30199342 | Happy © Michal Bednarek | Dreamstime.com
They say you should not have favourites among your children. But I found it impossible not to have favourite clients.
I always enjoyed some individuals, some asset managers in particular. More than being nice people – which they were – it was about understanding each other, speaking the same language. Many others I worked with over 30-plus years simply didn’t get what we were saying.
In another lifetime, I would love to figure out why I warmed to some regions more than others: why I loved asset managers in Indonesia, Malaysia, some Canada, west coast USA – and New Zealand, of course.
But favourite clients also include organisations run by the more visionary executives.
I did not always get near the C suite, or councillors. But my fondest working memories now are for those who were engaged. Taking me back to almost my earliest discussions about Asset Management change, about what is and is not possible unless there is a CEO who gets it.
Sometimes there were executives who almost got it, and those are not such happy memories. Some of them even know who they are, because I got to the point when I said this out loud, that they were not succeeding at Asset Management because of the bizarre choices they made. That they were the problem.
Happier to think about how much is possible if the top guys get it.
As opposed to industry sectors which believe in rapid turnover of CEOs who don’t stay around long enough to care about longer term plans.
Makes me think the ‘high reliability’ thinkers got it right about commitment.
How much real improvement on Asset Management is possible unless there is long-time leadership that cares?
This mirrors what I have seen over the years. Some leaders make asset management possible. Others make it performative. The difference is not intelligence. It is commitment.
I think my best work has come with executives who stay long enough to care about outcomes. They ask harder questions. They want clarity. They let the system breathe instead of bending to convenience.
The hardest moments are with the “almost” leaders. Smart people who never stand still long enough or care enough to own the consequences of their choices. That is where learned helplessness takes root. Strategy becomes a slogan instead of a map.
Rand said you can ignore reality, but not the consequences of ignoring reality. Asset management works the same way. Without stable leadership the system resets itself every budget cycle. It reminds me of those early video games where you could hit reset whenever things got tough. You play the same levels. You learn the patterns. You get good at surviving the loop. But none of that is progress. It only feels like progress because the scenery changes with each new leader. Sadly, the objectives are never reached so the assets never win.