Search this site

South Africa’s Heritage Day on Sunday was another opportunity to celebrate the wisdom of those who brought us freedom and democracy. They turned Shaka Day, a potentially divisive commemoration of the creator of the Zulu nation, into an occasion for national unity – even if the most uniting symbol that could be found is a braai. Celebrating the heritage left by our heroes inevitably raises the question of what legacy the current lot in charge will leave as a heritage for future generations. From that depressing thought, the next step is for each of us to consider the legacy we will leave. The business community recently lost Raymond Ackermann, someone who surely left a fine legacy. We like to speak well of the dead, but the warm tributes were genuine in his case. He built a fine, innovative business in Pick ‘n Pay, and on the way left innumerable stories illustrating the principles that guided him, both in public and in quiet personal care away from the spotlight. I looked up my column in January 2020, celebrating the life of Richard Maponya. He left a mall, but he left much more in his example and the support that helped so many other entrepreneurs get going. What sort of legacy will you leave? Life happens, and before we know it, our legacy is created or lost in a way we might not have intended. This is an important question business owners and leaders should all pause and review from time to time. If you will forgive a personal perspective, I realised just in time that I had just such an opportunity. I was in Nairobi over the past week, meeting with our top team to consider our plan for 10X growth over five years – a next step towards creating the scale that would leave a visible legacy. By very good fortune, and I confess quite unintended, my wife and I had three days in the Drakensberg before I travelled, walking and contemplating. I set myself the task of listening to the wilderness and the Spirit. A personal perspective turns Heritage Day from a celebration of the past to a vision for the future. It may be inspired by past heroes, but requires an honest perspective on what has to change for us to leave a better world after us. There is no merit in looking back to a golden age that never existed. We need to look forward to a future that many young people are claiming, to which the harsh lessons of history should be calling us. If my generation does not discover and teach the hazards of living globally without morals and rules, shame on us. It will make the task of the next generation that much more difficult. As we hurtle towards climate change, while planning to settle in space; as we use gene manipulation to create new forms of life, while refining our capacity to destroy humanity with weapons of mass destruction; as we create extraordinary machine-based intelligence, while struggling to develop the capacity for global empathy that will determine whether these amazing technical developments rescue us or destroy us, we have to stop and listen and think. It’s every leader’s responsibility. What legacy will you leave? To answer this myself I need to be clear about the values I espouse, and I have to embed them practically in the stories, behaviours and processes of the company. I doubt I have enough time left to see us fulfil our mission on the scale I dream of, so the critical question becomes: How do we create an organisation fit for our mission, and then how can I extricate myself so that no one notices I’ve gone? I think that’s a good question even when you are young. Jonathan Cook, a Counselling Psychologist and Chairman of the African Management Institute. If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit  http://www.africanmanagers.org/jonathan-cook

How could a company with as strong a heritage as Pick n Pay fall behind the pack it used to lead? Under founder Raymond Ackerman and Sean Summers, Pick n Pay dominated the grocery sector and enjoyed a reputation for low prices and excellent customer service. In recent years it has surrendered this lead in growth rates and public reputation to Shoprite. Now the Pick n Pay board has brought Sean Summers back as CEO 16 years after he left the job, hoping he will restore the company’s magic. Is it inevitable that charismatic leaders’ passion will dissipate after they leave? It’s difficult to think of an exception. Apple comes to mind, but Steve Jobs had to return to revive Apple after he was forced out in 1985. A much-described exception that perhaps proves the rule is Disney. Its operating practices and Disney University have deeply entrenched and helped retain its magic for several decades after Walt Disney died in 1966. Founders can’t really be faulted for the antics of their successors – even Jesus left behind a movement that took the shape of the hierarchical Roman empire rather than retaining his teaching about servant leadership. Now it resembles more the religious structures he wanted to replace than the organic and inclusive community he described. So was my previous column about leaving a legacy misguided? I don’t think so. The leader should focus primarily on embedding purpose and values for current performance. That lays a foundation for successors who must determine the future. Here are my thoughts on the matter. I would be really interested to hear your examples of leaders who have embedded their magic sauce into organisations. Most important is that standards of exemplary service, collaboration, efficiency and innovation should be written into operating practices. These written practices should include why they are important, so they can be interpreted and updated as times change. The purpose should determine the practice, not vice versa. Then the company should have a charter or slogans describing its purpose and key values. Do written documents help? Writing them clarifies ideas that otherwise are lost. And like scriptures, they provide the basis for later generations to recover a lost mission. Professor John Cumpsty at UCT used to explain the role of priests, prophets and kings in history: Priests are conservatives who retain the tradition in the scriptures. Prophets are radicals who renew the tradition. Kings are pragmatists who put bread on the table for both. Without priests the prophets have no tradition to renew; without prophets the priests’ tradition dies; without kings they both starve. Applied to business, a wise board will put a pragmatist in the top job. Then wise pragmatists will find space in their teams for both irritating conservatives and scary radicals so that the company’s governing principles and traditions are both maintained and challenged. New members should be hired for commitment to mission and values – but not for conformity. Practical ways of testing for this should be written into the recruitment and hiring process so they are not forgotten. The company’s orientation programme should include creative ways to help new members resonate with the company’s purpose and values. Even the most committed members can lose touch with the company’s purpose, so repeat it regularly in creative ways. The reward system should acknowledge contributions consistent with the purpose. Regular check-ins between managers and team members should include a question each on the mission and the values. Claire Hughes Johnson, drawing on experience in Google and Stripe, has written a very practical and helpful book explaining just how to do all this – Scaling People: Tactics for Management and Company Building. Maybe the most challenging task is also the most effective: the leader should be the living embodiment of all this. Jonathan Cook, a Counselling Psychologist and Chairman of the African Management Institute. If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit  http://www.africanmanagers.org/jonathan-cook

Succeeding as a business in a competitive market requires continual vigilance, innovation and experimentation with new markets, products, technology and processes. In the same way, succeeding as a country in a competitive global environment requires continual vigilance, innovation and experimentation with new alliances, investment, research and policies. The world is moving so quickly that remaining competitive has to be a collaborative task between public and private sectors, together with entities like universities, research organisations and media that produce and disseminate knowledge. Countries are bound to be at a disadvantage in the global market when ideological or other differences drive apart those who make policy and spend national budgets from those who create businesses that employ citizens and pay taxes. We need each other. I was reminded of this last week while reading The Startup State, the weekly email bulletin from the Global Entrepreneurship Network Policy and Research team. It highlights key entrepreneurship news and features from around the world. I expect there are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar rich sources of information in different fields. In that issue, for example, there was news of France copying the UK’s tax relief for angel investors in startups. From 2024, individual investors in ‘young innovative companies’ will get a 30% income tax break. Ireland has announced changes to capital gains tax, investor tax reliefs, and the research & development tax credit in their latest budget. The Tanzanian Startup Association clearly has been watching, because it has called for the creation of a public-private Tanzania Venture Capital Fund and the urgent establishment of a Tanzania Startup Policy. Maybe this was inspired by examples like Nigeria’s Startup Act of 2022, which offers tax relief, seed funding, capacity building and regulatory assistance. We can learn from everywhere. The newsletter also drew my attention to an organisation called Rest of World, which reports on technology news outside the West. For example, in a report called “West vs Rest”, they identified forty companies they describe as, “Faster, smarter, more adaptable: these emerging market pioneers are outmanoeuvring Silicon Valley for global domination.” African firms among them include M-Pesa, Transsion, Jumia, and Showmax. I disagree with some of those inclusions and some exclusions, but they do inspire entrepreneurial ambition. Also in the GEN newsletter is a reference to their GEN Atlas, “the world’s largest entrepreneurship policy compendium, featuring over 350 case studies from 70 countries.” The Atlas reviews innovative cases of policy-making and evaluates them on five levels of evidence they provide, ranging from the lowest level of no evidence to the highest level of providing direct proof of impact, including randomised control trials. Last week’s GEN Atlas spotlighted Europe’s Erasmus for Entrepreneurs scheme (EYE). This Europe-wide initiative pairs youth entrepreneurs with experienced entrepreneurs in a different country. This benefits the young entrepreneur in the form of on-the-job training, and also the host entrepreneur, who receives an ambitious and motivated employee for up to six months. EYE claims that almost 11,000 exchanges had taken place with 36.5% of those participating in the program going on to create their own business. How does one keep up with all this policy information? I hope there are people in government who have the initiative and humility to network with clever people at home and abroad who can alert them as new ideas emerge. A country that is not innovating is depriving its citizens of future prosperity and health. Networking is a powerful determinant of success in almost every field. The job description of those in positions of authority and influence should include keeping abreast of examples that can inspire their own initiatives. Scanning the environment for new ideas is already in the job description of all CEOs. And let’s work together to share experiences, insights and cases to learn from. Jonathan Cook, a Counselling Psychologist and Chairman of the African Management Institute. If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit  http://www.africanmanagers.org/jonathan-cook

In my last column I argued that wellness at work requires creating a healthy workplace, and not just sending staff on wellness programmes. Afterwards someone suggested I should include more practical guidance. So what should we do? Legislation makes every manager responsible for the physical safety of their staff – ensuring that the kettle cord is not frayed, that the air-conditioning is not pumping out germs, that those engaged in risky tasks use appropriate safety equipment, and so on. These are relatively easy to monitor and describe in the big poster on the staff room wall, but mental health precautions are more difficult to pin down. The World Health Organisation’s guidance on mental wellness boils down firstly to training managers to recognize and respond to people experiencing emotional distress. They should learn interpersonal skills like open communication and active listening, and how to foster better understanding of how job stressors affect mental health and can be managed. Secondly, staff should be trained in mental health awareness and how to reduce the stigma associated with mental health problems. Thirdly, there should be interventions to refer individuals for treatment if needed, or preventive activities like “leisure-based physical activity”. That’s all important, but I think the real magic emerges from an organisational culture that deeply values the humanity of each person. A key insight is that managers are not only responsible for their own behaviour, but for how their teams interact too. If one of my team is bullying another, or two are unable to work together, that is my problem. I have to deal with it as urgently as I would if the internet went down. If I can’t handle it myself, I need to call in an expert, but remain just as engaged, so I understand how to ensure the solution continues. This is difficult without a culture in which people show respect for each other. Managers should be trained to blend the two great requirements for performance: demand and acceptance. Focusing equal attention on task and people is leadership 101, so we may forget that each new generation of leaders has to learn it afresh. I confess I am repeatedly surprised when I come across managers who have little appreciation of the need to understand the humanity of their staff, and of well-meaning trainers and coaches who seem to believe that just being nice to everyone will get the job done. Sometimes deep respect emerges as direct and robust feedback to someone who knows they could do better – provided the criticism is filled with evident respect and a genuine interest in the person’s growth and success. The point is that this cannot be achieved in the space of one conversation. It needs months, if not years, of patient insistence on respect for the humanity of every person, so that when those robust conversations take place, the underlying assumption is that we all want the best for each other. Achieving that is the amazing magical sauce that makes exceptional performance become common place, while bolstering mental health. People become healthy when they feel deeply respected and supported in doing tasks that have meaning for them. The tone has to be demonstrated from the top. The top team should set aside time, at least annually, to review the humanity of the company. What are we doing that demonstrates what we say about caring? What can we stop doing that contradicts it? This can be informed by a survey of staff perceptions. Staff perceptions can be frustratingly different from management’s perceptions and intentions, but far rather discover what they really are thinking. For most of us, wellness arises from believing we are treated with deep respect. Jonathan Cook, a Counselling Psychologist and Chairman of the African Management Institute. If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit  https://africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook

Feedback at work conjures delight for some and terror for others. Those who look forward to hearing what others have to say about them probably have experienced feedback for learning and growth, while those who dread it may have only had to give and receive feedback in the context of performance problems. I recently ran a session on giving and receiving feedback for aspirant heads of independent schools. We focused on affirming strengths, using a new online questionnaire recently developed by Thornhill Associates. Each participant had elicited stories from their close associates describing when they had been at their best and what that demonstrated about them. We human beings are notoriously poor at reading our impact on others, so it was affirming for participants to hear when their peers recognised the same strengths as they recognised in themselves, and to discover strengths their peers saw that they might not have seen in themselves. The feedback gave them clues about how to draw on their natural strengths in leadership positions. I remember very well the impact on my own career and happiness early in my management journey when my team used a team roles questionnaire to let me know that they saw me as adding value through creativity. What a relief that was! I had been trying hard to meet my own stereotyped expectations about what a good team leader should do; but they gave me permission to express my strength and let others take on the other roles where they were better than I. Giving and receiving feedback would have a much better reputation if we thought about it as affirming the impressive capacities that we all have in different ways. We don’t fear hearing what people like about us! But of course we really crave to hear the other side too. What are the gaps I need to fill to become a better manager? And how do I actually come across to others? That is where the full 360-degree feedback questionnaire comes in. It allows people to identify both strengths to nurture and areas for improvement. Unfortunately we tend to notice the bad news far more than the good news. One participant in the workshop described skimming quickly through all the positive stuff in a 360 report she received, so she could focus on identifying the gaps she needed to work on. She sounded strong enough to cope with that approach, but some people may be damaged by failing to notice the nine affirming comments while only seeing the one critical comment. That is why professional facilitation of 360-degee feedback is important. Not only do strengths affirm us, but they also provide clues to how we can go about addressing the gaps. We can use what we do well to address the things we don’t. Extroverts can learn to ask questions, and thus use their natural sociability to learn empathy.  Introverts can use their listening to make connections and use that to be empowering leaders. At a deeper level, mature leadership requires integrating our best selves with what Carl Jung called our shadow selves. These are not just gaps in ability, but aspects of ourselves we want to reject, overcome, or hide from others and ourselves. It’s the bad stuff we project onto others to avoid facing in ourselves. It contains the demons that derail careers. Facing our shadow is hard work, best done in conversation with a skilled helper. Doing justice to the shadow would take us way beyond the scope of this column. But it is essential work if we are to achieve the maturity and stability required for effective leadership. And we won’t have the courage to begin until we have accepted our strengths at the deepest level and lost our fear of knowing ourselves. Jonathan Cook, a Counselling Psychologist and Chairman of the African Management Institute. If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit https://africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook

This Column was published on Business Day on 20 February 2024. Business needs effective governments to provide the infrastructure on which to thrive. Logistics (including roads, rail, and ports), energy, and communications (including internet access) are all vital. The poor quality of infrastructure in many African countries increases costs, putting African businesses at a competitive disadvantage relative to their global peers. This in turn deters investment. That is self-evident, but two World Bank economists, Justice Tei Mensah and Nouhoum Traore, have recently dug into the data and calculated the impact of providing infrastructure. They looked specifically at how providing high-speed internet influences foreign direct investment (FDI). The staggered connection of submarine cables to African networks between 2000 and 2012 enabled them to observe the impact on local economies and changes in FDI between 2003 and 2018. They found that the arrival of high-speed internet connectivity is indeed associated with increased frequency and size of FDI and that this is associated with increased business activity. This is concentrated in the services sector, and particularly finance, technology, retail and health services. These are internet-dependent sectors. There was no effect on manufacturing or construction.  They then looked further and found that complementary infrastructure such as roads and electricity amplify the effects of internet connectivity on FDI. Their point is that infrastructural provision works best when provided as a bundle rather than in isolation. “For instance, in the absence of reliable (and affordable) electricity, uptake and utilisation of digital services will be constrained even with the best of digital infrastructure.” They also provide evidence that access to the internet increases citizens’ access to information and therefore the demand for accountability from government. This improves governance and reduces the risk to potential investors. Increased internet connectivity also allows African companies to access new markets. They looked primarily at internet access, but I imagine that if they looked at other infrastructure provision, particularly when bundled with complementary infrastructure development, they would find a similar effect on other sectors like manufacturing and construction and on SMEs, which thrive on increased economic activity. That is inspiring for government and reminds us that large infrastructure projects are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. They should be planned accordingly to have maximum impact on economic activity. The Lobito Corridor looks to me like a project where this can be implemented. At its core is the rehabilitation of the rail link from Zambia and the DRC to Lobito in Angola. It entails cooperation between the three governments concerned, international partners, the EU and US, big business, notably in the form of mining companies, and agencies such as the African Development Bank. The EU and US motivation to support this may arise from competition with China’s Belt and Road infrastructure initiatives that have almost wrapped up the supply of minerals needed for electric vehicles; but it is very much in African countries’ interests to ensure that extracting and exporting minerals is accompanied by holistic development of local industry. This should be supported by complementary infrastructure like feeder roads, energy, digital access and practical policy support for local business. Ironically the need for the Lobito Corridor has been accentuated by South Africa’s failure in rail and ports. South Africa has unusually good infrastructure, but by allowing it to deteriorate, the authorities are not just inconveniencing people, but killing jobs and livelihoods throughout SA and even in neighbouring countries that have accessed markets through SA ports. Interrupted electricity supply, collapsing rail routes, and inefficient ports have led to huge lost opportunities in industries as widely diverse as coal mining and fruit farming. One might wish for careless politicians and officials to be charged with economic treason for the impact on the nation’s viability.  But let’s celebrate progress and look for ways to provide an integrated infrastructural foundation for the continent’s growth. Jonathan Cook, a Counselling Psychologist and Chairman of the African Management Institute. If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit  https://africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook

Which countries in Africa provide a healthy environment for entrepreneurship? It is notoriously difficult to collect accurate data. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) reports on 49 countries, but the only African countries included are Morocco and South Africa.  On the 2023-24 overall GEM National Entrepreneurial Context Index (NECI) score, United Arab Emirates is way out in front with a record score of 7.7, followed by India, Saudi Arabia and Lithuania. Morocco comes 30th with a score of 4.3. South Africa comes a dismal 47th with 3.6, above Venezuela and Iran, and just below Brazil and Guatemala. Now researchers at the Alan Gray Centre for African Entrepreneurship (AGCAE), a new and ambitious team at Stellenbosch University, have just created the African Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Index (AEEI). This seeks to correct the problem with all such surveys, which is that the quality of data across Africa is generally poor, making it difficult to analyse. AGCAE director, Phumlani Nkontwana describes their goal as being a “data hub of hubs”. Their website contains the admirably cautious statement that “this is the first public version of this index. Treat the results with caution as we have had a lot of deliberation and discussion on data quality, data availability and data sources. See this version as a conversation starter and a minimum viable product to improve and build on.” The AEEI consists of seven components, each building on multiple data points: Governance, Culture, Support, Finance, Infrastructure, Market access, and Human capital. They had enough confidence in the data from 27 countries to include them in their inaugural table. Mauritius tops this list as most friendly to entrepreneurs. South Africans might be surprised to find their country comes second, with a strong financial sector and relatively well-developed infrastructure, but poor support. I need to dig deeper into the data, but I think “support” refers both to the fragmented efforts of entrepreneurial support organisations and to the work government departments do on the ground. Then come Tunisia, Morocco and Cape Verde. Of the major economies, Egypt is 8th, Nigeria 13th, Kenya 17th, Ethiopia 21st, and Tanzania 22nd, with Uganda and Zimbabwe at the bottom. I think Kenyans in particular would be surprised and disappointed by that score. Kenyans see themselves as entrepreneurial. Kenya scored particularly poorly in support, market access and finance, and had no areas of special strength. The purpose of the researchers is not just to report, but to learn and encourage ecosystem players to improve the conditions that help create new businesses. I hope this will stimulate honest reviews of the present and courageous ideas for the future. I was encouraged to hear the AGCAE team talk about data in the context of things needed to encourage business. Too often we tend to collect data only to report, and neglect the essential task of learning from it to improve what we do. This applies as much at the microdata level of firms and agencies as at the macrodata level of economies. I was also encouraged to hear about getting out into the field to see what it is like to do business on the ground. All statistics can lie, but the lies told out of context by abstract data are difficult to discern until one leaves the office to look and talk to the people actually trying to run businesses on the ground. A final thought: Start-up indices are useful but I’d also like see a stay-up index. What helps firms stay in business? Everyone knows that new companies create the most jobs; but they are also likely to destroy the most jobs, because so many of them fail. I wonder whether keeping existing firms in business would be a more efficient use of resources than trying to push people into creating new businesses. Jonathan Cook, a Counselling Psychologist and Chairman of the African Management Institute. If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit https://africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook

Accountability is a popular word at present. It represents many people’s solution to the crisis in service delivery, corruption and general lack of responsibility in public service. When there are no consequences the temptation grows to enrich ourselves or to get away with doing less than we might. Some people have enough self-respect and learned responsibility to remain accountable even when no one notices. We should all be like that, but for most of us sustained accountability requires both rewards and punishments, underpinned by transparent assessment of performance. Accountability is also key to success in business. Rewards are easy to administer when the outputs are clear, such as in sales, which are measurable and frequent. It is more difficult when the outputs are less obvious. Executives may be incentivised with share options in the belief that return on equity in the company as a whole is the best measure of how well they perform, and because it is aligned with what the owners value. To try to reward specific CEO decisions is impossibly complex and in any case misguided – it is the executives themselves who are generally in the best position to gauge what actions will lead to company performance, and even they often get it wrong. The crucial exception is dishonesty. The board has to trust the CEO, so any lack of integrity is inexcusable. It is for roles like this that accountability has to be an internal attribute and not just controlled externally. Many decades ago the psychologist Frederick Herzberg argued that external rewards tend to capture and then replace intrinsic motivation. People begin to focus on the pay and forget why they took on the job in the first place. Then sadly as soon as the rewards are withdrawn or lose their value for the recipient, motivation falls off. That is what has happened in the public sphere. Politicians have for too long enjoyed rewards without consequences. It’s a tragedy – not just for the country, but even for them. Some may have amassed fortunes at our expense and seem to be living the good life we aspire to. But at what cost to their true selves? Their intrinsic motivation has been captured by the attraction of extrinsic rewards. It’s very easy. You may point out correctly that among them are those who are natural crooks and just delighted to be rich. But what about the many who entered public life with the highest motivation, only to find themselves degraded and ashamed, or if they have remained committed and honest, disillusioned by the rot all around them? What a waste of great human potential and idealism. The result is that more crooks and fewer committed servants are attracted to public service. Let’s rescue them. When we vote, don’t vote for someone who has been shown to be dishonest, however much you agree with their manifesto. You can’t trust them. You can’t trust them to do what they say they will do, and you can’t trust them with your taxes. Look at their lives, their humility, their strength in the face of temptation, their record of conscientious service, and elect people who represent the nation we wish to be. Meanwhile we have to help create intrinsic accountability. So our engagement has to extend beyond a vote once in a while. We need to be active citizens who track performance and shout about what we discover, especially when it’s good. Even when it seems no one is paying attention, let’s keep the noise up. At least we will hear each other, and discovering we are not alone, gain courage to keep insisting that this country belongs not to the powerful few, but to all our people. This land is our land. Let’s own it. Jonathan Cook, a counselling psychologist, chairs the African Management Institute.   This is a coaching columns for Business Day, published on 30th April 2024 ( https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/columnists/2024-04-30-jonathan-cook-elect-accountable-people-who-represent-the-nation-we-wish-to-be/ ). If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit https:// africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook

There is almost a week still to prepare for Earth Day on 22 April. This year’s theme is planet vs plastics. Big companies can afford sustainability managers to direct their environmental efforts, but small business owners have to rely on their own ideas and very limited time. What can we do? Firstly, is it worth it? Small people and small businesses may feel that reducing our miniscule carbon footprint is far too little to be worth distracting us from important businesses imperatives. But there is more to it than our own small saving, and there are good business opportunities in environmental responsibility too. Business owners may be able to influence the commitment of all their staff, their customers and their suppliers, and maybe even the wider community. That adds up. And yes, it is important. Climate change is possibly the greatest existential threat to humanity, with a specially big impact on Africa. Even a small, token contribution is worth making. Begin with your own team. When you meet, raise awareness about environmental issues and encourage employees to share ideas. Online sites provide mountains of material that can be used in workshops and for distribution. Most of us know about conserving energy and water, but it is still worth distributing material for those who have not yet heard. More helpful might be to discuss practical ways to reduce the big carbon contributors, like transport, as in driving to work alone. We can’t prescribe, but we could also help people make conscious decisions about how much meat they eat, how often they discard usable clothing or other consumables, and how to avoid single-use plastics. We can set the example by providing reusable glass water bottles. Creative activities can generate enthusiasm for saving the planet and build team spirit. For example, giving a prize for the greatest reduction in the carbon footprint at home would encourage team members to learn about carbon, its mitigation, and how to measure their own contribution. As a company you have probably already implemented recycling, changed the light bulbs and fixed the taps. The high cost of solar power looks different when we consider the efficiencies of never having to stop work for a power outage. The capital cost to run heavy electric machinery on solar may be prohibitive, but for those of us who rely on computers for work and to communicate with customers, a small system that just powers the router makes a huge difference. We can do without the kettle for a few hours, as long as we can access the internet. Next we can reduce waste and recycle. Think about sustainable packaging and reducing single-use plastics. Can you install rainwater tanks? Environmentally sensitive cleaning materials can reduce the pollution that is ruining our water supplies. Can you influence customers? Many large retailers have made a virtue out of necessity by advertising their recyclable packets and packaging. Even my Woolies roast chicken came in a recyclable grease-proof packet. UCook collects your used carton, insulation and freeze bags when they deliver the next meal kits. Explaining to customers why you are taking these steps generates good will and spreads the message. What about suppliers? Big suppliers probably already have their own sustainability programme, but smaller suppliers might benefit from discussing how together you could reduce waste, improve packaging, and use sustainable materials. Maybe even invite them to your staff training on sustainability. Sustainability clauses may or may not make their way into your contracts with suppliers, but a friendly conversation will achieve more in practice for most people who are interested in your business. Among suppliers, don’t forget contract staff and service providers, including gardeners, cleaners, and professional service providers. Every person educated about the environment is another source of information into the wider community. Jonathan Cook, a counselling psychologist, chairs the African Management Institute.   This is a coaching columns for Business Day, published on 16th April 2024 ( https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/columnists/2024-04-16-jonathan-cook-there-is-still-time-for-small-business-to-prepare-for-earth-day / ).   If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit https:// africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook

When I was a young manager, I did not consider mental health to be a management matter, even though as a psychologist I was aware that mental health problems can arise at work. In the unlikely event that a team member might show disturbing symptoms, the responsible thing would be to refer them to an appropriate professional, as one would if someone showed symptoms of heart failure, for example. But the incidence of mental health problems is increasing and we are more aware now of the physical and mental health consequences of the stresses people face both at work and at home. When they arrive at work, our people sometimes bring with them the most incredible challenges from dysfunctional homes and collapsing communities. At work we should do our best to reduce the toxic effect of excessive workloads, unclear or conflicting work roles, unsafe or poor physical working conditions, violence, bullying, and discrimination. If we ignore mental health concerns we are risking ignoring a substantial risk factor in our businesses. Putting up a cheerful poster in the lift proclaiming, “Don’t worry; be happy” doesn’t really do it justice. But the “Don’t worry; be happy” protagonists do have a point. We have begun to recognise that dealing with mental health at work should go beyond a merely reactive approach. Managers can create a healthy environment that not only responds to individual sufferers, but actively promotes good health for everyone. An organisational culture that deeply values the humanity of each person is one of the best work-based contributors to great mental health. This is good for business. Think of the advantage brought by healthy, happy, and collaborative colleagues. Health is thus clearly a management matter. There is a confusing multiplicity of mental health awareness months, but May seems to be widely recognised around the world. The theme for Mental Health Awareness Month this year is “Movement: Moving more for our mental health”. As the British Mental Health Foundation puts it, “Moving more can increase your energy, reduce stress and anxiety, and boost your self-esteem.” Exercise is usually touted as the single best contributor to good physical health, but promoting it for mental health illustrates that good health does not fit neatly into professional silos. Human beings are integrated organisms, and our physical, mental and social sources of health are all inextricably connected. That makes sense, because the healthier I am, the more likely I am to be happy. And the happier I am, the more likely I am to enjoy good relationships. And to complete the cycle of physical, mental and social health, the better connected I am to others, the healthier I will be physically.  A great example of this is provided by emerging research findings about loneliness. We know loneliness is associated with depression and with earlier onset of dementia and maybe Parkinson’s disease, and now researchers are apparently finding that there are changes in the brain associated with loneliness. Staff should be trained in mental health awareness and how to build both their own and their colleagues’ positive coping methods. It’s also important to reduce the stigma associated with mental health problems so that those with problems can get help before they damage their careers. Managers can be trained to understand how job stressors affect mental health and how they can be managed. They can learn interpersonal skills like open communication and active listening, and how to recognize and respond to people experiencing emotional distress. As the World Health Organisation points out, decent work provides a sense of confidence, purpose and achievement, an opportunity for positive relationships and inclusion in a community, and structured routines. As managers, we have the opportunity to help our teams grow in health. Jonathan Cook, a counselling psychologist, chairs the African Management Institute.   This is a coaching column for Business Day, published on 14th May 2024 ( https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/columnists/2024-05-14-jonathan-cook-employees-mental-health-is-a-management-concern/ ). If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit https:// africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook

Variety is one of life’s extraordinary design features. It both arises from and leads to evolutionary innovation. Who could possibly have sat down at a drawing board and imagined from scratch a rhinoceros, elephant, giraffe, warthog and dung beetle and then let them all survive in the same conditions? Nature exceeds the imagination in a spectacularly bizarre and wonderful display. This unfolding diversity allows organisms to adapt in unpredictable ways as the environment changes. I read that the peppered moth in England is yellow with darker spots. But when the industrial revolution covered the environment in soot, pale moths were predated heavily while dark-coloured moths survived and became predominant. Now with pollution under better control, cream-coloured moths stand out less and are making a comeback. We humans too are particularly varied. We come packaged in small and large bodies, short and tall, with all grades of skin colour, and amazingly, possessing unique fingerprints and irises. We have minds containing an infinite variety of capacities, memories, ideas, and intentions. This variety has survival value. Because of differences, we avoid all rushing down the same dead end, helping us to survive as a species. So far. We use words usefully to explain and respond to the differences that we discover in each other. Words like “friendly”, “suspicious”, “powerful”, “generous”, “conservative”, “radical” help us make sense of our relationships. Words entail categorising. That is necessary and useful, but when, under pressure of competition for limited resources, we turn these categories into labels carrying differing value judgements, we soon stop enjoying diversity and begin defending against it. We create competing classes of people who conform in our minds to “us” or “them”. And history teaches us to fear “them”. It’s a short step from there to exclusion, propaganda, conflict and war, as is currently emerging all over the world. After World War 2 humanity recoiled from the hideous inhumanity inflicted on innocent people by those who considered themselves the most civilised and educated nations on earth. We learned that no one is immune to the deadly virus of ethnic, religious, ideological, gender or nationalist exclusiveness. In shock, the world recoiled from two hideous world wars and created institutions and enshrined values intended (rather naively, as it turned out) to ensure “never again”. Yet just eighty years later, here we are again. We have forgotten the horror unleashed when we make enemies out of those who differ from us. We are slipping inexorably into increasing xenophobia and genocide. It is becoming fashionable to celebrate autocracy, as long as the autocrat is one of “us”, and to dismiss the institutions of liberal democracy that were designed to include all. Indeed, some are tempted to use these very institutions to exclude “them”. What a failure of the human spirit. In future columns I want to write about the gift and the threat of diversity in managing teams at work. In our small way, managers are given the opportunity to guide our people to appreciate variety as a magnificent and necessary part of life, and to learn how to avoid triggering a path to destruction. This is needed at the level of nations and even at the level of neighbours. We can contribute to both by applying mutual respect at the level of organisations. Meanwhile, South Africans go to the polls tomorrow. Elections provide a stern test of our ability to respect those who differ from us. Maybe even more important than who wins will be how both winners and losers allow themselves to work together for our common good. If you are voting tomorrow, I pray you will support those who know how to share the future, and not those who build their support on excluding others.   Jonathan Cook, a counselling psychologist, chairs the African Management Institute.   This is a coaching column for Business Day, published on 28th May 2024 ( https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/columnists/2024-05-14-jonathan-cook-employees-mental-health-is-a-management-concern/ ). If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit https:// africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook

One nonfinancial ratio that could be added to the financial ratios we all track is the ratio of external to internal priorities. Priorities that reach outward include anything to do with customers or clients, market positioning, and products and services; those that reach inward include organisational structure, operational processes and policies, systems, staffing and accounting. Both are essential and work best when kept in balance. Too frantic a focus on outward-facing priorities can seem mission-focused and exciting, but without internal support, can lead to over-reach, service failures, collapse of capacity, and death by explosion. Too bureaucratic a focus on internal-facing priorities may seem responsible, but can lead to slowing down, losing purpose, inability to respond quickly to changes in the business environment, and death by implosion. This ratio is a concept rather than a number, and clearly is not as precise as financial ratios. But it is important to keep in mind, particularly during a period of rapid growth. There are several places to look for signs of the balance. One is in the agenda and amount of time spent in meetings. Are we focused more on what we are doing with customers/clients or on how we organise ourselves and relate to each other? Another is how we allocate resources, such as how the budget is decided, what the tech spend is for, and the number of executive and staff positions created to do things for customers, versus internal processes. Then we could consider what the executive team focuses on and what we measure and celebrate. Of course this should be a false dichotomy, as organisations ideally organise internally to reach externally; but we have all seen companies lose balance, so it’s a ratio worth tracking. Evidence that the ratio is too external is pretty obvious. People burn out, staff make recurring mistakes, customers complain about failures in product and service, and foreseeable problems take us by surprise through inadequate planning and budgeting. Evidence that the ratio is too internal appears more subtly in signs like slowing down, hanging on to merely good products or processes that could be replaced by better ones, recruiting staff for external-facing roles who are clever in maintaining processes rather than hungry to grow, lacking courage to grab opportunities for fear of failing, not being prepared to look beyond KPIs to tackle a wonderful opportunity, because of the need to report formally at the end of the quarter. These are not signs that are easy to spot, so one of the CEO’s duties is to stand back and think about the balance. Like keeping balance while walking, balance in an organisation is never static. It requires continual, often unconscious, adjustments. To change the metaphor, the driver needs to avoid either setting out in an unroadworthy vehicle, or fussing so much over the vehicle that they forget to drive towards the destination. I have been writing in recent columns about managing diversity of many different kinds, and this is another example. Some people (such as Operations and HR) should love an internal focus, while others (such as Marketing and Business Development) should have a passionate external focus. But their effectiveness is determined by their appreciation of the contribution of others. The CEO conducts this orchestra in a way that allows individual contributions to shine, while ensuring harmony and mutual support. If people in Operations create onerous processes that kill initiative, they are out of tune and killing the company. If people in Sales refuse to follow policy or report their prospects, they expose the company to potentially terminal mistakes or liability. We need each other. One key job of the leader is continually to demonstrate the value of difference and require the team to support and celebrate those others whose contribution complements their own. Jonathan Cook, a counselling psychologist, chairs the African Management Institute.   This is a coaching column for Business Day, published on 9th July 2024 ( https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/columnists/2024-07-09-jonathan-cook-looking-both-outward-and-inward-helps-businesses-to-thrive/ ). If you’d like to read previous columns in this series or ask Jonathan a question please visit https:// africanmanagers.com/jonathan-cook