The occasion of Gordon Brown's first meeting with Barack Obama since the latter's inauguration makes you wonder about the nature of the so called "special relationship" between the two countries and how it will fare in the hands of the two leaders.
First of all it should be noted that they do share several ersonality characteristics in common. Both are highly analytical, long-term, strategic thinkers. In addition, they are both values driven and have a good understanding of what they believe in and stand for.
They also share some shortcomings. Their strengths in analysis make it difficult for them to make spontaneous decisions and as a result this can be an area where they can get unstuck. There is also a tendency for both men to become somewhat aloof under pressure.
But there are also considerable differences. Brown, for example, is confident, has a great ability to focus and as a result is able to get things done. His belief in his own abilities though can make him appear arrogant and at times perhaps even rather strident. He is naturally mistrustful and rather suspicious of others but also has a need for control. Empathy is not something that comes easily to him.
Obama on the other hand works to understand others and to persuade them. He is able to see others' perspective and generally has a far more open style. Interestingly there is anxiety here too, in particular a fear of failure and under pressure he can become judgemental and withdrawn. Obama's openness to feedback, argument and ideas to others' styles of working certainly makes him a more complete leader.
How will they work together? Well, they don't seem to be an ideal working combination. On the other hand how closely do they really have to work with each other? The first meeting of the two as leaders will be mannered and studied. Brown will want to be seen as a peer and not as a lapdog. This natural suspiciousness will probably get in the way of establishing strong bonds. The relationship, as far as we can tell, will be one of wariness and personal distance.
The context of the meeting is also important. Brown is beleaguered, behind in the polls and with his government's competence being questioned. Obama on the other hand is charismatic, popular and seen as a welcome breath of fresh air.
Their personality styles then do not auger well for the special relationship. If it is to flourish Obama must make Brown feel like an equal in private as well as in public. He will need to follow through on commitments and see their relationship as mutually beneficial.
The area which provides hope is their values. The way they view the world appears to be very similar. If they can agree on what they jointly want to achieve, which is certainly possible, then their personality differences will not present such a great issue.
Gordon Brown complimented Barak Obama on his recent election to become US President by saying "I know Barak Obama and we share many values. We both have determination to show that government can act and help people fairly through the difficult times facing the economy".
Having studied both men closely it is clear that they have similarities. Both are analytical, strategic thinkers and are values driven. But whilst Obama openly talks and writes about his values Gordon Brown, in contrast, seems almost to deny having them in case they offend.
Interestingly, the British public's perception of the Prime Minister has started to improve with his tackling of the current economic crisis. This is precisely the type of problem that our work shows that he should excel at, requiring, as it does, a detailed grasp of facts, a long term view and careful planning and implementation. In short, it plays to many of his strengths.
Just as importantly, people seem to accept that he will be good in exactly this type of crisis so there are positive expectations of him. Nor does it require him to persuade us of the need to act - we know something needs to be done and we are happy to go along with the solutions he suggests. This feeds his arrogant streak and avoids having to influence, which is not one of his strengths.
The one area which Brown seems reluctant, even now, to talk about is his values. In coming to power Brown should have had the courage to use his values as the basis for his decision making. Instead he tried to become a populist politician, in the Blair mould, which does not suit him at all. In this respect there is much that our seasoned, experienced Premier can learn from the younger, greener President Elect of the United States.
Shame is a powerful human emotion which occurs when our self-esteem, social status or social attractiveness is diminished in some significant way.
The feeling of shame draws our attention to those things which threaten our power and standing. In that sense it can be seen as something which helps us to learn and adapt.
The Max Mosley privacy action against the News of the World is a fascinating public example of shame and the response to it.
In publishing the story about his sadomasochistic predilections the News of the World quite clearly wanted to shame the Formula One boss. The typical responses to shame are related to submissiveness, for example avoiding eye contact, hiding. The newspaper must have anticipated a response like this to its lurid headlines.
Instead, Mosley went against the grain. His anger and sense of injustice were so great that instead of withdrawing he did exactly the opposite. He met with all the key people in his organisation to ensure that he retained their confidence. Furthermore, he accepted that what he had done had caused great personal distress to himself and to his family. What he also succeeded in doing though was to make it clear that the acts themselves, whilst unusual, were not necessarily anything to be ashamed of. He therefore appears to be separating the cause of the shame from his self concept. The court case itself may have served as away of demonstrating his feelings about what occurred.
Unsurprisingly, shame is related to a range of mental health problems including depression. Mosley's response, however, displays a high degree of resilience which should mean he will recover from this experience quicker than most people would.
Selection of staff is an imperfect and pressurised practice. You get a few hours at best to assess your candidates before having to make a decision. How much better if we could evaluate each person over several months, having them perform tasks that we have set them, observed by our most trusted aides. At the end of such a thorough and intensive selection process I think we'd all be confident about getting the right person wouldn't we? Not if you're Sir Alan Sugar you wouldn't. I have been following the latest series of the Apprentice eagerly. Last week saw the last five candidates being interviewed by Sir Alan's cronies. The conclusion of the programme saw the great man not being able to identify the two best people for the final, opting to choose four instead.
To say I was disappointed would be putting it mildly. How can you have that amount of information on each person and still be unable to make a decision?
Over and above that exactly what is he looking for? It seems clear that he wants someone who can buy and sell, is entrepreneurial, can lead a team and be led. He also wants someone he can mould. He seems to focus on those characteristics to such an extent that he seems extremely unconcerned about lying, cheating, bullying, bribing, scapegoating, scheming, conning and sheer uselessness. He prevaricates whilst the rest of the country is shouting at their TV screens "Fire them!"
One of the main reasons why I watch the series is because of Sir Alan himself. He has shown himself to be tough, astute, witty. Now though, whilst still tough and witty, his judgement should seriously be called into question.
Regardless of whoever wins the final I think the producers ought to say "With regret, Sir Alan, you're fired!"
Feed