The Economist, as usual, has produced some thoughtful stuff to coincide with the annual junket to Davos – shall we call it the 1% club? Schumpeter talked cynically about two massively overused words, global and leadership, debunking conventional wisdom on both.
My favourite part of the Schumpeter article was a quote from Abraham Lincoln that I had not heard before. “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
Isn’t that a lovely quote? It brought it to mind while watching the movie Lincoln this week, and, with the reasonable assumption that the movie bore some relation to the truth, it is clear that he passed his own test. He was able to stay humble, continue to see a big picture, yet drive messy, practical change.
A key word is legacy. People with power usually become driven by legacy, sooner or later. It is not always a bad thing. A sense of history can inspire great achievement. But it is dangerous, because it also encourages the negative things associated with power: dogma, lack of listening, corrupted motives.
Look at Tony Blair. Arguably, he was driven by legacy from the start, as he reformed the labour party and drove towards peace in Northern Ireland. But history will partly remember him for a less positive legacy, that of the Iraq war. True, we do not know how much discretion he really had when he supported Bush (another man tainted by legacy, that of completing Dad’s work), what trade-offs really were available to him. But you only have to listen to interviews from the time to understand that legacy was driving him, at the expense of a rational consideration of pros and cons and advice.
Sometimes the greatest legacy is left by those who never give the word a thought. An example is Fred Turner, subject of an obituary in the same edition of the Economist. By the way, I love Economist obituaries. But I suppose you had already guessed that.
Turner was a sort of COO of McDonalds, before the term became popular. He had a simple passion and belief that never altered. He was the one who designed the operating standards for McDonalds, and then imposed them through a system of training and monitoring worldwide. He was never far from a restaurant, and would inspect and cajole and improve from the beginning of his career to the end, always ready to get his hands dirty and truly placing his whole empire at the service of the customer.
Is that leadership? In my view, sure as hell it is. This guy made things happen. He would have refused any invitation to star in business case studies, or to attend Davos (unless it was to inspect the local McDonalds). I have met a few other leaders like that in Shell. They tend to be rather myopic, not always broadly educated, but intensely commercial and driven. The whole Shell leadership system spits these people out, but sometimes they thrive there anyway, and thank goodness they do, for the place would collapse without them.
The downside of the Fred Turner type of leader is that they will seldom ride a wave of change, or be able to respond to new trends. As an example, he would have been completely the wrong guy to deal with the health revolution and its backlash towards McDonalds.
I have just finished a book about a Tudor Fred Turner. Wolf Hall was Hilary Mantel’s first Booker prize winner, and I will shortly embark on the second one. The novel sees Tudor history through the eyes of an extraordinary hero called Thomas Cromwell. He came from the bottom rung of a hierarchical society to rise to the second most powerful man in the land, and did it through hard work, toughness, bloody mindedness, and a ruthless commerciality. I recommend this, it makes great reading.
Many of the characters at Davos have impressive back stories. Yet how many are suited for their leadership roles, right now? How many have prospered in adversity and been promoted to a power their character is not suited for? At a guess, most. And certainly most who seek headlines, seek acquisitions and game-changing departures from core strengths. A failed legacy beckons. Steve Jobs has been the dangerous exception to prove the rule: there is not space in business for many of those miracles.
One test of a humble leader who can cope with power is who he surrounds himself (or herself) with. It becomes lonely at the top, and harder to listen to the necessary dissenting voices to keep wilder ambition in check. Leaders who cannot work with inherited teams raise a red flag, as do those who promote acolytes. This is usually easy to spot, even at a distance.
In this respect, I like Barack Obama’s recent appointments. He recognised early that he could not do everything himself, and appears to have recruited wisely. He uses Biden as a short-term fixer and deal-maker, ugly work but sometimes necessary. Then at the state department he chooses an internationalist, at defence someone ready to challenge Pentagon dogma and even face up to Israel, at the CIA someone wishing to put drones on a more sustainable footing, and at treasury a wonk who will work all night on budgets and deficit reduction plans. Not a bad team for a workable legacy.
Contrast with David Cameron. His Europe gambit has a history feel about it as well, but for all the wrong reasons. For me it misses the big picture, and is a play for power, content and timing dictated only by internal factors. Well done Miliband for not being bounced into a copycat promise.
Angela Merkel, on the other hand, has a keen sense of history but is more of a Cromwell or Turner, always working for small advantage. So far, she has received few plaudits for her handling of the Euro crisis, but for me she has put in an exemplary performance, calm, incremental, but effective. No Davos style speeches, just a tough job well done.
My economics classes at school came at a time of German and Japanese dominance in business. Without getting prejudiced about it, my teacher cautiously cited World War two. The losers had to start from scratch, and so had little unproductive legacy and newer infrastructure as advantages.
Looking back, I wonder if the real advantage at the time was a mental one, or humility? Big power plays and thoughts of personal legacy were, for good reason, out of fashion at the time, while leaders were careful to avoid a cult of personality and to surround themselves with balancing voices. Japan has faltered since, but the Mittelstand has enjoyed a second renaissance. Not many Mittelstand CEO’s bother with Davos, or have household names, or change their business model on a whim.
In the next years, we will learn about Chinese leaders. Hopefully they will give a better example than the Davos crowd from the developed countries. I don’t know enough about the Chinese character or history to be able to predict, but I do sense it will be a question to define how the world can move forward in the next decades. Another trend will be emergence of female leaders, and more mainstream characters than the few who have made it to the top so far. With that trend I have some optimism, for the macho legacy non-listening stuff does feel rather male.
So, how can we judge a leader worth following? A lot will depend on the situation – you don’t necessarily need a Fred Turner in an innovative part of a cycle. But look out for that sort of ugly winner behind a visionary front person. Otherwise, check for humility, a vision untainted by personal legacy considerations, and a willingness to listen. Oh, and a lack of any desire to visit Davos.
No comments:
Post a Comment