Posts

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.

 

 

 

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.

Francis Okello’s journey from the lakeshore to the boardroom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confronting inequality through volunteering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influencers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChatGPT on Adam Grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Mark Carney, no populist

Some months ago, I was sitting at Mombasa airport waiting for my flight back to Nairobi when my eye caught the cover of a book someone near me was carrying. Its title was “Values”, not at all unusual, but the word was printed upside down, and I wondered why. I asked the gentleman with the book to let me see it more closely, and read that it was “An Economist’s Guide to Everything That Matters”, published in 2021. And who was the author? Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Central Banks of Canada and England… and now the Prime Minister of Canada. I immediately bought a copy of the book.

Why was the word upside down? Because Carney was so concerned about the poor values we are living with these days, and this made his point. His 456-page book opens with his 10-page preface, and just on the first page of that we really get to know the man. He writes about how privileged he was to benefit from all the advantages he did, including with his elite education at Harvard and Oxford. He was with Goldman Sachs for 17 years, and then – and he goes out of his way to say it – it made him very humble as he tried to build a better world for all, while turning challenges into opportunities.

On to the second page, where he tells us he wrote the book because radical changes are needed in the world to overcome the crisis of values – this thanks to the inequalities we are witnessing. It’s all to do with inequalities of wealth, education and health opportunities, with climate change, and with too many valuing the present over the future.

Let me now jump to page nine, where he summarises that the success of an economy is contingent on a set of immutable, fundamental, common values and beliefs, which he lists as:

  • dynamism – to help create solutions that channel human creativity
  • resilience – to make it easier to bounce back from the shocks while protecting the most vulnerable in society
  • sustainability – with long-term perspectives that align incentives across generations
  • fairness – particularly in markets to sustain their legitimacy
  • responsibility – so that individuals feel accountable for their actions
  • solidarity – whereby citizens recognise their obligations to each other and share a sense of community and society
  • • humility – to recognise the limits of our knowledge, understanding and power so that we can act as custodians seeking to improve the common good.

Carney has a whole chapter on leadership, which he describes as key, but not in the heroic form of “follow me”. He writes: “In my experience, behavioural and participative forms of leadership underscore the extent to which leadership is less about what leaders achieve themselves and more about both the sense of purpose they impart to their colleagues and the actions they catalyse in pursuit of that objective”.

For him, they must assess the landscape to determine how their organisation can plan the future: “Ambitious leadership means helping to shape the future rather than just reacting to it.” Good leaders combine personal humility, self-knowledge and the ability to learn. This means “admitting mistakes, seeking and accepting feedback and sharing the lessons.

Boards and culture

I’ve been asked to run another session on the importance of boards focusing on the culture of the organisations where they are directors. So as I sat down with my blank screen I decided to concentrate my mind on the subject in poetic form, boiling it down to its essence. Here’s what emerged.

Too often as I sit on boards
I hear my colleagues silent on this topic
of culture.
They’re so concerned with
compliance, oversight and risk,
as stern parents expecting to slap the wrists
of their irresponsible children.

Their time horizons are limited
to the last and next quarters –
OK, at a stretch to a whole year –
and they focus on hammering
weaknesses and threats,
with not enough attention paid
to opportunities and aspirations,
passions and strengths.

They sub-optimise to the short-term,
not bothering about longer-term sustainability,
while proudly imagining they are
champions of good governance.

People tell us that
“culture eats strategy for breakfast”,
But no – it’s not either/or,
not a zero-sum game.
There must be a culture strategy
within an overall one,
where they integrate together and synergise.

But what is culture, anyway?
It’s “the way we do things round here”.
It’s the way we behave,
as a reflection of our attitudes
and beneath that of our values.
And how we behave either makes us
more or less happy, engaged… and productive.

So how do we influence behaviour patterns,
ones that have long been the norm?
How do we celebrate uplifting behaviour
and keep it going?

Much more challenging, how do we
get rid of dysfunctional behaviour,
knowing that comfort zones will be exceeded?
We must expand those comfort zones,
fill them with excitement rather than anxiety
about that new future,
allowing it to shine.

We must nurture both
competence and confidence,
having them in balance
within themselves and with each other.

Are we humble enough,
but not excessively so?
Do we align our confidence with our humility,
knowing we are not a
know-it-all,
asking much more than telling?

So let’s get going with change management,
shall we, aware that most such initiatives fail dismally?
Why do they? So many reasons!
Lots are top-down,
led by those shielded from reality
through their iceberg of ignorance.

They rush in without getting to root causes,
without hearing from the ground.
They don’t focus enough on what the purpose is,
then all-too-quickly fade out,
as everyone gets too busy once again.

So be prepared to invest good time.
Go both top-down and bottom-up,
relentlessly keeping to the “why?”,
to the “so what?”, the consequences.

Make sure there are quick-wins to encourage you,
while accepting that other battles will take longer.
Celebrate the champions,
nudge the resisters to catch up,
and above all be role models yourselves.

Keep reviewing, keep reviewing
at all levels – horizontally and vertically –
with standing agenda items at meetings.
Share good stories,
adapt the change as needed,
see how others do such work.

Make the new culture the new enjoyable norm
that attracts good stakeholders to you
and holds them on to you,
so that they in turn attract
other good ones around them.

Do you ever write poetry? If not, try it, and if it exceeds your comfort zone, relax and expand it. I find it concentrates my mind and makes me smile – not least if I have used it to vent about something or someone awful that has happened, or to celebrate some good news. Have a go!

Before closing let me mention that this is my 275th column in this paper, and also that I understand I’m the longest running writer here. It’s the first article I’ve written as a poem, and very likely the last!