Posts

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.

Shell report 1967

Going through my archives, I came across a report from November 1967 produced by Shell that my father Bruno had passed down to me. At that time he was Shell’s Head of Worldwide Management Training, based in London, and this fascinating document must have acted as a powerful guide to him and his colleagues.

What was I up to at that time, now nearly half a century ago? A couple of months earlier I had obtained my undergraduate degree and I had just joined the British computer multinational that ten years later brought me here.

Here’s how Shell’s Group Personnel Coordinator (as such folk were called then) H.W. Atcherley opened his foreword to the report:

“We talk a great deal these days, and necessarily so, about more effective utilisation of manpower. In the course of this dialogue we will probably concede that management knowledge of motivation, attitudes and other factors which influence staff morale, job performance and personal satisfaction lags some way behind knowledge of the technical, financial and other aspects of the business.”

He went on to appreciate the increasing role being played by social scientists in building up a body of knowledge about human behaviour and the requirements for organising people to carry out a task. This knowledge was largely unfamiliar within the company, and so they brought in Dr. Hollis Peter to design and carry out a survey.

Atcherley then mentioned their reference to Douglas McGregor’s in his The Human Side of Enterprise, and also to the work of an MIT colleague of McGregor’s, Prof. Edgar H. Schein. These were the founding gurus of culture in the workplace and of organisational development, and I know they were a great influence on how my father put his management development programmes together.

I was delighted to see reference to one of my favourite frameworks, Blake and Mouton’s Management Grid, where they drew up a matrix between managers who focused on tasks versus those who focused on people – where the ideal of course is that it should not be either one or the other but both.

Survey participants were selected from 25 countries around the world (with over half of them expatriates), and included ones from the head-office functions in London and The Hague.

The following statements were laid out, for them to agree or disagree with:

  1. Leadership skills can be acquired by most people, regardless of their inborn traits and abilities.
  2. Generally speaking, people prefer to be directed, and wish to avoid responsibility.
  3. The use of rewards and penalties is not the best way to get subordinates to do their work.
  4. A good leader should give detailed and complete instructions to his subordinates, rather than depending on their initiative to work out the details.
  5. If subordinates cannot influence their superiors, then they lose some influence on them.
  6. Group goal setting offers advantages that cannot be obtained by individual goal setting.
  7. A superior should give his subordinates only that information that is necessary for them to do their immediate task.
  8. The superior’s authority over his subordinates is primarily economic.

It also identified four different management styles from among which the respondents were invited to select their preferred one: autocratic, paternalistic, consultative and participative. Sounds familiar?

I was introduced to these emerging management theories in an academic context when I was going through my Sloan Masters programme in the mid-seventies at the London Business School, and my whole point here – not for the first time in this column – is to provide an objective time-perspective on the evolution of management knowledge over the years. In particular to stress that whereas it is so commonly assumed that our preferred contemporary styles only emerged in this 21st century, that is clearly not the case – at least not for ahead-of-the-game organisations like Shell.

As I read through the report, I was not surprised to see that explicitly only men were involved, 100%. No mention of women at all. I also noted that computers were just entering the scene, with reference to this emerging technology.

I could write much more about the contents and conclusions of the survey. But suffice it to say that it made a big impact on me, recognising that when I was still in my twenties there were management thinkers and doers who would have fitted into today’s organisations as well as their succeeding generation counterparts.

I hope that what I have selected here makes you also reflect on the development of knowledge flows over time, and on how to get a feel for the relationship between an organisation and its staff.

Nurturing NGO board members

I drove up less than half a mile along Kabarsiran Avenue to Kibondeni College, where Lisa Issroff, the CEO of the Issroff Family Foundation, was facilitating her session at the NGO Directors’ workshop jointly hosted by them and the Women On Boards Network. In the meeting room were seated around fifty bright young men and women from around Africa, some already board members, others aspiring ones. Lisa was faciliting them through what it takes to be an effective board member, and next was our panel session, where Caroline Armstrong, Wambui Mbesa and I had been asked to speak along the following lines:

  • Introduce yourself – Share a brief background on your professional journey.
  • Introduce your organisation – Provide context on its mission, work, and impact.
  • How and why did you join the board? – What motivated you to take on this role?
  • Describe your board experience – Share notable challenges, successes, and key responsibilities.
  • Your biggest learnings – What insights or advice would you give to current and aspiring board members?

I started by mentioning that I live just down the road from there, and shared two things in common with this Opus Dei Kibondeni College: I am an adjunct faculty member of Strathmore Business School, and in 1961 my wife Evelyn Mungai was the first African student at Kianda Secretarial College – the first multi-racial college in Kenya. And both Strathmore and Kianda are Opus Dei institutions.

I came to Kenya in 1977, I shared, and that is when I joined my first board, having arrived here to be the General Manager of the Kenya subsidiary of British-based multinational ICL, and hence a member of its Kenya board. A year later the British Business Association of Kenya (now the Kenya Chapter of the British Chamber of Commerce) was formed, and for some reason this very young British expatriate, quite new to Kenya and to Africa, was invited to become its founder chairman.

More chair positions followed, from the Kenya ICT Federation to the Kenya Institute of Management to KCA University to the Rotary Club of Nairobi to Occidental Insurance, plus other directorships, including of KEPSA, The Blue Company, AFIDEP, Davis & Shirtliff and Hotpoint Appliances. In answer to the question of how and why I joined these boards, in each case it was simply because I was invited to. I was not a domain expert in any of them, and my skills lay largely elsewhere.

The words that describe me are integrator and energy aligner; mediator and consensus builder; mentor and coach – not least in the development of emotional intelligence. I encourage strategic thinking, and indeed two of my directorships came about as a result of me having facilitated the development of the relevant organisations’ strategic plans. This requires being driven by an uplifting purpose, and so to living the vision and values of the entity, aligned with one’s own.

My default position is to communicate with a light touch, including in moments of crisis. In my directorships and my consulting I expect to be “having a good time doing good things”, with colleagues, clients and others.

I described my years leading IT companies that then led to me to launching my management consulting firm The DEPOT, as a memorial to my late son Dan. And I referred to my Business Daily column, in which I have written several articles about being an effective board member and leader. Here I have described how I apply my consensus building skills – creating unity among board members and with the CEO and other staff, plus external stakeholders.

The main challenges and learnings I have experienced pretty much relate to why I was selected for the various positions I have occupied over the last nearly fifty years, reinforced by writing about these in my column.

My two fellow panelists told us about what it has been like to rise through the ranks as women. “Don’t allow a chip to develop on your shoulder”; “do it your way”; sometimes doors open that you didn’t knock on – decide if to go through them”; “be adaptable, step forward, and step up”, we heard from Caroline. And tech entrepreneur Wambui “never felt the gender thing” on boards where she has served, so did not suffer from “imposter syndrome”. “Be prepared”, she strongly advised, and “follow your passion”.

I was so impressed by the thoughtful and lively participants at this workshop, confident they will return to their workplaces inspired to perform at yet higher levels. As I always say, those who really needed to be in the room may well have been the least likely to be present.

Governance and individual responsibility

In my last column I started writing about the event branded “Sustainability, Governance and You: Unlocking Organisational Excellence with ISO 37000” that was co-hosted by Scribe Services and FluidRock Governance Group, at which I was a panelist. In that article I focused on how the first keynote speaker, FluidRock Executive Chair Annamarie Van der Merwe, took us through the evolution of how societies expect businesses should behave, including highlighting the basics of the ISO 37000 international guidelines on good governance.

Now to the second keynote speaker, Dr Julius Kipng’etich, who launched his talk by contrasting the development of Singapore to that of Kenya. Both our per capita GDPs were $400 sixty years ago, but while ours is now $2,000 theirs is $87,000. According to him, the difference is explained by the contrasting quality of governance – very much reflected in how much inequality exists in the country.

This led Dr Kipng’etich straight to the ISO 37000 guidelines on governance which, he told us, boil down to the desireable values and behaviours of individuals, from CEOs to managers to messengers. What is required of them all is this: results, compliance with the law, ethical conduct, and doing sustainable long-term good. In Kenya, it’s very challenging, as we have to deal with extreme inequality, plus a culture of materialism, the collapse of traditional governance systems, and an “anything goes” attitude that’s facilitated by impunity.

Our task is to get the right people in our institutions, ones who will support good governance and enforce the law, he stated. This requires us to recruit for character, and then to induct, train, develop and maintain such good people. We must define minimum standards, and reward those who do the right thing. We also need a transparent environment, one where people speak up if something is wrong – to which ISO 37000 devotes a whole chapter. And it is the leadership team that must role-model and nurture a culture of healthy values, behaviours and habits.

Dr Kipng’etich then talked about The Blue Company, which attracts member organisations that apply the principles of good governance, and he concluded by again stating that our focus should be on us as individuals, as systems are just enablers.

The final stage of the event was the panel discussion of which I was part, along with Mary Ann Musangi, the Managing Director of Haco Industries, and Collins Kinoti, Scribe’s ESG and Sustainability Adviser. Our moderator Alice Ayuma first asked us what makes good governance such a challenge. Carrying out stakeholder engagement, suggested one panelist, and I talked about the need to bring more organisations and individuals with healthy values together, in order to develop a critical mass that can make a significant difference nationally.

The next question was about the future of governance, where what we see is that organisations of any kind must take into account the fact that stakeholders are increasingly making their decisions as to whether to engage with them or not based on how ethically and responsibly they behave. Are they sensitive to the environment? Do they treat their staff and the communities within which they operate with care? Are they trustworthy, transparent and accountable? And so on.

In a way though, good governance and responsible leadership are timeless phenomena. From mankind’s earliest days we have preferred to deal with honest, trustworthy people, and they are the ones with whom we will do repeat business. The win-lose deal-makers – like Trump – may enjoy an initial victory over another party, but will those “losers” be up for another engagement? Not if they can avoid doing so.

There was considerable discussion on governance at the national level, where it was noted that just one person, the leader, can make all the difference, as happened in Singapore with Lee Kwan Yu and in Rwanda with Paul Kagame. These leaders introduced discipline into their cultures as a habit, and where discipline is rewarded and indiscipline penalised. They know when to say “No”, and this leads such countries to be well-placed on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. In Africa, Mauritius, Botswana and Rwanda rate relatively highly, while Kenya is much further down.

To promote sustainability, one must invest in systems, develop a healthy culture, and nurture a pipeline of leaders (a challenge in Uganda, and maybe in Rwanda too). Mention was made of those like Museveni who refuse to step down, and who surround themselves with compliant sycophants.

In just two and a half hours so much ground was covered, so much food for thought offered, so much constructive conversation enjoyed, neither too optimistic nor too pessimistic.

100 days of NARC – April 2003

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.

Surviving a toxic CEO

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.

Going Blue

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”.