I despair. With all that is wrong in the leadership of business and public organisations, the media frenzy has descended on the expenses of the BBC's senior executives. I defy anyone not to be able to create a story over the smallest item of anyone's expenses and to portray it as a wasteful extravagance. In the current culture of envy it is easy pickings for a journalist to describe a perfectly legitimate activity such as travelling business class across the Atlantic as an abuse. I'm not sure the expenses track record of the majority of these journalists would fare any better if reported with the same degree of contempt.
That's not to say that some of the activity, if reported correctly, wasn't crass (a mooring fee for a yacht at Cannes) or ill-judged (gifts for highly paid talent, such as TV presenter Sue Lawley's sheets). But none of it looked illicit or particularly inappropriate for an organisation engaged in the business of sustaining its quality reputation and building its global impact and reach.
Yet there is something about expenses that can be used to undermine and attack individuals and organisations, particularly in sections the media already have in their sights. In our class-derived mythology, expenses are things that are reserved for the bosses, the already privileged and the over-powerful. They are always abused and excessive and never modest or even under-claimed. Indeed when the powerful take action to save money they are often ridiculed just as much as when they spend it - remember the Queen and her Tupperware cereal boxes.
In the interests of a good story, as with the fuss over MPs, the real point of concern and the issues it raises has got lost. What should worry all of us is the issue of the application of personal judgment and critical thinking. First, in the organisation as a whole, over the framework and standards set by their expenses policies; and second, in senior individuals over their actions in claiming and approving them. These raise a more fundamental question about the way we educate people and build their values, the way we train them as managers and leaders and the way organisations take decisions, particularly when it directly affects those taking the decision.
Decisions that directly affect the pockets of those who work in an organisation, the environment in which they work, or the core values that underpin it should be taken by the representatives of the shareowners' interests, or in the case of public and third-sector organisations, the interests of stakeholders. This means for the most senior executives all aspects should be reviewed and endorsed by the non-executive directors or governors in the case of a not-for- profit structure. There is no justification for an executive team deciding the expenses policies that should apply to them.
Second, leaders must set a tone of acting responsibly with other people's money. There is no excuse for a culture of excess in travel, entertaining, offices, or anything else that supports the core activity of the organisation. I'm not arguing for a 'hair shirt' approach: there are good reasons for business class flights in any organisation for people at any level, but there are no good reasons for eating in the best restaurant as opposed to a good one.
This takes me to individuals and their choices. Regardless of what is allowed under any policy, however generous, any leader must take into account what is right. It can't be right, for example, to buy gifts for very well-paid colleagues and expect the organisation to reimburse you when you are paid more than just about everyone else. The choices you make as a leader reflect your values and shape those of others. Expenses policies - and how leaders apply them - support or undermine positive cultures. It's time we all looked very carefully at our own.
- Chris Bones is dean of Henley Business School. chris.bones@haymarket.com
