criticized for heavy-handed tactics, selective application of its policies, and a blind spot to the optics of its own inconsistencies —not the least of which is its Chairman’s role in arranging an £800,000 loan to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

All these issues have been extensively reported in the UK press, and as I write the situation may yet take a different turn. What’s more, I recognize that any summary of this sort risks omitting or emphasizing certain subtleties, for which I would ask your understanding. I’m merely trying to précis the background so that we can proceed to more material discussion.

And what is certainly agreed by all sides is that concern over immigration and how best to manage the number of arrivals is one of the most contentious in UK politics, cutting through party lines and dividing opinion across the entire social spectrum.  It’s therefore not surprising that Lineker, as with millions of others, has a strongly held opinion on the Government’s proposals.  

The difficulty, according to the BBC, is not his right to have a view but its statutory duty to be politically impartial. The Corporation claims that because of Lineker’s unique public profile, he must remain silent on politically sensitive issues, even when speaking as a private individual, on channels that have no connection to the public service and regardless that he is a freelance contractor and a sporting personality, not a directly employed current affairs commentator. 

Lineker is Right

For the record, I agree with the thrust of Lineker’s comments. The Government’s policy strikes me as ill-considered and lacking in the compassion I’d expect from one of the world’s richest nations. I make this declaration for reasons that I will come back to later but it should be clear that arguing for one side or the other on this policy divide is not the purpose or central thread of this article. If in the meantime, you get hung up on my particular view, you will be missing the point!

The Big Issue with the Lineker Debacle

For the heart of the matter that concerns me – and the bigger issue that I believe the Lineker debacle raises —is whether it’s a good or bad thing that our public figures (including those with profiles on the BBC) feel able to speak freely on political matters.  This is a separate issue to whether Lineker is right or wrong in their assessment of the Government’s policies. 

Rather, it is a question of whether, by limiting the freedom of its contracted presenters to express opinions offline and off the air, the BBC is undermining our wider responsibility to promote the robust and respectful debate that is critical to the proper functioning of a democracy.

In Defense of Free Speech

The late Christopher Hitchens was a Neo-Marxists whose views on many matters I disagree with strongly. But he was spot on in his passionate and very public defense of freedom of expression. Opinions that offend or appear plainly ridiculous ought never to be shut down, he said. Rather they should, in a sense, be encouraged and then countered with the robust argument that shows them to be false, illogical, prejudiced… or, in rarer cases, to acknowledge they may have some grain of truth from which we might learn. 

Hitchens, who died in 2011, was fully aware of the potentially divisive and, at times, the disproportionate impact of platforms like Twitter, and yet he never once averred from his view that free speech was worth whatever discomfort and difficulties it caused – even to the BBC!

Social Media Trolls Stifle Debate 

We live today in a world that has more channels and platforms for opinion and debate than ever before.  And yet, many of our most knowledgeable individuals, who could add so much to intelligent debate —and especially those with a public or corporate profile—are deeply reluctant to engage, fearing the backlash of social media trolls, cancel culture, and the Lord of the Flies mentality that’s typical of pressure groups that show no respect for the underlying freedoms that allows them to pursue their own particular agendas.  The hounding of those who dare to express polarizing opinions is well known, but it’s clear the reluctance to speak out now goes much wider than just these issues.

Everyone Should be Concerned about the Public Discourse  

This should concern us all far more than the BBC’s supposed pursuit of impartiality.

To put it plainly, we are now so impoverished in our public debate of sensitive issues that we need to encourage and not dissuade our public figures and influencers from speaking out. To do so, we need institutions like the BBC to be leaders in showing that it’s possible for public figures to express an opinion without vilification, threats of losing their job, or suggestions that they ‘get back in their box’. Indeed, unless there are overwhelming public interest considerations, I’d suggest that promoting free speech and supporting (even celebrating) those with the courage to speak their mind should trump supposed impartiality every time.

I support Lineker’s Comments 

Which is why I declared my hand earlier in support of Lineker’s comments. Not because my views matter in the scheme of things, but because we have to start somewhere – and if I’m writing this piece, then I need to live by that value too. Indeed, let me go further: I believe the immigration policies of the UK to be deplorable, the influence of politics on the BBC unacceptable, and Gary Lineker is absolutely correct in what he states. His 1930s comparisons may be hyperbolic, but he is absolutely on the right side of this argument, which is shameful in a constitutional democracy. 

That is strongly put and deliberately so.  The central point I’m making is that if you disagree with me, let’s not cancel the discussion—let’s exchange views, enrich the debate, agree to disagree…  That’s what healthy and respectful democracy is about, and we are all of us better off for its flourishing, which is why I say more power to Lineker and his like.  Living with a little tension in the corridors of the BBC is a small price to pay for a public discourse that isn’t cowed by cancel culture or sanitized by the powers that be. 

In fact, to my mind, that’s what true public service broadcasting is meant to achieve. 

Posted on

Ukraine: a war of values as much as weapons

To write on geopolitics as momentous events unfold is fraught with danger of a sort. Had I started this article last week, the context, as well as your response to my thoughts, would likely have been different. It may well be that what I have to say now will look foolish or naive in but a few weeks or even days’ time. Such is the pace and magnitude of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its impact across the globe.

And yet to stay silent, even temporarily, would also be cowardice of sorts. There are lessons in what is unfolding that ought to be aired in a manner that is, if only in some very small way, a challenge to the dead ends of Putin’s autocratic mindset. If in doing so I risk the potential to misread or misspeak, I can take heart in Hellen Keller’s assertion that Security is mostly a superstition… Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.

When I first learned of the invasion, I felt very perturbed. It’s difficult, I think, for many Americans to fully appreciate the proximity of events to my friends and colleagues in Europe. The borders of what we once knew as the Eastern Bloc are but a few hundred miles away from my childhood home. The knowledge that tanks are rolling across lands that we had hoped would become free from oppression is a sadness that’s more visceral than any trans-Atlantic reportage can convey.

Let’s not be too romantic though; Ukraine was not some pillar of virtue and by no means the best example of those former Soviet-controlled countries that reclaimed their identities after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Indeed, in 2021 it was only 86th in the ranking of world democracies and came 16th out of the 29 post-socialist countries in the Freedom House Index. Like many former Soviet states, Ukraine was at best a nation in transition. 

But for all its faults, the government in Kiev was slowly rejecting the authoritarianism that remains the legacy of so many former communist states. Importantly, the new president, who has been elected on an anti-corruption platform, was looking to the West and not the East for a vision of a more prosperous future. And it is surely this, more than any threat of joining the EU or NATO that so threatened his Russian counterpart.  What Putin fears is not Ukraine’s weapons but its emerging values; his existential nightmare is not the physical threat to his borders, but the possibility that a mindset of freedom might seep over them. 

  And it is this that is the greatest sadness of all.

For this is a war of lost opportunity, not just in Ukraine but in Russia and its satellites too. Had I been writing in the early eighties, I might have queried if the socialist states could ever transition to an open market model. Today that battle is over, with precious few countries in the world rejecting private enterprise; even China is effectively capitalist in nature.  But if the economic axis is now determined, its political equivalent—the spectrum running from freedom to authoritarianism—is just as divided as ever. 

As individuals, at times like these we can feel powerless, having to trust in our leaders and institutions to make the right calls. Militarily and politically, that is broadly true, but it seems to me that we can still make a difference, however small, by looking again at our own spheres of influence and recommitting to the values that we believe—indeed know—are right in and off themselves.

In this respect, Ukraine should be wake-up call for each and every one of us—and especially so to those in positions of influence— reminding us all of the precious nature of freedom from oppression, of meritocracy and open-minded debate; of the immense benefits that flow from the messy world of liberal values as opposed to the sterile structures of autocratic control.  From our families to our communities and our workplaces, rekindling our commitment to these values is perhaps the most important message we can send to those seeking to deny them to others. 

Lasting success will mean holding to our beliefs not only when threats are immediate but when they are distant too. We must be always be prepared, in our businesses and beyond, to pay a price today for dividends that take time to mature. The pictures of military convoys may galvanize our solidarity and resolve— and I sincerely hope they will—but in time the news reports will surely fade, and it is then that our vision and faith are the most vital assets we will possess.

In drawing on them we would do well to remember again the words of Helen Keller, who in facing immense challenge urged us all to…  Never bend your head. Always hold it high. Look the world straight in the eye. 

Her advice has never felt more prescient.

Posted on

Does a fish stink from the head?

The phrase ‘a fish stinks from the head’ is a common expression that refers to the criticality of leadership in organizations. Typically, it’s used when strategies are failing and direction is unclear. The implication is that those at the top need to shape up, demonstrating the commitment and behaviors that are required to get back on track. At root, it’s founded on the notion that those in positions of authority are central to success and have a responsibility to lead from the front.

And I agree. Taken as a whole, the expression contains an underlying truth that we do well to remember. But like all aphorisms, it’s also a simplification, and if followed too literally can blind us to other, more subtle, aspects of leadership that are just as vital to maximizing performance.  Not the least of these is listening to the well of talent, experience, care, and attention that’s embedded in those with less senior positions.   

I was reminded of this last week when reading the summary of the report into the holding of parties at the center of UK government during the strict lockdowns of 2020.  At the time I was living in London and can well understand the anger of the British public at the apparent disregard of the rules by their elected leaders. The idea that the lockdown applied only to the ‘little people’ is classic ‘stink from the head’ behavior. 

But it was a line about the fear of speaking up that caught my eye. What the report also highlights, is that not everyone working in Downing Street was happy with the slack attitude of those at the top. One especially relevant passage states:

“Some staff members wanted to raise concerns about behaviors they witnessed at work, but at times felt unable to do so. No member of staff should feel unable to report or challenge poor conduct where they witness it.”

This is bang on the money, and while shocking that it should be the case in central government—where presumably, the vast majority of employees will be highly intelligent and astute individuals—it is not uncommon in many organizations. The result is that their talent and experience, and perhaps most importantly, what I referred to earlier than their ‘care and attention is lost to any assessment of the overall direction of travel. At worst, this can result in tragedies far greater than the fallout of a political scandal.

In the 1990s Korean airlines had one of the worst safety records in the world, despite having well-trained pilots and the same planes as equivalent companies across the globe. Flight recordings of high-profile crashes demonstrated that communication in the cockpit was shaped by a cultural hierarchy that meant subordinates were unwilling to question those in authority.  Even when fuel levels became critically low, co-pilots of the now infamous Avianca 52 fight to JFK airport did not directly challenge or inform the captain who in his tunnel vision had lost sight of these critical details.  The plane crashed just outside New York.

The history of the Korean airways has been well documented, with popular summaries in Malcom Gladwell’s Outliers and Mathew Syed’s, excellent Black Box Thinking. What’s relevant here, is that to solve the crisis, Korean airlines embarked on a program designed to ensure that all on the flight deck had a voice, and were able to speak up when they had concerns. What’s more, their speaking out was to be seen not as a problematic challenge to authority, but a positive contribution to the overall safety and success of the mission. 

In the case of passenger airlines, the need for coordination and collective contribution seems obvious to us now. Indeed, the hierarchical deference of Korea was always much less of a problem in those cultures (such as the US) where there is a lower prevalence of what is sometimes known as ‘power-distance’.  But as the recent report into the UK government—and countless examples of company failures—demonstrates, there’s still a long way to go in ensuring free-flowing communications up and down organizations.

The reality is that large companies are just as complex to steer as an airliner, or for that matter Ten Downing Street or the President’s Office. The need, therefore, to pay attention to the concerns of those closest to the implementation of decisions is absolutely vital.  No leader has all the answers; even the best can become distracted or fixated; their very distance from subordinates can distort perspective and lead to well-meant but wildly misconceived judgments.

This is why it’s equally vital that we have cultures and values which counteract these tendencies. The worst boardrooms are not necessarily those lacking in experience, it’s those that are echo chambers, reinforcing the perspectives of a single leader or an elite few. The history of the last thundered years is one in which the reach of communications has proliferated beyond any recognition, and yet so many of its worst tragedies—from the First World war to the Great Depression to China’s Cultural Revolution, to name but a few—could all have been avoided had subordinates spoken out sooner. 

Of course, those speaking must also listen. Somewhat ironically, given the title of this post, fish do not have ears as such, but they do have intense sensitivity to sound and vibrations around them—in some species, it’s integral to their bones! No doubt UK Premier Boris Johnson wishes that he’d listened more to the concerns of those in his own office – for a politician supposedly in touch with the people, his oversight is astonishing. Whether he’d have paid attention is a question that most of those who sit in judgment on him will now answer for themselves. What’s beyond doubt is that in his laxity he’s lost control, and that regaining it may well be beyond him. 

There are lessons here for us all.

Posted on

Demanding the truth

New subordinate looking at hospitable boss welcoming her to take her workplace

Modern physics tells us that all reactions and events are a consequence of four fundamental forces of nature. Three of these – electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces – are not immediately obvious to the layperson. Despite the growth of popular science, most of us don’t pretend to fully understand the complexities they involve. But the fourth force – gravity – is not only all around us, it’s intuitive to the way we live our everyday lives. 

All of us, at least from an early age, understand that if we drop a cup of water its contents will spill to the floor. We also know that although gravity may appear weak, it’s ultimately insistent. It takes the weight of the world to keep my laptop anchored to my desk, and yet I can lift it with ease—or at least, I can for a while! Try holding your arm at shoulder height without assistance and see how long you last… Nothing escapes gravity, least of all our vanity in thinking we might cheat it.

I open with this metaphor to science, because I like to think that over recent months, we’ve been witnessing a pull of a different sort. In domestic politics, the Coronavirus pandemic, the environmental crisis, and even the world of sport, I sense the persistence of truth weighing ever heavier on those who would seek to cheat us (and perhaps themselves) with illusions and lies. 

As I write, the UK is in political turmoil over the behaviour of those in positions of power during the lockdowns of 2020; in the US we are seeing something of the equivalent as more facts surface about the practices and character of our last administration. Only last week, in a bizarre series of events, we saw the undoing of Novak Djokovic in the face of evidence that even he couldn’t ‘wish away, no matter how strong his will to win. 

These are topical and even somewhat humorous examples of what some might consider being a long-overdue comeuppance. But the malaise of self-deception—as well as that of misleading others—is one that afflicts many businesses and their leaders too. Most often, I sense it’s not so much a matter of intent to deceive, and even less so of malice or prejudice. Rather, the denial of facts in our strategies and predictions stems from a mixture of wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and even good old-fashioned pride.  

Which as we know, often comes before a fall!

The deep truth is that facts, like gravity, will inevitably win out. Markets in structural decline cannot will themselves to grow; organizations with toxic values cannot tweak them into acceptability; and while chasing unprofitable business may shore up the top line, it will surely tell a different story in the end. As one of my former colleagues used to say, ‘we must face reality as it is — not as it was, or we would wish it to be.’

Telling the truth, especially when others don’t want to hear it, can take real courage. Typically it is easier to sugar the pill, and of course, in our personal friendships, there are times when we might judiciously keep our counsel. But when we have a formal responsibility to others, it’s vital that we ground our decisions (and the actions which follow) in our best judgment of the facts as we see them. 

Objectivity, analysis, and truth to data are as integral to good leadership as are inspirational words and a compassionate spirit. We may convince ourselves otherwise, but awaiting our self-deceit will be what the Greeks knew as nemesis: the inescapable downfall that is the consequence of our arrogance. 

The good news is that our nose for the truth is intuitive too. Following it isn’t complex; we know when we are deceiving ourselves, or hoping, fingers crossed, for a miracle to save the day. And so it should be no surprise that others can sense this too. Those leaders who act with honesty and integrity in the face of vested interests or established dogma will be rewarded with loyalty and admiration that in the long run gives them leeway for the mistakes that all of us inevitably make. 

But if staying’ true to facts’ is one of the hardest qualities of leadership, then so too is being open to opinions and ideas that challenge our perceptions. I don’t believe that truth is relative – at least not in the context under discussion here—but I do recognize that none of us has a monopoly of it. Our job as leaders, like that of scientists, is to listen, observe and make decisions based on the best available evidence. In that way, our failures, as well as our successes, can add to the body of knowledge, so long as we declare them both for what they are. 

I remember at junior school being told the story of Isaac Newton’s epiphany as an apple fell from a tree to hit his head. Whether that tale is fact or myth doesn’t really matter; what’s important is that it helped to explain a phenomenon that we instinctively knew to be there. Perhaps, to understand the power of truth, we need to see more high-profile exposures; more of our politicians, businesses, and even some of our supposed sporting heroes shown to be what they are. Only then can we appreciate our world as it truly is —the good and the bad; the honest and the cheats; the facts and the lies.  These are the forces of ‘our nature’, playing out in the harmonies and discords around us every day. But for all the clatter they create, it is the bass note of truth which, like the pull of gravity, quietly and insistently sets the tone and tempo of progress for the good. We do well to listen out for it among the noise.

Posted on

Leadership Defined

How might we define leadership?

This is a question I’m often asked, and especially so since I wrote my book Fair Value – reflections on good business.  Behind the inquiries, there is a sense of a wish to make the process of learning to lead more formulaic and less intuitive. That my book was primarily about values and their adaptability doesn’t satisfy their desire for clarity. It seems that we are comfortable with the idea that values can be subjective, but in the case of leadership we want to pin it down, identify its essential traits, so we can measure and monitor our progress.

Last week, I was listening to a podcast by Ben Morton interviewing the colossus in the world of leadership that is Jim Kouzes. In his book, The Leadership Challenge, co-written with Barry Posner, they define the process of leadership as ‘the art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations.’  That seems about as good as it gets, and I’d encourage you to check out any of their publications, or indeed listen to Ben’s excellent podcast conversation. 

And yet, I’m still uneasy with definitions of this sort.

What is leadership?

In fairness to Kouzes and Posner there is much more to their work than a mere definition. As experienced researchers, they recognize the need for flexibility, and it’s surely significant that their headline summary describes leadership as an ‘art’ not a science.  Furthermore, their model identifies five exemplary practices that include role modeling, vision, challenge, enablement, and engaging the heart! In many ways, the practice of these tenets is similar to the principles of virtue theory – the idea that we learn to be good citizens, not so much by following strict doctrine as by demonstrating good behavior in, or daily lives. 

In a different context, I was reflecting on this difference after listening to Malcom Gladwell’s superb Miracle and Wonder: Conversations with Paul Simon. In the academic tradition, the learning of an instrument goes hand in hand with an understanding of musical theory, the relationship of chords and their progressions, harmonies, structure… And yet there are others, like Simon, who play largely by ear, their genius guided by an intuition of what sounds right rather than any set formula.  At the apogee of attainment, there is invariably a fusion of the two. 

And it’s this goal of a synthesis that shapes my personal sense of leadership and values. 

Leadership Tenets and Intuitive are Key

The two aspects tenets and intuitive seems to me, are indivisible —indeed, more than that, they cannot properly exist without each other. For if we were to take Kouzes’ definition above — and strip it of any element of virtue —then we might reasonably conclude that Stalin or Hitler are as equally great in their leadership qualities as, say, George Washington or Mahatma Gandhi. Some dry academics might be comfortable with that assessment, but I’d counter that it’s not how we think and act in everyday life. In practice, we describe the former as despots and the latter as heroes, whose qualities we admire and seek to emulate.

And the key difference is in the values they lived by.

Leadership Should be Symbiotic and Sustainable

A while ago I took a walk outside the city and on the trees and rocks were many lichens. For centuries, we regarded these humble organisms as a sort of plant, and superficially it’s true that they look a little like moss. But, in fact, we now know that they are a combination of a fungus and an alga — a symbiotic life form that exists only because each plays its part. Interestingly, they are a superb indicator of our air quality, almost indestructible but flourishing most when environmental conditions are right. As an allegory for sustainable leadership, there are few better examples.

That’s a somewhat lyrical note to conclude on. But my point is that perhaps we need to see leadership and values in a more expressive and emotional light. For I believe it is the subjective and yet intuitively right elements that are most critical for our understanding of the terms. In their search for clarity, this answer may not be what my enquirers expected, or indeed hoped, to find. But the truth is the best definitions are not just linguistically tight, rather, they are those that are most deeply felt. 

Posted on

The Power of Clapping

As the nation steels itself for the ongoing impact of the Covid-19 crisis, millions are taking a moment to express their gratitude and assert the message that we are “in this together”. When I join my neighbors in the UK in standing at our doorsteps and balconies to applaud the doctors and nurses of the National Health Service, the collective goodwill is tangible.

The gesture is not unique to the UK. Indeed, there have been similar events in the Netherlands and my home country of Belgium. But it is perhaps significant that the health service should be the primary focus here, where the NHS has a unifying force that I’d venture exceeds even other iconic British symbols, such as its much-loved monarchy. The goodwill shown towards the NHS as an institution is stronger than any commercial brand, any political party; at times, any objective reasoning.

In the present moment, to comment on the unfolding crisis risks the possibility of gross imprecision, of events unfolding in ways that we cannot foresee. Over a matter of days the policies of governments across the globe have turned on a dime; at times, a sort of ‘hysteria in small increments’, only to arrive at where we should first have started. Thankfully, there is now consensus in Europe, if not the US, that containment of the virus is best achieved by a temporary lockdown of personal movement – and that this is the only acceptable way forward.

But as we face into the lengthy privations this involves, it will take more than legislation to see us through. Liberal democracies do not draw their strength from the strict imposition or literal interpretation of emergency laws, however necessary or democratically legitimate they may be. Rather, they thrive on the communal values and unity of purpose that was so effectively demonstrated last Thursday night.

The power of collective sentiment is well known – you need only to look only at the stock market to see the impact it can have. Politicians nurture it, brands thrive on it; the ‘goodwill’ on company balance sheets is effectively much the same thing. Over recent years, the use of ‘nudge theory’ has sought to identify small prompts that stimulate positive behavior in areas where legislation would be complex or difficult to police. The charging of a nominal sum for single use shopping bags has become a case study in how to influence good choices – as, on a lighter note, is the painting of a fly on public urinals to improve the aim!

For now, it seems we are at least agreed – and have found a collective goodwill – on the need for containment. The question, therefore, which most interests me most, is whether we can also stand together in support of the ‘exit strategy’ that, in time, we will surely need? At present, this may appear of secondary importance, but its relevance to our future should not be underestimated.

In a recent piece in the Financial Times, the historian and philosopher Yuval Noah Harari noted the decisions we take will shape the world for years to come. At a policy level we will need changes to healthcare, to travel, to emergency procedures; we may all of us – though I hope with real caution – need to be more accepting of restrictions to our liberty.

But what of the public sentiment which will underlie and legitimize these choices? Will we retreat to the false security of a more closed world, or have faith in a future that’s based on greater cooperation and knowledge sharing? Can we muster the altruism and trust to coordinate an economic recovery – or will we emerge from the wreckage in a way that resembles the panic-buying and squabbles we’ve seen in our supermarkets?

These decisions will be determined not so much by our governments and institutions, as by each and every one of us. For, as the recent policy pirouettes have shown, it is our collective actions and attitudes that will most influence those who act in our name. Across the world, economic rescue packages are being put in place, that would have been unthinkable were it not for the public mood that we must stand in unison and shoulder the short-term costs.

As we emerge from the crisis, I wonder if we, as individuals will exhibit the same generosity? Among those thousands who’ve had flights cancelled, how many of us will accept a credit voucher rather than demanding a refund? When commerce returns and our customers need more time to pay, how swiftly will we, as business leaders, move to foreclose? And as shareholders, can we refrain from punishing those companies that are far-sighted enough to support their partners over the restoration of dividends?

The economic and social exit we achieve will be the accumulation of the answers we give to these – and countless more – specific questions. I hope we can sustain our goodwill – for as with most aspects of life, we will reap what we sow. Our governments can nudge us, our banks can support us (no doubt with gritted teeth) but ultimately, to come through this crisis stronger, we must sustain the collective sentiment that required no words, but was so clearly heard, in our standing and clapping together.

This article was originally published in CEOWorld.biz – The Power of Clapping (2020)

Posted on

Reflections on the World Athletics Championship in Doha

Last week, the eyes of the world’s press turned to Doha and its hosting of the World Athletics Championships. Here in the UK interest was intense. Dinah Asher Smith’s victory in the 200 meters was a masterclass of controlled and specialised technique, but it was Katarina Johnson Thompson’s Gold in Heptathlon that caught my eye.

The Heptathlon Tests Everything

The Heptathlon is one of the ultimate trials of all-round athletic ability. From shotput to sprinting, the discipline tests speed, strength and stamina, as well as the mental ability to hold it all together over two days of competition. In contrast to Asher Smith’s 20 seconds of brilliance, Johnson Thompson’s victory required a balance of skills, none of them world-beating on their own, but which collectively others could not match.

Running a Company is like the Heptathlon

Since returning to the UK as CEO of Connect Group, I’ve been impressed by a similar quality in our news and magazine distribution business. Handling an average of 5 million copies every day, it delivers to 27,000 outlets from superstores to corner shops, collecting unsold copies for recycling, processing data to forecast demand, taking customer calls, invoicing… and all of it achieved in the tightest of time windows. The physical logistics is only half the story; I recall being astounded to learn that by noon our publishers can typically view their sales figures from the day before, right down to that corner shop I mentioned.

And yet, if we examine the unique skills of news wholesaling, what we find is that success more resembles a heptathlon than a sprint. What underpins our competitiveness is in not so much that we are very best at physical or even time sensitive delivery, nor are we peerless leaders in information management, invoicing or customer services. Rather, we are good at all these things, and it is this optimum combination of our arguably sub-optimal parts, which make us world class at what we do.

Business as in Athletics there’s Always Room for Improvement

That’s not to say, there isn’t room for improvement. As with athletics, standards move on, expectations increase; the competition is always at our shoulders. As leaders and strategists, the lesson from this week’s heptathlon in Doha, is that we must take a holistic view, considering the impact of each initiative in its wider context — ensuring the strength we build in one area, doesn’t sap our speed or stamina in another.

It strikes me that the metaphor of ‘leader as coach’ is never more apt than in complex and well-established organisations — not least because, the catalogue of good companies brought down by supposedly transformative projects should give us pause for thought. But that pause must never lead to indecision.

Complexity is Always With Us

The danger in managing this type of complexity is that answers can tend towards those that start with ‘But…’ As professionals we must accept that all decisions involve some risk, including the choice to leave matters alone. Risk can feel uncomfortable, threatening even, but a failure to commit is the surest way to ensure the competition will soon be pressing at your heels.

Analysis and Experience are the Best Guides

Making progress, while limiting our exposure requires that we draw on analysis as well as experience; creativity balanced by objective measures — and occasionally some counter intuitive thinking. Standard operating procedures, for example, might appear to be a restrictor to change — but we should view them more as athletes see solid technique. For only when we have sound and consistent foundations, can we test, and most importantly measure, the impact of changes we might introduce. In a world where all the parts are different, it’s tough to know what works, what doesn’t, or what to do next.

If I were to add one more ingredient, it would be to encourage, and be seen to exercise, appropriate humility. For no one can be right all the time and not every idea will be a success. Occasionally — though hopefully not too often — we must hold up our hands and learn from the experience. It is not being wrong that we should fear, it is being too proud to change course when the evidence is clear.

Returning to Doha, in the time I’ve drafted this piece the UK teams have won silver medals in both the sprint relays — pipped, I might add, by the Americans if not the Belgians!

Success is More the Sum of the Parts

The relay, of course, is all about passing the baton, with success being more than the sum of the parts. That’s a subject for another day, but it reminds me that harnessing the commitment of our teams to a bold but measurable strategy, is the best way to exceeding our expectations.

Posted on

Leadership: What Makes a CEO Successful

No two business leaders or executives boast the same leadership style. Because circumstances always vary, there is no correct, one-size-fits-all way to lead. Nevertheless, there are certain traits excellent leaders share. Not only do these traits drive the company forward, they also foster admiration among employees.

Jozef Opdeweegh, known as Jos, has served for over 17 years as CEO of public and private companies in global technology, distribution, and supply chain optimization. Opdeweegh has extensive experience leading different groups of people and teams of varying size in multiple industries.

His long career as a leader has provided him with intimate knowledge of the traits a good executive should display. These traits or attributes are not only crucial for the success of the company but also to assure employees are inspired and empowered by the CEO. Such an environment results in positive growth.

Opdeweegh has outlined 5 traits that make for a successful CEO, and he has included observations from former employees.

1. Makes Decisions Decisively

CEOs, like most leaders, must make numerous daily decisions, both large and small. A great leader can make tough decisions and take accountability for subsequent consequences. According to the Pew Research Center, “Intelligence and decisiveness are considered ‘absolutely essential’ leadership qualities by at least 8-in-10 adults.” The same study goes on to note how men and women both agree that being honest, intelligent, organized, and decisive are also integral qualities. The capacity to make decisions, especially tough ones, is seen by employees as a trait of a strong leader.

2. Engages People

The ability to engage people is an imperative trait for a CEO, and it is one well-recognized by people who have worked with Opdeweegh. Former employee Tim Oglesby says, “One of the key things you need in a leader is the ability to be engaging. Jos is very engaging with people in various roles. It could be the associate driving a forklift in the warehouse, all the way to the top including team leaders, the executive team, shareholders, and potential investors. Jos is able to engage a broad team and get everyone on the same page, moving forward in the same direction.”

Oglesby has worked with Jos in different capacities for over 10 years. He first worked with Jos at Syncreon as CIO, at Americold as CIO, and then at Neovia as CTO. At each company, Jos presided as CEO.

3. Puts Employees First

Typically, when thinking about the hierarchy of an organization, the CEO is at the top, followed by the management team, and then come the rest of the employees. Opdeweegh focuses on flipping that pyramid upside down and putting employees at the top. Doing so puts more emphasis on employees who have direct contact with customers. Putting employees first also makes for a better communication flow. Not only does this leadership style empower employees, but according to former employee Carey Falcone, it can create a completely different environment.

“When you flip that pyramid upside down, it starts to seed a different culture. Jos truly created an environment where people were focused on a common goal but not limited by the traditional way of getting there. He encouraged people to think outside the box and to speak up. Jos fostered an environment where everyone started to think about how they could drive the business forward,” says Falcone.

Carey Falcone was recruited by Jos to come work with him at Americold. He credits Jos’s leadership style and the culture Jos created as key things that attracted him to the role and working relationship. Falcone served as the EVP and Chief Customer Officer at Americold for over two years. When Jos left to become CEO of Neovia, Falcone went with him and worked as the EVP and Chief Commercial Officer for three years.

4. Communicates Clearly

Leaders and CEOs must have excellent communication skills. They have to be able to communicate clearly and effectively, not only to their management team but also to the broader organization. A study by Navalent found that “top executives are consistently transparent and balanced in their communication. They effectively translate their view of business potential and challenges, as well as expectations for action using succinct, direct and readily understandable language in doses that are easily digestible. They devote time to their connections.” Communication is invaluable in the world of business, especially between a CEO and his or her team.

5. Inspires People

Employees will be more committed to the success of the company if they feel inspired by leadership. A successful company generally boasts a roster of employees who enjoy working there. For example, employees consistently rate Google as one of the best places to work. Giving employees a voice, equipping them with the knowledge they need to succeed, and inspiring them to drive the company forward is beneficial to the company at large. Carey Falcone agrees, saying, “The most important people were the people who actually touched our customers. The senior leadership team was truly there to empower, support and enable people who were customer-facing to really do their jobs. Management supported them and showed them they had everything they needed to be successful.”

Posted on

The Soccer Player and the Formula One Race Car Driver: A Tale of Odds and Good Fortune

Sports are often a tool through which we can learn critical life lessons and skills. However, sports teach more than just teamwork and good sportsmanship, it can also provide a lens through which we can view the path to and expectations of CEOs.

On June 14th of this year, the FIFA World Cup will kick off in Russia. The World Cup is the most popular sporting event in the world by quite a distance. It is estimated that more than half of the world’s population consider themselves soccer followers. With more than 4 billion fans worldwide, it dwarfs any other sport in terms of global appeal. Even more impressive, at any given point, there are an estimated number of 265 million active soccer players, which equals about 4% of the world’s population.

Meanwhile, the 2018 Formula One racing season is in full swing. The nexus of speed and technology, exhilaration and excitement, Formula One speaks to the imagination of an ardent and growing fan base. It is also an iconic sport where a very select few have the opportunity to compete for the coveted world title. Each year, no more than 20 drivers are allowed to participate in the Formula One Championship, two drivers for each of the 10 racing teams in F1.

Jozef Opdeweegh, CEO

While it may seem surprising, the experiences of a soccer player and race car driver are quite illuminating on the trajectory and journey of CEOs. With nearly two decades of business leadership experience, Jozef Opdeweegh explores the similarities between reaching success in the athletic and business worlds.

Football, Soccer, is Everybody’s game

Football/Soccer Players

Many of the world’s greatest soccer players had very humble beginnings. The Brazilian legend, Pele – who is universally recognized as one of the greatest players of all time – was too poor to afford cleats or even a soccer ball growing up. He used to make a ball using his parents’ socks filled with paper to play the game in the streets.

Soccer is a sport with virtually no barriers to entry. It is inexpensive to play. The game can be played on any open patch of grass, sand or concrete. Successful male soccer players range in height from 5 ft 6 to 6 ft 2. No less than 95 percent of the world’s adult male population fit within that range (to contrast this with other sports, professional basketball and American football players for instance require levels of strength and height that exclude over 90 percent of the adult male world population).

Simply put, success on the soccer field is available to almost anyone.

The $8 million price tag of access

Race Car Drivers

Becoming a Formula One driver is no easy feat. In fact, there may be not be a smaller or more elite group of athletes in the world. There is a recommended path for racecar drivers whose ultimate ambition is to end up in the most prestigious of all categories. It typically starts with karting. Those who are very successful at karting may evolve to one of the entry-level racing categories to subsequently try their luck in Formula 3 or 2. Very few ultimately make their way to Formula 1.

Are they the most talented drivers? They most certainly are better drivers than you and I. But what separates them from the pack is a very large wallet. It is estimated the path to a Formula 1 seat comes at a price tag of at least $8 million dollars. And while there are driver traineeship programs to promote very talented youngsters, even those come at a steep monetary price.

Best versus good

To excel at a game with more than 260 million active players and become one of the game’s 50,000 or so professional soccer players, you have to be exceptionally gifted. The sample size is so large that it may be concluded the most successful soccer players are also the most talented soccer players. In a game with universal access and appeal, it is virtually impossible for a hidden gem to go undiscovered. In the world of soccer, “best” truly equals best.

Conversely, while a Formula 1 champion is undeniably a very good driver, he (or she) is almost certainly not the best driver on this planet. Countless are the people out there who unknowingly have tremendous potential as a racecar driver but shall forever remain anonymous. Without the monetary means, they simply will never be given the opportunity to sit behind the wheel of a racecar. In a sport with very high barriers to entry, it is virtually impossible for the biggest gemstone to ever be discovered. “Best” equals (very) good, in Formula 1.

Cleats or a racing seat for the CEO?

The path to becoming a CEO is arguably more akin to the story of the race car driver than it is to tale of the soccer player. Certainly, being a good CEO requires a combination of relevant education, experience and skills to handle the role with success. But good fortune undeniably plays a major role in whether a qualified professional ever gets a shot at the top job. Being in the right place at the right time is very relevant to the opportunity of being selected in your very first CEO position. And once you have been chosen to run a company, you will quickly become a proven commodity and your next job will very likely also be a CEO job.

Much like the race car driver though, there are many people who would make excellent CEOs but never get a chance to demonstrate their talent for running a company. In any organization with a sizable workforce, it is a near certainty that there are one or more employees who are intrinsically better equipped at running the business than their CEO. But despite their efforts and their talent, they don’t rise to the top, often due to office politics, shortfalls in talent recognition and development or a predisposition to recruit outside the organization. Consequently, these professionals often leave the organization to try their luck elsewhere, thus depleting the company’s talent pool.

At social functions or industry conventions, you can’t help but overhear CEOs explaining to their peers how they carefully, step by step, crafted their path to the leadership job. They will lay out in excruciating detail how they realized from a very young age that they were destined for success. Without taking anything away from their professional journey, the reality is that these CEOs simply had a healthy dose of plain luck on their side.

Given this reality, CEOs not only are bestowed with luck but immense responsibility. A responsibility to deliver on their good fortune and hard work through thoughtful leadership, a commitment to doing what’s right and a focus on creating value – for shareholders, employees and the community at large. A rare opportunity to truly make a difference.

Posted on

Why the First Two Weeks as a new CEO Are the Most Important

No matter if you are an entry level employee or a company’s brand-new CEO, the first day on the job can be nerve-wracking. Even so, your path to professional success begins the moment you walk through the door. Read on to discover why the first two weeks as the CEO of a company are the most important.

The recruitment process:

When considering an individual for a leadership role, the candidate is typically subjected to numerous interviews by recruiters, the board, and shareholders. Oftentimes, the final recruitment process stage involves the candidate providing example insights and an example strategic plan for the business. The candidate would then present the plan to the board, mapping out key strategic goals and proving why they (the candidate) are the best pick for the role. The audience will assess the plan and presentation through the lens of what the company may look like after three to five years under the candidate’s leadership.

The first week as CEO:

Once the chosen candidate successfully passes all the hurdles and negotiated a satisfactory employment agreement, it is time for them to assume the leadership role.

The first week is an important week, and longtime CEO, Jozef Opdeweegh, recommends spending those first days like this:

  • Day 1 – 2: Establish a vision, mission and core values/behaviors
  • Day 3 – 4: Map out the key drivers of success
  • Day 5: Draft the strategic plan

Opdeweegh says, “it is my experience the senior leadership team gathers in person to attend this 5 day-exercise. Of course, the size of that group depends on the size of the company, but I would caution against groups in excess of 40 -50 people because the ability to interact openly and effectively diminishes with an increased group size.”

Day 1-2

The first two days are really all about culture. “In the mission statement, you define the company’s current business, its key goals and the key milestones to achieve those goals,” says Opdeweegh. The vision statement describes how the company’s future state will look. And then finally, the corporate culture is defined by a set of shared core values and behaviors that will best enable the company to achieve its goals. Opdeweegh says, “it is paramount to focus on core behaviors early on: the future success of the company, and therefore your future success, largely depends on it. You cannot have a large group of associates work towards a common set of goals if they do not share a set of collective beliefs.”

Day 3-4

The following two days center on the key drivers of success. Opdeweegh suggests asking, “What do we need to focus on to be successful?” Obvious topics include financial success, and to satisfy the board, shareholders and lenders. It may sound somewhat counterintuitive, “but in my experience, many members of the senior leadership team do not necessarily have a good grasp of what the main drivers of financial success are. An extensive tutorial may be in order,” notes Opdeweegh. Topics that require discussion are historical valuation of a relevant peer group and the drivers of those valuations: compounded annual rate of revenue growth, EBITDA-margins, EBITDA-multiples, evolution of earnings per share, level of diversification across customers, geographies, industry verticals and product or service offerings and many more. “You need to ensure the leadership group acquires a sufficiently large level of financial literacy in terms of balance sheet, cash flow and P&L to allow them to monitor the financial performance of the company,” advises Opdeweegh.

Day 5

Finally, on day five, Opdeweegh says, “you should present a draft-summary strategic plan that consists of a P&L, balance sheet and the key strategic goals for the next five years.” This draft is then open for discussion with the group. At the end of day five, a subcommittee should be appointed with the specific task to develop a more detailed strategic plan within 30 days and to present that plan to the group. The executive team needs to be intimately involved in this exercise.

The 2nd week on the job

In the second week on the job, Opdeweegh recommends, “organizing a roadshow to get in front of the rest of the organization. You need to be out there and allow the associates to get to know you. You should spend time on the shop floor, demonstrating a decent level of understanding of the operational processes, but more importantly, you should interact with your coworkers.”

In your first couple of weeks on the job, and during your entire leadership tenure, it’s important to be relatable and approachable. Work to be humble, kind and authentic. You are human, and there is something very endearing about sharing stories about how you have faced challenges in the past and how you have successfully dealt with them. They need to see somebody who is fair, inclusive and open to new ideas. You are nothing more than member of the team who is there to support his co-workers. A good CEO does not find authority in his job title, but rather in tangible achievements.