Latest news with #TheEconomist
The Herald Scotland
11 hours ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Poland's election is a pivotal moment for Europe ... and beyond
Much of this reaction has no doubt been shaped in part by the fact that for years Poles used to flock abroad for work, leaving the lingering notion that things were far from good in their home country. That Poland has had its economic woes in past decades is undeniable, but here's a few curious facts worth considering in taking stock of any fresh appraisal of this Central European nation. For example, how many of us knew that Poland's manufacturing sector is booming and that since it joined the EU in 2004 it has never known recession apart from briefly at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic? How many of us too realise that the evidence of such growth with income per person having trebled since 1995, is clearly visible to anyone visiting Poland? Having journeyed through or stayed in the country many times these past few years since Russia's invasion of Poland's neighbour Ukraine, I, like other visitors, have always been struck by its burgeoning infrastructure projects often built with EU money. This is a nation driven by strong private consumption and investment. It's one too as The Economist magazine recently pointed where 'living standards, adjusted for purchasing power, are about to eclipse Japan's.' Detractors will doubtless quickly point out that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD has just revised down its GDP growth forecast for Poland to 3.3 % cent for 2025, from a forecast of 3.4 % in February 2025, but even such sceptics would have to admit that this a country more than holding its own economically. And on that very subject of holding its own, Poland, a country long wary of the threat from Russia, has also transformed itself into Europe's most overlooked military power with a bigger army than Britain, France or Germany and the third largest in NATO. In short, Poland matters for Europe and indeed the wider geopolitical world right now and it's against such a backdrop that the country today – June 1st - faces a decisive run off-vote to elect its president. Although the president's role is a largely ceremonial one, today's election outcome will still be extremely significant for how Poland is governed in the coming years. Karol Nawrocki, a non-partisan Presidential candidate supported by the Law and Justice Party, greets supporters during a political rally as the Presidential campaign enters the last days ahead of the runoff on May 29, 2025 MAGA drive Watching closely too are US and European conservatives who view the run-off vote as being potentially decisive not just for the EU but also for right wing populists aligned with US president Donald Trump's MAGA drive to dominate Europe. Such is this level of importance, that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the United States' premier conservative gathering, held its first meeting in Poland last Tuesday, just five days before today's tightly contested election. 'We need you to elect the right leader,' Kristi Noem, the US Homeland Security Secretary and a prominent Trump ally, said in a speech at the event. 'You will be the leaders that will turn Europe back to conservative values.' Speaking about the two contenders in the run-off, who are Warsaw's liberal mayor Rafal Trzaskowski of the main centrist ruling party Civic Platform (PO) and national conservative historian Karol Nawrocki, of the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, Noem left no one in any doubt as to who Trump would like to see win. Urging Poland's voters in her speech at the CPAC to elect Nawrocki as someone who would lead Poland in a style similar to Trump, Noem went on to describe his pro-EU rival Trzaskowski as 'an absolute train wreck of a leader'. READ MORE: Scotland's oldest international medical charity is bringing hope to Himalayas Trump's sledgehammer politics are wreaking havoc in every sphere both home and away Is it actually possible for Ukraine to ever secure a just peace? Soldiers of fortune: Exposing the privatisation and profiteering of Palestinian pain So just how did today's contest come about and what will be the significance of its outcome both for Poland, Europe and the wider geopolitical landscape? The first thing to recognise is that after the first round in the election, Trzaskowski secured a narrow 31.4% to 29.5% lead and polls now suggest they are currently running neck-and-neck. Following today's second-round run-off the winner will succeed incumbent President Andrzej Duda when his second and final term in office expires in August. While the powers of the president are largely symbolic it's not quite as simple as that. Whoever is in office for example has the power to veto bills passed by parliament, a power that the PiS-aligned Duda has used to stymie the agenda of the current government. To put this another way, Donald Tusk, the liberal Polish prime minister elected at the head of a coalition in late 2023, quite simply has had to 'cohabit' with Duda, and lacks the three-fifths parliamentary majority required to overturn his legislative veto. For precisely that reason Tusk needs Trzaskowski to become president so he can pursue the judicial overhaul and other reforms that are blocked by the outgoing Duda. But other things are also at stake in terms of whoever takes the office of president. For example, as Aleks Szczerbiak, Professor of Politics at the University of Sussex and contributor to the news portal 'Notes From Poland', recently pointed out, the president does have other competencies that relate to foreign affairs. Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk arrives for an EU Summit at the European Council building in Brussels, Thursday, March 6 (AP Photo/Omar Havana) Security policy The most important of these is that the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces so can influence debates on security policy. Ambassadorial appointments also have to be approved by the president which explains why Poland does not currently have a full time ambassador to Washington because Duda refuses accept the Tusk government's nominee. As today's contest reaches its height a total of 13 candidates are vying for the presidency but it is the battle between Trzaskowski and Nawrocki on which all eyes are focused. Trzaskowski, 53, is an Oxford-educated son of a jazz musician who champions a liberal agenda that stresses the importance of women's rights and strong ties with the European Union and NATO. One of his campaign promises includes strengthening Poland's position in the EU. Another one of his pledges is to relax abortion laws, however, he has been quiet on this issue during the run-up to the election. He has also been supportive of the LGBTQ community and has attended pride parades. This could alienate some more conservative voters who live outside urban centres. Nawrocki, 42, a historian, has positioned himself as a newcomer with no political baggage. He wants Poland to follow a path inspired by Trump and regards Washington as Warsaw's key ally, not Brussels. Nawrocki opposes abortion and aims to keep coal mines operating until Poland develops its own nuclear energy. He opposes EU migration policies. Nawrocki by and large has dominated public debate - be it over questions about his contorversial acquisition of a flat from a pensioner or an admission that he took part in orchestrated brawls. 'All my sports activities were based on the strength of my heart, the strength of my muscles, my fists,' Nawrocki, an amateur boxer, told a debate when confronted over reports he had been involved in mass organised fights between football hooligans. 'It was a fair competition, regardless of the form,' he insisted. For both contenders though one of the key issues dominating the election is the Russia- Ukraine war. When the war first broke out in February 2022, Poland threw its full support behind Ukraine, welcoming more than one million Ukrainian refugees who crossed the border without documents. Earlier this month, Tusk, alongside Britain, France and Germany's leaders, visited Kyiv while giving Russian President Vladimir Putin an ultimatum to enact an unconditional 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine. Tusk was determined to help stress that Europe is ready to stand by Ukraine even as America's commitment has weakened. It was a measure of Poland's importance and standing among the allies that Tusk was in attendance. By contrast though - as The Economist magazine recently highlighted - Poland's stance is in sharp distinction to the rest of the 'Visegrad Four'. 'Hungary under Viktor Orban and Slovakia under Robert Fico have both taken the side of Russia rather than Ukraine; and the Czech Republic is expected to tilt in that direction after elections in October,' the magazine noted. Warsaw's Mayor and presidential candidate Rafal Trzaskowski celebrates exit poll results during the presidential election night in Sandomierz, Poland, Sunday, May 18 (AP Photo/ Aleksander Kalka) Tense relations In terms of today's vote though the fact that relations between Poland and Ukraine have grown tense despite Tusk's support are sure to have an impact on the ballot. Earlier this year, Polish farmers led protests, arguing the market had been flooded with cheap agricultural products from Ukraine. There are emerging reports too of Ukrainian refugees facing discrimination in Poland, as well as resentment about welfare provided to them. There have also been growing fears of a spillover of Russian aggression to Poland due to its proximity to Ukraine. On May 12, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw said an investigation had revealed that Moscow's intelligence agencies had orchestrated a massive fire at a shopping centre in Warsaw back in May 2024. Reports of foreign election interference have also recently spooked voters. As The Economist summed it up, there are two 'visions' dominating the election. 'One vision, from the candidate of the Law and Justice (pis) party, is a brand of right-wing nationalism that feeds off conflict with Poland's neighbours and the European Union. The other, from the centre, is that, in a dangerous world, Poland needs Europe to magnify its strengths, just as Europe needs Poland as a source of security and economic dynamism.' Given these competing visons, it's hardly surprising then that many see Poland's future relationship with the EU has hinging on today's outcome. 'One election two futures,' is how one political commentator referred to it. For while EU membership has massively boosted Poland's development, the rise of populism has reshaped public debate in the country and the political landscape. 'Sunday's outcome means either a clean break with Poland's past as one of the bad boys of the EU, or a return to a more turbulent relationship with Brussels,' noted Politico magazine a few days ago. Watching closely too are Europe's right wing populists who are keen to avoid a repeat of their recent defeat in Romania. 'Sunday's vote is crucial for the future of Europe,' George Simion, the Romanian ultranationalist who narrowly lost his country's presidential race earlier this month despite a surge in support for the far right,' told the Financial Times (FT). Simion went on to warn that a loss in Poland could further diminish the influence of the populist right across central and eastern Europe and lead to defeat for Prime Minister Viktor Orban in next year's parliamentary elections in Hungary. 'If Maga really wants to go international, they need now a victory in Poland,' Simion was cited by the FT as warning about today's election outcome. Under Tusk there's no doubt that Poland is back as one of the leading countries in the EU, setting the bloc's direction alongside Germany and France. But his core promise of undoing the legal changes pushed through by PiS in the eight years it ruled Poland remains hamstrung making today's vote a potential lynchpin moment. Sense of purpose As Aleks Szczerbiak of the news portal 'Notes From Poland', says 'a victory for Trzaskowski will provide the Tusk government with renewed momentum and a clear two-and-a-half year run before the next parliamentary election, during which it can re-build its support base and restore a sense of purpose (as well, of course, as limiting the ability of a future PiS government to pursue its agenda)' On the other hand a Nawrocki win, would prolong the impasse. He would continue blocking Tusk's reforms and his overriding goal would be to prepare the ground for PiS's return to power in the next parliamentary poll. At the time of writing this campaigning in Poland is now all but over and polls open at 7am Polish time today and close at 9pm. Most expect exit polls will be published shortly afterwards with a full result likely known by Monday. Poland, once a dreary backwater of Cold War communism is now a European powerhouse and prosperous member of the EU. It would be hard then to overstate just how important today's election is on so many levels. From the future of the EU, to the survival of right-wing populist politics on the continent, to the war in Ukraine and role of NATO, so much hinges on this pivotal and potentially dangerous moment. The stakes then could not be higher and those Poles heading today to vote are no doubt acutely aware of it.
The National
12 hours ago
- Business
- The National
Poland's election is a pivotal moment for Europe
Much of this reaction has no doubt been shaped in part by the fact that, for years, Poles used to flock abroad for work, leaving the lingering notion that things were far from good in their home country. That Poland has had its economic woes in past decades is undeniable, but here are a few curious facts worth considering in taking stock of any fresh appraisal of this Central European nation. For example, how many of us knew that Poland's manufacturing sector is booming and that since it joined the EU in 2004, it has never known recession apart from briefly at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic? READ MORE: Why the UK media 180 on Gaza is too little, too late How many of us too realise that the evidence of such growth with income per person having trebled since 1995, is clearly visible to anyone visiting Poland? Having journeyed through or stayed in the country many times these past few years since Russia's invasion of Poland's neighbour Ukraine, I – like other visitors – have always been struck by its burgeoning infrastructure projects often built with EU money. This is a nation driven by strong private consumption and investment. It's one too as The Economist magazine recently pointed where 'living standards, adjusted for purchasing power, are about to eclipse Japan's'. Detractors will doubtless quickly point out that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD has just revised down its GDP growth forecast for Poland to 3.3% for 2025, from a forecast of 3.4% in February 2025, but even such sceptics would have to admit that this a country more than holding its own economically. And on that very subject of holding its own, Poland, a country long wary of the threat from Russia, has also transformed itself into Europe's most overlooked military power with a bigger army than Britain, France or Germany and the third largest in Nato. In short, Poland matters for Europe and indeed the wider geopolitical world right now and it's against such a backdrop that the country today – June 1 – faces a decisive run-off vote to elect its president. Although the president's role is a largely ceremonial one, today's election outcome will still be extremely significant for how Poland is governed in the coming years. Watching closely too are US and European conservatives who view the run-off vote as being potentially decisive not just for the EU but also for right-wing populists aligned with US president Donald Trump's MAGA drive to dominate Europe. (Image:) Such is this level of importance that the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the United States' premier conservative gathering, held its first meeting in Poland last Tuesday, just five days before today's tightly contested election. 'We need you to elect the right leader,' Kristi Noem, the US Homeland Security secretary and a prominent Trump ally, said in a speech at the event. 'You will be the leaders that will turn Europe back to conservative values.' Speaking about the two contenders in the run-off – who are Warsaw's liberal mayor Rafał Trzaskowski of the main centrist ruling party Civic Platform (PO) and national conservative historian Karol Nawrocki, of the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party – Noem left no one in any doubt as to who Trump would like to see win. Urging Poland's voters in her speech at the CPAC to elect Nawrocki as someone who would lead Poland in a style similar to Trump, Noem went on to describe his pro-EU rival Trzaskowski as 'an absolute train wreck of a leader'. So just how did today's contest come about and what will be the significance of its outcome for Poland, Europe and the wider geopolitical landscape? The first thing to recognise is that after the first round in the election, Trzaskowski secured a narrow 31.4% to 29.5% lead and polls now suggest they are currently running neck-and-neck. Following today's second-round run-off the winner will succeed incumbent president Andrzej Duda when his second and final term in office expires in August. While the powers of the president are largely symbolic, it's not quite as simple as that. Whoever is in office for example has the power to veto bills passed by parliament, a power that the PiS-aligned Duda has used to stymie the agenda of the current government. To put this another way, Donald Tusk, the liberal Polish prime minister elected at the head of a coalition in late 2023, quite simply has had to 'cohabit' with Duda, and lacks the three-fifths parliamentary majority required to overturn his legislative veto. For precisely that reason Tusk needs Trzaskowski to become president so he can pursue the judicial overhaul and other reforms that are blocked by the outgoing Duda. But other things are also at stake in terms of whoever takes the office of president. For example, as Aleks Szczerbiak, professor of politics at the University of Sussex and contributor to the news portal Notes From Poland, recently pointed out, the president does have other competencies that relate to foreign affairs. The most important of these is that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces so can influence debates on security policy. Ambassadorial appointments also have to be approved by the president which explains why Poland does not currently have a full-time ambassador to Washington because Duda refuses to accept the Tusk government's nominee. As today's contest reaches its height, a total of 13 candidates are vying for the presidency but it is the battle between Trzaskowski and Nawrocki on which all eyes are focused. Trzaskowski, 53, is an Oxford-educated son of a jazz musician who champions a liberal agenda that stresses the importance of women's rights and strong ties with the European Union and Nato. One of his campaign promises includes strengthening Poland's position in the EU. Another one of his pledges is to relax abortion laws, however, he has been quiet on this issue during the run-up to the election. He has also been supportive of the LGBTQ community and has attended pride parades. This could alienate some more conservative voters who live outside urban centres. Nawrocki, 42, a historian, has positioned himself as a newcomer with no political baggage. He wants Poland to follow a path inspired by Trump and regards Washington as Warsaw's key ally, not Brussels. Nawrocki opposes abortion and aims to keep coal mines operating until Poland develops its own nuclear energy. He opposes EU migration policies. Nawrocki, by and large, has dominated public debate – be it over questions about his controversial acquisition of a flat from a pensioner or an admission that he took part in orchestrated brawls. 'All my sports activities were based on the strength of my heart, the strength of my muscles, my fists,' Nawrocki, an amateur boxer, told a debate when confronted over reports he had been involved in mass organised fights between football hooligans. 'It was a fair competition, regardless of the form,' he insisted. For both contenders though one of the key issues dominating the election is the Russia-Ukraine war. When the war first broke out in February 2022, Poland threw its full support behind Ukraine, welcoming more than one million Ukrainian refugees who crossed the border without documents. Earlier this month, Tusk, alongside Britain, France and Germany's leaders, visited Kyiv while giving Russian president Vladimir Putin an ultimatum to enact an unconditional 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine. Tusk was determined to help stress that Europe is ready to stand by Ukraine even as America's commitment has weakened. It was a measure of Poland's importance and standing among the allies that Tusk was in attendance. By contrast though – as The Economist magazine recently highlighted – Poland's stance is in sharp distinction to the rest of the 'Visegrad Four'. 'Hungary under Viktor Orbán and Slovakia under Robert Fico have both taken the side of Russia rather than Ukraine, and the Czech Republic is expected to tilt in that direction after elections in October,' the magazine noted. In terms of today's vote though, the fact that relations between Poland and Ukraine have grown tense despite Tusk's support are sure to have an impact on the ballot. Earlier this year, Polish farmers led protests, arguing the market had been flooded with cheap agricultural products from Ukraine. There are emerging reports too of Ukrainian refugees facing discrimination in Poland, as well as resentment about welfare provided to them. There have also been growing fears of a spillover of Russian aggression to Poland due to its proximity to Ukraine. On May 12, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw said an investigation had revealed that Moscow's intelligence agencies had orchestrated a massive fire at a shopping centre in Warsaw back in May 2024. Reports of foreign election interference have also recently spooked voters. As The Economist summed it up, there are two 'visions' dominating the election. 'One vision, from the candidate of the Law and Justice (PiS) party, is a brand of right-wing nationalism that feeds off conflict with Poland's neighbours and the European Union. The other, from the centre, is that, in a dangerous world, Poland needs Europe to magnify its strengths, just as Europe needs Poland as a source of security and economic dynamism.' Given these competing visions, it's hardly surprising then that many see Poland's future relationship with the EU hinging on today's outcome. 'One election, two futures,' is how one political commentator referred to it. While EU membership has massively boosted Poland's development, the rise of populism has reshaped public debate in the country and the political landscape. 'Sunday's outcome means either a clean break with Poland's past as one of the bad boys of the EU, or a return to a more turbulent relationship with Brussels,' noted Politico magazine a few days ago. Watching closely too are Europe's right-wing populists who are keen to avoid a repeat of their recent defeat in Romania. 'Sunday's vote is crucial for the future of Europe,' George Simion, the Romanian ultranationalist who narrowly lost his country's presidential race earlier this month despite a surge in support for the far right, told the Financial Times (FT). Simion went on to say that a loss in Poland could further diminish the influence of the populist right across central and eastern Europe and lead to defeat for prime minister Viktor Orbán in next year's parliamentary elections in Hungary. 'If MAGA really wants to go international, they need now a victory in Poland,' Simion was cited by the FT as warning about today's election outcome. Under Tusk, there's no doubt that Poland is back as one of the leading countries in the EU, setting the bloc's direction alongside Germany and France. But his core promise of undoing the legal changes pushed through by PiS in the eight years they ruled Poland remains hamstrung, making today's vote a potential lynchpin moment. As Szczerbiak says: 'A victory for Trzaskowski will provide the Tusk government with renewed momentum and a clear two-and-a-half-year run before the next parliamentary election, during which it can rebuild its support base and restore a sense of purpose (as well, of course, as limiting the ability of a future PiS government to pursue its agenda).' On the other hand, a Nawrocki win would prolong the impasse. He would continue blocking Tusk's reforms and his overriding goal would be to prepare the ground for PiS's return to power in the next parliamentary poll. At the time of writing, this campaigning in Poland is now all but over and polls open at 7am Polish time today and close at 9pm. Most expect exit polls will be published shortly afterwards with a full result likely known by Monday. Poland, once a dreary backwater of Cold War communism is now a European powerhouse and prosperous member of the EU. It would be hard then to overstate just how important today's election is on so many levels. From the future of the EU to the survival of right-wing populist politics on the continent, to the war in Ukraine and role of Nato, so much hinges on this pivotal and potentially dangerous moment. The stakes then could not be higher and those Poles heading today to vote are no doubt acutely aware of it.
National Business Review
a day ago
- Business
- National Business Review
Between the posts: How to set goals in business
Some world leaders and chief executives might envy US President Donald Trump's ability to sign dozens of executive orders without impunity. They are issued, and sometimes retracted, at a speed that wrongly suggests they are a form of chaos rather than a carefully executed plan. The Economist magazine forewarned its readers back in July 15, 2023, 'How MAGA Republicans plan to make Donald Trump's second term count' outlined what victory in 2024 would mean: '… a team of practised demolition experts would prime their explosive ideas. The deconstruction of the administrative state could begin. The vain and tyrannical whims of an emperor-president would emerge from the rubble.' The plan, as we now know, meant sacking 50,000 top civil servants and replacing them with America Firsters whose personal loyalty to Trump was beyond question. The aim, according to The Economist, was to prevent the 'unelected bureaucracy from stymying the programme of an elected president'. In the US, the public service has no protection from the checks and balances in the constitutional design of the three branches of government it enshrines. Trump and his acolytes had learned their lesson from his first term, which could be accurately described as chaotic in its inability to make appointments and prevent the many legal actions that followed his defeat in 2020. In its prescient article, The Economist correctly predicted that if the Republicans won both houses of Congress, 'nobody in the executive or the legislature will be in a position to stop Mr Trump'. It then warned: 'If these carefully laid plans were enacted, America would follow Hungary and Poland down the path of illiberal democracy.' One might hesitate to say it has reached that point, but it does reflect the theme of this week's column: goal-setting, courtesy of a new local self-improvement book for managers and executives. Deb Bailey in her 20s at World's View, Zimbabwe. Leadership coach Navigate Your Impact: How to achieve goals that really matter is the second book that has been self-published by Deb Bailey, a leadership coach. (Her first was Inside Out: Why leadership starts with you, which was a Covid-era response to leaders who felt lost amid the lockdowns.) Bailey had six years of OE in her 20s, qualifying in human resources management while working in London. On the trip home, she visited World's View on the Nyanga Downs plateau in Zimbabwe. It inspired her to spend 22 years at Fisher & Paykel Healthcare (FPH), New Zealand's most valuable company and one of the few of any scale based on technology. This week, it reported a record revenue of $20.2 billion for the year to March and a 43% increase in net profit to $377.2 million – by far the best performance of any New Zealand corporate. Bailey left FPH in 2016 and completed an MBA, 15 years after Fisher & Paykel Industries split into its appliance and healthcare operations. In 2010, the latter established a manufacturing base in Mexico that supplied about half of the humidifier and sleep apnea products it sold in the US. In her role, Bailey annually interviewed most of the country's top graduates in engineering, given the company's scale and recruitment demands. 'I always noticed a vast difference between those genuinely interested in an engineering career and those who weren't. Genuinely interested candidates were curious from the start. They were eager to engage with the products we showed them during the interview process.' Those who showed little interest often had parents who were engineers themselves, prompting Bailey to observe that these 'amazing young people [were] living someone else's version of their life'. This led to a more fundamental question: 'Who is this goal for?' Fisher & Paykel Healthcare's Mexico headquarters. Life stages The book lays out how this can be answered at various stages of one's life. In her words, '[This] will help you identify and plan your goals, diagnose where you are getting stuck and show you how to move forward for the greatest possibility of achievement and success.' Bailey says many of the principles she practices today were part of the leadership approach at FPH. 'They aligned well with the culture then – particularly a strong 'leaders as coaches' mindset. Clear expectations, timely feedback and genuine support weren't treated as separate events; they were part of everyday interactions.' That has since changed at both the company and in Bailey's own career. She completed an MBA and became immersed in the theoretical side of coaching, by writing or designing leadership programmes. She whittles down her core beliefs into two principles: leadership tools should be simple and feel natural, not forced; and the way forward begins with clarity about the problem to be solved. The book has three parts: the decision-making process, which involves planning and identifying; putting those decisions into action; and finally, the concepts of goal-setting, using neuroscience and research into psychology and personal development. Some of this is controversial, such as neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), which emerged in the 1980s as a 'new age' practice that has since fallen out of favour. The largely negative Wikipedia entry was last updated in 2015, and the most recent primary source is 2001. 'Three brains' NLP has been replaced by a new field of leadership development known as mBit (multiple brain integration techniques). In the words of its two leading proponents, Grant Soosalu and Marvin Oka, this 'provides leaders with practical methods for aligning and integrating their head, heart, and gut brains for increased levels of emergent wisdom in their decision-making, and for developing an expanded core identity as an authentic leader'. They claim recent neuroscientific findings have uncovered complex and functional neural networks that give scientific credence to the growing body of leadership literature showing how the world's best companies are guided by leaders who can tap into the intelligence of their head, heart, and guts. Deb Bailey Bailey distils this 'three brains' concept in chapters on logical thinking, emotional values, and gut instinct, along with more conventional ways people identify and set goals. She recalls how difficult it could be at FPH for leaders to have coaching conversations when a team member lacked clarity about their aspirations. 'In many cases, no-one had ever asked them what they wanted to do next, and leaders needed the tools to tackle those conversations. Without that clarity, talent development and succession planning could stall.' I am not qualified to judge the effectiveness of these techniques. But Bailey explains them with examples from her own experience, including such life-changing personal ones as balancing a family with a career, going through a divorce, and the launch of her own business. Out of curiosity, I asked about her experience with self-publishing, as that seems to be the only way New Zealand business authors can reach their reading public. (The last one I reviewed was former Z Energy boss Mike Bennetts' guide for Kiwi CEOs, Being Extraordinary, published in 2023.) Bailey said self-publishing was an 'enjoyable and eye-opening journey. When I wrote Inside Out, I had no idea what I was getting into.' But with the help of an editor, designer, typesetter, printer, distributor, and publicist, she achieved a goal many aspire to but, on the results so far, few achieve. Navigate Your Impact: How to achieve goals that really matter, by Deb Bailey. Available from June 9 from Nevil Gibson is a former editor at large for NBR. He has contributed film and book reviews to various publications. This is supplied content and not paid for by NBR.
Economist
2 days ago
- Business
- Economist
Cover Story newsletter: How we chose the cover image
Peer into The Economist's decision-making processes with Edward Carr, our deputy editor, who explains how we select and design our front cover. Cover Story shares preliminary sketches and documents the—often spirited—debates that lead each week to a design seen by millions of people.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
America's Reputation Might Not Matter as Much as People Think
America's reputation is shot. At least, that seems to be the prevailing view at the moment. 'Trump is Trashing America's Reputation,' exclaimed a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. 'Trump's erratic policy is harming the reputation of American assets,' read the headline in The Economist. And writing for The Conversation, Steve Dunne of the University of Warwick observed, 'Across the opening 100 days of his second term, Trump … has devastated—perhaps irreparably—economic confidence in the US.' The core idea in such statements is that U.S. President Donald Trump's behavior since the start of his second term has undermined the United States' role as a source of global stability and has caused the country to give up the mantel of global leadership. To determine whether this is really the case, it's is worth stepping back to reflect on how and whether reputation plays a role in international affairs. Reputation has been asserted as an important factor in understanding whether governments will honor obligations to repay sovereign debt, uphold commitments to allies, not back down in a crisis, or just generally behave cooperatively. Overall, cooperation is commonly framed as a positive for a country's reputation: One typically doesn't say that a pariah state, like North Korea, has ruined its reputation by starting to cooperate. But when international relations analysts speak of reputation, whose reputation are they speaking of? There is much debate among international relations scholars as to whether reputation tends to be associated with individual leaders, with countries, or with both. To get more in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs from WPR, sign up for our free Daily Review newsletter. If one believes that reputation is primarily attached to leaders, then a country's reputation in world affairs is quite fluid, as it depends on who is holding the levers of power at a given time. According to this view, while Donald Trump's predictably unpredictable nature could result in a wild four years while he is in office, expectations will again reset following the 2028 election. Following his election in 2021, Joe Biden spoke of how 'America is Back' following four years of Trump as president and he sought to reset the United States' global reputation. In some respects, he did that. But the extent to which he continued with some of Trump's key foreign policies was also notable, whether those policies were economic restrictions towards China, or continuing to use the Abraham Accords to underpin a coalition against Iran. The other view is that international reputation is associated with countries as a whole and that there is something about the character of a country that leads to expectations about its behavior. In this view, the United States, independent of Donald Trump himself, has an international reputation. Still, even under this view, the leader a country chooses for itself can affect its reputation. Many observers abroad were willing to view Trump's first election as a fluke—after all, he didn't even win the popular vote the first time around. But the fact that Trump remained the figurehead of the Republican Party after his first term and then won reelection by securing the popular vote suggested to many that Trump is indicative of the more general character of the United States. This resets expectations about U.S. behavior going forward. Setting aside questions about whether Trump's approach truly marks a new phase in the behavior of the United States or whether its even possible to render such a judgment after only a few months in office, there is evidence that the U.S. reputation prior to Trump remains intact. He was elected again, but under circumstances that were particularly advantageous to the non-incumbent party. The U.S. courts have also continued to block and slow his agenda, most recently his beloved tariff policy, and civil society actors are pushing back against his agenda in myriad successful ways. In the end, it might turn out that the U.S. under Trump perfectly illustrates the old saying attributed to Winston Churchill, that 'Americans can always be expected to do the right thing, after all other possibilities have been exhausted.' This suggests that the United States, regardless of who is in office, has long had a reputation of being inward looking and not particularly cooperative with the rest of the world, but ultimately doing so when it is needed most. Such debates are interesting, but there is a larger question at play. Is it even worth worrying about reputation? After all, states and leaders are generally shortsighted. As I've written before, because the international system is inherently complex, decisionmakers within states are typically just going from one fire to the next trying to avoid the worst possible outcomes. Memories are short because there is only so much that can be learned about future likely behavior from particular cases. The political scientist James Morrow made this point when he wrote that 'in international crises … factors always vary across cases.' For example, does the U.S. failure to defend country X mean that it will fail to defend country Y? Not necessarily, because countries X and Y are likely in very different situations. Consider Trump's views toward Ukraine and Taiwan. If he were to cease U.S. military aid to Ukraine—a possibility that seems increasingly unlikely—this should not be seen as an encouraging sign to Beijing, because the context is very different. Defending Taiwan, an island, is very different than defending Ukraine and its large land border with Russia. Trump views the war in Ukraine as the fault of his predecessors, but likely would view a Beijing attack against Taiwan as a personal affront to him. Moreover, U.S. economic and security interests are arguably clearer with Taiwan than they were for Ukraine. In the same way that behavior in one situation may not translate to behavior in another situation, it is questionable whether reputation in one issue area, such as trade, will matter in another, such as defense cooperation. The contexts are again significantly different, and a country's reputation for behaving a certain way in trade relations may not say much about how it behaves as a partner in other contexts. In sum, it may well be desirable for a leader and a country to exhibit predictable cooperative behavior. But such predictability regarding the past doesn't supersede context-specific considerations of power and interests. Donald Trump may well understand this feature of international politics. Stated simply, reputation's importance in international politics may be largely because people think it matters, not because it actually matters in reality. Paul Poast is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a nonresident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The post America's Reputation Might Not Matter as Much as People Think appeared first on World Politics Review.
