It’s easy for me to rise from my armchair residency, to climb on board my hobbyhorse of choice and pontificate.
As a mere commentator, it should also be easier for me to sound plausibly wise after the event, given that I can write with the benefit of seeing how some consequences played out. Even so, I suspect it’s not such a good look to sound too clever when standing in judgement of others. I am self-aware enough to realise I might just sound like the old farmer advising the hapless tourist, hopelessly lost somewhere deep in unfamiliar countryside, and trying to find his holiday destination – “Well, if I were you, and if that’s where I wanted to be, then I wouldn’t be starting from here.”
Is it fair therefore to be too hard on the chief executive of P&O Ferries who sacked eight hundred colleagues in order to hire new crew on lower wages? Hindsight, they say, is a wonderful thing; it is our gift to the world that flows from our mistakes. It is the gift we can share, but a gift that arrived too late for when we needed it ourselves.
The consequences of his decision to fire his workforce, played out for him in real time and with alarming speed. Perhaps it just goes to show that a decision taken in a nicely appointed boardroom with a phalanx of highly paid colleagues and advisors to support you, doesn’t mean you always get things right or that you can control what happens next.
If that sounds like a cheap shot from me, especially given my armchair commentator status, I find it hard not to be cynical and disappointed at the heartlessness of the implementation of the P&O Ferries decision. However, I will venture a view that it might not be a failure of governance.
Back in my day, and it is also true today, it would be an everyday occurrence for lawyers to say to their clients, in terms, “There may be reputational consequences for the option you prefer, but if that is your informed and settled decision, you are entitled to make it.” It is also the case that there are many times when the law is not clear, and it is both legitimate and sometimes necessary to test its boundaries.
The P&O Ferries decision, however, is slightly different, and it is unusual for any executive to say, “I know I am about to break the law, but hey ho, I believe it is for the best.” Is it possible therefore, to find a way to be slightly more comfortable with what looks like a hopelessly misjudged decision?
To colour things as positively as I can, I believe it is possible that executives at P&O Ferries believed the company might fail without an immediate and drastic restructuring to reduce costs. Their chosen way forward to avoid this, was to sack employees and hire new crews on lower wages. While it was a known legal requirement to then consult with the Maritime Union, this was ignored because they felt it would have made no difference to their settled decision and time was of the essence.
Even in such extreme circumstances it would be very unlikely for the HR director and the legal advisors to say it was ok to break the law. Assuming they gave advice not to, the chief executive was making an informed decision and took responsibility for the consequences of the decision. If he believed speed was essential, and decisiveness was essential too, and with the whole company at risk if he did not, then he may have felt he was making the best decision he could make. Advisors advise, but executives decide.
To be a little melodramatic, if the bridge you are driving across is about to collapse, sticking to the speed limit to avoid a fine is not the way to save your life.
In the last few years, we have seen some egregious governance failures, but not every failure is a result of arrogance or ignorance, or indeed a failure of governance.
The best chief executives I have worked with never made shoot-from-the-hip decisions. They weighed in the balance and respected all contributions. They respected push-back and asked for challenge, but when it came to making the decision at their pay grade, it was their responsibility, and they knew they had to live with the consequences too.
I noticed that the P&O Ferries chief executive attended a Parliamentary Committee just a few days after the news broke. He did not hide behind lawyers’ advice or reputation management consultants, or more junior colleagues. He turned up, faced up and took responsibility. I am not sure we should find this to be outrageous, even if we might fundamentally disagree with the decision and especially the way it was implemented.
I don’t know this gentleman or his business. The culture at P&O Ferries might be rotten and he may be the chief executive for an awful employer, but it is also possible he felt damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. If he listened and if he cared, I’ll give him credit for being accountable for his decision and standing in front of his critics.
It is easy to commentate, easy to have a hot-take and easy to be on the side of the angels. I know because that’s me in most things I write about. So, while I think it was a terrible decision for all who lost their jobs, and I believe P&O Ferries could and should have treated people with more dignity and respect, perhaps it is not so straightforward to see this a failure of governance.
I was once told very gently that my hobbyhorse looked great, but it wasn’t in the race. And that is certainly a very fair comment indeed. My hobbyhorse therefore quietly dismounted, and my armchair residency resumed, for now.
Take care. Paul xx
