Shades of Leadership

Leadership in a Democracy

The UK referendum on exiting the EU reminds us that democracy has its advantages and limitations. Although there was an unusual record 70%+ turnout that resulted in a 52% decision to exit the EU, we learn that on the following day, the most searched phrases on the Google in the UK were phrases such as, “What is Brexit?” and “What is the EU?” This leads to the sobering realization that the vote to exit the EU was likely made by a voter population that was substantially uniformed about the full implications of their decision, and was drawn to the vote by something other than a comprehensive understanding about living under the auspices of the European Union.

Democracy, defined as “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” grants eligible people a right to vote. Interestingly, it does not require a responsibility to be informed about the topic on which, or the individual for whom, they’re voting.

The case of Brexit made this abundantly clear.

The challenge involved in running a multi-national collective such as the European Union is not well understood by the masses across the continent or throughout the world. An attempt to create a single market through standardized laws and a shared economic framework is one of the greatest political/economic experiments ever undertaken in modern history. There were naysayers from the start, and it has been fraught with significant challenges, but an attempt to create a unified entity to compete in a global world with powerhouses like the US and China was, and still remains, an admirable vision. Given the complexities around the topics of trade, security, and immigration (yes, I separate the last two topics), there are very few voters who can truly grasp either the “enter” or “exit” EU decision. Therefore, many voted on the topic that seemed to matter the most to them, that of immigrants – and likely only certain types – as to whether or not it was desirable to open borders. Many believed that the issue was greatly tied to security (although I’d guess that few pub conversations went deep into the relationship that the EU has had with organizations like NATO over the years, but likely around whether “certain people” should be allowed into the country). I would venture to guess that very few voters based their decision on a strong understanding of the economic complexities around managing multiple economies, balance of trade, and the governance of such an organization, and how it was affecting member states. Herein lies the real issue – voters shouldn’t be expected to know all this. That’s why democracies elect leaders to make decisions, and to make things work.

Democracies were set out to create a form of government for a large number of people where selected leaders represented them in decision-making. In Ancient Greece where democracy was born, it was believed that the best way to represent all voices – majority and minority – was by selecting those deemed to be wise enough and honest enough to serve the collective. From the beginning, leadership was key, and I would posture that wisdom and integrity are still the most important traits for leaders of a democracy to possess.

In the absence of feeling that those elected are performing their duties well, a wider population may feel, from time to time, that the system is not working. In the case of Brexit, the strains of EU membership had been growing for years, and the recent decision to open borders to immigrants during a time of significant economic challenge seemed a critical moment in the EU relationship, and some in the UK felt they had lost control of decisions that impacted their every day life. People felt that those they elected to Parliament were not influencing the right decisions that impacted their daily lives, and those who ran the EU were not people who they had selected. One can argue whether this was inherent in the construct of the EU or whether it was due to other factors, but one thing is for certain: The confidence that the people in the UK had for those making decisions impacting their daily lives was lost. In times like this, the right thing to do is to examine those whose role it is to make the right decisions. Do they possess the wisdom and integrity to represent the wider population? If not, the most important decision in a democracy must be made: To change out leadership.

Calling for a mass referendum on a topic so complex that no average person can grasp the full extent of the implications of “Remain” or “Leave”, was a poorly calculated decision by David Cameron. He took the leadership role of managing the EU situation out of the hands of those theoretically most qualified to make the decision, and put it in the hands of an emotion-driven constituency (although Parliament still has the final decision, but doubtful they will vote differently). In swooped the politicos with their agendas, fear-mongers took over the airwaves, emotions took over the conversations, and the vote soon became one of “let’s get our country back” rather than “how do we make this work”. The absence of strong leadership in the UK government resulted in a decision that surprised everyone.

Cameron’s miscalculation is one that is shared by politicians (and idealists) everywhere. He believed that when people had the opportunity to make an informed decision about a specific topic, they would take the time to learn the facts, and would be wise enough to weigh all underlying and impacted variables before making a decision. Unfortunately, throughout history, (and particularly in today's world of 24/7 communications dominated by the loudest voice, the one who buys the most airtime, or the one who has most Twitter followers), this is a naïve assumption, guided by a lack of understanding of how people in the world get their information and formulate opinions. The decision to leave or remain in the EU is a decision that the UK leadership should be making. They are now informed by a public referendum that may or may not have been made with a clear understanding of all issues. Regardless of how one may feel about the choice to remain or leave, one thing seems clear to me -- the need for a referendum was the outcome of poor leadership by many parties.

History has witnessed watershed moments when people have been unhappy with leadership of a nation or region. In many cases, military coups result in toppled dictatorships. Democracy allows for an organized transition to a controlling party to take the helm, but assumes that people show up to vote for leadership, and that those who they elect deserve their positions because of their wisdom and integrity. To the extent that democracy’s leaders live up to these timeless expectations, it will remain a form of government that can sustain.

Leadership and Personal Happiness

The recent comments made by PepsiCo CEO, Indra K Nooyi, have once again fueled the debate on the topic of whether women can “have it all”; attain a high level of corporate success while enjoying a happy home life.  As countless numbers of career women, who invested thousands of dollars on their education and training, begin the climb up the corporate ladder, this huge soaking blanket is thrust upon their efforts, and, sadly, thrown by one of the most powerful women in corporate America.  Thanks a ton.

I’m not one who says it’s easy – for anyone, woman or man, to find success in both a high-flying career as well as a wonderful family life.  But to say it’s impossible is just wrong.  Yes, it’s tough.  And yes, the critical years we invest in our careers often coincide with the years that women have children.  But it can be done with support and involvement of people who have a stake and interest in our success.

The proof point that Ms. Nooyi cites is a comment made by her mother, when told of the exciting news that her daughter was joining the Board Of Directors of PepsiCo.  At that moment, rather than celebrating the amazing news of her professional success, here are the comments she recalls from her mother:

“Let me explain something to you. You might be president of PepsiCo. You might be on the board of directors. But when you enter this house, you're the wife, you're the daughter, you're the daughter-in-law, you're the mother. You're all of that. Nobody else can take that place. So leave that damned crown in the garage. And don't bring it into the house. You know I've never seen that crown."

I won’t try to take too many guesses as to why she said what she did.  Perhaps this was a mother who wanted her daughter to keep her ego in check. But in my opinion, what Ms. Nooyi needed to hear at that moment were words expressing excitement about what was happening, and from someone who was interested in helping to make it all work.  Every senior executive is faced with the dilemma of how to juggle many balls and achieve success for all of the stakeholders in our lives.  What we need is support from family and friends, and wisdom from mentors and leaders who have been in our shoes. 

 Rather than accept defeat, I share some advice based on personal experience as well as what I have observed over the years watching many people who actually do “make it all work”.

• The household works on a partnership.  If a woman is holding an incredibly demanding job, then maybe she shouldn’t be made to feel like she has to pick up all the groceries on the way home.  Of course no one can “take the place” of a mother.  But the role of mother doesn’t mean she has to do 100% of everything at home.  Husbands and partners need to be willing to cook, clean, iron, run errands, give baths, and help with homework.  By the way, this is always totally expected when the man is the executive, right?  So why do we hold executive women to a different set of standards?

• The kids need to understand the program.  Kids at a young age will realize that yours is not a “traditional” family.  It’s okay.  They turn out fine.  In fact, kids from these families develop a wonderful set of values that men and women are capable of doing all kinds of things.  What a novel idea.  Mom can work in a business just like dad can, and dad can cook dinner just like mom!  Boys and girls who grow up in this environment have a healthy outlook on gender issues, feel loved by both of their parents, and don’t get hung up on whether someone is there for every soccer game or school play.  Communicate with them, and tell them why yours is a wonderful family. 

• Set realistic expectations for yourself.  Popular culture places incredible pressure on what a woman is supposed to do.  If we’re executives, we’re supposed to be a darling of Wall Street.  At the same time, we’re led to think we have to run a household like Mary Poppins, be a homemaker to rival Martha Stewart, while all the time, look like the cover of a fashion magazine.  Stop feeling guilty about not doing everything perfectly.  After all, it’s not about impressing everyone else in the world.  It’s about performing on a job, and making things right for those you love.

• Ask for help when needed.  It’s not a sign of weakness; it’s a privilege that you have earned!  Hire someone to do the things you’d rather not do.  It might be housecleaning, it might be yard work, it might be cooking.  Doing this does not make you a bad wife or mother.  And don’t let anyone make you feel that way.  You are doing amazing things, and you deserve some help.

The biggest takeaway I got from reading this article was that leaders, like Ms. Nooyi, should realize the impact of what they say.  When I became a senior manager, I realized that whether it was deserved or not, women looked at me as a role model.  They wanted my advice on how to manage a career when they were starting a family.  They wanted to hear about the difficulties as well as some tricks to make things work.  They wanted to know about mistakes I had made, and what I’d do differently with 20/20 hindsight.  The most important thing leaders can do in these instances is to be honest – but don’t dash hope!  Become their biggest cheerleaders, create networks of support, and spread the news of their success!

I don’t doubt that it’s hard, and there are many women who, for whatever reasons, have chosen the career over the family, or vice versa.  I respect that, and in the end, believe that the ultimate objective of the feminine movement is to ensure that women have options from which to choose.  For those who are seeking both professional success and family happiness, the key lies in the people with whom you choose to take that journey.  With the right group of partners and supporters, it CAN be done, ladies!

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic Importance of Diverse Leadership

First Hostess, then Kodak.  Two of my childhood brands declare bankruptcy in the same week.  As a consumer of their products, I never imagined either of those two companies going away.  But as one who spends time examining how businesses are led, I realize the importance of strategic challenge – an agenda topic that both of these companies missed.

No one can argue that the landscape changed for both of these firms.  For Hostess, the push for nutritional foods and the focus on childhood obesity has certainly affected their business.  Although Hostess publicly states a commitment to responsible advertising and health and nutrition (eliminating trans fats), their website reports that top sellers are still the sweet snacks that we all knew from our childhood.  The customer base was shrinking, and no one did enough to identify and capture growth markets.

For Kodak, the digital age undoubtedly changed their business model.  I can’t remember how long it’s been since I bought a roll of film.  Although Kodak modified their product line and business around the changes in how memories are recorded, they’re really only known for one component of that “Kodak moment” – the film – and it was the one component that was going away.  The competitive set for that “moment” expanded beyond the traditional cast of characters (Fujitsu, Samsung) to the wider digital world of Apple and Sony.

Industry leaders are rarely the ones who change the game

Successful companies know that one of the greatest business risks is to have someone come in and re-write the strategic landscape. Notwithstanding that, you can take a look at just about any changed industry, and trace the interloper to an unexpected entrant.  Sears and Montgomery Ward paid no heed to a retailer named Walmart that was building stores in markets that didn’t seem to matter. American car companies were thrown off balance by an unlikely Japanese auto industry that redefined what quality was to the automotive consumer.  And Amazon, a company that realized we never needed to touch the book before we bought it, put large bookstore chains out of business. 

In hindsight, every company in trouble can go back and see where the adjustments should have been made.  So what is it that causes good companies to miss that important conversation? 

Conversations can only be as informed as the level of life experience around the table. 

I say “life experience” because it’s exactly that.  Our professional resumes state what jobs we’ve had, but don’t really reflect our values, our biases, and all of our experiences.  But when we contribute, we bring all of those variables to the table – which is the fundamental reason why diversity is important.  A quick look at the executive makeup of both Kodak and Hostess shows that the lack of diversity could have contributed to a limited perspective in strategic conversation.  There is little age, gender, and ethnic diversity in their board or leadership makeup.  You’d think a company that sells products to families would have a woman on the leadership team.  You’d also think a global company would have extensive international makeup at the board level.  I’m not saying that diversity is the sole answer.  But based on my experience, now sitting on four public boards, the conversation is far richer when there are different experiences around the table.  There’s less likely to be a common blind spot, and it’s more likely that someone sitting at the table has gone through any possible business scenario.

One of the most important roles that business leaders have is to challenge and pressure test the business strategy.  But we can only challenge and test to the extent of our experience.  It’s even more difficult if a company has a heritage of success.  Kodak and Hostess both had enviable competitive positions at one point.  But those around the table lacked the wisdom to measure a familiar trajectory against a different horizon.