 Mae'r cyffredin iaith yma yma yw'r cyffredin iaith yma o gyffredin iaith i gael y cyffredin iaith yma i'r gwahanol ar y llifio i'r cyffredin iaith i'r cyffredin iaith. Diolch i'r cyffredin iaith i'r cyffredin iaith, Fyza Shaheen, wedi'i gwneud yn y dywedodd y Llyfrgell, Oeddum, Tread Uned, Ilyfrgell Johnathan Bartley, Dwi'n Gweithgaredd, Blair Palmer, ac Paul Green jwneur i'r cyffredin iaith, gyda'r company yma ar y cyffredin iaith. Sa pob myfyrnau â'r cyd-cyfuddwch. Felly, rwnt iddyn nhw'n fwy â ymwiel yw yw'r cyd-cyfuddwch sgiliau yma. Rwy'n meddylu'r yslyt. Rydyn ni'n... Rydyn ni'n... ...ig y myfyrnau cyd-cyfuddwch ymlaen... ...y'r wneud fawr y fawr cyd-cyfuddwch... ...erddwn ni wedi fynd ei fawr... ..reиться bobl hwn. Roedd mae'n bod yn gwybl hwn. Mae'n gwaith i amlwg ar ychydig a'i cymryd yn ei wneud furef. Rydyn ni wedi cymrydsiaid ar yw bo anghybedd y gallai roi'r cyffiannillodd gyda'i unigau. Ond sy'n gallu arddod yn ei ei dweud yn ôl ar y cyfrifedbwyd. Fy ydych chi wedi chi'n ardig i'r gwneud isi? Mae'n gallu'r cyffiannillodd ar y cyfrifedbwyd. Rydyn ni wedi chi'n adaelu. Mae eich bod yn cilydd o gael aimedlau rôl, mae'n ceisio bod yn gwithio. Fydd amryd yn cyfraffoedd, is, is once you get into it, it is very very addictive because what you're doing is building irrevocable skill sets among the put. This person is very good at two-handed acts murdering. And actually you start from a typology. If you know anything about these games, the basic typology o'r cyrwch er frygu'r gwerthfaith, gallwn i gael â'r tanci, o'r dwiartfaith pads cyntaf o'r healer. Mae'n fregylch bydd yn nhw'n ddim y habitau arall sy'n ddiddordeb i'r gwaith yma. A tanciau yn ei cwm iawn, oedd ynddo i'r enwi rhwng ar y gallau. Mae'r dwiartfaith debyg yn nhw'n ddiddordeb i'r ddiddordeb agor gwrthfaith cyntaf, oherwydd yn cyhoeddiol a'rawrwyr y visually yn eto, ond mae'n cyfeilio ar y cyd-dyn nhw'n cyflwynt. Y dyfodd o'r wych yn erioed i'r ffordd o'r rhain, ond rwy'n mynd i'n meddwl i'ch gyrsondi'r arlaen, o'r peryfod ar y bule. Efallai ymweld ymddir iaith aethe! Mae gynnaladul ymddir iaith! Ydy ba yn ymddangos, yn enw i'n rhan o'r ddaeth i ddoi, twf ychwan relio'r ddif chi eisiau ei wneud. Y fenrobod yw mae'n bwysig i ddaeth i ddweud mae'n eu gwinell ar draws hwnna. Ond ymdir y cyfrifysgwch mae'n cyfrifysgwch yn cyfrifysgwch. Ond mae'n gwybod ffaith i'r cyfrifysgwch yn anfer wneud. gallwch ar gyfer sawl, ac mae hynny'n unrhyw lwyddech chi'n bod chi'n gwith teis. Dyna, ydych chi'n fidein yn y ddigon. Mae'n i weld'r unrhyw ffaith a'r hyn yn ziwyrdedigol, ond yw'r ymddwch i'n cael ffordd, argynno ar yr armar, i'r Ffastutu, ond ydych chi'n gweithio. Dyna yma, ydych chi', felly sgwrs cyflogiaeth i ni gyda i ammeth am eu sgwrs i chi'r cwzio'r gwrs? Wrth ei dweudio arweithu fel y cwrser a rydych chi arbennid? Rhywodd mwy o'r hollbwysig? Rhywodd mwy o'r re研 iawn yw'r ddim ddyliau? Roedd ychydig sy'n ôl i hi? Rydych chi'n olygu ychydig sy'n gymwyno'r amser? Mae'r drosio'r precyfer. Roedd ydych chi'r cwrs i chi? Yn y credu yn maen y cyfan. felly dyna, own gyd, ddim ychychai, ond gallwch niferwys yma, ond, mewn mythodol o'r gael ar y dyfod, a sut y mae'r lleol yna? A'i cymhreldu i gael aeth ymlaen, wrth gweithio o'r hyn o gweld am y tîm, a fyddwch yn gwneud o gweld ar heb yn fformio. Mae'r lle mae'r lle yn gwneud o gael a'r gael y dyfodol. Oherwydd mi'n gweld ar y byddwch ddweud yr un gwaes i ddweud, a ir gweithio chi ddefnyddio chi'n ceisio ysgrifennu gweld. Wyddech chi ddefnyddio chi'n gweithio eich bod gweithio chi'n gweld, yda chi'n gweld i'mol yn y gwasanaeth, ac mae'n ddiwedd. Mae'r gwasanaeth ymlaenol yn y gwylio, oedd gael y lleidio i gael y cyd- atmosferol, yn fydda i gael i wneud gawr i gael rei. Fi'n fwylo gyda zerg. Fyddech chi'n gweithio i gael rei, ac wedi dechrau'i gael i gael i gael i gael gwylion, Mae'r cefnod yn fawr ar y cael y cyfaint i'w ddysgu ymlaen. Mae'r cefnod yn ddau'r gwneud o fawr o'r fawr yw o bhaith yn llan gweithio gyda'r cyfaint. All typu o'r cyfaint yn llaw. Mae'r cyfaint yn gwybod i wneud o'r cyfaint o'r cyfan gyda'r cyfaint. F Tribe o amgarwch yn y gymhwy knife, mae'r lleidio'r cefnod gennym mwięio gwyfaint i fynd ien nhw â'r clwrsio. Mae'r lleidio'r cefnod i nhw? Mae rhai dda, dwi'n cael eu gwirio'ch cyfnod i'n gweithio eu havnog, yma y dyfodol cyfrifolau yma o gynllunio cyflwystio a'i cyflwystiau a fyddwyr, i gwybod o'r ganddartrwydd gyda ffиниadau rydym yn ei ddweud. Byddwn i'n mynd i'n gwneud o'r ganddartrwydd gyda'r ganddartrwydd, ..dyna'n gwneud, mae wedi gydag o'r намreth i'r gweithredu rydych chi... ..felly mae'r amser yn ddigwydd ar y rhyddau i ysgrifenedd. Mae'n ffnwysig ar y mynd i wneud. Yn Trombe, Nidia Ffordd, Maureen Lepen. Ond weithio gweld eu lleolon a'r ddau. Rydy me'n gallu, a fydd yn newid ychydig. Unrhyw y gwirionedd o'r ddiwedd... ..yngor,boardwyr, fydd y cwestiynau i ysgrifennyd. Well, I think it depends what kind of leadership you're trying to create. I think what we have created up to this point is leadership that is really actually about followership. So it's leadership that is meant to inspire people to follow and we have some great tools available to those kind of leaders today in terms of social media and sound bites and that kind of thing. Obviously what makes followers become stupid and bad at making choices. I think there is another kind of leadership which is the leadership that creates more leaders, and that is a different style of leadership with very different skills if you want to put it that way and I think we need more of that. Just explain to us what you do for a living and what your expertise is. Yes that might be useful. I just decided to get up on stage, because I fan-seed it. It looks good up here. So I'm an author and a speaker on the subject of the future of leadership and the future of work. I also coach, although I call myself an agent provocateur, for CEOs and senior teams helping them rethink their leadership and what's actually going to get what they're all looking for, which is engagement and empowerment and leadership from their people. And I'm working on a new book which is called Punks in Suits, which is about that very thing. Right. Now Jonathan, I mean, I don't necessarily want the Green Party line, but I'm sure there is a Green Party line on this. But just what is your response to this question? What, you know, we're at a nexus of business society importance and the Green Party, you know all too well. I mean, I think your last election manifesto was incredibly intelligent about understanding the relationship of these three things. But how do you begin approaching an answer to that question? I do agree with Blair. We have a saying in the Green Party that we want to create 50,000 leaders. It isn't just rhetoric. It's genuinely the way we are set up so all our policy is set by the membership at our conference so the leaders are essentially spokespeople. We don't have a direct say in the policy. We're there to represent the policy of the party. I think what we're seeing in the country at the moment is a real disconnect. We have an economic crisis. We have a social crisis, but it all stems from a leadership crisis. You know, we have a prime minister. We get too political too soon, but a prime minister, you know, got the job because everyone else ran away effectively. Now, no one else wanted it in the post referendum context. We have Jeremy Corbyn who many of us admire, but feel as if he can't create those leaders within the party. You can't create that party of leaders to move with him. He's got a very divided party and he can't create that consensus. And so we are in a leadership crisis. And I don't know how people have seen them, Kathy come home again. Now is the anniversary, but I was watching it the other night. Just at the end, they flashed up on the screen. This is 1966, 21 years after the end of the Second World War. West Germany has created twice the number of homes that we've created in the 21 years, and it suddenly struck me. Yeah, it's about political will. At the end of the Second World War, we had a national debt of 250% of gross domestic product, huge compared to what we have now. But we set up the NHS, we set up the modern welfare state. And we did it because people came together and they shared a common vision and that vision was inspiring. I just look at the country now and I think we can be so much better than this. We can be so much better than this, but it needs that leadership. And in the referendum we've heard a howl of rage from people who have been promised power under the Blair government. They were promised to be stakeholders and there was a talk of community. Then we had Cameron's talk of the big society, but they were never given. And it isn't just about leadership within political parties and allowing people to come forward and be leaders, but it's about having leaders in the communities, people having a stake in the communities, a radical decentralisation of power that we actually take seriously. And it's a scary thing to do. It's a brave thing to do, but I think that has to be the future. If we're going to heal the country. I'm a healer. No, I'm definitely a healer. Pfizer, before we go on, just tell us a bit more about class. It's a think tank set up by the trade unions. You yourself are similar back to me, economics, a bit of TV. Remember we were on TV together. But OK, the unions, you know, I mean, you could argue, but even by setting up a think tank to do the thinking at one stage removed, that's a fairly hefty decentralisation for the people who effectively pay your wages. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a good question about why, you know, why they did that and where that comes from. I mean, I think for me, so I started having to manage teams. Obviously in this role, I'm the director, but in the previous role as well. And kind of being quite new to leadership, I'd never really thought about what that means. And I knew when someone wasn't a good or bad leader, but I hadn't really looked into much depth about that. And maybe by the union saying we need the space for all of us and we know that sometimes they have their own friction was a sign of some kind of leadership showing that we need to come together on some of the ideas at least. And I had this whole thing now being the director and having staff and having to be a kind of leader in a sense and having to take that up. And I just, it really strikes me hearing, you know, hearing this about we just don't know what that is for me, especially when it's, I bought some books and everything just seems very kind of male and Anglo-Saxon and something that I couldn't fit into in every way of being a leader. And so it's a bit like for me at least it's a bit of making it up as we go along. But the most important thing and it coming back to the politics is the values. I see so many politicians and other leaders that don't embody the values that we want to see in society. So it's not just how you do things and how you inspire people. It's not it's that actually having those values in the first place. That just reminds me that that for those of us who covered American politics for some time, that what what a lot of people think just happened is that the Tea Party itself. Sort of basically it's finally the kind of, you know, kind of ballistic missile that fired into politics in 2011, 2008, actually after the after the bailout at the banks which were against, finally landed. But in actual fact, the the thing that we used to, you know, quietly sort of take the rise out of was this annual conference in America called the Values Voters Convention. And it was and the values voter is at even more low level, local level, base level, conservative. But I mean by that is anti abortion, anti immigration and the rest of it. The values voter was something that you have to turn up to and speak to. Even if you were just giving them the soft so. So values clearly have played a part in what has happened. I hope to come back overtly to these political questions, but to just keep us on the on the general themes of leadership. You know, what would your response be to that? What is good leadership? And I mean, I honestly think it's living for me those progressive values. I was thinking on the way here and I struggle with thinking about leaders that I looked to. There's people that I admire and things that they say that I really like. But weirdly, it's things like my local place where I go and it's like a beauty shop. And this woman that owns it, she's a Pakistani woman, first generation, she's like expanding the business. Her team is always really happy, but she also does this thing about hiring a real mix of people. She's like an accidental leader of the community. You know, it just makes me so happy. There's a Iranian person there. There's this Pakistani lady there. They swap the music halfway through from Romanian songs to Hindi songs. And for me, it's really about, for me, the leaders have to be embodying those values and making sure that it happens. So that to me, like she to me is a leader, even though she probably doesn't even think about herself that way. That's interesting. I mean, before I bring you and Paul Rhunjunio, one anecdote that when the whole Jeremy Corbyn sitting down on the train thing happened sitting down on the floor of the train. And there were some big criticisms. You know, well, as it worked out, the story was kind of a kind of privatised stunt job by somebody who doesn't even work for him. But we were talking to her. I was talking to a friend who was a trade unionist, a very, very balshy trade unionist woman who's led strikes. And she said, I couldn't believe he was sitting there and on the floor for that reason. And I said, why? She said, because I have led a revolt on a train to go into first class. And she said, because a real leader would have got up off that floor and taken the entire train into first class and refused to move. So you see what Jeremy is up against when people accuse him of being a facilitator. But Paul Rhunio, what does it mean to be a leader then in your company and the company that has self-management as an inbuilt principle? That's a good question. That's a very good question. All the way. Oh, you want to answer. Somebody, I read somewhere that I'm not a politician. I've never been a politician. I read somewhere that the best politicians actually don't ever answer the questions they're asked. They ask other questions and then go on to say whatever it is they feel like saying. I'm good with that. So I mean, so I think there are two things at a general level. Leadership qualities that I think are maybe outdated and leading into a direct answer to your question. I think there's this misconception and certainly not timely perspective that leaders are saviors. And in order to kind of perpetuate that, it seems to be the case that leaders, certainly at the national level, but I think also at the local and business level, leaders kind of try to figure out how to manufacture a crisis, not saying that there aren't plenty of crises, but try to manufacture a crisis that they can easily pin on someone else and then conveniently have the answer for, you know, here's how I'm going to save the world. I don't think that's actually all that useful. In fact, I'm certain it's not that useful. Not that we shouldn't be working on problems and crises. I think there's plenty of important stuff that needs to be done. But that's just about kind of, I guess, finding an office or occupying a seat or which, you know, from my perspective, the place I come from is there is no seat like that. There is no opportunity to occupy a, kind of be the sole occupant of the leader seat. And I think the idea that there is a sole leader seat that somebody has to occupy kind of has this way of giving rise to this tendency to manufacture crisis so I can prove why I'm the best saviour. And so in Morningstar, I think leadership comes down to the ability to convince other people that here's something that's worth doing. And it turns out there are lots of really important things to work on and lots of people have their own pet causes. Some of them are really big and important, you know, to lots of people. And some of them are really small and may seem inconsequential to a lot of people. But it turns out most people have their own kind of pet thing that they're really interested in. And I think at Morningstar what it comes down to is can you over time cultivate the trust, enough trust in people that they're willing to give you their time and their energy willingly? Because this is a critical point, an organization like ours. People have to give you their time and energy and at some level devotion willingly and they have the right to revoke that anytime they want. So I think leadership number one, I think from Morningstar's perspective, is what is the degree to which other people are willing to give you themselves willingly and perpetually give themselves to you willingly with you knowing that they can revoke that anytime. And number two, recognizing that there's so much important stuff that needs to be done. It really makes no sense for us to have a seat that is the leader's seat and us to all compete on sitting in that seat rather than working on the important things that need to be worked on. Okay, Blet, without revealing the secrets of the consultancy horizontal leather couch that you may or may not have the CEOs blubbering on. They do blubber. Are there any generic themes in the current business climate that jump out at you as a practitioner across several businesses that people should be aware of when it comes to leadership? There's clearly a fashion for soft skills, etc. But you must get together with people who do your job as well. So what is the landscape looking like for the problems of leadership? So I should say that I've always hated the term soft skills. I don't know what it means actually. I don't think anyone does and everyone always inserts the word fluffy in between soft and skills anyway, which makes it even worse. So I don't like that term. I think what they really mean is people skills. But I'm also not thrilled about that actually as a concept. I think what we're really looking for is human skills. It's people who are able to be human at work and that's really attractive to us at the moment because we don't see very much of it. So it's really very refreshing when you meet a leader who's human. If I think about the leaders that are lying on the couch having a good cry, I think that they are hugely frustrated. They're frustrated that they did an MBA and they read all the leadership books and they've worked their way up and they've done the leadership programs and they've learnt to coach and they've learnt some special listening, magical listening skills and they've done all that and it is not working. There are people who hate them. There are people who don't trust them. I think that the latest statistic from earlier on this year, the Edelman Trust Barometer, 18% of people trust their manager to tell the truth. 18%. So the vast majority don't trust them and they're good people. It's easy to see them as evil. They're actually good people with lives that they would like to live and families that they would like to see. And they've dedicated their lives to trying to create a business that provides employment and makes great stuff for the world and it's just all gone horribly wrong. People aren't listening to them and the products are damaging the world and they are kind of powerless. And I think it's at that point that they normally call me when they've tried everything else and I'm sure there are people in this room now who have had that experience. So I think that there is a growing kind of bad taste about what they've been told about leadership and they're desperately wondering if there's something else. I've known for nearly two decades now that the social responsibility meme in business was stronger, that the demand for it was stronger than the supply. I can remember people in the consultancy business saying to me, this is nearly 20 years ago, we cannot recruit because people don't want to tell their children I destroyed the world. We can't recruit to oil businesses, we cannot recruit to FMCG businesses, all the rest of it. So we've known that for a long time. So is there a sense in which people thought they could solve these things through management skill techniques without taking on board what the social mission of the business was? Because what you're describing is a mismatch between desire to please everybody and be popular and in the end of there you make widget X that destroys the planet. I think it goes back to something you said right at the start of the day what you call post capitalism I think of as the end of the industrial age. Francis talked about it as well. I think at the beginning of the industrial age there were industrialists who wanted to create businesses as a force for good. They were really inspirational and I think over the last 300 years we really lost our way in that and that business has become something else. Business has become about profit primarily and about pleasing the city analysts. So we've really lost our way and I think that's the sort of fundamentals they find themselves stuck in a system. And no matter how well meaning they can't change the system unless they're really willing to look deep into the roots of their business. You can talk about purpose. Most of these companies they may have a mission on their home page but that is not what drives decisions in the organisation. Profit drives decisions in the organisation. Johnson what have you seen in terms of both individual practice and politically I mean what drives the manifesto that your party went to the 2015 election on it was very detailed about some of this stuff. What drives that? Passion. One of the things that is a kind of joke about the Green Party is you don't join the Green Party for political ambition. And I've met so many people who are absolutely passionate about changing the world and I know that's why I'm in it. Now I have to come clean, I'm a bit of a leadership virgin. I've only been in the job two and a half months. But I went to Caroline Lucas who's my co-leader at the MP round here and said that how about a job share? We need to model a new form of leadership. And it's a very creative environment because of that passion, because of that conviction, because of those values. Instantly it's well yeah why wouldn't we do that? Let's push back the boundaries, let's change things. And we became the first job share leaders of a political party and that's really exciting. But I did work in the House of Commons in the early 1990s, dirty secret. I even worked for John Major in 1995 on his leadership election against John Redwood. I'm not a Tory, honestly. And I found Westminster such a dark place. I found having come out of Lund School of Economics where you're taught to weigh up decisions, weigh up issues, see the pros and cons and make a sensible decision. I suddenly found myself in a political environment where there's no two sides. This is your side and you make the case and you undermine the case of your opponents. And that makes for very bad decision making. But that's how leaders evolve in the political process. The whips office as you will know is just stuffed full of political ammunition and it's fed to the back benches and they go in and they rally behind their leader and they make their case. And that's just a bad way of making decisions. It's a bad way of doing politics. And in the Green Party you get sometimes frustratingly big debates about policy issues and we really get to grips with the policy. But at the end of the day it comes out, I think, better. It comes out sharper because people are making judgements. Yes, passionate judgements. But there is that room to debate and discuss and have opposing views. You know, we don't have a whip. If we had more than one MP, that would be important. The principle is there. I mean, it's interesting, isn't it, that you mentioned the dark side of Westminster. And I think it's fair to say people don't realise how much of the... Everybody understands cabinet responsibility is collective responsibility and that there is usually a very strong ideological apparatus around a party leader like a Prime Minister or a leader of the opposition to create, you know, to fit the jigsaw pieces together. So if you're going to spend X billion on stimulating the economy, you need your industry person and your green person and your employment. And they need to all be sitting in the same hym sheet. But people don't realise that the back bench situation of all the major parties is held together through this incredible carrot and stick mechanism. The carrot is promotion and the carrot is... Not simply that, we've seen honours. We see honours in this country given again and again by all sides as the ultimate carrot. And then stick is literally, as you say, it is a series of scandals that have been suppressed. And the Tableau Newspapers create those scandals and then they go and they say we'll suppress it. What will you do if we suppress this? This is going on. No, my question is to you, I can kind of imagine the answer, but what is the solution because businesses know this is going on and then the moment we are all pushing for businesses to be more human, to be more horizontal, to be less hierarchical, they observe the ultimate form of coercive hierarchy is politics. So what can we do about that transmission of that lesson? Some of the change has to be systemic. And I think it is just a matter of time before our voting system, our first pass, the post voting system fragments and breaks up. It's creaking, it's crumbling, it's not fit for purpose, but this could be 30, 40, 50 years. But it's essentially what holds everything together. Everyone in this room will probably be changing their votes between elections now. No-one votes, Labour, Labour, Labour every year. People want choice, they're more plural. We're seeing the disintegration of the two-party system in 1950s. 95% of people voted for the two big parties. Now it's about two-thirds and it's declining clearly in the long-term trend. Until we get change in systemic change, changing the electoral system, there won't be that freedom and once you do have that freedom you can do things in a different way. The House of Commons is set up tribally with two parties who are actually two and a half swords lengths apart from each other. That's how it's measured with two lines. You're not allowed to step over the line and it's all historical. And it's on the basis that you have a government and then you have an effective opposition that holds that government to account. It's a very old style of doing things. Now if you break that system up and you have a proportional system and you are actually talking to one another, dialoguing to one another, I don't think compromise is always a dirty word. I think compromise can be really good politics. You find the way that represents the majority view, you find the way forward. And that gives people the freedom. And in other countries you see this freedom. You don't have the need for the whipping system. On the London Assembly you have a different system where Labour and Lib Dems and Greens and London Assembly members work together. In the European Parliament you have MPs working together, MEPs working together. And it's a very constructive form of politics. If we can bring about that systemic change both in politics and of course in businesses too, I think you'll see the behaviour for that. I mean Faisa, you're nodding at some of that and I want to get your views on that, on the specific political bit, but coming back to the kind of general applicability of what kind of business skills do we need. I mean we are, and I'm going to come back to soft skills, let's call them human skills, let's call them collaborative skills, emotional intelligence. Aren't we at the same time learning that people who just stunt their foot and go for post-factual politics or in business go for absolute, without wanting to be libelous, absolute flouting of all norms, they win. So what do we do? I think we've also learnt that us on the left with progressive values and doing the same thing doesn't help to beat them. So I do think that there's something that needs to change in terms of how we behave and it's definitely systemic and that's why it's such a big problem in a way because the challenge isn't just something that we can change tomorrow, it's some small tweak. It's fundamental and one of the things that I want to add to that, when I, over the last ten years or so, I've had to meet with MPs, work with MPs from both mainly Labour and but also the Conservative party in a previous job. So often they're people that have been raised from day one to think about their ego, to be competitive, to be one to be at the top, to want to have that seat of leadership and not always aware of what it's like for everyone else that isn't raised in that way and that's their idea of success and they have a very narrow idea of success and there's so many of them in Parliament that it's almost like asking them to actively think differently. I mean it's just a real challenge for them because they've just never had it that way. This is their idea of what governance should look like or what leadership should look like. So it's a real value change but we're not going to win against the likes of Farad and Trump if we emulate the same values as them and the same ways in which they work. So it's absolutely the time to think about how we show that cultural change. Paul, the same basic question. You must have competitors. The Morningstar company is a big market share. You must have competitors that don't do all this stuff. How does that figure? How does the market signal come back to you as to whether what you're doing is right or what they're doing is right? So it's not completely clear to me that any of our customers care about us for any reason other than we give them great product at a good price. It's possible. One thing I will say is we don't really depend on that. We don't really depend on customers giving us credit. If that's the question you're asking. We don't really depend on customers giving us credit for being special or different or better. In fact I have to be honest with you. I don't think at any point we've ever really thought about what we do and the reason we do things the way we do them is normatively or morally driven. This is the right thing to do. The other way is the wrong way to do it. For us it always seemed more consistent with human nature. I think it's only on reflection that it seems like this does seem like a better, from a morally or ethically standpoint. First part of your question is it's not clear to me that we get extra credit for being good people, for being a good organization. We're not motivated by getting extra credit. I do think that it serves us well for whatever it's worth. I don't know how this translates to politics which quite honestly is probably a lot more interesting than to mottos. You like that. I said it right. It's not clear to me how this translates to politics but I don't know if the way we do things is a competitive advantage, my instinct is it is but I don't have a counterfactual other than our competitors who also seem to define maybe not quite as good as us. The one thing I will say is that our way of doing things seems to have, we have flourished and we have risen to the top in spite of our way of doing things. So either it's a contributor or it's not detracting from our way of doing things and I'm realizing I'm not doing it all answering your question. No you are I think. You're making me think about the following. One interesting thing is the person who started your company was a small scale entrepreneur. A truck driver. And also many of the people who worked there will be close to the land. So you're thinking about California migration from Latin American countries, people with land background. When I was there the orange groves were full of Mexican and Spanish migrants. Is there a closeness to the land thing about this form of lead? I mean the fact that it can kind of work. If you'd have started in Pittsburgh where everybody, Pittsburgh was founded as an industrial city. Maybe it wouldn't have found so many people who wanted the frontier freedom kind of self-starting mentality. Yeah I mean I think there's probably some truth to that. It intuitively makes sense that people who are close to the land, California has this sort of cowboy heritage a little bit. And I think people from Morningstar, they don't trust you if you walk in dressed like this. What do you dress like then? Jeans and a pair of sneakers. What do you call them? They're not sneakers here are they? Trainers. Sport shoes. Sport shoes. So I'm learning. I thought we spoke the same language and I'm learning. I'm terribly ineffective at communicating. I will say I think there's some truth to what you're saying but I think there's also some truth to the fact that I think that our way of doing things has an influence on the way people think as well. I mean it's remarkable to me the proportion of folks in our organization that go on to do entrepreneurial sort of things. And it seems much higher relative to other companies like ours with people with the background of training that our folks have. So I think that our way of doing things naturally seems to lead to people to be, so number one, more comfortable in who they are and be more comfortable and willing and able to rally people around whatever it is they're doing, independent of any special training. We've not done a really good job of training people around soft skills or being more human or whatever. And there's a whole mix of types of folks in our organization like from really extremely brusk and not particularly fun to be around all the way to very polished and really easy to be connected with. So I mean I think our long point is that the systemic change point that you're making. I think there's something to creating environments that over time help people to think about leadership differently, help people or cause people to demand different things from their leaders and to expect different things from leaders. Can I ask all of the panel very briefly to just maybe pluck from their experience or from the imagination if you need to, an example of where leadership has mattered recently for you in your professional work, where a threat's come along, where you need leadership skills. Just give us, because I think if we share these, we might shock a few people in the audience. If you can think of a shocking one, please do play. I don't know whether you can think of anything. So I can think of a situation where maybe the aha moment came a bit late but it did come. An organisation we were working with that was growing through acquisition and the board felt very confident that they knew how to just bring these companies on board and they didn't know how to do it and by the time they realised they didn't know how to do it they were already in trouble. We worked with them for about 18 months and I remember very clearly that 16 months into the work and we knew the work was coming to the end after 18 months. My colleague Ginni is here in the audience. We had a little chat and we said we're going to have to, if we're going to feel good about this work we're going to have to risk getting fired and we're going to have to risk telling them what we really think. So we did. They sent us out of the room while they had a chat about it during which time we thought let's order taxis so we can just get out of here. But it turned out that they agreed with what we had said and the very brave and bold thing that they then did was they acted on the feedback and they pulled together some of their people from around their organisation and they did a day of just listening and they were in a very receptive frame of mind, these guys, these board members and the stuff they were told was really really hard for them to hear. I remember the CEO took me aside in the afternoon after hearing a lot of this stuff and I mean he could have knocked me down because he was also someone who had grown up from the bottom of the organisation, kind of quite a macho guy who seemed to have basically no emotional intelligence at all and he said shame on me, shame on me for not seeing this and I think, I mean I fell a little bit in love with him in that moment and I think that it was evidence to me that it is possible for people and we've heard a lot about listening today and really really listening. Listening to the stuff that is going to disrupt your view of the world, that's the stuff that needs to be listened to and he heard it and it made a big difference. Jonathan, what about you? Any examples you can give us? Just kind of racking my brains. One of the first things I did after becoming leaders is I want to go to the refugee camp in Calais. I just, I get very emotional when I talk about this, I just think it's an absolute scandal that in the fifth richest economy in the world, less than 50 miles from our shore, there is a refugee crisis. I felt it was really important that a leader of a political party went over there and actually went and talked to the refugees and I did it. One and a half thousand children, we could have done something about that, we could have brought one and a half thousand vulnerable children that have come from Afghanistan and Sudan, fleeing conflict, who were facing teargassing by the French authorities, who were being raped, who were being dragged out of the camp by far right groups and humiliated and strip naked. I mean it's horrent that our government didn't put anyone on the ground there, didn't show any leadership in sorting out that crisis and the refugees became pawns in a political game between two political leaders in France and Britain. And I think the other time that I'm really, I think Alicia did, what's significant was after the Conservative Party Conference when we saw the mask, I'm going to get political here, we saw the mask slip again and to reveal the nasty party around refugees and migration with some really nasty rhetoric coming out from the Conservative leadership and the Prime Minister. And the response that Labour produced was a meme on Twitter criticising the Conservatives for not cutting migration enough. And my heart just sank and so we got together with Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon from Plaid and Scottish National Party and we wrote a joint letter, an open letter saying we've got to draw a line in the sound here, this has gone too far, we have to show political leadership and to their credit the next day Labour changed their tone after that letter came out. Sadly they didn't take part in the letter but I think the leadership of the smaller parties there saying we're going to draw a line in the sound here because someone has to do it, did influence Labour, did turn them around and I think we're going to have to go on fighting together as progressives. We've let this debate go far too far one way and we have to fight back, we have to make the positive case for being an open hearted nation, taking our fair share of refugees and saying actually we're proud to have freedom of movement and this is something we have to fight for very very strongly. What about you? Either from the class or from the wider world, give us an example. One of those, when you're going to leave the room I'm going to think of the perfect thing. Let me just draw on something, when I was at Sabre Children I did a lot of the international work, there was big decisions made last year on what the new sustainable development goals would be, what would happen to financing for development and what that would look like in terms of the rich bloc of countries versus the other bloc of countries. I've probably never been more embarrassed to be British to be honest, sitting there and seeing that conversation play out where the lower middle income countries had come together and they were demanding certain things that the West should do which were very unfair. So one of the biggest things they were asking for for instance was something on tax, can we just have an international body on tax where we all come together equally and we work out what the rules should be. Within the Europe bloc, the Americans were very against it, the British were very against it and what was really clear in that moment was within the EU bloc, there were some countries that were coming round to it but Britain were really showing leadership in a way that was very negative like blocking that body from happening. And so I saw the way in which leadership can result in some really poor and bad outcomes but also in the biggest scale when I went to the final conference where they were going to make the final decision and sign the declaration and what have you. There was such a lack of political leadership around this money for actually changing the world, there's no point in just having a list of things you want to change without the money. You know there wasn't really any big political leader that turned up from the West and no one showed any leadership in that moment and the conference whilst they had to do this talk around it about oh it's great and we thought we may have agreed this and that it was rubbish. Like there was basically nothing that changed because of the lack of anyone that would stand up and say the money matters and this is what we're willing to forego. And it was just so disappointing at the global level and all of them turned up to sign the sustainable development goals which literally mean nothing without the money to back it up and it was really disappointing. And despite what we say about leadership here in terms of everyone should be a leader and we've never needed more leadership in a way and we saw that with the occupied movement when there aren't those people that come forward and really make the case and fight it and are the spokespeople and we can fail. Wow, you had to put me last. So I am, I don't really see myself as much of a leader but if you allow me to tell a really relatively inconsequential story because those are all of those stories are huge and hugely impactful but something that I think for me really illustrates the slightly different sort of boots on the ground small skills sort of leadership that I'm passionate about. I've always thought that the most interesting part of leadership is the most interesting and relevant purpose of leadership is figuring out ways to elevate the people around you and help the people around you flourish. And maybe to me actually that's the only interesting thing about leadership. Maybe not, I don't know but I think if you allow me to pat myself on the back a little bit only because I have scarce examples. But as I mentioned earlier I've got a family with a number of children and my 14 year old son or second decided recently he was in love with the sport of basketball. You all know basketball? I don't know. At this point I have no idea what crosses over cultural. He was in love with the sport of basketball but he never really played basketball. So he and I played basketball a few times at the park and he said he'd like to join a team. And the next day he came back and said you know Dad I've decided I'm not going to join a team. And I said well why not and he said because I went and played with some of the friends who have been on the team for a few years and they are so much better than me. So I'm going to find a different sport. And I thought about that for a couple of days and I went back and said you know I want you to ask the best person, the best person that you've played with out there on the court how many years they've been playing and how many hours a week they play. And he did and he came back and it was like four or five years and some number of hours per week. And I asked him to do the math and figure out how many cumulative hours they've spent playing basketball. And then I asked him to do the same for himself and of course the ratio was enormous you know. A couple of thousand hours compared to 40 or 50 hours total. I said so does it surprise that person is better than you and he said well I guess when you think about it that way it's not. And I said so then if you want to be the best at something and there are people around you who have invested a lot more time and energy. It simply comes down to it's a mathematical formula and it's a mistake to think about yourself as a person who is not good at basketball relative to the other. People who are good at basketball. And in reality it's a function of the energy and focus and time that they put into it. And so I guess my point is that I thought for a long time that my job as a parent was to help my kids find their place. And my job as a manager to the degree that I'm a leader or manager of an organization is help people find their place. But if I shift that a little bit and think about the ways that I can help people to flourish and recognize the stuff that they have in them that they didn't realize was in them. And help them to become whatever it is that they want to become. I think that was probably the most salient example and it's interesting he spends every single day maybe two and a half, three hours down at the court practicing basketball. And that seems kind of inconsequential but I do think that there's a really important principle there that's much more broadly transferable to our day to day work lives possibly not things like you know in a crisis, a national crisis these are things like that but the world I come from I think that that's maybe one of the most important and powerful things that we have at our disposal as perspective leaders. That is an amazing example, thank you. I want to throw on him before I come back to everybody else. I do a lot of thinking about strategy and I wanted to, the question I'm going to throw at you all before, so you can think about it, is where should strategy belong in a leadership team in the current situation with so many things changing. But I do a lot of social historical reading and research and I noticed a very interesting and similar thing about the two ways that Russian military leaders have dealt with the invasion of their country. So one you can read in War and Peace, in War and Peace Tostoy describes the way that Russian generals fought Napoleon on the battlefield. Those of you who know it will know what the answer is, they just sat there and thought hmm that's interesting. We'll wait and see what happens now as this unfolds and you can see the hero Pierre Bogut Bezukow who is a all energy, all agency, all focus wants them to go do this, do this, do this. And through Tolstoy's eyes we see it's General Bagration and then Katoosa, Marsha Katoosa. We see the wisdom that if you can do a lot of damage by rushing your troops hither and thither and reacting to everything. In fact their key thing was they knew that they had a bunch of ill-educated peasants in uniform and a lot of aristocrats on horseback and that roughly if you put so many of them into a square mile they'll hold back the enemy for a number of hours and there's no need to think about tactics but your ground strategy is keep retreating, just keep retreating until they give up. And what's amazing is that there's two fantastic books by John Erickson, the military historian, about the Soviet Union's defeat of the Wehrmacht in World War II and it basically boils out to the same thing. A series of errors, disasters and myopic decisions leads to victory simply because this strategic situation is on your side. I mentioned that because it's a nice way of segwaying into, we are certainly in politics a lot in foreign affairs and diplomacy in Britain but also a lot in business. We have this strategy deficit, you find it everywhere, who's the strategist? Thank God McKinsey exists otherwise what will we do about strategy? But let me come back to you and start with you. Where should strategy, that deep level, big level, long range decision making belong and who's good at it at the moment? What kind of people? So strategy is one of those words that gets used to mean lots of different things and I think that there's something more important than strategy which we've mentioned a few times, mentioned a few times today which is around purpose. I think leaders, and I sort of inverted commas, people at the top of organisations as opposed to leaders, spend a lot of time trying to create a strategy by which they mean a plan, a one year plan, a two year plan, a five year plan and then a huge amount of resource goes into that and a huge amount of reporting and reporting up and the finances of it and then they have this beautiful plan, it's on a Gant chart or something and every month they help people accountable to this chart that there's no resemblance to reality ever and you continue to fail and someone gets blamed for that failure when the strategy could never have been planned that far in advance. So to me, I don't like to spend a lot of time strategising. I think you've got the purpose and you're really, really clear as an organisation what you're here to do, who you're serving, what your role is in the world and then, and I got this actually, it's Tom Nixon here, I interviewed him for my book, he made this point about what happens then which is you just do the next thing. So what is the next thing we need to do to deliver on that purpose and then you wait and there's not anywhere near enough waiting and we talk about crises, of course there's crises all the time because firstly it's manufactured to create a hero who then fixes it but also there's crisis because we don't spend anywhere near enough time thinking before we act and that means we're always trying to pick up the pieces of bad decisions we've made. So I would much rather see leaders or senior people however we want to label it, thinking very, very closely about their purpose and then just making the next decision that feels right and is in alignment with the values of the organisation, the principles that they've decided to adhere to and then wait until the next decision becomes clear. That's really interesting. Okay, Jonathan, who owns strategy in the Green Party and who should own strategy? It falls on the co-leaders to do the political strategy. Who's good at strategy at the moment? The Tories, the Conservatives are very good at strategy. They won the last election by ruthlessly targeting lived emceits in the south west, they knew that's what they needed to do to get their majority and they did it and it really pains me to say it. I'm not good at political strategy at the moment, the left is not good at political strategy at the moment, self-evident. One of my heroes is Tony Ben and when he retired he said, I'm leaving the House of Commons to concentrate on politics. After 50 years at the coal phase he recognised that it's often social movements that are outside the control of strategy that actually do shift the agendas and goalposts. I think there's a lot to be said for that. I think we need to be thinking politically much beyond Westminster and looking at social movements. But at the same time I think we have to have a coherent political strategy. Now one thing we've been involved in this pool, we've been talking with the idea of forming a progressive alliance. We're saying look, let's be realistic in what this means for the next few decades in this country politically with boundary changes that are going through. It looks conceivably like we are staring as a country down the barrel of several decades of conservative rule. That's the stark political reality. We may see big social movements changing things but that's it. What is going to change that electoral reform is the big thing that's going to change that because we have a government at the moment elected on the votes of just 24% of the adult population. We could see 24%, 23%, 22% of the country forming conservative governments for years to come. The way to break this is electoral reform. How do we get there? We could target, we could work together with Labour and the Lib Dems. We could stand aside for one another in seats around the country where there are maybe 50 or 60 Conservative MPs. Where the Lib Dem has a chance of winning, we back the Lib Dem where the Labour candidate has a chance of winning. We back Labour candidate or we have open primaries and we engage whole communities in selecting a candidate to stand against the Conservative. Has this happened in history? Yes it has. In 1997 Martin Bell stood in Tatton against Neil Hamilton as an independent. The other parties stood aside and he beat Neil Hamilton in a safe Tory seat. Now that's strategy so I have to wrap it up. I love this stuff. So where's that coming from? It's only going to work from the bottom up and that strategy has to be owned by the social movement. That's how it's going to happen but where does it come from? The germs are coming from the leadership. The trade unions, their strategy clearly has got it up its game because they've stabilised their membership but they're not massively growing. And you hosted Corbyn didn't you at your conference two weeks ago. I was there too. You hosted me. Thank you. Do you think he's got a strategy or who should own the strategy for the let? For all the criticisms you might have on Labour it still has more than half a million members. It hopefully does have a strategy. What do you think it should be and who should own that? I really agree with the point about having your line of sight. What are you aiming for and that's the ultimate thing? And then build back from that. The thing is about strategy. For instance I got into this job at class and I was like when you had a strategy and then Brexit happened and then that strategy doesn't mean anything anymore. God keeps changing so you can have this strategy but it doesn't mean anything. What is important is that we're going to do this paper on this subject. Is that line of sight what we're aiming for? And I think for the left now that does come back to the values we need to get back on the table that are worrying less and less of the population are seen as something that they can see as their own values as well. So I think the strategy has to be about how you tell those stories and how you connect back with people and connect back with the broader population. It hurts me to say it because I'd love to say that that's got to be owned by the whole movement. Of course all of us have to be doing our job but the Labour Party needs to have a very clear strategy about the story and narrative that they're telling. It hasn't been clear to date and it has to be to some degree owned by the senior leaders. And if I'm honest I think that's where things are going wrong and that's where the void is. When you don't have a strategy on at least that part of what next year we need to make sure we go out and we push these values and we tell that story in this way then it just leaves a void. Or you just have one person saying it over here, someone contradicting you over here. I mean that's what's happened on the immigration staff within the Labour Party. You have one part that says that is positive about it and another part that is. For me that has to be owned by those at the top of the Labour Party as they are now and they have to find ways in which to reach across to the other members of the party and embed that. Okay and let me give the final word to you Paul, bring it back to business for us if you can. Who owns strategy in your company? Does that work? Do the associates, the colleagues feel that they know what the strategy is? Yeah so I mean I think there are echoes of everything that you all said here and to briefly summarize my answer to your question. I think the idea of a core purpose that is generally unchanging but represents kind of a lofty vision for the organization combined with adaptability and willingness to kind of alter course as circumstances come up. And the realization that some of the best elements to strategy are going to come from the ground up and the realization that there are people all over the organization that aren't necessarily paid to think up the big ideas but they're going to in some way or another uncover the direction that we should be going and creating opportunities and ways for that to become the strategy as opposed to crafting the strategy and asking people to pursue it. Right, the reason I put my glasses on was to try and read my non-existent schedule here but you know I think the schedule says that the session ends here and thank you to my guests for what I hope has been an interesting and wide view. I mean we could talk forever, I try to keep it away from the hard politics because we could talk forever about it and it will just be an angst session. I hope we've learned something and I certainly have from this. Because we've run over time we won't do a reflection at this point but you've probably been reflecting in the hour long session that we've had and therefore we'll thank our panel and clear off and come back for the final bit. Thank you.