Saturday, 30 May 2009

"Heads" they "Win" ... "Tails" you "Lose"


Rewarding Failure - Saying 'Hello' to the "Golden Goodbye" ... not long ago, following the banking crisis, the UK Government spoke of the imperative to stop rewarding failure ... 

... industry 'leaders' have profited greatly from 'golden goodbyes' for many years, and still do ... despite the clear 'anger' and a great deal of 'government spin' ...

But they are not the only ones profiting from such deals ... MP's are too ... and not surprisingly most are very quiet about it ... it's yet another example of the "do as I say, not as I do" culture we see from those we are supposed to trust ... a key feature of Poweromics* at work.

Many of those MP's who have been found wanting are clearly hanging on to their positions until the next general election to make sure they pocket the most from it ... and they'll probably continue to do so even if they're investigated by the Police and sent to jail ... !

One leader has just spoken out against this, but everyone else seems to be extremely quiet ... are MP's really committed to stopping the MP gravy train, and making the job a Civic responsibility rather than a lucrative and highly profitable 'members club' ... (nb and not a 'club' of 'honorable members')

Let's see ... but their actions to date says they won't, not without a 'fight' ... and as we all know ... "Turkey's don't vote for Christmas ..."


Friday, 29 May 2009

As the Titanic sinks - will the 'Captain' take a nap ?


With the chaos engulfing the UK economy, the fiasco of MP's expenses, and the total lack of trust in Politicians & Parliament, is now really a good time for them to take a long holiday and hope it all blows away ? 




Anyone who applies Leanomics* would so 'NO', but those who apply Poweromics** will see it as a great idea ... let's see what happens ...

Nick Clegg has already made his position clear ... by saying to "cancel MP's holidays" and to "barr the gates of Westminster until the crisis has been sorted out",  ... he has also set out a clear plan of action ...

Who'll be next to state their position ... the 'Captain' perhaps ?


* Leanomics = People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.

** Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.

Posted on the Panorama blog Is Your MP Working for you?  No 4 (leanomist)

Thursday, 28 May 2009

Poweromics - Workers paying the price


With the world in crisis, and with the purchase of high cost discretionary spend items being increasingly deferred, it's not a great time for car manufacturers ... and when companies like Toyota are finding things tough, it comes as no surprise that others like General Motors have had to seek massive government bail-outs and yet still appear to be heading for bankruptcy.  



We've been here before, and we will see it many times more too ... e.g. remember Woolworths - once a household name in the UK, announcing 27,000 job losses and resigning thousands of hard-working & loyal front line staff to the dole queue ...  it was a failure of 'leadership and management', but it's always the hard-working front-line staff that pay the price ... 



Ignorance is not bliss, as it allows Poweromics to thrive. Ignoromics is arguably just as much to blame as Poweromics ... so it is now the responsibility of all staff to listen, learn and take the 'lead' ... and to not make the mistake of assuming 'current leaders' will do this for them ... nothing else will do, nothing else will work ... as survival is no longer a given and more & more people are starting to realise this ...

Leadership and Management have both changed radically, and traditional 'leaders' are not necessarily going to be the 'future' leaders ...




Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Honesty - Honestly


With all the scandals, and lack of trust in Government, what about the following ...

1. Honesty
2. Integrity
3. Openness
4. Selflessness
5. Leadership
6. Objectivity
7. Accountability ...

Sound good values to uphold? Should they apply in Politics?  ... I think most people would say they not only should, but must !


In fact they are the "Seven Principles of Public Life" that UK Politicians are meant to sign up to, but it appears they espouse them but don't necessarily follow them.  Sound familiar ?  This is very common when Poweromics* is applied ...




... the phrase do as I say, not as I do, come to mind ... and they should not be 'principles' but the 'fundamental values' that must be followed and policies must also support.

When looking at these values, it's hard to see how politicians have applied any of them ... e.g. selflessness, integrity, openness, accountability ... they tried to stop the Freedom of Information Act uncovering all their underhanded activities ... and are still doing so ... why don't we go on to see how their 'offices' are run ... and all the perks & second jobs etc they have too ... 

In the name of honesty, openness, integrity and accountability ... who will be the first 'leader' to 'lead' on this ...? let's see ...

We should remember Poweromics is not just occurring in Politics, it's happening in most business/enterprises as well ... and what are these 'leaders' doing about it too ... ?

Leaders are starting to realise the internet is changing the way economies work, it is also changing how businesses work and how democracy will work in the future too ...


* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed. 


Posted on the Panorama blog Is Your MP Working for you?  No 3 (leanomist)

Tuesday, 26 May 2009

Power to the People - or more Power to Politicians?


The Conservatives are standing up & saying they want to give power to the people ... 

and suggest a number of ways this could be done ... e.g. fixed term parliaments, more free votes in Parliament, more robust committee structures ... all arguably good ideas in their own right ... but why not a little more proportional representation and referendums etc too ... is this because they, just like the Labour party, benefit so greatly from the current system* ?  

... is this really "Power to the People" or just "Power to Politicians", as the suggestions made don't really give people more say, just more/different politicians more of a say.

If Poweromics** is going to be addressed, Politicians will need to go much further than this. 

"Democracy should happen every day, not just on election day"



*  We only get a say/vote once every five years in a general election, and even then only a small minority of votes actually make a difference as to which of the two main parties gets in Government ... the only votes that effectively 'count' are fringe votes in marginal constituencies (2-3% of the total) - and that's why the two main parties keep changing the voting boundaries too! 21st Century democracy? ... and yet we often hear politicians quote our 'democracy' as an example for others to follow!

** Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed. 


––––––––––––

Posted on Have your Say - Tuesday, 26 May, 2009


Democracy should happen 'every day', not just on 'election day'. 

The proposals are a start but do not go far enough. They do not give more 'power to the people', just more 'power to politicians'.

The internet is creating a new platform for democracy – where everyone can communicate/see what is happening, express their views/concerns, suggest ideas for improvement and have their say on the priorities/changes needed. 

The nations already doing this are gaining trust (and ideas!) as a result.

David Clift, Ipswich

––––––––––––

Monday, 25 May 2009

Traditional 'Economics' is dead


Take a look at the post I've put on Stephanomics blog no 23 (leanomist) below:


"I'm interested to know what Stephanomics actually is ... and what philosophies it espouses? 

Traditional 'economics' is out-of-date and effectively 'dead' ... and Poweromics* has had its day too ...

But what will replace it and when will it be replaced ... some of us are already working out the answers** ... as a few highly insightful leaders predicted it over 20 years ago ..."


* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.

** Leanomics = People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.

"I predict a riot" - says the World Bank


World Bank warns that the global economic crisis could lead to serious social upheaval.


So Frank Field is not alone - he's being joined by the Head of the World Bank too.  Robert Zoellick said yesterday "If we do not take measures, there is a risk of a serious human and social crisis with very serious political implications."

Mr Zoellick suggested governments should start preparing for high levels of unemployment, whilst the retiring Bank of England rate-setter David Blanchflower has said at least one million more people in the UK will lose their jobs and there is a real risk of a lost generation.

Are they right, wrong, or could it be much worse than this ...?


Can the UK have a 21st Century Democracy please


The lack of trust of MP's, and in Parliament, is going to be extremely difficult to turn around - in fact it will be almost impossible without a root and branch reform of the electoral system. 

The internet is creating a 21st century platform for democracy - which a number of Government's are starting to use and benefit from.  In previous posts the application of Poweromics* has been often raised and the lack of effective democracy** in the UK too ... and the time for change is now ...

and it's not just me saying it ... Ministers within the Government are now saying it too (e.g. Alan Johnson, Health Secretary and Michael Wills, Justice Minister). They are all starting to realise they will have to fundamentally change how Parliament (as well as political parties) work to regain the trust of people, and to properly represent people ... so perhaps the expenses fiasco is a blessing in disguise ...

The political parties know that previous supporters are less likely to support them now, either with their votes or with their cash (see the PCS union comments previously), with many parties now wanting the tax-payer to fund them too!  

If they have any hope of persuading us this is the right thing to do, we will need to see much more transparency and have much more of a say as to what is allowed and how things are done ... so we are properly represented ... and not opening up another gravy train for 'politicians' and/or 'political parties' to exploit and profit from ...


* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed. 

**  We only get a say/vote once every five years in a general election, and even then only a small minority of votes actually make a difference as to which of the two main parties gets in Government ... the only votes that effectively 'count' are fringe votes in marginal constituencies (2-3% of the total) - and that's why the two main parties keep changing the voting boundaries too! 21st Century democracy? ... and yet we often hear politicians quote our 'democracy' as an example for others to follow!

Posted on the Panorama blog Is Your MP Working for you?  No 1 (leanomist)

Thursday, 21 May 2009

Poweromics: Corporate Politics and Old Boy Networks


Whilst Gordon Brown tells CBI business leaders he did not want to raise tax for rich bankers and adminstrators (and politicians...), he highlighted the extreme state of the Government's finances as the reasons for doing so ...

Were CBI business leaders really interested in the future of their businesses, or their own personal bank balances ... ?

Corporate 'politics' and 'old boy networks' have had their day. Poweromics* in business has had it's day ... and there is a big difference between rewarding entrepreneurs and rewarding administrators & bankers ... (see post 83 earlier)

If the Government wants to improve the situation, they need to train the country in 21st century leadership and management practices (which are completely different to current practices!), and lead by example ... by removing those who do not take responsibility or are not capable ...

... as the previous CBI director general Sir Digby Jones said to the select committee, when asked about the civil service ...


David Clift, a Future 500 Leader

* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.


Posted on Robert Peston's blog (comment 143) 


A financially bankrupt government


Whilst Gordon Brown tells CBI business leaders he did not want to raise tax for rich bankers and adminstrators (and politicians...), he highlighted the extreme state of the Government's finances as the reasons for doing so ...

Were CBI business leaders really interested in the future of their businesses, or their own personal bank balances ... ?

Poweromics in business has had it's day ... and there is a big difference between rewarding entrepreneurs and rewarding administrators & bankers ...

If the Government wants to improve the situation, they need to train the country in 21st century leadership and management practices*, and remove those who do not take responsibility or who are not capable ...

... as the previous CBI director general Sir Digby Jones said to the select committee, when asked about the civil service ...


–––––––––––––––––––––

Comment 125 on Robert Peston's blog

Green shoots or hoping for the best?

Indebted Britain ? I think we know that ... 
Bankrupt Britain ... ? I think there are more questions to ask ...

Tell us the robust plan to pay back all the extra debt we're taking on and at the same time create 21st century products and services that ...

1. People around the world want and are willing to pay for
2. Will create millions of jobs in the UK, and 
3. Will systematically reduce our trade deficits and national borrowing ... *

Next question ... how are we nurturing and accelerating creativity/innovation to develop these new products and services?

Next question - how are we adopting 21st Century leadership and management to enable both the above?

I've been in meetings with Ministers and the CBI - and guess what ... when difficult questions like these are asked they are all 'weighed, measured and found wanting' ...

David Clift, a Future 500 Leader

–––––––––––––––––––––

A morally bankrupt government


In the background of the MP's fiasco and interesting statement was made about the Labour Government ... not by me ... but by the leader of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) ... the people who normally support Labour ...


... He has said in the face of a "morally bankrupt" government the union is to consult its members about putting up union candidates in future general elections.

Mark Serwotka said they had been considering the prospect for some time, because it was concerning that on many big issues all the main parties agreed, for example with privatising post offices.

One hundred years after the unions decided it needed a labour party to represent the people, the left of the party had effectively been silenced, he said.

"We will ballot members on whether the time has come to intervene directly," he told BBC Radio Four's Today programme.


Click here to see the BBC news article.


Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Poweromics in Business - Rewarding Failure


Rewarding Failure (and Poweromics) are starting to be challenged in Business now too ... take a look at Robert Peston's blog and my comment (83) added to it below:


1. True entrepreneurs are innovative leaders who create long-term value, prosperity and growth (e.g. Dyson) ... people we should nurture, support and reward ... (rather than hinder!)

2. Traditional executives, normally from the finance community, are rarely innovative and tend to systematically destroy long-term value, prosperity and growth (e.g. by failing to innovative and applying simple cost cutting exercises) to obtain a large bonus for achieving short-term financial targets and goals* ... people we should challenge, stop and retrain in 'value management' ... (not reward with massive salaries, pensions, bonuses, and pay-offs for failure!) ...

Rewarding failure has had it's day ... and clear self interest, poor moral values and greed have also had their day too ... the application of Poweromics** is being challenged in Government and it's going to be challenged in business too ... 

More people can see it now and it's not going to go away ... for instance I'm writing a Poweromics** blog with more examples to make sure it doesn't ... and to make sure its addressed once and for all ... and anyone who is doing the same will be linked from it too ...

Poor management and Poweromics** have had their day - and with the help of the internet they will soon change forever, and for the better ...


David Clift, a Future 500 Leader


* 21st century leadership and management are completely different to traditional leadership and management, and focus on continuously improving the long-term value of an enterprise and the lives of people ... not creating fear and sacking them.

** Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed ... ... take a look at my previous BBC blog comments for instance.



–––––––––––––

  • Comment 87 (godfreybrown) 


    Re 64 William 1965

    I agree with you when you say no person who heads up an organisation (as opposed to owning the business) should be able to earn more in one year than the avarage equally well educated working person can earn in a lifetime. 

    It is nonsense to say for anyone to say that the sums of money our top bankers and captains of industry deserve to paid the vast sums of money they are now being paid. 

    As recent events have shown moany of them managed to get to the top either through nepotisim or the old boy network and as a result we have ended up with far too many business clones suffering from high levels of inbred business idocy and insufficient entreprenurial flair. 

    Re: 70 pawns or players

    I disagree with you when you say top bankers need to be sufficiently incentivised if they are to do the job we expect of them properly and what a good many who are earning considerably less could do equally well. There is nothing magic in being a top banker providing you have the right connections.

    I am totally in favour of someone with genuine entreprenurial flair and business accumin (such as James Dyson) earning vast riches for his ingenutiy, enterprise and genuine hard work over many many years. 

    Neither am I against top bankers who put their own money at risk to earn over many years to earn themselves a vast fortune providing it is on the understanding that if the bank goes bust, in the way that we have seen banks go bust recently, then they lose everything they own.

    It is a fallacy to say that there are insufficient numbers of suitable people about who can run these sort of organisations. Most large enterprises have very good succession plans in place and if the boards of these companies believe they need to recruit someone exceptional to do the job they want doing then it is time for some of them to be put out to grass because as the saying goes "they have reached their level of incompetence"


    –––––––––––––


    Comment 88 (whatevernext1)


    Only 60% of "shareholders" voted against despite the climate being so obviously against such greed. Presumably the 60% felt public pressure is mounting such that they had to do something whereas in the past they turned a blind eye.

    The key problem is that the fund maangers are not the real shareholders - who are mainly pension savers - and fund managers and others in the City are on the same gravy train of paying themselves huge amounts effectively from our savings as the PLC directors.

    Labour has not changed corporate governance to allow those whose money is actually invested in these companies the ability to vote on key issues such as Board appointments and remuneration. 

    Why?-because they get huge political contributions from the City, PLC directors etc and former cabinet ministers and senior civil servants get lucrative appointments with PLC's and in the City.

    From expenses to corporate governance, corruption is rife, and we the ordinary public are the ones paying for it through taxes and raids on our pension savings.


    –––––––––––––


    Comment 89 (alphaptarmigan)


    Today I attended an Investment conference, hosted by one of our biggest fund managers and this "Corporate Governance" issue generated similar anger from the attendees as the MPs expenses issue. Fund Managers were being encouraged to create a new forum to exercise shareholder power.I can't help but wonder that all this is symptomatic of increasing disatisfaction with the inequalities between the top and the middle/average earners in our society.


    Looks to me like we are gaining a new enthusiasm for democracy at all levels!


    –––––––––––––

Smoke, Mirrors and Gentlemen's clubs


There's been a lot of 'fog' created recently, since MP's have been forced to take a look in the 'mirror' ... but the outcome?  ... more smoke and mirrors?


Some have made reference to 'Gentlemen's Clubs' ... but are they "Gentlemen'? - 'True Gentlemen'? ... 'True Gentlemen' are honorable people who take responsibility and are people we can trust, respect and look up to ...


MP's have just forced the Speaker of the House of Commons to resign (the first time in over 300 years) in attempt to make him a scape goat and deflect attention away from their immoral behaviour ... honorable? taking responsibility? trust? respect ?  Why aren't more of them resigning too?  ... Is this just more 'smoke and mirrors'? 


The MP's are debating another 'Club' in Parliament today too - the BBC - and agreeing how much extra we as tax payers will have to pay them in the future ... the chairman of the BBC Trust has said if it doesn't increase it'll be a threat to their independence (NB Poweromics* often involves creating fear), but are they really independent ...?  


To answer this question we need to ask a few questions and recall a few facts about the BBC:


1. Where do the BBC get their money from? Answer = us, the tax payer.

2. Who decides the amount tax payers pay? Answer = the Government.

3. Who decides the future of the BBC? Answer = the Government.


Can anyone see a way the Government may also have a little influence over the BBC and its reporting too?  Let's ask a couple more questions ...


4. Where did Lord Burt go to after leaving the BBC? Answer: The Government.

5. What was he doing as a close aide to Tony Blair? Answer: He wouldn't tell the Select Committee (despite being repeatedly asked)!

6. How much are BBC executives / stars paid?  Remember the revelations back in 2006? 


Did BBC 'journalists' really try to expose what MP's were up to, or just report on the journalism the Telegraph were actually doing (nb Jeremy Paxman has referred to the lack of proper Journalism in the past - and the fact that 'journalism' is very different to 'reporting') ...


Are BBC 'reporters' really an independent voice carrying out a civic duty for the benefit of the community (and paid for by us), or just part of the same 'club' the MP's are in?  


Will the BBC 'fail to lead' too, or are they going to detail their pay, additional jobs, perks and expenses now too ...


David Clift, a Future 500 Leader


* POWEROMICS = People use position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed. 


Added to Nick Robinson's "He Failed to Lead' blog (comment 540)

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Leadership? What Leadership? What is Leadership?


To say someone has 'failed to lead' requires a definition of what 21st Century 'leadership' and 'management' actually are ... 

One aspect apparent when examining the "DNA of Failure" of leadership/management is the lack of definition and consensus about what they actually are! The second is how out-of-date most 'leadership' and 'management practices' actually are ... and the third is the lack of desire of people in 'power' to change them (but to drive/change other people instead) ...

So let's start with the 21st Century definition I use with next generation leaders:

* 21st Century Leadership is an 'Art' and about 'leading' People 

* 21st Century Management is a 'Science' and about 'managing' Entities/Things (e.g. Businesses, Economies ...)

Moving on further ...

* 21st Century Leadership = Inspiring People + Challenging People + Supporting People + Developing People 

* 21st Century Management = Managing Capability + Improving Capability + Developing Capability + Managing Change 

Given these definitions, are any politicians actually 'leading'? are any of politicians 'managing'? ... Perhaps we have to go back to way out-of-date 20th Century definitions of leadership and management ...

Traditional 'Management' = Tell People + Manage People + Drive Results ( = Transactional 'Leadership') 

Are any of them doing this instead? ... if they are, don't expect any long term success coming from here ... just more Poweromics*, frustration, failure, and lots more ways to waste/steal tax payers money. 

David Clift, a Future 500 Leader


* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed. 


Comment added to Nick Robinson's "He failed to Lead" blog - comment 257 (leanomist)

Poweromics - Hiding problems and deflecting blame


Their is a great deal of anger being directed by MP's towards the UK House of Commons speaker at the moment ... 

Whilst it's probably true he's not got the moral standing to lead the reform of MP's expenses (as he was one of the MP's feeding from the 'trough' ... and tried all he could to stop the information being made available to public) ... he should not become a 'scape goat' - MP's are still individually accountable for their actions, and the moral values, or the lack of moral values, they have demonstrated ... 

Those who apply Poweromics* like to 'hide problems' but to also 'blame others' ... they've not managed to do the first ... and they cannot be allowed to do the latter ...

More people are saying they want to stand as independents now ... but can UK people actually have proper democracy** now (i.e. fit for the 21st Century) ... so we can really have our say !


* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed. 

** We only get a say/vote once every five years in a general election, and even then only a small minority of votes actually make a difference as to which of the two main parties gets in Government ... the only votes that effectively 'count' are fringe votes in marginal constituencies (2-3% of the total).


Comment added to Nick Robinson's blog - 192 (Will he stay or will he go?) and 172 (A question of when, not if?)


PS Is David Cameron wanting us to have more of a say too? ... or justing wanting to bring his own form of Poweromics to bear ... ?

–––––––––––––––––––

Comment 171 (LippyLippo)


MPs are acting like the losing team on the 'Apprentice'! They all participated in the expenses sham that lost them the confidence of the public, but in their desperation to save their own skins, they all turn on the guy who gets flustered when questioned by Sir Alan, hoping he'll be the one to get fired, leaving them to go back to their (second) houses!! 

Their hypocrisy is astounding. They stood up, one after the other, to demand the resignation of the Speaker, hoping that they could pin the blame squarely on one scape goat before sticking their heads back in the trough. Do they think we're stupid? Do they think that this crisis will simply go away if they manage to pin the blame on the Speaker? That his sacking or resignation will somehow atone for the false claims, the dishonesty, the misuse of tax payers' money? It will not. It must not. This demands a root-and-branch review and the deselection of guilty members. Maybe the Speaker does deserve the boot, but he is not alone by any means. We must not let MPs off the hook over this, wiggle as they might.




–––––––––––––––––––