Fault, responsibility and strategy - or none of the above...

Dear oh dear - what a mess.

Ian Austin, the former Managing Partner and Executive Chairman of Halliwells, has been talking to "The Lawyer" (see here for their story) - or rather he has been giving his version of their descent into administration. It turns out that it was the partners' fault, or the external consultants, or the boards' or... someone else's decision or fault. I quote one example from Mr. Austin:

the decision to move into Spinningfields was a decision taken by a board, by external consultants [Sheppard Robson] in conjunction with group heads. This was not a decision of my own making..

What? He was the Managing Partner - his is the responsibility, whether or not it was his fault. He is also quoted as saying that the loss of the insurance team in December last year was the "straw that broke the camel's back". One of the comments on the story points out that his firm was still recruiting & promoting 6 months later.  In a limited company or a PLC surely this would be "trading insolvently"...?

I suppose I should be more shocked at the lack of responsibility that is shown here and at the lack of strategic thinking that allowed the firm to distribute £15million to the equity partners in 2008 (keeping  a whole £5million for investment in the future - well in the firm's future). Mr. Austin's excuse/justification for this seems to be along the lines of "the money was there and we wanted it" or "at the time everything looked rosy". On a much larger scale this is like saying "I didn't need an umbrella - it wasn't raining yesterday. It's not my fault I got soaked". I'm not sure this even qualifies as short term planning.

As I said in a previous blog (see here), one of the most shocking aspects of the Halliwells debacle is that the equity partners walked into new jobs - the very people responsible for the mess are those least affected by it. Mr. Austin himself negotiated his own safe transfer from the sinking ship before the deal on Halliwells' assets was completed - an action he justifies as being "...the right thing for me."

That last phrase sums up the state of management and ethical behaviour in Halliwells - the equity partners removed £15million of cash from the firm 18 months before it went bust because they wanted it; the same people walked into new roles, leaving trainees and junior staff to their fate, because they could and it was the best thing for them. With that level of strategic thinking and personal thinking rather than firm thinking, my only wonder is that it took them so long to go bust. I'm sure Manches are heaving a huge sigh of relief that they didn't merge (or buy) with Halliwells in 2009.

Style and Substance

So - the great UK "Leaders' Debate" starts this evening. The leaders of the three main political parties will engage in a live TV debate (the first of three) in what is supposed to be the centre-piece of the forthcoming general election. Most of the media agencies have been gearing up for these debates for ages (take the BBC for example) - desperately trying to encourage the viewing/listening/reading public to believe that these debates are fantastically important to the outcome of the election. Sadly they are probably right.

I say sadly because I would really like the election to be decided by issues of policy and belief. I agree with Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News who said (sarcastically) today on his Twitter feed:

"Thankfully election TV debates are decided by serious issues like sweat, suits, looking at watches, put-downs and one-liners... Not trivia like policy, candour or answering a question"

In another part of their site (here), the BBC itemise the ways in which the debates could change the election and cite "The Gaffe" and "The Reaction Shot" amongst their list. I find this very depressing - that there is so little to choose - apparently - amongst the main parties that an accidental error in an 90 minute live broadcast or even a look of surprise or anger might swing the election. Are we electing the best party to run the country - and don't forget that we actually don't get to vote on the party leader unless we happen to be a member of that party (there is nothing to stop all three parties changing leader the day after the election) - or are we electing the best performer, the best trained actor or the main with the best media coach?

In an ideal world it should be both style and substance. In an ideal election we would all:

1. Know the policies of all the parties in detail
2. Be in a position to question both our own local candidate and party leaders
3. Have a good understanding of our own context and that of the country and understand the macro political/economic/social environment - and so be able to select the most appropriate leaders

All that being equal we might easily then choose the best looking candidate or the one with the best sense of humour or dress. I suggest however that the substance is more important than the style.

Of course, we are not engaged in an ideal election. The parties seem to assume that we all care about style and that the detail of the content - the real substance of their case - can wait until after the election. Vague promises seem to be the order of the day. It is, after all, about politics - not about common sense.

I had a discussion yesterday with a friend in a law firm who will soon be voting for a new Managing Partner. It would seem that he is in the same position as I am with the "Leaders' Debate". The candidates for Managing Partner (I was going to shorten that to MP but even I found it confusing) are already positioning themselves with regard to the wider partnership and political stances are being taken. Promises are being made and factions established. I suggested, naively it turns out, that the partners should ask the candidates about their leadership styles and about their managerial experience and plans. "Don't be ridiculous", I was told "it's not about skills - its about power". It is, apparently, about who has built the best power-base; who has the right "friends" and about who has made the right promises.

In law firms, as with the country as a whole, it would seem that (often) style is much more important than substance. Sadly even if I accept that this statement is true (and I suppose that I have to) - it is only true during an election. After the election it is the substance that will be important - the substance that will drag the economy out of the mess it is in and the substance that will position the country (or the firm) over the next four to five years. Surely, then, we should all be looking for our leaders a little more closely through the style at the substance?