New thinking and behaviour

That prince of the patronising platitude is at it again.

I refer to James Smith, the CEO of Thomson Reuters, who in October 2011 - then new to the post - introduced himself to employees with a collection of gnarled old cliches wrapped up in the empty rhetoric of management-speak.

Two years later he is still trotting out banalities - for no better reason, I am guessing, than to remind the company who he is [TR staff need new thinking and behaviour - CEO].  

The first time around he talked of “putting the customer first in everything we do”. This remarkable insight left many employees indignant, as it seemed to imply that they had been spending too much time hatching plots to put the customer last. Now, under the headings “Trust”, “Partnership” and “Innovation”, Smith offers yet another collection of hollow slogans. He calls upon employees to “act with integrity and independence”. They must, he also insists, be “ethical and reliable”. They must “work together… to deliver superior results”. And finally they must seek to “innovate to serve our customers, drive our growth and win dynamic business environments”.

He omitted that he also expects them to love their neighbours, and to help old ladies across the road.

The exhortations are inherently laudable, of course, but to a sophisticated audience expecting bold leadership, they must seem merely laughable. My response, were I still a TR employee, would be this: “Tell us something that we don’t know - tell us what specific plans management has in mind to revive our flagging franchise.”

Smith’s message went out, The Baron reported, to each of the company’s 60,000 employees. Sixty-thousand! Given that extraordinary number, it may be that “working with each other” fails to produce the required results because figuring out who’s supposed to be working with who has become a bureaucratic nightmare. Incidentally, Bloomberg continues to win the hearts and minds of customers with, at last count, 15,000 employees. 

Recent conversations with TR employees tend to confirm the “nightmare” conjecture. They talk of “too many chiefs” and “role confusion” and “lack of direction”. What they yearn to hear is not an evangelical lecture in ethics but an aggressive plan for business expansion. Sadly, many suspect that no such plan exists.

Even the news division, guided by perfectly sound Trust Principles (which Smith appears to be obsessed with rewriting) finds itself in constant turmoil, and with all the symptoms of an identity crisis. Sackings compete with defections to produce what must be an unsettling turnover.  

Perhaps Andrew Rashbass, hired from The Economist, can sort it out. Some doubt it, especially after his recent address to The Reuter Society, which left many in the audience, myself included, confused about the precise nature of his role. If he failed to convince the agency veterans, how can he get the message across to a new generation?

Smith was put in his job by the Thomson family, and so presumably enjoys their confidence. But one has to ask for how long. My bet is that the Thomsons are already asking awkward questions - as well they might in light of recent financial results. 

The company is not doomed, as some taproom Jeremiahs predict, but it needs professional help. If Smith is the man to provide it, then he had better start showing results that go beyond the moral salvation of the staff.

If he does not, then the Thomsons must, and surely will, consider what to do with an underperforming property - as they have done with others.

PS: This is definitely my final word on the subject​. ■