A week ago I, like millions of others, celebrated Roger Federer’s latest achievement. What is it about this tennis player that makes him so popular? He has in fact won the ATP World Tour Fan’s favourite a record nine times straight between 2003 to 2011 and I have little doubt he will win this year’s as well.

Obviously success attracts and Roger’s success is phenomenal, Rod Laver goes so far as to say that he is the greatest player that ever lived, certainly no one has ever won 17 grand slams before, but it is more than that, for he is also popular with all the other professional tennis players as evidenced by winning the Stefen Edberg Sportsmanship Award, which is voted for by the players, a record seven times between 2004 and 2011. So how does he do it and what can people who want to exercise leadership learn from him?

[Seguir leyendo →]

I recently heard an interview on ABC radio with American author David Frum talking about his new book, “Patriots”. Frum was a speechwriter for George W Bush so you would expect his book to applaud recent Republican politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. His novel is a Satire on how the Republican Party has played politics these last eight years, its manner of doing things that, according to Frum, has little to do with the values his party has traditionally held dear.

Just as you might expect, criticism of his book, and of him personally from many of his ex-colleagues has been virulent, especially from Tea Party members who try to portray Frum as a traitor, ironically the opposite of the title of his book.

But just who is the real traitor and who is the real patriot? Is he a patriot who remains loyal to his country no matter what direction it takes or he who remains loyal to the values on which the country was founded?

Is loyalty a value in itself?

This question actually begs another. I often hear people applaud loyalty is if it were a value in itself. Many Germans remained loyal to Hitler even when it became clear just what an insane monster he was. Was this loyalty good? I personally believe that there are some ideals on which most democracies are built and some values that are based on a renaissance understanding of humanism. I believe these things to be good. I also believe that there are things that we just know are right and things we just know are wrong. If someone or some political party remains true to these, then I believe it is good to be loyal. If they betray these things than betraying them is good. On this basis someone like Willy Brandt who was sent to a concentration camp for his beliefs is a patriot and a hero while the SS Guards in Hitler’s Bunker who executed those that looked for a way out of Hitler’s disaster, were loyal traitors to everything that Germany had stood for.

Companies who betray their founding values

Following these ideas, how should a manager behave when he sees his company or his bank betray the original values or their long followed ethical practices? I believe that if they want to practice the type of leadership on which the world’s truly great companies were built, he needs to be critical even if it leads to his eventual exit from the company.

We need this type of leadership today more than ever for so many organizations seem to be losing their way. Bob Diamond’s defence of Barclays Bank’s fraudulent practise is a recent example, saying that they followed those practices because “they believed that other banks were doing the same”. I hear this type of phrase and I wonder if these guys even know the difference between right and wrong any more. This is not the way to build a company that deservedly makes good profits by creating products and services that add value to people’s lives. Going down the wrong track, as most of the “great” financial institutions seen to have done these last fifteen years, starts with a small but intentional lie, a ruthless act, a seemly insignificant betrayal. Good leadership blows the whistle on these types of action.

David Frum remains a conservative, he does not share the Democratic Party’s philosophy of how to run a country and improve the life of its people. In fact I personally don’t agree with his politics, and yet I respect his opinions and could probably even find some common ground, for he is an honest man practising honest leadership. By criticising his party for turning their back on the great majority of Americans and by practising politics that spread fear rather than hope he his is doing his party and his country a great service. He is being loyal to its original values. He is for me a patriot.

I am often rather disoriented when reading some of the comments about the future of the Euro. Firstly because a lot of people seem to want the Euro to collapse or even disappear, and secondly for the lack of objectivity. This lack of objectivity is dangerous for anyone who has to lead people, particularly so, if they are not aware of it.

To explore our example of the Euro, I am not sure how many people understand just how central the Euro is to the whole architecture of the European Union. If the Euro disappeared then the whole European Union project could collapse. How this could possibly be good for anyone I find difficult to understand. Having myself been born only ten years after the end of the Second World War my world-view has logically been shaped by that momentous global struggle. Steven Spielberg goes so far to say that World War II was essentially a war for the survival of Western Civilization. I myself often stop every now and then to quietly give thanks to all those soldiers who gave their lives so that the rest of us could have peace.

And what a peace it has been. Western Europe after two thousand years of constantly tearing itself apart has enjoyed 60 years of uninterrupted peace and prosperity. The cornerstone of this prosperity is the European Union, a union that has helped the values that lie behind Western Civilization continue to influence the world.  Not a bad thing, if you ask me. The EU’s most solid pillar is the Euro. Seen in this light one has to ask; who does it serve to have it collapse?

The discomfort of thought

What is behind this I believe is a lack of objectivity and behind that lie emotional reactions that are not recognized for what they are and therefore not thought through. These emotional reactions are often handed down from generation to generation and become automatic, and therefore escape the rigor of rational analysis. As JFK said, “For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

This is precisely what anyone who exercises leadership cannot afford to do. Returning to our example of the European Union, so much criticism of it, especially from English people, for whom I must say I feel a deep affection, is dressed in rational language but is, I believe, mostly emotional in origin, perhaps coming from understandable sense of loss of Empire. The point is these opiones don’t often seem to be not subjected to “the discomfort of thought”. The first step to being objective is sincerely recognizing that you are not being objective. And it is fine not always being objective,  however it is important be aware of when your are being objective and when you are not.

Anyone who manages other people would be well served constantly working on their objectivity. The people who you manage will recognize your efforts, will perceive you as being fairer and open to dialogue and the quality of your decisions will exponentially improve.

Some tips to help being objective when exercising leadership

• Be in touch with your feelings, they are the clues to your thoughts.
• Once you recognize the thought, ask if it is really true? What evidence supports it?
• Know your values, what assumptions lie behind them? Are they still valid?
• Know what your “red button” topics are. Work even harder on being objective when you are dealing with these.
• Do all of the above often. Understand that it does not come naturally and is therefore an effort. It is like mental yoga for leaders.

This is a struggle for anyone, I for one find it difficult. But it is an important endeavour and one that will reward you in many different ways.

What ideas do you have for improving objectivity?

Hace un tiempo, leí un libro muy interesante escrito por Robin Dunbar en el que defiende un número máximo de personas con las que alguien puede mantener una relación estable. El número de Dunbar sitúa esa cifra en alrededor de 150.

Según Dunbar, los seres humanos están psicológicamente limitados a esta cantidad de relaciones, con indiferencia de si estamos hablando de gente que vive en Nueva York o en alguna ciudad minera de Australia Occidental.

[Seguir leyendo →]

Recientemente he impartido un programa de liderazgo en Estocolmo en el que participaron personas de catorce países diferentes. Casi todos tenían que gestionar lo que denominamos “Equipos Remotos” en los que sus miembros están repartidos por todo el mundo. La actividad que realizamos requería que los participantes analizaran en profundidad aquello que mejor les funcionaba a la hora de gestionar estos equipos. Los resultados fueron interesantes.

[Seguir leyendo →]

Hace un tiempo, una amiga mía que intentaba emigrar al país de su marido tuvo que pasar por un largo proceso para demostrar que su matrimonio era real, que de hecho tenía una relación de amor. En otras palabras, hacer ver que ella y su marido se querían.

¿Cómo se lograr eso? Puedes conseguir que amigos tuyos declaren que os amáis y se pueden hacer todo tipo de trucos increíbles con fotografías de una persona con otra en cualquier lugar y en las poses más románticas. Pero, ¿cómo demuestras de verdad que amas a alguien? Esto me recuerda a la película protagonizada por Jodie Foster y Matthew McConaughey, “Contact”, en la que ella es una científica que se introduce en el mundo de la ciencia inspirada por su padre, con quien había mantenido una relación excepcionalmente estrecha y que había muerto cuando ella era muy joven. El papel de McConaughey es el de un ministro religioso. La relación amorosa era problemática ya que ella no podía comprender su fe porque no existía una prueba empírica que confirmara la existencia de Dios. En una escena magnífica se produce el siguiente diálogo:

[Seguir leyendo →]