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.
Here we are in the final run-up to the US election. And what a marathon it's been. We've had the primaries, the conventions, How To Vote guides on YouTube, high profile advertising in racing video games and an infomercial; now it's all down to the voting next week.
Barack Obama's strong lead in the polls over the Republican candidate John McCain continues to grow. This healthy lead remains despite press speculation that American voters will falter at the polling booths and decide that a first black president is just a step too far. The Republican leader John McCain, however, thinks this is unlikely. As he said in a recent Larry King interview, "Look, there is racism in America. We all know that...but I am totally convinced that 99 and forty-four-one-hundredths percent of Americans are going to make the decision based on who is best to lead this country". Let's hope they don't have to do the math on that one....
Regardless of the outcome of next week's election, it's fair to say that in the US, much as in the UK, overt, traditional forms of racism are becoming increasingly taboo, to the point that we are now looking at a popular black Senator. It's taken time though - 1870 saw the first black congressman to be seated in the House of Representatives. Even more surprising, perhaps, is that the UK was more than 20 years behind the US in electing its first ethnic minority MP, Dadabhai Naoroji, in 1892. Even today, with only 15 of our 605 MPs being from a minority background, we still find ourselves playing catch-up. Perhaps some may argue that this is simply due to numbers - the US after all has a higher proportion of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. But given that over here in the UK we still struggle to vote for black dancers in Strictly Come Dancing and black singers in I'd Do Anything, I'm not going to hold my breath. Perhaps the 2008 US elections will be another opportunity for the US to lead the UK in breaking new ground.
"Perhaps in future it would be better if all involved accepted the age old adage that private parties are just that." So wrote Nathaniel Rothschild in his now infamous letter to the Times newspaper about George Osborne, the shadow chancellor. Rothschild's letter was short, sharp, punishment, meted out because Osborne broke one of high society's unwritten rules.
Unwritten rules surround us, some we are aware of and others we are not, because they are unconscious. In both cases there are consequences for breaking these rules. For example, stereotypes are powerful sources of unwritten rules. When you think of a leader what sort of person springs to mind? For most of us the answer will be a man, especially a tall man. Take the workplace. Recent research by the Cranfield School of Management showed that women held just 12 per cent of board seats at FTSE 100 companies. Meanwhile, Psychologists have found that tall men earn more than their shorter counterparts - a man who is 6 feet tall earns, on average, nearly $166,000 more during a 30-year career than a man who is 5 feet 5 inches.
This is because women, and short men, break our unwritten rules. We expect our leaders to show signs of 'strength' such as a large stature and a deep voice. However, these examples show that unwritten rules can be neither fair nor helpful. Importantly, we can also fall foul of our own rules. Take Warren Harding who was president of the United States from 1921-1923. In his book 'Blink', Malcolm Gladwell draws on evidence describing Harding as "Looking like a President"; his biographer wrote that his "lusty black eyebrows contrasted with his steel-grey hair to give the effect of force, his massive shoulders and bronzed complexion gave the effect of health." In essence, this was a man who appealed directly to out unwritten rules about what a leader should look like.Unfortunately for the American electorate, Harding has also been described as "one of the worst presidents in American history". His limited intellect and unclear direction meant that he was, in many respects, an ineffectual leader. The voters' unwritten rules blinded them to the rather disappointing reality.
This poses a real problem for organisations that can't (or won't) challenge and change these types of unwritten rules. The result is talent management, promotions, and hiring processes which play to stereotypes, hunches, and 'intuition', favouring those who meet the rules but not the real needs. The result, like Harding, can be someone who looks like they can do a job which, in reality, is beyond them, whilst those who are capable are either frustrated bystanders or are busy succeeding elsewhere. In the current climate who can afford that?
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