​In times before electronic management systems cars were simpler and mechanically less intricate – you could repair a car within reason without going to an expensive garage to connect a computer to your engine to diagnose faults.
 
Driving however could be more difficult – I remember my father teaching me the lost art of how to double declutch, useful before synchromesh gearboxes and when changing down to go uphill.
 
I also remember some very good practice advocated by police car drivers. In a queue at the lights leave enough space between you and the car in front so that you could see its rear wheels. This meant that you could pull out if called to an emergency.
 
It struck me this week that this sort of care and as it were “hanging back” has a wider application. It is so easy to rush into a job of work. Assuming knowledge before really knowing what’s going on. This is particularly true in these days of instantaneous communication when clients are pushing for an immediate answer which pressurises professional people to oblige.
 
However that can be a mistake and approaching a matter with a degree of circumspection and caution in the first place will almost always pay dividends in the longer run. No client or customer will thank you for getting it wrong. Horace said around 65BC A word once let out of the cage cannot be whistled back again.
 
History is littered with generals who wished they had sized up their enemies a bit more carefully before engaging them. General Custer at the disastrous Battle of the Little Bighorn was advised by Brig. Gen. Alfred Terry to await reinforcements which were approaching. Instead he attacked with tired troops and horses that had just completed a 30 mile march, with disastrous consequences.
 
I rather like this quote from Ruta Sepetys,a Lithuanian-American writer of historical fiction: “We cannot be too cautious, Hannelore. Just because someone knocks on the door doesn't mean you have to open it. Sometimes, sweet girl, there are wolves at the door. If we are not careful, they might eat us.”
 
And perhaps more concisely as Alexander Pope said in 1711 For fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
 

​Not everything works out the way you expect it, even if you have planned carefully. I went on a sailing course yesterday in the Solent for an ICC (International Certificate of Competence) which is important because it allows you to charter boats in Europe.
 
I had earlier in the year passed an RYA on line seamanship and navigation course and understood the assessment to be just about practical ability to handle a sailing boat.
 
Not so! In addition to sailing and handling a cruising yacht under power the examiner (a Yachtmaster Instructor - YMI) who was an extremely able instructor ran theory sessions with each of the candidates on charts, tides, rules of the road at sea, lights, buoys etc. All perfectly reasonable and part of the syllabus, I just wasn’t expecting such a thorough approach and had not properly prepared for it.
 
I had planned for the practical sessions and checked the weather and how to enter and leave port, but not spent much time on revisiting navigation or memorising the light boats display at night. Fortunately, I had also as back up taken an RYA (Royal Yachting Association) booklet and my iPad with another more complete RYA ICC guide. I then managed to cram in enough last-minute revision in the fore cabin of the yacht whilst others were sailing to get through.
 
I once heard Sir Clive Woodward, manager of the last England rugby team to win the world cup, explain how they had plans for every contingency that might happen during a game so they were rarely caught out by the unexpected.
 
The American author Frank Beddor wrote: “And even, if circumstances required, a contingency plan for his contingency plan's contingency plan.”
 
In any professional transaction things will rarely proceed as expected, with the old army adage “What can go wrong will go wrong” invariably applying. Spending some time anticipating what may happen and the different directions things may go in and developing some contingency plans pays dividends.

Those professionals I have truly respected and admired most over the years have had many qualities: thoroughness, tenacity, resilience etc.
 
However, one key characteristic that is perhaps overlooked is an innate tendency to be genuinely interested in and questioning about their subject – law, medicine, accountancy or whatever.
 
This is about not being content with falling back on retained knowledge often learnt many years ago, or assuming every new case will ultimately be similar to the last one. It is rather looking at each professional development and each set of circumstances with a continuing curiosity that goes beyond the basic need to assimilate facts in order to understand and resolve the issue at hand.
 
To slightly misquote Lewis Carroll “Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).”
 
More pertinently Bernard Baruch an American financier, stock investor, philanthropist, statesman, and political consultant in the 19th and 20th centuries said: “Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton asked why.”
 
Bill Bryson is an excellent example of a person who has this quality of curiosity in abundance and can express it cogently – see for example his publication of A Short History of Nearly Everything, a book widely acclaimed for its accessible communication of science.
 
And for those of us not as naturally gifted as Isaac Newton or Bill Bryson there are ways or techniques of triggering a more curious approach to professional working life.
 
It seems to my slight surprise to be the topic of training programmes – see for example this article in 2016 which commences with the words: A Harris Poll survey reveals leaders often are ineffective at fostering creativity. Here’s how to create a workplace climate that encourages curiosity and rewards creativity.
 
I find a simple starting point to encouraging curiosity is always to ask some simple basic questions at the start of any transaction: what, who, where, when, why, how. This simple approach has surprisingly strong historical support from leading thinkers such as Cicero – see this Wikipedia article.
 
As the writer Arnold Edinborough said: Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly.
​

​This week I have been talking over and thinking about the leadership of professional teams. Over my career in the law in private practice and industry I have seen many different styles utilised in the awkward art of motivating and managing highly educated, skilled and motivated people.
 
I also recognise that there is a sometime subtle distinction between management and leadership which Steven Covey sums up well: Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.
 
There are many contrasting styles of leadership (and of management). Inclusive (where all members of the team are openly involved in decision making) v remote (where the manager remains aloof and decides on their own telling the team what to do.) Delegate (management and work is handed over to others) v keep to yourself (where the leader tries to do all of the work and only begrudgingly hands it out).
 
This article suggests there are three styles: autocratic (or authoritarian) paternalistic and democratic and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each.
 
Of all of these one of the most extreme is the approach where a leader rules through Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. This is where the boss keeps his direct reports in a state of terror all the time as to whether they are doing well or badly and even if they will keep their jobs from one day to the next. Lee Iacocca allegedly played mind games with his senior executives to keep them off balance. And yet he is also considered a very successful executive who turned Chrysler round.
 
Perhaps the most important aspect of a leader’s style is that he or she has consciously chosen which approach and why. What sort of team do they want and how will they best be motivated – will fear or reward work best. And when it comes right down to it does a leader genuinely care about the careers of their workers – or only about themselves.
 
And anyway with professionals as Peter Drucker says: Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done.!