FDI – more than economics

DIPLOMATICALLY SPEAKING
By DENNIS IGNATIUS

Malaysia needs to go well beyond mere economic and fiscal measures if it is to reverse the decline in foreign direct investment. 

THE recently released UNCTAD World Investment Report 2010 indicating that foreign direct investment (FDI) in Malaysia declined by a massive 81% in 2009 has quite understandably grabbed headlines.

According to the report, FDI declined from US$7.3bil (RM23bil) in 2008 to a mere US$1.4bil (RM4.4bil) last year. In addition, there was a massive US$8.04bil (RM25.3bil) outflow of capital.

The overall result was that our country experienced its worst FDI performance in decades.

As we so often tend to do with bad news, we shift the blame; the drop in FDI was explained away as the result of “external factors.”

The argument was made that the global economy is, after all, still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Besides, the doubling of foreign ownership of Malaysian Government Securities (compared to the previous year) and the splendid performance of the Ringgit indicate that investor confidence continues to remain high.

The massive outflow of funds from Malaysia, on the other hand, was explained away as Malaysian companies aggressively pursuing investment opportunities abroad, a coming of age of sorts even, by our multinationals.
Nevertheless, for a country that has long depended upon FDI to prosper and grow, such a drastic decline comes as a rude awakening.

For years we always bragged about how special Malaysia was by virtue of our success in attracting FDI at levels which left our neighbours green with envy.

High investment inflows were seen as a reflection of our competitiveness, our highly favourable business environment as well as our political maturity and stability.

Dismissing the significance of the precipitous decline in FDI might be politically convenient but it will not hide the arresting message that it sends: a serious loss of confidence in Malaysia and a sign of our decline.

Anyone closely monitoring developments in Malaysia, including foreign investors, cannot but conclude that our nation is now increasingly shaky in several areas. And they must also wonder, given recent events, if we are even up to the challenges we face.

Right now we are transfixed by the staggering RM12.5bil Port Klang Free Zone scandal.

What is really distressing is that such corruption and scandalous mismanagement of public finances keeps recurring with frightening regularity.

We seem to helplessly careen from one major scandal to another. It is a mess, a sordid mess, that must surely cause many foreign investors to simply shake their heads in disbelief and dismay.

And more than that, it tells the world that we still have not found the political will or the necessary institutional architecture to prevent such massive corruption from recurring.

It would be naïve to think that corruption on this scale will not impact investor confidence.
And, given our dismal record of bringing to justice the real kingfishers of corruption, not many believe that things are about to change.

Cumulative scandals affecting other national institutions, including the police and judiciary, have also steadily undermined the perception of Malaysia as a safe and competitive place for long term investments.

And then there is the increasingly strident and racially charged rhetoric that marks so much of what passes for political discourse in our country these days.

It may be just politics Malaysian style to some or a convenient, if morally bankrupt way, to garner support to others but it makes foreign investors, and many locals too, very jittery.

It is not for no reason that more and more Malaysians of all ethnic backgrounds are packing up and moving abroad.

According to the World Bank, the number of emigrants out of Malaysia rose from 9,576 in 1960 to almost 1.5 million in 2005. Over 300,000 left between March 2008 and August 2009 alone.

In this connection, I wonder how much of that US$8.4bil that left our shores last year was simply Malaysians moving their capital to safer shores.

The assurances by the government that it will take proactive measures to reverse the decline in FDI are of course welcome as are the measures already introduced under the Government Transformation Programme and the New Economic Model.

Our response, however, needs to go well beyond mere economic and fiscal measures if we are to reverse the decline.

What is also urgently needed is real and effective political leadership to tackle head on the corruption issue and the growing racial and religious divide.

The Prime Minister’s 1Malaysia policy, while constructive and desperately needed, unfortunately already suffers from a thousand cuts. Unless he is able to revive confidence in the Government’s ability to bring about its realisation, it will not help turn the tide of slumping investor confidence.

If we ever hope to raise the RM115bil worth of investments to achieve the goals of the 10th Malaysia Plan, we must act now.

And not with half-measures and half-hearted gestures but with credible policies and programmes backed by the necessary political will.

Bearing in mind the turbulent and uncertain global economic environment we are in, our very prosperity, if not survival, depends upon it.

How expert are the experts?

Review by Choo Li-Hsian

Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us – And How to Know When Not to Trust Them
Author: David H. Freedman
Publisher: Little, Brown & Co

EVERY day, we are surrounded by “expert advice” from various media. So, how do we pick the good stuff out of the constant stream of flawed ones?

In a sense, we often trust experts blindly because we are programmed to do so from young – at first with our parents, teachers, and then the authoritative voices in textbooks and the network news.

Studies on brain scans apparently show that we actually surrender our own judgment and forego our own decisions when presented with “expert advice”.

David H. Freedman, author of the book Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us – And How to Know When Not to Trust Them has spent the past three years examining why expert pronouncements so often turn out to be exaggerated and misleading.

He provides several reasons. One of them is that scientists are not as good at making trustworthy measurements as we give them credit for.

Surveys revealed that fraud, careerism, suppression of data and lousy analysis, among other reasons, are fairly rampant even among the most respected researchers and institutions.

As Freedman puts it: “It is not that they are mostly incompetents and cheats. Well, some of them are... (but) a bigger obstacle to reliable research though is that scientists often simply cannot get at the things they need to measure.”

He terms this as the streetlight effect – a reference to a joke scientists love to tell. Late at night, a police officer finds a drunken man crawling around under a streetlight.

The man says he is looking for his wallet; that he is likely to have dropped it across the street. “Then, why are you looking over here?” the police officer asks. Because the light is better here, explains the drunken man.

Freedman notes that “many and possibly most scientists spend their careers looking for answers where the light is better rather than where the truth is more likely to lie... it is often extremely difficult or even impossible to cleanly measure what is really important, so scientists instead cleanly measure what they can, hoping it turns out to be relevant.”

In many cases, scientists are stuck with surrogate measures in place of what they really want to quantify.

For example, economists cannot track the individual behaviour of billions of consumers and investors, so they rely on economic indicators and data extracts to form conclusions. A 1992 study by researchers at Harvard and the National Bureau of Economic Research examined papers from a range of economic journals. They discovered that none of them had conclusively proved anything.

John Ioannidis, a highly regarded “medical mathematician” from Greece’s University of Iaonnina examined the 45 most prominent studies published since 1990 in the top medical journals. He found that about one-third of them were ultimately refuted.

Scientific studies are also not always performed on the right subjects. Patient recruitment is a problem in medical studies. Researchers often end up enlisting those who do not represent the population in terms of health or lifestyle – students, the poor, drug abusers – as their subjects.

Studies on human health are based on animal testing but three-quarters of the drugs that prove safe and effective in animals end up failing in early human trials.

“Publication biasness” is quoted as the biggest culprit, that is, journals’ tendency to eagerly publish the small percentage of studies that produce exciting, surprising breakthrough results.

How can we counter all this? Freedman is not calling us to discard experts and their findings. The key is to distinguish between expertise that is “more likely to be right” and those that is “less likely to be right”.

We need to ask: “What does better advice have in common?” or conversely “What does bad advice have in common?” Bad advice, according to Freedman, tends to be simplistic.

It tends to be definitive, universal and certain; it is advice we love to hear, for example, chocolate is good for you.

The best advice tends to be less certain – those who say: “I think maybe this is true in certain situations for some people.” We should, therefore, avoid findings which shout “it’s exciting, it’s a breakthrough, it’s going to solve your problems.”

Instead, we should consider advice that embraces complexity and uncertainty. While this may go against our intuition, we have to accept that we live in a complex, messy and uncertain world. Experts who are more likely to steer us in the right direction are those who acknowledge this.

But here’s the million dollar question: since Freedman is a kind of expert on experts, why should we trust him? Freedman concedes that you should not.

In fact, he even dedicates a whole chapter to this subject entitled “Is This Book Wrong?” He emphasises that his purpose is not to give people answers but to provoke thinking, raise awareness and point out that there are real questions we should all be asking instead of passively accepting the status quo. In essence, we should all be smarter about how we pick our advice.

Life after retirement

By EUGENE MAHALINGAM
eugenicz@thestar.com.my

RETIREMENT. To many people, it refers to the period in life where one should be kicking back, relaxing and catching up on the things they never could during their long, gruelling working lives.

Realistically, however, not many people get a chance to enjoy their retirement period, usually due to financial constraints that comes once we stop earning a living.

With the rising cost of living, many retirees are finding it difficult to make ends meet with their EPF (Employees Provident Fund) savings or pension scheme alone and are forced to continue working.

For the purpose of this article, we’re going to skip that group of people who, during their working lives, were prudent with their expenses and shrewd with their investments and are now laughing themselves all the way to the bank till the day they die.

For those who still need to earn a living post retirement, embarking on a job can still be fun and need not be a burden. In fact, many of today’s retirees view retirement not as an end, but instead as a new and exciting phase in their lives.

Work from home

For a retiree, working from home has its advantages, says Janice Tam, a retired school teacher.
“You can work at your own pace and avoid the hassle of travelling to and fro to an actual office,” she says.
Tam today provides tuition classes for kids below 12 years of age.

“Providing tuition classes is a very popular side income alternative. Baby sitting is also a good post retirement job choice, especially when the parents drop the child at your place and saves you the hassle of having to go to their home.”

Starting your own business

Many a times, the experiences of a long career can provide retirees with the confidence and knowledge to launch a successful business.

G. Murthy used to serve with the armed forces and now, at 57, is heading his own security firm.

“My experience with the armed forces allowed me to gain invaluable knowledge in self defence and now it not only allows me to help protect people, it also provides me with a decent income.”

Sometimes, the knowledge and experience could be gained from a family business.
Growing up, Rashid Abu Bakar, now 67, used to enjoy the nasi lemak his mum sold to the local village-folk to earn a living.

After serving with the Government, he is now retired and is continuing the family business and claims that it is “good pocket money.”

“It makes for a good side income on top of the pension that I get every month.”
Rashid says he enjoys eating the nasi lemak just as much as he does making them.

“As it’s important to find pleasure in what you do, or else it would just become a burden. I have to wake up very early in the morning to prepare the food but it is something that I enjoy doing.”

He adds that it is important to understand the demands and dynamics of running your own business, its prospects and needs.

Become a consultant

Many people retire from their jobs only to become consultants to their previous employers or advisors to organisations within the industry.

Says Alvin Loh, 63, an advisor to a local property developer: “Consult-ing provides you with a lot of flexibility and due to the person’s invaluable years of experience, demand for such jobs are good and so is the salary.”

Go back to school

It is not uncommon for senior citizens to enrol part time or even full time at a college or university to learn a new skill and take up a new job, says Kajang-based private college tutor Rashid Ali.

“There are many senior citizens where I teach who are taking up something new. Some of them even come back to do another course!”

Rashid admits that taking up a part-time diploma or degree can be a huge sacrifice for someone who is married.

“There are many private institutes that offer night-time or weekend courses to cater to this group of people. There are many genuine courses that one can do online.

“Having an extra qualification on your resume carries a lot of weight and if it means better job and salary prospects, it’s worth it,” says Rashid.

Become a volunteer

There are many organisations out there that are eager to accept volunteers, regardless of a person’s age, says Jacob Wong, a committee chairman for a Kepong-based non-profit organisation.

“Because we have to constantly keep our budgets down, we’re always looking for volunteers. Believe it or not, a lot of times we prefer to work with retirees because they are less demanding and are quite satisfied with the pocket money that we give them.

“Many of today’s youths are just interested in making money and are not interested with volunteering. That’s why we prefer to work with senior citizens,” he says.

Schools, libraries, religious and relief centres and charitable organisations are among some of the places that are always on the look out for volunteers, Wong adds.

Action and reaction

Behind The Headlines
Bunn Nagara

The continued rise of China takes several turns, with each one prompting revealing reactions abroad.

CHINA’S economic ascendancy is already old hat, stunning as the curve still is. But what is particularly compelling is its international fallout.

How do others react to China’s soaring trajectory? A glimpse was available during the week, when GDP figures for the second quarter surpassed Japan’s to make China the second-biggest economy in the world.

China’s number two status had been known for weeks already and previously its GDP had also overtaken Japan’s temporarily. However, as Japan continues to stagnate and China to grow, the gap between them is now expected to stay in China’s favour, making 2010 the year it becomes the world’s second-biggest economy after the United States.

Japan gave up its title as number two after 42 years in resigned acceptance.

 

Economic powerhouse: A child playing at a sculpture of a laptop computer merged with an abacus as its monitor in Shanghai on Friday. China has overtaken Japan to become the second-biggest economy in the world. — AP

 

Academically, this was a foregone conclusion, since both China’s growth and Japan’s stagnation – notwithstanding a brief respite in the first quarter this year – had been evident for years.

Popularly, a sense of lethargy seems pervasive, with little imagination or hope of how to turn things around.
Politically, attention is focused on managing consumption, subsidies and production incentives rather than challenging China.

Japanese businesses could hardly be more bullish on a booming China, particularly when they have been investing so much for so many years there.

Increasingly, Japanese industrialists are acutely aware of the potential of the world’s biggest production house and the most extensive market just next door.

The same sentiments are shared in Taiwan, if anything more so. Official notice of China eclipsing Japan economically came in the same week as approval in Taiwan’s legislature for a landmark Economic Co-operation Framework Agreement (ECFA) slashing tariffs across the Taiwan Straits.

This was a moment, enabled by a Kuomintang majority in the Legislative Yuan, that Taiwanese businesses had been waiting for.

Bilateral trade across the straits, already at US$110bil (RM346bil) annually, is set to multiply much more.
The opposition Democratic Progressive Party tried to block passage of the deal by warning that it would mean excessive dependence on the mainland, to no avail.

Their mistake was in seeing the ECFA as facilitating this dependence, when it is only a symptom of it.
The ECFA includes a host of features for mutual consultation, review and fine-tuning that will enhance and enrich cross-straits relations.

By encouraging Taiwanese businesses to explore and profit from dealings on the mainland, Taiwan’s business community as a whole would soon be convinced of improving bilateral ties all-round.

All of this might seem to prod the United States into self-doubt in the region.
Its decades-old bilateral relations with Japan as “the most important bilateral relationship across the Pacific” had just been eclipsed by its relationship with China.

Now that China’s rising economy has driven the point home by eclipsing Japan’s, what next?

Whither the 1951/60 US-Japan security treaty? And with cross-straits relations swirling into a new configuration, what would happen to the US “security understanding” with Taiwan enshrined in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and all its nuances?

A rising China is not doing anything significant to upstage US military dominance of East Asia but some militarists see its hulking economy to be making waves nonetheless.

But in being militarists, they have no proper response to developments in the economic realm.
The day after Taiwan’s legislature passed the ECFA convincingly, Adm Robert Willard, head of the US Pacific Command, said in Manila that the United States opposed the use of force in South China Sea disputes.

This followed comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month that the United States had a “national interest” in seeing the disputes resolved diplomatically, upsetting China.

The problem was not over disputes having to be resolved diplomatically but about the United States seeing itself as having a national interest in the region.

It could mean that US forces would intervene to defend those perceived interests whenever it deemed appropriate.
That came after officials in Beijing reportedly told a visiting US delegation in March that the South China Sea was a “core national interest” of China.

How far would the United States want to pit itself against China in the region and for how long would the United States want any such conflict to last?

Adm Willard’s talking points were neither new nor ever disputed by any country in the region. But why they were made at the time could bear some examination, particularly when he added that countries in South-East Asia were concerned with China’s military assertiveness.

This outlook contradicts many perceptions in the region, as have been communicated to the latest Pentagon survey.

Its current annual report to Congress, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2010, cites China’s military build-up continuing “unabated” but also acknowledges its ability to sustain military power at a distance “remains limited”.

At the same time, US military exercises in the region amount to overt posturing in playing to a Beijing audience.

The more hawkish media in the United States and East Asia then pick up on these events and spin them through their respective prisms.

More of the same can be expected when China’s PLA Navy begins work on its first aircraft carrier later this year.

Other countries in East Asia are unlike the United States not only in terms of size and strength but also in simply being here – which means they cannot end a regional conflict by simply withdrawing troops.

China’s rising economy need not provoke a military face-off with anyone but could instead foster closer ties as Japan and Taiwan have found.

Economic pre-eminence should not have to trigger a military response, least of all the kind of military intervention proven disastrous elsewhere.

Car loan takers top bankruptcy list

By LEE YUK PENG
yukpeng@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: At least 500 people who take out hire-purchase loans for vehicles are declared bankrupt every month.

The majority, comprising 37% (950) of the 2,565 cases in the first five months of this year, were aged between 35 and 44 years. (See Table)

Insolvency Department director-general Datuk Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil told The Star the incidence of bankruptcy from unserviced car loans was extremely high in the first five months of the year, an average of 513 cases a month.

He said this was in contrast to the average of 330 cases a month last year, 227 in 2008 and 265 in 2007.

He added that becoming bankrupt because of one’s inability to service vehicle loans had also topped the list of bankruptcy cases in Malaysia, accounting for about 24% of the total 80,370 cases between 2005 and May this year.

“Personal loan borrowers and business loan borrowers accounted for 12% and 11% of the total number of bankruptcy cases respectively within the same period.”

Once a person is declared a bankrupt he will be restricted from, among others, travelling overseas, holding the post of company director, and will have to give up his assets, including property and cars.

He must contribute to the bankruptcy estate, and will only be discharged once the sum owed is settled.

Abdul Karim is concerned that the number of bankruptcy cases involving car loans among those aged below 25 had shot up to 156 last year, against 55 cases each in 2008 and 2007.

There were 27 such cases as at May this year.
Under the hire purchase agreement, the bank repossesses the car if the borrower defaults on the monthly instalments for three consecutive months.

It will sell off the car to recover the sum owed and if the amount still owed is more than RM30,000 the bank will file a bankruptcy petition in the High Court.

In cases where the sum owed is below RM30,000, the bank will wait until the amount, with accumulated interest, balloons to RM30,000 before filing the petition.

On the rising incidence of bankruptcy involving those taking car loans, Fomca claims there is a reason why banks prefer to repossess and sell the cars instead of negotiating with the borrowers to come up with a scheduled repayment that they could afford.

According to its secretary-general Mohd Sha’ani Abdullah, some bank officers receive kickbacks from car repossessors and auctioneers for giving them business.

He said Fomca had complained to Bank Negara on the zero downpayment for car loans as advertised by some car salesmen last year: “How can this be allowed when borrowers have to pay at least 10% of the price as downpayment?”

Appeasing the Bond Gods

From Paul Krugman’s latest column:

As I look at what passes for responsible economic policy these days, there’s an analogy that keeps passing through my mind.

I know it’s over the top, but here it is anyway: the policy elite — central bankers, finance ministers, politicians who pose as defenders of fiscal virtue — are acting like the priests of some ancient cult, demanding that we engage in human sacrifices to appease the anger of invisible gods.

Hey, I told you it was over the top. But bear with me for a minute.

Late last year the conventional wisdom on economic policy took a hard right turn. Even though the world’s major economies had barely begun to recover, even though unemployment remained disastrously high across much of America and Europe, creating jobs was no longer on the agenda. Instead, we were told, governments had to turn all their attention to reducing budget deficits.

Skeptics pointed out that slashing spending in a depressed economy does little to improve long-run budget prospects, and may actually make them worse by depressing economic growth. But the apostles of austerity — sometimes referred to as “austerians” — brushed aside all efforts to do the math. Never mind the numbers, they declared: immediate spending cuts were needed to ward off the “bond vigilantes,” investors who would pull the plug on spendthrift governments, driving up their borrowing costs and precipitating a crisis. Look at Greece, they said.

The skeptics countered that Greece is a special case, trapped by its use of the euro, which condemns it to years of deflation and stagnation whatever it does. The interest rates paid by major nations with their own currencies — not just the United States, but also Britain and Japan — showed no sign that the bond vigilantes were about to attack, or even that they existed.

Just you wait, said the austerians: the bond vigilantes may be invisible, but they must be feared all the same.
This was a strange argument even a few months ago, when the U.S. government could borrow for 10 years at less than 4 percent interest. We were being told that it was necessary to give up on job creation, to inflict suffering on millions of workers, in order to satisfy demands that investors were not, in fact, actually making, but which austerians claimed they would make in the future.

But the argument has become even stranger recently, as it has become clear that investors aren’t worried about deficits; they’re worried about stagnation and deflation. And they’ve been signaling that concern by driving interest rates on the debt of major economies lower, not higher. On Thursday, the rate on 10-year U.S. bonds was only 2.58 percent.

So how do austerians deal with the reality of interest rates that are plunging, not soaring? The latest fashion is to declare that there’s a bubble in the bond market: investors aren’t really concerned about economic weakness; they’re just getting carried away. It’s hard to convey the sheer audacity of this argument: first we were told that we must ignore economic fundamentals and instead obey the dictates of financial markets; now we’re being told to ignore what those markets are actually saying because they’re confused.

You see, then, why I find myself thinking in terms of strange and savage cults, demanding human sacrifices to appease unseen forces.

And, yes, we are talking about sacrifices. Anyone who doubts the suffering caused by slashing spending in a weak economy should look at the catastrophic effects of austerity programs in Greece and Ireland.

Maybe those countries had no choice in the matter — although it’s worth noting that all the suffering being imposed on their populations doesn’t seem to have done anything to improve investor confidence in their governments.

But, in America, we do have a choice. The markets aren’t demanding that we give up on job creation. On the contrary, they seem worried about the lack of action — about the fact that, as Bill Gross of the giant bond fund Pimco put it earlier this week, we’re “approaching a cul-de-sac of stimulus,” which he warns “will slow to a snail’s pace, incapable of providing sufficient job growth going forward.”

It seems almost superfluous, given all that, to mention the final insult: many of the most vocal austerians are, of course, hypocrites.

Notice, in particular, how suddenly Republicans lost interest in the budget deficit when they were challenged about the cost of retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. But that won’t stop them from continuing to pose as deficit hawks whenever anyone proposes doing something to help the unemployed.

So here’s the question I find myself asking: What will it take to break the hold of this cruel cult on the minds of the policy elite? When, if ever, will we get back to the job of rebuilding the economy?

Building high performance teams

Leadership lessons from the ‘Special One’

SCIENCE OF BUILDING LEADERS
By ROSHAN THIRAN

“Ferguson is right. Money does not guarantee success. I showed that last season when my Porto team beat Manchester United. It’s all about leadership.” – Jose Mourinho

DURING the recent World Cup, I studied the work of leadership guru cum hostage negotiator George Kohlrieser on high performance teams.

As the new football season kicked off, I started to think about high performance sports teams. And immediately, one name comes to mind – José Mário dos Santos Félix Mourinho.

Jose Mourinho has built three high performance teams in the past few years. The moment he takes over the team, they quickly gel, start to perform and win trophies. How does Mourinho do it?

When Mourinho was asked what the secret to his success was, he humbly responded: “I pray a lot. I believe in God. I try to be a good man so He can have a bit of time to give me a hand when I need it.”

Mourinho may pray a lot but so do other coaches. Mourinho is probably the only coach who has a PhD, earning it from Lisbon’s Technical University.

But praying or having a PhD does not explain how he seamlessly builds high performance teams?
Let’s explore this paradoxical man. Mourinho, with his trademark Armani suit, is called crazy by some and genius by others. Despot and kind. Godly and arrogant. Loved and hated.

Yet, regardless of which team one supports, everyone, including women, has high respect for “The Special One”.

 In fact, when Mourinho left his old club Chelsea, his archrivals Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger moaned his departure.

Even British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was sad.
In a recent AOS survey, Mourinho topped a poll of celebrities that most office workers would want as their boss.

He won the poll convincingly beating Richard Branson, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Oliver and others.

For corporate employees, Mourinho is the “Chosen One”, someone they secretly wish would transform their workplace.

So how does Mourinho keep creating these high performance teams?
According to Kohlrieser in his book Hostage at the Table, there are eight key pillars to high performance leadership:

1) Leading from the mind’s eye – the power of focus;
2) Cycle of bonding – motivation, inspiration, resilience;
3) Leader as secure base – creating trust to drive change;
4) Conflict resolution – resolving differences;
5) Power of dialogue – building bridges with common understandings;
6) High impact negotiation – influencing and persuading;
7) Leveraging strengths – team self-awareness; and
8) Managing emotions – creating high energy.

Leading from the mind’s eye

Mourinho wanted to be a professional football player like his father Felix. But he was so untalented that it ended in embarrassing failure when he was not even allowed on the field.

Mourinho quit football and went to business school. But after just a day, he quit and enrolled in a sports science course, deciding to become the world’s greatest coach instead. And since that day he has kept his mind’s eye focused on being the best coach in the world.

At Porto, Chelsea, Inter Milan and now Real Madrid, Mourinho’s mind’s eye keeps him focused on winning. Even in defeat, he refuses to take the role of loser.

Every team he has managed quickly bounces back from losses because their leader has his mind’s eye fixated on nothing but success.

“It’s no fluke that after a defeat, Inter gets straight back on its feet. That’s all thanks to Mourinho,” claims Diego Milito, an Inter Milan star. In fact, winning is so engraved as Mourinho expresses: “I love players who love to win. They not only win in 90 minutes, but every day, every training session, in every moment of their lives”.

The entire team’s mind’s eye is focused on winning.

Cycle of bonding

Mourinho creates bonds with every single player in his team and personally knows each of them. Mourinho is known for his great “rapport” with his players.

He knows each player intimately and knows which button to press for each player. Some say Mourinho is avuncular and caring, while others say he is an intimidating tyrant.

Neither is true. He simply worked out how to use differing training methods for each player. “His training sessions are spectacular,” says Ronaldo. “They have great intensity but we don’t feel tired because we are extremely motivated.”

Every team Mourinho coaches, bonds like a family. Mourinho adds: “You must create a positive atmosphere and make everyone feel part of the group. In this club, if you go to the barrier, the man at the door feels part of the group and success. The people who work in the kitchen feel part of this family. And I’m one of them.”

Leaders as secure base

Research shows that teams perform best when their leader is a secure base. Mourinho was a coach, friend and secure base to all his players wherever he went. Even with personal issues, he was highly visible and accessible to all players.

The day Mourinho bid farewell to his Chelsea players, there was tears everywhere. He knew them all including their wives and kids and mentioned each one during his three hour farewell.

Inter’s Milito says: “There is no coach like him when it comes to sticking his neck out and defending everyone, that way reducing the tension within the team when things aren’t going well.”

Mourinho is the players’ secure base. Frank Lampard attests of Mourinho: “I love him as a man and as a manager.”

Conflict resolution

All high performance teams are faced with conflict. According to Kohlrieser, high performance teams “put the fish on the table”. By putting the “smelly fish”, or conflict on the table, there is opportunity for everyone to see these issues and work to its resolution.

Mourinho does similarly by constantly delivering feedback and performance assessments to each player. Some players may not like having the “fish on the table”. Joe Cole once received some stinging feedback but took it under his chin and started performing.

Power of dialogue and language

When Mourinho went to Italy, he said: “I studied Italian five hours a day for many months to ensure I could communicate with the players, media and fans.”

It is said that Mourinho speaks 17 languages. He uses the power of dialogue and language to build common understanding of the clear goals he has set for his team.

A self-confessed fan of Ferguson, Mourinho not only became Ferguson’s close friend but great rival. Their bond and dialogue enabled two strong-willed men to build a friendship in spite of their rivalry. Mourinho uses dialogue and language to ensure every single player on his team has similar friendships with him and clear understanding of the end goal.

High impact negotiation

In March 2007, Chelsea was being outclassed in the first half of a Champion League game losing 1-0. A few minutes before half-time, Mourinho angrily storms out.

Chelsea came out of the dressing room a completely new team, winning the game. This happened numerous times throughout Mourinho’s career. Why does his half-time talk always work? He does not yell, he does not scream but he negotiates and influences his players to change.

“I asked the players to enjoy the situation,” Mourinho said of one of his half-time talks. “We had 45 minutes to change things, and I asked them ‘are you scared of it or are you going to enjoy it?’ Psychologically, I just made the players think a little bit.”

According to sports psychologist Andy Barton: “Mourinho will always look to turn a negative into a positive. If a team is 3-0 down at half time and the manager starts screaming about all the mistakes made, it doesn’t help. Instead he’ll focus on things they are doing right, and then tell them how they can turn the game around.”

Mourinho is very specific about what is required to win and influences his players to build a mental image of what is needed.

He spends significant amount of time preparing each player differently for games. He influences and persuades big stars to train and conform to his team patterns.

He treats them all as equals.

Leveraging strengths

Mourinho is a man who knows his strengths and limitations. He once said: “If Roman Abramovich helped me out in training we would be bottom of the league and if I had to work in his world of big business, we would be bankrupt!”

Mourinho understood what he was good at and what each member of his team was capable off. He worked within the strengths of his team and gets the best of each individual. Jim Collins, in his book Good to Great, talks about how great leaders build great teams by “getting the right people on the bus.”

Mourinho has trusted lieutenants that he brings into every team he manages. One of them is fitness coach Rui Faria, who has been with him at every club.

When Faria was asked what Mourinho’s secret was, he responded: “Every other top coach says they work hard and they prepare better than anyone else, but they can’t make what Mourinho does. Everything he does is better. He works harder than anyone else. He knows everything about every player and every game.”

Mourinho knows every single player’s strengths and weaknesses. He knows how to leverage their strengths fully as a team and minimise their weaknesses. And every single player knows each other’s strengths and this team self-awareness is the difference between Mourinho and other top coaches.

Mourinho himself displays great personal self-awareness when he quit football to focus on coaching. This “quitting” is termed the hedgehog principle by Collins.

It is simply to be very clear about what drives you and what you can be genuinely great at, and then relentlessly focus on that.

How many of us persist with things we know deep down, are not going to lead us to success? How many organisations persist on doing things the same way?

Insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results. Once, Mourinho was termed insane for making three substitutions in the first half of a game he was losing. Mourinho was just addressing the brutal reality of a situation.

Mourinho learnt quickly that there is no relationship whatsoever between functional expertise and managerial ability.

Managing emotions

“Players don’t win you trophies, teams win trophies, squads win trophies,” rants Mourinho daily. But Mourinho does much more than build teams. He builds leaders in each team he manages. At Chelsea, more than half his first team became captains of their national team.

To ensure you build high performance teams, you need to grow leaders. Leadership is needed in every part of your team. You cannot be a giant surrounded by midgets.

When Mourinho arrived at Chelsea there were no stars – he fashioned them. John Terry and Frank Lampard were good players he turned into world class.

He says: “You must work hard and work well. Many people work hard, but not well. You must create good leadership with the players, which is an accepted leadership, not leadership by power or status.”

If we look at back at our careers, most will admit that the period we developed the most was when a manager pushed us to our limit.

Mourinho, more than anyone else, believes in pushing a person to their limits, enabling his team to constantly move out of their comfort zone and into a courage zone.

Final thoughts

That is the lesson of Mourinho. We need special ones. We need leaders like Mourinho who have their mind’s eye focused. “The thing about Mourinho is that you don’t know what he’s going to do next but whatever it is, it will be because he thinks it is beneficial to the team,” says Barton.

Mourinho built numerous high performance teams being an authentic leader through the power of bonding. He worked hard and had thorough forensic preparation for each match but his unique relationship with his players, and his relentless focus made the difference. What are you doing to build high performance teams?

Roshan Thiran is CEO of Leaderonomics, a social enterprise passionate about creating a few Jose Mourinhos’ in Malaysia. For more information on how your organisation can build leaders, call +60123291968 or login to
www.leaderonomics.com.