The one with the golden skirts

One of my early posts on this blog was about women and it was reflecting on how through the courses of researching an essay I was writing had found some information that influenced my thinking on the gender debate. I said at the time I worked in an organisation that was 80% women which is now untrue (infrastructure and engineering are still largely male dominated) but also said I knew some fabulous women who had been very successful in breaking the glass ceiling. That is still very true and in fact this post follows conversations with two of them who I am fortunate enough to work with on an almost daily basis.

The organisation I work in is what’s known as a meta-organisation in that it’s an organisation made up of several different partner organisations. One of those partners is currently striving to formulate new strategy on how they will approach improving their diversity and inclusivity. In the course of formulating they have taken some meetings with various management consultants who have shared research and statistics on the current state of play and efforts that other organisations are making to address the same challenge. It’s not new news but lets term it current affairs – the stats were up to date.

The comment that one of my colleagues made which has been bouncing around my head ever since made a very interesting observation. The point she made was (and I’m paraphrasing) that the organisations that have naturally arrived at having a gender balanced board don’t perform better because of the women on the board but because they have cultures that are open and inclusive so the best people are appointed to the board irrespective of gender. They are successful not because of a difference of thinking around the board table (or at least not JUST because of that) but because their cultures are open and meritocratic.

Fast forward 24 hours and I am discussing this comment with my boss and talking about its impact on my thinking with relation to what could be termed the positive discriminatory efforts of some (most notably the Norwegians) and she introduced me to the phrase ‘golden skirts’. Women who are imported into senior roles to ensure a particular business are ‘meeting their quota’ and are seen to have gender balanced boards. Does their presence make a difference to the organisation? Who knows? But in re-reading my earlier post I can’t say my reluctance to jump into positive discrimination will truly solve the problem or truly empower women to take a more leading roles in some of our largest corporations.

I was fortunate enough to attend the recent CIPD Annual Conference and the opening keynote was delivered by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones (they of “Why should anyone by lead by you?” fame) and their topic was ‘Creating the best workplace on Earth’ and referred to an article they had published recently in the Harvard Business Review. Reactions to the session were mixed (someone described it as a marmite session) but it landed well for me with one point they made creating the most resonance – a point of difference you may call it!!

They had created an acronym for their best workplace DREAMS (you can read more about it in the article) and a little shoehorning aside it worked. The D in their case stood for Difference and in their best workplace check list they offered these statements:

• I’m the same person at home as I am at work.
• I feel comfortable being myself.
• We’re all encouraged to express our differences.
• People who think differently from most do well here.
• Passion is encouraged, even when it leads to conflict.
• More than one type of person fits in here.

I can’t help but think that Diversity has become something of a 4 letter word consigned to ‘also ran’ status on the HR agenda and does seem, at times, to focus on one element of diversity over another (and in doing so self-defeating its desire to be inclusive). It does seem that a discussion about difference would be far more empowering for organisations – let me be me and rather than alienating those who don’t fit into one of the boxes; it could create an opportunity for everyone to feel included in a discussion that could build a better culture and workplace (and of deliver better results). It would challenge the way we (the HR profession) work as it would challenge some of the norms of recruitment and development to name two.

Rather than writing policies that create opportunity for resentment or make people afraid to act  it seems to me the best opportunity organisations have is to examine their cultures for what excludes and turn that into a force for inclusion not for creating labels or clubs. Let’s celebrate difference and let positively intended people explore it – they may make mistakes but in a great culture they’ll learn, not be punished.

The one with the bullet proof toolkit

I recently took part in a workshop involving a group of senior managers working through their feedback from an external culture survey and audit. The day started with the group’s leader reminding them of the process they had been through, what had happened since the survey itself took place and how the scores had been compiled. All good so far.

It then moved on to one of their number going through the details of the response rates, the scoring and how their benchmarking within a comparison group had taken place and finally lead up to them being rated within the comparison group.

I must confess a wry smile as the group spent at least 10 minutes focused on how better management of the process and increasing the response rate could improve their score and reflect an improvement on the position they had achieved. The manager leading this session did well to discuss the options but kept them coming back to rather than trying to game manage the process would they not be better placed to consider the result they had achieved and what that ACTUALLY meant for their organisation.

It was at this point that he revealed a piece of information that had immediate and profound significance to me but the impact didn’t appear to hit home with the group for some time. The piece of information was that the final score achieved was based on two elements: the first was the survey results and the second a third party assessment of tools and processes that impact the culture and people of the organisation.

Why should this have profound significance you may ask? (Go on then…..ask). Well it turned out that  they had received significant commendation for the audit of tools and process. The overall score had been moderated down by the results of the survey. Yes….that’s right. The tools are great but it’s in the adoption and application of the tools that the opportunity for improvement exists!

There it was – in black and white…externally validated and bench-marked…no one could look at HR, OD, Comms or similar and challenge the toolkit, this was actual data that showed the focus needed to be not on reinventing, refitting or changing the wheel but actually was just about managing and leading the organisation using the fabulous toolkit provided.

It was about 40 minutes later that someone vocalised this penny drop and an uncomfortable silence enveloped the room…followed by a display of challenge, support and a commitment to improve that wasn’t about finger pointing, fad chasing or rolling out initiatives it was just about a group of very capable managers and leaders taking ownership.

5 hours later we went to the pub 🙂

The one with the fixed term contract

It’s all over, an estimated $2billion spent, no resident of Ohio gone without a handshake and the American public (well those of them in swing states really) have chosen to re-elect President Obama. From an election that was touted as too close to call his victory would seem emphatic (at final count I think it was 332 to 206 in the electoral college) but by Friday the news cycle had moved on to the budget crisis looming and his need to make deals with Congress.

At some point on Thursday I had a thought (which I shared via Twitter) which went something along the lines of ‘Obama has just won the last job he’ll ever do and there’s nothing else to run for. Let’s hope he goes for it now’. And I meant it, he has probably the most high profile fixed term contract on earth and come 2016 he’s a lame duck (probably a year before that but you know what I mean).

I don’t know what drives a man like Barack Obama but some of his fears since the heady days of ‘Yes we can’ must have been about re-election, the idea he would be a one term President. But that fear has gone now. He’s got the 2^nd term.

I have at times in my career observed leaders in various organisations acting like 1^st term Presidents spending far too much time focused on winning the 2^nd term rather than leading the organisation – what do I mean? Their drive for self-preservation means they play it safe, they don’t challenge the things that need challenging and in doing so create a cycle of behaviour that actually precipitates the very outcome they are so focused on preventing – they get ousted.

With the joy of human behaviour being so varied and diverse there is of course no single driver for how we behave but my belief is that fear is one hell of a great motivator and I believe organisations that can build structures and cultures that support courage, that invite challenge and have the difficult conversation and vanquish elephants on tables and everywhere else will be more successful.

How do you go about doing that? Now that’s the $64,000 question and I think it comes down to the specifics of the organisation and the context in which they operate. I have had some random (bar located) conversations regarding what it may take but for my money it comes down to (drum roll please) leadership and realising that as a leader you are there to engender vision, support decision making and be ultimately accountable but you don’t have all the answers and it’s only in asking the right questions and allowing people to answer them honestly that your team/division/directorate/organisation will improve and succeed.

Anyway, well done Mr Obama and to Mr Romney – well played. I had the pleasure of an amusing conversation with Laurie Ruettimann on Thursday night and I think we’ve already agreed that it’ll be Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush (because it seems only Republicans called Bush win general elections) in 2016 so you can save all the money, adverts, rallies etc. and just crack on!!

The one where I’m now in the family

Last November I wrote a post entitled ‘The one where it’s in the family’ where I expressed my frustration with what appeared, at least to me, the closed-minded thinking of some people about considering hiring people who had worked outside their industry. At the time people shared some interesting points of view and at the very least it made me feel better.

Now 6 months later I sit here learning to be part of a new ‘family’ lead by people who have done what I hoped more people would that is hired someone from outside their industry and actually made a point of welcoming the outside point of view. That’s all well and good – I am loving my job and the people I work with are being very supportive in sharing the industry specifics I will need to be effective.  However, it got me thinking about the behaviour one needs to exhibit in order to firstly deliver the role but more importantly make the risk those hiring took pay back and bring the ‘non-industry insight’ to bear.

So far the list is only five items long but here goes:

1. Be comfortable looking stupid

There are loads of things you don’t know that you will need to know. Asking means admitting you don’t know and that’s OK. Don’t let the fear of looking stupid or being the one person who doesn’t know stop you asking. The most powerful impact could be in asking a question about something that everyone takes for granted but a fresh pair of eyes that can see differently – it could be a game changer.

2. Share but don’t drone…

Count to yourself how many times you start a sentence with “When I worked for X” or “When I worked in Y”. Using your previous experience and providing some validation to an observation is essential but be aware of the risk of switching people off or worse have them actively whingeing about all the ‘company X’ stories

3. Don’t let specifics drown your perceptions

Yes each industry or sector has a lot of specifics and part of being able to deliver a role will be understanding those specifics but largely speaking people are people and don’t let the specifics drown out or cloud your perceptions – they are probably right.

4. Some people will defend with specifics

If people around you feel threatened either by your role or a new person in the environment they may use the specifics to try and defend a position or even to challenge your validity. That’s OK. Let them defend, understand their defence, don’t swing at the pitch but use this to build your understanding of the organisation and the individual

5. Take the time

Not knowing stuff is OK (according to my therapist!!) and whilst we all want to feel confident and part of things it’s OK to take time to understand the organisation, it’s culture, it’s people and it’s secret language. Don’t beat yourself up or let your lack of instant understand damage your confidence – take the time.

So 3 weeks done and my security pass hasn’t been revoked yet. If anyone has anything ideas of things to add to this post I would be grateful because sitting and writing it has been as much about me focussing on what I need to do as sharing any insight I may have and with that I will leave you to a new week and kick off week 4 and learn several new three letter acronyms!

The one to identify with

As part of a variety of workshops and team days I have regularly asked the question “what team are you in?” The answers are diverse and range from “team <individual’s name>” to their functional team to the particular country team or the entire organisation. It’s an interesting question and to me speaks to the individual’s perception of their role, maybe their motivation, their esteem in the organisation and what network they see themselves as part of.

Identity is one of those things that is present on all parts of our lives. Think back to the school yard – everyone was in gangs that were identified by a characteristic usually involving sport or social status (or is it technology now?). When you start working there are labels like the new starter, the graduate, the temp. As much as people seem to like labelling others (i.e. she’s an employee of X) it is more pertinent to the individual as to what label they choose to accept – how and what they identify with.

In his 2001 book Haslam describes organisational identity as akin to a psychological bond between the employer and the employee and Ashforth & Mael describe it as “the perception of oneness with or belonginess to the organization”. Haslam goes on to suggest that individuals who identify with their organisations see themselves as members and see the organisations values as aligned to their own either on a conscious cognitive level or a more emotional “pride” level. Employees who identify with their organisations will work longer for the greater good, often involving individual sacrifice and are more intrinsically motivated to deliver increased performance.

Different organisations treat this topic very differently. From recruitment and induction through to values workshops, employee surveys, town hall meetings etc etc etc, how organisations try to manage this and measure it is a topic much bigger than a) this post and b) my interest currently, but it does seem to me that at times we are skirting around the central tenant and looking at the superficial, do people actually feel like they belong to your organisation or is it just a transactional relationship?

I was having a conversation with a pal of mine at the weekend. She is an executive in a fairly large business and was talking about the commercial challenges they are facing at the moment. She went on to say that the senior team (of which she is part) have spent 9 months searching for the silver bullet and have finally realised it’s not one thing but a series of smaller things combined that will change their fortunes.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the topic of organisational identity is a) as straightforward as presented here or b) a silver bullet for organisations BUT it needs to be part of the discussion. The next time you have the opportunity ask some people which team they are in and why they think that, I’m not suggesting it will immediately change your fortunes but I would lay a sizeable bet it will be an interesting conversation.

P.S. What team are you in???

 

Afterword:

I wrote this post over the weekend and had done a little tweaking and nuancing (not nearly enough I’m sure) but then had a conversation with another friend who’s son has just started playing rugby at a local club (under 7s – VERY competitive) and the conversation strayed onto the World Cup. Having watched my team (Wales) but up a valiant but eventually unsuccessful performance against the reigning world champions, South Africa, I have the silver bullet (!!). All employees to wear rugby jerseys – not one of the 30 odd men appearing on that pitch yesterday were in any doubt as to their identity or what team they were in…

 

References:

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management

Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations. The social identity approach. London: Sage

The one with the $20 auction

OK so it wasn’t strictly $20 it was 100 Yuan but you’ll get the point…

Professor Max Bazerman is a very well credentialed man.  He is Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. His areas of expertise include decision making, ethics and negotiation and he has a publication list that would make even John Grisham blush.

Professor Brazerman’s first lecture on the MBA programme begins with the $20 auction where students can bid to win $20. Of course the bidding starts at $1 and can only go up in whole number increments so you’d figure the most it ever sells for is $20, right? Wrong. It has been sold, I believe, for as high a sum as $204 which having an expertise in ethics the good Professor donates to charity.

If you are anything like me you are likely sat reading this thinking “I’d never fall for anything like that” and you are probably right… but lots of people do and it’s for that reason that I’ve used this mechanic is several workshops including one which I ran today in Guangzhou, China. The workshop looks at amongst other things the nature of internal competition in organizations and how often the drive to succeed in the internal competition distracts from that ALL so important factor…the external competition.

Between my colleagues and I, we have run this workshop several times and I believe our record is somewhere in the region of £80 (and we usually use fake money) but the device is a good one for making the point about how otherwise sensible rational people make often strange decisions in the name of winning.

So this morning I duly got 100 Yuan (about £10) out of my wallet and popped it in an envelope to use at the appropriate moment. When the moment arrived in the workshop a strange thing happened – the auction didn’t work and despite my baiting and goading I only managed to get the team up to 20 Yuan (I had started the bidding at 10!) and was asked the following question:

“Why would we compete with each other? If we nominate one person and all share their costs, can we all share the prize?”

My initial reaction was a forced smile and a response in the affirmative whilst preparing to try and make the learning point without the auction having worked and then I stopped and thought, ‘is this cultural rather than just a group of bright sparks?”. Now I don’t know the answer but it’s been bouncing around in my head ever since.

I wrote a post last week (whilst working in Hong Kong) which shared the Hall’s cultural contexts and a feature of a high context culture (like China) is that identity is rooted in the collective as opposed to low context cultures like the US and the UK where identity is rooted in the individual. Now whether this is due to cultural context, political context or just the foresight of a few bright individuals seeing right through my plan I’m not sure. However, the idea that a group of relatively junior people in our Guangzhou office paid the equivalent of $4 in the $20 auction has made my day, especially when you look at the cost of the MBA programme at Harvard!

The one with the landlord’s fixtures

At exactly midnight (Hong Kong time) on July 1^st 1997, the Last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten sent the following telegram:

“I have relinquished the administration of this government. God Save The Queen. Patten.”

The succinct communication was the last official act of a government that had existed in some form or other for 155 years and with it Great Britain’s “tenancy” of Hong Kong ended and it became a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China or more correctly The People’s Republic of China. The terms of the SAR were negotiated in the years leading up to 1997 and it’s an arrangement that will last for 50 years at which point it will be subject to review. The return to Chinese rule did not however spark the mass exodus some predicted either of people or money and Hong Kong today is a vibrant multi cultural city-state.

You don’t have to travel far in the city to find relics of the former tenant – whether they are architectural or some classic road names -I can’t imagine Carnarvon Road is named after a Chinese location and Cameron Road is surely ahead of its time? But the interesting impact is on the culture which appears at least on the surface to be a blend of both its significant influences.

I have been very fortunate over the past few years to make several visits to Hong Kong. They have been mostly business (with a little pleasure snuck in) and I have worked with people from our business who have been of either British, Hong Kong-Chinese or Mainland Chinese origin and got to see firsthand some of the differences that manifest themselves as Asia accelerates its position in the global economy and the multi nationals strive to work effectively in the region.

In his 1976 book “Beyond Culture”, the anthropologist Edward T. Hall proposed his concept of cultural context defining the differences between high context and low context cultures. He was an American who’s work had started with native Americans and through working with the Foreign Service had broadened globally and I think I’m right in saying he defined the extremities of communication cultures using Japan and the US as respectively the poles of high context and low context cultures.

Information regarding his definitions is readily available but in summary:

High Context

• Relationships build slowly
• Trust depends on connections
• Identity rooted in the Collective
• Hierarchical structures
• Space is communal
• Time is polychronic
• Time is a process
• Change is slow
• Accuracy is valued

 

Low Context

• Relationships build up quickly
• Trust depends on one’s merit
• Identity rooted in the individual
• Egalitarian structures
• Space is territorial and private
• Time is monochronic
• Time is a commodity
• Change is fast
• Speed is valued

Given the poles are Japan and the US it is likely no great surprise that fairly close to both those extremes are China and the UK, with the Chinese culture very high context and the UK far lower.

It was during a discussion of these ideas with a group in Shanghai that one of the Senior Managers in the room asked the question “so where does Hong Kong sit?” Being a good facilitator I inwardly panicked and outwardly threw the question back to the room… discussion ensued. The result of the discussion was in their opinion, that Hong Kong sat somewhere you might define as mid context having elements of both high and low and the discussion went further to how the history of Hong Kong might have influenced this.

In reflecting on this on several occasions with various people since that time the idea of mid context seems to have some resonance for people experienced in the region and the observation had been made by several people that rather than having a diluted culture in the middle that Hong Kong has some distinctly high context elements and some distinctly low context elements and that they could possibly correlate to the role of the family (where culture seems far more traditional) and the role of commerce (where the behaviour observed by others has been likened far more to Western cultures).

Given the pace of globalisation, the shifts in economic power, the need for multinational businesses to operate globally and the future of the SAR, it seems that Hong Kong may have some interesting times ahead and with hindsight will the most significant landlord’s fixtures not be the buildings or the road names but the divergent culture born of two significant influences?

Where does all this leave us? Given a lack of significant research it leaves us with some interesting ideas from people who live and work in Asia and personally it leaves me with a desire to further explore this fascinating place which given it’s half past gin o’clock and I am sat in a hotel in Kowloon,  I will do now!

 

The one where it’s on the books

Last month HMV sold Waterstones for £53m to a fund controlled by a Russian Billionaire (they are tiring of football clubs it seems) and this is either the best money ever spent or history may show the purchase of a sinking ship. Waterstones is profitable at present and people will not stop buying books but the world is changing….fast.

That evening I tweeted something along the lines of “Amazon is where I buy the books I need, Waterstones is where I find the books I want” and in the responses a few people made the comment that they find the books at Waterstones and then go home and buy them cheaper at Amazon. This lead to a healthy debate, which in summary went something like:

Side 1: Your model (of browsing but shopping cheaper) will become extinct

Side 2: They don’t offer me any greater service so why should I buy it?

Side 1: You are consuming their ‘service’ by going into their shop and availing yourself of their stock

Side 2: But the staff doesn’t help me or offer me anything more than I can get online

Side 1: Do you ask?

Side 2: I shouldn’t have to

Side 1: Do you go into a bar, wait in the middle and complain about not getting served?

Side 1: The margin erosion means there are less staff to serve you and they are just focussing on operating the shop

Side 2: But that’s not my problem

Side 1: What you are doing is the equivalent of walking into loads of bars tasting loads of drinks and not buying anything

…and so it went on (it was Friday evening so at times it was a little spirited and if the person involved is reading this apologies for an editorial licence I may have taken to make the point)

It ended amicably with the other person (Side 2) admitting it had provoked thought and me (Side 1) realising that the other side wasn’t to blame that actually it’s Waterstones (and other businesses in the same situation) who to use a line from ‘The Untouchables’ are taking a “knife to a gun fight”.

The internet has changed the world, no more so than for retailers who are competing with businesses that have very different (leaner) cost structures and can operate their “stores” without the joys of rent, rates, shop fit, staff, localised stock etc etc and it strikes me (and I am by no means (x1000) the first person to say this) competing on price with someone who has a dramatically lower cost base than you is setting course for extinction. The pureplay internet retailers (i.e. those with no stores) have become very smart at providing some of the value of an in-person shopping experience with user reviews being the clearest example of them really understanding their customer.

Consumers are price sensitive, there is no disputing that but I recently asked a room full of people what their favourite retail experience was and not one person’s answer involved price. 95% of the answers involved the people they were served by. To me Waterstones need to stop selling books and start creating a book buying experience – that walking into a Waterstones would be like going to your book club where people have opinions and are able to tell you what they think. Whilst no one is price insensitive it is not the only factor…

When the video revolution first took hold (I am showing my age) a video shop opened locally to my parents home which was independently run and staffed by people who had a vested interest in the shop and liked films. Going there was great because firstly they had “The Cheers Factor” (everyone knew my name) but secondly they shared their opinions when asked, “if you like X I imagine you will like this” or “It’s like X but faster paced”. That shop (for the moment) is a Blockbuster and the biggest focus is selling package deals of coke/sweets/popcorn…

I may be shockingly naive in the way I see this and Waterstones may already be trying to do this but unless they dramatically and consistently change the way their staff engage with customers they are allowing the consumer to make a decision that is purely based on cost and not helping others (like Side 2 on Twitter) see the value in shopping with other criteria in mind or more importantly see the value that a specialist book shop adds over the online alternative.

The one with the unconference part 2

During the freeform experience that was the ConnectingHR Unconference I was fortunate enough to run a session alongside the marvellous @floramarriot and despite the call for free flowing conversation and no structure we both gave into our L&D urges and put a little structure and facilitation into the session. It should be noted that we resisted the urge to use blu-tack and post-it notes…

Myself and Flora had gravitated together having respectively posed the following questions during the opening session:

“What does global mean to you?” (Me)

“What can we learn from business in other cultures?” (FM)

If you would like to read Flora’s comprehensive notes from the session check out the Unconference section on ConnectingHR but what follows is a little context on my question and some thoughts having reflected and digested the session.

I have been fortunate enough over the past 3 years to work in several different cultures and if you consider cultures in the context of Edward T. Hall’s Cultural Context I have worked in the polar opposites of China and the USA. China (a high context culture) values the collective and trusted relationships built over time whilst the US (a low context culture) values the individual and relationships are built on merit. One of the things that came through strongly in our session and certainly resonated with me was the admission of how little time we had spent truly learning about the “other” culture and whilst some great sources of information exist, whether you had the time or latitude to use them seemed to be another question. For the record, the UK is far more akin to the US and is considered also, a low context culture.

The frustration that came through from almost everyone was at the physical distance and the constraint presented by time differences and how this restricted the building of in-depth fully functioning relationships, and how key the relationship was to successfully working across cultures. As much as technology in the form of Skype and similar has advanced the ability to communicate across distance, it was agreed that there was no true replacement for spending real time sat across from someone (and I would had sharing a few drinks over dinner but that is not based on empiric data but user experimentation)

I must confess I have learnt the hard way (jet lag, 14 Chinese people and my attempt at humour remains one of the most uncomfortable hours of my life) and I would say to anyone working outside of their own cultural norm for the first time, there is no amount of preparation and reading that can beat the experience of standing there and doing it.

In the context of my Master’s degree (I feel I must mention it from time to time) what I’ve found interesting is that so much of what we use in terms of defining best practice and ‘the next big thing’ is often from “The West” with America as the dominant influence. The limitations of empiric data derived from studies carried out on groups of MBA students aside, there does appear a certain arrogance in assuming that “we” (the West) know better than the most populace country on the planet that has a culture dating back thousands of years. One of our group put this intellectual imperialism in the most straight forward way and his comment remains my favourite of the whole day…. “We need to remember we haven’t got a big d*ck and a gunboat anymore” – it never made it to the visual minutes….

I really enjoyed this session, both the challenge of pulling something together from a pair of questions, ensuring that I didn’t hog it all for “my” question and to trying to make sure everyone contributed if they wanted to. The take home for me was “we” are all struggling with this ever more significant challenge, we can learn from each other through sharing experiences and that investing the time in understanding and learning is the only way to truly achieve the value and results from your global relationships.

As an afterword, if you are interested in exploring the psychology of cultural relationships a great starting point is the work of Geert Hofstede who has published extensively on the subject.

The one where I make a complete fool of myself

In my last post I talked about Leadership and to manage your expectations right up front, in this post, and in countless more, I will again. It’s a topic that fascinates me not just from a work perspective but in life in general.

Again in my last post I shared the device I use to start a conversation about what makes great leadership – I ask people to bring a picture of someone they consider a great leader. Much to my relief, it really works but on one occasion worked to make me look very foolish and as it seems to be global culture anecdote day let me explain….

Picture the scene, it’s the summer of 2010 and employee relations are definitely high on Willie Walsh’s agenda. Being a loyal British Airways customer whore for tier points/BA miles I had opted to fly BA to India despite the strikes. This actually worked to my advantage as the flight was crammed and I got bumped from Cattle Plus to Club Class – happy days.

Sat next to me was an Indian gentleman somewhere in his 60s and from the moment he got on board he was agitated and the staff were clearly aware of this. Just before takeoff Cabin Services Director (such a grandiose title I think) came over and patiently explained that his company had cancelled his 1^st class ticket and by the time it was rebooked only (only!) Club class was available and they did not have space to bump him. He was not happy. He complained about the food (strike meant reduced service), demanded a drink whilst someone else was being served and was generally not a happy camper and with no trouble showing it, hence the name I gave him in my mind “grumpy guy”. With hindsight it should have been “rude guy”

So we ate, we drank and eventually everyone settled down to try and get some sleep, me amongst them, at which point he rummaged in his bag and pulled out an iPad. To give this some context iPad was only about 10 days post release in the UK so at the time this was flash and distinctive. Why should this bother me? With only perspex (or similar) between us he seemed to have a great knack for timing his change of app/page and it’s ensuing flare of light with my almost reaching sleep with the consequence that it took me far longer to get some sleep than planned. His name was now revised to “grumpy guy with iPad”

[Stick with it there is relevance I promise]

On landing in India he was up and gone almost as soon as wheels hit tarmac and the lady sat behind me made a comment to which her neighbour (who it turned out was BA staff travelling home) remarked that he was one of India’s most famous businessmen and a ‘high up’ (her phrase not mine) at Company X. On reaching the hotel, restless and bored, I checked out Company X and wouldn’t you know it, there he was, on the website, Chairman and Chief Cheese (or similar) “Grumpy Guy with iPad”…

The following morning now feeling jet lagged and stood in front of 15 of our Indian Managers I was feeling tense and anxious a feeling I could see mirrored in their expressions too, so I did what I often do in such circumstances, I told an anecdote – to relax them, me and most importantly to make the Senior person from the UK stood in front of them seem just that bit more human and less intimidating. I told the “Grumpy Guy with iPad” story. The response was engaging but with some looks in the room I didn’t quite understand…

Moving on to the ‘picture of someone you consider a great leader’ exercise, the looks became absolutely clear to me. Of the 15 people in the room, no less than 4 of them had brought….you’ve guessed it – “Grumpy Guy with iPad”. To give this some context M.K. Gandhi (yes THAT Gandhi) only appeared once. On a scale of 1 to 10 how big an idiot do you think I felt? Yes, 12.

An aside on the choices that day – of the 15 pictures on the wall, not one of them was a non-Indian. The only country that has chosen only people of their own nationality. I couldn’t resist asking the question and the response which really made me smile was “Why would we consider anyone who wasn’t Indian?”

Anyway, this man, who I had written off as a cranky show off, is one of the most respected businessmen in India, has built a hugely successful business, is on the board of a globally renowned business school, has been honoured by more countries than you can shake a stick at (including ours) and yet I had dismissed him and given him a cheap nickname…but was I wrong?

I don’t know…

Having reflected on this encounter and told the story a few times (its better with wine, trust me) the following things keep coming back to me:

1. Despite his achievements in life, on the day in question he was rude and made life difficult for people trying to provide him with a service

2. Was it fair of me to judge the human being sat next me in the terms of the global business leader he was being considered the following day?

3. Can we really expect anyone great leader or not, to be great 24/7? (especially in Club Class). Do “we” (the little people) hang too much of our hope, expectation and destiny onto this notion that these people are really great?

4. When will I learn not to lead with my chin?

5. Argentinean red wine really does help me sleep