For several years our largest client was BP. At the time, John Brown was the CEO. Of all the leaders that I have known over the years, John Brown stands out as one of the most visionary, insightful and prescient talent builders of the last 50 years. Had he remained CEO of BP, I think the entire energy sector would be enormously different today – in a good way. He helped to build a company that generated $28 billion (yes you read that right) in profits. He put a stake in the ground and declared that BP no longer stood for “British Petroleum” but now stood for “Beyond Petroleum”, marking the beginning of a 10 year journey in which BP would shed its dependency on fossil fuels. This was underscored by a ground-breaking speech at Stanford University in 1997, during which he made his position clear that the link between man-made carbon emissions and global warming could no longer be dismissed, (remember, he was the leader of the second biggest energy company in the world) and he called for immediate action. As a result, he alone in the energy sector, was predicting what we now know to be true, while his peers derided him. Along the way BP acquired Amoco, became the largest producer of solar energy equipment in the world, and grew to become second only in size to ExxonMobil.
Like any outstanding leader, especially a risk taker in the high-stakes energy industry, there were slip-ups and mistakes. The most critical one, in some ways, was his decision to lie in a witness statement about his homosexual relationship with another man. He was hounded by the press for this, and this sad but strategically insignificant event, as much as anything, brought about his resignation months prior to his planned retirement.
John Brown helped to shape the future of the energy industry and today it is catching up with him.
BP is still a huge and powerful corporation in the energy sector. But it is a shadow of its former pioneering and visionary self. So now we need to ask, what are the criteria by which we judge a leader? Where, and when, does the personal life and decisions of a leader become the strategic priority of the board and shareholders? Should the opinions of those who subject leaders to their own benchmark of moral rectitude, make decisions based on their own moral compass but which are enormously detrimental to the future success of the business? After all, the board’s main responsibility is to the shareholders of the organization.
I offer no judgment here, but I present for you a question that faces all boards. In the case of BP, a subjective decision based on the personal life of one individual changed the fortunes of millions of people around the world – customers, employees, shareholders, governments, explorers, regulators and everyone who hoped that BP would model the way forward for sustainable corporations.
Was it the right decision? What do you think? What would you do?
I have a motto “don’t address blame, solve the problem.” So I wonder why we blame leaders of large corporations for mistakes or problems where they had little control. Jamie Dimon’s company bought companies during the sub prime crisisc that did dishonest things, yet his firm and he are blamed. Some leaders deserve blame, such as the head of Wachovia who was brain dead about mortgages, but most are not. It is how they handle the problems that they are. Handed that ought to be judge d.
I wa s unaware of lying about his sexual preferences, something you could understand given countries where you could be executed or put in jail….even in Great Britain not that long ago. But w hat possible difference could it be today, except some minor embarrassment . It does go to show an insecurity about the way others see him. I subscribe to the approach that Richard Feyman used in the book “what do you care about what other people think.”
It takes tremendous courage to stand up for what your moral compass tells you is the right way. Sad that such a visionary and corporately courageous man should be afraid to be authentic about his personal life.
CASTLE. T = Truthfulness…he lied!
Personalities of individuals should be left out of the equation. It is the vision that should be the hallmark of a leader. I find that very few leaders walk the talk.
As a visionary leader John Brown stood out as a giant. He was far ahead of his time. If he had persisted, we would be much closer to Planet, People, Prosperity, rather than profits at all costs.
Perhaps his vision was the underlying factor in the decisions of others to oust him in any way they could. Till today big oil is a powerful lobby. It is a shame.
The removal of John Brown was only in the best interests of “the press”. Boards of Directors should be reminded that their constituents are the shareholders, not the press.
As a gay man who is 61 years old, I understand why Mr. Brown would want to keep his private life private. It is important to keep in mind that the world was different only 10 years ago. If a gay relationship were to be exposed today, the silence of the shrug would be deafening.
Besides the detail of sexual orientation, personal activities which do not directly affect the responsibilities of a leader should be disregarded, or at least diminished. Though Mr. Brown can be faulted for his lie about his relationship, I wonder how relevant that was even to the investigation. The penalty does not appear consistent with the infraction.
In the realm of the ideal: I like the view: “What other people think of me is none of my business.” Integrity, authenticity, congruity and “honesty” are paramount. “To thine own self be true …” .
In the imperfect realm of the practical: ethical values and behavior need be assessed in the situaltional context of a complex and messy world. In other words, I absolutely don’t like absolutes.
Regarding the question of “Should Personal Views Override Optimum Strategy”: any answer would seem to follow a very careful assessment within a “framework of competing values”, which includes not only the shareholders, but all the “stakeholders”. And of course suggests moving beyond blaming and faultfinding to fair and effective problem solving.
It is perhaps telling that the vision John Brown espoused seems to have required his presence to fulfill, and in that way the health of BP as a company was compromised, since, if I infer accurately from your narrative, the vision he championed didn’t remain after his leaving. Which is to say, the board, the official keepers of the vision, were not of a common mind to say (and mean) something like, “John’s departure from BP has no bearing on BP’s commitment to lead the world’s relationship with energy in the spirit John so well envisioned….”
To me, the reason for his leaving is incidental. Among any CEO’s primary responsibilities is to be able to “die” without affecting what the organization is committed to being or die trying. If Mr. Brown was the leader you suggest, I imagine he knew this and was taking steps to grow the company’s (especially the board’s) embrace of his vision so that his departure, whenever it occurred and for whatever reasons, would have no impact on BP’s core aspirations.
At least one lesson your tale reveals to me is a certain lack of clarity on the part of the BP board as to “who we will be or die trying” regardless of who’s in the captain’s seat.
A thought-provoking post. I am a big admirer of John Brown. But did his slightly early retirement really cause BP’s star to fade? Did it definitely ‘change the fortunes of millions of people’? I am inclined to agree with Steve Roberts, it is surely the job of great leaders to raise capable successors and it looks to me as if JB did not manage to do this…