Sir Martin Sorrell
What do you need to know and when do you need to know it?
"FEARLESS CREATIVE LEADERSHIP" PODCAST - TRANSCRIPT
Episode 232: Sir Martin Sorrell
Here’s a question. What do you need to know and when do you need to know it?
I’m Charles Day. I work with creative and innovative companies. I’m asked to coach their leaders and their leadership teams. To help them succeed where leadership has its greatest impact. The intersection of strategy and humanity.
This week’s guest is Sir Martin Sorrell. He first appeared on the show in 2019, and in that conversation, I was struck by his pride in building companies that provide the livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of people.
Sir Martin is a polarizing figure. But he is, of course, much more human than his public persona has shown over the years.
He is, also, I find, increasingly self-reflective.
Charles:
Is that kind of leadership flexibility hard for you personally?
Sir Martin Sorrell:
Yeah, yeah.
Charles:
What makes it difficult for you?
Sir Martin Sorrell:
Because I'm a control freak so— (laughs)
You know, detail. The devil is in the detail. I really do believe that. And, you know, knowledge is key. You know, part of the problem is knowledge is power, and therefore people try and restrict knowledge. But, you know, people misinterpret my attitude, actually. It's not that I want to control things. I just want to know what's going on.
What do you need to know and when do you need to know it?
Those questions sit at the heart of modern leadership.
Knowledge is indeed power. Demand too much knowledge too soon, and you can restrict the curiosity and the exploration on which creativity and innovation depend.
Ask too few questions and wait too long, and you can expose the business to unsustainable and perhaps even catastrophic risk.
The best leaders, I find, have thought through the questions, ‘What do I need to know and when do I need to know it?’ and they put in place a clear set of expectations and practices that create clarity and consistency for the people around them.
Sir Martin, famously, held very tight reins on his companies. Tighter than many liked. And perhaps his companies could have achieved even more if he had held those reins a little more loosely. But he has built companies that are undeniably creative and undeniably successful.
Creativity requires room to breathe. But it does not require, nor does it expect, chaos in order to thrive.
It needs simply a consistent set of conditions.
If you are clear and consistent about how you create those conditions, your ability to unlock the potential of others goes up exponentially.
Here’s Sir Martin Sorrell.
Charles (02:55):
Sir Martin, welcome back to Fearless. Thank you so much for coming back on the show.
Sir Martin Sorrell (02:59):
Delighted to be with you, albeit eating my lunch.
Charles (03:02):
I think last time you were eating strawberries, so we've sort of moved the thing forward. (laughs)
Sir Martin Sorrell (03:06):
Was I? Okay, so we've moved on a bit, have we?
Charles (03:09):
Last time we spoke, actually, coincidentally, was almost four years ago.
Obviously, in the last four years, everything has changed. We've had a global pandemic. We've had an insurrection in the US. We've had the murder of George Floyd. How do you view the world compared to where we were four years ago?
Sir Martin Sorrell (03:24):
I don't want to be gloomy, but I think there are impenetrable problems. There are three that stick out to me. I mean, obviously, there's climate change, where there has been some progress but maybe because of the the economy or the lack of growth, people are worried, and that's having a negative impact. But there are three big problems.
One, US-China relationship. So lack of the [inaudible] one gets in a little bit more enthusiastic when you see Janet Yellen going to Beijing or Blinken going to China and more dialogue and communication, that's to be welcomed. But basically the lack of relationship between the US and China, the invective and the propaganda that is usually for domestic audiences, both to be fair, both sides, both for the US and for China, that's one big problem.
And I don't see how that is resolved. If you read President Xi's speech, to the Congress, when he achieved his longer term, finally, it's a Marxist Leninist manifesto. Taiwan, to my mind, is part of his legacy. In a way, not dissimilar to what we saw Ukraine. I mean, you could say, which is the second area, you know, war in Ukraine and all the problems that that's brought for Europe, and the lack of security in Europe is a big, big issue.
So, in a way, when you look at what Putin was writing about and speaking about during COVID and before COVID in relation to Ukraine, it was all laid out. I think Taiwan is all laid out. The question is really timing, in my view. And it's around semiconductors. I don't think the Chinese will make a big move on Taiwan, until the production of semiconductors has been resolved. And the West have secure sources of supply that might take five years, I don't know, 10 years. I've heard so-called experts talk about that timeframe.
So, that's the first area. The second area, as I've mentioned, is Russia and Ukraine. You know, even if Putin was gone, you know, if we saw saw events that happened a couple of weeks ago culminate in insurrection and removal of Putin, be careful what you ask for. You don't know who's going to be replaced. And so that's a second area where, again, I don't see resolution. And the third is Iran's nuclear capability, which poses, I think, a very significant threat. And I don't see how that gets managed. So, I really worry about those three issues and the impact of it.
The world has become a much more fragmented place as a result. It's not that Ted Levitt's globalization has disappeared. it will continue, I'm sure, in certain ways, but the fragmentation is palpable. And Asia remains probably the hottest growth prospect, because if you look at the forecast for GDP for 2050, China is forecast, some people doubt this, but forecast to become the biggest GDP by then, not on a per capita basis, but overall. Second will be the US. Third would be India.
And the prospects for Europe, again, not wishing to be too gloomy. But I think the prospects, given what's happening around Russia and Ukraine, the prospects in the long term for France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK are not great. And I think it's a real problem. So, world is fragmented and GDP growth is probably going to be lower than historically. Inflation is probably going to be higher. I doubt it will get down to 2%, which is the central bank's objectives, and interest rates as a result would be higher than what we've been used to.
So, I think fragmentation is one part of it. And then the second part of it is, in a world which is growing slower, in a world where inflation and interest rates are higher, the clients are going to be looking for growth and margin. And therefore they're going to want to be even more efficient and effective. And therefore AI and the metaverse and blockchain, those three things, I think, in particular, are going to become more and more important, in terms of driving down costs and improving efficiency. So, to sum it up, I think the world will be a very different place over the coming years in comparison to what it's been for the last 40 or 50 years, in my experience.
Charles (08:06):
If you were going to pick a country to move to and start a business in, which one would you pick?
Sir Martin Sorrell (08:12):
I think North America or the US continues to be…. I mean, it's riven in a similar way, you know, that we probably have more affinity with the West and the East Coast and it's the stuff in the middle, which you worry about. You know, we have the extremes between right and left, Republican and Democrat, and that's extremely worrying. But I think when you come down to it, the US continues to be the place where rule of law, et cetera, and organization, and flexibility, and innovation continues to be a lead.
I mean, China has become a much more difficult place. If you'd asked me that question a few years ago, I would have said China offers tremendous opportunities. But I think China has become a more difficult place for the obvious reason. And that number one problem of US-China relations, makes it a much more difficult place to operate in. So I would come down to North America. And I particularly like, I mean, two thirds of our business is in that North and South America pillar, because the time zones.
You know, it's interesting, I know that the Americans want to bring manufacturing back to, you know, make America great again. But, you know, labor manufacturing, labor-intensive manufacturing is not going to come back to America. It's going to go to Mexico. You see it with Apple. You see it with Tesla. So in order to deal with supply chain issues, it's closer to home.
So it's not…. You know, you might get capital intensive manufacturing like Brookfield's, joint JV with Intel in Columbus, Ohio, the chips, you may get that, but you're not going to get the manufacturer stuff. So, I like North and South America, and that's partly because we have three and a half thousand people out of almost nine thousand in South America. So countries like Mexico, like Colombia, like Brazil, like Argentina, despite sort of leftward shifts in government and everything, and all the issues surrounding politics and organization, I like that in particular, so I like that block.
I'm bearish on Europe. I may prove to be wrong. I'm bullish on the Middle East. I'm bullish on parts of Africa, maybe. And then I'm bullish on Asia as a whole. And with India being, as I say, the big winner. But, you know, if you said to me, "Where is it best to be?" I think it's still the US.
Charles (10:51):
How have the last four years changed you? What was the pandemic like for you personally?
Sir Martin Sorrell (10:59):
Well, it's a terrible thing to say, but in a way, in a perverse way, I sort of enjoyed the pandemic in the sense that the balance between home and office shifted. The pattern of work shifted, so instead of having to get up at, you know, six o'clock in the morning and rush out, I could get up at six o'clock in the morning and rush in. And it was a more, you know…. And I, my commuting time is not like some others, it's not as burdensome as others, it's a 20-minute walk actually, as far as the UK is concerned.
So, I found it actually a better balance, and I think we found it corporately a better balance. I know, you know, we were panicked in March of 2020 about what it would mean. But actually what it meant was not bad in the end, because, what we found with automation, with animation…. You know, I remember we bought a company and merged with the company in Amsterdam, which was a robotic production company, and we joked that we acquired more robots than people, but maybe that was a forerunner for AI and everything.
But that actually proved to be quite perspicacious really, because in the end, it works. So animation took off vertically. I remember in sort of March and April of 2020, because of COVID, and robotic production, automated production, and then online experiences, or online work, took off. And I would say for the first year or two, we did extremely well. I mean, we're a digital only company. It's not just digital first. I mean, this is our DNA, and our people were used to embedded models in housing and as well as the outsourced model.
Either because others have caught up or because, you know, we're not quite as effective, maybe we've started to abuse the system a little bit. And I don't think we're quite as productive as we were, in the first place, with COVID. But for me, from a personal point of view, less travel. I mean, I was fortunate because I have an American daughter, so I could go to America, and during COVID, it was much easier to get to America.
I mean, more dangerous from a health point of view, but much easier to get there. I think during COVID, I went to America maybe five or six times. And it was relatively easy for me. So I actually found it not that bad, and from a personal point of view and a business point of view. And I think one of the good things about COVID is it has introduced more balance into people's lives.
I mean, there's a big controversy about work from home and work from anywhere and whether this is a permanent change. And I think it is probably a permanent change. You know, you're starting hear landlords say, "Forget about Fridays. Never come back." And I feel like saying to our landlords, "You know, if we're out of the office Monday and Friday, we should only pay three days of rent a week, instead of seven."
That's probably Dreamsville, but that's where I would be on it. But, I think, it was my 55th reunion at HBS, and the professors are all out there, you know, there are, God knows how many professors there, who are doing stuff on AI, work from home. And it was really interesting on the work from home stuff, to hear the academics at least, on the basis of their research, say things like, "Well, you know, with this thing about cultural glue and people working together, all the research seems to indicate that people only really communicate with those people within sort of 10 meters of where they sit."
And if they're in separate buildings, they don't talk to one another. And beyond 10 meters, it gets difficult. And then another interesting thing was, you know, one of the professors believes that you should encourage a lot of social interaction, you know, maybe three days in the working week, it should be in the office. The other two days of the working week should be outside. And, you know, we're running an experiment in Canada with a four-day working week.
Our operation is run by a very talented woman and it's really interesting to see the reactions of people, you know, working mothers as single families find the flexibility, very attractive, obviously disabled people find it extremely attractive. Because we work in different time zones, they find it attractive, and that flexibility has been really an advantage to us and productivity.
You know, you focus productivity on outputs rather than inputs, which is good on the productivity. And everything we can see in that Canadian experiment in inverted commas, is positive, introducing more flexibility. So, I think, actually, you know, for COVID in a way has done us.… I think it was going that way anyway beforehand, and the technological developments, blockchain, Metaverse, less so crypto and NFTs, and obviously AI now and AGI will result in much happier people, with more flexibility in their working lives.
So kind of back to your question about how did I find it, at the end of the day, I thought it was... net net, now that's anathema to some people who run, say, large financial companies who, you know, investment banks, you think you have to be in the office all the time. I think at the end of the day, we'll have a more flexible approach. And I think that will be better. I think it will end up with probably people who are happier, more productive.
Charles (16:40):
How did it change your leadership? How have you evolved your leadership based on everything you've just described?
Sir Martin Sorrell (16:46):
Well, very interesting. I think with our clients, and I think with us, it's resulted in more sort of localization, if you like, or regionalization. I mean, the number of people who were CEOs of major global companies, who were sort of locked in New York or locked in London or wherever, I think that was to the benefit of many companies, because what happens is they devolve responsibility down in the organization, regionally or by country or by city. And that resulted in more authority and influence and decision-making being regionalized or localized.
And I think that was still a good bit. In other words, it enfranchised people more because people couldn't travel. You know, there was less interference, if I can put it that way. And I think that's part of it. I mean, the way we attempt to run S4 or operating our brand MediaMonks is very different to what we did at WPP. I think there's a really difficult and interesting issue in relation to how you manage people and those people themselves. You know, Gen Z, millennials are very, very different to the sort of workforces that we had, which are more command and control, I would say.
This is much more distributed in line with the distributed technology. And, you know, if the labor market is tight, which it is, you know, the balance of power, if I can put it like that, between employee and employer, is different. Maybe, what I'm saying will prove to be inaccurate in a labor market that was less tight. Maybe.
Charles (18:40):
I want to go back and pick up on your point about Millennials and Gen Z looking for a different kind of leadership or a distributed form of leadership compared to command and control. You classically have built companies in the past that were command and control structured. In many ways, you were seen as the sort of the doyenne of command and control leadership back in the day. Clearly, you've evolved, clearly, society is evolving.
You talked... when we spoke 4 years ago, you talked a lot about your level of interest in people. As leadership structures change and as the physical aspect of business changes, how do you create connections with people today? What are you focused on from a personal standpoint in terms of your leadership style?
Sir Martin Sorrell (19:20):
Well, the answer is, it's extremely difficult, I mean, in this flexible environment, to work it all out. And, you know, my biggest.… I mean, we just had a phone call just now, where we were…. Not a phone call, a Zoom call just now, where we were discussing how we integrate within our own operation. And despite, you know, the differences in people's approaches, which you just mentioned, and the difference in their attitude, despite all that, if you said to me, what's the biggest issue that I worry about?
I worry about how, you know, we've chosen to be digital only, data driven, faster, better, cheaper, and more being driven by AI as I go to market. And then finally, that we'd have one P and L, not companies, brands within that compete against one another, as well as compete against competing brands outside the organization. And I would say, despite the fact that we tried to set it up as one P and L, trying to get people to integrate, share information, share knowledge, despite all that, despite our objective, it's been difficult to do that.
And, you know, despite the fact that we have a structure which is not based on earn outs, it's based on people coming together and, you know, cashing out half of their equity, but letting the other half run, despite all that, it's quite difficult to get people to work together in a cohesive way. And I think that’s… whether the nature of the people have changed, as you mentioned, which I think they have, whether their values have changed, which I think they have, whether their habitats or their environments in which they operate in have changed because of COVID or changes in technology, getting people to work together to a common purpose….
And I see it with clients, I mean, if CEOs of clients saw what we see inside their own organizations, they'd be horrified. I mean, they all talk about agility and responsiveness, et cetera, and I think that is a core and key attribute that you must have. But having said that, the organizations don't perform in that way, particularly the analog companies. Maybe the newer technology companies are much more flexible and agile. So that is really difficult. And the irony of all this is, you remember the guy who resigned from Google because he thought AI or DeepMind, because he saw AI as being an existential…. I think his name was Clinton, he saw it as being an existential threat? And you know, if you had 10,000 bots, every bot would know what the other bot knew instantly, right? Well, ironically, that's what I'd like to get to, but with human beings, I'd like to have human bots, right? So these would be human beings who instantly knew what everybody else.… And the interesting thing about AI, everybody focuses, in talking about AI, and they are talking about it, because it's sort of happening, we are seeing impact. But you know, we see speeding up of visualization and copywriting. We see hyper personalization. We see an impact on media planning and buying and automating, particularly digital media planning and buying. We see a use of AI as a super tool to improve our productivity and our client's productivity. But the biggest thing is, in my view, is the fifth area, which is providing information and knowledge.
If somebody said to me that Ray Dalio at Bridgewater, I don't know if this is true or not, but that he had downloaded all his knowledge and wisdom, presentations or whatever, into a chatbot and everybody inside Bridgewater could access it. And I think this is going to be where the big opportunity is. The big opportunity is going to be where we can diffuse knowledge, you know, obviously, you've got to make sure all the data comes in well. But we can diffuse knowledge around the organization seamlessly.
And the interesting thing about this is it's not the people at the top of the verticals inside companies who are consumed with coordination and sharing knowledge, but the people who do the work, they thirst for connection, for working together, for exchanging knowledge and ideas. And they work together, they don't work in verticals, you know.
You may plan or budget by a vertical. You may plan or budget by a geography or a capability, but the people inside all of those areas whether they capabilities or geographies or whatever, they thirst for working together with people learning, exchanging experiences and knowledge. And, you know, the further up the vertical you go, the more resistance you get to that.
So I'm really hopeful that AI will enable us to... like that Bridgewater example, if it's true, to instantly access. So ironically, what drove Clinton out of Google, to me, if you couldn't, you know, human... You know, I'm not talking about machines. I'm talking about people. If you can give them the wherewithal, the data to understand what we're doing with all our clients around the world, I think that's a phenomenal, phenomenal opportunity.
Charles (25:01):
So, given that, what are the human implications for leadership? How does leadership have to evolve in that kind of environment with those kinds of dynamics in play?
Sir Martin Sorrell (25:10):
Well, I think they have to be much more flexible, in terms of their attitude and approach. I mean, it's very difficult. I think a lot of the thing around work from home and work from anywhere is a generational problem. I mean, Harvard Business School talks about it being a management problem, and management has to change, and maybe they're right. But I see it almost as being a generational problem. And what works historically will not work in the future.
And so the answer to your question, I think the style has to be much more flexible, and you have to be much more tolerant of that flexibility, which is very difficult. I mean, you know, a lot of people say, "If people don't come in the office, you know, we don't have the glue. How do you train people?" Well, the answer is, you try and set up a system which can do that. Maybe it is Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in the office, right? Or, you know, you say to people that you have three days in the office.
Maybe it is, as the business school professors say, you have social gathering, social gatherings, you know, on a weekly or monthly or quarterly basis. Now, it was one interesting piece of the research is that people build relationships, in some of the research was done, by sharing cabs, going to social events on a regular basis. Sounds bizarre, doesn't it? But they found that they're more likely to link up through Slack or email or whatever if they've shared a cab to go to some event on a regular basis.
So it's trying to get people to work together in a much more flexible loop. So coming back to style, I think it is much less, to put it crudely, command and control, and it is much more about flexibility and output rather than the structures. I mean, really measuring what you do, it's not the how you do it, it's not the process, it's what you get out of it at the end of the day. And I think that's still the good.
If in Canada, you know, we get happier people.… I mean the woman who runs our Canadian operation says, it is quite clear that our people are happier because of the flexibility. And it's quite clear that our clients are happier because we have less churn on the accounts. And that's one of the biggest reasons that clients get unhappy.
Charles (27:38):
Is that kind of leadership flexibility hard for you personally?
Sir Martin Sorrell (27:42):
Yeah, yeah.
Charles (27:43):
What makes it difficult for you?
Sir Martin Sorrell (22:45):
Because I'm a control freak so— (laughs)
You know, detail. The devil is in the detail. I really do believe that. And, you know, knowledge is key. You know, part of the problem is knowledge is power, and therefore people try and restrict knowledge. But, you know, people misinterpret my attitude, actually. It's not that I want to control things. I just want to know what's going on. It's a bit like the Jewish retailer, you know. My father was, you know, on a Sunday, getting the sales figures from the regions, phoned in by the regional manager.
It's not because you want to know what's going on. And it's not because you want necessarily to change things. I mean, obviously if things are going wrong, you want to try and change them as best as you can, but it's really getting an understanding. And I think the more people inside the organization understand the dynamics of it. One of our biggest issues is getting the right data so that people can make informed decisions. So, I think what's coming up is quite interesting.
For example, I was at a conference at the Madfest conference.
And it just struck me that the process is going to be far better in the future than it has been in the past, you know, in enabling clients to make intelligent decisions about their media planning and buying, or their creative, or their reaction to research, or whatever. So, I think, actually, I don't know what it's going to mean for employment. I don't know whether we're going to have more jobs or less jobs, whether this is the John Maynard Keynes moment…. You know, he wrote in the '30s that we'd all be on holiday because of automation, but, you know, maybe now, we will be on holiday because of all the time we miss the automation.
Charles (29:37):
I'm not sure I can imagine you being on holiday, actually, but that’s—
Sir Martin Sorrell (29:40):
No, no, no, I don't, I do enjoy holidays, but not for long periods of time. I like—
After about four or five days, I sort of.… Well, I like a rest like anybody else, but I still, interestingly, I never turn off, I've never ever put a out-of-office sign on.... I remember there was one out-of-office sign that drove me absolutely nuts, where a guy had written that he was out of office on holiday, and he was at the end of an olive grove, and the reception was extremely poor. And I thought to myself, if the client saw that, the client had a big crisis, he would go absolutely nuts.
Because the boundary line between work and play is, there is no boundary line. You know, it goes back to my experience with Mark McCormack at IMG. Mark was a lawyer. He had met Arnold Palmer at Wake Forest, I think it was, and he was a scratch golfer, so he was an outstanding golfer. And he managed Arnold Palmer and Gary Player and Jack Nicklaus. So he did.… There was no dividing line. Work was play and play was work.
Charles (30:51):
And you see that, I think, in the most successful and probably most satisfied leaders as well. Just switching gears for a second. You're one of the most visible people in the business world. Every situation you walk into, your reputation precedes you. You've talked to me in the past about the pride you feel in building companies that support the livelihoods of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people.
Sir Martin Sorrell (31:09):
Yes. I think that is, you know, people talk about purpose. And I think you know, it's to give employment and if every person on average is a three-person-family unit, so we have 9000 people, that means we're responsible for 27,000 people. And I'm proud of that. And the more we can do of that, the more, the prouder I'd be. And, you know, at WPP we got up to 200,000 if you included the associates, about 130,000, excluding clients. So that was, you know, you could say almost half a million people were impacted and influenced by what we did.
Charles (31:47):
How do you anchor who you want to be against the expectations and demands and responsibility that comes with all of that? How do you hold on to yourself in all of this?
Sir Martin Sorrell (31:59):
I don't think of it that way, actually. I mean, you know, I'm doing what I enjoy. I mean, it can be frustrating. It can be… you know, you can win or you can lose. And, you know, things can go well, things can go badly. But I don't really sort of think about it in that way. I don't, you know, I don't, the way that you just outlined, I'm not I'm not.… You know, when you say about reputation proceeding, I don't think about it that way either.
And I don't, you know, I could never really sort of put myself into that position where I can see what the other person sees about me or what thinks about me. I don't really sort of preoccupy myself on that. I mean, I'm just really interested in building the business. You know, when I was at Saatchi’s, it was the same. Before that, at IMG, and before that, at Glendenning. I mean, everything that I've done, I've been interested in building the business in which we were in, WPP and now S4.
And, you know, I get disappointed. You know, I look at WPP’s progress or lack of it. And you know, I'm disappointed by it, because I think it's a super business. I think it's better than any of the other holding companies. But you know, at the moment it sort of seems to be stuck in fourth position, which I think is a shame. And if I get upset, I'm upset about that, I'm always upset about lack of progress in S4.
I always want to do more. So that's what motivates me, if you're looking, if that's the basis of the question, you know. Maybe it's, how can we create a business, in this world that we sort of touched on in the podcast, in a more fragmented world, in a world where technology is becoming more and more important? You know, how can we build a business, a model that is even more successful? That's really the challenge.
Charles (34:13):
Where do you get feedback from?
Sir Martin Sorrell (34:16):
Every day. (laughs)
Charles (34:18):
Are there people that other people that you ask? I mean, are you, do you ever ask the question, "How am I, how am I doing?"
Sir Martin Sorrell (34:24):
No. That's a very good question. So my dad was my feedback loop until he died, in 1989. Then I had a lawyer in New York, Phil Reese, who died in 2003 or 2004, who I had a relationship not dissimilar. I would speak to Phil several times a day, not like my dad, which was continuous, that was incredible, I would talk to him endlessly. This is before the days of mobile phones, by the way. But you're right. I mean, I think you do need somebody like that. And since Phil Reese passed away, I haven't had anybody like my father or Phil Reese as that sort of father confessor.
Wasn't a mother confessor, but a father confessor. So, no, but I think you're right. I think you do need that, but you know, the feedback loops you get, you know, every communication you have, every conversation you have, every email you have, every message you receive. I mean, you continuously get feedback. I mean, unless you're cloth-eared to it, unless you don't, you know, if you don't, there are people who don't, you know, don't listen. I have firm points of view about, I'm willing to debate and discuss it.
But I think you get feedback through all sorts of ways, all during the days. But, the point that you make, you know, having somebody that you, somebody who doesn't have an agenda other than your personal wellbeing, but I think that is really important. Preferably somebody who's got obviously good experience and good instincts. Not somebody who has bad.…
You know, a lot of the.… This is a terrible thing for me to say, I'm going to say it, but a lot of the executive coaches have never done anything as an executive (laughs) that gives them use of that position, or that authority to advise you one way or the other. And that sometimes irritates me when I see that. You know, it's almost like consultants who haven't done anything, who are telling you what to do, you know. Something I have a problem with. So knowledge and experience, I think is really important.
Charles (36:45):
Do you miss having that role in your life? Do you miss having somebody like a father?
Sir Martin Sorrell (36:50):
Yeah, I think that's really important. Somebody you can, with no, without… there's no fear or favor, and somebody you know you can talk to. it's almost like a therapist, but it's not a therapist. (laughs) It's what I would call an educated therapist, or a valuable therapist, with all due respect to therapists. Not somebody who doesn't know about what we're talking about. My dad didn't know anything about advertising agency, but he had tremendous wisdom about people, phenomenal.
I remember one instant where I told him about a situation which I was upset about, and there was an individual who had an antipathy towards what I do... And he said to me, drop this one word into the conversation, which I did, I dropped the word into the conversation, and miraculously the guy folded on it.
Charles (37:51):
Most of us are not going to have a job anything like the one that you have or have held in the past. What's this job really like? What's it like to wake up every morning with this kind of responsibility and opportunity?
Sir Martin Sorrell (38:06):
I think, you know, it consumes you. There was a course at the Harvard Business School when I did my MBA called “Planning In the Business Environment.” And the professor was George Lodge, who was the son of Henry Cabot Lodge, who was the Secretary of State, I think, in the Nixon administration, if my memory serves me right.
And we didn't think much of George Lodge as a professor, to be honest with you. It was a compulsory course in the first year of the MBA, but in order to get an A grade, all you had to do in your exam or in your class participation was talk about the three circles that intersected, and there was a Venn diagram. It was about a career, family, and society. And George, George's view was, how did that intersect? And they're all linked. And if you could balance all three, you would be successful.
And there are very few people I've come across who manage to do all of those things. You know, have a very happy and successful family life, a very happy and successful career, and have a very happy and successful, for want of a better phraseology, on society. I put that diagram into my course. I got an A minus, sorry.
Charles (39:22):
(laughs)
Sir Martin Sorrell (39:24):
I didn't get an A, but I got an A minus on it. But I put it, inserting that diagram in, I was gonna get it in, in some way, shape, or form. But actually there's a lot of wisdom in that. And I think that's what it's all about. And, you know, have I… the answer to your question, it's a convoluted way of answering your question, but, you know, I haven't been able to balance all three.
I might have done two of the three at one time. And I think that's the difficulty. You say, when you say, when you get up in the morning, if you're doing what I'm trying to do, you get consumed by it. And one of those three circles, or two of them will suffer as a result. And I think that's, you know, if I'm being self-critical, I think that's where I would like to have more.
So I'm very consumed by this. You know, there is no line between work and play. It is one and the same. When I go on holiday, I am not off the line. You know, I'm responding to emails. I get up in the morning, when I’m on holiday and I reach for my iPhone and I try to answer the overnight stuff. Before I go to bed at night, you know, I make sure that everything that I'm meant to be dealing with is dealt with. And I get worried, or I get agitated if I haven't dealt with something.
And my dad used to say delay is a negative. I mean, if you delay a decision, if I delay the decisions because I'm unsure of the answer or the answer that I'm trying to come up with, or I'm unsure about how to do it. So I used to say, it was a very bad phrase. A bad decision on Monday is better than a good decision on Friday, which is meant to connote, you know, get on with it. So I think responding quickly and particularly in the environment we operate in, speed and persistence is my motto. So I think that probably sums it up.
Charles (41:22):
I want to thank you for coming back on the show today.
Sir Martin Sorrell (41:24):
Pleasure. Great time.
Charles (41:25):
I'm grateful for your time and your insights. And it's good to see you, as always.
Have a good summer.
Sir Martin Sorrell (41:29):
Thanks, Charles. Good and you. Thanks very much.
—————
Let us know if there are other guests you’d like to hear from, and areas you’d like to know more about or questions you have.
And don’t forget to share Fearless with your friends and colleagues.
If you’d like more, go to fearlesscreativeleadership.com where you’ll find the audio and the transcripts of every episode.
If you’d like to know more about our leadership practice, go to thelookinglass.com.
Fearless is produced by Podfly. Frances Harlow is the show’s Executive Producer. Josh Suhy is our Producer and editor. Sarah Pardoe is the Media Director for Fearless.
Thanks for listening.
