Learning from Browne
Here are some loosely connected thoughts about the abrupt resignation of Lord Browne.
1) His departure was not prompted by homophobia at BP or among BP's shareholders. In fact Lord Browne set out in a very public way a few years ago to transform BP into a model of a diverse, equal-opportunities employer - and has had considerable success in that respect. There is anti-gay prejudice in the City, and UK boardrooms, as there is everywhere in the UK. But that's not what did for him. He quit because of his humiliation at the disclosure that he lied to the court about how he met his former lover.
2) He is paying a very steep price for the misjudgement of lying to the court. Not only is there the loss of up to £15.5m of remuneration from BP, but it will damage his future employment prospects. In a world where companies are obsessed with their public reputations, he will no longer be perceived as the prize he once was.
3) There is something slightly strange that this blow to Browne should stem from a lie that was prompted by his understandable reluctance to disclose that he met his former boyfriend, Jeff Chevalier, via an online male escort agency. I am not downplaying the gravity of the lie. My point is that there have been serious questions about his stewardship of BP for a couple of years. The in the US, which killed 15 people in 2005, seems to me to be infinitely more serious than the cover-up of how he met Chevalier. Browne was not directly responsible for that disaster, but he was at the helm and is therefore accountable for Texas City and a raft of other problems in the US.
4) Browne's genius was in buying companies when the oil price was relatively low and thereby transforming BP into one of the world's great oil companies - to the considerable benefit of shareholders and the UK.
5) Integrating what he bought turned out not to be his forte. A more astute board would have spotted this earlier and taken steps to replace him long before his natural retirement age came within sight.
6) The big lesson of Browne's demise is that at the turn of the millennium he had simply become too powerful. Almost no-one - not shareholders, not journalists, not his fellow board members - seemed able to acknowledge that he might have weaknesses and frailties. His power within BP was excessive. The deference accorded to him outside BP was unhealthy. In terms of stature within British industry right now, there is no-one quite like how he was - and that's a good thing. He stayed at BP too long because nobody dared to mention that the chief executive known as the Sun King might not be wearing clothes.
I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Oh how we like to bring people down. Lord Browne was a superlative leader, generating huge returns for his shareholders and helping change the climate of diversity at his organisation. He is no hypocrite. Not due to homophobia? Would the rags have been interested if it was his girlfriend (however he may have met her) tried to sell her story? I doubt it.
In my (relatively unimportant)dealings with John Browne in the early 1990s, I found him courteous, thoughtful and possessed of a delightful sense of humour. I greatly admired the way he later transformed BP and feel his many friends should unite to wish him well for the future. Anyone fortunate enough to 'employ' him will be lucky indeed.
Does the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ not actually reflect in a successful business story up until the terrible Texas tragedy. Your comments show a disregard for the facts regarding Browne taking BP from just another oil company to one of the most admired energy companies in the world, setting the agenda on climate change rather than reacting. Compare him to all the other oil company executives and he is head and shoulders above them. Integrating Amoco, Arco (UTP) and Castrol may not have been perfect but its been a lot better than some of the other takeovers. Maybe the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ should actually reflect in the positives more than as usual look to the negatives which it feels are more newsworthy.
No, Diana, the allegations were about improprieties at BP which related to his boyfriend. Not unlike the scandal that hit Paul Wolfowitz at the world bank. There was a public interest in terms of BP's shareholders for these claims to be aired. The gender of Browne's partner really isn't the issue.
And no-one has brought Lord Browne down but himself. Lying to a court's a serious offence.
It is indeed sad that Lord Browne has met such a catastrophic end to his almost flawless career. Almost that is! But that single flaw alone like a pinhole in a full-blown balloon completely annihilates all that he stood for.
His arduous protection of his private life has caused him to be a downtrodden human after all...not fit to be a Lord!
You say Browne was too powerful in recent years. What are the none- executive directors for ? They should have had knowlege of his reationship with this person through their contacts with the media and security services and should have advised and cautioned him.
I find it surprising that the personal life of an exceptional CEO who has done a lot for one company be what people remember about him.
Lord Browne's sexual preferences is his own business, and where he met his partner is no-one's business either.
In today's society, meeting a suitable partner has become a challenge in itself, not only for the young, but for those in positions of power.
It will be a shame if his record be tarnished by such personal details, shared by someone Lord Browne thought he could trust!
Lord Browne remains what he is, a great manager whose management strategy passed the test of time. How unhealthy this habit of taking so much interest in the private life of our fellow citizens. I think this story is a disgrace to the western "democratic" world, where highlighting the weaknesses of our heroes seems a more fashionable activity than tackling the real ailments of this world, the unimpressive performance of our political leaders for one. Citizens of the democratic world, wake up!
Diana's comments are very valid. I thought we were reaching the stage when people were not persecuted for being gay or bi-sexual. I feel the media is to blame, and it should be charged for disclosing private facts without permission, so that it could damage a member of the public ,and make money from their disclosures. It is not an offence for people to be gay, and they should be helped not hounded.
And so now the 'experts' and the 'commentators' will queue up to add their personal dagger in the back of one of the country's most successful business leaders.
In my view he displayed a great deal of dignity in resigning as he did, rather than stay and defend personal life style choices, having had any allegations of business mis-conduct roundly dismissed by his fellow board members. All those who now queue up to pontificate, judge and moralise will be judged as the small people in this world.
Thanks once again to the newspapers, those self-appointed moral guardians of the nation who felt it their earth-bound duty to bring this to our attention.
So what, another great leader proves to be fallible when it comes to their personal lives (i.e. Bill Clinton). And now the press sends out its lynch mob. Unthinkable a paper not fit to line my bird cage brings down BP’s most senior executive. Of course Lord Browne could never publicly disclose his sexuality; he ran an oil company. His peers would never have stood for it, but kudos to Lord Browne one of the most successful gay leaders of all time. As a gay man I have great admiration for him.
I worked for BP for 4 years; I left for more pay. I regret each day in doing so, no other company comes close. BP is the benchmark and Lord Browne is the force that created a phenomenal company. Tell the vultures to move on to their next kill, there is no story here.
Don't you read the tabloids. YES, they would have been interested if it was a girlfriend.
Lord Browne may well have been a superlative leader but who wouldn't be when you've imployed an entire management team of "yes" men who were to scared to stand up and disagree with him, for all BP's talk of safety their safety record is a joke. Take Texas and Alaska for starters. Think of the people who are left holding the poison chalice now he's gone.
of course the press would have been interested if Lord Browne had met an ex girlfriend on a web dating site, then set her up with various perks, then she decided to 'kiss and tell'. It is a classic media story. Look at david blunkett and john prescott. the moral is, keep work and pleasure strictly separate.
Lying on oath in court proceedings (however small the lie) betrays a serious error of judgement (to put it at its mildest). It was inevitable that this particular "untruth" would be found out - and that ultimately Lord Browne would lose financially (and lose his credibility) as a result. If Lord Browne made this stupid (and it was a really stupid) mistake, and was prepared to lie on oath - what other stupid mistakes has he made, and what other lies has he told? This whole sorry episode has given me pause for thought, and I will have to re-assess my views on BP and its management record.
Gay people are still reluctant to be open about their sexuality. Why? Could it be because we are still treated badly in many respects, especially by the press. The MP Simon Hughes was equally unwilling to be open and lied in a similar way. There is still a long way to go before geniune fairness and equality is achieved.
If he had met a girl through an escort agency, yes!
The fact is Browne was in a weakened position already and, in the eyes of BP's board, had probably been expendable for some time.
However, given his considerable achievements, it is a great pity that he will be remembered for something as tawdry as this. The tabloid press in this country have a lot to answer for - this isn't the first time they've destroyed a person's life for the sake of copy.
How stupid can anyone be? Did Lord Browne at 54 seriously think a 24 year old he met via an online escort agency would be a wise choice as a partner?
It's very sad that his career has ended this way, but with the balance of hindsight, it may have been cheaper for him to help his ex-partner than cast him adrift... For all his business acumen and vision, clearly Lord Browne has very poor judgement when it comes to his personal life...
Lets hope the vultures of Fleet Street will now leave him alone to rebuild his life.
Having read more on this story and looked at some of the back story going back several months. It seems fairly clear to me that there was a campaign to discredit Lord Browne and remove him from office quickly and with his payout and pension capped.
Whatever the political motive for this was cannot be ascertained and that lying under oath was what finished him. But it was still his sexuality that was used for maximum media effect.
Lord Browne should not have lied - he will suffer the consequences. However, the only reason this has been published is because the Daily Mail believes it can make money out of it. It believes the British people like to gossip and talk about other people's private lives. It shows to the world that we are a nation more interested in the humiliation of others and not a caring and giving nation. The only way to stop this is to stop buying the Daily Mail and other sensationalist newspapers. So don't buy the Daily mail tomorrow
Having perjured himself in court why should he not be prosecuted. All very well to say he had paid dearly but would the same decision be made on a mere mortal who did the same.
Not homophobia? Either you are naive or you think we are. The only motive for his lie was the correctly anticipated barrage of homophobic reactions. This has nothing whatsoever to do with his performance be it good or bad.
He was a great leader of one of the World's great companies. Though I am only a small fish in a large company Lord Browne always looked after his people and made the company inclusive for all. Whatever he may have done in his private life is his business, we should allow him the same dignity and grace that he always showed others as he retires from BP.
"How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places."
Everyone should be entitled to conceal from the public explicit details of their sex life, unless these activities are illegal. It begs the question whether we are all entitled to know details of the sex lives of prominent company Chairmen and CEOs? The fact that Lord Browne was even questioned about his personal life shows prejudice is alive and well.
Lord Browne was / is one of the greatest business leaders this country has ever known. His transformation of BP from a nationalised going nowhere local UK business into one of the biggest most succesful companies in the world is a fantastic achievement, and his leadership is unparalleled. How sad that he has become yet another victim of the media Jackals. How sad are you to fire cheapshots at this great man.
The homosexual angle of this story is the only one that the original newspaper - the Mail on Sunday - was interested in. The court problems are, of course, subsequent to that. The Mail thus emerges as tawdry player in this saga. What is more interesting, Robert, is that your analysis here suggests some serious business questions about Browne's latter stewardship of BP. What a pity that British journalism is in such a poor state that it was not this which prompted what would have been a justifiable, if difficult, investigative story. It was the easy route of buying a spurned lover's tale which was taken and deemed worthy. Mourne Browne or not, we should certainly be mourning the state of British journalism today.
For me, ultimately, the fact is that he lied.
Everyone seems to think they can lie and get away with it, or use the phrase of the moment, "I did it in good faith" (See Mr Wolfowitz of the World Bank for one very recent example).
The sooner we can teach people that this sort of thing isn't going to put you in good stead, the better.
It is a sad day to have him leave this way.
It is even sadder that his ex could not move on . Even in the gay world there are leaches and Lord Browne picked one as his mate. Sometimes in life even the best of us misjudge people.
Sad as may about what happened I dont think anyone in business deserved a 26 Million payout package so there was some good coming out of this sordid episode.
I agree with Diana (11.03 am 2 May 07). Fascinating to see how British society remains slaveringly homophobic and profoundly humbug. Can you conceive of any civilised European country, its media or its judiciary becoming involved in such a grisly act of public character evisceration ? Your law may boast it admits gay marriage but you lot haven't really changed since poor old Oscar Wilde's time.
I don't care who or what Lord Brown slept with i'm just glad he's been kicked off the board. BP under his leadership has been a very nasty company.He lied about mineral reserves, something that is dealt with exetremely severely in many countries and he also had subsidiaries like Branch Energy, yes the exploration arm of BP that was involved in places like Sierra Leone (working directly with both Executive Outcomes and Sand Line, both private armies for people that don't know)and Uganda.
I hope BP can recover from this dubious period of leadership. I'm just glad to see the back of this man(no pun intended), some of the things that BP were responsible for ,under his leadership, can only be described as totally dishonest and morally deplorable.
I personally hope he loses all his perks from BP, including his pension and shares.
For someone working 24/7 with two secretaries one is surprized Lord Browne had a personal life; so one imagines it was no more than a natural reflex for him to defend his privacy.
In comment 22 S Allen hit the nail on the head when he said that the only motive for Browne's lie was the correctly anticipated barrage of homophobic reactions. The reactions of the press show all too clearly how right Browne was.
the society we live in craves sensationel news and scandal.it is sick
Well, the whole thing is wrong. What he does behind closed door is no one's business. Even if he was openly gay, so what, this is 2007 not 1007!
The only thing, if it is true, that he did wrong was using BP resources to help his lover and lie to the court.
Mr Peston,
Lord Browne's achivement are considerable and will stand the test of time, long after scriblers like you are dead and forgotten.
Mart Fordham
It is sad that he has had to go in this manner. Who, in his/her right mind, having attained Browne's position, would have gone into court to admit meeting an ex-lover via a male escort service? I wouldn't. There've been quite a few stories lately about Canadian male escorts involved in (money related) public "outings"...whatever happened to mutual respect, discretion and dignity?
This says a lot about the age in which we live; one in which we constantly need to watch others' dirty laundry being washed in public...I wonder what that says about us...
Lord Acton's observation of over 100 years ago still holds true today "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"-that their sense of morality decreases as power increases. Browne is just the most recent of many -witness Robert Maxwell and Conrad Black not to mention corporations such as Enron & Parmalat. All different cicumstances but they all were found out to have lied publicly. No matter how clever they are or how beneficial they are to their respective organisations, people in such positions of almost untouchable power presumably get away with one form of deceit or another on a daily basis without challenge.
Tiresomely predictable that the usual excuses are trotted out (presumably by the same rag-bag of highly partisan sources) - homophobia, 'the media', etc.. At the end of the day the facts are clear; Lord Browne lied to a Court under oath. Perjury is a criminal offence. This casts doubt on his integrity and judgement. This is not to detract from his personal or business qualities, or the fact that many people still have difficulties admitting or being open with their sexuality. For those saying this is somehow the fault of some faceless 'media' - no-one forced Lord Browne to a criminal offence. Nor can 'privacy' arguments hold, or totally at least. In answer to those commentators, including those saying the fact he was questioned about his sexuality proves homophobia / prejudice are alive and well - he was questioned because he attempted to stifle the story about his relationship, hence it was inherent to the case - a case which he seems to have started! Privacy? Well this cuts both ways, in exactly the same way that there is always more than one person in any relationship - who decides where one person should be gagged in talking about their personal life at the expense of someone else? If anything those claiming this argument are also arguing that because Lord Browne was richer and more powerful he should have more say than the partner...
regardless of sexuality.. there are allegations of improper use of BP resources, that if true, is sufficient for resignation.
"Lord Browne's achivement[sic] are considerable and will stand the test of time, long after scriblers[sic] like you are dead and forgotten."
He was running an oil company, a pencil pushing desk jockey with a penchant for nepotism and perjury. I think you should take your nap now it's been an angry day for you Marty.
Lord Browne was a fantastic chairman of a major UK company which employs thousands of people. His achievements will be remembered long after the homophobic journalism in a few small-minded newspapers. Good for him that he had a boyfriend, and it is none of our business where they met.
Judging when the leader of your organisation is past their sell-by date is terrifically difficult to judge from the inside, so I don't think it's fair to blame the non-execs for not firing Lord Browne earlier. Moreover unlike other areas of life, like the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ or Government, the owners of a business - in this case the institutional shareholders - could have forced Browne's exit if they felt he was no longer fit to run it. This happened with Charles Allen at ITV. In BP's case the company's owners were not signalling that they wanted Browne to go, so the Board couldn't legitimately fire him even if they had some doubts. Nonetheless it's sad that someone of his undoubted skills could fall so far from grace, so quickly.
Mr.Peston:
I have admired Lord Browne for his leadership, his vision, his strategy and the intelligence he used to build one of the largest Energy company in the universe. Unfortunately, he made some foolish decisions in his personal life which has brought his brillant career to an abrupt end.
Even in his worst moments, Lord Brwone has reflected class, integrity and pride. He has taken the financial hits and stepped down, to avoid dragging BP in the angry lover tale.
I hope Paul Wolfowitz is taking note of the grace that Lord Browne has displayed. Mr. Wolowitz has broken the the code of conduct and clearly abused his power. To further drag the World Bank in his scruples action, Mr. Wolfowitz should drop off.
Lord Browne's actions should be a good example for CEOs and executives around the world who abuse their power and authority for personal gains at the expense of shareholders and the employees.
It is indeed sad that Lord Browne has been brought down. However, the fact is that he lied in court. This is called perjury and is punishable by a prison sentence; it's the law.
It has been said "Be you never so high, the law is always above you."
I cannot see why his private life should be reported, it has had nothing to do with the good work he has done at BP. I am truly sorry that Lord Browne has resigned, but relieved the law still works.
I do not know Browne personally, but I wish I did. His mis-judgements are insignificant in the broad scope of things. The UK should be proud of this guy. Just a shame the Mail chose to bring him down. Conclusions:
1. A law is required to prevent newspapers and ex-partners profiting from sexual disclosures from a previous relationship, where nothing untoward (ie. neglect/violence etc.) has happened. This would help remove the threat of blackmail, and keep a persons private life private, no matter who they are.
2. Anyone with a grain of decency in them should now NOT BUY THE MAIL, OR MAIL ON SUNDAY.
Lying about how you met someone is no different from lying about whether the suit jacket you wore a week ago to a particular meeting had 2 buttons when it had 3.
I cannot see for the life of me how information about how partners met is relevant to anything: any error - whether deliberate or not - is equally irrelevant.
In fact, I would say getting information about your suit wrong is worse, as admitting to wearing a suit with a jacket with only 2 buttons is a serious fashion mistake. Saying you met someone on-line rather than in a park less than trivial.
It's a reasonable assumption that if Browne was capable of this error of judgement then he was capable of others.
One of those might have been to have forgotten that the basic job of an oil company is to find oil and gas rather than simply growing production share through acquisition.
Another might have been to not properly reconfigure BP as an energy rather than oil/gas company. BP is notable for it's less than spectacular interests in other energy sectors.
Playing politics though was Browne's forte.
To Peter at 02:22 PM on 02 May 2007.
Were Lord Browne not "rich and powerful," this would not have been the story of interest that it is to the tabloids...and yes, it is still in terribly bad taste/form to "kiss and tell"
He (Browne) should not have lied under oath, but given the circumstances, one can (surely) understand his motivation for doing so (the barrage of homophobic attacks that would, and did, follow).
The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s portrayal, above, is quite saddening. His accomplishments were second to none and this shouldn't be what he is remembered by.
Apparently he had a butler, who observed, Jeeves like, that the rent boy had been at the sauce!
And this in a sworn statement!
Are we trapped in a Brian Rix farce?
I wonder if the expenses and personal lives of the newspaper executives and reporters behind this story would stand scrutiny? The whole business is nastily homophobic.
HOWEVER, lying under oath is indefensible even when it is understandable.
This is a tragic story in which nobody comes out looking good. The flawed former CEO, his former untrustworthy lover and the sanctimonious and hypocritical gutter press are all diminished.
The direct issues are as Mr. Peston has stated...Lord Browne lied under oath and this was a substantial matter.Lying about how he met a girlfriend would be no different in law.
That said,I do not believe it appropriate to treat a homosexual's refusal to be celibate any differently than an alcoholic's refusal to be sober...sometimes claims of "equality" are unjustified and society should robustly forbid their gratification (no chance of that under Blair!)
as a business editor you should have realised that you misspelled Lord Browne's name in the first line. tut tut.
Never ceases to amaze me how someone of exemplary acheivements can be brought down by tabloid journalism, and these days the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳, hell bent on selling sensationalist copy. When the world toay is going to hell in a handbasket, and many many more Public figures of responsibility seem to have trouble understanding that word, it makes me weep that this is as far as fearless investigative journalism is apparently going.
No matter that I'm just a tiny cog in the BP machine, I personally am damned proud to have worked for Lord Browne, quite aside from his considerable business acheivements, he has done much to try and do the right thing. His private life is of no concern of anyone.
Even in this dark personal time, he has continued to do the right thing... Many could do a lot worse than to follow his example - Paul Wolfowitz or virtually any Member of Parliament, anyone ?
Good Luck and Best Wishes for the future to the man.
To Robert Peston...of course this is about homophobia, you are being selective in citing where it occurs: true, there is probably little (if any) homophobia at BP, less still amongst its shareholders and indeed people in the City - I am a fund manager who happens to be gay and have generally found the City to be a pretty tolerant, libertarian kind of place. No, homophobia is more likely to be found in tabloid newspapers and some (though only some) of their readers.
To Louis (message 52)...thankfully your views represent a dwindling minority, as a quick glance through these posts suggests. I have found genuine support amongst all my straight friends, all of whom have been delighted at the introduction of Civil Partnerships and consider equality for gay people as long-overdue. Lord Browne is a fantastically succcessful businessman, and I hope he finds another boyfriend and the personal happiness that any human being deserves.
This is not about homophobia! I have worked BP in the past and it was generally accepted he was gay and no one cared. This is the offshore workers who are not the most open minded of people. If we knew I think it's fair to say the City knew.
Loosely connected thoughts indeed!
1. Root cause of this situation: Mr Chevalier betrayed Lord Browne for a cash payout from a media player. The accusations within this betrayal show no wrongdoing by Lord Browne. It's only the "spin" put on it by the media that makes it appear so.
2. Lord Browne has indeed paid a high price for this betrayal
3. Texas City was a tragedy and BP must pay full recompense for the losses and act to restore safe operations. BUT: world-wide, BP is already one of the safest oil companies in the world to work for.
4. Buying under-priced assets was only one of Lord Browne's fortes. When John Browne joined BP, the company was a throw-back to the British Empire, on the brink of going the way of the British shipbuilding and automobile industries. He has built BP into one of the most successful and respected companies in the world.
5. This comment reflects the worst aspects of Britsh tabloid press. An accusation is made without evidence because it's what the commentator thinks people want to hear.
6. Too powerful? This beggars belief. How else is a Chief Executive to manage the affairs of a company today worth more than £100 billion?
Hmmm. I wonder what Lord Browne would have done to an employee who was found to have broken the law similarly and perhaps misused company resources?
As for his accomplishments, much would be found to have been actually done by others, he takes credit for successes as the figurehead. This is just the other side of that coin.
His real abilities, as for all in such jobs, is as a skilled politician and boardroom warrior. No doubt there's blood on his sword from others who made 'mistakes' and so he moved upwards. It's all in the nature of the game he chose to play (and clearly enjoyed).
I'm sure that he'll not suffer too much hardship in fact and struggle by on the remaining few bob that he hast left.
Perhaps he'll write a book?
Having worked within BP whilst in the UK and having I can honestly say Mr. Brown was indeed great person with great ambitions for BP and the Environment.
I have met some CEO's of other companies withing the Oils industry and their operating practices are far worse than that of a man whom spent most of his life dedicating it to his work and helping the UK economy.
The british media fail to understand that it is very wrong to publish events about a person from thier ex-lover or spouse relating to personal affairs and insinuating it was supported via BP.
Really you are talking about someone whom built BP into a great corporation while he was at the helm. And for what to be fed to the dogs because of a fall out in a relationship.
We too are guilty for reading the papers that endorse this kind of practice.
I was employed by BP in July 1978 after an interview with the then Mr. John Browne. I have seen the company change from a middle sized "Her Majesty's Energy Company", to the 2nd biggest energy giant on the planet. Lord Browne and his team have not always made the right decisions, but they have consistently made enough great decisions to grow BP and move the industry forward in a positive manner. I am deeply saddened by the events that have ultimately forced Lord Browne to retire. Perhaps suffice to say that even business geniuses can make personal life errors of judgement. However, I salute his prompt decision to do the right thing and resign to minimise the impact to the company he (and I) love. Paul Wolfowitz might take a lesson in Browne's class and personal courage as Wolfowitz's transgressions at the World Bank and in helping to orchestrate the Iraq debacle should shame him into resignation. So... thanks John for your service to BP and your country. I salute you !!
BP should be more concerned about his successor, before someone else cashes-in !
I had the opportunity to observe Lord Browne's early career in BP and it was quite obvious that he had exceptional talent for making a business profitable and for seeking out new business opportunities.
Some years later, and before he made it Board Level, any number of people, BP employees included, could have questioned his sexuality but didn't for the simple reason that it did not matter, nor affect his business judgement.
What is tragic for Lord Browne, is his fundamental mistake in lying to a Court of Law and then fighting tooth & nail to protect that lie. If he hadn't lied in Court, then I'm certain that he would still have commanded the full support of the BP Board and retired with an intact business reputation.
However, the main question for the BP Board to answer is, why did they allow the case to drag on without independently checking the facts themselves?
Is it really John Brown of (John Browns School days)or is it a nom-de-plume !!
I'm glad you said almost no-one was willing to recognise Lord Browne's weaknesses, Rob. I did and long felt like a loan voice in the wilderness. I refer you to my artilce in The Independent on Sunday on August 21, 2005. Here's a link:
If the deference accorded to John Browne by those outside BP was unhealthy, then the deference accorded to him within BP was chronic.
Powerful men like Browne and Ken Lay probably never realised that the "hero worship" they enjoyed would be a major catalyst in bringing them down. Their spoken word usually became gospel and very few had the courage to question anything.
Browne wrote a book in 2002 of how things were to be at BP. Instead of debating or questioning the little book, the hordes of senior executives simply ran off desperately trying to interpret His word with eventual consequences like Texas City.
So sad.
I will always respect Lord Browne for doing a wonderful job for so many years. I feel sorry Lord Browne was such a bad picker of a partner who stooped so low to do a kiss and tell. I imagine he had a wonderful 4 years with Lord Browne who I'm sure was very generous to him. Mr Chevalier should have been content with that but no he thought he could now make some money. Shocking. I do hope Lord Browne now meets a nice gent to make him happy because he deserves it.
I agree the lie was Lord Browne's downfall. I understand that Browne was not under oath, semantics may be. Peston's article touches on the 'flaw of the genius' that Lord Browne displays. His many talents did not so obviously include a style of leadership that created open-ness and support. Respect, yes, and a sense of imposing personal authority and a challenging style coupled with an intellectual rigour and deep commitment of the highest order. This is indeed a tragic story about passionate human endeavour both personal and professional as well as human frailty.
The media reaction would be no different if he was straight:
He met a hooker on an escort website
She moved in with him
He used his company to help set her up
He dumped her
She sold her story
He lied under oath to discredit her.
So, I do not think its homophobia.
So, Lord John Brown has been laid low by the Mail On Sunday, and their complicity in the blackmail attempt of a drunken 'Rent Boy'and his 'Kiss and Tell' revelations. I wonder if the veracity of his 'Story' has been as thoroughly checked out and analysed for truth as much as Sir John Brownes version of events. I think perhaps not, or the Mail On Sunday would have found out that there was 'No Case To Answer' as far as the allegations of misuse of corporate assets, as was found out and laid to rest by the rest of the board of BP. I wonder if the Mail On Sunday has been as honest by describing the as yet undisclosed sum, paid to the 'Rent Boy' Chevallier, as being 'Living Expenses', I wonder how many people can be so blessed to require such a large sum described as 'Only Living Expenses' and is Mr. Chevallier going to declare the sum in full to Inland Revenue. Lord John Browne has done the honorable thing and stepped down to prevent any potential damage to BP, the company he invested his entire working life to, and grew it into the global player it is today. Perhaps the Editor of the Mail On Sunday would like to ponder upon his own actions in this sordid little scene, examine his own motives in playing up, or even making mention of Lord John Browne's private sexuality,
which is of no real relevance to the supposed central allegations of misuse of BP assets. After which he may decide that for the honor of British Journalism, he too should resign. As for Mr. Chevallier, now he has cashed in, and received his betrayal money from the Mail On Sunday, inflation being what it has been over the last two thousand years, comes to considerably more than thirty pieces of silver, which even back then was considered to be more than 'Living Expenses'. Perhaps it should be remembered that John Browne led the growth of BP into a major Global Player. I have also seen mention on these pages much criticism about the Texas City incident, and the Alaskan Pipeline incidents, and these being laid at his door, well I should like to point out that in both cases, the basic causes for both incidents lay firmly in the culture and background of the Heritage of these assets, both of which were not originally BP, and within both assets, (Amoco for Texas City, and Arco for Alaskan Pipeline)there was a residual culture of doing it 'our way' or 'if it wasn't invented here, it doesn't exist'. These incidents, terrible as they were, would have happened wether BP had taken over, or not. The weakest link in the management chains responsible for these incidents lay many salary grades lower than the board room, and should be viewed in the context of the root causes of companies struggling to compete by reducing costs and overheads during a time when the oil price was around or below the ten dollars a barrel level. In both cases, BP did not attempt to hide anything, and went 'Open Book' as to what went wrong, what lessons were learned, and set aside a large and fair amount of money for compensation for the Texas City incident. This was the spirit of responsibility that Lord John Browne instilled throughout the company, it is ironic that the policy of openess and honesty encouraged by Lord John Browne within the corporation, is the very factor that failed him in his own private life, and brought him down.
I worked at BP for many years up until recently, and I think Robert Peston's summation is pretty accurate. Even though BP merged several times with other firms, the senior management remained pretty much intact throughout (95% BP heritage), and had transformed into an elite of sorts - made men as it were. None had or have significant downstream / refinery experience (mainly an Amoco/Arco trait) and the flaws in integration and operational control can be traced back to these cultural / operational fault-lines. Browne's flair, intellect and style whilst engaging engendered a deep elitism in certain of the inner management sanctum which did and does appear unhealthy and prone to groupthink. It will be interesting to see how the new management, essentially the old management sans Browne, will cope without the talisman. If a major reshuffle occurs and they get their operational performance sorted, BP has a strong portfolio to drive forward. But the new management, having been so long in the shadows, and apparently wanting to stay there, suggests an increasingly inward-looking culture that may create further internal tensions, at a time when external issues - Russia, Texas City, reputation - seem to be more crucial.