THE SHIFT TO THRIFT

Background:

There was a time when people would choose a company because of what the company stood for. This was always to do with ethics, values and a great standing in the community at large. Most of all, these were values that most employees wanted to be part of.

Every proud parent would stay awake at night praying that their children would join an organisation that would look after them much in the way they had looked after them.

People were not after short term jobs. They wanted careers.

For those of us in the UK this meant firms like Marks & Spencer, BP, Unilever or Barclays Bank. In Europe it was the likes of Philips, Carrefour or Nestlé. In North America everyone was beating a path to the doors of Boeing, Procter & Gamble, GM or IBM.

They were "academy" businesses and all had striking similarities.

Academy Rules:

- Strong, market-facing brands
- Rock solid employer brands
- Paternalistic cultures
- Strong ethos and values
- Long average length of service
- Low staff turnover
- "Best in class" training and development
- Prominent staff welfare programmes
- Generous pension schemes
- Home-grown, "caring" leaders with a huge knowledge of their industry
- Strong recruitment processes
- Job circulation within the business - "15 jobs in 35 years"
- A string of non-financial perks (staff discounts, free dentist, interest-free loans, free hairdressing etc.)

Historically there were no financial bonuses but still the "best of the best" school leavers, apprentices and graduates would dream of working for one of these organisations.

And if you did get in you never left.

Every employee became an ambassador for the business and was proud to show off their business cards at every opportunity.

The Quarter Culture:

The increasing demands by city analysts for rock-solid forecasts of quarterly earnings, followed by a myopic stranglehold on the delivery of those forecasts, has created an environment that has long since replaced this model; the quarter culture.

The only perceived measurement of success has become the delivery of quarterly targets and in recent years this has moved from being a guideline target to an unhealthy obsession and blood commitment of the board of directors.

Far too many industries leave behind any form of common sense, business acumen or compassion in the week the quarter finishes and it has created a generation of customers who wait until the last few days of a quarter to get the best deals out of desperate sales people.

More businesses than ever are run on a quarterly basis and to reinforce these heavily structured deliverables, targets, behaviours and thinking, we have witnessed the rise and rise of the quarterly bonus.

Even if bonuses are paid annually, they are normally the aggregation of quarterly performance ratios.

For the very short term this seemed to establish performance cultures where people seemingly moved faster, delivered more and fostered a "can do" attitude.

But the reality is that it killed team playing and collaboration, announced the promotion of the individual, destroyed humility and eventually brought down business after business.

Investment banks showed it at its most acute. People became obsessed with delivery over quality; creating corrosive problems such as sub-prime mortgages and toxic assets.

Even worse it saw the re-emergence of replicas of Wall Street's Gordon Gekko, even down to his memorable mantra, "greed is good".

Something has to give.

Built To Last:

Many people hark back to the "good old days" and we are usually the first to dismiss nostalgia and encourage all to escape the pull of the past.

But the current global recession is telling us to think a little differently. And in this case differently means looking back to look forward.

When a business is in serious trouble we always get them to go back to a time when the business worked well and then understand what has changed.

For many of our great global institutions, they need to go back to their time as "academy" businesses.

Just look at two topical names - BP and Woolworths.

Under the last days of Lord John Browne, BP lost its moral compass; it became a little too arrogant and big for its boots.

They allowed their marketers to go just a step too far and when they changed their name from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum.

People just didn't believe them; their green credentials simply didn't stack up.

The culture meant that people on the inside were too scared to speak out whilst the business' values moved further and further away from those of their customers.

In short, nobody knew what BP stood for anymore.

When Tony Hayward took over he put BP back on the path they used to tread and went back to where they came from. He positioned the business to take advantage of its strengths and made no hiding of the fact that BP is a petroleum company.

And a very successful one at that.

Investment in new technology such as wind farms and solar energy was no longer seen as proof of BP's green credentials but as a necessary eye on the future to ensure its survival and competitiveness.

Behind the scenes and BP is inexorably returning to an "academy" business once more.

Woolworths never took the look backwards.

By the time the retailer came to its predictable demise, nobody knew what it stood for; be it the leadership, employees or customers.

There was only going to be one result.

Both passed our "academy" rules during their golden trading periods but whereas BP took the time to change, Woolworths kept blindly following the quarter culture just because it was "the thing to do".

Unilever:

The new CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, recently dropped issuing financial targets and suggested the company may do away with such guidance permanently.

"I just happened to be the first one (to drop financial targets), but the amount of correspondence I got from many people in the industry was quite encouraging," he said.

"Many would privately say, especially American companies: 'I wish I could do that' ... the move to have less targets (externally) is not an unhealthy thing.

"I think it would be a good thing for the world if we formed new habits, and (avoid) chasing our tail, especially in businesses that are seasonal."

L'Oreal has since followed Unilever and with it the first steps are being taken to change the culture and revert to a different way of doing business.

But you don't have to be a huge multinational or conglomerate to have rock solid values and ethics and a strong ethos.

Every business can be an academy business.

It just needs inspired leadership to drive it through and a vision that is shared throughout the company, but most of all, values that all believe in and practice.

Perhaps the time really has come for a profound change in the way we run our businesses again.

What does your business stand for?

THE HEIR UNAPPARENT?

There’s an old saying that when the sea is calm, everyone is a great sailor. It is only when the storms come that real leadership counts.

Put another way, people show their true colours when under pressure.

The economic downturn that we find ourselves in makes for very choppy seas indeed and the difference between leadership and management is even more striking than it was before.

For management read strategy, process, procedure, systems, execution and an ever-increasing range of management tools such as league tables, balance scorecards and KPIs.

Put simply, it is about “making sure”. Whereas in the good times this was enough, in the downturn it isn’t. Management has become commoditised; everyone is doing it and most are doing it well.

Don’t get me wrong, management is crucial to run any business successfully but it is no longer enough in isolation.

There HAS to be leadership as well.

You’ve heard me say it plenty of times before but what has become increasingly apparent over the last few months is that leaders who are brilliant in the good times might not necessarily be the best in the downturn.

My guess is that most things our Chancellor and Prime Minister are doing to end the recession are probably the right things to do but they just cannot inspire us to believe them or energise us to change our behaviour. This is because they are managers not leaders.

And micro-managers at that.

What we need now is a little less forensic analysis of the detail and far more vision around the big picture. That requires inspirational leadership.

The passing of the baton from Blair to Brown demonstrates everything that is wrong with succession plans hatched by the incumbent protagonists. How did the Labour party allow Blair and Brown themselves to determine the party’s future?

We’ll come back to that later.
The rules of engagement are changing and you only have to look at the average length of service for UK and US chief executives and you can see that they are shortening dramatically. It is now just under 4 years in the US and 3½ years in Europe.

Time and again we have seen some of the best people outstay their welcome and in the fast moving yet unforgiving business world we are living in, those organisations on top of their game are refreshing their CEOs regularly to keep current and up to date.

But still some of the best leaders hold on and have their outstanding reputations tarnished.

Thatcher. Blair. Lord John Browne. Sir Fred Goodwin.

Even from here I can feel football supporters shouting out, “but what about someone like Sir Alex Ferguson?”

Well, he proves a different point. Over the course of his illustrious career he has stayed fresh, vibrant and contemporary by regularly changing his deputy. In doing so, he has refreshed himself.

But importantly, his first four years at Manchester United were barren and it is not clear whether even this well run club would be that patient now.

When someone has been in power too long and finally gets deposed there is always an urge to replace them with someone who is the polar opposite, rather than selecting the right person for the job in rapidly changing times. For Margaret Thatcher read John Major, for Tony Blair read Gordon Brown, Mandela and Mbeki, Brown and Hayward at BP, Goodwin and Hester at RBS.

Despite everyone knowing that nothing stays still, there are countless examples of no natural successor being in place for when the time comes, especially when the leader has an air of invincibility. Most potential successors will not hang around long if they do not feel there is any chance of the boss moving on. Consequently, when the incident comes that finishes off the once great leader (and it will come) panic sets in and the resulting outcome almost appears to be pot luck based on the prevailing mood or having to “make do” with what is available.

We saw the mess at Chelsea when Mourinho walked out. When the leader appears to have it all, the organisation and its stakeholders seem to assume that golden eras never end, but they do, and how.

Succession planning is always seen as another management process.

But guess what? It should be about leadership.

In the army, leaders are always groomed and ready to step up to the plate if the leadership falls. So why can’t businesses and governments be the same?

Still there is a tendency at the very top of UK PLC to “recruit” the personnel for the top positions from the questionable talent pool of the “old boys club”, overlooking in the process the real issue at stake; growing the business and not lining the pockets of your old school pals.

Take a look at BP as we speak.

The company is recommending Sir Tom McKillop (an old friend and ally of current chairman Sir Peter Sutherland) be re-elected to its board despite Sir Tom’s record as the former RBS chairman who signed off Sir Fred Goodwin’s pension, failed to act on shareholder concerns over Goodwin, supported the disastrous takeover of ABN Amro and quietly contributed to the tarnished image that has engulfed the banking profession.

It is an appointment that can only end in tears for the reputation of BP.

Something has got to change.

So let’s start the relatively simple process right here with two golden rules.

Firstly, the current leader can’t pick the candidates. They simply cannot and must not have too much say. Again, look at the Blair / Brown transition on how not to do it. Secondly, the succession should be ‘owned’ at the most senior level possible in the organisation. It must not be left to HR. Of course they are an integral part of the solution but it sometimes demands a confrontation that HR would rarely win.

If allowed to make the decision over their successor, the current incumbent so often falls into one of two traps; they choose a non-threatening foil that sustains their own reign or they choose someone exactly in their own image.

Instead the process should be left to the chairmen or independent directors.

We can all learn something from the US Presidential elections; two strikes and you’re out with absolutely no say in who replaces you.

It’s a simple way of facing up to the fact that we have different leaders in different eras and just because they were once great, they might no longer be relevant.

In business the days of the twenty year boss, even the ten year boss, are long gone. And it’s not just in business that the sands are shifting; the days of a Sir Alex Ferguson-type spell at the top are never going to happen again. The likes of a Tony Blair ten year reign should never be ALLOWED to happen again.

The business market place is so unrelenting, aggressive and unforgiving that it needs fresh leadership on a more frequent basis. In fact, it needs to be forced; an eight year upper limit should be set.

But the current CEOs, MDs and leaders will not hear of such a move. People like Sir Fred Goodwin, Lord John Browne or Sir Stuart Rose have always historically surrounded themselves with people that daren’t suggest that perhaps their time has come.

Even the likes of the quite brilliant Steve Jobs at Apple should not be allowed to stay forever. His tragic illness has exposed a yawning gap at Apple.

You need instead to have a strong, forceful board that provides support, challenge and vitally, change.

Even then there are pitfalls. If you make the succession plan an open competition both internally and externally then it leads to a drawn-out turf war with bitter internecine warfare.

And when the winner emerges, they immediately kill all of their rivals. Again look at how Brown has decimated the cabinet he inherited. All likely and potential challengers have been quickly removed.

So what to do?

The clues have come in the downturn. CEOs are being ousted regularly due to bad results and falling profits, with no heir apparent. The immediate perceived sign of weakness, and a potential power vacuum, is quickly reflected in plummeting shares.

But look at the change at the top for the Prudential for an example of how it should be handled. The changeover has been grabbing headlines due to the new incumbent Tidjane Thiam being the first black CEO of a FTSE 100 company but underneath that landmark achievement the process has been immaculate.

The outgoing CEO Mark Tucker resigned unexpectedly after four successful years in the role, quoting “it was a tough thing to do but I’ve put into place many of the things I set out to do.”

Him departing on a high and leaving the company in good shape for a new round of fresh, innovative ideas was a masterstroke.

The market reacted positively to Prudential's results and management shuffle, with Pru shares soaring as much as 28 percent.

Kevin Ryan, an analyst at ING said it all. “The results were good and they gave a good account of themselves. I thought the markets would like Tidjane, he is better suited to CEO than CFO."

Succession planning doesn’t have to be a blood bath. It just needs to be done regularly, sensibly and not allow one individual to make all the decisions.

So now is the time to answer the really tough question that only the authentic leaders ask themselves – am I still the right person to lead this organisation? Why? Could someone do it better?

When I’m called into an SME that is struggling to get to the next level in the good times or fighting for survival in the downturn, it is essential that the toughest question is confronted early on. Why should these people be led by you now?

It is uncomfortable and bordering on rude but it is necessary and does not have to be aggressive or confrontational.

But it must not be avoided.

The entrepreneurial spirit, vision and courage of the founder are usually irreplaceable in the formative years. They generally put the necessary processes in place, hire the top team single-handedly and cut all the initial deals with all the suppliers.

It means that they tend to make all the calls and all the decisions, without consultation. As the business grows, the organisation will need bigger and better people who, in the main, will not respond well to a prescriptive and commanding style of leadership.

The same things happen in huge multi-nationals when the leader has been around for a long time and especially if they have been successful.

This then becomes the crucial time for the private fireside chat with a senior member of the top team or the ‘critical friend’ (the chairman or the non-executive director).

It is never easy but usually when pointed out forcefully and supportively, it tends to have the desired effect. Different environments demand different approaches and no one leader is right for every occasion, no matter how brilliant they have been in the past.

Is it time for a change at the top of your organisation?

At the time of this blog going to press it seems common sense has prevailed and Sir Tom McKillop has released a statement saying that he will no longer seek re-election on the BP board at the group's annual meeting in two weeks time, amid growing concern from investors.

THE LEADERSHIP VOID

Whilst the UK took for granted ten years of almost uninterrupted economic plenty up until the unprecedented credit crunch and downturn of last year, few realised at the time that it was the confidence of strong and visible leadership that was underpinning our vibrant economy.

There were many things to hold against Tony Blair during his years as Prime Minister but leadership was not one of them.

Whether we agreed with or liked what he had to say or not, he could lead.

Many say that it was the only thing he was brilliant at but let’s make no mistake; it was due in no small measure to his optimism, vision and deft communication that the nation enjoyed this decade of prosperity.

He energised a nation away from inward-looking trade unions, industrial strife and dependency on the welfare state and picked up Margaret Thatcher’s baton of independence, self-sufficiency and free market policies.

Everyone wanted to invest in the UK.

From Abbey National, BAA and the London Stock Exchange to Jaguar Land Rover, Manchester United and O2, huge swathes of UK PLC have been sold over the last ten years to foreign investors.

But this was vital to Blair’s vision to make London the financial capital of the world and the results were there for everyone to see. The money never stopped pouring in as deals, deals and more deals were conducted at breathtaking speed with “light-touch regulation”.

Put quite simply, it was easier buying a business in Britain than in the US, Europe or any other Western economy.

This was wealth creation at its finest and even when there were hiccups along the way, Tony Blair was there to reassure us and tell us that everything would be fine.

And the ugly truth of the matter is that even when we didn’t agree with what was going on, we would look in our wallets or check our bank balances and everything would seem fine once again.

When the media were screaming for his head over the invasion of Iraq, the business community kept their heads down and said little; it marked the beginning of the tension between ideology and prosperity that we are feeling even more markedly now.

Because now there is a leadership void.

With Barack Obama filling that void and offering a new vision of the future for the US, it is imperative that Britain and Europe do the same. There is a leadership crisis and whenever there is an issue surrounding leadership you must go back to the last time it was right to fix it again for the future.

In the UK it wasn't that long ago at all.

During New Labour’s first two successful terms in charge we benefited from the dream team; the visionary, optimistic and clear communicator Blair leading the country and the solemn, taciturn and pragmatic Brown in charge of the treasury.

Brown was a great foil for the more risk-embracing Blair, as were the big hitters that made up the rest of the cabinet. From Robin Cook and Charles Clarke to Peter Mandelson and David Blunkett, all had their own ideas and were difficult to manage but easy to lead.

Times have changed considerably.

It is inconceivable that anyone who knows anything about leadership would have considered Gordon Brown as THE candidate for Prime Minister from such a collection of individuals and most now know that if Brown had gone to the nation in his early days for a vote then he would have failed miserably.

We are victims of a lack of democracy, as are many of our businesses. If you are ever in any doubt as to someone’s leadership qualities then put it to the workforce or nation; they will know what they need.

Tony Blair had an entrepreneurial spirit but Gordon Brown doesn’t. Therefore the outlook for entrepreneurs in 2009 remains bleak, for as long as Brown and Darling remain in charge of the economic direction.

With the business community screaming out for help at the end of 2008 they took the unbelievable decision to cut the VAT rate. It was ham-fisted, short sighted and reinforced once more the feeling that nobody in the cabinet “gets” business.

The lifeblood of any Western economy comes in the form of SMEs and entrepreneurs, and without suitable lending and overdrafts from the banks these companies and individuals simply freeze. The government has failed to act with any form of leadership or authority to get this situation to change and still the effects of the credit crunch loom over us for the New Year.

Darwinian forces always apply in business and we need entrepreneurs to not only create wealth but take the bull by the horns and act whilst the government continues to blunder.

Perhaps it’s time for entrepreneurs to help entrepreneurs.

We had a great experience at the Inspired Leaders Network last year when Brad Rosser, former right hand man to Sir Richard Branson and renowned business builder, was interviewed at one of our sessions.

At the end of the evening four or five budding entrepreneurs swamped Brad with their ideas. He has since gone on to become Chairman and shareholder for at least one of them and they are blossoming with his help; having shunned more conventional methods to expand in the downturn.

It is a model we must continue to adapt.

The “big hitters” such as Sir Richard Branson, Sir Tom Hunter and Sir Philip Green have been laying down this framework for years and are now as much renowned for investing in new projects as they are for their work with their own organisations and with it wealth creation can continue to flourish whilst governments stall.

And the best part of all?

The actual money invested is just one part of the process. The expertise and confidence that “big hitters” bring to those with the new ideas means these embryonic businesses are given the insights and wisdom that investment alone never brings.

Money is invested to create more money and more jobs and success stories inspire others to follow the lead.

After all, success breeds success.

Perhaps it’s a lesson our government should heed.

LEHMAN BROTHERS

Six months ago at one of our Inspired Leaders Network sessions, a guest rightly predicted that Bear Stearns was in serious trouble and on the brink of going under.

He then went on to say that Lehman Brothers were next. It was greeted with a stunned silence around the room but in both cases he proved to be exactly on the money.

So how did he predict both unlikely outcomes whilst others were oblivious to the problems of these financial powerhouses?

In truth, they were both accidents waiting to happen.

Put simply, investment banks rely solely on a strong brand and great people; meaning they have the best talent to make staggering deals and think the unthinkable.

But with these “untouchable” people seemingly bringing in a never ending and ever-increasing revenue stream, there have been no checks and no balances put in place, with the once positive risk-embracing cultures in which they thrived being allowed to get out of hand. At some point a landmine was bound to be stepped on.

Retail and commercial banks are entirely different; they have their own assets (their customers’ deposits) and as a consequence are at the other end of the spectrum and are almost totally risk-adverse.

The recent turmoil in the financial sector has meant that the retail banks are the ones that have had the security available to weather the storm and deal with the downturn. It has meant that we are now seeing the rise of the universal bank; ones in which the investment part of the business is funded by their retail arm. It is a far cry from investment banks that have been gambling other people’s assets.

It means that the face of banking is set to change forever and that the necessary risks are balanced by the need to preserve the organisation as a whole. Nobody is quite as blasé when gambling their own money.

Bank of America is one such universal bank and recently bought Merrill Lynch, with the same looking set to happen with Barclays buying out the principal assets of the beleaguered Lehman Brothers. Both are great moves that secure the future of thousands of jobs and encourage further wealth creation once confidence returns to the sector.

But the big question remains as to how the colliding cultures will combine and where the power lies. As ever, the answer lies with strong leadership.

Dick Fuld, Lehman Brothers’ chief executive, has always been regarded as one such leader. Big, strong, charismatic and nicknamed “the Gorilla” for his aggressive management style, Fuld turned a $102 million loss in 1993, the year before he took over as CEO, into a $4.2 billion profit last year.

His business felt he could walk on water; after all he didn’t just take all the spoils, he looked after his people and made them both wealthy and happy by spreading around billions of dollars in bonuses.

And yet by creating an environment where nobody challenged him, he became so bold and so brave that he considered himself invincible and emerged fixated on some of the most toxic and frothy investments around; such as high-risk mortgages.

His board failed to challenge him and despite the situation being discussed the world over, from warnings by city analysts, through to frequent media rumours of troubles ahead for the firm and even down to people at the Inspired Leaders Network mentioning it six months ago, he refused to acknowledge that Lehman Brothers was in difficulty.

He simply didn’t listen, believing the hype and thinking he was the maverick that would always prove everyone else wrong.

In order to feed his ego, he bet the farm.

Once in a while we all find ourselves in the situation where we have to bet the business, which can be fine as long as you know you’re doing it.

Fuld got to the stage where everyone made him feel invincible, so he didn’t know.

If ever there was a situation in the business world that showcased three fundamental rules of leadership then this was it; Fuld failed to surround himself with people that were better than him, could compensate for his weaknesses or even stand up to him.

A year ago Stan O’Neal was forced to resign from his post as CEO of Merrill Lynch after losing the confidence of his boardroom colleagues. The people around him WERE strong enough to stand up to him and now after their buyout, their future seems safe.

Dick Fuld should have been kicked out long ago and with it Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy could have almost certainly been avoided if the organisation had acted sooner on the advice and warnings from all around.

Now it’s all over and once again it shows that no matter how great the leader, everyone needs to be challenged.

Unfeted power ALWAYS becomes intoxicating and dangerous.

TRANSCENDING RACE

Even on the cosmopolitan streets of London we still find it difficult to have open conversations about race.

Yet every now and again there is an event that puts race at the top of the agenda across all the media.

Usually the spark that lights the tinderbox is a tragedy; from Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor to the increasing levels of knife and gun crime amongst inner city gangs.

But sometimes it can take an issue that is far less clear cut; a story that becomes difficult to take sides and requires a little longer to reflect.

The grizzly demise of Ray Lewis as the Deputy Mayor for Young People is one such event that should have generated a meaningful and constructive debate.

Unfortunately it won’t. Instead it will degenerate into spurious scandal with whispers of racial motives.

Of course it takes all eyes away from the simple point that has been sorely lacking in the coverage of the build up to and fall out from his resignation.

How does Ray’s departure help reduce the violence on our streets in London?

For many in the city, Ray Lewis is still the right man to help deal with the problems of street crime and how to get the best out of youths that have strayed to the wrong side of town. Whether he is Deputy Mayor or not, most just want to see the problem resolved.

And make no mistake about it; Ray Lewis is the man to tackle youth crime head on.

I was invited to Ray’s Eastside Young Leaders Academy with my son a few months ago and three things struck me about our meeting.

Firstly, Ray is an inspirational leader who “gets it”. Secondly, there was tangible and demonstrable evidence of the change he was making to predominantly young black boys who were otherwise heading for incarceration.

Lastly, in the brochure about the project I couldn’t help but notice a large number of Tory “grandees” amongst the movers and shakers behind the scenes at the Academy.

After spending a couple of compelling and hard hitting hours in Ray’s company I remember leaving feeling uplifted, realising that whilst patrons and trustees of such an organisation would probably have come from the Labour Party in the past, now it appeared that the greater good and social conscience was bridging the gap across the political fence.

It was obvious to me and my son that Ray’s role and approach needed amplification across London because he was having considerable success in transforming many children’s lives.

But did he need to be go and be part of the Mayor’s office to carry on doing that and expanding on that?

The temptation to politicise his role and contribution was unfortunately one of the key factors in his downfall.

I know so many community leaders that are doing a fantastic job despite not having a squeaky clean past. In fact it is because of this that they have the authority that resonates with today’s youth and enables them to connect and inspire change.

Ray is eloquent and hugely articulate but most of all supremely street wise and well connected.

Surely he should have been made a specialist advisor if he had wanted to take advantage of what the Mayor’s office could bring to his “reach”?

The focus would then have remained on what he could bring to the table rather on how he got there before.

The real loss is the opportunity that has passed.

Here was a man that was elevated into the public eye and shot down almost instantly by forces that simply saw a sitting duck to harm their political enemies.

Did the claims against Ray have any relevance as to how he would have gone about reducing the levels of youth crime in London?

Despite the hubris in the papers about another black role model being engulfed in scandal, the focus should not be about race.

It should be about leadership and playing people to their strengths to overcome a problem.

Boris took the necessary move to build a team around him that compensated for his weaknesses. In Ray he picked exactly the right man to spearhead a campaign to make our streets safer and get to the hub of the burning problems of our disaffected youth.

Unfortunately he put him in the wrong role.

As a nation we remain obsessed with structure and job titles and not on outcomes. With a simple adjustment of where Ray fit in Boris’ team, and how he was positioned to the media, he could still be in his role today and doing what he does best.

This sad episode has no winners but us Londoners are certainly the losers.

EN VOGUE...?

In the July issue of Italian Vogue only black models have been used as a reaction to recent anger over the reluctance of fashion magazines to feature black models on their covers, with the levels of exposure for black women among the lowest since the 1960s.

Back in the late Nineties during my time at IPC media, if we put a black artist on the cover of NME or Melody Maker it was invariably followed by a drop in sales of about 50%.

It appears to still be a problem today with Vogue admitting they are expecting perhaps their worst sales figures ever as a consequence of their choice to use black models solely for the issue.

And then we have Jay-Z headlining Glastonbury this year, with his appearance bringing adverse headlines and negative press to the event, culminating in sluggish ticket sales for the legendary festival.

To top it off, Britain’s most senior Muslim officers in the Metropolitan Police are planning drastic action to highlight claims of discrimination at the very top of the force.

Just what is going on?

With the current favourite for the next US election being black, just how far off the pace is the UK when it comes to issues of race?

EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION

There has been no fiercer topic for debate in the UK over the last 10 years than education, education, education. It was at the cornerstone of many of Tony Blair's policies and was scrutinised and criticised at every turn by the media.

Many have said a good and standardised education is the absolute key to success for not only the pupils and schools but the parents and nation, and increasingly every aspect of our education is being measured. But in amongst the debate over the merits of private schools vs state schools, is it perhaps leadership that has the most pivotal part to play in the shaping of our future?