Five business leaders you should know

Fredrick Herzberg, Steven Covey, Malcolm Gladwell, Napoleon Hill and Charles Handy.

It is difficult to narrow the choice down to just 5 individuals, but I have chosen Fredrick Herzberg, Steven Covey, Malcolm Gladwell, Napoleon Hill and Charles Handy as the most significant mainly because of the influence they have had on others and because of their timeless relevance.

Herzberg I believe has had the most significant impact on organisations’ approach to motivating their staff and indeed his concepts are as relevant now as they were over 50 years ago. Nowadays we hear a lot about employee engagement and this is pure application of Herzberg’s principles and a recognition that those who feel more part of an enterprise and who have more control over their work are likely to perform better and make a bigger contribution.

Like Herzberg, Napoleon Hill is another business thinker who continues to have a great relevance to contemporary business life and it is easy to spot the influence he has had on others such as Covey  and Bandler and Grinder’s work on NLP.  The psychology of intention and outcome is fascinating and many successful entrepreneurs and business leaders have recognised their achievements have resulted through applying the right mixture of desire, hard work, visioning and tenacity. His principles are applicable to people at all levels and not just the aspiring Richard Branson’s of the world. Fundamentally they can help anyone to fulfil their potential if they know what drives them and what they want in life and if they are prepared to work hard for it.

As a journalist, Malcolm Gladwell’s is an observer rather than a theoretician but nonetheless, many of his observations especially in his books ‘Blink’ and ‘Tipping Point’ are having a significant influence on business thinking in the C21st. Tipping point provides a robust and practical guide to building brands and creating recognition in a world where there is exponential growth in the competition for attention. Blink highlights the importance of authenticity of leaders in business and the need for behaviour to be linked to beliefs and values.

Stephen Covey’s work ‘Seven Habits of Highly Effective people’ has created a universal framework for much of today’s senior management and leadership development. Although criticised by some as pure common sense, Covey’s work has provided millions of people with a roadmap which reminds us that excellence and success is not an act but a habit.

Charles Handy has been an important figure in how we view work and our relationship with employers and his publication the ‘Future of Work’ was prophetic. Employment no longer means joining a company for life and the relationship between employer and employee has become economic rather than paternalistic. People now need to manage their own careers and there are no jobs for life. Some feel this is a step backwards but Handy’s concept of Portfolio Careers argues that this creates opportunity for people to take more control of their destiny and fulfil more rewarding careers whilst organisations benefit through having a more flexible workforce which can adapt quicker to change.  

John Maxted, founder of international HR consultancy Digby Morgan (which he sold in 2011) is a consultant and non-executive director. He is a contributor to Business Gurus, published by Crimson Publishing, www.crimsonbooks.co.uk

Malcolm Gladwell, Photograph: Getty Images

John Maxted, founder of international HR consultancy Digby Morgan (which he sold in 2011) is a consultant and non-executive director. He is a contributor to Business Gurus, published by Crimson Publishing.

Getty
Show Hide image

How to end the Gulf stand off? The West should tell Qatar to reform its foreign policy

Former defence secretary Geoff Hoon on the unfolding crisis in the Gulf. 

Only one group stands to benefit from a continuation of the crisis in Gulf: The Quartet, as they are now being called. Last week, The United Arab Emirates foreign minister tweeted that Qatar and its Gulf Cooperation Council neighbours are heading for a "long estrangement". We should take him at his word.

The European political establishment has been quick to dismiss the boycott by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt as naïve, and a strategic mistake. The received wisdom now is that they have acted impulsively, and that any payoff will be inescapably pyrrhic. I’m not so sure.

Another view: Qatar is determined to stand up to its Gulf neighbours

Jean-Yves Le Drian, France's foreign minister, was in the region over the weekend to see if he could relay some of his boss’s diplomatic momentum. He has offered to help mediate with Kuwait, clearly in the belief that this is the perfect opportunity to elevate France back to the top table. But if President Emmanuel Macron thinks this one will be as straightforward as a Donald Trump handshake, he should know that European charm doesn’t function as well in the 45 degree desert heat (even if some people call him the Sun King).

Western mediation has so far proceeded on the assumption that both sides privately know they will suffer if this conflict drags on. The US secretary of state Rex Tillerson judged that a Qatari commitment to further counter-terrorism measures might provide sufficient justification for a noble reversal. But he perhaps underestimates the seriousness of the challenge being made to Qatar. This is not some poorly-judged attempt to steal a quick diplomatic win over an inferior neighbour.

Qatar’s foreign policy is of direct and existential concern to the other governments in the Gulf. They will not let Qatar off the hook. And even more than that, why should they? Qatar has enormous diplomatic and commercial clout for its size, but that would evaporate in an instant if companies and governments were forced to choose between Doha and the Quartet, whose combined GDP is almost ten times that of their former ally. Iran, Turkey and Russia might stay on side. But Qatar would lose the US and Europe, where most of its soft power has been developed. Qatar’s success has been dependent on its ability to play both sides. If it loses that privilege, as it would in the event of an interminable cold war in the Gulf, then the curtains could come down.

Which is why, if they wanted to badly enough, Le Drian and Tillerson could end this conflict tomorrow. Qatar’s foreign policy has been concerning for the past decade. It has backed virtually every losing side in the Arab world, and caused a significant amount of destruction in the process. In Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, Qatar has turned a blind eye to the funding of Islamic revolutionaries with the financial muscle to topple incumbent regimes. Its motives are clear; influence over the emergent republics, as it had in Egypt for a year under Mohamed Morsi. But as we review the success of this policy from the perspective of 2017, it seems clear that all that has been achieved is a combination of civil unrest and civil war. The experiment has failed.

Moreover, the Coalition is not going to lift sanctions until Doha suspends its support for the Muslim Brotherhood. When Western leaders survey the Gulf and consider who they should support, they observe two things: firstly, that the foreign policy of the Quartet is much more aligned with their own (it doesn’t seem likely to me that any European or American company would prefer to see a revolution in Dubai instead of a continuation of the present arrangement), and secondly, that Qatar would fold immediately if they applied any significant pressure. The Al Thani ruling family has bet its fortune and power on trans-Atlantic support; it is simply not credible that they would turn to the West’s enemies in the event that an ultimatum was issued. Doha might even welcome an excuse to pause its costly and ineffective programmes. Even if that involves some short term embarrassment. It is hardly going to lose support at home, with the highest GDP per capita in the world.

It would be necessary to make sure that the Coalition understands that it will have to pay a price for decisive Western intervention. The world will be a more dangerous place if our allies get the impression they can freely bully any smaller rival, knowing that the West will always come down on their side. That is however no great hurdle to action; it might even be a positive thing if we can at the same time negotiate greater contributions to counter-terrorism or refugee funding.

Unfortunately the reason why none of this is likely to happen is partly that the West has lost a lot of confidence in its ability to resolve issues in the Middle East since 2003, and partly because it fears for its interests in Doha and the handsome Qatari contributions in Western capitals. This cautious assessment is wrong and will be more harmful to Qatar and the aforementioned interests. The Quartet has no incentive to relent, it can’t afford to and will profit from commercial uncertainty in Doha the longer this drags on. If the West really wants this to end now, it must tell Qatar to reform its foreign policy or face sanctions from a more threatening ally.

Geoffrey Hoon was the UK defence secretary from 1999 to 2005.  

0800 7318496