Academic Article

On 15 September 2008, the giant financial services firm Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, starting a chain reaction that saw the global economy spiralling toward total collapse. The global financial crisis that ensued revealed just how fragile and unstable the world economic order really was. If there was ever a time that neoliberal capitalism should have faced a legitimation crisis, this was it.

One only needs to think back to December 2008 when the then US president Barack Obama scolded the heads of the largest US auto firms for flying to Washington in private jets to ask for financial bailouts. As one Democratic Party representative added: ‘Couldn’t you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it.’

For a short time after the crash, those on the top of the corporate ladder seemed as powerless as those on the bottom. The failure demonstrated that neither chief executive officers (CEOs) nor their financial advisors had much of an idea of how the market worked or how to control it. All that was left for modern citizens was to brace themselves as a runaway global free market fell off the proverbial cliff. The CEO suddenly appeared like a fall guy for the crash rather than as a hero.

Fast-forward 10 years, and it’s hard to believe that the economic and political supremacy of the CEO could have even been put into radical question the way it was in 2008. CEOs never really lost their stride and, now more than ever, they are considered to be visionaries and idealised as leaders. Nor did they lose their corporate jets. Other than for a brief symbolic belt-tightening immediately after the crisis, CEOs were soon flying high again on company planes.

Today, business founders such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg or even Larry Fink epitomise a new class of celebrity CEOs, seen by so many as personal heroes who can save the world, and the same goes for the larger array of employee CEOs such as Jamie Dimon at JPMorgan Chase or Tim Cook at Apple. Yet all the while, CEOs participate in a world economy wracked by increasing inequality, as epitomised by the kind of obscene CEO remuneration that sees the likes of Amazon’s boss Jeff Bezos earning almost a million times that of the workers in his warehouses.

More ominously, millions of Americans voted for an ostentatiously super-rich CEO, electing Donald Trump as their president. In his acceptance speech, Trump praised his own business acumen as being key to his political success: ‘I’ve spent my entire life in business, looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world. That is now what I want to do for our country.’

The barely interrupted veneration of the CEO as a hero, marked most expressively by the Trump presidency, has brought us to a point today where CEOs are not just valued for their skills in business but have become role models in all walks of life. We now live in what we call a ‘CEO society’: a society where corporate leadership has become the model for transforming not just business, but all human activity, where everyone from politicians to jobseekers to even those seeking love are expected to imitate the qualities of the lionised corporate executive.

The contemporary adulation and admiration of CEOs raises the question of what enabled their continued idolisation, given what could well have been their fall from grace 10 years ago? At the time, many hoped that the sad devastation of the crisis might open the door for an economic and political paradigm shift that would usher in a fairer, more equal and just society. It’s not that this promise of change has not arrived, it’s that it seems farther away than ever.

After 2008, for a brief time, people clamoured for CEOs to be held accountable and be prosecuted. This was, not least, a practical matter. With jobs being lost, shop fronts being boarded up, and politicians crying austerity, what people wanted above all else was economic recovery. Yet with the world’s top executives in disgrace, who could lead such a dramatic economic revival?

What arose from peril was a novel fantasy of executive-led recovery that allowed the shattered reputation of the CEO to stage a prompt, if not miraculous, comeback. This played into an appealing crisis narrative. With such a narrative, all faith must be invested in the recuperation of an imaginary golden past that existed before the upheaval. Most recently, this has manifested in Brexit’s investment in the promise of a renewed British sovereignty, as well as in populist political rallying cries such as ‘Make America Great Again’.

These desires for recovery and return are of course perfectly understandable, and they clearly shed light on why ideologies of free-market heroism thrived again after crisis. But this still only scratches the surface of why CEOs continue to be idolised by so many. Whereas individual executives from Martin Shkreli of Turing Pharmaceuticals to Harvey Weinstein of Miramax might be reviled for their greed, corruption or abuse of power, the CEO – as an ideal – has been reinstated with a solid-gold allure.

The financial crisis pointed to a deep insecurity rested in the fear that it was futile for humans to control the economic world that we had created, and this reverberated with a more general fear that we lack agency more widely. Suddenly, people were pushed into facing the possibility that their lives were lost to the whims and unpredictable fate of a supernatural market. Where since the advent of the 20th century it had been righteously condemned that ‘money is the secular God of the world’, now it was feared that finance had become an even more reckless God, one who cared little for the humans who worshiped at his gilded altar.

The quick rehabilitation of the image of the CEO in the popular imagination was not just a practical matter of wanting to hold on to the material benefits afforded by neoliberal capitalism. It was a psychic measure needed to counteract the fear of dehumanisation at the hands of a runaway Frankenstein economy. In other words, we just wanted to pretend that someone was in control, even if all the facts and evidence were telling us that this wasn’t the case. Everything could be forgiven if hope could be returned.

The retention of the CEO myth was an assertion of the power of individuals to shape events and control their destiny. To achieve this meant holding on to the heroic character of the CEO such that people might regain a sense of control over their own lives too.

Maintaining faith in the CEO was less a matter of empirical fact and more a symptom of a human need to find something to believe in at the end of a hard-earned day; with the reality too hard to bear, the fantasy had to return. Held out was the promise that everyone could receive grace if only he accepted the modern CEO gospel. This is the very same faith that allows people to believe that the business acumen of an impetuous, loud-mouthed, misogynist bully is able to lead America to greatness. When Trump said that he would run the US like a business project, ‘under budget and ahead of schedule’, enough people believed him to pave his way to the White House.

CEOs represent the ability to be in control of a market that appears uncontrollable and uncaring of its profound human costs. This desire for control belies the reality for too many people of being on the wrong side of the rising tide of inequality, and of being subjected to the tyranny of a new singleminded political authoritarian intolerance. Let’s hope that with the next crisis we learn that we need to let go of the fantasy of the CEO.

[object Object],[object Object]

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

During the opening months of the First World War, in the midst of the incendiary jingoism roiling Britain, the poet Dorothea Hollins of the Women’s Labour League proposed that an unarmed, 1,000-strong ‘Women’s Peace Expeditionary Force’ cross Europe ‘in the teeth of the guns’ and interpose itself between the warring armies in the trenches. Hollins’s grand scheme did not materialise, but neither did it emerge in a vacuum; it was nurtured by a century of activism largely grounded in maternal love. Or, as her fellow peace activist Helena Swanwick wrote: the shared fear that in war ‘women die, and see their babies die, but theirs is no glory; nothing but horror and shame unspeakable’.

Swanwick helped to found the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, an organisation dedicated to eliminating the causes of war. She hoped for ‘a world in the far-off future that will not contain one soldier’. Many activists believed that if women had political power, they would not pursue war. But how true is this? Do incidences of violent conflict alter when women become leaders, or when their share of parliamentary representation rises? In what sense do women mother wars?

If you ask this question out loud, not a minute will pass before someone says ‘Margaret Thatcher’, the British prime minister who waged a hugely popular war in the Falklands that led to her landslide 1983 election victory. Thatcher is hardly the only woman leader celebrated for her warmongering. Think of Boudicca, the woad-daubed Queen of the Iceni people of eastern England, who led a popular uprising against the Roman invaders; or Lakshmi Bai, Queen of Jhansi and a leader of the 1857-58 Indian Mutiny against the British; or even Emmeline Pankhurst, who led British suffragettes on a militant campaign of hunger strikes, arson and window-smashing, then, in 1914, became a vociferous supporter of Britain’s entry into the Great War.

But these examples are anecdotal because, throughout history, women leaders have been extremely rare. Between 1950 and 2004, according to data compiled by Katherine W Phillips, professor of leadership and ethics at Columbia Business School, just 48 national leaders across 188 countries – fewer than 4 per cent of all leaders – have been female. They included 18 presidents and 30 prime ministers. Two countries, Ecuador and Madagascar, had a woman leader, each of whom served for a mere two days before being replaced by a man.

Given the tiny sample size, does it even make sense to ask if, given power, women are more or less likely than men to wage wars? The medical anthropologist Catherine Panter-Brick, who directs the conflict, resilience and health programme at the MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University, thinks not. ‘It stereotypes gender, and assumes leadership is uncomplicated,’ she told me. Perhaps she had thinkers such as Stephen Pinker in her sights. In The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011), his study of violence throughout history, Pinker wrote: ‘women have been, and will be, the pacifying force’. That assumption is not always grounded in reality, says Mary Caprioli, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Along with Mark A Boyer at the University of Connecticut, she counted 10 military crises in the 20th century involving four female leaders (seven of which were handled by Golda Meir, Israel’s prime minister from 1969 to 1974). To assess the behaviour of women leaders during crises, they say, one needs a large sample – ‘which history cannot provide’.

Oeindrila Dube, a professor of global conflict studies at the University of Chicago, and S P Harish at New York University – have studied four centuries of European kings and queens. In their as-yet-unpublished working paper, they examined the reigns of 193 monarchs in 18 European polities, or political entities, between the years 1480 to 1913. Although just 18 per cent of the monarchs were queens – making their analysis less statistically reliable – they found that polities ruled by queens were 27 per cent more likely than kings to participate in inter-state conflicts. Unmarried queens were more likely to engage in wars in which their state was attacked, perhaps because they were perceived as weak.

The fear of appearing weak affects modern women leaders too, according to Caprioli, perhaps causing them to over-compensate on issues of security and defence. She notes that women who emulate men, such as Thatcher, Meir and India’s prime minister Indira Gandhi (1980-84) – who claimed to be a ‘biform human being’, neither man nor woman – are more likely to succeed as political leaders. They must also contend with negative stereotypes from male opponents: for example, Yahya Khan, former president of Pakistan (1969-71), said that he would have responded less violently toward Indira Gandhi during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War if India had had a male leader. ‘If that woman [Gandhi] thinks she can cow me down, I refuse to take it,’ he said.

Dube and Harish found that women were more likely to aggress if they were sharing power with a spouse, as in the case of Isabella I and Ferdinand V, who co-ruled the Kingdoms of León and Castile between 1474 and 1504. A notable exception is Catherine the Great, who became Empress of Russia in 1762 following the assassination of her husband Peter III, and whose military campaigns extended the borders of Russia by 520,000 square km, incorporating Crimea and much of Poland.

For women to lead, they must often begin with political involvement – running for state or national parliaments, leading campaigns, organising women to run for office. In 2017, the worldwide average of women in parliament is only 23.3 per cent – a 6.5 per cent gain over the past decade. That gain is significant: Caprioli’s data shows that, as the number of women in parliament increases by 5 per cent, a state is five times less likely to use violence when confronted with an international crisis (perhaps because women are more likely to use a ‘collective or consensual approach’ to conflict resolution).

States are also more likely to achieve lasting peace post-conflict when women are invited to the negotiating table. Although the number of women included in peace talks is minuscule (a United Nations study found that just 2.4 per cent of mediators and 9 per cent of negotiators are women, and just 4 per cent of the signatories of 31 peace processes), the inclusion of women can make a profound difference. Peace is more likely to endure: an analysis by the US non-profit Inclusive Security of 182 signed peace agreements between 1989 and 2011 found that an agreement is 35 per cent more likely to last at least 15 years if women are included as negotiators, mediators and signatories.

Women succeed as mediators and negotiators because of qualities traditionally perceived as feminine and maternal. In Northern Ireland, Somalia and South Africa, female participants in peace processes earned a reputation for fostering dialogue and engaging all sides. They are also often seen as honest brokers, more trustworthy and less threatening, because they act outside formal power structures. Yet despite the perception of softness and malleability, their actions are often quite the opposite. In 2003, the Liberian peace activist Leymah Gbowee led a coalition of thousands of Muslim and Christian women in picketing, praying and fasting that helped to end the country’s brutal 14-year civil war. Dubbed ‘a warrior for peace’, Gbowee shared the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.

Terms such as warrior, weapons and revolution are often used for groups that agitate for peace, among whom women continue to be ‘disproportionately highly represented’, according to the UN. In Israel, Women Wage Peace organises protests to pressure the government to work towards a viable peace agreement. In Argentina, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo ‘revolutionised’ motherhood by protesting the disappearance of their children during Argentina’s ‘dirty war’ from 1977 to 1983, transforming maternity from a passive role to one of public strength.

The ‘weaponising’ of traditional notions of femininity was also a strong component of the decade-long women’s peace camp at Greenham Common in the UK. Beginning in 1981 as a protest against the arrival of 96 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the US air base in Berkshire, the women surrounded and cut the fences of the air base, clambered over the barrier dressed as teddy bears, and pinned babies’ clothes, bottles, teething rings, diapers and family photos to the wires. Their battle was no less militant than Thatcher’s war in the Falklands, yet she dismissed the women as an ‘eccentricity’.

It seems that, no matter whether women are fighting for peace or for war, they must also battle against the assumption that they themselves are passive, weak or peculiar. History shows us that that isn’t true, and that, in the case of Isabella I and Ferdinand V, they could be relentlessly cruel: not only did the royal couple lead the Spanish conquest of the Islamic Kingdom of Granada in 1492, expelling both Jews and Muslims, they tortured those who remained and converted them to Christianity – in some cases burning them to death.

Nor are they always as peaceable as their personal history suggests: Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of Myanmar and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 ‘for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights’, has been widely condemned for failing to denounce the country’s military for its campaign of ethnic cleansing against the persecuted Rohingya people, a Muslim minority in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine state. According to Human Rights Watch, since 25 August 2017, more than 400,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled across the border to Bangladesh to escape the army’s barrage of arson, atrocities and rape.

As Caprioli notes: ‘Women leaders can indeed be forceful when confronted with violent, aggressive and dangerous international situations.’ But they can also be aggressive in the cause of peace. It is, indeed, a stereotype to dismiss women as inherently peaceable. As Swanwick wrote in The Future of the Women’s Movement (1913): ‘I wish to disclaim altogether the kind of assumption … in feminist talk of the present day.’ That is, ‘the assumption that men have been the barbarians who loved physical force, and that women alone were civilised and civilising. There are no signs of this in literature or history.’

[object Object]

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

How to navigate a freelance career during the COVID-19 crisis

The COVID-19 pandemic has hit freelancers and gig workers hard. Here’s how they can get through the crisis. (Piqsels)

Mostafa Ayoobzadeh, Concordia University

Millions of people around the world have lost their jobs, temporarily or permanently, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Freelancers and contract workers have been among those heavily affected by this health and economic crisis. Freelancers often work on a contract basis and for multiple clients. In some industries (such as cosmetics, arts and sports), freelancers have lost many contracts and employment opportunities.

The Canadian government has offered financial support to these gig workers. However, the long-term effects on freelancers might go beyond losing their source of income. It may require them to seek more stable forms of employment, foregoing the flexibility many gig workers enjoy.

This could halt further development of the freelance employment cohort, which was expected to grow significantly in coming years. So it’s important to understand how freelancers can cope with the pandemic and remain positive.

I designed a study to examine how freelancers can stay positive and determined in their job searches and how they can cope with the shock of COVID-19. In my study, I looked into three aspects I call “career resources” that freelancers might use to stay confident and to explore their job opportunities.

These resources are explained in a book titled An Intelligent Career by Suffolk University career expert Michael Arthur and his colleagues. As explained in this book, people use a combination of resources to work and navigate their careers, including the following three:

Passion for career: Internal motivation (or passion) to do the job;
Expertise and skills: A set of skills that helps them perform the job; and
Professional relationships: Colleagues and friends who offer encouragement, help and support.

In short, I wanted to answer these questions: Do these three career resources help freelancers stay confident in times of uncertainty? Which career resources help them remain determined in exploring their job opportunities?

The study’s design

To find out, I asked 87 Canadian freelancers to complete a survey about their job search during the COVID-19 pandemic. I asked questions about their career resources (their passion for their freelance jobs, their level of skills and expertise, and their relationships). I also asked questions about their confidence in finding jobs as well as their proactiveness in exploring job opportunities.

A makeup artist applies eye shadow to another woman. — Freelancers were asked about the passion they feel for their work. (Pixabay)

Statistical analysis showed that passion was the most powerful resource for freelancers to stay confident and motivated in job searches. Skills were also related to freelancers’ level of confidence and proactiveness.

However, relationships did not necessarily contribute positively to freelancers’ confidence and proactiveness in their job search. This could possibly be because they’ve heard disheartening news about their friends and colleagues losing jobs during difficult times, such as the pandemic. The larger someone’s network of people is, the more likely that they’ve heard bad news and negative thoughts. As a result, freelancers might lose confidence and drive after hearing that many of their colleagues and friends lost work.

What now?

There are many ways governments and employers can help freelancers remain hopeful, confident and proactive in their job searches.

Because passion and skills are key resources for freelancers, governments can provide programs that enable them to develop their skills and enhance their passions. For example, online educational videos can provide freelancers with insightful information on key skills such as leadership. These online videos could be provided to various groups of freelancers, especially those who apply for employment insurance in times of difficulty.

Employers can also assist freelancers by designing interesting jobs with on-the-job learning and growth opportunities. These opportunities not only improve freelancers’ skills, but also heighten their passion by satisfying their desire to feel challenged.

Friends and family members can also help freelancers. In my study, friends and colleagues did not necessarily improve freelancers’ confidence and proactiveness. It might be because so many people share negative thoughts and discouraging news about widespread job losses and potential economic crises.

Two people hold hands at a table. — Support from friends and family is critical for freelance workers. (Piqsels)

I suggest people be kinder and spread positive thoughts to the freelancers in their lives. This is central to one of the three career resources that many people rely on in their professional lives — friends and colleagues offering support and encouragement.

Last but not least, freelancers themselves must be proactive. They can take advantage of lockdowns and economic downturns by investing their time in skill development. An inexpensive (or sometimes free) way to do so is to take online courses related to their area of work, leadership or interpersonal skills.

Taking these courses will help them feel more skilled and connected, which will help increase their passion for their work while putting them in a stronger position to find jobs.

Mostafa Ayoobzadeh, Lecturer, Leadership Development, Concordia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why employees hesitate to speak up at work — and how to encourage them

Employees are often reluctant to speak up at work. But if they make efforts to research their ideas and ensure they benefit the organization, it benefits both workers and employers.
(Unsplash)

Kyle Brykman, University of Windsor and Jana Raver, Queen’s University, Ontario

Imagine this: You notice a problem that might be disastrous for your company’s reputation, or you have an idea that can save thousands of dollars.

You want to say something but you’re not sure if you should. You’re afraid it might not go over well and not sure it will make a difference. You want to speak up, but you’re uncertain about how to voice your ideas in such a way that people will actually listen.

You’re not alone. Studies consistently show that employees are reluctant to speak up, and are even hardwired to remain silent, with 50 per cent of employees keeping quiet at work. Why is this the case, and how can we help people voice their opinions at work more effectively?

Speak up or zip it?

Employee voice — speaking up with ideas, concerns, opinions or information — is vital for organizational performance and innovation. On the flip side, silence is at the root of many well-known organizational disasters.

For example, Canada’s Phoenix pay system debacle, which has already cost the federal government $1.5 billion, was attributed to a culture that “does not reward those who share negative news.” Employees who sounded alarms were told they weren’t being “team players.”

Employee voice is the antidote to this culture of silence, but it’s not easy to encourage. Employees withhold voice because they think it will not be heard or fear it may backfire by embarrassing their managers or damaging their own reputations. These reservations are reasonable.

Although speaking up is generally linked with positive career outcomes, it can lead to lower social status at the office and lessened performance ratings in some circumstances.

Employees’ proactive personalities and managers’ demonstrated openness are both relevant to overcoming these reservations. Although we can’t change someone’s personality, leaders can create more welcoming environments that support and encourage voice.

Encouraging workers to voice opinions

For example, employees are more likely to speak up when they believe their leader encourages and solicits their opinions. By contrast, when leaders punish employees who dare to speak up with concerns or ideas, such as by publicly reprimanding them, voice dwindles quickly.

Pointing out others’ mistakes or sharing ideas that go against common practice can “rock the boat.” So how can employees still find ways to speak up effectively and have their ideas actually heard, despite these risks?

A sign reads Your Ideas Matter on a glass office door. — Be sure to do your research and prepare before sharing your opinions for improvement at work.
(Mika Baumeister/Unsplash)

Our research sought to answer this question by focusing on the quality of the messages that employees express. We first unpacked the meaning of what we call high-quality voice, uncovering the key ways that employees can improve their messages to gain greater recognition. We investigated these ideas with five studies involving nearly 1,500 participants.

We identified four critical features of employee voice attempts that make them higher-quality:

They have a strong rationale. Their ideas and opinions are logical and based on evidence. Employees should do their homework first and build a compelling case for their ideas by showing they’ve put a lot of thought into them. They shouldn’t speak up if they haven’t gathered information or reflected on the reason behind implementing their ideas first.
They have a high feasibility. Their ideas are practical and have the potential to be implemented. Employees should consider whether their organizations can realistically take action on their suggestions, such as by accounting for time or resource constraints and offering details on how to enact them. Employees shouldn’t ignore the realities and difficulties leaders face in actually doing something with their ideas and concerns.
They have a strong organizational focus. Their opinions are critical to the success of the organization or team, not just personally beneficial to the employee. Workers should emphasize the collective benefits of their voice and link it with the organization’s visions, mission, and/or goals, such as by explaining how it will help the organization overall. They shouldn’t focus on issues that only affect themselves, otherwise it comes across as self-interested.
They have a high novelty. Employees are innovative and account for new perspectives or viewpoints. They should consider whether their organization has tried (or considered) this idea before and clarify what makes it particularly unique, such as by contrasting it from typical conventions or opinions. They shouldn’t just repeat old ideas or approach the situation with the same frame of mind.

Tips on voice quality are seen in a graph — Voice quality tips.
(Author), Author provided

Putting effort into better ‘voicing’

Putting energy into developing higher-quality voice messages takes effort, but our research shows that it pays off. Employees who regularly presented higher-quality voice were regarded as more worthy of promotion and better all-round performers in their jobs.

A woman smiles in an office setting. — Why don’t employees speak up? Often it’s because managers don’t encourage it. Healthy, happy workplaces encourage workers to voice their opinions.
(You X Ventures/Unsplash)

These positive outcomes were evaluated from both peers and managers. And these findings held up regardless of how often employees spoke up, whether the evaluator liked them or viewed them as competent. Basically, speaking up with higher-quality messages predicted job performance and promotability above and beyond all of these other factors.

So is there a downside to speaking up? Yes, if you don’t put the time and energy into making your input high-quality.

When people spoke up often with low-quality ideas, their peers reported that they were worse performers and less promotable. So speaking up can backfire if employees consume all of the airtime by frequently expressing low-quality ideas that offer little help to anyone.

The lesson? It’s worthwhile to speak up and share your ideas and concerns — and it may help your career — but if you do so, ensure that you do your homework first, reflect on the feasibility of implementation, connect the benefits to the organization and/or its employees and consider what makes it particularly novel.

How leaders can help

What can organizational leaders do to help employees voice their opinions more effectively? When asking for input, prompt with some questions. For example:

What is the logic for this idea and is there evidence to support it?
How might we actually implement it and overcome barriers?
How does this fit within the organization’s priorities and/or help other employees?
What is new about this idea that we haven’t tried before?

These questions can produce higher quality ideas that will benefit employees, leaders and organizations alike.

Ultimately, increasing the quality of employee feedback and opinions will help them be heard. It will also result in ideas that are more likely to be implemented and improve work conditions and performance for the entire organization.

Kyle Brykman, Assistant Professor of Management, University of Windsor and Jana Raver, E. Marie Shantz Professor of Organizational Behaviour, Queen’s University, Ontario

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Businesses say they want to tackle inequalities but they need more data to take action

Only 9% of London firms reported that they collect data on their disability pay gap.
as-artmedia/Shutterstock

Siobhan Morris, UCL and Olivia Stevenson, UCL

COVID-19 has brought challenges like no other for businesses. In the UK, where firms have also had to deal with the challenges of Brexit, the resilience and adaptability amid such adversity has been remarkable. But there has also been recognition of opportunities for change in the longer term. One area of which is the role of businesses in tackling social inequalities.

With a lot of attention given to the shape and make-up of company boards, both over a lack of gender and ethnic diversity, there has been much debate about diversity measures in business. In February it was reported that the number of black people at the top of Britain’s biggest listed companies had fallen to zero, despite public commitments to increase diversity in leadership. The Investors Association also said they will issue warnings to firms if they do not disclose the ethnic diversity of their boards or have a credible action plan to address the issue.

While such actions are incredibly important, structural inequalities span wider than diversity initiatives and action is needed beyond merely the upper echelons of business.

In a recent survey of 200 companies across London that we conducted with the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), we found a clear desire among business leaders of all sizes and sectors to engage with this issue of inequalities – more than 80% said that the capital’s business community can do more.

Despite the current challenging business environment, 75% of respondents said tackling inequalities in society over the next six to 12 months is important to their business. And one in five reported this to be an “extremely important” business priority. As a collective, the business community appears to clearly recognise the need for action to ensure an equitable and inclusive recovery from COVID-19.

The problems involved are also clear. The gender pay gap in hourly pay across the capital is still 17.5% and on the rise. For disability, there is a difference of 15% between disabled and non-disabled workers in London. And in our survey, only 9% of firms reported that they collect data on their disability pay gap – the lowest percentage of all answers given. A greater proportion of firms recorded employee education (19%) and the community engagement of employees (12%).

Similarly, while over a fifth of London business leaders stated their firms are tracking their ethnicity pay gap, this still lags significantly behind work on gender reporting.

Black business woman fills out survey on computer — Ethnicity pay gap lags behind gender, but many employees will intersect.
Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

Yet at an individual business level, analysis of findings from the survey shows that gender equality receives more attention than action on other protected characteristics, such as disability and ethnicity. This is causing a hierarchy of inequalities to persist within the labour market. While a significant majority of firms (both large and small) stated they had continued to report on their gender pay gap despite not being legally required to in 2020 because of the pandemic, reporting on other protected characteristics remains very low.

Greater data collection, conducted in discussion with employees and grounded in employee experiences, can guide actions to reduce inequalities and foster inclusion in employment. And businesses themselves recognise this.

When asked what the most effective and practical ways for business to measure improvements in diversity, inclusion and equality were, 43% of respondents stated greater data collection. Strikingly, this figure rose to 73% for respondents from larger firms. Yet despite this high level of support for greater collection, of the same respondents, only 43% recorded that they currently report ethnicity pay gaps.

Taking action

It is not enough, however, to focus on measuring inequalities alone, we also need to make sure these inequalities are meaningfully addressed. Avoiding creating (or, indeed, cementing) hierarchies of inequalities or prioritising action to tackle one area of inequity over another is critical.

Businesses should look across the board at the whole range of inequalities they need to tackle, not just focus action on gender or ethnicity for example. And they need to look at what inequalities exist in their own businesses as well as reaching out to understand how wider structural inequalities in society affects business. As an individual’s job is more than merely counting hours and collecting a salary, it affects every aspect of lives, from health to housing.

These findings show the need for businesses to undertake analysis of how these characteristics and data groups overlap – taking into account how people’s outcomes are simultaneously affected by multiple factors such as gender, disability and ethnicity.

Assessing and comparing data so that we avoid focus being placed on one area alone is urgently needed. Looking at social inequalities, at people’s lives as a whole, their many characteristics and the multiple, interlinked and stacked disadvantages they face, it is essential for firms to identify patterns of intersecting inequalities and build action to address different outcomes.

Despite the immense challenges businesses have faced over the past 18 months, the survey responses clearly demonstrate that the business community is up for the challenge. In short, it’s not just about getting things going again. It’s about capitalising on this opportunity to rethink and recognise the role of business in building a more equitable society.

Siobhan Morris, Head of Programmes, Grand Challenge of Justice and Equality, UCL and Olivia Stevenson, Deputy Director of Public Policy, UCL

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Depression, burnout, insomnia, headaches: how a toxic and sexist workplace culture can affect your health

Xi Wen (Carys) Chan, Griffith University and Paula Brough, Griffith University

As allegations of rape and sexual assault engulf Australian federal politics, several current and former female staffers and politicians have come forward to share their stories of a culture of toxic masculinity within Australia’s political bubble.

It’s unfortunate that while gender roles are evolving at home, gender inequality and overt sexism remain prevalent in Australian political culture and in many workplaces across the country.

While the effects of a culture of toxic masculinity are most detrimental for the victims, other employees in workplaces and the wider community can also be negatively impacted.

This opens up a broader question: how does a toxic and sexist workplace culture affect the health and well-being of employees and organisations?

What does a toxic and sexist workplace look like?

A culture of toxic masculinity is a hostile work environment that undermines women. It’s also known as “masculinity contest culture”, which is characterised by hyper-competition, heavy workloads, long hours, assertiveness and extreme risk-taking. It’s worth noting this type of culture isn’t good for men, either.

Such workplaces often feature “win or die” organisational cultures that focus on personal gain and advancement at the expense of other employees. Many employees embedded in such a culture adopt a “mine’s bigger than yours” contest for workloads, work hours and work resources.

These masculinity contest cultures are prevalent in a wide range of industries, such as medicine, finance, engineering, law, politics, sports, police, fire, corrections, military services, tech organisations and increasingly within our universities.

Microaggressions are common behaviours in workplaces steeped with a masculinity contest culture. These include getting interrupted by men in meetings or being told to dress “appropriately” in a certain way. There are also overtly dominating behaviours such as sexual harassment and violence.

These behaviours tend to keep men on top and reinforce a toxic leadership style involving abusive behaviours such as bullying or controlling others.

Boss upset with employee — A hyper-masculine work environment might look like huge workloads, long hours, hostility, assertiveness, dominance and an extremely competitive culture.
Shutterstock

At a very basic level, workplaces should afford women safety and justice. But women’s issues are left unaddressed in many workplaces, and many fail to provide women employees with psychological safety or the ability to speak up without being punished or humiliated.

This might be because leaders in the organisation are ill-equipped to deal with these issues, feel uncomfortable bringing them up or, in some cases, are sadly not interested at all.

How does a toxic culture affect our health?

Evidence suggests a toxic workplace culture can negatively affect employees’ psychological, emotional and physical health.

Emotional effects include a higher likelihood of negative emotions such as anger, disappointment, disgust, fear, frustration and humiliation.

As these negative emotions build, they can lead to stress, anxiety, depression, burnout, cynicism, a lack of motivation and feelings of self-doubt.

Research also points to increased chances of physical symptoms, such as hair loss, insomnia, weight loss or gain, headaches and migraines.

Employees in toxic workplaces tend to have poorer overall well-being, and are more likely to be withdrawn and isolated at work and in their personal lives. Over time, this leads to absenteeism, and if problems aren’t addressed, victims may eventually leave the organisation.

For some victims who may not have advanced coping skills, a toxic culture can lead to a downward mental and physical health spiral and contribute to severe long-term mental illness. They may also engage in displaced aggression, in which they bring home their negative emotions and experiences and take out their frustrations on family members.

Woman stressed and isolated at work — Employees in toxic work environments are more likely to be withdrawn and isolated, both in the office and outside of work.
Shutterstock

How can workplaces change?

Workplaces aiming to make a real change should start by promoting an open culture where issues can be discussed via multiple formal and informal feedback channels.

One option is formal survey mechanisms that are anonymous, so employees can be open about their concerns and feel less intimidated by the process.

A good first step is having leaders trained to address these issues.

Traditionally, workplace interventions have focused on victims themselves, putting the onus on them to do the work and come forward. However, a healthy workplace culture should see leaders actively seeking feedback to make sure any forms of toxic masculinity are stamped out.

It’s a shared responsibility, and the onus shouldn’t be solely on employees, but leaders, too.

Xi Wen (Carys) Chan, Lecturer in Organisational Psychology, Griffith University and Paula Brough, Professor of Organisational Psychology, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How to stop psychopaths and narcissists from winning positions of power

People with narcissistic and psychopathic traits have a strong desire for dominance and are disproportionately common in leadership positions.
GoodStudio/Shutterstock

Steve Taylor, Leeds Beckett University

One of the human race’s biggest problems has been that people who occupy positions of power are often incapable of using power in a responsible way. In the past, this was mostly due to hereditary systems which assigned power to kings and lords and others, who often didn’t have the intellectual or moral capacity to use their power well. But in more recent times, it seems as though power attracts ruthless and narcissistic people with a severe lack of empathy and conscience.

In psychology, there is a concept of a “dark triad” of malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism. These traits are studied together because they almost always overlap and combine. If a person has psychopathic traits, then they tend to have narcissistic and Machiavellian traits too.

People with these personalities can’t sense other people’s feelings or see the world from any perspective apart from their own. They don’t have a sense of conscience or guilt to stop them behaving immorally. They feel superior and enjoy manipulating and controlling other people. At the same time, they need to feel respected and admired and like to be the centre of attention.

There’s a great deal of evidence that people with dark triad personalities are attracted to the corporate and political worlds. Research, for example, shows that people with narcissistic and psychopathic traits have a strong desire for dominance and are disproportionately common in leadership positions.

As the psychologists Niklas Steffens and Alexander Haslam put it, “like moths to a flame, narcissists may be drawn naturally to positions of power and influence”. Or as the psychologist Robert Hare writes of psychopaths, they “are social predators and like all predators they are looking for feeding grounds. Wherever you get power, prestige and money, you will find them”.

The most evil leaders of the 20th-century, such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi, clearly had severe dark triad traits. They didn’t become leaders because of their ability or intelligence, but simply because they had a tremendous desire for power and were incredibly ruthless and cruel in their pursuit of it.

Many present day politicians appear to have psychopathic and narcissistic traits too. It’s easy to spot such leaders, because they are always authoritarian, following hardline policies. They try to subvert democracy, to reduce the freedom of the press and clamp down on dissent. They are obsessed with national prestige, and often persecute minority groups. And they are always corrupt and lacking in moral principles.

Narcissists and sociopaths

In democratic countries such as the UK and the US, one could argue that there is less likelihood of psychopathic people becoming leaders. But there’s still a serious problem with highly narcissistic, ruthless and non-empathic people attaining power. This is clear from Donald Trump’s presidency.

Like many mental health professionals, the president’s niece, Mary Trump – a clinical psychologist – voiced her opinion that Trump suffers from a range of personality disorders. She suggested that his main issue was his severe narcissism, but also that he “meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, which in its severe form is generally considered sociopathy”.

Donald Trump against a stars and stripes backdrop. — ‘Who me?’
Evan El-Amin/Shutterstock

Over time, as sensible and responsible people left his administration, Trump attracted others with similar personality traits to himself. In this way, his regime became what the Polish psychologist Andrew Lobacewski called a “pathocracy” – a government consisting of people with personality disorders. In the UK there has also been a trend for leading politicians to display signs of narcissism, ruthlessness and a lack of empathy. This also suggests a movement towards pathocracy.

The essence of the problem is that callous, low-empathy people are drawn to power, whereas empathic and responsible people (who would make ideal leaders) don’t have a desire for dominance. They usually prefer to remain on the ground, interacting with other people. This leaves positions of powers free for the wrong people.

What can be done?

Like others who have studied the problem of “corporate psychopathy”, the Australian psychologist Clive Boddy has suggested that companies should screen leadership candidates for psychopathy. In my view, we should do something similar in politics. Every government (indeed every organisation) should employ psychologists to assess potential leaders and determine their suitability for power.

Office concept with woman wearing glasses in forefront. — Could personality profiling help companies find suitable leaders?
pexels/fauxels

Personality tests might not be much use, because dark triad personalities are manipulative and dishonest. But other assessments could be used. It’s widely accepted there are childhood signs of dark triad traits, such as callousness and cruelty and a lack of empathy, guilt and emotion. So psychologists could examine the candidate’s life history, interviewing previous supervisors and coworkers. They could also speak to past acquaintances, former schoolteachers or university tutors.

Some might argue this would give too much power to psychologists, who would effectively become kingmakers – and perhaps become vulnerable to corruption themselves. While this is true, it’s surely preferable to the present situation, where there’s nothing to stop people with narcissistic and psychopathic traits gaining power and then using their power malevolently.

Steve Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Leeds Beckett University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The future of the family business: 4 strategies for a successful transition

The family business is among the most common organizations in the world. But figuring out succession plans is rife with complications.
(Unsplash)

Peter Jaskiewicz, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa; Alfredo De Massis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, and Marleen Dieleman, National University of Singapore

Born between 1981 and 1996, millennials differ more from their parents than the last two generations, exhibiting a greater sense of purpose, willingness to move abroad and eagerness to explore new opportunities.

This leaves aging parents who own family businesses wondering about the future of their companies. Family businesses, among the most common forms of organizations around the world, are firms owned or managed by one or more founding family members. Passing the business onto the millennial generation, however, appears to be more difficult than it was previously.

Despite being more educated, technologically adept and global in vision, only 4.9 per cent of millennials intend to take over their respective family businesses, according to 2017 research.

Does the older generation need to urgently adapt, or should they leave the family business to outsiders? It depends. Millennial participation may actively rejuvenate some businesses, improving the agility of the company in the face of economic, digital and sociopolitical change.

However, millennials with different ideas about how to run the business may also create unhelpful turbulence in the family and its company, suggesting they might be better off using their talents elsewhere. We therefore asked: Which types of transitions exist, and which one should families choose?

Our decade-long research program analyzed more than 400 interviews and conversations with members of family businesses around the globe.

Millennial succession

We discovered two dimensions that mattered for millennial succession:

Families that are more close-knit lean towards intergenerational collaboration, whereas more distant ones push generations apart.
The flexibility of incumbent leaders in family firms influences the freedom that millennials have in the family business. Less flexible leaders insist on maintaining traditional family practices. Others are more open to changing the course set by previous generations.

Based on these dimensions, our study identified four transition strategies, illustrated below and based on previous published research — rejuvenation, rebirth, exit and exaptation:

A graph shows four family business transition strategies. — Four Family Business Transition Strategies.
Authors’ calculations, Author provided

Rejuvenation: Embracing the family legacy

Families that succeed with a rejuvenation strategy tend to be close-knit across generations and inclined to follow the family tradition. Trust between generations encourages co-operation, and younger family members go along with the family’s way of doing things, knowing that they are responsible for the future of the family firm.

This transition is often the smoothest, supported by effective family governance, leveraging the strengths of multiple generations. Millennials are encouraged to stay close to the incumbent generation — even if this means giving up on personal aspirations.

Incumbent family members may also support millennials in their pursuit of entrepreneurial projects when acceptable to the retiring generation. This transition strategy serves as a benchmark for most incumbent business owners.

Rebirth: Turning over a new leaf

Some close-knit families feature both incumbent and younger family members openly collaborating on major business decisions, displaying high levels of flexibility.

Millennials in these families are generally inclined towards joining their parents in the family business. Incumbent family members are more open to their offspring’s ideas both inside and outside the business, emphasizing that they do not want to burden their children with running the family business.

Despite their openness to contemporary ideas, the closeness of the family may still cause it to favour tradition. However, support from incumbent family members empowers millennials to enact more radical change — which can include the transformation of the family business in terms of business model.

The choice to move away from older business models towards new goals may in fact be for the best, even if these new goals may only be marginally linked to the original business.

Exit: The world is an oyster

This strategy is often seen in families with low intergenerational cohesion and lacking flexible leaders. Incumbent leaders have often endured self-sacrifice for the family and business, and typically prioritize business over family. Millennials are detached from the business and may not identify closely with it or other family members.

They have many opportunities to leave and few reasons to return — in fact, many seek to study or work far from home.

Placing business needs above all else may place a psychological burden on the next generation, fuelling their desire to leave family and business behind. This, in turn, leaves older generation members scrambling to figure out a succession plan and pushes them to cling on to familiar traditions.

A man in suit and tie smiles. — The late Vittorio Merloni, head of Indesit.
(Carla Martella), CC BY

This behaviour pattern can lead to even greater rifts in an already distant family, sometimes exacerbated by poor company performance. However, these businesses may be able to survive with very little family involvement by finding capable outsiders to take on business roles.

One example of exit is Italy’s Merloni family, which sold its controlling stake in the family business — Indesit, the largest producer of household appliances in the country — to Whirlpool for 758 million euros amid rumours of disagreements in the family over strategy.

Exaptation: Out with old, in with new

Families with low unity but flexible leaders often see their children follow their own dreams. Greater parental flexibility reduces the pressure on millennials to inherit the family firm.

Motivated by a need to step back and retire, family incumbent leaders see the business as a tool to support both themselves and the next generation. This support may result in the younger generation pursuing new entrepreneurial activities only loosely linked to, or even separate from, the original business. The older generation is perfectly fine with this behaviour and adopts a “hands-off” approach.

A young woman sits on the phone in front of an open laptop laughing. — Younger family members can build a new, innovative legacy for the family business.
(Anna Shvets/Pexels)

This is often portrayed in the media as the end of longstanding family business dynasties. However, the younger generation may build a different yet equally powerful legacy. The distance between generations allows millennials to pursue projects on their own terms, yet often with parents’ support, transforming the family legacy into something new.

All families differ

Every family is different — some are close, others are distant, still others are dysfunctional. Additionally, family business leaders also differ — some are flexible, others are more rigid.

Passing on the traditional family firm to a millennial, which we call the rejuvenation strategy, is not necessarily the best one. We argue that imposing a transition that is misaligned with family and leader characteristics is more likely to fuel conflict and, ultimately, fail.

Alternative options such as rebirth or exit may not always keep the old business in the family, but may be a wiser choice and could contribute more positively to the family’s legacy and society at large.

Peter Jaskiewicz, Professor and University Research Chair in Enduring Entrepreneurship, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa; Alfredo De Massis, Professor in Entrepreneurship and Family Business, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, and Marleen Dieleman, Associate Professor, Strategy and Governance, National University of Singapore

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Making space for Buddha in the boardroom

Carving out time every day for mindfulness exercises has been shown to be beneficial.
Shutterstock

Dr Linda Kantor, University of Cape Town; Kurt April, University of Cape Town, and Warren Nilsson, University of Cape Town

It seems farfetched to imagine that an ancient meditation technique, practised by Buddhists over 2,000 years ago, could have a place in the 21st-century corporate boardroom.

Yet, despite criticisms that it is just another faddish appropriation (and aberration) of Eastern traditions in the West, “mindfulness” is proving its worth in the workplace.

Mindfulness traces its origins to early Buddhist texts. The Pali word “Sati” describes a lucidity that is linked to the reduction of human suffering and enhanced states of calmness and contentment. Understandings of mindfulness are also present in other traditions such as Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity.

But the technique has taken on new forms and fluid meanings in the West. As a result, mindfulness training in the workplace, too, comes in different shapes and with varying interpretations. This has led to concerns that the fundamental understandings of mindfulness are getting lost in translation. Specifically, ethical pillars such as putting aside greed and self-concern are being watered down, if not casually culled.

Likewise, fears abound that mindfulness could be opportunistically deployed by managers eager to squeeze more out of their workforce, or to co-opt them into corporate “group-think”.

Research has also pointed to other potential adverse effects like alienation from others and the workplace.

On the other hand, there is growing consensus that mindfulness can benefit people in leadership positions. It’s been found to help business leaders strengthen relationships at the office, build greater resilience, improve the performance of tasks and decision-making, and more.

To extend our understanding of the impact of mindfulness on leadership we recently conducted a study with an array of professionals, including engineers, health professionals, senior managers, human resource administrators and consultants.

The participants had all attended some form of training in mindfulness leadership. The training was in the tradition developed by the American professor emeritus of medicine Jon Kabat Zinn. The practices and understandings were derived from vipassana, which focuses on seeing clearly the true nature of reality.

Participants in the study would carve out time daily for formal mindfulness practices. These included sitting meditation, mindful yoga, body scanning, and walking meditation. They also practised infusing awareness into daily activities.

We then asked them how – if at all – they had been able to apply those practices to their work.

We found that the capacities developed through mindfulness affected the leaders’ own sense of productivity. It also affected their awareness of the power dynamics in their workplace relationships, and their relationships with others. This ultimately helped them manage conflict and disharmony in their environment better.

Individual leadership capacities

We identified four factors that could be defined as the overarching psychological capital, as well as social resources and strengths that aid individuals in their careers. They were:

meta-cognition (being aware of one’s state of mind);
enhancing kindness (the ability to extend compassion to the self and others);
developing equanimity (to experience both good and difficult moments with a sense of balance); and
“embodiment”, to be aware of the movement and spatial orientation of the body, even the sensations from one’s internal organs.

By drawing on these, the participants could then, in turn, develop four individual leadership capacities. These were:

the ability to be with unpleasant thoughts, feelings and sensations or experiences;
an enhanced sense of self;
resilience; and
openness to multiple perspectives and possibilities.

A different lens on the workplace

Some participants explained that their learnings from mindfulness were at times painstaking and at odds with their knee-jerk, automatic impulses and psychological trigger-reactions. One participant described an encounter with a person he was on the brink of firing. In a final meeting with the employee

I was able to be released from the structure, from the constructs, and allow the person to talk and for me to listen… deciding {ultimately} to retain the person, who has turned out to be massively successful, reliable and stable.

Mindfulness allowed others to understand that they were overworking simply to fit in with their corporate culture. Many reported that the emotional energy expended in “covering” – downplaying certain aspects of their identity in order to blend in – was exhausting.

After purposefully considering their own deep dilemmas, their more authentic identities came to the fore.

Mindfulness also helped them to:

overcome senses of failure;
tap into colleagues’ and subordinates’ creativity;
defuse charged situations; and
improve their workplace relationships across cultural divides.

The participants said they’d made changes as a result. This included adapting the way they interacted with their workforce and paying attention to the concerns and needs of followers. It also led to changes to the way they communicated with colleagues and employees, and the ways in which they built and sustained relationships with their teams.

All ultimately impact employees’ motivation, workplace engagement, and performance at work.

Benefits

Based on these findings, we have developed a mindfulness model that shows that mindfulness can transform leadership in the workplace, while retaining essential Buddhist tenets.

Our model shows that the awareness that mindfulness brings can provide an antidote to the “Three Poisons” of greed, hatred and delusion. As expressed in the workplace, these are:

excessive productivity;
hatred (“Dvesha”) in the form of aggressive workplace behaviours; and
delusion (“Moha”), which is the abuse of power at work.

The future and forms of mindfulness in the 21st century workplace – especially one transformed by a global pandemic – remain to be seen. But by remaining true to its founding principles, we imagine that it can play a helpful role in transforming the workplace. This is because it can shift the centrality of productivity and the relationship to busy-ness and overwork to a richer engagement with personal values and its alignment to constructive workplace behaviours.

This process opens the door to healthier boundaries being set for individuals in relation to work. It also allows others to constructively dissent and critique and to continuously hold up the status quo to interrogation.

For leaders it can mean disconnecting from needing to control and rather finding ways to enhance and empower others. And to act compassionately in the workplace.

Dr Linda Kantor, Adjunct senior lecturer at the Graduate School of Business, counselling psychologist, hypnotherapist, and yoga teacher, University of Cape Town; Kurt April, Professor in Leadership, Diversity & Inclusion, University of Cape Town, and Warren Nilsson, Associate Professor of Social Innovation, University of Cape Town

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Shakespeare’s rulers and generals are all flawed, but the books on his leadership lessons keep coming

John Bell, pictured here in 2006, is the latest to write a book on Shakespeare and leadership.
Paul Millar/AAP

Robert White, The University of Western Australia

Review: John Bell, Some Achieve Greatness: Lessons on leadership from Shakespeare and one of his greatest admirers. With illustrations by Cathy Wilcox. Pantera Press, 2021.

John Bell’s new book Some Achieve Greatness is but the latest to use Shakespeare’s works to inspire and teach would-be leaders in the modern world.

In 2000 alone, two books appeared aimed at business management students: Power Plays and Shakespeare on Management. In perhaps the best of the genre, Shakespeare the Coach (2004), Australian Olympian, medical graduate, politician and hockey coach Ric Charlesworth applies the dramatist’s words to the sporting arena and people management. Naturally he devotes a chapter to motivational leadership, headed “Purpose and Persuasion”.

The new book from Bell, the actor and renowned theatre director, is both more, and less, than these. More, because it is as much a pithy “business autobiography” as instructional manual, from a man who has devoted his career to bringing Shakespeare to Australian audiences.

Bell has not only performed most of the major characters, learning their words by heart and internalising the subtleties and plural meanings, he has also directed the plays. He has shown business acumen in administering two successful theatre companies, co-founding Nimrod in 1970 (dedicated to producing Australian plays as well as Shakespeare’s), and of course, the Bell Shakespeare Company.

His name has become almost synonymous with the bard’s in our cultural life through this company and a series of scholarly editions of plays named after him. He also authored a substantial book titled On Shakespeare (2011), full of insights: the fruit of a practised actor-director’s rich and detailed experience.

And, as one of Australia’s Living Treasures, Bell has cemented his reputation by “dying” hundreds of times onstage in Shakespearean roles — like Cleopatra, he “hath such a celerity in dying”.

Reflecting on his multifaceted career, Bell applies his accumulated knowledge to recount his own leadership style as it evolved through experience. Sage advice is offered, enlivened and illustrated with pertinent quotations from speeches, which no doubt Bell can enviably recite from memory.

Bell, centre, as Falstaff during a dress rehearsal of Henry 4 in Canberra in 2013.
Alan Porritt/AAP

The book offers lessons gleaned from a Shakespeare who is seen as a natural “collaborator never a one-man band”. We find chapters on “Courage, or how to be a leader in times of crisis”, “Decisiveness, timing and tough decisions”, “Charisma, confidence and humility”, and other virtues such as integrity and humanity. These are set against dangerous managerial vices like ambition, arrogance and entitlement.

Along the way are sprinkled inspirational quotations about leadership from the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, John F. Kennedy and Michelle Obama, alongside cautionary reminders of a less savoury, more recent American president .

No ideal leaders

However, Bell offers less than Charlesworth (my benchmark), in that the latter dwells more on applicable quotations than characters and dramatic context. This allows him to skirt the problem Bell faces: there are, in fact, no unflawed or ideal leaders in Shakespeare.

Although Bell ranges across the complete works, his major examples of good or bad leadership are surprisingly few in number. All are, to some extent flawed. Bell readily concedes this, since their failures are instructive. The figure who recurs in most detail is Henry V. For all his faults as a ruthless, likely war criminal, he seems to come closest to Bell’s ideal leader, at least in his rousing speeches.

Kenneth Branagh as Henry V in the 1989 film: ruthless but with rousing speeches?

Julius Caesar and Brutus emerge as ambiguous and lacking in strategical competence. Antony for all his brilliant oratory is too much the playboy who believes in his own “celebrity”, while King Lear is easy prey for sycophants and flatterers.

Naturally enough, Richard III and Macbeth as leaders are definitely not to be emulated, though there is somehow a touch of unintended humour in the homily-like way Bell warns us against using murder as a career move:

Watching the downfall of the Macbeths we have to ask ourselves: What am I prepared to pay to make it to the top of the pile? Is the reward worth my sanity, my self-respect, my relationship, my reputation, my friendships?

Who would answer yes to such a piously phrased question?

Michael Fassbinder as Macbeth in the 2015 film: not a great role model.
See-Saw Films, DMC Film, Anton

What about the women?

We have to wait for the final chapter before some women make an appearance, exemplifying such admirable qualities as adaptability and negotiating skills (Portia), integrity and plain-speaking honesty (Cordelia), and playfulness (Rosalind), although Bell sees their agency as qualified in a man’s world:

In the Comedies, women find a voice and authority by adopting a false male persona and using their wit, charm and female tenderness to lead the menfolk to an awareness of their follies and a better understanding of successful male/female coexistence and interdependence.

This book is very readable and can probably be devoured in a single sitting, though Bell might prefer us to take our time and savour at leisure the lessons taught. It also features witty and pertinent cartoons by Cathy Wilcox.

Robert White, Winthrop Professor of English, The University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.