I don’t know about you but I often wonder what motivates someone to go out and watch something like the 94.7 Cycle Challenge? 

Taking part makes sense. The idea of cycling down the M1 motorway this morning, crossing the Nelson Mandela bridge, past the zoo, through Randburg and along the N14 back to the start, is an adventure of note.

Fetching and carrying someone you care about makes sense too, as does cheering them along with …. how many thousands of other cyclists?

Maybe it’s the possibility of seeing some drama,  someone falling off perhaps—just like the attraction of Formula 1 and the risk of a crash?

It could also have something to do with all those people with er … very little on. Nothing quite like a lean, fit, tanned individual in some real colourful cycling gear.    

Then again there are also those who shouldn’t be allowed to wear that sort of gear in public.  A couple of years ago doing an Argus Cycle tour myself I was astonished to find out that over 50% of all participants were clinically overweight.

But how do you explain those thousands of people who set themselves up with their chairs and the braai’s; who for want of a better phrase ’park off’ on the side of the road to watch the Cycle Challenge go by? 

Perhaps it has something with absorbing the passion, the fun, the hard work, the commitment, the risk, the pain, the sweat and the tears? 

Being part of something marvellous? 

That’s the thing with human endeavour—you can never keep it all to yourself. 

Ask anyone who has faced a challenge and triumphed. 

Got a medal for participating or set a new world record. 

Who was inspired by someone who climbed a mountain and couldn’t see, swam a race and couldn’t walk, rode a bike without hearing. 

Have a great week.

Why do companies hate the idea their employees talk to one another about their salaries? What, they wonder, do employers have to hide? 

‘Obviously I earn less than everyone else otherwise it wouldn’t matter that we spoke about how much we earn and who has what benefits’. 

Of course it is now fairly commonplace to know what the directors of a listed company earn. 

If you want to know how much the CEO of MTN earns just read their Annual report. 

Anglo, Naspers, Caxton, Massmart and Kagiso Media all set out what their senior executives earned in the past year, usually specifying basic remuneration from reward systems like bonuses and share options. 

Around the world financial sector executives are being made to squirm as regulatory authorities put their proverbial foot down as to what they may earn—even South African banking executives will have to comply as the world continues to reel from the aftershocks of the big crash of 2009.

This week the COSATU General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi had to face an uproar over his salary doubling to R500k per annum and SA Communist Party leader Blade Nzimande had to explain how come as Higher Education Minister he allowed a vehicle to be purchased for his use costing a million bucks (check out http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article179134.ece for more information).

The private sector has been equally hammered as union demands have gone up—who said to increase their trade union levies to pay for someone’s salary increase? I am sure that isn’t the case and that this is simply a hard capitalist lesson in supply and demand.  With a skills shortage you had better look after the people you have otherwise you will lose them.

South Africa right now has money on its brain—who earns what, why, how often and most importantly why don’t I earn as much as they do?    

And why don’t I earn as much as I did last year? 

Imagine a list of all salaries in your company is circulated by mistake.

What would you do?

What should you do?

If you are interested in what I earn as Managing Director of RadMark (Pty) Ltd, somewhere in my blog is an ‘invitation code’ unlocking this information.  Email the code to me and I will email you back my salary details.  Enjoy the search and have a great week.

Ok so this is the last in a four part series on what we can learn from Napoleon Bonaparte’s quote ‘Glory is fleeting, obscurity is forever’.

Three lessons so far:

‘Glory, or fame, is not forever’ (Lesson 1);

‘The opposite of glory is obscurity’ (Lesson 2); and

Glory and obscurity are too extreme for most of us—we would prefer a middle ground between the two (Lesson 3).

Looking at this third lesson: the question I posed last week was this: If glory (fame) is fleeting, and obscurity is forever, then what about a middle ground where we don’t have to be incredibly famous, nor obscure for the rest of our lives? It wouldn’t have worked for Napoleon because he wanted glory—it was what drove him to conquer most of the civilized world.

For most of us however what we are looking for is a middle ground where we feel we matter; where we count and make a difference.

And then I concluded by suggesting that the middle ground we seek may be found in something called: sustainability.

Now sustainability is a hot topic right now.

It is commonly used when discussing environmental issues—the idea behind it is that whatever we do we are responsible for the impact we have on the planet we live on and the people who inhabit it.

So things like global warming, best farming practices, environmentally friendly industry all require that one considers the implications for the sustainability of life as we know it. And that means what we use today can be no more than what is needed for future generations tomorrow.

Let’s look for a moment at how sustainability applies to business—the idea this time is that there isn’t just a bottom line in business called profit.

In reality there is a triple bottom line, or 3BL, that covers people, planet and profit.

How you approach each will determine how sustainable your business is.

You may make a quick buck by producing a cheap product, but sooner or later the market will realize what you are doing and shun you in the future. That isn’t sustainable.

If your employees are encouraged to do unethical things like make promises you have no intention of keeping you are hurting them as well as your customers. That isn’t sustainable either.

And if you don’t protect the environment from air and water pollution, by only using things like eco-friendly production and packaging, you will damage the planet to such an extent that the misery caused by extreme weather patterns will mean people won’t be able, or prepared, to buy your product anyway. That too isn’t sustainable.

In Napoleon’s quote there seems to me a need to justify his actions. Glory, even just fleeting, was preferable to the horror of obscurity. For him.

Ironically had he been an obscure individual we wouldn’t even be discussing him today.

But equally so had it not been for his need for glory he would never have been banished to St Helena to live out the last of his days lonely, ill and depressed.

Many businesses round the world, particularly in the financial sector, feel the same way today—perhaps had they been more focused on sustainability we would all have experienced much less pain in the great ‘crash of 2009’.

I think the future will belong to those who understand the need for sustainability across the 3BL.

I wonder what Napoleon would have thought of that?

Previously I discussed Napoleon Bonaparte’s views on glory (fame) and social networking (ok that was a bit tongue in cheek) and were based on my interpretation of his quote:  Glory is fleeting, obscurity is forever.

According to Napoleon then ‘Glory is not forever’ (Lesson 1) and ‘The opposite of glory is obscurity’ (Lesson 2).

Applying these two lessons to business I used the example of the Fortune 500 Company list, the vast majority of which didn’t survive longer than 60 years on the list.

And then I discussed why most adults, like teenagers, reckon anything is better than obscurity.

And if you didn’t believe me, I challenged you to ask yourself a couple of questions: Why do we have such a need to post our thoughts on Twitter? Make ourselves heard on a blog? Meet up with people we didn’t even like at school via FaceBook? Or make a complete ass or ourselves using YouTube.com?

On to Lesson 3: If glory or fame is fleeting, and the opposite of glory is obscurity, and obscurity is forever, can we not agree on a middle ground that doesn’t sound so bleak?

I mean who amongst us really wants to be famous?

Business needs to be famous.

It aspires to fame through something called brands and branding and spends huge resources on making those brands … you guessed it: famous.

How then do we reconcile the idea that even spending all that money and time most companies can’t survive 60 years on the Fortune 500?

But there are many organizations that survive well into the 100s of years.

The oldest magazine I ever worked on was the South African Medical Journal—first published in 1886 it is 123 years old this year.

Around the world there are many organizations that have been ’successful’ for a long time even though they didn’t make it onto the Fortune 500.

If glory (fame) is fleeting and obscurity is forever then what about that middle ground I spoke of earlier?

A middle ground where we don’t have to be incredibly famous, nor obscure for the rest of our lives.

A middle ground where we feel we matter. Where we count and feel we make a difference. Is it possible that sustainability may

be the middle ground that balances fame with obscurity? 

Good place to start next post.

“Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.” -Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

Last post I posed this question: If you were faced with a choice, would you prefer to experience glory for a fleeting moment, knowing it will not last, or to face the knowledge that you will remain obscure forever?

It followed a discussion, based on the quote from Napoleon Bonaparte above, around some fascinating things like the balance of power between nations and that only 14% of the companies on the Fortune 500 list in 1955 are still there today. Glory certainly didn’t even last 60 years for them and Lesson 1- Glory is not forever seemed on the face of it to be correct.

This post the question revolves around the idea that the opposite of glory is obscurity. To understand this lesson you have to understand the difference between glory and obscurity.

Whitney Houston made it big back in the 80’s with her No.1 hit single ‘One moment in time’. At the time she was simply Cissy Houston’s daughter and Dionne Warwick’s niece. But hit it big she did and I couldn’t help but wonder in the words of the song what it would be like to have ‘one moment in time when I knew I had become all I dreamed I could be’. Powerful stuff and it remains one of my favourite songs today.

I suppose a lot depends on how you define that moment. How do you define glory?

The dictionary reckons glory is ‘praise or honour; splendor or praiseworthy thing’. Bearing in mind Napoleon wanted to be Emperor he certainly had an idea of what sort of glory he was looking for.

A hit single is certainly fleeting and the ability to have a lifetime of hit singles is reserved for only a handful of artists.

Being President of your country would be one way to experience glory. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize would be another. Ask Barack Obama.

But again most of these moments are fleeting.

To others ‘glory’ could be something very different: Think about the day someone gets married, or witnesses the birth of their children? What about a hard earned degree? Saving someone’s life? Are these to be seen as fleeting as well?

According to Napoleon obscurity is the alternative to glory. Certainly no shades of grey for him.

Obscurity is defined as ‘not well known’. In the context which Napoleon seems to use the word I think there is also an element of anonymity. Of insignificance. Rather experience glory, even if fleeting, so you don’t have to experience the alternative of being a nobody. A nothing in the course of human history which means forever.

Considering that Napoleon’s reign was almost 200 years ago his thoughts today seem remarkably accurate to describe the need to ‘matter’.

As human beings living in the 21st Century we are programmed to avoid obscurity at all costs. Think about all the user generated content on YouTube. Anything is better than not being well known. Look at some of the stuff you find there. ‘I would rather look a fool than not be famous’ sort of thing. We worship fame. We need it like a drug. Why else would Jackass I and II have been so successful?

Anything is better than obscurity. Why else would social networking sites enjoy the ‘success’ they do? Why else belong to LinkedIn? As adults we hate the idea of not being well known as much as any teenager.

Or Napoleon Bonaparte for that matter.

Lesson 3 courtesy of him next post.

“Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.” -Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

Napoleon Bonaparte is a fascinating character in the history of the evolution of war.  His understanding of how to upset the balance of power between nations remains fundamental to understanding the theory of International Relations and helps us to understand the recent behaviour of countries like Iran in the Middle East and Venezuela in South America.

Interestingly, his theory of war also informs business school teaching in something called ‘game-theoretic’ accounts of business. Game theory is basically the idea that where someone benefits they do so at the expense of someone else.

All things being equal, the best for both parties, is to maintain equilibrium, a balance between the different players.

Think about market share for a moment.

Assuming the market size remains constant then the only way to grow market share would be at the expense of someone else. Many strategies are designed to ‘take’ market share from competitors and then to hold on to it when they retaliate. Sounds a bit like warfare right?

Napoleon’s quotation above leads to some interesting lessons when applied to the world of business. Over the next couple of weeks let’s chat about these in some more detail.

Lesson 1- Glory is not forever.

How many companies who appeared on the first Fortune 500 list in 1955 are still there today? 71.

That means, in 54 years, 86% have disappeared off the list completely.

Nearly 2000 companies have appeared on the list since it started and many are long gone.

What then does appearing on the list say about a company’s chances of enduring?

Think about Bear Stearns, previously 156 on the list, and gone in a weekend?

Think for a moment of other iconic brands here in SA that have over time surrendered their independence or disappeared completely: Springbok Radio, Capital 604, Eskimo Pie (ice lolly), Chipstix, Take Two (chocolate), Allied, UBS, NBS, FlightStar, Health & Racquet?

But if the alternative is obscurity, isn’t it better to have experienced glory for a short period even if you know you will lose it in the future.

Leadership is inspiring.  Be inspired.

A couple of years ago I enjoyed quoting a stat concerning the greatest selling artists of all time. 

Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and the Beatles would be in the top three slots depending on who you talked to but number four was almost always a surprise—a country mega star by the name of Garth Brooks whose popularity remains such that he performed at the Obama Inaugural Concert—yup he was the guy in the cowboy hat you had probably never heard of.  Even so, most of the adult contemporary stations in SA have placed his songs ‘The River’ and ‘Into the fire’ in their Top 10 at some point in time. 

The commercial reality though is that Elvis Presley became far more popular in death, as did the Beatles after the assassination of John Lennon, than they ever were in life. 

The same will probably be said for the King of Pop himself Michael Jackson and, although I never did a moonwalk myself, as an 80’s teenager I cannot remember a party or night club that didn’t include an ‘eek’ or a ‘ooh’ by him or his Jackson Five brothers.

One of the greatest influences Garth Brooks had though was that he realised that it was possible to be a cross over artist—country to pop—which would increase an artist’s commerciality. 

He set the scene for artists like Shania Twain, Faith Hill, Leanne Rhymes and more recently Taylor Swift. 

Someone like Ronan Keating (or Ronan Cheating as I call him) simply took hits from the country charts and repackaged them for Pop.  ’If tomorrow never comes’ was a hit for Alison Krausse and  the  Union Station six years before it was for him. 

Looking at the back to back coverage that Michael Jackson’s death received on everything from Sky and eTV to CNN and Al Jazeera I am struck by how inadequate TV is. 

Yes it can place the reporters on scene and you have the same screen shot of a coroner’s van leaving the LA County Coroner’s office 20 times over but to get a real sense of Michael Jackson the artist you have to switch on the radio.  

Michael Jackson lives in our minds—each song brings back a memory that plays an important role in our lives be it ‘Beat it’ or ‘Billie Jean’, ‘Heal the world’ or the spookiness of ‘Thriller’.

Gary Allen, another hot country star right now, has a song I enjoy no end—it’s called ‘Nothing on but the radio’ – imagine the play on words. One moment he is thinking about having dinner with the love of his life with ‘Nothing on but the radio’ and in another … well you get the picture. 

If we were looking for a radio anthem I couldn’t think of anything better than ‘Nothing on but the radio’. 

Can you? 

Now imagine if the only memory we had of Michael Jackson was what we heard him sing on the radio?  No tabloid stories, no LA County Court House shots. 

Nothing on but the radio. 

Stephen Covey asks each of us to think about the eulogy we would like people to deliver at our funeral one day.  His point is we should live our lives the way we would like to be remembered. 

Good point. Have a great week.

How to be a good boss in a bad economy is the main theme in a series of articles I have read recently.  They could just as well have been titled: How to be a good person in a bad economy.  The point is pretty much the same: 

As the economy gets tougher so the potential for unethical business practice grows. 

Salaries don’t go as far as they did—white collar crime goes up.  Customers demand more for less— service levels go down. 

The budget becomes unattainable—manipulation of the numbers by the executive becomes a hobby. 

Margins are placed under pressure—the marketing team goes into overdrive to explain how you only think you are getting less for more.  You know differently. 

Consumers start looking for someone to blame—the Competition Commission becomes more aggressive. 

People become more insecure—they head off to business school. 

And so the storyline develops but the principle of cause and effect becomes ever clearer as the economy tightens.  

Research shows that people in leadership positions become less mindful of others’ feelings and needs.  I wonder why that is? 

It could be the politicization of a conversation as you develop greater influence (here influence is the ability to make a difference).  This process of politicization makes you cynical to the point you don’t listen to people because they only want something from you. 

Maybe it is because you stop allowing yourself to be distracted by the day to day issues of the ‘little person’ because if you do you would never get anything done.  Or perhaps it is just a matter that you have learned that you are the sort of person who interrupts others who say something can’t be done by doing it yourself anyway.  Whatever it is this much I do know: 

People want to know you care. 

They want to know that they will be treated fairly, with compassion, with respect.  They want to know you trust them and want to know they can trust you.  Their fortunes are tied in with yours—if you fail as a leader they fail as a follower.  They are not always certain the reverse is true.

They want to know you are control even when you don’t feel you are. 

They want reassurance that things will get better.  Sometime. 

They want predictability and they want honesty. Me or you.  It doesn’t matter.  We both have people who depend on us—our families, our friends, our customers.  Maybe even that stranger whose life was made a little easier because of something you did.  The economy is tough—we know what people are looking for. 

We know what they want us to do.

Do we trust too much? Broadly speaking opinions can be divided into two categories—category one consists of those people who, because of past experience, admit to not trusting enough. Implied is that this is not a good thing and has a negative effect on interpersonal relationships. Category two consists of those people who think we are way too gullible and accept people at face value when they have done nothing to deserve the trust we have placed in them. Implied here is that this is not a good thing either and it too has a negative effect on interpersonal relationships. Now I am pretty certain that the vast majority of people fall somewhere between these two poles and implied here is that we need to be ’discerning’ in whom we trust and whom we do not trust. Fair enough but I think too easy.

Trust is critical to human flourishing. We are born with an instinctive need to trust because we are helpless on our own. Babies have to rely on their mothers for survival. Children are brought up to trust that people in positions of authority are trustworthy. Is it any wonder that when you ask a kid what they want to be when they grow up usually the response is they want to be a doctor, teacher, policemen, firemen, paramedic? Our survival as an adult however also depends on our willingness to trust each other. I have to trust that you will obey the rules of the road. It’s reciprocal trust borne out of a desire to stay alive. I have to trust that my neighbours are decent law abiding citizens who will be reasonable when it comes to areas of disagreement. If they aren’t, my life and that of my family, is less pleasant. When I employ someone I have to trust that they are honest in what they have placed in their CV and that the study they have completed has been evaluated appropriately by the conferring authority. If not, I will end up with someone who doesn’t have the technical skills to do the job. And then consider the world of media, advertising, marketing and sales. As a professional in these areas of business it is always humbling to realise how much people trust us. They trust us to adhere to the Electronic Communications Act, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission ‘guidelines’ and Advertising Standards Authority code of conduct. They trust us to enrich their lives.

Society, if you think about it, can only survive if we trust one another. I have to trust that when I turn on the tap clean, healthy water will come out of it. I have to trust that when I turn on the lights they come on and stay on. I have to trust that when I become a victim of crime that the authorities will do their job and bring the perpetrators to justice. And if I can’t trust then the implications for society are catastrophic. Now think about something as simple as me asking a stranger the time. I have to trust they will tell me the truth. Same for directions. Implied here is that I trust the person I am asking to tell the truth without even having spoken to them. Why is that? For one thing I have taken visual cues from them—what they look like and who they are. We trust people who look like us or who belong to our community and distrust those who are not. Consider the implications for business. Rarely do we work with people who look like us and often we don’t belong to the same community. We work in a microcosm of South African society with every gender, age, religion, race, language and sexual orientation imaginable. Same for our customers and other stakeholder groups. If we don’t look alike, and belong to different social groups, how are we supposed to trust? It starts with knowledge and respect. Once trust has been established we develop intimacy and collaboration—which is another word for teamwork.

So what does all this mean? Trust because it makes life better—for all of us. But take time to know someone who you are going to trust … starting with the people you work with.

I was sent this by one of my friends in ‘low places’ (thank you Rina) and thought it was a well written opinion on why President Barack Obama represents a different type of moral leadership.

EnlightenNext magazine has entered the blogosphere, enabling us to share our perspective, in real time, on current events. A great example is executive editor Carter Phipps’s post on President Obama’s recent trip to the Middle East and Europe. Reflecting on the gritty business of global politics, Phipps suggests that Obama represents a new kind of moral leader:

To tell us what you think about this, visit the EnlightenNext Editors’ Blog and post a comment!