40 days to save the world

Phil Wall ponders the nurturing of giants

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief… The failure of self-interest to provide self-regulation is a flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”
Alan Greenspan (The New Yorker, February 2009)

Acouple of weeks ago, two events occurred that at first glance have little to do with each other. With deeper reflection, their links could be profound.

First we witnessed the ignominy of the UK’s financial services regulators being held to account for their lack of diligence during the economic meltdown of recent days. Whilst the prophets like Warren Buffet screamed warnings about the mythological nature of “exotics trades,” the “watchdogs,” entrusted with safe-guarding us all, ignored him and refused to bark loudly and do what they were appointed to do.

We find ourselves in this economic quagmire because of unbridled self-interest. Both personal and corporate governance has been weak to the extent that decisions have been knowingly made and rewarded, which our grand-children will inherit as debt. Politicians around the world argue about what kind of “stimuli” will fix this — the more honest offer no guarantee. It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who said that the greatest battle leaders face is the battle over self: “…we need men and women who are capable of disciplining themselves, for they are the rulers and they must rule themselves.” It would appear that many within the world of banking and regulation have lost this particular battle, and all of us have a price to pay.

The second event of recent weeks is the beginning of the ancient tradition of Lent. This is a Judeo-Christian celebration that lasts for forty days, remembering those spent by Jesus of Nazareth in the desert. It is focused upon discipline, self mastery and self-denial. For those who mark it, it often involves a twofold process: “giving up” and “taking up.” Giving up involves fasting from some forms of consumption — things like chocolate or alcohol are common. Taking up involves committing to be more generous or encouraging.

This dual discipline may be a helpful correction to the excesses that got us here and provide something of a road-map out of it.

At such times as these, a quality of leadership is required to protect what remains of viable business and begin to build for the future. Enabling such leadership to express itself will require some things to be given up and others to be taken up.

In listening to the conversations of the world’s economic giants, it seems some look for solutions that allow things to be fixed but that keep all their power and privilege still intact. It may well be slowly dawning on them that the world has indeed changed.

The spirit of Lent says something different. What would happen if leaders gave up some of the privileges that their offices afford them? What if they gave up aggressive, harsh communication and spent more time listening to the concerns of dedicated, yet fearful, employees? What if instead of a culture of excess and greed they modeled a culture of frugality and stewardship? What if they mastered some of their testosterone-driven and insatiable appetite to acquire and became more wise and measured? What if they began to see their businesses not merely as corporate machines to create individual wealth but rather as social mechanisms for building value, wealth and giving meaning to all involved? What if they began to move on from the short-term bonus culture to long-term value creation?  Fasting from the excesses of such behaviours would change our future prospects dramatically.

All who understand business acknowledge that it is only people who are going to create anything of the kind of future that we want to live in. So what would happen if pressured leaders, responsible for weary and often fearful staff, “took up” some different behaviours in the spirit of Lent that might begin to create a culture that built rather than battered people?

I was talking with a senior media executive who described her job as “nurturing giants.” She said, “I know if I can help my guys feel like giants, then truly we can be the best there is.” So what could happen within business if for the next 40 days, leaders came to work having taken up new disciplines that will help them “nurture giants”?

What if they walked through the door every day with the intention of catching people doing things well and encouraging them? What if they looked for any and every opportunity to give positive and constructive feedback? What if they invested in team cohesion and intimacy, building greater rapport and understanding? What if they committed to write a personal note of appreciation (card not email!) to thank over-stretched staff for their efforts during these difficult days? What if they took time to truly connect with staff, expressing genuine interest in their families and personal interests? What if they came to work focussed on investing in the growth and development of their teams and people so that they might become giants, rather than wallowing in self pity and searching the web for new jobs? My sense is that such “taking up” could do something quite remarkable. Giants change things.

Greenspan acknowledges that self-interest will not lead to self regulation; the FSA et al now understand that — to their and our cost. However, self-mastery like that encouraged within the spirit of Lent, demands such rigour. Forty days of Lenten discipline will not guarantee our recovery, but it will certainly make it more likely.

Writer: Phil Wall is CEO of Signify where he provides leadership and coaching services to senior corporate executives in the UK and US. Phil previously worked as a London police officer and as a communicator/leadership trainer with The Salvation Army in the UK.

1 Comment to 40 days to save the world

1. I agree with all that has been said. But I would add another dynamic to this - everyone else and Democracy.

   We can point the finger at financial leaders and politicians all we want, but we also have to point the finger at ourselves. You see, many of the financial leaders, and certainly almost all of the politicians, were voted in by the majority of people, because they agree with them. Politicians and financial leaders are often fearful of ‘taking a hard stand’ because generally it results in us voting them out and them losing their job because we don’t like the ‘tough times’ it creates for us. Just think - how many of us vote out politicians because they have raised taxes, and how many of us will vote in politicians because they promise to reduce taxes? When was the last time you voted for a politician because they promised to raise taxes?

   And we mustn’t forget that a lot of the decisions that were made were only made because we as a people wanted them. We wanted dirt cheap home loans, we wanted to be able to make money quickly without the associated hard work. So we willingly signed up to ridiculous mortgages that many of us knew we could never afford to service even still, we willingly invested our money in risky and ‘exotic’ investments. We bought the dream of being able to own our own home, of being able to do what we want without stopping to consider our own limitations and whether or not we are capable of achieving that dream. As much as I would like to own my own home, and I have had the opportunity, I don’t because I know my limitations, and I knew I may not be able to keep up repayments in the future. I realise the transient nature of our society and the need for mobility within the employment sector - that I could be working in Australia one day, and the UK the next, and so a Mortgage would be detrimental to my ability to work.

   We can blame the salesmen all we like and say they bamboosled us, but ultimately, the buck stops with us. If we had stood up and said ‘it sounds too good to be true’ and refused all of the above, and voted those leaders out, maybe we wouldn’t be where we are. If we had been prepared to accept the hard decisions and not vote our politicians out because they made life a little harder for us for the betterment of our future, then maybe we wouldn’t be where we are.

   It is our collective greed, not just the greed of leaders that caused the problem. They just enabled us because we wanted them to. In democratic societies, which ours is, such decisions are made by the people by the way they vote and the collective decisions we make. We like our democracy, but that means we also need to take responsibility for it, and accept the blame ourselves when things go wrong (unless we campaigned against our leaders in the first place).

   Perhaps we as a people need to take the idea of ‘Lent’ more seriously, and not just the 40 days of ‘Lent’, but make it part of our lives. Some of the teaching on Lent suggests that the 40 days of Lent is to give us a chance to inculcate it into our lives, so that we continue the good work we began, and we become better people for it.

   Just another perspective.

   Graeme.
Graeme Randall on March 26th, 2009

Leave a comment