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.

Making staff surveys useful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influencers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

I’ve been reading an article by Carmine Gallo from the January 2020 edition of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) about how the best CEOs are the ones who know they can improve their skills further, not least their communication skills, particularly through coaching.

Exactly what I have found in my work as a consultant.

The HBR article refers to the Dunning-Kruger effect, and explains it by stating that “people who are mediocre at certain things often think they are better than they actually are, and therefore fail to grow and improve. Great leaders, on the other hand, are great for a reason – they recognize their weaknesses and seek to get better.”

The Dunning-Kruger effect is described as a “cognitive bias”, in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. It was first described by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999, and it has since become very well known. It is usually measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance. For example, participants take a quiz and estimate their performance afterwards, and this is then compared to their actual results.

The original study focused on logical reasoning, grammar and social skills. But other studies have been conducted across a wide range of tasks, including from business, politics, medicine, driving, aviation, spatial memory, examinations in school and literacy, and they all found this over-estimation phenomenon exhibited by significant numbers. I should add that under-estimation is also present in some, leading to the “imposter syndrome” narrative, about which I have also written.

In earlier articles of mine here I have explored various aspects of this subject, including ones about the relationship between competence and confidence. Here, I have suggested, it is particularly politicians – in Kenya and around the world – whose confidence greatly exceeds their competence, and I selected former British Prime Minister Liz Truss as a fine example.

I quoted an article in the London Times about her, whose headline read: “Truss proves talent-free bluster isn’t just for men”. And its opening paragraph told us she broke one of the last glass ceilings – not as the first female Prime Minister in her country, for she was not, but as “the first woman to reach the highest office propelled by gargantuan self-belief alone”.

Why is there this bias to over-estimating one’s capabilities – or indeed in others to under-estimate them? The simple answer is lack of self-awareness. Such people lack an objective view of their strengths and weaknesses, and do not seek feedback from those with whom they interact to align their perceptions with reality. And who would be particularly well-placed to open them up to such gaps? Coaches.

Coaching is at the centre of my consulting work, where I seek to create a safe space in which the person being coached feels comfortable revealing vulnerabilities they had previously kept to themselves or had not even been aware of. My role is to help them identify areas for potential development, and then work with them to fill the gaps and so to be at their best.

What I have observed over the years is that those most in need of coaching are likely to least want it, imagining they just don’t need such support. They have a false sense of both competence and confidence that anyway would render them uncoachable. Those who reach out to me for support are overwhelmingly the ones who are already ahead of the game, as Gallo also found. They expect to be able to continuously improve and to do so, seeking ongoing feedback that it is actually happening.

So let me ask you how self-aware you are. Indeed, how sure are you that your perception of the extent of your self-awareness aligns with that of those around you, whether in the family, socially or professionally? At whatever age and level age you are, I urge you to carry out a “health-check” on where this stands between very low and very high.

Wherever you are, as Gallo and I have both found, there is most likely to be scope for being coached to rise further. There may be good coaches within your organisation, including your immediate boss, a board member or others, but there may be benefits to seeking an external coach – who will have no axe to grind within the organisation.

Finally, just as it’s helpful to be coached, surely you could and should also be a coach. Indeed contemporary leadership requires a coaching mindset as a key component in how one operates in that capacity.

Please seek a quiet space in which to reflect on what you have just read, and decide what action to take.

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.

How The Blue Company and others are helping the private sector fight against corruption in Africa

Corruption remains one of the biggest challenges facing Kenya. Actually, East Africa. Wait a minute, all over the continent… oh, and far beyond. It undermines trust and hence stifles economic growth, and its effects are felt across all sectors. Companies often find themselves entangled in unethical practices such as bribery, fraud and mismanagement, as they navigate their way through an environment where transparency and accountability are hard to handle.

The private sector stands at a pivotal moment. As global attention increasingly turns toward ethical governance and corporate responsibility, businesses in Africa face a choice: perpetuate the status quo or embrace a transformative path of integrity, transparency and accountability.

Organisations like The Blue Company (where I am a member of its Membership and Ethics Committee) and the UN Global Compact are stepping in to lead the way. Rooted in the belief that ethical governance is the cornerstone of sustainable development, they work to embed integrity at the heart of corporate culture. Through certification, training and advocacy, such initiatives support businesses to rise above corrupt practices and champion ethical standards.

But the philosophy that underpins this approach is larger than any one initiative. At its core is the conviction that integrity is more than a compliance requirement – it is a driver of trust, innovation and long-term growth. Businesses committed to ethical practices gain reputational advantages, attract investment and foster environments conducive to sustainable development.

Change begins at the top, as leaders play a critical role in shaping corporate culture, setting the tone for ethical behaviour and ensuring accountability. For a culture of integrity to thrive, leaders must commit to transparent decision-making and zero-tolerance policies for corruption. When they embody such values and behaviours, they inspire trust within their organisations and beyond.

However, leadership alone is not enough. Businesses must invest in capacity building to ensure alignment across all levels. Comprehensive training programmes that focus on ethical decision-making, anti-bribery measures and practical approaches to transparency are crucial. These efforts equip employees with the tools they need to uphold integrity in their daily operations.

Corruption is not just a business issue – it is a societal one. Addressing it requires collective action from professional associations, civil society, governments and businesses. Advocacy plays a vital role in this effort, promoting policies that support ethical governance and creating systems that reward transparency.

Collaborative initiatives, like those championed by The Blue Company, amplify the impact of individual efforts. By working with stakeholders across sectors, these initiatives help establish integrity as a norm rather than an exception. Advocacy also influences legislation, ensuring that ethical practices are supported by robust legal frameworks.

Innovation is a powerful tool in the fight against corruption. Emerging technologies, such as blockchain for secure record-keeping and artificial intelligence for auditing processes, offer businesses new ways to enhance transparency and accountability. By adopting these

advancements, organisations can prevent fraud, streamline compliance, and stay ahead in the evolving business landscape.

Technology also empowers stakeholders by increasing access to information. Digital platforms that track supply chains, for example, make it easier to identify and address unethical practices. Such tools deter corruption and so build trust among consumers, investors and regulators.

While some progress has been made, much remains to be done. Corruption continues to be a significant barrier to economic growth. Expanding ethical business practices across industries and geographies is essential for transforming Africa’s private sector into a driver of integrity-driven development.

The road to ethical governance is not easy. For corruption provides shortcuts and immediate gains that can tempt businesses to compromise their values. But the long-term rewards of integrity far outweigh the risks of unethical behaviour.

In the face of such challenges, these initiatives offer a path forward, as we heard last week at the Africa Business Ethics Conference. By prioritising certification, capacity building and advocacy, they create a foundation for trust and sustainable growth. Yet their success depends on a collective commitment from the private sector to act responsibly and lead by example.

For Africa to unlock its full potential, businesses must embrace a vision of integrity as a guiding principle – not just for compliance, but as a cornerstone of competitive advantage. This shift will not only attract investment and foster innovation but also lay the groundwork for a thriving economy built on trust and merit.

In a region where corruption has long been a major obstacle to progress, the private sector has the opportunity to redefine success. By championing ethical governance, businesses can become catalysts for systemic change, paving the way for a future where there will be less resistance to transparency and accountability.

Win-Win relations with customers

In August of this year I wrote an article based on an interview with me in 1990 I had unearthed about how I was managing the IT company of which I was then CEO, where I stated that some would have assumed I was speaking about leadership styles today given that what I was saying and doing at the time many imagine only emerged much more recently.

My column today is about another article from the last century, this one from 1978, which featured in KIM’s Management magazine under the headline “Eldon Marries Heart to Computer Science”. In it, Seth Musisi wrote about a talk I gave at a seminar on data processing (as IT was then called) at the University of Nairobi, on how I viewed relations with our customers – in those days of huge and hugely expensive mainframe machines.

In 1978 I was the General Manager of the Kenyan subsidiary of British computer multinational ICL, with nearly a hundred staff and looking after around thirty customers. At that time there were hardly any software applications, so each customer had their own teams of systems analysts and programmers, starting from scratch to create theirs – hard to imagine these days.

Musisi began the article with this quote from my talk: “The relationship between manufacturers and computer users is similar to marriage, where a couple is lawfully wedded, in sickness and in health, till death do them part.” And he went on to write about my expectation that there should not be conflict between supplier and user, but cooperation to mutual benefit – especially given the likelihood of a long-term relationship. Suppliers should be responsible partners rather than mere hard-selling revenue-chasers descending on innocent maidens, I suggested.

In this relationship the user seeks to maximise the return on their investment in the system, while the supplier’s goal is to maximise the investment. Yes, except that most of our business came from existing users and one could not expect to retain them in the long-run by overselling in the short-term. We also relied heavily on the satisfaction of the base in selling to new users.

We suppliers, with our international exposure, were expected to carry out training and to advise our users on how to generate the best benefit from their investment. This at all levels, from the computer department (the term for IT department then) to the users to senior management (hardly direct users in those days). For this to work well, I said, there had to be a spirit of give and take, giving credit and blame where they were due – rather than as happened too often, indulging in blame denial and displacement, and recrimination.

Does some of this sound familiar? Well here’s another topic I addressed that’s as alive today, to do with technology replacing jobs. In the 1970s many were still uncertain as to whether to bring computers into developing countries like Kenya. (A decade or so later the taxes on computers were raised on the grounds that they were “labour-saving devices”.) Here my response was that we should be keeping abreast of what was happening in the developed world and raising our productivity, for otherwise we would fall further behind and increase our dependency.

And while accepting that some jobs were indeed automated through the introduction of computers, other jobs were being created – like those among vendors and users, and those in the university’s Institute of Computer Science, the co-hosts of the event. I also pointed out that staff in the computerworld are forced to adopt a disciplined way of thinking, which influences others with whom they come into contact and is good for the country at large.

In those days there were many expatriates in the sector – as I still was then, having arrived here in 1977 – and this too gave rise to considerable push-back. It depends on need, I insisted, and assumes skills transfer by the external resources, also appreciating the training that was increasingly available locally.

So here we are today in Silicon Savannah, with smart phones in our pockets whose power exceeds that of those monsters in air-conditioned rooms I once dealt with. But what has not changed is the need for suppliers of capital goods to treat their customers responsibly, as it is this that will keep them loyal and encourage others to be attracted to you. What has only more recently become fashionable is to wrap all this up in language promoting “sustainability”… which is what was already being delivered by the good guys.

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.

Management and me, from 1990

Going through some old papers of mine, I came across a 1990 interview with me by Isaiya Kabira for the Nation. I had already been in the IT industry for 23 years, and running IT companies (then called “computer companies”) in Kenya for the last 13 of these. I was talking about my leadership style and about the state of the computer industry then. Reading the article, some would have assumed I was speaking about leadership styles today, given that what I was saying and doing at the time many imagine only emerged much more recently.

“As we move to a more competitive inter-related world economy,” I was quoted as saying, “the need for a participative management style is now no longer a luxury.” And “If someone shows initiative and potential, we are only too pleased to stretch and develop them. The more such successes we have, the more others are encouraged to follow.” Then, “Consensus management is key. By working as a group and seeking input, we create self-confidence in the employees.”

I said I offered easy access to me by my staff, adding that “people must enjoy working for you. You have them not only strive to give good service, but to derive satisfaction from giving that service.” And I talked about developing a system of self-appraisal, where staff list their achievements and then analyse their performance in terms of both successes and failures, as well as strengths and weaknesses. Boss and subordinate then sit down together to discuss this performance, together with development objectives for the following year.

“The success of this approach depends upon an atmosphere of openness and trust,” I pointed out, “where employees are encouraged to hold the mirror to themselves and not simply allow the boss to tell them what they think of them.”

I see I also commented on the consequences of Kenya’s unique ethnic mix, accepting that a big challenge is operating successfully in a multi-cultural  society, by accommodating different values and ideas and compromising, while holding on to certain universal underlying virtues.

I attributed the often-outdated management style in Kenya to historical factors, not least the domination of colonial Kenya by civil servants, soldiers, farmers and church people, all from the most hierarchical organisations in society. It was this that was emulated here, complemented by the equally hierarchical traditional Asian and African leadership styles. I also referred to the education system that suppressed curiosity and participation, and how all this had led to an under-utilisation of the nation’s brains.

My recipe for improving the situation was to “establish a proper business school of a high calibre to enable Kenyans to update their management skills and style, while also exposing more young Kenyans to overseas education and development experiences.”

On the technology front, I stated that we were about to introduce electronic mail, enabling the exchange of office memos through the computer. Wow, e-mails here we come! And later I complained that users of computers placed too much emphasis on cost-minimisation while devoting inadequate time to studying the more complicated issue of expected benefits. Ah yes, then and now! “Go for a relationship with a firm that will give you support and value, up front and in the long run,” I advocated.

How did our firm manage to create customer loyalty in the highly competitive computer business? “You have to enjoy giving service to customers,” I said, “have people look forward to engaging with you, for training and other back-up services or even when they have a crisis. Recovery from problems or crises and how you communicate as you emerge from such incidents are of paramount importance.” I went on to talk about expectations management, as I so often till do.

Good that in Kenya many more of our organisational pyramids have flattened (except in too much of government) and that we have become Silicon Savanah. Good too that we now have numerous Business Schools, and good that the Competency Based Curriculum is being implemented.

A footnote on Isaiya Kabira to conclude. He graduated from journalism to becoming Press Secretary to President Kibaki throughout his time in State House, then Kenya’s High Commissioner to Australia and New Zealand, then Director General of International Conferences, Media Events and Public Communications in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and now Secretary Diaspora Investments, Skills and Entrepreneurship. Thanks, Isaiya, for interviewing me all those years ago, and well done for all you have achieved since.