Blog

During what was, in effect, an acceptance speech last night, Hillary Clinton emphasized her place in history – so far as history pertains to women.

There is, however, another way of reckoning with what happened. In the 21^st century have been back to back President Barack Obama, and Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton. These are not just victories of sorts for African Americans, and for women. They are the most powerful possible indicators of how the world has changed – how those at the bottom rose to the top.

In the not so distant past African Americans were enslaved. And in the not so distant past women were, “if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.” To all appearances, both groups were without any power whatsoever, or any authority.

The reality, however, was different. During the 19^th century abolitionists and feminists, often yoked in the quest for their rights, found ways to demand what rightfully was theirs. And during the 20^th century Martin Luther King penned “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” and Betty Friedan The Feminine Mystique. No coincidence these classics of the leadership literature – these protests in prose – came out at the same time, both in 1963.

Similarly, no coincidence that just over a half century later Hillary Clinton is likely to succeed Barack Obama as chief executive. Leadership changes over time – and so does followership. What was once unimaginable now is.

Years ago my colleague, Stanley Renshon, a professor of political science at the City University of New York, wrote a book titled, The Psychological Assessment of Presidential Candidates (Routledge, 1998). Most of the time the book seems more academic exercise than anything else, not exactly mandatory reading when the choice of presidential candidates is between, say, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Whatever the political and ideological differences between the two men, they seemed at every juncture – not only during their presidential campaigns but during their entire adult lives – psychologically healthy enough to assume the American presidency.

Now, though, the situation is different. Now one of the candidates of one of the major parties, Donald Trump, raises questions about his psychological suitability for the nation’s highest office.

Until recently those who took issue with Trump’s candidacy raised questions about his ideological consistency and political reliability. But now I think it behooves us to confront a different issue. For Trump’s behavior all along, but especially in the last few weeks, has raised questions about no less than his mental health. Is this man psychologically healthy enough, mentally stable enough, to become chief executive and commander in chief?

In his book, Renshon recommends that we ask certain questions about all presidential candidates. Regarding Trump these five particularly apply:

• What evidence emerges from the campaign regarding the candidate’s temperament?
• Is the candidate easily excitable?
• Does he have trouble maintaining psychological balance and equilibrium?
• Does it take a lot or a little to throw him off balance?
• Are there specific things that throw the candidate off balance, such as questions regarding his integrity, his competence, his grasp of the issues, his record?

These are by no means the only relevant questions. Here’s another: Did the candidate make decisions only after consulting with a wide range of others – or did he tend to decide on his own? And another: What can be said about the candidate’s judgment?

In my lifetime Donald Trump is the only candidate for president representing one of the major parties that raises real concerns about psychological suitability. To dismiss these concerns as somehow inappropriate, or impossible adequately to address because Trump, like nearly every other leader, is unavailable for psychological scrutiny, is a dereliction of civic duty.

For the first time in years, the average compensation for chief executive officers was down, not up. Average CEO pay in 2015 was $19.3 million, down 15 percent from $22.6 million in 2014.

There was, however, a countertrend. Contrary to what might have been predicted – more women on more boards are widely viewed as tantamount to better corporate governance – companies with greater gender diversity paid their chief executives 15 percent more than companies with lesser gender diversity.

What’s going on here? The explanation provided by an expert on corporate governance, Nell Minow, to Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times, is the pressure on women to conform. Women, Minow said, “are under even more pressure to go along and get along.” Therefore, Minow suggests, in order not to be perceived as deviant, women vote in greater numbers for greater CEO pay packages.

This explanation would be more persuasive if the percentages of women on boards were lower. The pressure on minorities in groups and organizations to conform is great, but it is greatest when their numbers are lowest. When, in contrast, there is a critical mass, when the number of minority members approaches 30 percent of the total, this pressure is much less.

The following figures pertain:

• Of the 100 largest companies studied, 57 percent had boards on which women comprised more than 20 percent of the membership.
• At the 10 large US company boards with the greatest gender diversity, more than a third were women.

What can we deduce even from these numbers? First, that on the boards of some large US companies, the number of women did reach critical mass. Second, that many of those that did not reach critical mass, 30 percent women, did have many more women on their boards than mere tokenism would suggest. Third, that so far there is no evidence that if they were indeed equally represented, women on boards would decide on executive compensation differently from men on boards. Fourth, that what Nell Minow provides as explanation is speculation. There is as yet no evidence that confirms that on the issue of executive compensation, the pressure to conform is a, not to speak of the, determinant.

To be sure, although female representation on boards in some companies is relatively high, certainly in comparison with what it was even five years ago, female representation on critical committees, including compensation committees, remains low. This could turn out to be key. But, my point is that we do not now know why more companies with more women on their boards vote for more executive pay. All we know is that whatever the explanations, they are speculations.

Today’s Wall Street Journal features an article titled “Romney’s Lonely Challenge to Trump.”  As the headline suggests, it’s about how Mitt Romney, the Republican standard bearer during the 2012 presidential campaign, is taking a path that others fear to tread. Romney is making no bones about it: he detests Donald Trump and fears that he if he becomes president he will be a danger to us all.

Romney describes Trump’s attacks on him as “constant and brutal.” But, Romney adds, he has no qualms about taking him on, though he stands nearly alone in vocal opposition.  When asked why he is willing to be risk being relentlessly ridiculed by Trump – a few days ago Donald described Mitt as walking “like a penguin” –   Romney says, “I wanted my grandkids to see that I simply couldn’t ignore what Mr. Trump was saying and doing, which revealed a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world.”

I have considerable admiration for what Romney is doing. He does not, however, go far enough. He does not lead.

It’s one thing to take a stand. It’s quite another to take a stand and to rouse others to join your cause. We know full well that Mitt Romney is not alone. Large numbers of Republicans strongly agree with his opinion of Trump. But for whatever constellation of reasons – fear, greed, and the pressure to conform high among them – they are staying silent or even, in large numbers, falling into line.

If Romney continues to speak out in opposition to Trump, he will do the nation a favor. But if he fails to find followers, a leader he will not be.

To those among us who find the idea of a Trump presidency as onerous as incredulous, Hillary Clinton is a heartbreaker. Not a shocker exactly, as her history of evasion and deception is long. Still, at this critical moment in our nation’s history many of us were willing to move on, not to forgive or forget exactly, but to move on, given the likely alternative. Given that the only likely presidential alternative is Donald Trump.

Hillary makes difficult if not impossible the thought of voting for her with even a modicum of enthusiasm.  She’s too damned flawed.

Three of her greatest deficits are highlighted by the report of the State Department inspector general, which sharply criticized her exclusive use of a private e mail server while serving as secretary of state. The story is not new. But it does contain additional details which make it the more disturbing. In particular:

• Hillary Clinton violated the rules if not law by failing to keep proper records.
• Hillary Clinton secured staff members so cowed by her presence that they failed to speak truth to power.
• Hillary Clinton continues to deny, to obfuscate. She seems constitutionally unable to take responsibility – apology is not in her repertory.

“Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?”

“Bill” is one of the greatest songs in one of the greatest of all Broadway musicals – “Showboat.” The show – originally produced in 1927 and written by Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein – was immediately recognized as a watershed. It was one of the first story lines to mix seriousness and spectacle, one of the first popular entertainments to tackle the issue of race, and one of the first musicals to contribute to the culture a bevy of songs destined to endure as classics.

While some of these songs are as familiar as they are famous – “Ol Man River” is an example – others are less so. Others songs from “Showboat” are less familiar and less famous, though they are equally gorgeous – among them “Bill.”

“Bill” is a song of love, from a woman to a man, a man who is other than “god-like,” other than brilliant or fabulously handsome. To the contrary. This Bill, the Bill from “Showboat,” can’t play golf or tennis, he isn’t “tall or straight or slim, and he dresses far worse than Ted or Jim.” Rather this Bill is “an ordinary man,” nothing special, nothing to brag about. But he is, the song makes plain, a good man, a man who makes the woman singing the song feel good and “comfy.” He makes her feel secure and well loved, “because he’s just my Bill.”

The song came to mind as Hillary Clinton recently made plain yet again that her Bill, her husband Bill, Bill Clinton, was anything other than ordinary – he was extraordinary. Bill Clinton was so extraordinary, in fact, that if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States, she will, she said, put her husband “in charge of revitalizing the economy, because, you know, he knows how to do it.”

No mention of how exactly the former president would fit into a policy-making role in a second Clinton White House. No mention of precisely what part he would play alongside, say, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. No mention of what supposedly would be his portfolio. Instead her assumption is simple: her Bill is so remarkable a man that he can do something, successfully, that no one else has ever done before.

Here’s my view of it. Bill Clinton should be retired. He should retire himself, withdraw from consideration from any position in another Clinton administration. Nothing against either one of them. But if Hillary Clinton is elected president, one Clinton working in the White House will quite suffice, thank you.

Whatever his gifts may be, I at least have had quite enough. Enough of Bill Clinton extraordinary man. I pine for “Bill an ordinary man” – Bill who hasn’t got “a thing that I can brag about.”

I have written before about how leaders in business are coming to resemble leaders in government. Like the latter, the former are increasingly vulnerable to  those who would challenge or even revoke their ability to lead.

The cast of characters – of CEO challengers – is large. It includes, for example, newly impatient and emboldened boards, newly impatient and emboldened customers, and newly impatient and emboldened shareholder activists.

Shareholder activism is a recent phenomenon and shareholder activists were, until recently, easy to identify. Now though things are changing. Now familiar shareholder activists are being joined by unfamiliar ones – further expanding the pool of those ready, willing, and able to take on even the most vaunted of chief executives.

Previously most shareholder activists were titans of hedge funds, men such as William Ackman and Daniel Loeb who gained further fame and (usually) additional fortune by taking on companies they judged mismanaged or undervalued.  Now they are joined by a new group – single individuals acting in their own interest, who happen to own great gobs of a single stock.

A man by the name of David Sokol is an example. He owns 27% of an American community bank, Middleburg Financial. Recently Sokol pressured the bank to put itself on the chopping block – pressure that Middleburg has so far resisted. Instead Middleburg’s board offered Sokol a seat – which Sokol has so far similarly resisted. Stand-off between the bank’s leadership on the one side, and a single shareholder on the other.

Activism is clearly creeping, seeping, easing almost imperceptibly from the public sector into the private one. As one observer put it, “Activism has gone from being frowned upon, something that marks you out as a rogue or a maverick, to almost socially responsible…. Everyone else is respected for getting involved, so it is good that this is changing for shareholders too.” *

—————————————————-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/59691690-187d-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e.html#axzz48j0XifK2

The fear and loathing permeating democratic electorates is worldwide. Trumpism or its rough analogue is not just an America phenomenon – it is everywhere.

We see in places other than our own that the people are pissed. We see in places other than our own that democracy is being stretched. We see in places other than our own that leaders associated with establishments are in trouble. We see in places other than our own that the time of trouble is affecting not only leaders in the public sector, but in the private and nonprofit ones as well. We see in places other than our own that threats – real or perceived – such as climate change, immigration, terrorism, and economic uncertainty are driving people nuts.  We see in places other than our own that the system of liberalism we say we hold dear feels feeble.

Two days ago I wrote about the Philippines. Today I write about Austria. Austria – which, like several of its European counterparts, such as Poland and Hungary, just took a turn to the hard right.

In last month’s presidential elections, Austria’s governing party, the Social Democrats, suffered a stinging defeat in comparison with the stunning success of the right wing, anti-free trade, anti-immigrant Freedom Party.  In direct consequence, on Monday Austria’s Chancellor, Werner Faymann, resigned. The reason he gave was the lack of confidence – the lack of confidence in his capacity to lead. “The question was thus,” Faymann said, “Did I have the full support of a strong backing from the party? I have to answer in the negative.”

What happens in Austria seems to most Americans not of utmost importance. But, it is. For what is happening in Austria is happening in much of the rest of Europe (see under Denmark). And it is happening in the United States as well. The end of leadership as we have known it? Not yet. Stay tuned.

The presidential election is over. The results are in. The people have had their say. In the Republic of Philippines.

The winner is a man by the name of Rodrigo Duterte, whose claim to political fame is his longevity, over two decades, as mayor of Davao City.

Far be it from me to draw any parallels. But, I note for the record the following:

• Duterte is described as “a maverick.”
• Duterte’s campaign lacked policy particulars.
• Duterte generated a record turnout.
• Duterte is known for making “incendiary” comments.
• Duterte cursed the Pope.
• Duterte is admired for being a hard liner – for being extra macho.
• Duterte’s fierce or, better, vicious anti-crime crusades led to his moniker, “The Punisher.”
• Duterte’s fierece or, better, vicious anti-crime crusades led to his moniker, “Dirty Harry.”
• Duterte has threatened to massacre criminals and drug abusers.
• Duterte has joked about the rape of an Australian missionary. “I was mad she was raped,” he told a rally, “but she was so beautiful I thought the mayor should have been first.”

Again, far be it from me to draw any parallels. I’m just saying.

Tiny Norway – population not much more than 5 million – happens also to be rich Norway. Historically Norway was one of the poorest countries in Europe. But contemporaneously the situation is different, radically different. Contemporaneously – since it struck oil in the North Sea – Norway has more money than god.

Norway’s profits from oil get deposited into a “sovereign wealth fund.” The fund is ginormous: it has assets of some $870 billion, making it one of the world’s largest investors, with positions in more than 9,000 companies.

Until recently, Norway’s wealth fund has been passive rather than active. As one observer put it, if a company did something the fund didn’t like, “it sold the shares and walked away.” That was then. Now the fund is involving itself in matters of corporate governance – notably though not exclusively in the high stakes game of executive pay. This week it announced that it will no longer tolerate companies that spend shareholder money on exorbitant executive pay. Moreover, it intends to go public. According to the Financial Times, the fund is on the “lookout for an example of bad pay to launch a position paper that lays out its principles for what it expects on the subject from its 9,000-plus holdings.”

In recent years CEO’s have been under fire from various directions. But executive pay has remained as sky-high as sacrosanct. The fact that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is scrutinizing the issue and planning to publicize its findings signals that times are changing. While CEOs are not in danger of going hungry, they are in danger of having their slice of the pie shrink.