Leadership in military and civilian life

July 24, 2007

In a question and answer session at Manchester Business School, with an audience of military officers and business leaders, Admiral Lord Boyce explored his leadership experiences. He described leadership as the art of persuading people to do more than they think they can. He identified decision-making and communicating as general competences essential to effective leadership

Q: There are a multitude of ways in which leadership has been described and defined. How do you see it?

MB: I can tell you what it seems to be from my experiences. I like to say that leadership is the art of persuading people to do more than they think they can.

Q: What key differences have you experienced working in military and non-military environments?

MB: There are obvious differences. In military life you are trained to lead, and also on how to be led, until the principles become ingrained. I mean training, not education. You train for leadership, as you would train for a Marathon. Also, the military conditions are different. You need to be able to depend on colleagues for your mutual survival. Decision-making has more life and death consequences than in most other professions. But there may be need to show initiative when you may be in a position to consult more widely in civilian life.

Q But there are similarities [between military and civilian leadership]?

MB: I would say there are general core components of leadership. Two of them concern decision-making and communications. Good decision-making requires skills at assimilating information and applying analytic ability. These skills often have to be combined with decisiveness. Effective communicators have to demonstrate clearly and convincingly the logic of their approach. I must also mention strength of character, the ability to delegate and show initiative.

Comment from audience: We used to teach delegation to business leaders. Now there’s less emphasis, more on ’empowerment’. Perhaps we should revisit the importance of delegation skills …

Q Why are Women held back in leadership in the military? I left for that reason.

MB Times are changing. There is a very senior officer I can immediately think of in the navy for example, but she has succeeded on merit, not because of equal opportunities.

Q One of the most popular current television programmes is “The Apprentice”. From watching the programme there is a perception that successful leadership is developed through bullying. Do you believe you have to be aggressive to be a good leader?

Not aggressive. Historically you can point to contrary examples. One of my favourites is Shackleton. No, Not at all aggressive. I don’t watch much television, but what I’ve seen, you wouldn’t advance far in the Military today with that sort of bullying style. You would not get past Major, Lieutenant Colonel, maybe.

Q: How does leadership work in The House of Lords?

MB: The Conservative and labour Peers have a kind of ‘whip’ system [enforcement officers]. But managing cross-benchers … that’s like herding cats! [MB is a cross-bench or independent Peer]. Collectively though, it’s an excellent system. It wouldn’t work so well if there were elections when a constituency would vote for everyone. That would be different.

Q What do you look for when on an interviewing panel to select for a leadership position? Do the characteristics differ across different environments?

MB: Again there seem to be some general points you are looking out for. The successful candidate for any leadership job will be able to communicate clearly, show imagination and vision. The answers to interview questions give a pretty good indication of how honest he or she is being. Of course you have to do your homework. The references you get are a great help too.

Q: Finally, what advice would you give an officer taking up work in civilian life?

MB: Something that surprised me. Perhaps it should not have. You will meet far more individuals who seem to have no concern beyond their own self-interests.

Also you realize you have your own [military] jargon, you will have to learn another dialect to be accepted. And there is a lot of stereotyping about the military mentality.

There’s another difference worth mentioning: [Corporate]directors are increasingly becoming legally responsible for the conduct of their company. This is becoming more widespread, applying to charities and trusts as well as PLCs.


I am indebted to course director Jed Drugan of Manchester Business School for inviting me to participate in this event. My Q and A notes are reconstructed as faithfully as possible, but capture only part of the wide-ranging conversation. For those interested in following up the points raised in the discussion, I have added a few comments.

1 Leadership has been notorious for its multitude of definitions. There are even theories of why there are so many definitions. Lord Boyce has offered his personal perspective, and one close to the classical one from Stodgill with its characteristics of leadership as an act or process influencing others to achive some goal. It is also close to Yukl’s operational definition of leadership as influencing to understand and agree what is to be done and facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared goals. I assume that the Admiral’s characterization of leadership has been tested in many experiences in his distinguished naval career, and then in a range of political and corporate roles.

2 Cat herding. This cropped up in a recent taxonomy of leader/follower relationships by the British theorist Keith Grint. He suggests one of several versions of situational leadership, which result from different levels of commitment to community goals from leader and group (followers, subordinates, team members etc). The cat herding (cross bench independent mavericks) according to Grint will specialize in independence of spirit but arguably unproductive conflict.

2 Shackleton. An interesting leader in the ‘great explorer’ mode. His biographers (such as John Adair) suggest his leadership was consistent with MB’s perspective of leadership as inspiring others to achieve what they might otherwise have believed impossible.

Vodafone boardroom battles

July 24, 2007

Vodafone approaches its AGM as a very modern company. And not only for its high-technology product base. The resolutions under discussion on Tuesday 24th July 2007 reveal the new kinds of pressure from activist shareholders who are making additional demands on corporate leadership.

You have to look below the surface of corporate announcements to detect the dramas of business. Take the notice of Vodafone’s AGM, for example. In the ritualized language of corporate meetings, twenty five resolutions have been presented as recommendations from the board. These will almost certainly be passed (unless there are even darker schemes afoot to destabilize the company’s leadership) rebels. There follows other recommendations which give a glimpse of the pressures being exerted by this new breed of corporate activist. These are the particularly interesting proposals. They give a clear indication of the pressure brought to bear on any company which has attracted the attentions of this new kind of activist. The issue is very much a matter of control.

A nice example is the resolution on Verizon Wireless. The company holds a 45% share in Verizon. The activists would like more dynamic involvement of Vodafone in Verizon, and suggest various initiatives.

The company rejects the proposals robustly, indicating that such moves would be complex, risky and undesirable.

Verizon Wireless (Resolution 26)
Resolution 26, if approved, would require your Company to put proposals to shareholders to alter the capital structure of the Company by the issue of a special class of shares of the Company the return on which would be dependent on the performance of Verizon Wireless (“tracking shares”) or shares in a new holding company
Maximizing the value of this shareholding is a key element of the Company’s current strategy and one that is kept under constant review. As part of these reviews, the Company has considered a number of alternative structures, including tracking shares and spin off options [leading to the conclusion that] the structures proposed would not deliver to shareholders effectively the current value of the Verizon Wireless shareholding and could potentially significantly undermine the directors’ ability to maximize the value of the shareholding in the future

Power without responsibility

It is tempting to recall the old saying about power without responsibility. This is too simplistic. The activists would argue that they are looking after their financial interests. Their actions are leading to far greater alertness on the part of corporate leaders to the interests of their shareholders. The moves are, to go back to a chess metaphor, to some extent a threat which influences the course of the game, even if it is not directly successful.

The fate of Vodafone

The outcome of today’s AGM will not settle the fate of Vodafone. It will, however, indicate the developments in a company that has seen its fair share of boardroom strife as it transformed itself into a global telecommunications operation under Sir Christopher Gent and Lord McLaurin. Its takeover of Mannesmann was eventually seen as too generous, calling for revision of its corporate worth. Now Vodafone’s dynamic and controversial CEO Arun Sarin takes on the challenges of running the company. There have already been criticisms of directors’ remuneration packages. He is not facing an easy ride.