Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. If you look back
Speaker 1: at the history of not just BHP, big companies in
Speaker 1: the sector, one of the lessons is that when a
Speaker 1: company gets walks into a corner where it has to
Speaker 1: pursue m and A, that leads to all sorts of
Speaker 1: untold problems. I know how bad things can get when
Speaker 1: people chase after something, or if you get worried that
Speaker 1: failing or being rejected on a transaction becomes a reputational issue.
Speaker 1: You end up in very deep water then and can
Speaker 1: cause yourself all sorts of problems.
Speaker 2: I'm Francis Laqua and this is leaders, the podcast that
Speaker 2: explores what drives the world's most influential people well. This
Speaker 2: week's guest is Mike Henry, the outgoing chief executive of PHP,
Speaker 2: the world's largest mining company. It's really a pivotal moment
Speaker 2: for the industry. Global demand for critical minerals is soaring
Speaker 2: thanks to the energy transition and the AI boom, and
Speaker 2: major producers like the HP are actually finding it challenging
Speaker 2: to keep up. Mike Henry has led the company through
Speaker 2: a particularly active and transformative period, spinning off its petroleum business,
Speaker 2: collapsing its duelistic structure and giving the green light to
Speaker 2: the vast Jansen potash project in Canada. So we get
Speaker 2: into all of those choices. In our conversation which we
Speaker 2: had back in January before he announced he was stepping down.
Speaker 2: We talk about leading a mining giant at such a
Speaker 2: consequential time, and what it's like when big acquisitions don't
Speaker 2: go your way, and how he's thought about succession. Mike Henry,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for speaking to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Thanks for Seine. It's great to be here.
Speaker 2: We're in a peculiar moment for the industry because so
Speaker 2: much is changing. Do you feel like you're in a
Speaker 2: different moment?
Speaker 1: Different but good Different. But I've spent my whole career
Speaker 1: in resources, and for most of that time, nobody really
Speaker 1: wanted to talk to miners. It was not seen as
Speaker 1: being an industry of today perhaps, But what we've seen
Speaker 1: over the past three or four years is this awakening
Speaker 1: to the importance of metals and minerals. You know, you've
Speaker 1: got policy makers now trying to figure out how do
Speaker 1: they go about securing critical mineral supply chain resilience. Is
Speaker 1: there going to be enough copper? How do they go
Speaker 1: about facilitating that, and so mining has gone from a
Speaker 1: back burner industry to now being front and center of
Speaker 1: some of the big conversations that are happening globally.
Speaker 2: How do you respond to being in this moment? Is
Speaker 2: it a lot of pressure? Do you feel responsibility? Or
Speaker 2: is there only with hindsight that you realize how crucial
Speaker 2: this period will be?
Speaker 1: No, no, no, So I and others definitely recognize how
Speaker 1: crucial this this period is. And to the extent that
Speaker 1: there's I feel pressure, it's well more than offset by
Speaker 1: the opportunity. If you look at copper, for example, copper
Speaker 1: demand is going to almost double over the next twenty
Speaker 1: five years because it's needed for the broader economy, it's
Speaker 1: needed for the energy transition, the AI revolution, and yet
Speaker 1: coppers becoming harder and harder to find it. People are
Speaker 1: now cottoning onto that, and they're saying, well, wow, if
Speaker 1: we don't do anything, we're going to see super high
Speaker 1: copper prices or shortages at a given times. And so
Speaker 1: the policymakers are now weighing in with industry to figure
Speaker 1: out how do we go about ensuring that that's not
Speaker 1: what happens.
Speaker 2: Can you tell me about a meeting where you felt
Speaker 2: all of that coming together.
Speaker 1: A fellow CEO and myself were called into the Oval
Speaker 1: Office to meet with the President and the Secretary of Interior,
Speaker 1: Secretary Burgham, because we have a specific copper project that
Speaker 1: we're trying to develop in the US. This project could
Speaker 1: supply twenty five percent of the US's corporate demand for
Speaker 1: decades to come. Having that level of attention on our sector,
Speaker 1: that level of support, what that symbolizes then for b
Speaker 1: other governments has been such a big difference from where
Speaker 1: we were a few years ago. Yes, it creates uncertainty
Speaker 1: pressures at times, but big picture, this is a net
Speaker 1: positive for the sector.
Speaker 2: Mike, tell me a little bit about how you transform BHP.
Speaker 1: First of all, I've been with PHP since two thousand
Speaker 1: and three, became coolready the beginning of twenty twenty, and
Speaker 1: within three months we were into the middle of COVID,
Speaker 1: And so you know you were asking earlier about whether
Speaker 1: I feel pressure. The pressure of today is nothing compared
Speaker 1: to the pressure of the big decisions that we all
Speaker 1: needed to take in the face of the uncertainties that
Speaker 1: COVID brought. But as the impact I and the team
Speaker 1: have had on the organization. Over the past six plus years,
Speaker 1: we've reshaped the BHP portfolio. So at the time we
Speaker 1: had about eighty percent of our EBIT DOT being generated
Speaker 1: by combination of oil and gas, thermal coal, cocing coal,
Speaker 1: and iron or so steel making raw materials in a
Speaker 1: world where over the long arc of time we should
Speaker 1: expect the world to decarbonize and we're going to see
Speaker 1: peak steel in China, beyond which we'll start to see
Speaker 1: the iron or market shrink. So we needed to make
Speaker 1: sure that we had a portfolio that was fit for
Speaker 1: the future. We've spun out our oil and gas division.
Speaker 1: We've have the size of our core portfolio now only
Speaker 1: focus on the best coals for steel making.
Speaker 2: Change the listing.
Speaker 1: We collapsed listening into one. We had a bit of
Speaker 1: a funny structure, was called a dual listed company. Two
Speaker 1: primary listenings to head offices and so on. Collapse that
Speaker 1: that was a big value on law for shareholders. And
Speaker 1: we've grown markedly in copper and products. We've grown copper
Speaker 1: by thirty percent over the past few years. Were the
Speaker 1: world's largest copper producer. In addition to that, we've improved
Speaker 1: operational excellence. We've gone from being a lagger in the
Speaker 1: sector to being best in class from an operational perspective.
Speaker 2: Johnson, right, I mean, did you feel the need to
Speaker 2: go at speed? Who you were listening to? Was it
Speaker 2: your gut or other people.
Speaker 1: I've learned actually to rely more on gut over time,
Speaker 1: but these were all very well thought through. You don't
Speaker 1: trigger at an investment decision the size of Jansen on
Speaker 1: god alone, and do.
Speaker 2: You feel the need to do it in one year.
Speaker 2: I'm often told that actually when you become chief executive,
Speaker 2: you have a short amount of time to make a
Speaker 2: big difference that people will accept, because then it gets lost.
Speaker 1: So I've never been one to coast in micro whatever
Speaker 1: role I've gone into, you have to bring energy to it.
Speaker 1: I also believe, though it's coming back to your point,
Speaker 1: that there's never a better time to drive change when
Speaker 1: everything's up in the air a little bit. I had
Speaker 1: a very clear view of what was going to help
Speaker 1: drive value for the company over the next twenty or
Speaker 1: thirty years. We were then able to trigger a series
Speaker 1: of distances. Actually on the same dayunce that we were
Speaker 1: collapsing the corporate structure, we were spinning out our oil
Speaker 1: and Gas division. We were selling down parts of our
Speaker 1: core portfolio, and we were investing in jans and the
Speaker 1: first phase alone, biggest ever capital project for PHPA.
Speaker 2: Right, a lot of shareholders could have pushed back against
Speaker 2: these individually, but by the fact that you bundled them, yes,
Speaker 2: everything was like okay. Was that a strategy to communicate
Speaker 2: at the same time.
Speaker 1: We knew all of the things that we wanted to do.
Speaker 1: We also believe that by being clear with the market,
Speaker 1: particularly around the spin out of oil and Gas and
Speaker 1: the investment in the potash that we could make it
Speaker 1: clear to our shareholders how we were thinking about the
Speaker 1: shaping of the portfolio and why one decision needed to
Speaker 1: be seen in tandem with the other decision. For sure,
Speaker 1: is that.
Speaker 2: How you get your nickname meticulous Mike.
Speaker 1: So sometimes your reputation outgrows you. You know, I am
Speaker 1: somebody who pays attention to detail, high sense of accountability,
Speaker 1: and I think maybe that's what sits behind the Moniker.
Speaker 2: Do you think when we talk about this new world order,
Speaker 2: is it being overstated or understated?
Speaker 1: I certainly don't think it's being understated. So things are
Speaker 1: definitely more uncertain and more volatile so it's worth pointing
Speaker 1: out that in terms of our sector, the decisions that
Speaker 1: we take these are ten twenty thirty year decisions, and
Speaker 1: over that time horizon, we know for sure that demand
Speaker 1: for some commodities is going to increase, and that then
Speaker 1: informs our selection about which commodities we want to be
Speaker 1: involved in. Now, how you operate in that environment, of course,
Speaker 1: that's informed by all the turmoil that we see in
Speaker 1: the world around us.
Speaker 2: Can you talk to me about how difficult that is
Speaker 2: to make decisions where you actually don't know where this
Speaker 2: new world order ends up.
Speaker 1: It's increased the need for us to be planning through scenarios.
Speaker 1: So rather than trying to predict a specific individual future
Speaker 1: outcome in twenty years time, we've continued to reinforce our
Speaker 1: ability to develop different scenarios. So we then test our
Speaker 1: decisions against and one of the things that will allow
Speaker 1: us to be successful is making decisions that are as
Speaker 1: resilient to possible under a range of different scenarios. It
Speaker 1: is an added complexity, you know, creates higher stakes in
Speaker 1: some instances to the decisions we take. But this is
Speaker 1: a world that we have, and as I said earlier,
Speaker 1: on a kind of net basis. This is a real
Speaker 1: opportunity for the sector.
Speaker 2: After the break, Mike Henry tells me why he has
Speaker 2: no regrets over walking away from BHP's highly publicized and
Speaker 2: ultimately failed acquisition bids for Anglo American. The mining industry
Speaker 2: is in a major consolidation phase, with many players pursuing
Speaker 2: M and A to beef up their metals portfolios. While
Speaker 2: BHP is no different, their success has been mixed. Mike
Speaker 2: Henry tried and failed twice to acquire Anglo American. Not
Speaker 2: only did they say no, the British mining company is
Speaker 2: teaming up with BHP rival Tech. With all this happening
Speaker 2: in the public arena, I wanted to know how Henry
Speaker 2: handled the bid when, whether he had any regrets, and
Speaker 2: how he stays focused in the face of rejection. You
Speaker 2: tried to buy Anglo American twice, We did yes, but failed.
Speaker 2: What did you learn from those failures?
Speaker 1: So why did we pursue Anglo American in the first place?
Speaker 1: Is because we like copper. We've grown in copper over
Speaker 1: by thirty percent. We've developed Fig four big internal copper
Speaker 1: growth options. But we're php we have the ability to
Speaker 1: do even more. We thought that there was a great
Speaker 1: opportunity to unlock value for both sets of shareholders through
Speaker 1: bringing the two companies together. It wasn't to be the
Speaker 1: first time around. Second time around, we were faced with
Speaker 1: the decision of, well, we, of course, for all the
Speaker 1: same reasons we engaged at the first time around. Do
Speaker 1: we reapproach see if there's any more interest now given
Speaker 1: that they had progressed some of their strategy, or do
Speaker 1: we hang back for fear of being told no again.
Speaker 1: I would back us any day of the week to
Speaker 1: do the bold thing, which is to reapproach, And in
Speaker 1: both times we showed discipline. I know how bad things
Speaker 1: can get when people chase after something money wise, money wise.
Speaker 2: So badly that you're prepared to buy.
Speaker 1: It anymore, or if you get worried that you know,
Speaker 1: failing or being rejected on a transaction becomes a reputational issue.
Speaker 1: You end up in very deep water then and can
Speaker 1: cause yourself all sorts of problems. So we went into
Speaker 1: both approaches with a clear sense of we will only
Speaker 1: do something that we believe creates value for BHP shaholders,
Speaker 1: and if we can't say see that, then we'll step away.
Speaker 2: How did it feel like at the time you approach.
Speaker 1: Those things with a sense of optimism, a sense of pressure,
Speaker 1: but coming away from it, you know, momentary disappointment. But
Speaker 1: alongside that the confidence that we've done the right thing
Speaker 1: by way of shareholders and confident that we've made the
Speaker 1: right decision.
Speaker 2: How did you manage through it? So you still have
Speaker 2: staff that you need to speak to, morale that you
Speaker 2: need to boost or at least keep steady.
Speaker 1: We've got such a professional team and so it's perhaps
Speaker 1: a little bit less disruptive inside then people might think
Speaker 1: looking outside. In people are very clear that they like
Speaker 1: the boldness. So the fact that you know BHP is
Speaker 1: willing to back itself and go after opportunities when it
Speaker 1: spots them, that's motivating for people. They also like the
Speaker 1: fact that we are super disciplined and we're confident enough
Speaker 1: in ourselves and our existing strategy and our internal growth
Speaker 1: options to back away if we don't think that we
Speaker 1: can create value for shareholders.
Speaker 2: How much time do you have to spend on that?
Speaker 2: So is it all consuming? No?
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, when you run a business like PHP have to
Speaker 1: be able to walk in chew gum at the same time.
Speaker 1: Now I do have a team that is very high performing.
Speaker 1: These are all big leaders in their own right. As CEO,
Speaker 1: I don't need to spend a large proportion of my
Speaker 1: time getting in and solving day to day business problems.
Speaker 1: The business is running so smoothly, and when problems do arise,
Speaker 1: the teams on it on their own. I continue to
Speaker 1: need to tend to other relationships outside of that particular focus.
Speaker 1: So it increases in the amount of time that you
Speaker 1: have to take, but it can't become all consuming for
Speaker 1: the CEO.
Speaker 2: After the first bid that didn't go through, did you
Speaker 2: already know that you'd go after during a second time
Speaker 2: if the opportunity was there, not at all.
Speaker 1: In fact, the board and I have been very very
Speaker 1: deliberate about crafting a BHP strategy and that would never
Speaker 1: be dependent on M and d A. If you look back
Speaker 1: at the history of not just BHP, big companies in
Speaker 1: the sector, one of the lessons is that when a
Speaker 1: company gets boxed into a corner where it has to
Speaker 1: pursue M and A, that that leads to all sorts
Speaker 1: of untold problems. And so we've been very deliberate about saying,
Speaker 1: first and foremost we have to be able to get
Speaker 1: more out of the resources that we have, and that
Speaker 1: then enables us to be quite discretionary about whether we
Speaker 1: want to pursue a opportunity. So when we back away
Speaker 1: the first time, we said our prime focus is this.
Speaker 1: When we approach, spotted a further opportunity, where the question
Speaker 1: arose for whether we should we should approach again, it
Speaker 1: was the same attitude. We don't have to but because
Speaker 1: we believe there's value to be created for shareholder's almost
Speaker 1: incumbent on us to make an approach. If there's not
Speaker 1: a meeting of minds, then fine. We know we've got
Speaker 1: a great strategy in our own right, great growth ahead
Speaker 1: of us in the right commodities, so we'll stay focused
Speaker 1: on that.
Speaker 2: Do you think there was a way of getting it?
Speaker 2: You didn't want the South African operations right of Anglo,
Speaker 2: but had you spent more time in reassuring them, or
Speaker 2: we're spending more time with the Australian shareholders, maybe something
Speaker 2: could have moved more in your direction. Is that fair criticism?
Speaker 1: We will never know. I'm very comfortable with the way
Speaker 1: that we attempted the original structure. If we had structured
Speaker 1: it differently, would that have made a difference maybe, but
Speaker 1: that would have run up against the main objective here,
Speaker 1: which is to create value for PHP shareholders. So I
Speaker 1: don't have any regrets over having approached the way we
Speaker 1: approached the first time around or the second time around.
Speaker 2: What's the right way of approaching some of these transformational deals.
Speaker 2: You have to have like a clear strategy, and I
Speaker 2: don't know how you would describe it.
Speaker 1: You have to be very clear, clear thinking. And if
Speaker 1: you think about the Anglo deal, it was wholly consistent
Speaker 1: with the strategy that we laid out as a company,
Speaker 1: the commodity that we wanted to grow in, how we
Speaker 1: thought about M and AA, the sort of assets that
Speaker 1: we were willing to acquire. Where you get into trouble
Speaker 1: is if you're not clear on what your strategy is,
Speaker 1: or you start chasing after a deal to get a
Speaker 1: deal done, or because you don't have alternatives, So you.
Speaker 2: Almost have to set that strategy in the as soon
Speaker 2: as you take over.
Speaker 1: You don't want to be setting strategy in the middle
Speaker 1: of a transaction, that's for sure.
Speaker 2: Assum chief executives change strategy, Why do you think that
Speaker 2: is well?
Speaker 1: When a business isn't performing well, or when the world
Speaker 1: is changing in a way that demands a rethinking of
Speaker 1: of strategy. Of course, then as CEO should get in
Speaker 1: and rethink it. But with ours, you know, we remain
Speaker 1: confident in the strategy that we have and in the
Speaker 1: commodities that we've chosen.
Speaker 2: That's bold, isn't it. It's kind of like.
Speaker 1: You have to you have to be bold in these roles.
Speaker 1: It's kind of an informed boldness. Our sector is such
Speaker 1: a dynamic, important sector that if you're not bold, that's
Speaker 1: where companies go off course or they fail over time.
Speaker 1: And so when I stepped into role, I told myself
Speaker 1: I need to be bold. But I also like the
Speaker 1: fact that it's no regrets, because you could procrastinate about
Speaker 1: things that you could have done differently or you should
Speaker 1: have done. So we face this was a key point
Speaker 1: that we faced in the second approach to Tanglo. You know,
Speaker 1: some people would say, well, do you really want that
Speaker 1: to be seen in public and again the second time,
Speaker 1: and of course you don't want it. But when faced
Speaker 1: with that choice of well do we take that on
Speaker 1: but do what we believe is right by shareholders by
Speaker 1: reapproaching and have that level of boldness and confidence or
Speaker 1: do we stay away from it for fear of looking
Speaker 1: like another failure We back ourselves.
Speaker 2: Industry rivals or industry players are now actually coming together.
Speaker 2: If you were to be Number two mining company in
Speaker 2: the world instead number one, does that make a difference.
Speaker 1: It makes no difference whatsoever. I don't worry at all
Speaker 1: about losing the bragging rights of being the biggest minor
Speaker 1: by market capitalization, both because I don't it doesn't actually
Speaker 1: lead to greater shareholder value in my view. But secondly,
Speaker 1: I know that the minute that we get into a
Speaker 1: headspace that says we have to chase something just to
Speaker 1: be No. Number One, that's where things become much much riskier.
Speaker 1: It's never a good idea to pursue a transaction because
Speaker 1: somebody else is pursuing a transaction.
Speaker 2: When we come back, I ask Mike Henry about stepping
Speaker 2: away from BHP and what a chief executive should do
Speaker 2: to guarantee a successful handover. When I spoke to Mike
Speaker 2: Henry in January, there had been rumors circling that after
Speaker 2: six years he was preparing to step down. Since speaking together,
Speaker 2: those rumors proved to be true, and he plans to
Speaker 2: hand over the reins on July the first, knowing that
Speaker 2: his departure could be soon, I wanted to hear more
Speaker 2: about how he handled the day today while at the
Speaker 2: same time preparing for succession. Would you hope your successor
Speaker 2: can learn from the last six years.
Speaker 1: My successor is going to have the opportunity to learn
Speaker 1: from all of the work, both of my time and role,
Speaker 1: as well as from the long arc of BHP's history.
Speaker 2: I imagine it's difficult right thinking about succession, and one
Speaker 2: of the most important roles for you it is to
Speaker 2: make sure that you think about succession, but also it's
Speaker 2: difficult to figure out the time to go.
Speaker 1: Interestingly, day one, literally day one, as in when the
Speaker 1: board made the decision to appoint me into the CEO role,
Speaker 1: my chair at the time sat down with me and said,
Speaker 1: succession starts now, and it was made super clear to
Speaker 1: me that one of my biggest accountabilities was developing that
Speaker 1: next generation of leaders. So that's always been front and
Speaker 1: center for me. It's hard, No, of course, it's hard
Speaker 1: in particular if you become complacent and take your eye
Speaker 1: off the ball and you don't continue to invest in people,
Speaker 1: in giving them different roles, expanding roles and if you're
Speaker 1: not providing them with the right support. And you know,
Speaker 1: the other part of your questions for Francine was well,
Speaker 1: what's the right time to go if you have the
Speaker 1: luxury of making that decision on your own, because there's
Speaker 1: plenty of CEOs of course, don't make the decision. It's
Speaker 1: always hard, you know. I'm sure when that day comes,
Speaker 1: it'll be a combination of personal perspective but also what
Speaker 1: we believe is right for the business. I love BHP.
Speaker 1: I know that there will come a time where fresh energy,
Speaker 1: perspective and so on will also be a positive for
Speaker 1: the organization. I'm a big believer in renewal and that
Speaker 1: applies to companies just like it does ourselves.
Speaker 2: When you talk to other chief executives, does succession come up?
Speaker 1: So it comes up more regularly than some people would think,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of in some cases it's been
Speaker 1: their own succession, so as their leaving role. I always
Speaker 1: like to get their reflections on things as you have
Speaker 1: new CEOs taking up the role. So, for example, when
Speaker 1: I first was appointed CEO, one of the very gratifying
Speaker 1: things that I hadn't recognized was the case was a
Speaker 1: lot of other CEOs reached out and provided a bit
Speaker 1: of coaching or said welcome to the club, and you know,
Speaker 1: we've all been through this experience. If there's anything we
Speaker 1: can we can help you with. And I try to
Speaker 1: do that with others as as well. I've had discussions
Speaker 1: on succession, sometimes prompted buy me, sometimes prompted by them,
Speaker 1: about the topic or the concept of succession. How we
Speaker 1: go about building capability and PHP with CEOs from men
Speaker 1: any other industries.
Speaker 2: What's the guiding thought on leadership? If somebody were to
Speaker 2: be appointed a chief executive today and you call them,
Speaker 2: what do you tell them?
Speaker 1: It would of course be around some of the things
Speaker 1: we discussed about, being clear on strategy, aligned with board,
Speaker 1: keeping your strategy consistent, don't get blown off course, But
Speaker 1: I think most people stepping into the CEO world would
Speaker 1: know that. What I think sometimes CEOs would be at
Speaker 1: risk of missing is the importance to long term success
Speaker 1: of how you go about engaging and enabling your people
Speaker 1: and doing so in a way that isn't reliant upon
Speaker 1: the CEO of the day or the management team of
Speaker 1: the day. Embedding in the company's DNA and a culture
Speaker 1: and an approach to how you go about leading your people,
Speaker 1: enabling your people. That stands the test of time, because
Speaker 1: over a long enough time horizon, the incremental value, the
Speaker 1: incremental reliability which builds trust with shareholders and other stakeholders,
Speaker 1: the value of that over time is certainly well in
Speaker 1: excess of the value that you're ever going to get
Speaker 1: through developing an individual mind or undertaking an individual m
Speaker 1: and a transaction.
Speaker 2: What's been the most unexpected or surprising thing about leading
Speaker 2: the company probably a couple of things.
Speaker 1: One of course, nobody knew that we were going to
Speaker 1: encounter COVID early on in my ceoship, so that certainly
Speaker 1: falls into the unexpected category. Other unexpected things have been
Speaker 1: just how rapidly as somebody who's spent many many years
Speaker 1: out there talking about the importance of metals and minerals
Speaker 1: sometimes feeling like like our advocacy was falling on deaf ears,
Speaker 1: to see how quickly the world has pivoted on this issue,
Speaker 1: and how this is now much better understood.
Speaker 2: You've also put a stop to pointless meetings. Was there
Speaker 2: a pointless meeting where you said enough is enough, I
Speaker 2: need to change this.
Speaker 1: Well, this is has probably been a lifelong passion of mine,
Speaker 1: so I recognize how valuable time it is. We say
Speaker 1: to people that we want to engage them better to
Speaker 1: make sure that their work is meaningful, that their time
Speaker 1: is better allocated, and that day to day they're able
Speaker 1: to pursue improved It should be no different for senior management.
Speaker 1: We have to have impactful meetings and that means not
Speaker 1: holding meetings that we don't need to have, not having
Speaker 1: people in the meetings who don't need to be there
Speaker 1: because that's disrespectful to their time. And then for the
Speaker 1: people that are there, we have to ensure that the
Speaker 1: meeting is as efficient and impactful as possible, and so
Speaker 1: we have very clearly set out requirements around meeting objectives,
Speaker 1: meeting preparation. You want everybody showing it up in the meeting,
Speaker 1: having done the reading, well informed, able to bring their
Speaker 1: view to the table. And then we put in place
Speaker 1: a continuous improvement process around that where I get feedback
Speaker 1: on whether I've done a good job or a bad job,
Speaker 1: where I've fallen short in my shairing of that process
Speaker 1: so I can then improve.
Speaker 2: One of the big debates right now is that do
Speaker 2: you tolerate tempers and people around you in a business world,
Speaker 2: because it means passion or is it something that is
Speaker 2: not tolerated.
Speaker 1: Temper if you mean somebody banging on the table and
Speaker 1: throwing objects, clearly not tolerated. Should people be transparent about,
Speaker 1: you know, when others have fallen short, or when they
Speaker 1: believe that others aren't upholding the values of the organization
Speaker 1: and so on. Yes, and sometimes there will be a
Speaker 1: sharp edge that, but only to a point. But you
Speaker 1: can have an effective, high performing company if people are
Speaker 1: always shying away from being clear about their views on
Speaker 1: performance and so on for fear of being seen to
Speaker 1: be too passionate on issue. So it's a difficult one,
Speaker 1: Frencine to answer in a black and white fashion. Certainly,
Speaker 1: you know, the disrespectful behaviors, no tolerance for that whatsoever.
Speaker 1: But being clear with people, Look, I don't accept this
Speaker 1: level of performance. There has to be space for that.
Speaker 2: What do you think defines bad leadership?
Speaker 1: Lack of listening? You know, there's this quandary for leaders
Speaker 1: and that you get into these leadership positions because you've got,
Speaker 1: you know, a certain ability to absorb information, make decisions,
Speaker 1: a certain level of boldness carried to the extreme that
Speaker 1: can result in arrogance over confidence, which will then lead
Speaker 1: to poor decisions. At some point. You know, there might
Speaker 1: be a series of great decisions, but if a leader
Speaker 1: is always just making decisions on their own, not listening
Speaker 1: to others, at some point they won't have the benefit
Speaker 1: of either the checks and balances that come through listening
Speaker 1: to others or the improvement of decisions through gaining perspective
Speaker 1: of others. That's a very dangerous space to be. So
Speaker 1: leaders that don't respect their people, who are over confident
Speaker 1: and don't really listen and invite challenge, that's certainly not
Speaker 1: going to lead to the best possible leadership.
Speaker 2: Mike Henry, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Prency, thanks.
Speaker 2: For listening to this episode of leaders with Me Francie
Speaker 2: Laqua the podcast. If you like our show, please rate, review,
Speaker 2: and subscribe. It means a lot. It will help more
Speaker 2: people find the show. And if you want to watch
Speaker 2: the show, please find us on YouTube. This episode was
Speaker 2: toasted by Me Francie Laqua. It was produced by Atalandi Dixon,
Speaker 2: Sammersadi and Moses and dam Amy Keen is the executive
Speaker 2: producer of Talk Podcasts. Sound designed by Blake Maples and
Speaker 2: Aaron Casper. And special thanks to Mike Henry Woo