The Leadership Legend – CEOs, David Petraeus & Marie Antoinette

Zeitgeist has found himself leading projects several times over the past year. The prospect can sometimes be a challenging one, and the received wisdom is that looking to the past can help shed light on the future. Looking at both recent and ancient history, however, says one thing more than anything else; leaders are a victim of circumstances. Any strategy must adapt to context.

As a 20-something Londoner with money to burn, Zeitgeist naturally found himself on Saturday night sitting at home, reading The New Yorker. The fascinating review by Dexter Filkins of recent biographies on David Petraeus, former CIA director and responsible for the execution of the ‘surge’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, painted an interesting portrait of what leadership is about. He recognised that the system in place in the early days of Iraq of rounding up countless civilians in order to ferret out insurgents was not an efficient one, nor was it especially effective. Rather, as Filkins points out, “I witnessed several such roundups, and could only conclude that whichever of these men did not support the uprising when the raids began would almost certainly support it by the time the raids were over”. Leadership, then, in this case, came in the ability to spot a deficiency, and then building on it by offering a better solution. Petraeus, who liked to say that “money is ammunition”, focused on the civilians they wanted to protect, rather than the enemy they wanted to kill. This was a drastically radical notion at the time in the military. True leadership narratives are often riddled with anecdotes of absolute maverick behaviour of this kind. The fallacy is that, and this is one of Taleb’s main points in his book on uncertainty, Black Swan, the stories of those whose maverick ideas did not work out rarely make for interesting books or films. Few songs will be written about those guys.

Just as Petraeus was able to leverage the time in which he happened to be serving in order to spot something that he could perceive to be at fault and have the opportunity to amend, there is then an element of luck involved too. “I have plenty of clever generals”, Napoleon once said, “Just give me a lucky one”. Petraeus’ luck began with being around at the right time in order to see how things could be different. It continued when he managed to shepherd his idea for the ‘surge’ to fruition. While at the time the idea of deploying an extra 25,000 soldiers to Iraq was greeted with some mixed reactions to the say the least, it can certainly be said to have paid off in large part. It was another example of a maverick move that panned out well. However, as Filkins points out, the timing of it all was what made it such a success. The Awakening, a phrase given to Sunni-orchestrated truces with US troops that began before the surge, was instrumental. Filkins writes, “Could the surge have worked without the Awakening? Almost certainly not”. The Awakening most assuredly featured tactically in the execution of the surge, but you can be sure it was never part of the strategy. Perhaps it was the failure to notice this, and the attractiveness of the holistic narrative – another fallacy that Taleb notes in his book – that led to a surge being attempted, with far less success, in Afghanistan. What works in one place at one time, might not work again.

Zeitgeist is also currently wading through the Marie Antoinette biography by Antonia Fraser. It is quite extraordinary to note how many times the autocratic aristocracy are a victim of circumstances, rather than being able to dictate their own fate through their own policies and leadership. In the long-term, though greeted with warmth at the start of her reign, Marie Antoinette was always treated with a modicum of suspicion by the people of France, hailing from Austria, a country of lukewarm political relations and which culturally left many an ordinary Frenchman cold. It was long-gestating prejudices such as these that helped blacken the Queen’s name. The phrase ‘Let them eat cake’ had been ascribed to various monarchs going back over a century before Marie Antoinette ascended to the throne. In the medium-term, the support France provided in the American war of independence was pivotal. The Treasury spent an enormous amount of money funding the war, which was seen as a proxy battle with England. This action alone nearly bankrupted the country. But, away from finances, there was the ideological lens to consider as well. Landed gentry like Lafayette, who left nobly at the King’s command to support the war, returned not only as lauded heroes, but as heroes who had been fighting with a group of people who yearned to be free of a suppressive, royalist regime. Such thinking proved infectious, and was not forgotten when men like Lafayette returned home. Finally, in the short-term, an absolutely ruinous stroke of weather stunted harvests, creating mass famine across the country in the lead-up to the revolution. All such things were manageable to an extent by the royalty, but truthfully the origins of such influences were out of their hands.

CEOs today are seen as less wizard-like than they were five or ten years ago, when moguls, particularly in the media industry, bestrode the globe, acquiring companies at their whim, creating ‘synergy’ where none really existed in the first place (think AOL Time Warner). The paradigm shift of course has been in the global recession that few – including many a lauded business leader – foresaw. Confidence in such people has been shaken. What these histories tells us about the ways to handle leadership then can be summarised in the following ways: 1. Know your environment. Externalities and trends are likely to influence your business, and not always in obvious ways. 2. Be mindful of context. What works somewhere might not work in the same way again elsewhere. 3. Appearance, rightly or wrongly, counts for a great deal. 4. When you choose to do something can sometimes be as important as the thing you are trying to do itself. 5. A small amount of luck can go a long way.

The Pitfalls of Brand Personification

In a quest to be all things to all people, brands can sometimes lose their way. They become lost in a miasma of dilution as they try to stretch their brand equity to appeal to every consumer, or branch out into new markets. Some, like Virgin, have managed this fairly successfully – let’s forget for the moment about Virgin Brides – while others, such as Cisco (which we wrote about recently) have fared less well. Virgin’s equity relies in part on the man behind the company, Sir Richard Branson. His affable qualities have appealed to both consumers and investors. The balance he maintains is a delicate one, driving the essence of the brand without ever overwhelming it.

In the world of luxury, companies have often used brand ambassadors. The watchmaker Breguet has long claimed that luminaries such as Napoleon, Churchill and Marie Antoinette wore their brand. Each of these characters had their flaws of course, not least the megalomaniacal Frenchman. However, when the person personifying the brand is also at the rudder of the ship, the situation can prove more complex. This was evident in March this year when master designer John Galliano was fired from his creative directorship at Dior, as well as from his role at his eponymous label.

Similarly affected by ramifications at the top has been Lagardère Group, run by Arnaud Lagardère, who inherited the company from his father. As well as owning a range of media assets, it also has a 7.5% stake in the defence contracting firm EADS. Recently the 51 year-old has taken up with a 20 year-old model by the name of Jade. A cutesy video for a glossy magazine shoot made its way online (see below). Any semblance of dignity the man maintained – already in question prior to this video – was lost. This may decide future business directions at the company. Arnaud is a keen sports enthusiast, at one point mulling a bid for the rights to the Tour de France. Any such wishful thinking must now be considered just that as shareholders are keen to refocus on existing assets. His overt publicity has cost him dear; Arnaud may now be at risk of losing some of his control over the company. Writes The Economist,

“Executives at EADS are dismayed to see their future boss behave like a nincompoop. “In Germany any manager who shot such a video would be finished in business,” says a person close to the company.”

And so we turn to Apple, which has been recently hit with the news that Steve Jobs will be stepping down from his current role. He will remain at the company as chairman of the board, and his ideas and personality will affect the company’s direction for several years still, but after that the company’s direction, and its brand equity, will be at a crossroads. The company has, even relative to its own stellar performance, recently been enjoying great success, briefly becoming the world’s largest public company. In managing this feat, it overtook Exxon Mobil. As The Economist pointed out, however, “oil remains a vital raw material” (though not for a great deal longer, admittedly), whereas Apple’s appeal is in “delighting customers”. A company that serves such a fickle master so directly is in danger of losing said appeal at any given moment. Last week, an editorial in the FT pointed out that an Apple without Steve Jobs at the helm will be a less irascible but also a less happy place, and hence perhaps less appealing to customers. The New York Times echoed such sentiments that weekend, with an article headlined “For Apple fans, departure of Jobs is personal”,

“…[P]eople love Apple products in a way that they do not love other products they use every day. And Mr. Jobs as chief executive has been uniquely connected to Apple’s creations.”

The article details personal consumer reactions to the news, which range from tearful incredulity to concern over future business inspiration and product innovation.

All of which goes to show that having an impresario at the top can benefit a company hugely for decades. Could Steve Jobs have made Apple as popular, while taking a slight back seat, a la Bill Gates, Howard Stringer, Howard Schultz or Jack Welch? Probably not. If he had, Apple wouldn’t be the company it is today. But one thing’s for sure, what it is today will not be what it is in the future, when Jobs’ influence has left and the company has to decide which path to take.

Luxury is Dead, Long Live Luxury

A sad day for Zeitgeist today as car manufacturer Daimler announced the beginning of the end for the luxury brand Maybach (courtesy of the excellent Luxuo blog). The Maybach is an incredibly expensive, incredibly indulgent, ridiculously large and ridiculously powerful car. It’s exclusivity is second to none, to the extent that actually too few of them are being sold. Despite risqué attempts at brand activation with cutting edge artists like David LaChapelle and despite manufacturing only a hundred cars for some lines, the dream is over. How does luxury struggle onwards as the world crawls out of the recession?

The pleasure of Zeitgeist’s company was requested for ‘Artisan’ afternoon tea at Christian Dior on London’s Sloane Street this week. Luxury was front and centre. More than playing on the bling nature of the brand name, the idea was to present the fantastic workmanship that went on behind closed doors.

At the event, with the help of an Italian translator, Zeitgeist was able to speak to one of the aforementioned artisans, who was responsible for making handbags. The Florentine, wearing an immaculate white labcoat with the Dior logo above the breast pocket, said he had no quota for how many bags to produce per day or week, that Dior demanded absolute perfection instead in every bag, no matter the time taken. Though each person will have his or her own speciality, they will work across both the Dior and the Dior Homme brand. Elsewhere in the store, people worked meticulously on Dior jewellery and watches with incredible patience. The work pace of those in the jewellery and timepiece department was similarly dedicated to quality over quantity. From a branding perspective, not only does this ensure a higher rate of product satisfaction, at the same time it also helps to enforce scarcity.

While all this was occurring, waiters roamed the boutique with tripled tiered treats, ranging from caramel pastries and petites tartes aux framboises to mini cupcakes with swirls of icing. The whole affair felt very similar to that of the recent Miss Dior Cherie campaign, directed by Sofia Coppola, who coincidentally directed a very similar scene in Marie Antoinette. Dior definitely had its thinking cap when it came to integrating retail environment and through-the-line campaigns. The event next goes to Tokyo.

Elsewhere in the fashion sector, Louis Vuitton streamed its Paris Fashion Week collection over Facebook (again), and Burberry’s collection in London was broadcast in 3D. And what of luxury in general, how will it manage in a world of frozen credit? Zeitgeist recently listened in on a Datamonitor webinar called “Recovery from Recession”, (definite articles clearly not being a trend for this year according to Datamonitor). Consumption has slowed holistically because people no longer have the money, or access to borrowed money, that would allow them to make those purchases they otherwise would have done. This economic realignment – some might call it sanity – will hopefully be a relatively short-term affair. There is a worry for luxury brands however that these more frugal tendencies will become deeply ingrained in the buying habits of their potential or erstwhile consumers.

As such, there has been a trend by some brands to open up further to the masses. This has its advantages in that it can persuade people to trade up, especially concerning “everyday luxury items and treats” which are “a treat, rather than a representation of lifestyle”. “It is important that the long term image of the product is not hindered through aggressive discounting policies.” For Datamonitor, Grey Goose is a fine example of this, as it sells below retail price in the duty-free sector to great success. The fact that it is not discounted at a supermarket – where a shopper might see it every week rather than on infrequent trips to the airport – means the brand retains its premium image despite price cutting in some choice locations. Value added services, in this case a cocktail guide, also help. For those that are able to keep up their pre-recession spending uninterrupted, the trend is toward more arcane brands, such as Loro Piana. Shops like Escada, cognisant of consumer fears over reckless spending, have provided unbranded paper bags of late.

With the rather large hiccup of the recession seemingly over, luxury brands can certainly breathe a very small sigh of relief. Just how much people will want to spend on arguably frivolous products in the years to come, and, importantly, how discreet they will wish to be about it, will be a very important factor.