Taking the bite out of leadership: Suarez's $120 m sale to Barcelona

Suarez and his bite victim Chielini

Just weeks after FIFA's bold move imposing a comprehensive four month ban on Uruguayan football star, Suarez , for his biting incident; he has been traded to FC Barcelona for a whopping $120m. And this is just the transfer fee. His current team Liverpool apparently let him go with a heavy heart, while Suarez himself apologized to his Liverpool fans, citing family reasons for shifting to Spain.  As the NYT noted, this is a not a story that should be used to inspire aspiring footballers. As usual, media reports have adopted views across the board. Some headlines suggest that Liverpool finally let him go because of the biting incident, while others suggest that Liverpool has lost Suarez after all. Predictably, none of the concerned parties mentioned the elephant in the room - the ban which prevents Suarez from even entering stadiums to practice, until October.  

What kind of a message does this sale send? Sports after all is more than just performance. It is about courage, fairplay and passion. What lessons can the public, especially children learn from this incident? That you can get away with almost anything as long as you "perform" ?  The FIFA has been reduced to a governing body whose actions do not have any effect beyond the letter of the law. What is the point of a four month ban when it is likely that, Barcelona's prize catch will be "presented" to the fans the very next day after the ban ends?   

Sadly, sports is another business, and money trumps. Short term tangible gains in ticket sales overshadow the long term gains of reputation and the ability to create a positive change through the sport. In my previous post a couple of days ago I mentioned how lucky tennis fans are to have  worthwhile role models at the top, who are true global ambassadors for the sport. David Beckham's global appeal is also because he comes across as a nice and approachable bloke; rather than just his achievements and good looks. Messi's almost prophet like appeal lies in his quiet passion and humility. Suarez can never dream of that kind of appeal; he will always be remembered for his boorishness, regardless of his achievements. Remember Zidane whom we remember more for his infamous head-butt than for his stellar play?    

Everyone, including Suarez deserves a second chance, except that this will be his fourth. Let's hope that FC Barcelona will have the courage to adopt a zero tolerance policy for future offences by Suarez. It owes it to sports.  

The dangerous allure of confidence: The spectacular downfall of Eike Batista (and his believers)

Eike Batista

Eike Batista, flamboyant Brazilian entrepreneur and Chairman of the conglomerate EBX group went from being the 8th richest man in the world (worth $30 billion) in 2012, to 200 million (or even a negative net worth according to Bloomberg) in 2014. He has now topped the charts of a few worst CEOs of 2013 lists. The "hindsight" critics have been quick to jump into the fray, pointing out some unmistakable signs that were missed. Batista was unabashedly ostentatious - he parked his luxury car in his living room, proclaimed he would be the richest man in the world by 2015, didn't really have the managerial expertise to run his business empire, and always made his huge announcements about new oil finds conveniently before trying to raise funds. 

Batista was the poster boy of the surging  Brazilian economy; admired as a role model by his country men (his twitter account had over a million followers), and backed by global investors. His 2011 book (in Portugese) titled  Batista's X-factor - all his companies have X in their names indicating the multiplication of wealth- lists some simple rules to become a billionaire. These include -  believe in your intuition, aim for success rather than perfection, build businesses with maximum accuracy and minimum risk, a good seller must also be a good listener and the importance of being a maker rather than just a dreamer. Clearly, at least at this point, it appears that none of these rules applied to him. Batista has now withdrawn from the public eye and is licking his wounds, although he vows to make a comeback. He has promised to repay all his creditors, but recent filings with the courts indicate that the time frame could be over twenty years - if at all.

Batista kept his Mercedes -Benz SLR in his living room.

Batista's personal failings as a leader are clear, but he couldn't have amassed his 30 billion alone. People believed in him, and believed big. He consistently bagged some of most prestigious contracts from the Brazilian government, and was favored by big investors globally. One single factor  attributed to his ability to influence others over the years is his extreme confidence. He was after all primarily a -salesman - since he started his career as an insurance salesman.

 The Batista case illustrates the dangerous allure of confidence on others, and more importantly how susceptible we are to certain outward manifestations of confidence. The old adage of judging a book by its cover unfortunately holds true. We expect leaders to be impeccably dressed, exude supreme confidence in their strut and manner of speaking - the bolder and louder the better. Business schools focus on style than content -  on perfectly formatted documents, stylish presentations, and superb delivery. In fact, Batista's detractors comment that he is the only one besides Bill Gates to make billions through PowerPoint. This stereotypical image of a successful leader gets propagated with the increasing outreach of the media.  

It's time to look beyond the external manifestation of confidence, and focus on improving the self-efficacy of leaders. One of the influential researchers on self-efficacy, Albert Bandura ,defines self-efficacy as a person's belief about their capabilities to perform certain tasks and  their ability to influence the events in their life. In other words, self-efficacy is the result of a realistic analysis of one's capabilities. Those with high self-efficacy are therefore intrinsically motivated - Batista on the other hand seemed to be motivated by the thrill of becoming the richest man in the world. Those with a high level of self-efficacy are not discouraged by failures and persevere. They attribute failure to deficiencies which can be learnt, rather than as a personal failure.

In Bandura's own words, self -efficacy differs from confidence as follows.

"It should be noted that the construct of self-efficacy differs from the colloquial term "confidence." Confidence is a nondescript term that refers to strength of belief but does not necessarily specify what the certainty is about. I can be supremely confident that I will fail at an endeavor. Perceived self-efficacy refers to belief in one's agentive capabilities, that one can produce given levels of attainment. A self -efficacy assessment, therefore, includes both an affirmation of a capability level and the strength of that belief. Confidence is a catchword rather than a construct embedded in a theoretical system. Advances in a field are best achieved by constructs that fully reflect the phenomena of interest and are rooted in a theory that specifies their determinants, mediating processes, and multiple effects. Theory-based constructs pay dividends in understanding and operational guidance. The terms used to characterize personal agency, therefore, represent more than merely lexical preferences." (Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, 1997, page 382).

A strong sense of self-efficacy leads to confidence, but not necessarily only in a physical sense as we have become accustomed to. Confidence should be reflected in actions than in mere words. Batista,  salesman that he was - sold dreams than reality. And his investors bought it because they mistook the external signs of confidence for self-efficacy. As we become globalized it would be helpful to look closely at the values like humility held dear by other successful cultures to break out of our stereotypes. For example a common proverb in the Chinese culture is that " a full pot never splashes".   

It's too early to write Batista off, but hopefully his story will reinforce the need to break away from the cookie- cutter approach to training and evaluating leaders.  

Picture 1 credit
Picture 2 credit
 

The importance of credibility and its fickleness

Bowe Bergdhal

Two important stories captured the headlines last week. Army sergeant Bowe Berdaghl, the only known American prisoner of war, was released by the Taliban after five years in captivity. So traumatic was his captivity that  he is even unable to speak  English. Berdaghl is currently recovering in an American hospital in Germany. The other story was about teaching assistant Jon Meis subduing a gunman with pepper spray in Seattle Pacific University, preventing many deaths. The gunman was reloading his gun after shooting dead one student and injuring several others, when Meis intervened.


While both these young men endured in the face of adversity, the reaction of the American public to their stories couldn't have been more different. Meis, was labeled a hero; strangers tracked down his wedding registry and the gifts began pouring in.  An online campaign launched by another stranger to fund his honeymoon far exceeded the target.

Berdaghl, a war hero,  on the other hand was the target of the public's ire. There were serious political repercussions to his release - five militants were released in exchange without the knowledge of the Congress. But politics aside, much of the anger was directed against Berdaghl himself. This started when a former sergeant of  Bergdahl's platoon labeled him a deserter responsible for the loss of lives of several colleagues  who searched for him. The social media was soon abuzz with calls to label him a traitor, and so strong was the anti- Bergdahl sentiment that his homecoming ceremony in his hometown Hailey, Idaho, was canceled due to security concerns (including death threats).  Interestingly, none of the news against Bergdahl has been confirmed yet. The Army, despite his disappeance had not classified him a deserter. Defense secretary Hagel, and several others have repeatedly urged the public to not demonize a soldier without evidence.

The marked difference in the public response to these two typically heroic deeds emphasizes the importance of credibility in leadership. It also illustrates why perceptions matter more than reality. Integrity lies at the core of credibility. Studies have shown that Americans tend to consider their military leaders most trustworthy because we can count on them to place their lives on the line to secure ours. This is what Jon Meir did, and it immediately struck a chord. It appears that Berdaghl despite his military credentials as the only prisoner of war, took a big blow to his credibility when the deserter tag, even if unsubstantiated, was attached to him.

These stories can also be used to examine French and Raven's (1959) bases of power in leadership. Leaders usually wield five types of power: legitimate (due to their position), reward (ability to reward followers), coercive (ability to punish),  expert (due to their expertise), referent (due to their personal characteristics). Here, Berdaghl despite his legitimate power due to his military credentials was unable to influence the American public that he was a hero, because his referent power (his integrity) was in doubt. On the other hand, Meir despite no legitimate power ( he was not a guard), influenced the American public due to his referent power (his courage and integrity).

Leaders must therefore not take it for granted that they can influence their followers because of their title as a manager or CEO. In the long run it is the personal characteristics of the leader that matter. Individuals without any legitimate title can wield influence in their organizations by acquiring credibility through their personal characteristics of integrity and honesty. For example, Gandhi never held an official position in the Indian National Congress, but was the first person people turned to for guidance - so strong was his personal power.

Personal power however takes years to build, and can be lost in an instant. And perceptions matter than reality. Which is why a leader with strong values is able to build a strong base of personal power, and is also able to withstand the occasional inevitable fall from grace.  In "If" Rudyard Kipling discusses the qualities of the ideal man as 
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

    And treat those two impostors just the same

 

A leader guided by his inner compass is the man Kipling is talking about....  

Obama's vision for America's leadership examined

President Obama's commencement address  to the graduating 2014 class at West Point is generating  much debate because it lays out his vision for America's global leadership. Predictably, the responses to it were along party lines with the Republicans dismissing the speech as rhetoric. However, his speech received mixed reactions even from the press.

Obama's West Point speech offers an interesting example to examine his vision using the theories of leadership. Of course, there is a caveat - we are only analyzing his speech- and not his actions that will follow. Nevertheless, examining the speech along with its critique can be insightful in understanding how effective leaders should communicate their vision. 

What is a vision? According to Bennis and Nanus (1985), a leader's vision must be clear, attractive, realistic and about the believable future. The vision must however emerge from the needs of the organization, and should  belong to both the leader and the followers. Friedman echoes the views of Bennis and Nanus, and states that a vision must be compelling, vivid,  achievable, and have a not too distant time frame. In their influential book on Leadership, Kouzes and Posner (2002) also identify the ability to inspire a shared vision as an important practice of exemplary leaders. According to Kouzes and Posner, great leaders communicate vivid and compelling visions that serve as a guide for action for their followers. From the above, Obama's speech can be examined on the four criteria of clarity, vividness, achievability and a realistic time frame.

Obama starts off by making a case for America's undisputed status as a global leader because of its military power, its vibrant economy, its innovative capabilities, and its multiple alliances with other countries. America continues to attract immigrants looking for a better future, and is looked upon to intervene when basic human rights are in danger across the world. Obama also cautions against complacency  in face of competition from the rising middle class across the world, the ability of terrorists to wreck havoc due to technology.

 
The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.

So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America, and our military, should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.

CLARITY: (8/10) He conveys the gist of America's future leadership in a four distinct points: use force only when US interests are directly threatened, need for shift in counter-terrorism strategy by moving away from direct action to building coalitions and training countries at risk of rising terrorism, need to strengthen international institutions like the UN to global peace, America's willingness to act of behalf of human dignity. The test for direct action was clear : We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.


VIVIDNESS (8.5/10): Some memorable quotes are below.

Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only, or even primary, component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.

We are going to deepen our investment in countries that support these peacekeeping missions because having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way. It’s a smart investment. It’s the right way to lead. (Applause.)

I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions. (Applause.)

Now, ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency, but American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be — a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters, where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice. And we cannot do that without you. 

Leaving here, you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens. You will represent a nation with history and hope on our side. Your charge now is not only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just. As your commander in chief, I know you will. May God bless you. May God bless our men and women in uniform. And may God bless the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)

ACHIEVABILITY (5/10): Obama proposed a 5 billion counter terrorism fund for America's counter-terrorism strategy to train other countries to stand on their own feet to combat terrorism in their soil. Obama gives some vague examples here like Burma, Afghanistan. But more detail on the why and how of the five billion could have made the difference between rhetoric and vision. Discussing what he proposed to achieve in his four points during his remaining term was crucial. Post Snowden, when Americans are very concerned about their digital privacy, Obama should have made a more convincing case on how he planned to do this.



TIME FRAME: (4/10) Except for the deadline for pull out of Afghan troops by the end of this year, no other time frame was set. Since the President has a limited time in office now, it was important to not lose sight of that time frame.


Much of the criticism of his speech centers on the achievability and time frame. As noted by NPR  Obama was not able to frame the reality. As noted by the BBC, the rationale behind the five billion is not clear.  Also, it appears more of a restatement of his current policy than a vision for change.

In closing, Obama scores high on clarity and vividness, but low of achievability and the realistic time frame. Perhaps a good commencement address needs to weigh heavily on the former, but Obama will have to address the latter if his vision is to be taken seriously. Until then it will remain as a good commencement speech, rather than a proclamation of a new vision for America's leadership as Obama had hoped.

Picture 1 credit
Picture 2 credit
Picture 3 credit
Picture 4 credit