How Would You Performance Manage Jeremy Clarkson? Learn From The Big Egos.....
It was announced this week that the
BBC would not rule out Clarkson returning to them in the future. This
presents an interesting challenge for the next producer who dares to cross
Clarkson’s path……how would they go about performance managing Jeremy Clarkson?
This is a great question I use in my workshops to get the conversation going.
Lessons can also be learnt from past workplace “Ego Disasters” such as Gerald Ratner,
Brian Harvey (East 17), Nick Leeson and even Morrisey.
Challenging The Untouchables – The
Collapse of Barings Bank…
Strong performance management
explores how the line manager can support the employees’ capability to do the
role as well as being able to challenge under performance. This can’t be easy
if the results are coming in thick and fact (Top Gear ratings are unbelievably
good!). This is a challenge that many banks are trying to face right now –
performance managing not just the results but also the behaviours demonstrated.
When I asked Nick Leeson “Do you envisage Banks providing bonuses not only on
results but also behaviours?” he seemed to think this would be a model that
would address the values challenge across the industry but would be hard to
implement.
This is not surprising – when Nick worked at Barings Bank (which is
subsequently collapsed through his “Rogue Trading”) the traders were described as
untouchables – as long as they bring the money in don’t ask any questions. This
culture unfortunately led to the demise of Barings Bank (of course Nick played
his part!)….however – we should ask what sort of silo culture was in place at
Top Gear? Was this really an environment that Clarkson’s behaviours (and
others) could be challenged in an appropriate manner?
Maintaining Credibility With
Stakeholders - The Ratner Speech
Although the high street chain
Ratners in the 1980s may have been regarded as "tacky", the shops were
extremely popular with the public, until Ratner made a speech addressing a
conference of the Institute of Directors at the Royal Albert Hall on 23 April
1991. During the speech, he commented:
“We also do cut-glass sherry
decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler
can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, "How can you sell this
for such a low price?", I say, "because it's total crap."
For me the speech highlights a
lack of awareness of who your main true stakeholders actually are and the need
to consistently maintain credibility with them at all times. In this instance
the customers’ needs were sacrificed for laughs in front of powerful and
influential business people across the U.K. Back to Clarkson – in this instance it appears
he was focused on his own needs rather than those of the BBC teams and Top Gear
followers. It may sound unfair but big egos often fail to consider the thoughts and feelings of even some of their biggest stakeholders under pressure and in the heat of the moment.
Morrisey – A good example of Emotional
Intelligence?
Morrissey was described recently
as a “rich, has-been egomaniac” by Scottish
band PAWS, after the Smiths frontman allegedly demanded that their clashing gig
in the same venue as his be cancelled. Morrisey was booked recently for a gig
in California on with PAWS and We Are Scientists due to play in the next-door
room. But reports state that Morrissey was not impressed with this set-up due
to concerns that loud music would drown out his performance – suggesting they
should re-schedule the gig.
Morrisey is a great example of an individual with fantastic talent but perhaps lacks a few key aspects of emotional intelligence – problem solving with others and the maintaining of relationships where both parties needs are fully addressed. We Are Scientists’ Chris posted a follow-up message suggesting that the eventual solution – moving their show a little later – was fair. In any strong graduate programme the importance of the "Win-Win" approach to work is critical - where fixed positions are addressed through the exploration of common ground.
Morrisey is a great example of an individual with fantastic talent but perhaps lacks a few key aspects of emotional intelligence – problem solving with others and the maintaining of relationships where both parties needs are fully addressed. We Are Scientists’ Chris posted a follow-up message suggesting that the eventual solution – moving their show a little later – was fair. In any strong graduate programme the importance of the "Win-Win" approach to work is critical - where fixed positions are addressed through the exploration of common ground.
How to performance manage a successful person such as Clarkson?
It raises a great question of
whether we would damage his actual strengths by working with him to focus on
his development areas – could we really imagine a sensitive and thoughtful
Clarkson in the workplace? No – but we could at least open up opportunities for
greater levels of collaboration in his work which includes compromise with his peers.
The BBC itself also needs to reflect
on what might be a silo type culture in the Top Gear team – where values and
behaviours have gone unchallenged and without follow-up. All individuals need to be objective driven and strategically aligned - whoever they are! This should not be compromised with the most talented (or gifted!) employees by any organisation.
There is a positive to
see that when the dust had settled Clarkson took accountability and
responsibility for the situation claiming he wanted people to stop blaming the
producer, Oisin Tymon, for his departure from Top Gear following him being the
subject of threats on social media. Finally - great empathy and reflection, I wish him well in his future career post whatever his role and the best of luck to his future line manager!
