Posts

Readers of this column will have seen my articles from the 1990 and the 1978 stories I came across in my archives, and today I’m writing about one from 2003. This is from a collection of articles in The East African titled “100 Days of NARC: East African CEOs Speak”, where mine was the lead one. Here’s how I started:

We expected so much; they led us to expect so much. Without Moi, everything would be possible; the new government was “unbwogable”. But that’s not real life. Real life has electioneering politicians paint Utopian visions that can never be achieved, even in a five-year period. Yet voters want to see results, instant results.

One must sympathise with the challenges faced by the new team. Ideally they might have wanted to take their time, acting in a poised and systematic fashion. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a “protected” period in which to put the new team in place; find out the real situation on the ground; consult with all the stakeholders; drive a long-term vision, followed by objectives, strategies and plans; and only then get on with the implementation? Dream on. More so in this nanosecond age, when we expect instant action and instant results.

I went on to say that nowhere is this easy, mentioning the problems Tony Blair was facing at the time in trying to improve education and healthcare systems in Britain. “It’s not for want of trying,” I accepted, “but the capacity of ‘the system’ to resist change continues to be greater than that of reformers, however well-meaning or determined, to introduce it.”

The more things change, the more they remain the same, as since Blair’s time British governments have struggled more and more in these domains… including just now the new Labour government there, having to still deal with the pay claims and strikes, illegal immigrant flows and inadequate prison capacity, plus plus plus. And just look at how the Democrats and the Republicans in America were recently both painting their Utopian pictures for voters.

When our present government campaigned, like others they too promised an imminent heaven on earth. But when it came to implementing their manifesto, guess what? Heaven remained in its abode, while the citizens became disillusioned.

We must however accept that in the last few years it has become yet more challenging to fulfill electoral commitments, thanks to unpredictable global disruptions such as Covid and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East that have adversely affected all economies.

What surprises me is that whether in the US, the UK or here, governments draw inadequate attention to these significant negative influences when either making their promises or later explaining why they have been unmet. Opposition politicians, the media and others of course stay silent on such mitigating factors.

Just as in my columns about the articles from 1978 about working well with customers, and from 2001 about leading with trust and consultation, here too there are elements of universality and timelessness. Like the phrase “campaigning in poetry and governing in prose” was not invented in Kenya.

I also called upon the NARC government to do a better job of communicating with us, not allowing the media to set the agenda. The problems between the NARC constituent parties brought easy copy to the media, I wrote, and this provided new scripts for the daily dose of melodrama they needed to keep their circulation healthy.

Later in my article I urged the NARC government to continue engaging actively with the private sector, as it is the engine of growth and creator of jobs… and the source of people who understand how to deliver high performance. The NARC leadership had already been doing this, resulting in the formation of the National Economic and Social Council and KEPSA.

I concluded by challenging private sector players to engage in the business of policy making and implementation. I didn’t say it there, but this includes some of us offering ourselves for positions in government. As did John Barorot, who for two years served as the Deputy Governor of Uashin Gishu before resigning not too long ago. He’d had all he could take of the tough political environment, and decided to throw in the towel and return to the more orderly world of the private sector.

So, my renewed plea to politicians: don’t get too far ahead with your pre-election selling without having the product to back it up. If elected, communicate effectively without continuing to over-promise. And for the rest of us, engage with those politicians to help them be connected to reality.

A few weeks months I wrote an article about how toxic cultures are often created by single individuals, and about how and why they behave as they do. Then, more recently, I was invited to be the external speaker at a half-day session hosted by Corporate Staffing Services on the theme “Surviving a Toxic CEO or Director”, and it led me to reflect further on the subject.

I also turned to Google to see what it had to tell me, and one of the first images I was shown informed me that “a Google search for ‘Toxic Boss’ generates almost 58 million hits”. Well whether that’s true or not, there’s plenty of very helpful material out there about this jarring subject.

Here’s what I found as definitions of toxic:

“Very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way”; “Toxic people manipulate those around them to get what they want”; “This can mean lying, bending the truth, exaggerating, or leaving out information so as to take a certain action or have a certain opinion of them; “They’ll do whatever it takes, even if it means hurting people”.

Then here’s from an image titled “10 signs of a toxic boss”: Lying, Gaslighting, Stealing credit, Always interrupting, Backbiting and gossiping, Never giving recognition, Insulting and name-calling, Saying one thing and doing another, Managing by fear and intimidation, Blaming the team vs taking responsibility.

Finally, I found “Signs to watch out for that can indicate you’re dealing with a toxic person”: You feel like you’re being manipulated; you’re constantly confused by the person’s behaviour; you feel like you deserve an apology that never comes; you always have to defend yourself to this person; you never feel fully comfortable around them; you feel bad about yourself in their presence.

Thanks, Google, for all these insights, which I complemented with reflections on my own experiences in my presentation. I listed what I have found to be root causes of such behaviour, many of which relate to low emotional intelligence, and perhaps most importantly – as I pointed out in my last article – lack of self-awareness and empathy. Toxic leaders – no, “bosses” fits better – neither trust others nor, deep down, trust themselves. They tend to be over-ambitious and impatient; and they fear failure. They are self-centred and entitled, indifferent to the feelings of others, and the word that sums up such characteristics is narcissism.

The issue of the day was how to survive in such an environment. Here I remembered when I was once with a toxic boss who expected me to be giving instructions and to be feared. I defied him to create a much healthier sub-culture around me. But quietly, without telling him about how I was operating my flatter pyramid: on tip-toe, whispering, so he wouldn’t be aware.

Here are other suggestions for managing relationships with toxic bosses. Flatter them, but genuinely, where they have earned the right to praise – which they also do. And use humour, to show you are at ease with them and to add a light touch that supports a friendlier way of working together.

Much is said about the need for sharing written evidence when dealing with such inconsistent and manipulative characters. So agree your goals and document what has been agreed, and then communicate your progress, again including in writing.

If above your CEO there exists a board of directors among whom there are at least some members who may lend a sympathetic ear and ease the situation, reach out to them – as I have done at times in my career. It can be risky, but escalation is a responsible way of behaving in such situations – and it can at least be theraeutic!

Some final thoughts from me. First, when at one time I was feeling demotivated thanks to a toxic boss, I reached out to volunteer in community activities like Rotary where I felt more aligned with those around me and more appreciated. Then, at the session where I was speaking several participants reached out to me seeking my advice as a mentor over toxic relationships they were facing in their workplaces. Indeed, finding a safe external adviser can definitely be helpful, including by assisting you in managing your stress.

So be like a rock and not a sponge. Don’t allow the toxicity to infect your system. And while you don’t want to leave such an environment too soon, if it looks like being the new normal start planning your exit.

Being a member of The Blue Company’s Ethics Committee that assesses potential new members and also their qualification for membership renewal, I was delighted to be part of last Friday’s “Going Blue” event at the Serena Hotel. It was a gathering of members, potential members and others interested in the anti-corruption theme of the Blue Company.

The programme was launched by Ken Oyolla, the Nation Media Group’s Chief Commercial Officer, and next was keynote speaker Dr Julius Kipng’etich, a Blue Company Advisory Board Member and Group CEO of Jubilee Holdings, who described corruption as the big reason why Kenya is stuck with its low per capita GDP. This corruption de-energises society, and unless the tone at the top is right, rewarding good people and punishing bad ones, we will continue where we are.

He was followed by Davis & Shirtliff Group CEO George Mbugua, who talked about how they live the integrity ideals of the Blue Company. He confirmed that “Going Blue” is a good idea, ie that integrity is. He emphasised the importance to Davis & Shirtliff of its values, about which they talk all the time… and which they live.

Next we heard from a panel, with Benard Kiragu, the Managing Partner of Scribe Services, Dr Joyce Omina, the CEO of the Institute of Internal Auditors, and Dr Aysha Edwards, the CEO of AAR Hospital, who talked about the emergence of policies, regulations and codes of conduct which bulletproof organisations against corruption. It’s important to get active participation in all this, we heard, so as to obtain buy-in; and also that auditors should be partners and consultants, and hence preventers, rather than characters who just inspire fear.

They were followed by Alexandre Baron, the EU Head of Section for Governance and Macro-economics. He explained how the EU is promoting international standards for integrity and compliance, rightly describing it as a global challenge.

Catherine Musakali, the Managing Partner of Dorion Associates and Founder Chairperson of Women on Boards Network, then explained why there’s an urgent need for the private sector to “Go Blue”, and she started by telling us a story of how she was once on her daily walk when she saw a police officer seeking bribes from matatus. She approached her, looked her in the eye and instructed her to “leave”, which she did – showing one doesn’t need to be just an impotent observer.

Corruption increases costs and undermines competition, she confirmed. Dealing with it is no longer optional, as today’s regulations demand it. It’s not just for Blue Chip companies now, as the modern consumer expects all those from whom they buy to be ethical. Customers are willing to pay a premium for products from suppliers whose values align with theirs, and they become loyal.

Increasingly, if one is unethical one risks fines, reputational damage and having a monitor imposed. There is a cost to such compliance, but it pays off in the long run. Investors too are prioritising these issues, as it enhances resilience and sustainability. The biggest obstacle to progress is mindsets, for they determine a company’s culture. But it is this that delivers the long-term benefits.

Now Blue Company founder and advisory board member Nizar Juma spoke, and he told us Jubilee has done very well despite being ethical. It’s difficult to prove corruption, he admitted, but everyone knows who is corrupt and who isn’t.

“So many of our children see their parents behaving corruptly, as a result of which they enjoy a new Mercedes, a new big home,” he said, “but we want our children to grow up saying their parents were corruption-free.” He concluded by suggesting that there is light at the end of the tunnel, however dim, and we must be brave in working on brightening that light.

Chief Guest Dr Habil Olaka, Chairman of the Centre for Corporate Governance, quoted Uhuru’s estimate that we lose Shs2b a day to corruption, suggesting that the private sector has a very important role to play here, as it is the supplier. Over the last few years the Assets Recovery Agency and the Financial Reporting Centre, have been established to combat this corruption.

We need well-structured decision-making, said Dr Olaka, which is only possible where there is good governance. He made the point that beyond focusing on long-term profits there must also be short time profitability to fund immediate sustainability, with a balance between the two.

Finally, before Nation Media Group’s James Sogoti, their General Manager Commercial, gave the vote of thanks, it was my turn – for ‘Closing remarks and next steps’, as the programme described it. It’s what I will write about in my next column. This one was about the “what”. Next will come the “so what”.

Nearly six years ago I wrote a column here about what I called “the necessary evil of compliance”, the theme of a Leaders Circle I had just co-hosted. In it I quoted former Deputy US Attorney-General Paul McNulty, who rightly pointed out that “If you think compliance is expensive, try non-compliance”. And in our conversation we agreed that one must be neither too trusting nor insufficiently so.

These thoughts were on my mind while attending the first day of the recent Nielsonsmith conference on “Compliance, Anti-Corruption and Ethics in Africa” where I was representing the Blue Company, one of the sponsors. During the conference I saw quite how prominent this compliance issue has become, with more and more organisations appointing compliance managers dedicated exclusively to this function.

We first heard from Tomell Ceasra, the co-founder of MEACA, the Middle East and Africa Compliance Association, and then from Laban Omangi, the chairman of the Compliance Society of Kenya, who told us how the society was formed in 2020 to bring together the compliance community within the finance sector, and now how it is spreading more broadly.

They’ve been studying the way to bring various institutions together to assemble compliance guidelines, and to offer professional training and certification in their specialty. They work together with Business Member Organisations (BMOs) and with regulators. And they worry about dealing with the financing of terrorism and with money-laundering funds derived from the proceeds of crime.

On the subject of whistleblowers, we heard about the factors that inhibit such people, including fear of retaliation; no response and no action being taken following their input – perhaps due to “untouchables” being involved; and a general lack of trust. Rita Mwangi, the Chief Legal and People Officer of Simba Corporation, talked about international and local legislation and how to comply. She highlighted the low positioning on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index of all but a very few African countries, with most either stuck where they are or regressing.

I was happy to hear her say we don’t lack legislation, either internationally or locally, rather what we need is improved enforcement – including through the increasing requirements of ESG reporting. As far as private sector self-regulation is concerned, because membership of many BMOs is voluntary the good guys join but the bad ones do not, thus evading the pressure to comply.

Peter Odedina, the Chief Compliance Officer of Airtel Africa next went into specifics on how to be compliant. He talked about the tone at the top being a key culture driver; appropriate incentives and penalties being important; the need for policies, codes of conduct; appropriate staff induction and ongoing communication with them; and the importance of enjoying an appropriate and aligned appetite for risk.

5% of the top line revenue of any company is lost due to fraud, he asserted. So what are the red flags? 43% are people seen to be living beyond their means, benefitting from a close association with vendors or customers; 23% face financial difficulties; and 21% are wheeler-dealers.

“Are compliance issues integrated into our organisation’s strategies and values, influencing the attitudes and behaviour of our people, thus forming an ethical culture?” we were asked.

The theme of the panel where I was a member read “Tone from the Top, Mood in the Middle, and Groove on the Ground”, where the role of middle managers was one of the issues discussed. There’s a whole spectrum at this level, from those who act as interpreters and mediators between the lower levels and their higher bosses, and those who are blockers and distracters. Much of course depends on that tone at the top. Are senior management keen to see the learning and growth of the next layers, so they rise up the organisation? Are they coaches? Do they provide a healthy performance management environment, with appropriate incentives? Do they inspire and motivate others to live their vision and values?

I was rather an exception in the room. Pretty much everyone else was deep in the compliance ecosystem, while I was viewing the topic from a much broader perspective. Those there were preaching to the already converted – which is fine, as it gave them the opportunity to interact, to learn and to reinforce each other. I hope they continue doing so beyond the conference, and that the event will have led to new alliances and collaborations that will raise the level of compliance… while not suffocating innovation and risk-taking.

Last October I was invited to be one of the facilitators at a British Council-sponsored induction workshop for the newly appointed vice-chancellors (VCs) and principals of public universities, and recently I was invited to play a similar role at a leadership training workshop for all the VCs and principals of the public universities. My topic in October was ‘Transformative Leadership and Integrity’, and this time round I was asked to talk about ‘Strategies for Enhancing Organisational Culture’, with Equity Bank’s James Mwangi handling my earlier topic.

The theme of the October workshop was ‘Developing Visionary and Effective University Leaders’, while the more recent one being on ‘Developing Strategic, Focused and Results-Oriented University Leaders’.

On each occasion, for several days the VCs were exposed to facilitators from various sectors. The participants interacted with each other and the facilitators and reflected on how to follow up on what they had learned while together.

Impressively too, there’s a Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, a forum for consultation, coordination and cooperation, and it was this committee that organised the two workshops. It is chaired by Daniel Mugendi, the VC of the University of Embu, and the coordinator of the programme was Peninah Aloo-Obudho, the VC of Maasai Mara University.

Where else do we see such organised collaboration between the CEOs of institutions in a particular domain – whether in the public sector or elsewhere? Kudos to the Vice-Chancellors, and also to the Ministry of Education, its Higher Education and Research department, the British Council and the quartet of sponsoring banks, namely KCB, Equity, Co-Operative Bank and NCBA.

It was bold of them to include my topic of culture strengthening, as many leaders – I might even say most – and in whichever sector, while having an adequate sense of their current culture and being able to put together a statement of their aspirational one, have little or no idea as to how to transition from one to the other.

Indeed, as I spelt out in my presentation (and as was the topic of my last column), they might not even have a proper idea of the actual culture, being overwhelmed by “The Iceberg of Ignorance”.

So my contribution was to give the vice-chancellors some ideas about how to dissolve the iceberg and get their various stakeholders to open up and talk freely about the extent to which they are living their values and what they need to do more of and less of to live them more fully.

Universities are complex institutions, with multiple internal and external stakeholders, each with their own expectations of how to behave and how to interact. So how to bring them together to unify around the visions and values of their university? How to align the council with the senior faculty and other management? How to align the back-office functions with the outward-facing ones? How to make the academic and non-academic trade unions and the student unions partners rather than adversaries? And that’s just internal stakeholders.

I described ways of negotiating win-win outcomes, with each stakeholder willing to indulge in give-and-take dialogue. This requires time and mediation skills to bring everyone closer together so that energy is not wasted in unproductive stalemates and conflicts.

I wish the Vice-Chancellors well as they go back to apply what they had learned in the forums.

Back to my opening thoughts, where I praised this coming together of CEOs. Too often our training institutions stop short of inviting the top leadership to such gatherings, only reaching the upper-middle levels, and not least in the public sector – although the Kenya School of Government is now reaching further upwards.

Read: The must-have tool for modern business leaders

At the top level we know that some actually worry about exposing themselves to colleagues for fear of their shortcomings being revealed. And, the know-it-alls merely look down the organisational pyramid to see whom they should send for training.

But there’s no one too senior to learn, up to and including Cabinet Secretaries and the President. For those at such levels, one-on-one coaching is ideal, complementing group learning. And for the VCs and other CEOs, coaching should also be considered.

A while ago I read an article about boards and voting by Roger Hitchcock, a senior partner at the Sirdar Global Group which guides boards to become more effective. I met Roger when I was a participant in his Sirdar Applied Directorship Programme some years ago, and as always in this article he was full of common sense, leading me to completely agree with his line of thinking.

While board voting can serve as a mechanism to resolve conflicts and make decisions, he writes, it should be approached cautiously and used as a last resort. This, I may add, applies equally to all kinds of organisations.

The reasons board voting should be the last resort are fairly obvious. By its nature, suggests Roger, it pits directors against each other, potentially leading to divisions within the board.

An “us-and-them” mentality can undermine the overall cohesion and effectiveness of the board, hindering its ability to function as a united entity. Indeed where I am a board chairman I work hard to avoid situations where there are winners and losers — even without that ultimate victory— and defeat outcome that results from voting.

Beyond sustaining cohesiveness among directors, avoiding contentious voting lessens the likelihood of straining relationships between board members, which would create a negative atmosphere within and beyond the boardroom.

This can have long-term implications for collaboration, trust and open dialogue, all crucial for effective board governance.

But it’s not just the soft relationship issues. Avoiding voting improves the quality of decision-making, asserts Roger. When a vote becomes necessary, it signifies a failure to reach a consensus through open dialogue and deliberation.

In such cases, the decision made may not be the result of a thorough exploration of all perspectives and alternatives, comprehensive analyses, and robust debate with the best interests of the company. Yes, voting offers a speedy approach to decision-making, but the lack of these key elements too often leads to sub-optimal outcomes.

So, Roger insists, we can avoid the need for voting by allowing for robust discussion and debate. Encouraging open and constructive discussion among board members is vital, I have seen in my many years as a director and chairman, going back to the late seventies.

By fostering an environment that values diverse perspectives, the board is relaxed and open enough to explore alternative viewpoints, identify common ground, and uncover innovative solutions without having to resort to voting.

This approach involves finding agreement among board members through compromise and negotiation and ensures that decisions that are in the best interests of the organisation are made with support from all board members.

This cannot be accomplished merely within board meetings, I have found. Where I am the chairman I frequently engage with individual directors prior to the formal board meeting to seek the spread of views and build towards consensus. Some may call this manipulation, but given that it is always pursued in the best interests of the organisation I do not hesitate to invest time in such activity.

Boards should establish clear decision-making processes, recommends Roger, like designing appropriate reports and dashboards, or using the normal board committees or temporary task forces to thoroughly analyse and vet proposals and come up with recommendations.

These processes and structures enable boards to engage in deep discussions, gather relevant information, and seek input from subject-matter experts before bringing issues to the boardroom.

Roger identifies a further benefit of boards consistently seeking consensus and making decisions based on that togetherness, which is that it leads to stakeholders gaining confidence in the board’s ability to navigate complex challenges, thereby enhancing the company’s reputation and its stakeholder relationships.

So, seeking consensus fosters a culture of collaboration and teamwork among board members. It promotes shared ownership of decisions, leading to a more cohesive board and stronger boardroom dynamics. Consensus-based decisions tend to be more comprehensive and well-rounded. All those in favour, please vote “Aye”.

This is my last article of the year (my 440th ), so I wish you a happy and relaxing time in the coming days and look forward to re-engaging with you in January.

A while ago, I facilitated a session with the board of a major Kenyan organisation, where I had them reflect on what they were proud of as a board and as individuals, and what additional aspects they wished to be proud of later.

The team is undergoing a review of its culture so as to take it to the next level, and as the directors reflected on the initiative they felt they could and should be more involved.

This is very much the norm at the director level. They are typically far more concerned about the numbers, the financials, which is what led the two Harvard professors, Kaplan and Norton, to come up with their Balanced Scorecard.

Through this framework they had company leaders place equal emphasis on the factors that deliver the numbers: the products and customers; the systems and processes; and the people – the element they described as “learning and growth”.

It is of course the people who define and live the culture, perceived through how they behave, which reflects their attitudes, these being a function of their values.

How many directors feel competent, and hence confident and comfortable dealing with such soft issues? Not many. “Leave it to the HR people,” they may well say, as they return to their easy-to-measure revenues, profits and suchlike.

I have written before in this column that few people at any level possess the expertise needed to enhance a culture.

At best they may find ways of defining the existing one, with all its ups and downs, and of sketching out the aspirational one, with the usual words to describe it: trust and openness, innovation and collaboration….

But as for how to migrate to that better world and overcome present challenges, don’t ask them. Indeed some will tell you it’s a waste of time, as most culture-change programmes fail to make a difference.

Then, as I read what others write on this subject – not least at the national level – too often I again see descriptions of how awful the present culture is or how wonderful living Utopian values would be, calling for a transformation to that ideal world but without in any way guiding us on how to travel along the journey towards it.

Yet while it is true that many culture-change initiatives fall way short of what they were intended to achieve, some do deliver both significant and sustained impact. What differentiates the two?

First, it’s investing time in bringing people together for open conversations that generate what I call “purposeful reflection”, where participants discuss and agree on what they will do more of and less of, start doing, stop doing and continue doing.

This requires the presence of a safe space, or as it is now sometimes described, one of “psychological safety” – which, allow me to state, is more readily created by external facilitators skilled in creating such a space and conducting such activities.

Without going into other critical success factors for culture change, let me jump straight to the need for enthusiastic support from the board.

Everyone must know that at the top level, it is accepted that culture does indeed eat strategy for breakfast – or, as I put it, that there must be a culture strategy component within the overall strategy.

The directors must be part of the strategy development and then participate in the conversations about culture, adding value to them and being role models for the desired culture.

They must also appreciate that changing a culture is much more than a one-off event but a continuous journey, one that requires focus and time, plus the relevant specialised skills and experience among those driving it.

And the performance management system must be such that those who embrace the desired culture are recognised and rewarded – which is why “Change Champions” are often identified as part of the process.

These days it is expected that directors undergo training, and this is now indeed the norm. But beyond programmes that relate to governance issues of oversight, compliance and risk management, how many cover the softer areas of leadership, like culture?

Happily, the organisation that invited me to spend time with their board appreciated this need, and I am confident that their directors will now ensure that matters to do with culture remain firmly on their radar.

I was recently asked to be a panelist at an event hosted by Hofstede Insights Africa and its Kenya partner, Priority Activator Consulting.

Its theme was Aligning culture and strategy – leveraging culture to drive organisational performance, a topic where I feel very much at home.

With us were around 30 CEOs who had been invited to engage with our panel, and the keynote speaker was Hofstede’s Group CEO Egbert Schram, who described culture as “the oil that lubricates strategy”.

His early background was in wildlife management, examining their behaviour patterns, which he subsequently applied to humans – always focusing on gathering and analysing data.

This led him to quote from a study which revealed that only 15 percent of CEOs feel their corporate culture is where it should be – as a result of which their organisations underperform.

One of the big causes is the “iceberg of ignorance”, where CEOs lack awareness of problems lower down in their organisations because they only engage with senior colleagues.

So the cascading downwards of what they perceive to be needed behaviour change fails to connect with the actual needs on the ground.

Culture is about how we relate to our colleagues, our work, and the external environment, he explained.

And he asked what excites us: enjoying life? Striving for the best? Something else? And where do our incentive schemes lead us: to achieving financial results? To deal with people issues? Then, who gets promoted, and why?

An expatriate CEO shared that in his home country, he was used to a much smaller power distance between levels. He has an open door, but too few of his people are relaxed enough to enter his office and express their views.

In hierarchical organisations, Mr Schram said there’s too much upward delegation – more so if the bosses are approachable.

And an emotional dependency on them may develop, including on non-work-related issues. So unless one empowers lower layers this becomes a bottleneck, preventing the company from growing.

Fellow panellist Catherine Musakali quoted Peter Drucker’s “culture eats strategy for breakfast” line, saying it surprises her how few boards include culture as a topic on their agendas.

This led me to describe my tweak of Drucker’s quote, where through the Balanced Scorecard approach I use in my strategy development work with clients I have them devise a culture strategy that feeds into the overall one.

Having said that, we find that companies which enjoy a healthy culture but lack a robust strategy do better than those with a great strategy but without a healthy culture.

Erick Ngala, the managing partner of Priority Activator Consulting, reinforced this point, emphasising that organisational performance is a consequence of its culture plus its strategy.

A lady CEO worried that women in leadership still have a hard time, with some of her people considering her to be “bossy”, to which she did not relate.

And another CEO felt he shouldn’t get too close to his people, otherwise, he would find it too hard to take disciplinary action when needed, or to deal with poor results and bad news.

My comment: when I arrived in Kenya in 1977 I was expected to be bossy and serious, to be feared. I defied that, with my default position being a cheerful one.

But people had to know that if the need arose I did have a big stick available. It took a while for my staff to come to terms with this “situational leadership” style… and some probably never did.

What is the role of the CEO in all this? What works and what does not? Does it vary depending on the size of the organisation? Is it different when going through a period of disruption?

These were the questions for this event. For me, CEOs are at the centre of a 360-degree ecosystem.

Above them are the shareholders with their values, represented by board directors; then other independent directors, among whom hopefully the chair.

It is the chair who should bring together a collective board perspective on culture, which is shared with the CEO and the senior management team – noting that the CEO is a board member too.

Critical to all this is the alignment between the chair and the CEO. Not forgetting the head of HR.

In my last column, I wrote about the rise and fall of Rudy Giuliani, as a result of reading his 2002 book, Leadership.

And today my subject is Jack Welch, having just read his 2001 book, Winning, about which Warren Buffett said at the time of its publication “No other management book will ever be needed.”

Welch was with GE for 40 years, climbing up the ranks until he became chairman and CEO in 1981. Under his leadership, it grew its profits massively and became globally dominant in its sectors, to the delight of its shareholders.

His style was bold and competitive, as he pushed the company to become lean and agile – less “comfortable” – laying off more than 100,000 employees within his first seven years at the top.

To achieve this, in the 1980s he launched a 360-degree review process in which every employee’s manager, peers and subordinates would grade them on aspects that included team spirit, collaboration, focus, vision and adaptability.

Employees were then ranked, separated into the top 20 percent, the stars; the bottom 10 percent, the under-performers and disrupters; and the middle 70 percent in between.

The bottom 10 percent were dealt with appropriately, and many were fired. The process, which resulted in significant unhealthy competition, became known as “rank and yank”, but other big corporates, including Amazon, Microsoft and Google, soon emulated GE.

Another aspect of the unhealthy competition that Welch generated emerged when he retired in 2001 and Jeffrey Immelt was promoted to CEO.

After decades of grooming several internal leaders for the position, the decision triggered an exodus of bitter executives.

However, despite all this – which earned him the nickname Neutron Jack – Welch greatly valued the role of HR, believing the head of that function should be the second-most important person in any organisation, and at least equal to the head of finance.

The HR people should be, as he put it, “a combination of pastors and parents”.

He was a promoter of robust evaluation systems, ones that went way beyond the all-too-common mere paper-pushing.

And he believed in motivating and retaining the people with money, recognition and training; in confronting the difficult people issues – those arising from trouble-makers and big-headed stars, with candour and action; in spending half your time evaluating and coaching the middle 70 percent; and in having as flat an organisation chart as possible, as the more layers there is the more mischief some will indulge in.

The section I found most helpful was the one on firing and laying off people, where his advice was first that nobody should be surprised when they are let go.

Employees should be informed enough about the nature of their business that they understood who might be laid off in an economic downturn or a change in the industry.

If they weren’t performing well, they should be made aware of this through regular formal and informal reviews. If they couldn’t improve, they should know they would have to move on.

You should move neither too fast nor too slow in removing them, and again you must be candid. Then, you should minimise the humiliation, and encourage those on their way out that there’s a better job out there for them, more matched to their skills and attitudes.

The task of the ones informing staff members that they have been laid off or fired is incredibly difficult, admits Welch.

They feel guilt and anxiety before, during and after. Surprisingly, he comments, he isn’t aware of any programmes that help people develop the skills needed to conduct such meetings.

He had to fire many people over the years, he writes and never got used to it.

So his legacy is a mix of ongoing admiration and second thoughts about him and his management style. In the two decades since he left GE, many of his approaches have fallen out of favour, including within GE itself.

Today, he is often criticised as a symbol of corporate greed and economic inequality, with undue emphasis on quarterly results.

The competition he generated among leaders came at a considerable human cost, and he was considered the father of the “shareholder value” emphasis, which has since been migrating to delivering broader stakeholder value.

Much food for thought about how to define responsible leadership then and now, and within this about how to build sustainability.

How will today’s corporate leaders be viewed two decades from now? How will you be?

Some time ago I wrote an article about Trump as a man whose I’m-OK-You’re-not-OK behaviour, one that required consistent win-lose interactions with others, masked a deeply insecure soul. Yet despite these insecurities, despite this lack of self-esteem, he built up extraordinary self-confidence, and through bullying, cheating and lying he achieved all that he did.

I refer to this as I recently read a provocative article in the London Times about Britain’s immediate former Prime Minister, Liz Truss. The headline said it all: “Truss proves talent-free bluster isn’t just for men”. And the opening paragraph tells us she broke one of the last glass ceilings. Not as the first female PM in her country, for she was not, but as “the first woman to reach the highest office propelled by gargantuan self-belief alone”.

Writer Janice Turner rightly reckons the kind of self-belief she displayed has not been associated with her gender. Indeed, she tells us, feminists have been known to pray “Lord, grant me the confidence of a mediocre man”.

We’ve been reading a lot about women holding back from higher office while younger and less experienced men lobby their way through. Here though, Ms Turner observed “a shameless, narcissistic, talent-free sense of entitlement”. Wow. Lots in common with Trump for sure, and indeed with so many politicians the world over.

I have also written about the competence-confidence matrix, with the competent one who lacks confidence often suffering from the “imposter syndrome”, while the confident one who lacks competence displays a cocky arrogance. The ideal position, as espoused by my heroes such as Ed Schein and Adam Grant, are those who behave with “confident humility”.

So where is Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss’s successor, in all of this? In a much better place. We have been reading about the values with which he was brought up and which it appears he has been able to largely hold on to despite entering the cut and thrust world of win-lose politics: family, honesty, education and hard work. Not a bad quartet.

His competence, certainly in matters financial, is indisputable. And his communication skills are definitely superior to hers. Well, that’s no big deal, as rarely have I come across such a wooden performer as Liz Truss in such a high office. Boy was she in need of coaching…but who knows, maybe her excess of self-esteem over self-awareness made her uncoachable.

How about our politicians here? For sure some are more competent than others, and some are better communicators than others. Many are at their best at high-octane campaign rallies whose objectives are mere entertainment, hype and goodies-distribution, while others know how to switch between such show-business performance and more serious and substantive output.

To be a politician, confidence is everything. As each one puts themselves forward for election, they are certain they will win, however justified or unjustified their optimism. So it was with Truss, so it was with Sunak; and so it was with all our political candidates in August, including those who lost.

Our responsibility as citizens is to study the competence-confidence mix of those who seek our votes, where competence includes adherence to good values and where mere confidence is woefully insufficient.

It was good to see the Mkenya Daima campaign focusing on this requirement for not only selecting good men and women, but then holding those who succeed at the ballot to account. It is why the Mkenya Daima tag line is Nitatenda Wajibu Wangu (I will do my responsibility).

It’s so dispiriting to me to see huge numbers of voters in the developed world casting their support for the Trumps and the Trusses of this world.

It shows the weakness in the civic education provided in so many countries that allows for populist promise-makers to get away with what they clearly should not… including Boris Johnson and his Brexit ones.

We’ve been through our elections just a few months ago. Have we selected enough of the humbly competent? Stay on the ball, fellow Kenyans, as President William Ruto has challenged us to do.

Rishi Sunak promised British citizens a government of “professionalism, integrity and accountability at all levels”. And President Ruto, when he confirmed his new cabinet, also called for integrity and accountability. We must indeed “do our responsibility”.