Get out there and protest

I was brought up in a very conservative household. I am grateful to my parents for all they did to try to support my upbringing. I was sent to a private school, and some considerable cost to them, and the education of my sister and me was always a top priority. I don’t really approve of private schools, and the anomaly that meant that schooling increased my chances of getting to Oxbridge, and all the privileges that have followed. But I benefited for sure, and I am grateful.

Other parts of the conservatism epitomized the time just before the swinging sixties, even though actually the swinging sixties were taking place around us at the time. Probably quite a few families reacted against what they saw and doubled down on their conservatism.

A big part of the conservatism was compliance with what my parents saw as expectations of decent society. So we did not go to Church, yet could not utter a word against the Church of England and were very suspicious of all other faiths. The Queen remained completely beyond criticism for my mum right until the day she died – she would not hear a word against the royal family. There was a naïve innate trust of official institutions, people such as the police or armed services or doctors or even bank managers. Even the Daily Mail was slavishly trusted. Our country may have lost its empire, but it was still considered special, a beacon of decency in the world.

Much of this was a sort of snobbery. A large consequence was an unthinking defence of blatant injustices – be they mysoginism, homophobia, racism or just disrespect for people with a different regional accent or working class upbringing. I remember that we would not watch Coronation Street, as somehow that might mark as out as common.

I realize now that my family comprised just the sort of people the establishment like. Whatever job they do or social class they come from, these are people who can be relied upon. They are patriotic and can be motivated in time or war or national threat, and they will support the key institutions unquestioningly. They might even commit family members to such institutions.

There is some of this that is good. National love and pride can be a powerful motivator and even something that generates wellbeing for people. The Americans have this pride, and it helps their nation in many ways. Nowadays in Britain the pride still exists but it is more cynical and less widespread in society, and it is harder to ignite it.

But such conservatism is dangerous as well. Sometimes the establishment needs to be challenged. If there is not enough challenge, then it is too easy to pass lazy legislation, putting short-term convenience ahead of the true interest of the nation’s people – which does not always coincide with the perceived interest of the nation as an institution. It is too easy to go to war, or to reduce civil liberties, or even to hoard power or for leaders to become corrupt.

It also becomes too easy to pander to reactionary fears. David Cameron allowed a monster to escape when pandering to the Eurosceptic wing of his party. Those leaders, and most newspapers, play on fears about immigration and foreign control. Small c conservatives lap this up, at the expense of social harmony and progress and even of the economic interest of the nation. In the current climate, I can see my mum and dad being anti EU and anti immigrant.

In the US, blind patriotism has done even more harm. Strange for a nation of immigrants, it has become unacceptable practice to malign the nation or its institutions. Every time I go to a sports event or watch one on TV, there is some soldier honoured or patriotic song or lauding of the greatness of the nation and especially its armed forces. It is not hard to see how this thinking can lead to Iraq and Guantanamo.

The thinking poisons politics in a particular way. Trump argues to “Make America great again” while everyone pays homage to how things were and American exceptionalism. “America hating” is about the worst thing you can say about anyone, and words like socialism become tainted with anti-national feelings.

One manifestation of conservatism is a belief in the established processes or democracy. I was taught to always vote, though I gradually became lazy, until abstaining one local election, allowing the Conservatives to win after drawing lots, teaching me a good lesson in a sharp way. I was also subtly taught that voting is enough, along with occasional lobbying of an MP.

This teaching came by way of disrespect for those who took alternative routes. Non-conformists never got a look in from my family, whether hippies or punks. And those protesting were portrayed as some sort of lunatic fringe. I remember anti-apartheid protests and anti-nuclear protests at Greenham Common. My parents joined with the Daily Mail in condemning such people as freaks.

I have come to reverse my parental upbringing in many ways, taking an unusual leftwards path during my middle years. And I think one way that this would manifest itself would be my attitude to protesting. Heck, given the right cause I might even get out there on the streets myself one of these days, and I’d certainly be happy if my kids took that course.

What factors lead to this change? Partly it is about my own attitude and how I observe society. Partly it is about how society itself seems to have changed. And partly it is about the growing power to the individual in society.

The part about me is a gradual unwinding of my upbringing. Slowly, I have seen examples to show the folly in conservative values. How could we have let apartheid go on so long? What about racial prejudice? Homophobia? A whole series of crassly stupid, arrogant, damaging military campaigns? And such injustices are still there, when we open our attitudes to see beyond the propaganda. Universal parental leave? The attitude to refugees? There are many causes to get on the street about.

The part about society itself is my belief that our democracy is even less representative than it used to be. Anyone thinking the US congress represents anything but money is sadly deluded. The parties themselves are barely distinguishable, at least in their mainstreams. It is not much better in the UK or anywhere else. And special interests have worked to minimize accountability through gerrymandered constituencies and electoral systems. In most cases, voting is truly meaningless, except for the data point our votes indicate to the lobbyists. Further, TV news and newspapers have dumbed down to the extent that they have become mouthpieces for some established special interest.

The increased power of the individual comes from everywhere except the formal democratic process. Social media and the internet are the catalysts. We all have a voice now, if we care to express it and are smart about making it heard (which does not really describe me). A protest will be ignored by TV and newspapers, but can still go viral in other ways. Of course, freedom of expression is the first manifestation of democracy and remains largely intact in the West, though sadly not elsewhere. If there is one thing worth protesting for, it is to maintain that glorious privilege.

So get out there and protest, both on the street and through blogs and lobby groups, as long as it is safe where you live to do so. I wish that thirty years ago I had been more open and informed, more skeptical and to have had available the magic of social media. I can thank my parents for a lot, but they did not help much in those directions.

After the Autocrat

During my career, a number of my jobs were in strategy. Perhaps the most challenging was in the late nineties, when I had a sort of coordinating strategy function for Shell’s retail businesses in Scandinavia. If I were to try to show off, exhibit A would be the chart of the performance of those businesses around that time.

But there would be a preamble to the chart. If I did the job, from 1996-98, then what should be the relevant time interval to judge the performance? If my job had been operational, it would surely have been some interval like 1997-99. But for strategy, the impact of your work is less immediate and more long-lasting, so I would argue for a period like 1998-2002.

Lo and behold, I can draw a wonderful chart. The performance fell off a cliff from about 1994 until its nadir in 1997, then stabilized and turned around and soared. Now, I reckon my personal contribution to that might be 5%, but I am pretty sure it was at least positive, and it does make a good story.

I was reminded of this in a strange way this week. The Netherlands soccer team failed to qualify for the European Championships to be held next summer. This is a big deal (well, it is sport not climate change but you know what I mean). At the World Cup just over a year ago, the Dutch were great and were unlucky beaten semi-finalists. Now they can’t even make the top 27 in Europe. Many big teams have failed to qualify for tournaments before, but usually that was when only eight or twelve places were available and there happened to be a tough draw for their group. The Dutch have no such excuse: lots and lots of teams qualified, and their group was not particularly difficult.

What has this to do with anything? Well, I developed a hypothesis about the coach, whose job is partly operational and partly strategic. Might it be that some coaches can secure good performances while in the job, but whose strategic competence is no weak that performance collapses after they leave? Louis van Gaal managed the Dutch at the World Cup: might he be such a leader? My observation of his strengths at Manchester United since 2014 anecdotally support the hypothesis. He is clearly quite an autocratic leader.

Lo and behold, some research supported my case. After van Gaal left Ajax in 1997, they failed to win the Dutch league in any of the ensuing four seasons. Barcelona suffered relatively lean years after his departure in 2000, as did the Dutch team after 2002. AZ Alkmaar, who van Gaal developed from obscurity to champions while he was with them from 2005-09, failed to finish in the top four in the six seasons after he left. Bayern Munich went downhill after he left in 2011. If I were a Manchester United fan, I’d be worried about what might be happening inside the club.

So what might be the characteristics of a leader with this results profile? Autocrat is a good one-word description. They will be an excellent motivator, a good tactician, someone good at lobbying for help and money and support, a figurehead, someone intensely results focused, sometimes a bit self-centred and arrogant, and perhaps someone brittle in relationships who makes long-term enemies. By contrast, the strategic or developmental leader lacks some qualities to get immediate results, but will prioritise developing a system and infrastructure, a pipeline of talent and a means of improving it and an ability to spot trends and make plans accordingly.

I don’t want to claim that one group is better than the other. It can be contextual, and, perhaps like Arsenal under Wenger in recent years, a strategist can defer success for ever. What I will claim is that in many situations, the glory will go to the autocrat, while the developer usually creates more sustainable value. Since Barcelona took to choosing developmental leaders and continuity, they have become more of a powerhouse than Real Madrid, for example.

I would like to research other examples in sports and business of leaders who could be termed dangerous autocrats. I don’t think Ferguson fits the profile, though his autocracy was legendary, because he also developed talent. Clough perhaps was one. In business, Jack Welch would be an obvious candidate, but again he did treat succession seriously. AG Laffley and Bob Diamond might be others to examine.

Where the profile is more common is in political leaders. Sadly, the world is full of autocrats and even democracies have more than their share, voters being deluded by all the tactical astuteness and ignoring the structural weaknesses. Look at Maggie Thatcher, a true election winner but poisonous for her party (and country) after her demise. Perhaps Blair, despite his superficial intelligence and cuddly manner, is the same. France specializes in the autocratic leader, Sarkozy following de Gaulle. Tony Abbott is an example too, though perhaps the Australians got rid of him in time.

On the other side of the coin, it has taken years to appreciate Angela Merkel, the latest in an impressive line of strategic German chancellors (excluding Kohl). One day even John Major will be rehabilitated. Roy Jenkins already has been. I even have hopes for Nick Clegg.

A key strength of autocrats is their ability to obtain and maintain power, so politics is their natural habitat, especially where democracy is weak. Good examples are Tito, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Mahathir. In each case, look at what happened after they left – they make Louis van Gaal’s track record look good!

The lesson for humanity, apart from trying to avoid these rulers in the first place, is to do more to prepare for the aftermath. It was utterly shameful for the US to invade Iraq, but even more shameful, and naïve as well, not to anticipate the aftermath. Libya now is ungovernable, a worse place for its citizens than under Gaddafi and a more dangerous place for the rest of us. That is not to try to praise Gaddafi or to wish away the Arab spring, instead I am saying that we should anticipate the challenge of the rebuilding task and take more steps to help.    

Many other autocratic leaders are still in power. I fear for Israel post Netanyahu, I can only imagine the decimated state of Israeli institutions beneath the serene surface there. Assad next door is an even more obvious case: I fear the misery for Syrians is only just beginning.

The clearest example of all is Putin, he is the epitome of the autocrat. He is a supreme tactician and motivator, but a disastrous developer. What will happen to Russia once he finally leaves power? The Economist goes so far as to predict that the country may break up completely, and that may indeed be a feasible outcome – though I am becoming more and more convinced that there is an MI6 mole or two inside the senior staff at that magazine.

There are also lessons in this for all of us. Are we operational autocrats or strategic developers? If we are one or the other, how can we balance our skills or our teams? In Scandinavia, my stroke of fortune was that my tenure coincided with a powerful motivational programme called BFI. BFI actually failed in most markets, owing to its woeful lack of any strategic component. But without BFI, all my strategy would probably have come to nothing. And my own skill set certainly would have failed to spot this or compensate for it, without BFI landing in my lap.

What about as parents? We need the same balance, but surely biased towards development rather than autocracy. But a good parental couple might have complementary strengths, as the tests do need to be passed today and the house kept clean.

Finally, look out before you accept a job, and pay attention to your predecessor. If you are strong operationally, it can be a dream to follow a good developer and reap the rewards. No matter what your own skills, following behind an autocrat is likely to be pretty thankless, so make sure you have deep support around you. Just ask Guus Hiddinck, or John Major, or even George W in Iraq.  

More on cities

If you go on holiday to southern Spain or the Algarve, one thing you will see a lot of are real estate agents. During the summer they are busy, as well. Few holiday makers can resist browsing in windows, to see how much it might cost to live in the somewhere like the luxurious villa they might be renting, and many take it a step further and arrange some viewings.

I succumbed to that temptation more than ten years ago, and ended up buying a lovely villa in the Algarve, after a very enjoyable year or so of shopping. Once the initial euphoria had died down, I made sure the purchase had very clear goals, and in fact I still own the place and have never regretted buying it even though much has changed in my life since.

This was in my mid forties, and I was already thinking about retiring sometime not too far into my fifties. Capital appreciation was never a goal of the purchase, and just as well as property values rarely do what brochures suggest they will, and in fact the villa has barely held its value. The main idea was to create an option, and to explore what that option would feel like when the time came to decide whether or not to exercise it.

Many people retire to warmer climes, but most don’t have the luxury I had of being able to discover enough about the lifestyle in advance. Instead, a big change is piled upon what already is a major life change, at a time of life when foreign languages and strange bureaucracies are not so easy to cope with as in ones youth. Many end up missing their families and concerned about healthcare as their own health fades, and end up back home, though a number do stay the course and thrive.

As well as getting some of the jarring change out of the way in advance, and hopefully building up a network of friends and activities, I wanted to get a feel for what living in Portugal would actually be like. The answer is mixed. The pleasures of sun, relaxation, and plentiful affordable good food are real enough. I could wile away my days happily enough there. But what have become clear are the limitations of living far away from a city and mass culture.

What I have had the blessing of learning is that, after retiring, life in a big city shares many of the benefits of an easy existence by the sea. True, the climate is far less inviting. But relaxation is possible and affordable good food is even more plentiful in a city. And the culture of a city is a luxury I would struggle to live without.

As I have argued before, many cities have improved over the last twenty years or so. Both London and New York now have the benefits of safety and good mass transportation and are also much cleaner places than they used to be. I remember when I started work having to wash my hands and face really thoroughly after coming home from a day in London, leaving the basin almost black with grime. That is no longer the case, and we can also see the beautiful buildings without their prior coating of black.

There is also something about cities that suit a modern lifestyle, filled with gadgets. I once thought that technology would add to the attraction of Portugal, for example with the opportunity to enjoy quality live concerts at home. That remains true, but technology somehow adds even more to a city life. In our blessed lives nowadays, we crave experiences and pursue deep and specialized hobbies, and also place value on the breadth of our human relationships. That is exactly what good cities offer.

The cities have changed a lot, but what is crucial is that my context for living in them has changed completely. A couple of recent incidents show how. Normally I do my grocery shopping for the family just after the local mall opens at 10AM. I never sit in a queue to get there, I can park near the entrance, I can get around the store in ten minutes and there is no long checkout line. Much of my visit is spent enjoying a latte at Panera. Sometimes, including last Saturday, we need to go there at a weekend. The whole experience is miserable.

Then there was yesterday’s choir practice, an intense affair in the week of a concert that finished a little late. The subway journey home was slow, with delays on the 1 and E lines, and I wasn’t home before 11.30. I was tired, but cheerful, able to reflect on a constructive rehearsal, and not affected today after a slightly longer lie-in than usual. Had I already experience a morning commute and the prospect of a similar early start today, I would only have had negative feelings about the whole experience, and might by now even be thinking of quitting that choir.

My point is that for much of our lives we are time poor and overstressed, and the city shows its worst face to us. On the rare occasions I have to drive at 8am, I count my blessings and wonder how other people cope with that misery daily. A trip to the DMV is invariably horrible, but squeezed into a busy schedule might be enough to ruin my week.

It is not the city that is piling stress upon stress, it is our life circumstance. It is no wonder that two weeks of escape to the sun feels like heaven, and that we conclude that is where we want to spend all of our time once we have the chance.

That may very well be a correct deduction for many of us. Heck, it might still be the right deduction for me, albeit a few years later than I originally thought.

But before we rush into those Spanish real estate agents and splash out on our dream retirement home, we need to be sure we are asking the right question and thinking about our future context not just our present one. It is hard to know exactly what our future circumstances might be, but we can make some educated guesses, and also work to create good options to test things out and minimize some uncertainty.

I got some of this right, but I found it hard to look beyond the city as the scene of stress. Locked into commuting and tired choir rehearsals and horrible supermarket lines, I didn’t take time or ask others to understand what a city life might look like without the dominant time-poor lifestyle from a demanding job.

I was blessed. Of course it is an unusual blessing to even be able to contemplate early retirement and major investments. But I was also blessed in being given life circumstances to explore things further and to change my mind. Now having enjoyed New York for three years I have every intention, God willing, to soak in its wonder for much longer, and maybe even to try London after that.

So next time you are idly reading the details in Spanish real estate agent windows, by all means dream and have some fun. It is a good idea to talk to life partners and kids deeply, and also to ask others with related experiences. This is a tough process and worthy of a lot of thought and time. I thought I was pretty good at this sort of thing, but I made at least one classical, cardinal error. The outcome so far has been excellent, but the thought process was flawed.