Appeasing the Bond Gods

From Paul Krugman’s latest column:

As I look at what passes for responsible economic policy these days, there’s an analogy that keeps passing through my mind.

I know it’s over the top, but here it is anyway: the policy elite — central bankers, finance ministers, politicians who pose as defenders of fiscal virtue — are acting like the priests of some ancient cult, demanding that we engage in human sacrifices to appease the anger of invisible gods.

Hey, I told you it was over the top. But bear with me for a minute.

Late last year the conventional wisdom on economic policy took a hard right turn. Even though the world’s major economies had barely begun to recover, even though unemployment remained disastrously high across much of America and Europe, creating jobs was no longer on the agenda. Instead, we were told, governments had to turn all their attention to reducing budget deficits.

Skeptics pointed out that slashing spending in a depressed economy does little to improve long-run budget prospects, and may actually make them worse by depressing economic growth. But the apostles of austerity — sometimes referred to as “austerians” — brushed aside all efforts to do the math. Never mind the numbers, they declared: immediate spending cuts were needed to ward off the “bond vigilantes,” investors who would pull the plug on spendthrift governments, driving up their borrowing costs and precipitating a crisis. Look at Greece, they said.

The skeptics countered that Greece is a special case, trapped by its use of the euro, which condemns it to years of deflation and stagnation whatever it does. The interest rates paid by major nations with their own currencies — not just the United States, but also Britain and Japan — showed no sign that the bond vigilantes were about to attack, or even that they existed.

Just you wait, said the austerians: the bond vigilantes may be invisible, but they must be feared all the same.
This was a strange argument even a few months ago, when the U.S. government could borrow for 10 years at less than 4 percent interest. We were being told that it was necessary to give up on job creation, to inflict suffering on millions of workers, in order to satisfy demands that investors were not, in fact, actually making, but which austerians claimed they would make in the future.

But the argument has become even stranger recently, as it has become clear that investors aren’t worried about deficits; they’re worried about stagnation and deflation. And they’ve been signaling that concern by driving interest rates on the debt of major economies lower, not higher. On Thursday, the rate on 10-year U.S. bonds was only 2.58 percent.

So how do austerians deal with the reality of interest rates that are plunging, not soaring? The latest fashion is to declare that there’s a bubble in the bond market: investors aren’t really concerned about economic weakness; they’re just getting carried away. It’s hard to convey the sheer audacity of this argument: first we were told that we must ignore economic fundamentals and instead obey the dictates of financial markets; now we’re being told to ignore what those markets are actually saying because they’re confused.

You see, then, why I find myself thinking in terms of strange and savage cults, demanding human sacrifices to appease unseen forces.

And, yes, we are talking about sacrifices. Anyone who doubts the suffering caused by slashing spending in a weak economy should look at the catastrophic effects of austerity programs in Greece and Ireland.

Maybe those countries had no choice in the matter — although it’s worth noting that all the suffering being imposed on their populations doesn’t seem to have done anything to improve investor confidence in their governments.

But, in America, we do have a choice. The markets aren’t demanding that we give up on job creation. On the contrary, they seem worried about the lack of action — about the fact that, as Bill Gross of the giant bond fund Pimco put it earlier this week, we’re “approaching a cul-de-sac of stimulus,” which he warns “will slow to a snail’s pace, incapable of providing sufficient job growth going forward.”

It seems almost superfluous, given all that, to mention the final insult: many of the most vocal austerians are, of course, hypocrites.

Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed.

So here’s the question I find myself asking: What will it take to break the hold of this cruel cult on the minds of the policy elite? When, if ever, will we get back to the job of rebuilding the economy?

Building high performance teams

Leadership lessons from the ‘Special One’

SCIENCE OF BUILDING LEADERS
By ROSHAN THIRAN

“Ferguson is right. Money does not guarantee success. I showed that last season when my Porto team beat Manchester United. It’s all about leadership.” – Jose Mourinho

DURING the recent World Cup, I studied the work of leadership guru cum hostage negotiator George Kohlrieser on high performance teams.

As the new football season kicked off, I started to think about high performance sports teams. And immediately, one name comes to mind – José Mário dos Santos Félix Mourinho.

Jose Mourinho has built three high performance teams in the past few years. The moment he takes over the team, they quickly gel, start to perform and win trophies. How does Mourinho do it?

When Mourinho was asked what the secret to his success was, he humbly responded: “I pray a lot. I believe in God. I try to be a good man so He can have a bit of time to give me a hand when I need it.”

Mourinho may pray a lot but so do other coaches. Mourinho is probably the only coach who has a PhD, earning it from Lisbon’s Technical University.

But praying or having a PhD does not explain how he seamlessly builds high performance teams?
Let’s explore this paradoxical man. Mourinho, with his trademark Armani suit, is called crazy by some and genius by others. Despot and kind. Godly and arrogant. Loved and hated.

Yet, regardless of which team one supports, everyone, including women, has high respect for “The Special One”.

 In fact, when Mourinho left his old club Chelsea, his archrivals Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger moaned his departure.

Even British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was sad.
In a recent AOS survey, Mourinho topped a poll of celebrities that most office workers would want as their boss.

He won the poll convincingly beating Richard Branson, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Oliver and others.

For corporate employees, Mourinho is the “Chosen One”, someone they secretly wish would transform their workplace.

So how does Mourinho keep creating these high performance teams?
According to Kohlrieser in his book Hostage at the Table, there are eight key pillars to high performance leadership:

1) Leading from the mind’s eye – the power of focus;
2) Cycle of bonding – motivation, inspiration, resilience;
3) Leader as secure base – creating trust to drive change;
4) Conflict resolution – resolving differences;
5) Power of dialogue – building bridges with common understandings;
6) High impact negotiation – influencing and persuading;
7) Leveraging strengths – team self-awareness; and
8) Managing emotions – creating high energy.

Leading from the mind’s eye

Mourinho wanted to be a professional football player like his father Felix. But he was so untalented that it ended in embarrassing failure when he was not even allowed on the field.

Mourinho quit football and went to business school. But after just a day, he quit and enrolled in a sports science course, deciding to become the world’s greatest coach instead. And since that day he has kept his mind’s eye focused on being the best coach in the world.

At Porto, Chelsea, Inter Milan and now Real Madrid, Mourinho’s mind’s eye keeps him focused on winning. Even in defeat, he refuses to take the role of loser.

Every team he has managed quickly bounces back from losses because their leader has his mind’s eye fixated on nothing but success.

“It’s no fluke that after a defeat, Inter gets straight back on its feet. That’s all thanks to Mourinho,” claims Diego Milito, an Inter Milan star. In fact, winning is so engraved as Mourinho expresses: “I love players who love to win. They not only win in 90 minutes, but every day, every training session, in every moment of their lives”.

The entire team’s mind’s eye is focused on winning.

Cycle of bonding

Mourinho creates bonds with every single player in his team and personally knows each of them. Mourinho is known for his great “rapport” with his players.

He knows each player intimately and knows which button to press for each player. Some say Mourinho is avuncular and caring, while others say he is an intimidating tyrant.

Neither is true. He simply worked out how to use differing training methods for each player. “His training sessions are spectacular,” says Ronaldo. “They have great intensity but we don’t feel tired because we are extremely motivated.”

Every team Mourinho coaches, bonds like a family. Mourinho adds: “You must create a positive atmosphere and make everyone feel part of the group. In this club, if you go to the barrier, the man at the door feels part of the group and success. The people who work in the kitchen feel part of this family. And I’m one of them.”

Leaders as secure base

Research shows that teams perform best when their leader is a secure base. Mourinho was a coach, friend and secure base to all his players wherever he went. Even with personal issues, he was highly visible and accessible to all players.

The day Mourinho bid farewell to his Chelsea players, there was tears everywhere. He knew them all including their wives and kids and mentioned each one during his three hour farewell.

Inter’s Milito says: “There is no coach like him when it comes to sticking his neck out and defending everyone, that way reducing the tension within the team when things aren’t going well.”

Mourinho is the players’ secure base. Frank Lampard attests of Mourinho: “I love him as a man and as a manager.”

Conflict resolution

All high performance teams are faced with conflict. According to Kohlrieser, high performance teams “put the fish on the table”. By putting the “smelly fish”, or conflict on the table, there is opportunity for everyone to see these issues and work to its resolution.

Mourinho does similarly by constantly delivering feedback and performance assessments to each player. Some players may not like having the “fish on the table”. Joe Cole once received some stinging feedback but took it under his chin and started performing.

Power of dialogue and language

When Mourinho went to Italy, he said: “I studied Italian five hours a day for many months to ensure I could communicate with the players, media and fans.”

It is said that Mourinho speaks 17 languages. He uses the power of dialogue and language to build common understanding of the clear goals he has set for his team.

A self-confessed fan of Ferguson, Mourinho not only became Ferguson’s close friend but great rival. Their bond and dialogue enabled two strong-willed men to build a friendship in spite of their rivalry. Mourinho uses dialogue and language to ensure every single player on his team has similar friendships with him and clear understanding of the end goal.

High impact negotiation

In March 2007, Chelsea was being outclassed in the first half of a Champion League game losing 1-0. A few minutes before half-time, Mourinho angrily storms out.

Chelsea came out of the dressing room a completely new team, winning the game. This happened numerous times throughout Mourinho’s career. Why does his half-time talk always work? He does not yell, he does not scream but he negotiates and influences his players to change.

“I asked the players to enjoy the situation,” Mourinho said of one of his half-time talks. “We had 45 minutes to change things, and I asked them ‘are you scared of it or are you going to enjoy it?’ Psychologically, I just made the players think a little bit.”

According to sports psychologist Andy Barton: “Mourinho will always look to turn a negative into a positive. If a team is 3-0 down at half time and the manager starts screaming about all the mistakes made, it doesn’t help. Instead he’ll focus on things they are doing right, and then tell them how they can turn the game around.”

Mourinho is very specific about what is required to win and influences his players to build a mental image of what is needed.

He spends significant amount of time preparing each player differently for games. He influences and persuades big stars to train and conform to his team patterns.

He treats them all as equals.

Leveraging strengths

Mourinho is a man who knows his strengths and limitations. He once said: “If Roman Abramovich helped me out in training we would be bottom of the league and if I had to work in his world of big business, we would be bankrupt!”

Mourinho understood what he was good at and what each member of his team was capable off. He worked within the strengths of his team and gets the best of each individual. Jim Collins, in his book Good to Great, talks about how great leaders build great teams by “getting the right people on the bus.”

Mourinho has trusted lieutenants that he brings into every team he manages. One of them is fitness coach Rui Faria, who has been with him at every club.

When Faria was asked what Mourinho’s secret was, he responded: “Every other top coach says they work hard and they prepare better than anyone else, but they can’t make what Mourinho does. Everything he does is better. He works harder than anyone else. He knows everything about every player and every game.”

Mourinho knows every single player’s strengths and weaknesses. He knows how to leverage their strengths fully as a team and minimise their weaknesses. And every single player knows each other’s strengths and this team self-awareness is the difference between Mourinho and other top coaches.

Mourinho himself displays great personal self-awareness when he quit football to focus on coaching. This “quitting” is termed the hedgehog principle by Collins.

It is simply to be very clear about what drives you and what you can be genuinely great at, and then relentlessly focus on that.

How many of us persist with things we know deep down, are not going to lead us to success? How many organisations persist on doing things the same way?

Insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results. Once, Mourinho was termed insane for making three substitutions in the first half of a game he was losing. Mourinho was just addressing the brutal reality of a situation.

Mourinho learnt quickly that there is no relationship whatsoever between functional expertise and managerial ability.

Managing emotions

“Players don’t win you trophies, teams win trophies, squads win trophies,” rants Mourinho daily. But Mourinho does much more than build teams. He builds leaders in each team he manages. At Chelsea, more than half his first team became captains of their national team.

To ensure you build high performance teams, you need to grow leaders. Leadership is needed in every part of your team. You cannot be a giant surrounded by midgets.

When Mourinho arrived at Chelsea there were no stars – he fashioned them. John Terry and Frank Lampard were good players he turned into world class.

He says: “You must work hard and work well. Many people work hard, but not well. You must create good leadership with the players, which is an accepted leadership, not leadership by power or status.”

If we look at back at our careers, most will admit that the period we developed the most was when a manager pushed us to our limit.

Mourinho, more than anyone else, believes in pushing a person to their limits, enabling his team to constantly move out of their comfort zone and into a courage zone.

Final thoughts

That is the lesson of Mourinho. We need special ones. We need leaders like Mourinho who have their mind’s eye focused. “The thing about Mourinho is that you don’t know what he’s going to do next but whatever it is, it will be because he thinks it is beneficial to the team,” says Barton.

Mourinho built numerous high performance teams being an authentic leader through the power of bonding. He worked hard and had thorough forensic preparation for each match but his unique relationship with his players, and his relentless focus made the difference. What are you doing to build high performance teams?

Roshan Thiran is CEO of Leaderonomics, a social enterprise passionate about creating a few Jose Mourinhos’ in Malaysia. For more information on how your organisation can build leaders, call +60123291968 or login to
www.leaderonomics.com.

It’s easier to get into debt than out of debt

THINK ASIAN
By ANDREW SHENG

THE G20 has agreed at the Toronto Summit in June that their government deficits would be halved by 2013 and that their total debt levels would stabilise by 2016.

The position between the G20 advanced and emerging members could not have been more telling. In terms of growth, the emerging countries are averaging more than 6% per annum, whilst advanced countries are lucky to achieve more than 2%.

In terms of deficits, advanced G20 countries are running deficits at just under 9% of GDP, whilst emerging markets are running under 4%.

In terms of debt overhang, advanced countries have debt over 100% of GDP, whereas the emerging markets have debt less than 40% of GDP. There are two major reasons why the deficits and debt have run out of control for the advanced countries.

The first is the huge amount the advanced countries spent on bailing out their banking systems.

The second is the rising level of health care as their population ages. The emerging markets did not have the large banking crisis costs and their health care costs are lower due to their younger population.

What should the advanced markets do to get out of the debt? The Japanese again demonstrate how difficult it is to get back to fiscal rectitude.

In 1996, the Nakasone Government decided to try and rein in the fiscal deficits and raised the Valued Added Tax.

This plunged the Japanese economy back into a recession and the first failures of Japanese banks were the precursors to the Asian financial crisis of July 1997.

So, it is so much easier to print money and get into fiscal deficits than it is to reduce the debt. I must take my hat off to the new UK government for being brave.

In one of the most drastic spending squeezes of any country in recent memory, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer (British Minister of Finance) cut spending up to 25% for most government departments by 2014-15. He increased the VAT to 20% and imposed a US$3bil levy on the banking system. The area he did not dare to touch was cuts in the health expenditure.

Of course, the new Chancellor could easily blame the large deficits on his predecessor and hope that the spending cuts would restore market confidence in the UK and sterling.

He knows that if the markets lose confidence and the yield on UK government bonds increase, the rise in debt servicing would make the recovery even more slow, with stagflation as the most likely outcome.

Sterling could also suffer more devaluation, which could hurt inflation and also investor confidence in London as the premier global financial centre.

With a bold approach, private sector would invest and the UK economic recovery would come sooner than the other (less brave) advanced economies.

Unlike the Euro-zone countries, the UK can devalue its way out of a recession, since sterling has already depreciated nearly 25% from its peak.

Of course, if the UK economy is much more dependent on fiscal spending than previously thought, then the £40bil cuts would cause the economy to slow further, causing rising unemployment and in turn worsen the government finances.

No one knows how tough it could be to turn around a slowing economy. The G20 Summit papered over major differences between the key countries.

There was no mention of any agreement on specific bank capital increases, other than the language that bank capital should be kept at a level sufficient without further government intervention.

Furthermore, the US, Germany, UK and France back levies on the banks to pay for the crisis, whereas Canada, Brazil and India which did not suffer from bank losses, did not support any levies.

US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was right in that he pushed for growth to lift everyone out of further slowdown, as there is some fear that a double dip was in play. Germany, for example, is keen on austerity since it knows that as a major surplus country, it will have to bear the brunt of any adjustments in Europe and globally.

With almost all advanced countries having to deal with austerity, the only countries that have room to grow are the emerging markets. The emerging markets happen to have a different expenditure pattern from the advanced markets.

In the next two decades, the emerging markets will struggle with improving their infrastructure, because this was an area of gross neglect that the aid money and World Bank financing were cut back since the 1990s.

For example, in the last two decades, the World Bank switched resources out of infrastructure lending towards more lending for macro-economic and social spending.

This meant that project engineers were reduced in favour of macro-economists. Just when the emerging markets needed good advice on the viability and feasibility of infrastructure projects, the bank does not have enough project experts to advise them.

The real issue facing almost all emerging markets is where to put the scarce fiscal expenditure.
How do we get “more bang for the buck?”

It is very easy to increase non-growth generating expenditure, such as government debt interest servicing, military expenditure and more on bureaucracies.

In a time of scarcity, it is vital that governments spend money that will generate growth and employment.
This is exactly when spending on the rural infrastructure and raising rural income can change the mix of production from exports to domestic consumption.

Hence, it is only right that the recent World Bank capital increase accommodates more equity share by the emerging markets.

Given that most governments would be wary of cutting back the fiscal debt too quickly to hurt the growth recovery, one can be sure that a large fiscal debt overhang will be with us for quite a while yet.

The real fear is not too much debt, but that rising inflation and higher interest rates make the fiscal debt unsustainable.

The risk of that is not that high, but it is also not zero. The financial markets today are exactly reflecting the nervousness about the future.

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is adjunct professor at Universiti Malaya and Tsinghua University, Beijing. He has served in key positions at Bank Negara, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, and is currently a member of Malaysia’s National Economic Advisory Council. He is the author of the book “From Asian to Global Financial Crisis”.