KARMA: Bully Bitten in the Bumb as Kevin Rudd's not the man for the United Nations: Helen Clark is far a better choice

Published in SMH.COM.AU , 16th July 2016
Written by: Elizabeth Farrelly
We really need to talk about Kevin. Our choice is between a wildly inexperienced but bumptious male and a wise, experienced female, respected, accomplished, fit-for-purpose. But really, is this even a contest?

I'm not talking Trump v Clinton (although if the cap fits, right?) I'm talking Kevin Rudd v Helen Clark, vying for UN Secretary-General.

Remember what this means. Secretary-General is not some sinecure for time served, some handy side-pocket for a pesky ex-PM. This is the search for the next Yoda. Wanted: Supreme Being, Planet Earth. Of course it's not Australia's decision, but Malcolm Turnbull is expected any moment to announce our nomination (or not) of Kevin Rudd as Candidate 13. Question is, should he?

The question must be asked. Does Rudd really have the gravitas to hold down Secretary-General?

 Helen Clark, New Zealand's then-prime minister, right, looks on at Kevin Rudd in 2008. Photo: Bloomberg

Clark has been number three at the UN for seven years. Before that, she was NZ's (best) PM for nine. Rudd is also "over there", gracing the dining rooms and draughty halls of New York with his yet-undeclared campaign. PM for only three years, and then in two parts, bookending Gillard, he is more renowned for back-stabbing and bad-temper than compelling leadership. As a presence on the world stage, Clark towers over him.

If Malcolm had just one act left, one wave-of-the-wand to restore Australia's tattered image as a grown-up nation, it should be this. Transcend national rivalry. Forget the Bledisloe Cup, won by NZ 43 times of 55. Be big. Support Helen Clark for Secretary-General.

The decision must be made well before Ban-Ki Moon retires on December 31. From August, the UN Security Council (always dominated by the five permanent members with veto rights; France, Russia, China, the US and Britain) will ruminate and eventually hand its decision to the General Assembly for ratification. That much is the usual faux-democracy.

But the lead-up process has been, for the first time in 70 years, semi-transparent. There are 12 official candidates – counting Clark but not (yet) Rudd. Half are women, eight are Eastern European, two Latin American/Caribbean and two "Western European and Others". That's us, "others". Australia, NZ etc. Misc.

Already, several live-broadcast debates have let the candidates strut their stuff. Clark's performance in the latest, on Wednesday, won applause – for her humour (quipping that the group should be called "Western European and Orphans"), her insistence that Sec-Gen is not a turn-taking thing, like some dole-out of Olympic lollies, but a "global search for the best talent" and her frank criticism of the UN's human rights and conflict resolution record. It reminded me why Clark is such a standout. She never lets go of principle.

Clark has her critics, of course. But colleagues and staff remember her with immense respect, using phrases like "utterly focused" and "utter integrity."

"Fantastic," said her former Defence Minister Phil Goff of Clark, praising her focus, her "utter integrity," and her grip on "kiwi values," What values? Well, pluralism, feminism, fairness, decency, courtesy, frankness and backbone, for starters.

As a three-term PM she transformed social and cultural attitudes – presiding, not least, over Maoridom becoming cool. That alone is huge. In 1999, before her first election as PM, Clark persuaded the eloquent Maori mayor and former sex-worker Georgina Beyer to contest the right-leaning seat of Wairarapa; becoming NZ's first openly transsexual MP and a much-loved public figure.

In 2001, when Howard was still doing children overboard, Clark's government welcomed 131 people from the Tampa. Without fuss, they accepted hundreds from Australia's festering prisons on Nauru and Manus. Then, unlike Australia's policy of preventing family reunions, worked assiduously to locate and reunite family members.

In 2002, Clark formally apologised to Samoa for injustices committed under NZ rule, and to the LGBTQI community for harm and ill-treatment. In 2003, when the Blair-Bush team were stamping their war-boots, Clark refused to send troops to Iraq, saying that a Gore presidency in the US would not have invaded. So now, post-Chilcot, when we're all wondering why Howard and the Coalition of the Willing should not be named as war criminals, NZ looks strong and honourable.

She made the unpromising-looking MMP voting system work by forming strong alliances with the Greens and others and, throughout, refused to play the gender card, so transforming the status of women.

As to Rudd? Much of the criticism directed at him is personal – the temper tantrums, the selfies, the narcissism, the tendency to bully staff. This is largely irrelevant to his professional performance, especially since most of the bullying accusations originate with political opponents – in particular Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop.

Gillard's description of the bullying amounts to little more than stepping angrily "into my space", which seems scarcely coup-worthy. And although Bishop told the ABC in 2009 that "bullying behaviour by the Prime Minister … is totally unacceptable" she now, mysteriously, supports Rudd's UN campaign.

So no. It's more about Rudd's accomplishments and the extent to which these demonstrate leadership qualities like wisdom, principle and moral strength.

Rudd began well, coming in on a landslide and within months ratified the Kyoto protocol and offered the Stolen Generations an apology that echoed Keating's. Thereafter, it started to look more like gesture than fact. The Rudd-Swan team is often credited with our weathering the GFC relatively unscathed, but that's more reliably down to the zero debt they inherited from Peter Costello. Rudd's white paper on homelessness (2008) attracted attention, with the PM sleeping rough, but – like his 2020 summit – changed little.

There was an emissions trading scheme that exempted high-emitters, an asylum-seeker policy that rejected more applications than Howard and a promised NBN for which we're still waiting.

So, honey, do we really have to talk about Kevin?

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-kevin-rudd-we-should-back-helen-clark-for-united-nations-secretarygeneral-20160714-gq5s9p.html

COMMENTS - LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK ...

• Truffles McLobsterJul 16 2016 at 12:46am
  Yep. Rudd would do silly things like speaking out on behalf of the marginalised and the dispossessed. Clark is too clever to make that mistake.
  • sangelaJul 16 2016 at 10:53am
    You're joking, yes?
• PaybackSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 2:40am
  Kevin Rudd's off stage temper and ability to work with others would become an international embarrassment, he doesn't belong on the world stage.
• MichaelBringelly,Jul 16 2016 at 4:12am
  Elizabeth you left out one sentence. If Kevin Rudd was the only applicant the world would be better served by nobody.
  Helen Clark is an Olympic finalist, whilst Rudd is little Athletics..
• DuralsumoDural,Jul 16 2016 at 7:36am
  Too right she is!
• NullacritterJul 16 2016 at 7:48am
  Completely agree, someone more like Helen Clark and less like Kevin Rudd is what the UN needs.
  Unfortunately, for that reason, it will likely not happen.
• Black snakeWest Woombye,Jul 16 2016 at 8:02am
  I think it is safe to say that the UN knows exactly what Rudd is and shall treat him accordingly. We did.
• topenderJul 16 2016 at 8:08am
  Spot on, KRudd is tantrum throwing egomaniac why on earth would anyone let him near the UN ??
• The KiwiJul 16 2016 at 8:16am
  You could do a lot worse than have Helen Clark as SG. She is incredibly diligent, focused, capable and outcome driven.
• rob1966Sydney,Jul 16 2016 at 8:30am
  Trump as US President? Bois Johnson as UK Foreign Secretary? Rudd as UN Secretary General?
  It's the worlds worst nightmare!
  Start digging your fallout shelter ...
• Mike FCheltenham, NSW,Jul 16 2016 at 8:32am
  But hang on - Helen has Kevin's full support, doesn't she? Shouldn't he be trusted at his word? Given Kevin's substantial history of honest dealing, he wouldn't be publicly supporting someone while secretly white-anting them and promoting himself, now would he? I hope that, among others, Mark Latham and Julia Gillard proceed immediately to say just how safe it is to trust Kevin.
  ...Mike F
• wellsieJul 16 2016 at 8:50am
  Couldn't agree more! Go, Helen. Go away, Kevin.
• James RSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 8:52am
  Rudd and Clark - chalk and cheese. And despite Kevin's cheesy grin he's the chalky, flaky substance.
• Rainer the cabbieLost at the interchange,Jul 16 2016 at 8:56am
  I perceive the UN as an organisation that talks and talks, makes resolutions that don't get enforced and then backtracks until the next thing comes along.
  Kevin would be the perfect fit to lead that outfit. He'll inject some insanity, irrational behaviour and look at me theatre as well.
• Dr KiwiJul 16 2016 at 9:08am
  Clark was one of our best PMs - she showed that negotiation in good faith with other parties can lead to stable and effective government under the NZ MMP political system.
  That is not a bad track record to bring to the job of Secretary-General - ability to negotiate rather than grand-standing should be an essential criterion for that job.
• ebtSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 9:15am
  I agree completely. Kevin Rudd did a few things well and should be recognised for that, but the trail of problems and utter mismanagement he left in his wake is there for all to see and will take decades for hard-working Australians to resolve.
  To imagine scaling-up those errors to a global size just makes me shivver. Helen Clark is clearly a rare talent and has the potential to become a global stateswoman without peer. Malcolm doesn't often get these things right, but here's his big chance - support Ms Clark for UN Secretary-General.

STUDY : Drift away from performance reviews backfires

Performance reviews are universally unpopular with employees and managers because they can be confronting, awkward and overly bureaucratic.

But new research and leading Australian academics suggest that ditching them entirely may be misguided.

Video : Are performance reviews useful?

Herbert Smith Freehills HR Manager Andrea Bell and Business Development Manager of Clients and Sectors, Chele Dore talk about the use of performance reviews.

Deloitte, Adobe and Accenture are among big companies who have dumped performance reviews.

A new study now suggests that in getting rid of performance appraisals, some companies may have also stopped having valuable conversations with their staff, who are becoming less engaged as a result.

Herbert Smith Freehills HR Manager Andrea Bell and colleague Chele Dore. Photo: Christopher Pearce

Aaron McEwan, from best practice company CEB, said its survey of 9500 employees and 300 heads of human resources managers found employees, particularly high performers, had become disengaged without performance reviews.

The study of staff and managers at global companies, including those operating in Australia, found the move away from performance ratings had resulted in a 28 per cent drop in the productivity of high performers. Recognition and feedback were found to be important in encouraging high performance.

While managers who no longer conducted performance reviews were under less pressure, they also found they were not as closely connected to their staff after abandoning the annual performance appraisal. 

The study found perceptions of the quality of conversations with managers fell by 14 per cent after reviews were abandoned. Employee performance was generally 10 per cent lower in organisations without performance reviews.

"The basis on which most organisations removed rankings was a belief that the rankings got in the way of quality conversations," Mr McEwan said. "There was an assumption that if you removed the ratings what would happen is that engagement would go up because you have removed something that employees don't particularly like.
"What we found statistically overall, was the organisations that removed their ratings ended up with 10 per cent lower performance. Your high performers were least satisfied at the end of the day."

Professor of Human Resource Management Carol Kulik, from the University of South Australia business school, said surveys had shown performance appraisals were universally unpopular.

"We know that performance appraisal out of all HR activities it's one of the ones that gets the worst evaluation from both employees and managers," she said.

"Surveys show that 95 per cent of managers think their performance management systems suck and 75 per cent of employees say they don't get good performance feedback.
"So nobody thinks it is done very well." 

John Shields, professor of Human Resource Management and Organisational Studies at the University of Sydney business school, said companies that had simply abandoned performance reviews instead of finding a way to improve them, had "thrown out the baby with the bathwater".

"No one has been able to offer what I regard as a viable or sustainable alternative," he said.
"Now that doesn't mean I am a supporter of the annual ritual of performance appraisals. I am not saying that we should insist on top-down, bureaucratic forensically-defined appraisal systems because they can be organisational death as well.
"It is a matter of degree."

Performance management measured against clearly described performance standards and expectations relevant to an individual role could be helpful and was also a requirement under Australian employment law.

Andrea Bell, human resources director for the law firm, Herbert Smith Freehills, said performance reviews were important, particularly for high performers. "For us the focus is on performance conversations," she said. "I think the conversations that we are focused on having ... are about helping people understand their strengths, look for development areas, get clear about what the coming year or future performance should look like."

Freehills removed school report card style ratings from performance reviews about 13 years ago because they got in the way of a productive conversation. "That improved engagement and improved performance," she said.  "If you are not going to have ratings you have to be really careful that you are having high quality conversations and that's where we put our effort."
Source