Public criticism of predecessors: Rare, but India is not immune to it

Outside clubs, cooperative societies, and politics, public criticism of companies is rare - but India is not immune to it

Leadership is complex. Trainers draw lessons from other leaders’ experiences and convert them into memorable rules — but they are mere mantras. For every rule articulated, there is an exception. For example, Steve Jobs of Apple fame was a Stanford dropout, wore turtlenecks, and was rude to colleagues. Aspiring entrepreneurs should not emulate these. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos tried but is now languishing in federal prison.

 

Despite this there are best practices.

 

Every leader learns about how and what to speak publicly about predecessors and present colleagues. In one social-media post recently, I read a view (I thoroughly disagree) that JRD Tata was a fabulous and ethical leader but left a “leaky and unstable umbrella” for Ratan Tata. All leaders hand over unresolved problems to the successor, apart from a good record of accomplishments. What we should think about is public disparaging of the predecessor.

 

Does public criticism matter? Why would a leader do so? We see this occurrence both in national politics and in companies.  Psychology suggests that it may work to some extent in politics but is rarely effective in a corporate setting.

 

Adolf Hitler was fiercely critical of his predecessors in the Weimar Republic. He based much of his rise to power on blaming past leaders for Germany’s problems and made tall promises to return national greatness under his own rule. Of course, he failed to do so.

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt publicly criticised his immediate predecessor, Herbert Hoover, for his failure to address the Great Depression. Mercifully he did not criticise his long-ago predecessors dating back to the time he was born, which some political leaders do. FDR is thought to be a very successful American President. He was elected four times in a row.

 

On September 30, a novice American Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, reportedly slammed his “fat generals” on fitness and grooming standards. “No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression … we are going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards,” he lectured to hundreds of generals and admirals. Then followed a speech by his President: “If you don’t like what I am saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes your future.” What do you think all of this did to the morale of the seniormost generals?

 

What about companies?

 

On September 4, at a Barclays Investors conference, Unilever’s new chief executive officer (CEO), Fernando Fernandez, was reported to have stated that of his 200 top leaders, he would replace “a quarter to stamp out pockets of mediocrity. Unilever is a bloated organisation with an inconsistent performance culture … we have lost focus on volume growth”. He may be right, and outsiders cannot judge. However, his predecessors never used such demeaning language though they too talked about organisational restructuring, agility, and responsiveness.

 

In April 2023, Clearlink CEO James Clarke came under fire for criticisms he made publicly, questioning the ethics of his company’s remote workers and working mothers. Later he claimed that rudeness was not at all his intention.

 

Why do leaders speak disparagingly of predecessors or publicly rebuke their own top team?

 

The practice might appear to justify new initiatives but is widely regarded as an ineffective leadership strategy. Narcissistic leaders use blame-shifting to protect and inflate their self-worth. Some attribute every grave ill to their predecessors, and in extreme cases, they slam their long-ago predecessors. They are driven by insecurity, a need for control, a longing to leave behind a distinct legacy, and personal ego.

 

Such an approach also helps to create a “saviour narrative” where the predecessors are presented as having done such a hopeless job that they bequeathed the tough task of salvaging the situation to them. Constant griping at predecessors helps some leaders to feel more secure and elevate themselves in the eyes of their team. Blaming predecessors or current colleagues also reflects a lack of emotional maturity.

 

Occasionally a predecessor criticises a successor publicly as when Jack Welch did in 2008 about his hand-picked successor, Jeff Immelt, breaking the golden rule of predecessors avoiding criticising later leaders.

 

Barring in clubs, cooperative societies, and politics, public criticism is hardly reported among companies. This does not mean that India is free from this malaise; maybe it happens but it is not reported. Continuous care must be taken to minimise its incidence in the future.

 

              

The author’s latest book, JAMSETJI Tata—Powerful Learnings for Corporate Success, is coauthored with Harish Bhat. rgopal@themindworks.me