Martin Oduor, The Humanized Leader

If you only read one book about leadership in the coming months, let it be The Humanized Leader by Dr Martin Oduor-Otieno. For Martin – please allow me to call him that as he and I have worked together in many ways over many years – writes so well about this leadership subject. The book’s not too long; the point size isn’t too small; the language is straightforward, and the flow is very smooth. It all comes from his own leadership experience, and it is this that he takes us through, bringing in many real-life examples.

Let me get straight to helping you understand what he means by “humanized”, and for this I turn to Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, who in the 1960s devised their Management Grid. I wrote an article about it here in 2009, explaining that their grid consisted of nine-point horizontal and vertical axes. The horizontal axis represented concern for tasks and production, where 9 showed high concern and 1 low concern; and the vertical axis represented concern for people, similarly calibrated.

You can imagine the management styles associated with various points within the grid. 9,1 managers are dictators who give clear, firm instructions, and merely expect subordinates to listen and comply. These “Bulldozers” don’t have time to worry about people issues, about building relationships, so focused are they on results. They talk about leadership not being a popularity contest, and don’t “waste” time consulting, for they and only they have the answers. All very efficient? Well yes, except for the frustration and resentment they’ll cause, and the dreadful consequences thereof: suppressed creativity and ownership, and demotivation.

How about the 1,9 manager, who so wants to be liked that production suffers? Warm friendly souls, these “Country Club” managers try hard to keep the workers happy, are embarrassed by conflict and fail to stretch their people. Then the 9,9 manager, who understands how to work the synergy between the people and the production… the one Martin is, and the one he helps others become… the “Humanized” manager – or leader, as we now tend to call them.

Two aspects of the book particularly appealed to me, and firstly Martin’s reference to Ubuntu – the “I am because we are” approach to life. What’s so nice about this is that it assumes people will work together towards win-win rather than win-lose outcomes.

The other aspect is the significance of coaching, where Martin became highly qualified, through the International Coaching Federation. He offers us several examples of leaders he has coached, laying out the purpose, style and outcomes. Through this we get such a clear picture of what coaching is all about at these higher levels, and how one goes about engaging: much through just listening and asking questions.

He’s a fan of the GROW model, where the acronym lists the Goal of the coaching relative to the present Reality, then the need to explore the Options available to achieve the goal, and finally the Will to achieve the goal. Through this sequence one engages with the coachee to move them from their present challenges to fulfilling their potential.

Much of what the humanized leader must pay attention to is the culture of their organisation, and not surprisingly Martin quotes Peter Drucker’s “culture eats strategy for breakfast”. I’ve never really liked that line, as for me there must be a culture strategy, one that integrates into the overall strategy. I’m sure Martin agrees with me.

In 2012 Martin published his autobiography, Beyond the Shadows of My Dream, about which I also wrote here at the time. And there as in his new book he wrote about his time as PS in the Ministry of Finance and Planning as a member of the Dream Team in the late 1990s. I mention this because when he was appointed I offered to support his efforts to transform the culture of the Treasury, and we worked together throughout his time there, flattening the organisational pyramid and having the energy stop flowing inward and upward but rather downward and outward towards the citizens. I wrote at some length in my earlier article about that engagement, so here let me just applaud Martin for how he did such a wonderful job humanizing the Treasury then.

Finally, let me refer to Martin’s reference to when he was one of the facilitators of the Aga Khan University Graduate School of Media and Communication’s Transformative Leadership programme, run in partnership with the Harvard Kennedy School. I was his partner there, so I really related to his blasting of the Harvard professors for their non-collaborative approach to us, a totally disconnected and non-humanized one!

There’s so much more I’d love to write about this book, but hopefully I’ve captured enough to make you want to read it.

KEPSA and the Speakers Roundtable

From time to time I’ve written here about the relationship between the public and private sectors, going back to when I first started being deeply engaged in this interface in the 1990s. My last article on this was a year ago, when we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the founding of the Kenya Private Sector Alliance, KEPSA, the umbrella body of the private sector. What’s prompted this one was last month’s KEPSA Speaker’s Roundtable with the National Assembly, to address policy bottlenecks and fast-track economic delivery.

Such high-level events are always very helpful, not just for the formal agreements reached, but for the quiet behind-the-scenes relationship and trust building, and the mutual influencing. As opposed to taking a confrontational approach, KEPSA has always been calmer and more patient – what I would call more mature, more emotionally intelligent. Yes, they speak truth to power, but not noisily, and combine public campaigns with closed-door advocacy.

KEPSA and its two million direct and indirect constituent business and professional member organisations have certainly not been spectators in law-making, as they actively engage with the three arms of government through the now well-established public-private dialogue platforms. What we must accept, however, is that given membership is voluntary for many of KEPSA’s member organisations, a good part of the private sector is outside of this formal ecosystem.

What we see is that businesses that wish to see a level playing field which creates an enabling and meritocratic environment are the ones likely to join such associations, while for many others this is the opposite of what they seek. We have a whole spectrum, from the responsible players who engage constructively with each other, with the government and other partners, to the ones who opt to operate on their own, wheeling and dealing as they defy ethical behaviour. Plus so many in between, swinging one way or another.

Whether you are in government, in civil society, or just an ordinary citizen, it’s good to acknowledge the evolution of the private sector, from just profit-driven to today’s more sustainability-focused, with “profits, planet and people” at the heart of business strategies, and treating all stakeholders fairly. Indeed, KEPSA sets standards for its members in such areas.

What I particularly liked about the outcome of the recent Speakers Roundtable is that KEPSA and the National Assembly will meet quarterly to review progress on what was agreed. And that they will look beyond the electoral cycle and beyond Vision 2030. This will ensure transparency and accountability in the joint efforts to translate “Policy to Practice” and deliver through business and government partnership, the theme of the roundtable. The event was structured to facilitate sector-specific discussions involving departmental committees on Energy, Health, Communication, Information and Innovation, Trade, Regional Integration, and Finance and National Planning.

So, what sort of things were agreed upon? First, cross-cutting issues such as driving national competitiveness; exploring inward-focused opportunities and alternative markets within Africa to enhance regional economic integration and resilience; developing adaptive, responsive policies and legislation; and a tripartite meeting between the private sector, parliament, and he judiciary to ensure alignment of the legislative and judicial systems to support a conducive business environment.

Then, on the state of the economy, to promote innovative investment channels for diaspora remittances; have the banking sector develop and implement a transparent, standardised credit pricing model; further explore and restructure Public Private Partnerships to unlock fiscal resources, accelerate infrastructure and service delivery, and alleviate budgetary and public debt service pressures on the national exchequer; address fiscal crowding-out by the public sector and curb overreach by the government agencies; and prioritise export-led economic expansion.

On the cost of doing business, to transition to precise, geo-referenced boundaries for all land parcels to enhance tenure security, reduce disputes and streamline administrative processes; continue to advocate for the implementation of a one-stop-shop mechanism for land administration; explore an energy tariff structure exclusive to telecommunications operators; involve the private sector in the digital infrastructure; and explore proposals around formulation of an infrastructure to regulate data generation, sharing and monetisation.

Finally, on productivity, the digital economy and the social market economy, to collaborate in the enhancement of a structured and evidence-based gig economy; commit to intensifying and diversifying programmes and policy coherence that foster specialised, market-relevant skills among the youth, with deliberate integration of innovation in ICT to drive employability, entrepreneurship and digital transformation.

KEPSA Chairperson Jas Bedi noted that real progress from this engagement will be measured by how many jobs are created, how affordable energy becomes, how competitive exports are, and how secure Kenya’s fiscal footing remains. The fundamentals of Kenya’s economy are improving, he stated, with inflation under control, growth returning, and digital adoption accelerating. Together with parliament and government, he was confident that we could turn this moment of recovery into a decade of sustainable, inclusive growth.

 

 

 

Michael Hopkins

A few years ago I was walking by the poolside at the Muthaiga Country Club to my table when I spotted my dear friend Bob Munro, now sadly passed away. He was there with his family and with his friend Michael Hopkins, to whom he introduced me. Since then Michael and I became close friends as well, but equally sadly he too passed away just recently, a few weeks before his eightieth birthday.

For the last few years Michael had been living part of his time in Malindi, part in Nairobi and part in France near the Swiss border, in each location continuing to pursue his passion for Corporate Social Responsibility, where he had been a pioneer in developing sustainable frameworks. He’d written numerous books on the subject, including periodic updates, and he was also a visiting professor at many universities, including Management University Africa here in Nairobi. He’d also written a series of blogs condemning the awfulness of Brexit, which he later collected into a book called Brrrexit!.

Professor Hopkins was greatly in demand for interacting with students on the highly topical subject of sustainability, as well as with corporates, and this around Europe, in India and Mauritius, and elsewhere. He was also in demand with me, as he became my guide on CSR and sustainability, plus the closely related ESG issues – on Environment, Social and Governance.

I particularly admired him for his “systems thinking”, urging those with whom he interacted to integrate their ESG strategies with their overall ones. And another point he liked to make was not to confine CSR activity to the for-profit private sector but also to not-for-profits and to the public sector. Great thoughts! Plus to have sufficient but not excessive regulations for it all.

I quoted him in a couple of my articles on such subjects in this column, and we participated in a joint book launch at the Westgate bookshop, him with his CSR volume, taking it “From the Margins to the Mainstream” in an uncomplicated way, and me with a collection of my articles on ESG.

Michael and I linked up in several other related ways too. He introduced me to Prof. Mike Saks, a UK colleague of his who also specialised in such fields, and the three of us co-founded the UK-centred International Responsible Leadership organisation, which promotes such kind of leadership around the world.

Now Prof. Hopkins may have been a much-respected academic in his field, but I don’t think I’ve ever come across such a jolly fellow, whose laughter so often filled the room. Michael was a joker, not least about himself, and he and I would always have such a happy time together, whether just on the phone or in person.

His jolliness, his very firm values and his areas of interest also led me to introduce him to my Rotary Club of Nairobi, where he would nudge us into building sustainability into our community projects. Not surprisingly, his commonest phrases were to “treat others the way you want them to treat you,” and to “treat all key stakeholders responsibly”, very aligned with Rotary thinking.

Michael became a very popular member, often staying behind after our weekly lunch meetings to chat further with a few members. And when he passed away a great sense of sadness swept over the club. Just recently Rosemary Wahome, herself in the sustainability business, asked me if I’ve thought about how to honour Michael’s contributions to sustainability, and it immediately occurred to me to propose a sustainability award in his memory to our Rotary Club. Discussions on this are now under way.

On 16th November – Michael’s 80th birthday – a memorial service was held in Malindi to celebrate Michael’s life, with his son William and daughter Eve present. And following this his cremated remains were carried out on a boat and sprinkled into the Indian Ocean. Unfortunately I couldn’t be there to eulogise my buddy Michael, but happily I have this opportunity to write about him.

We will continue learning from Prof Hopkins about CSR and sustainability by reading his writing and remembering what he taught us, and it will keep reminding us of his permanently on-display sense of humour and his jolly laughter.

Intergenerational Conversations

The National Cohesion and Integration Commission, NCIC, was established following the post-election violence of 2008 as one of the commissions that would help re-establish sobriety in Kenyan society. It has been going about its work ever since, with the media mainly expecting it to go after those spouting hate speech. However NCIC was not given prosecutorial powers, and so they were often described as “toothless bulldogs” – despite them working closely with other institutions that did possess such powers. Their budgets have also been limited.

The media has by and large ignored NCIC’s other activities, ones that have been occupying most of its time. These included peace-building mediation in different parts of the country, and five years ago I wrote an article about how they went about it. “They collaborated with other agencies,” I wrote then, “benefitting from their expertise and their networks; held public barazas; organised work projects bringing youth together; and through all this started developing a culture of peace rather than of conflict. As a result of their mediation expertise progress has been made, and without needing to resort to judicial intervention.”

More recently, inter-generational issues have emerged as a serious source of conflict, and so NCIC decided to apply its skills and experience to hosting meetings that brought together members of different generations, as well as both genders and various sectors of the local communities in which these town hall meetings were held. They held them where conflict issues specific to those communities were evident, in Marsabit, Isiolo, Nairobi, Taita Taveta, Kisumu, Busia and Kilifi.

They called these meetings Intergenerational Conversations, a really nice term, as it speaks of listening as much as speaking, and this is in a friendly atmosphere. NCIC applied its mediation expertise to facilitate a coming together between the different elements present.

In the selected counties, where interethnic tensions and historical marginalisation have strained community relations, the need for cross-generational dialogue was particularly pressing. Intergenerational and interethnic mistrust have continued to fuel misunderstanding, polarisation and vulnerability to manipulation by extremist actors. And when youth – especially Gen Z – feel alienated and unheard, they become more susceptible to recruitment into violent networks and misinformation campaigns.

Conversely, when they are meaningfully engaged and connected to mentors, elders and institutions, they become powerful agents of peace and resilience. The county-level Intergenerational Conversations bridged these generational divides and created a platform where all voices were valued. By bringing together the experiences of elders, the innovation and energy of youth, and the influence of women and local leaders, the conversations facilitated mutual understanding, addressed generational grievances, and fostered a shared vision for peaceful coexistence.

In Isiolo, for instance, the forum generated several recommendations and achievements, including calls for increased youth representation in governance, review of public participation laws, and strengthened mentorship programmes to bridge generational gaps. It fostered peace, unity and social cohesion by encouraging dialogue and understanding across age-groups. A key outcome was the recognition that elders provide wisdom, while youth bring energy and innovation, helping dismantle the “us versus them” mentality and replacing it with a shared vision of cooperation.

NCIC followed up with podcasts where diverse voices from across Kenya were heard to engage in honest, reflective, positive and forward-looking discussions on governance, leadership and political culture.

The first episode, “Wisdom in Transit”, explores how values, ethics and lessons on leadership are passed across generations. “New Guards” highlights emerging youth leaders and their role in reshaping Kenya’s governance culture. “Old Wisdom: Bridging the Ages” examines how traditional knowledge and modern governance can coexist to promote cohesion. “Political Decency in Action” focuses on civility and integrity in political engagement, while “Government Without Borders” discusses collaboration across counties, institutions, and communities within a devolved governance system. The sixth episode, “The Cost of Indecency,” analyses how intolerance, corruption and disrespect weaken democracy and development. “Youth Agenda: The Future of Governance” centres on the aspirations of young people and their inclusion in leadership, and the final episode, “A Shared Vision”, calls for collective action toward a just, decent and unified Kenya.

Given an availability of budgets, NCIC would host many more town halls, create and distribute more podcasts, and follow up on earlier engagements. Indeed I am encouraged to see that the recently appointed NCIC CEO/Secretary, Dr Daniel Mutegi, has a serious background in monitoring and evaluation, including through the World Bank, and he has been a member of the Vision2030 Secretariat. All this means he will be focusing on the long-term impact of such initiatives in a robust manner.

And as Rev Dr Sam Kobia reaches the end of his term as chairman of NCIC, we can look back on all this “toothless bulldog” has accomplished to promote cohesion and integration, much of it quietly and behind the scenes, as such activity is at its most effective. Well done, Dr Kobia.

So see NCIC’s Intergenerational Conversations as role models for how to bring Kenyans together, within their communities and higher up to the national level.

Making staff surveys useful

I recently participated in a company’s annual management conference in which each departmental manager reported on what they would continue doing because it was working well, and what they would do differently in future. They showed us the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) faced by their departments, and shared the results from the surveys they’d sent out to staff members, their “customers”, that had led to their conclusions.

I was so impressed as I absorbed what they were presenting, more so as this company is easily the leader in its sector, while showing zero signs of incumbent’s syndrome. No complacency, just the assumption of continuous innovation and improvement.

So what kind of questions were in the surveys? Two kinds: first, ones where ratings from 1-5 were sought, representing from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. Then, open-ended questions, requiring a written response. Here’s an example, of questions from the HR Department’s survey:

  1. On a scale of 1–5, how satisfied are you with the support you receive from the HR team? (1 = Very Dissatisfied, 5 = Very Satisfied)
  2. How well does HR respond to your queries, concerns, or requests in a timely and helpful manner? (1 = Poorly, 5 = Very Well)
  3. In what ways has HR contributed positively to your experience and engagement at the company?
  4. What areas do you feel HR could improve to better support you in your role?
  5. Overall, how would you rate your experience as an “HR customer”? (1 = Very Poor, 5 = Excellent)

Other surveys, plus their feedback, were displayed by the Internal Audit, Finance, Customer Focus and other departments, and each was most enlightening. Respondents were protected by anonymity, and summaries of their ratings and comments were shared.

Here are other questions such surveys pose, and again from the HR stable: “On a scale of 1-5, how motivated do you feel at work?” and then “What factors influence your motivation?” Followed by “On a scale of 1-5 how would you rate collaboration within your team?” and “What improvements would enhance collaboration?”

Let’s keep going: “On a scale of 1-5 how would you rate your overall wellbeing at work?” and “What support systems would you like to see implemented?” “How encouraged do you feel to share new ideas?” and “What barriers hinder your creativity?” You get the picture.

So, while anonymity encourages openness, other aspects also motivate staff to be responsive. First, that the summarised results be shared across the company so there is transparency. And then that there are consequences, a “So what?” of the survey. The departments in question must analyse the results and act on the feedback, again sharing the essence of it all. Finally what is the impact of having acted, including as assessed through follow-up surveys.

The company I was with is now considering issuing a consolidated set of questions on the subject of internal customer satisfaction, and here they are, seeking ratings from very dissatisfied to very satisfied:

  1. We understand and are conscious of the customers’ needs.
  2. We are responsive to issues/queries raised.
  3. We respond with thoroughness and promptly to your requests or queries.
  4. Quality of feedback/solutions provided for requests and queries raised.
  5. Are we knowledgeable to address issues and queries with high level of understanding?
  6. Consistency of support offered by the whole team.
  7. Are we able to work speedily and effectively with other departments?
  8. Willingness to lend a hand and give advice, offer expertise, and gather information to assist others.
  9. We always look for ways to improve services to others.
  10. Teamwork within the department.
  11. We are truthful, transparent (not hiding intent), communicate openly, honestly and often.
  12. We generate ideas or solutions to problems and questions.

Finally, they’re adding open-ended question seeking suggestions on potential areas of improvement so that the levels of service and satisfaction can be improved.

Do you have such surveys circulating in your organisation? Do they result in cost-effective returns on the investment in the whole process? The company I was with indeed derives great benefit from this practice – and this due to their overall healthy culture. What stood out wasn’t just the sophistication of the surveys. It was how the company closed the loop: asking the right questions, sharing the results openly, acting on the feedback, and then checking back in. It’s a full-circle model many organisations talk about but few actually practice.

By the way my contribution to the conference was to make a presentation on The Power of a Positive No… the topic of my last article.

Power of a Positive No

I’ve been reading The Power of a Positive No: Save the Deal Save the Relationship – and Still Say No by William Ury, the author of the earlier bestseller, Getting to Yes. Ury is an experienced mediator, at levels from the corporate to the national, and he is a co-founder of the Harvard Law School Negotiation Program. I found his writing very helpful… just as I do the related Disagreeing Well initiative at University College London, where I was an undergraduate.

Ury’s three-step method for saying a Positive No shows us how to assert and defend our key interests by first, exercising our power; then how to make our No firm and strong; how to resist the other side’s aggression and manipulation; and how to do all this while still getting to Yes and protecting our relationship. The Positive No helps us get to the right Yes, the one that truly serves our interests.

When he asks participants in his executive seminars why they find it challenging to say No, the commonest answers he receives are: “I don’t want to lose the deal”; “I don’t want to spoil the relationship”; I’m afraid of what they might do to me in retaliation”; “I’ll lose my job”; and “I feel guilty – I don’t want to hurt them”.

In reply, Ury gets us to avoid what he calls “the three-A trap”: Accommodation (saying Yes when we want to say No); Attack (saying No poorly); and Avoidance (saying nothing at all), none of which works. Instead, we should “go to the balcony” as he puts it, to adopt a detached state of mind that enables you – as I would put it – to separate how you feel from how you behave.

By sheer coincidence, as I was reading through the book I came across a speech by Obama on my phone that fully reflected Ury’s thinking. Who knows, it may be thanks to Obama’s own Harvard connections. It’s about how the Indian Minister of External Affairs Dr S Jaishankar so offended Trump when he was in his first term by refusing to simply go along with his demands that India should stop buying weapons from Russia, stop doing trade deals with Iran, and generally pick America’s side in every global dispute. India was not into negotiating – they would be making their own decisions. No explanations, no apologies, just making deals with whoever offered the best terms: the Positive No.

Trump took it personally and was furious, and that was the end of the good relationship. What he failed to accept was that America is no longer the super-power that it was, and India is no longer the poor, weak supplicant but a fast-growing world force with a population of 1.4 billion.

It all happened in one conversation, away from the cameras, where Trump was simply told ‘No’. The Indians now expect to be respected, and will no longer simply go along with anything that America demands, explained Obama. But Trump’s entire foreign policy is built on personal relationships. He needs world leaders to like him, to have him feel important, to seek his approval. But Jaishankar treated him as an equal, and just spoke straightforwardly.

“It’s not India that’s the problem,” Trump later said, “It’s one Indian who destroyed our relationship.” The man who dared to say No. It’s about people, about ego. Even allies had choices now, and could say No while also dealing with others. Your power doesn’t come from making others comfortable, Obama explained. You aren’t just grateful for scraps because you need them more than they need you. You know what you value, and without getting angry, you just know what you deserve. Americans now know they must treat India as an equal.

Trump reacted in similar ways to Angela Merkel of Germany, to Emmanuel Macron of France, and to Justin Trudeau of Canada, all of whom had the audacity to treat him as an equal rather than as a superior.

Now Obama told us we can apply these principles in our personal lives. Your boss who demands more work for the same salary, your client who demands the same payment for more product… But do you simply acquiesce? Sometimes relationships aren’t worth keeping, said Obama, like if they require you to accept less than you deserve. Why be silent if there is unfairness? Why compromise your values?

Successful people aren’t the ones who say yes to everything, he concluded. That’s when their character gets tested, as dignity isn’t negotiable.

So there we are, reflections on the power of No from two Harvard fellows.

Francis Okello’s journey from the lakeshore to the boardroom

Francis Okello has just launched his autobiography, titled CONCERT OF LIFE – From the Lakeshore to the Boardroom, and what a story it is. Like so many of our most prominent Kenyans, his life began in a village. But his ancestors were anything but simple. On the contrary, Okello traces his Luo lineage back several centuries, to South Sudan, with so many who preceded him being Chiefs and in other significant positions. A tremendous amount of research has gone into spelling out the specifics of it all.

The next section of the autobiography goes into his childhood in a small village, Nyangera Daho, on the shores of Lake Victoria (Nam Lolwe), where his disciplinarian father enjoyed his 16 wives, of whom Okello’s mother was one, and their 33 children. His father, a respectable Chief of sound values, was of great positive influence on him and his brothers and sisters. Much more on his education follows, climaxing at the “intellectual cauldron” of the University of Dar, and on to Princeton University in America.

Since then Okello has spent more five decades in various sectors of Kenya’s economy, including prominent positions in banking, media, tourism, energy, manufacturing, infrastructure, education, and not-for-profits, as well as youth empowerment, environmental stewardship and policy formulation. Through this he contributed to the evolution of the private sector and its role in the country’s economic development, and his book explores the intersection of politics, economics, law and culture that shaped his perspectives and influenced the organisations with which he became associated.

I now wish to share with you something about his engagement with the Nation Media Group (NMG), one of his several within the Aga Khan Development Network. It began in 1989, when he was invited to become a non-executive director of Nation Newspapers Ltd, and evolved in 1995 when he joined the main Nation Media Group Board as the Chairman of its Editorial Board Committee, which position he held since its inception in 1995 till he retired in 2024.

It was in this capacity that I got to know Okello, as we used to be together for the few years when then CEO Linus Gitahi hosted us columnists every couple of months or so for an exchange of views. NMG chairman Dr. Wilfred Kiboro and Okello were with us from the board, and each of those meetings was intellectually stimulating.

Okello has an interesting section on the relationship between the media and the state, which is often characterised by tension. The media is supposed to hold those in leadership to account, preventing it from being too comfortable with the state. But it must also maintain a working relationship of mutual respect with those in power, he points out, one that is managed responsibly and is in the interest of the larger public.

In its game of survival, the media must be sensitive to the politics of the day, neither capitulating to authority nor being too soft. He remembers Uhuru Kenyatta’s displeasure in referring to newspapers as being “only good for wrapping meat”, and these days we worry about Trump’s pressure on his domestic media to be nice to him.

In the 2007/8 post-electoral violence Okello played a supportive role in the work of Concerned Citizens for Peace (CCP), where I was the member representing the private sector. He wanted to see what NMG could do to help restore peace. So wearing his two hats, one for NMG, the other as chairman of Serena Hotels, he and then Group CEO Linus Gitahi, drove to Serena Hotel where they met with some of the CCP leaders. They decided to help us by covering our initial expenses, including for our meeting room there, which later became called the Amani Room.

Okello concludes his book by outlining the leadership challenges and lessons from his life. He tells us we must accept that we live in a VUCA (Volatile Uncertain Complex and Ambiguous) world; that we need patience, agility and resilience; and we must be curious and willing to learn – including from our children and grandchildren. We mustn’t shy away from challenges, like giving high level talks, accepting high level responsibilities in domains we are less than familiar with; and we must be willing to serve.

He calls on us to nurture enduring relationships, and places a premium on integrity, diligence and discipline. Share knowledge, he encourages – including through the Leaders Circle meetings which I co-host and about whose sessions I have written several columns here and where Okello is an active participant. And adopt an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving, noting that “a Jack of all trades is master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one”. At strategic leadership levels, he insists, generalists are to be preferred over specialists. He argues a case for us to be intentional in becoming polymaths. I related to his assertion that the leader should be like the conductor, who plays no instrument but guides the ensemble to play in harmony. Hence the title presumably, CONCERT OF LIFE.

Finally, let me refer to the forewords by Willy Mutunga and Sunny Bindra, who each wrote very positively about Okello, including referring to his integrity and modesty. That is the Okello I also know and respect.

Confronting inequality through volunteering

I’ve been reading an interesting 2004 book, From Me to We, by Craig and Marc Kielburger, two brothers who were brought up in a middle-class American home, headed for a normal progression through higher education and into well-paying jobs. But while still in their teens they both were encouraged to fly to the poorest, most miserable Asian environments to see for themselves the dramatic contrast between their lives and the lives of those who struggle in the meanest of slums, including through offering their young children as sources of brutal labour.

It was an eye-opener for them, as the norm in backgrounds such as theirs is to be unaware of the extent of the contrast between their comfortable lives and the awful existence of the large number of poor people, many homeless and with insufficient money for clothes or even food. These are the excessive inequalities we experience these days, including and not least here in Kenya.

The Asian visits transformed the lives of the two brothers, leading them to dedicate themselves to helping the needy around the world. Even before reaching their twenties their ‘Free the Children’ NGO grew to global prominence, as they encouraged people to seek other than just money and power, and to volunteer to help others… together, as ‘We’.

Reading the book I immediately thought of my long association with Rotary, nearly fifty years now. For Rotary, like other service organisations, is a great example of moving from “Me” to “We”, bringing volunteer members of individual clubs together with each other so as to make a disproportionately greater impact on our surrounding communities. Then also having clubs from around the country, the region and globally collaborate, and partnering with other complementary partners too.

My next thought was how other volunteers have been brought together through the development of Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR, this within the organisations where they work. CSR activity began to be formalised in the 1950s, and it has gathered great momentum more recently, with the full expectation that businesses should please stakeholders beyond only shareholders, including for the wellbeing of the greater society.

Now CSR projects are being challenged to align themselves with the UN’s 17 Strategic Development Goals (SDGs), which highlight the connection between the environmental, social and governance elements of sustainability. What a great way to educate so many people at so many levels in the private sector (it’s time for this to spread to public sector and to NGOs) so they are not only aware of the bigger picture of universal wellbeing, but so they actively participate in ways of making a difference.

Here they now are, volunteering within their day-jobs, helping to improve the lives of the under-privileged, whether by meeting urgent short-term needs such as providing food and shelter; or by building schools, clinics and other needed services; or by adopting an institution or a whole village. Another area that I have seen is vitally important for volunteering is by raising the level of those with great potential that is not being otherwise nurtured of whom are so many, so they have a chance of fulfilling their potential and indeed then in turn helping others.

It is by being personally exposed to the circumstances under which the most deprived around us live, and then by becoming active in improving their lot, that societies around the world will become more caring. Individuals contributing to such programmes will make new decisions about their values and how they want to live, and redefine their goals and the legacy they wish to leave behind them. Above all, the Kielburgers found, this broadening of the scope of one’s life through volunteering leads one to redefine the meaning of one’s life and what it is that makes one successful and happy.

Here we’re talking about the choice between being totally devoted to one’s career success, accumulating fancy titles and fancy cars on the one hand, and on the other hand balancing this with investing part of one’s time helping others.

In Kenya the whole idea of Harambee fund-raisers are meant to achieve such sharing within communities. Unfortunately though, too often they just became ways for politicians and other people of influence to enhance their personal popularity. Oh to purify that Harambee spirit! Yet we also have many genuine helpers of the needy here, starting at a young age with community projects engaged in by schools.

So if you are a volunteer in some capacity with a “We” group, feel good about it and attract others to join you. And as parents and generally as elders, promote the concept. We need as much as possible of this caring mindset to dilute the huge inequalities in our society.

Influencers

Do you describe yourself as an influencer? I mainly mean this in the context of leadership, as there are other places and ways of influencing – including through writing articles like this. In leadership you are responsible for the behaviour and performance of others, and the question is to what extent and how do you influence those for whom you are responsible.

Autocratic leaders influence their subordinates by providing direction and instructions, insisting on compliance, with rewards for such behaviour and penalties for any deviation. It’s an “efficient” way of leading, as no time is “wasted” on consultation… which delays decision-making.

On the other hand, leaders who connect rather than control as they interact with their staff accept that as influencers rather than direction-givers they must invest time in persuading them to align with whatever it is they want to achieve, and how. This first requires identifying the big picture, the overall purpose, the “why”, of what they should all be up to, and having them buy into it. Also to attract new people who align with that picture, and to retain those already with them.

Then comes how that purpose can be fulfilled. Different functions, different people, will have different perspectives – including you. So how do you influence consensus-building – so different from simple instruction-giving? Let me start with the need to listen. As Stephen Covey put it, “seek to understand before you seek to be understood”. It is only if you know where everyone is coming from that you will know how to bring them together.

What if some resist what you are proposing, making it hard for you to influence them? What if it involves transformative change that disrupts organisational structure and individual comfort? Change is the norm these days, and one has to work with it whether it feels comfortable or not, and indeed even it one perceives oneself as a “loser” as a result… at least in the short term.

How do you influence the adoption of uncomfortable change, replacing anxiety by excitement, pessimism by optimism? This takes us back to the big picture, to the consequences of not changing, which would jeopardise the sustainability of the business. In any organisation there will be a spectrum from the very influenceable characters to the totally uninfluenceable ones, and it’s the influenceables with whom you must first engage, to help them become champions of the new scene. And the performance management system must recognise and further motivate them appropriately, while helping the resisters to develop a more positive mindset.

Earlier I mentioned listening, and this implies conversation, where everyone has an opportunity to be influenced and to influence. This in a culture of openness, where people are relaxed about expressing themselves, trusting that they will be listened to with respect. There must be a spirit of give and take – including from you, often in a mediation role – so that everyone ends up owning the outcome of the engagement.

A brilliant way of handling all this is through Kaizen, the Japanese-initiated approach to inclusiveness where leaders have a much easier time bringing people together. I’ve seen it in action here, where staff at all levels are actively involved in bringing about high performance, not least through continuous improvement and waste reduction. You influence the “why” and the “where”, and the staff support with the “how”.

What about influencing yourself? Where does your behaviour need to change? How will you phase out habits that may have once worked but that are now counterproductive? Can you have constructive conversations with yourself, perhaps enhanced by a coach, to let go of some of your past styles and adopt new ones? A coach can also work with you to help you become a stronger influencer of others, not least by opening you up to softer ways of engaging.

Before closing I do want to mention other kinds of influencing. First, the contrast between the lecturer and the facilitator, where it is the facilitator, through interactivity, who is more likely to influence. This is because facilitators ask more than tell, engaging with their participants rather than just talking at an audience.

Then, major institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. Having worked with them over the years, I know that much of what they do is to influence quietly behind the scenes, without taking either credit or blame. Finally in this category let me mention NCIC, the National Cohesion and Integration Commission, much of whose work is conflict resolution and peace-building, again quietly. Here the bulldog does not need teeth, but rather the influencing skills of mediation. Even in their other more public work, they influence in partnership with other institutions, ones that provide the needed teeth.

ChatGPT on Adam Grant

Having lost an article I’d written about three of Adam Grant’s books, I asked an AI-ologist friend to find it in my laptop. Unfortunately he couldn’t, so instead he kindly asked ChatCPT to write it on my behalf. He fed thirty of my past columns into the app so it could get a feel for my style, and then gave it this prompt: “Extract the style of Mike Eldon from the document and use it to analyse the books of Adam Grant listed above.” Here’s what emerged with the usual AI speed…

On Being Bold, Humble, and Human: Adam Grant’s Lessons for Kenya Today

In my years of working with Kenyan leaders, teachers, youth groups, and executives – from Kisumu to Kilifi – I’ve often found myself returning to one quiet question: Can kindness survive the pressures of performance? Can empathy and ambition walk together? Adam Grant seems to think so. And as I reflect on his ideas, I find echoes of our local struggles, and, our quiet triumphs.

Take for example the idea that we should learn to “think again” – to unlearn, to remain curious, to admit we might be wrong. This, I find, is deeply counter-cultural in many Kenyan institutions, where hierarchy can freeze dialogue and where a title sometimes carries more weight than an idea. But I’ve also seen young professionals in Nairobi tech hubs and rural community organizations challenge outdated assumptions, ask better questions, and surprise even themselves. As Grant reminds us: intellectual humility isn’t weakness—it’s wisdom.

Then there’s the myth of raw talent. In a country where exam results define futures and where brilliance is often measured by a grade, Grant’s notion of hidden potential is both refreshing and liberating. He tells us that coachability, not credentials, is the true predictor of greatness. And indeed, I’ve witnessed it – an overlooked intern in a county office who becomes an indispensable problem-solver; a high school dropout in Kakamega who leads her peers in microenterprise. What they needed wasn’t a head start. It was someone to believe in their stretch.

But belief isn’t enough – we must also act. In Give and Take, Grant distinguishes between takers, matchers, and givers. I thought about this as I mentored a young NGO leader struggling with burnout. She was giving too much. Yet, Grant reminds us, being a giver isn’t about being a martyr—it’s about sustainable service. In Kenya, where communal responsibility often collides with individual limits, this is a vital lesson. Generosity needs boundaries. Philanthropy needs self-care.

One of Grant’s most profound collaborations is Option B, which speaks to resilience after tragedy. And here, we need not look far. From post-election trauma to pandemic loss, Kenyans carry many invisible wounds. I think of teachers who show up after personal grief, boda boda riders who persist after injury, single mothers in Mathare who rise each day with quiet strength. Option B gives us language for their courage and, more importantly, tools for healing. In it, Grant and Sheryl Sandberg offer what I would call structured empathy—a kind of practical compassion we need more of in our workplaces and homes.

Finally, Originals is perhaps the most Kenyan of all the books—though not in the way you might think. We are a deeply creative people. From handmade jikos to high-tech startups, we are natural innovators. But what Grant does is dignify the slow-burning rebel, the one who doubts before they disrupt. He teaches us that being original isn’t about being loud—it’s about being committed. This lesson could guide many a changemaker in our counties and ministries.

Adam Grant is not writing for Kenyans, and yet, his work reads like a mirror. It reflects our potential, our mistakes, our hopes. It challenges us to lead without ego, to mentor without condescension, to grieve without shame, and to grow without limits.

What I take from Grant, and what I hope others do too, is this: Success isn’t what you have; it’s what you share. Leadership isn’t dominance; it’s dialogue. Progress isn’t perfection; it’s permission—to rethink, relearn, and rise again.

In Kenya today—where we hunger for ethical leadership, where our youth brim with restless energy, and where communities demand both dignity and development – Grant’s work reminds us to remain bold enough to speak, humble enough to listen, and human enough to feel.

So there it is – very thoughtful and articulate, although not fully a reflection of my style. Who knows, maybe one day I’ll have another go at the topic myself, using my human intelligence.