The Rise & Fall of East 17: Leadership, Brand Management & Team Dysfunction

East 17 a dysfunctional team? 20 hits and 14 million record sales can't be bad. So what the hell happened and how does this relate to Talent Management?.....

This is the ultimate example of top talent management, team dysfunction, "Chav" brand management gone wrong and a good old personality clash. East 17's rise and fall is one of the most memorable pop moments of the 90s.

So how does this epic journey by four lads from Walthamstow relate to talent management?

  

East 17 'Forming'

The band began in 1991 when Tony Mortimer was given a record deal but asked to form a band by London Records. This placed Mortimer squarely as the band leader with Mortimer soon forming a trio with Terry Coldwell and John Hendy. The group was named East 17 after the postcode of their hometown, Walthamstow. 

Tuckman (1965, see model right) outlined that any team goes through the formation stages where roles and responsibilities are unclear, with the team requiring a leader to give aims and objectives. I wonder if Tony planned the next key moment however in the formation stage? The original roles in the band were soon altered when Brian Harvey, who was intended to be a back-up singer and dancer, was heard singing along during a recording session and was then duly promoted to lead vocalist. 

What would Tony would have made of this? Nose slightly put out of joint? We might assume for now though that trust within the band has not yet become an issue - but even so, we did not have a clear leader for the band - perhaps a "Who's top dog?" risk for the band at an early stage that was overlooked

“There’s brian’s vision and my vision – two poloaraties that work against each other….he’s happy as the boss in the middle. I wish him all the best and think that is the mature thing to do. There can only be one leader can’t there?”

Tony Mortimer commenting on the three setting up on their own

The Genius of Chav Brand Management

East 17 started to get a reputation and brand - the rapper, the singer, the looks and the other two that wore daft hats and danced well. Was this stroke of music genius stumbled upon blindly by London Records? A great understanding of their prospective audience and demographics needs or just pure luck? when focusing on personal brand it is worthwhile exploring intent (motives) and capability (talent). Looking at East 17 their fans knew they had the capability but also knew that these lads were not the sort you would want to take home to meet your gran - this worked a treat.

East 17 could easily have been described as the very first chavs in pop music.

"I've never really minded the "chav" tag. I see what they mean to be honest. We were working-class and we were loutish, but I think there were a lot of groups that were similar to us. It's a predominantly middle-class industry. There were lots of cool bands in the 60s and 70s that were pretending to be working-class because there's an almost anti-middle-class feeling in society but when there's real working-class ... people aren't sure how to take it. I wouldn't know how to define class now, it's all become a bit blurred."

Tony Mortimer

Either way the public knew what they liked - and they wanted the bad boy image but for many not to  necessarily get their hands dirty or for any one to get hurt along the way. As long as the band stayed consistent in their behaviours, everyone would be milking the cash cow. Perhaps though this was not enough for some and staying to these unwritten rules would have perhaps been unrealistic.

“They shaved their heads, and had tattoos, and were a lot cooler than the nancy boys of Take That. In the great five-year battle that dominated British pop, East 17 were also on the winning side. Their music was sharper and more streetwise. It was infused with hip-hop and R&B, and sold by the bucketload: 18 million records across Europe, compared with Take That's paltry 17 million.”

— Guy Adams, The Independent

House of Love 'Norming' @ E17?

The talent and roles over time were becoming clear - Harvey's vocal style emulated R&B and new jack swing vocalists from the US. His vocals put him into a position of the band's frontman, or main member, which was shared with the band's creator, songwriter, instrumentalist, rapper and singer Tony Mortimer. Throughout the course of the band's career the two leads had many disagreements, from how to vocalise songs to their behaviour in public. This tore the band between spiritual pop/hip-hop (Mortimer's writing influence) and R&B (the other band members). Yet is was this dynamic and diversity that was perhaps the secret ingredient that was overlooked. Unfortunately Tony loathed and detested Brian according to E17 manager Tom Watkins and would not even get in to the same vehicle. Brian was seen by many as difficult to get on with - this may have been the case but put the two together and the combination of tony's raps skills (straight face now) and Harvey's R&B sound struck a chord in the great British public. Management never quite helped these young lads build a strong band unit however, and could easily meet Lencioni's 1st team dysfunction. Team members show a lack of trust when they:

• Hold grudges
• Don't give feedback
• Hide their mistakes or weaknesses
• Find ways of avoiding each other

You cannot ignore the responsibility of the record companies here - perhaps it was a "Lets just see how far we can take this band and milk the cash cow until it explodes". This is a real shame as it inevitably did. What if the band had the skill to deliver a difficult message with each other? Or at least provide some feedback in the right way? Someone would have told Terry and John about their ridiculous hats. One hypothesis could be that the skills to manage conflict, and the fear of conflict management in this band led to the decline and fall.

Ecstasy Storming Stage

As with all successful personal brands, individuals must stay consistent in their behaviours in front of their key stakeholders to maintain credibility. The truth is stakeholders don't like change, let alone big change done quickly.

Covey Jnr describes four "Cores of credibilty" to ensure you maintain your reputation over time. - Intent, Integrity, Capability and Track Record. The British public may have bought in to the working class image but when push came to shove the media would simply not accept Harvey's real behind the curtain glimpse in to his life style and values.....

“I’ve done pills myself. I’ve done 12 in one night and been off it on them. It can bring out the better in someone really in the long run it is a safe pill”

Brian Harvey, Independent radio news 1997

“Any comments of that sort are wholly wrong”

British Prime Minister John Major

In the space of a minute individual intent and integrity was exposed to all key stakeholders, including mums and dads in middle England forking out pocket money for another 90s boy band. The Press made him public enemy number one. Once the hits started to dry up the track record of the past was soon forgotten.

What do you think the chances were that Harvey had been clearly briefed on him being a role model to his fans? That there were now expectations of behaviour - as well as exactly who his stakeholders actually were.

Lencioni's 2nd team dysfunction was clear with this bad - the dysfunction includes a 'Fear of Conflict' and a loss of opportunity to confront awkward truths. It was clear that following the interview Harvey's fate was written on the wall and quickly found himself kicked out of the band without a conversation following an agreement from the other three team members.

Talent Managment Learings?

The storming in this band never really took place believe it or not - just difficult incidents, punch-ups and arguments that broke the band. Not at any point did the band really have to go through the unpleasant storming process as described by Tuckman... "Here the team members will resolve their differences and members will be able to participate with one another comfortably. It will be difficult and uncomfortable." These skills are of course vital in the workplace when either managing upwards or managing young talent. 

Let's also not forget the fantastic brand East 17 had in place. A great lesson for future leaders in becoming more aware of their key stakeholders / customer's needs and motivators and what behaviours are required to keep these individuals engaged. Take That of course evolved with their audience which you have to ask whether this took place with East 17.

The band never reached "Tuckman's Performing Stage" again.  My theory? Young lads with the world at their feet, with little life experience, but also let down by their own management - perhaps not taking true responsibility for what they had the potential to influence and control.

It is a shame this talented band did not have a wise mentor to focus on team development, personality differences, the importance of diversity as well as recognising their own limitations in their role and that the whole of the team is greater than the sum of its parts. It seems though that when the boys became men (I know, leave it),  learning had still not taken place over the last 15 years or so following the re-union attempt in 2009 which resulted in Harvey being punched in the face by Mortimer for being late to a recording deal meeting. 

For more information go to:

Tuckman's Team Development Model: http://www.businessballs.com/tuckmanformingstormingnormingperforming.htm

Lencion's Team Dysfunctions:
http://www.tablegroup.com/dysfunctions/the_five_dysfunctions.pdf

Workplace Lessons From History: Sun Tsu's First Major Tactical Win -

Strategic Thinking In The Workplace - Sun Tsu's First Major Tactical Win - 

Workplace Evolution # 2

Forget Porters Forces and McKinseys 7 S's Sun Tsu was streaks ahead a thousand years ago. I think many organisations feel that when they explore strategy with a client it has to be theory from the last 20 years. Yet the theory of Sun Tsu has been tried and tested over a thousand years - with many appreciating its place in history and the workplace (watch Wall Street!).

“Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”

Sun Tzu on Chapter 3 – Strategic Attacks

The clip below is a documentary on Sun Tzu's teaching and strategic thinking - enjoy. 

Further information can be found under  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu

The Original Rogue Trader: My Interview With Nick Leeson - The original rogue trader

My Interview With Nick Leeson - The original rogue trader

The Hilton Park Lane, crystal chandeliers, roses in full bloom – and the individual confidently crossing the marble flooring, spruce as a strong contender in Strictly Come Dancing, is a certain Nick Leeson.

For one day in 1995, he led the financial world in a violent tango that killed his company. How did it go wrong at Barings? It is difficult to pinpoint where it all went belly up at what was once, allegedly, the Queen's personal bank. If you want a starting point, the archetypal 1990s city trader, driving his Porsche and doing business with a brick-sized mobile, is a good one. The Gordon Gekko 'Greed is good' message of the 1987 movie, Wall Street, was very much alive and well, and Nick Leeson, a working-class lad from Watford, was Barings Bank's star derivatives trader in Singapore.

Trading floors at the time had their 'Untouchables', says Leeson: not the Indian lowest of the low, but godlike Gekkos who could do as they pleased. This came at a cost, he says. "People were focusing on the money that was being made. It was never about control systems... Barings had risk managers and compliance officers, but they were never in a position of authority to challenge the Untouchables. People in those compliance positions needed to understand the business and what really went on. They clearly didn't at Barings."

In 1994, Leeson's luck began to run out, not through one of his own errors, he says, but through that of a fellow team member on the trading floor; and it was an error that would have vastly outweighed her annual salary. "In the culture at the time, failure was not what people were looking for. Highlighting any failure was difficult at work. At the time, I wanted to be successful, I wanted to be at the top of the organisation, a decision-maker. The world of finance was a method of achieving that."

Had it not been for Leeson's ambition and leadership style, this would have been a shorter story altogether. "If someone works for me, I have a natural inclination to help them - at all times. It should have been very black and white - where there had been an error, you reported it and you let whatever necessary mechanism there was take place. Typically, losses were made, they were talked about and people would lose their jobs as a consequence. There should have been some form of reprimand. The loss should have been reported up. I stopped that process."

Leeson not only stopped the process, but every time someone in his team made an error, including, above all, himself, the losses would illegally enter a hidden '88888 account' (eight is a lucky number in Chinese culture). "That solved it for me, as I didn't want someone looking closer at what was going on."

The 'failure is not an option' culture was also combined with a ruthless 24x7 style of management, hungry for profits. Even during Leeson's time in England for a funeral visit in 1994, he was asked to trade in London overnight. "I used to go in to Bishopsgate (Barings' global HQ in the City of London) for a week on my own - you can't believe it happened. However messed up I was in going through this, how messed up were some of the other people? I would be looking at the computer screen, with a cleaner coming round me with the hoover!"

By the end of 1994, the losses in the 88888 account stood at £200m. These grew further when the markets turned against him, the downturn accelerated by the economic impact of the earthquake in Kobe, in January, 1995. Leeson had bet the Japanese economy would recover swiftly, but the Nikkei had gone into a tailspin. The business, meanwhile, believed Leeson was still its star trader, accounting for around 90% of the profits.

Leeson requested and obtained extra funds to continue his trading activities, as he attempted to extricate himself from the financial losses. "They were so willing to accept what was going on [his supposed success on the trading floor]. They wanted to believe what I was doing." Eventually alerted by the requests, his bosses carried out an audit in February 1995.

By then, Leeson's activities had generated losses totalling £827 million, twice the bank's available trading capital. The collapse cost a further £100 million. Barings was declared insolvent on 26 February and was bought for £1, by Dutch banking and insurance group ING.

Leeson is keen to shoulder the responsibilities for his actions. He did his time in Singapore, serving four years in the tough Changi prison of a six and a half year sentence (he got early release after being diagnosed with cancer of the colon, from which he has recovered). He continues to draw attention to the cultural dangers in the financial industry. "If you wanted to highlight the number of people that could have stopped me, it would be well into the hundreds." Perhaps he is not admitting he himself was an untouchable.

Could the collapse all be down just to the culture at Barings? Cherchez la femme, says Leeson. "It wasn't just the dynamics at play in the workplace, but also outside of that. My wife, my family, my employers and those that worked for me.... I didn't want to let any of those people down."

To say this key point had a significant part to play would be an understatement. "That time I came home from Singapore in 1994, I did not want to go back. The easiest thing would have been not to have gone back in January 1995 and let it be exposed - the losses would have been less, the bank may have survived. The reason I did go back was that my wife had invited friends to come and visit us in March. I of all people couldn't turn around to her and say I had messed up. That lack of honesty in the domestic arena was the over-riding factor."

Leeson cites the example of the Baltimore branch of Allied Irish Bank's subsidiary, Allbank, where John Rusnak lost an estimated $691 million, earning him a seven-year jail sentence in 2003. "Look at him - middle class in Baltimore, lovely family, living well - you have to ask, why did he continue trading? He did not want to let them down. Fear of failure is sometimes more overriding in the domestic relationship than in the world of finance."

Leeson is not convinced the industry has taken any significant lessons on board since his time at Barings. "In the world of finance, if you go into any bank and ask it, 'What are your controls like?', it will tell you it is beyond reproach. It will guarantee it and bring out glossy brochures and explain what it is doing. But I believe this will happen again and that it will happen to somebody else."

Recent events in the financial markets would seem to support the Leeson belief of a continuing phenomenon of 'rogue trading' (the title of Leeson's jail autobiography, described by the FT as 'a dreary book, written by a young man very taken with himself, but it ought to be read by banking managers and auditors everywhere').

Since our interview, there is the example of the mis-selling of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI), forcing banks such as Lloyds to put aside huge sums of money (£3.2bn) for mis-selling claims by customers who took out PPI. Latest reports say the total cost to the banking sector of remedying PPI mis-selling could be as much as £9bn.

So what have we learnt? That recruitment of the highly driven and ambitious should come with a health warning? That the 'Greed is good' culture should be consigned to the annals of history? Leeson's views are realistic. "If you walk into a boardroom to develop a product or explore a market, people sit up and listen. If you want to introduce control mechanisms that will safeguard their assets, but cost x amount of money, they are less likely to listen. That is the way it was, and to some extent still is today - but hopefully the balance is shifting."

Clinging on to a 'hopefully' did not sound convincing. This convenient forgetfulness about distant financial disasters such as the South Sea Bubble of 1720 or recent spectacular events such as Enron's 2001 collapse and Société Générale's €4.9 billion loss in 2008 (courtesy of rogue trader, Jérôme Kerviel), amounts to a phenomenon of 'corporate amnesia', especially when the profits are coming in thick and fast. "That is the way the world of finance works. Look at Allied Irish Bank - it lost $600 million with John Rusnak (another rogue trader), but still reported $1.1 billion-worth of profit. Incompetence/negligence isn't always really sufficient to make any significant changes."

One hope for the future lies in simple, but effective line management, Leeson says. "Stories such as mine should always be highlighted. I never understood the concept of personal risk. I spent four pretty tough years in a Singapore prison. It is something I never imagined would happen. If personal risk is highlighted to future talent, they would be less likely to take certain actions. I would like to think if it was highlighted to me, I would not have done what I did."

Leeson's fear of failure and burning ambition were keys factor at Barings and are commonplace in today's generation Y: highly achievement-orientated and contending within a tough and competitive job market. Perhaps, though, aiming for, and expecting, perfection is not always realistic. "A friend of mine uses my story at Barings to explain that he expects people to make mistakes. He does not encourage it, but no-one is mistake-free. What he will not accept is when they try to hide it. He makes this clear to his employees right from the beginning. Barings never had meetings such as that, or even an HR department! Ask for advice - you are surrounded by people who have been in the same or similar positions. All you need to do is ask for help. That is one thing I never did."

At Barings, there was a lack of diversity in its workforce, an accusation also levelled by the US Securities and Exchange Commission at Enron, following its collapse. A lack of diversity can result in a lack of challenge, new approaches and innovation, with those suggesting alternatives being castigated for not being 'team players'. Leeson's response was not atypical when asked about the diversity at Barings. "It was certainly more diverse back then than it is now. The people that are being looked at today are coming from a far smaller gene pool. You are unlikely to be recruited unless you have a first degree." Leeson went to work as a clerk in Coutts, another alleged royal banker, straight from school, where he got a D in A Level maths.

Recent rises in the cost of tuition fees may only compound the lack of diversity/different backgrounds coming into the financial sector via, for example, the MBA route. Cambridge University recently highlighted to the Government's Office for Fair Access the challenges of increasing its intake from state schools after the rise in tuition fees. "The real thing for me," says Leeson, "is attracting intelligent individuals to the control areas in the organisation and giving them the authority that will enable them to make sure certain difficulties do not surface."

At one point, while sitting on losses of £40 million, Leeson entered into negotiations with a former boss for a bonus to keep up the façade of his Singapore trading success. Some 14 years later, in 2008, Hector Sants, head of the Financial Services Authority, issued a warning to the financial sector that the culture of big City bonuses could be encouraging too much risk-taking. Perhaps that was a factor in Leeson's behaviour at Barings?

"Was it the bonus that really encouraged the risk-taking? I don't think so. It was the need and desire for success more than anything else. Whenever there is a scandal, the finger is pointed at the individual, rightly so, but it takes the attention away from the lack of control in the system and what has been happening for the past 10 to 15 years. Right now, the bonuses are a scapegoat - the focus should be on the systems and controls that are still not in place. There haven't been people in the organisations to challenge what is going on - central banks, government banks and individual banks."

With banks such as HSBC doubling their profits to £11.8 billion this year - chief exec Stuart Gulliver was recently handed a £5.2 million bonus - it appears the banks are bouncing back. "If they are good at what they do, they should be paid. Can you reinvent the process? You can't. Bonuses are there - they are there to stay. If you have a trader who is making large sums of money, the business will want them and have the money to pay for them. There is a debate that bonuses for ethically correct behaviour are the way to go - but if the person is making shedloads of money [and not behaving to the guidelines], would they not simply move somewhere else? Without solidarity in the industry on the level of bonuses, that is going to happen."

You could be forgiven for thinking the rogue trader phenomenon is confined to the financial sector. But let's just reflect on what this article has covered; the greed is good culture; the untouchable few; the devaluing of control/risk management; the 'failure is not an option' outlook; and challenges around diversity. These are longstanding factors to contend with in the workplace. They challenge HR, as to whether the organisation and its employees truly live the values they champion, or if simply getting a profit makes the hierarchy turn a blind eye.

Sir Richard Branson has recently appointed Peter Norris, former CEO of Barings, to head the board of Virgin Group, covering brands such as Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Rail. Norris is an individual who stated that the Barings board's "critical faculties were less engaged than they should have been because of profits". Let us hope Branson and Norris can waltz together without stepping on each other's toes. Nick Leeson will be observing it all with a wry, knowing smile.

Occupational psychologist Michael Costello works at Coventry University's Acua project, which provides organisational, management and leadership development solutions to business.

Workplace Lessons From History: Deep Blue Computer VS Garry Kasparov

Workplace Evolution # 3

For me this is a significant moment in workplace evolution. The moment that man was pitted against machine and tested. Forget Terminator - this was the real clash of the titans.

Chess has always been seen as suited to the intellectual elite - from the middle ages chess was part of the "Nobles" culture that allowed players to learn war strategy. Benjamin Franklin viewed chess as a key means of self-improvement believing the develoment of Foresight, Circumspection (surveying the whole scene) and Caution. Are these really the qualities that can be replicated by a computer?

"Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov" was a pair of famous six-game human–computer chess matches, in the format of machine and humans, versus a human. In this format, on the machine side a team of chess experts and programmers manually alter engineering between the games

   The video above is a link to the "Game Over" documentary about Deep Blue Vs Kasparov 

The matches were played between Kasparov and the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue with a team of IBM programmers (and chess grand-masters) who directed and programmed the machine between games. Kasparov won the first match 4–2, losing one game, drawing in two and winning three. A rematch, which has been called "the most spectacular chess event in history", was played in 1997 – this time Deep Blue won 3½–2½. Rumour was rife, particularly from Kasparov that there was human intervention at play, particularly in game two, with may experts saying that it was actually Kasparov that lost the match himself. IBM denied that it cheated, saying the only human intervention occurred between games.

What makes us human and a machine a machine?

Chess programs before Deep Blue went around killing enemy pieces at every opportunity - racking up the tally so to speak . Their human opponents understood that in chess, like war, other factors matter more such as territorial control, mobility, initiative, reach, coordination, supply lines, impregnability, and safety from decapitation. By trading material for these advantages, the humans won. That was until programmers taught the machines to recognise and consider the same factors. Essentially - we taught the computer humanistic thinking to beat us at our own game. For the first time in history Machine had triumphed over man.

Critical Moment In History? 

I wonder if this was the critical moment where the boundaries became blurred for all of us? Today we have computers doing a great deal more of the work for us, they are becoming more associated with our leisure time as well as us becoming dependent upon them. We could not have imagined the giant leap technology has made in the last 20 years. The question now is what are the next characteristics computers will take on?  By the way, Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM refused and dismantled Deep Blue. Deep Blue, with its capability of evaluating 200 million positions per second, was the fastest computer that ever faced a world chess champion.