Transcription
It is my pleasure to introduce our first conversation with Dean Sarah Soule and former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Sarah A. Soule is the Philip H. Knight Professor and Dean at Stanford Graduate School of Business. She is also the Mogridge Professor of Organizational Behavior. Her major areas of interest are organizational theory, social movements, and political sociology. Rishi Sunak is member of Parliament for Richmond in Northallerton in the United Kingdom and is the William C. Edwards Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution. You've heard of him, of course, because he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and then Prime Minister of the UK from 2022 to 2024. In those leadership roles, he made key policy decisions on a wide range of technological, medical, economic, and geopolitical issues. Importantly for us, he earned his MBA here at the GSB.
One final note before we begin. A few weeks ago, Rishi had a skiing accident and his recovery from that accident has prevented him from being able to travel to California for this event. So, Rishi will be joining us on screen rather than in person. Please join me in welcoming Dean Soule and Rishi. >> [applause] >>
Thank you, Ken. Thank you for that wonderful welcome and wonderful introduction. I am so delighted to see all of you here and I can't think of a better person to help us kick off the forum than Rishi Sunak, who as many of you know from the introduction and from his biography, is probably one of the world's greatest experts on navigating very complicated contextual factors. So, let us begin. Rishi, thank you so much for joining us. We're so delighted that you're here with us today. And there's so much going on in the world right now and your perspective is going to allow us to kick off the conversation with great style and I think great intellectual discussion. So, I'll dive in with my first question.
Let's talk a little bit about the international order. Often, we hear people say that the international order is being renegotiated in real time right now. Some people say, of course, that the order that we have built up over decades is gone for good. Others say that we're more in a period of renegotiation. I'd like to ask you from where you sit, what does this seem What does this like to you, Rishi?
Well, first of all, good good morning, Sarah. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me and my apologies again that I can't be with you in person. As you heard from Ken, I was skiing a couple of weeks ago and I guess to put it in in GSB terms, my BHAG for my ski trip was to prove to my two teenage daughters that their daddy was still the best skier in the family. But, it turned out for a 45-year-old, that was too big, too hairy, too audacious a goal to succeed in. So, I had a I I I attempted a jump on the last day to put them right and I've ended up on the no-fly zone list. So, apologies um for that. Um but, you know, to to go to your question, what I can say is, you know, whilst I'm in in bad shape and hopefully I'll be back skiing again, that's certainly not the case for the international rules-based order that we all grew up with and got used to. Uh and I think that the tricky thing is for leaders, especially, is just accepting that reality, right? We shouldn't spend time debating whether that's a good thing, whether it's a bad thing. We just have to accept that that is the new reality. The tricky thing is also, though, we don't know what's replaced it. It's not as if we've gone from one particular set of rules and an operating framework to a clear alternative. We're in this period of transition and what history tells us is that those periods of transition can be quite unpredictable and actually quite bloody. I think there's it's not a coincidence that right now there's more conflict around the world than at any point since World War II.
But, what I can say is I think some of the features of this new world order are starting to take shape. I mean, the first is that, you know, stability as as we got used to is is gone. We have to get used to a more unpredictable environment. Pax Americana, as we knew it, is is clearly not operating and going to operate in the same way. Partly because the US is redefining its role in the world under this administration, but some of those forces were in place before. But, also because for the first time in its its modern history, in China, the US has a clear peer competitor across economic, military, and technology domains. You contrast that to the Soviet Union, though, China is far more integrated into the global economy. Many more countries trade far more with China than they do with the US. So, that injects a degree of complexity. Then, alongside that, you've got the rise of global swing states, as as they've been called, countries like India, which don't neatly fit into any box. They're going to going to go their own way and we have to adjust to that. We've got a a kind of increasing I guess cooperation between countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China, which causes its own challenges, you know, particularly for those of us in in Europe. And you put all of that together, as I said, we've got a quite unpredictable situation. And I guess the key takeaway for me is is not just adjusting to this new world, but adjusting to it means recognizing that hard power matters again. And I think for a generation of of leaders that were operating in a different framework, which you described, Sarah, the kind of new realization is, you know, hard power is back. It matters and you need to invest in it if if you are a country.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Rishi. Let's talk a little bit about the special relationship between the United States and the UK. How important do you think of this alliance and other such alliances as we think about the new world order?
Yeah, it It obviously for people like myself and and many many Brits are are firm believers that, you know, the the US and the transatlantic alliance, first of all, between the UK and the US, Europe and the US, is incredibly important, not just to European security and prosperity, but to global security and prosperity. I firmly believe that, have always advocated for it. I think an active US around the world is is a force for good. And and the US has always been, you know, in my view and many others, a very benign hegemon with an enlightened view of its own self-interest. Now, you know, what's happened over the last several months has put a lot of pressure on on that set of beliefs. And I think that's particularly challenging for those like myself in Europe who are such strong supporters of the special relationship, of the transatlantic alliance, not least because it has allowed our French friends to say, you know, we told you so, which is which is never a fun thing for a for a Brit. Um but, but look, I you know, I was very fortunate personally to have a strong relationship with with Joe, with President Biden. We had a fortuitous calendar, which meant we saw each other almost every month for a period of of 6 months during our terms in office, which is quite rare, actually, amongst these relationships between leaders. You know, the personalities do do make a difference and we had the opportunity to build a good personal connection and we enjoyed each other's company and that certainly helped get things done. But, having said that, you know, when I went through, particularly with our intelligence and and defense senior officials and advisers, you know, what was very clear to me is, you know, that personal relationship kind of sits at the top of a very deep pyramid. And and there's so much operational, on-the-ground, historical cooperation that is happening that the relationship can survive, you know, the ups and downs between any two individuals. And there've been many times throughout history where, you know, you've had personality clashes or slight misalignment of views. But, it is a relationship that has endured because it is deep, particularly at that intelligence, military, and security level. And we share the same values and have stood together to fight, whether it's the forces of communism and fascism at points in our history. And I'm confident that the two countries will will remain close. And if you put it this way, just think about it, you know, your country, America, is celebrating 250 years of independence this year. And and one of the ways that the US has chosen to to celebrate kind of unshackling itself from Britain is to invite the great great great great great great great great grandson of George over for a historic, you know, state visit and address to Congress. So, I think that tells us that that that the special relationship will will endure.
Very [clears throat] nicely said. Thank you so much. And let's shift gears a little bit to think a little bit about generally about Europe and kind of the sort of stubbornly elusive growth in the region. What is your honest diagnosis? Is it a policy problem? Is this a structural problem? Or is it something else?
Yeah, this The first thing, and in particular, you know, for when I'm talking to American colleagues and friends, and indeed actually my European peers, is for us to be really honest about the the challenge. And by challenge I mean the gap that has opened up between the US and and Europe when it comes to economic growth in a relatively short space of time. If you if you go back maybe just a decade or so, you know, Europe and the US had pretty similar sized economies. Uh you know, fast forward not that long, you know, like 10 years, 12 years, and the US has outperformed by about a third. Uh which is actually, if you think about it, pretty extraordinary outperformance in a short space of time. You know, another way to think about it, uh which is quite striking, um is if if if you think about GDP per capita, which I appreciate is not a perfect measure of prosperity, but it's a it's a pretty decent one. If if if Europe was a state, if Europe was a an American state, it on a GDP per capita basis, it would be the poorest state in America. Uh and not just by a little bit, by about $10,000 per per head. And so that is the the scale of the the gap that we're talking about. Uh and so look there, you know, we have to recognize that, you know, something is is not working as any of us would would want it uh to be. And and it needs it needs addressing. Now, you know, as you might my friend and former colleague Mario Draghi, who's written, as everyone knows, a very comprehensive report, uh you know, which I think where people actually, you know, pretty supportive in in theory of all the things that Mario has said in that enormous report about how to restore European growth and competitiveness. I you know, the reality is, Sarah, to to answer your question, I think at last count 10% or so of of Mario's recommendations had been adopted, and we're a few years on now. So there clearly is work to do. And uh partly the challenge is, Ken alluded to it right at the beginning, is, you know, politics and leadership isn't easy. Uh and and Jean-Claude Juncker, who was the European Commission president uh from before, I think maybe summarized it best when he said, you know, "We know exactly what to do. We just don't know how to get elected again once we've done it." >> [laughter] >> Uh you know, and I hopefully we can rise to the challenge in in Europe, but that's that's a little bit where we are.
Okay. It's a little bit like academic administration, I think, in some sense. [laughter] Um all right, I want to shift gears just a little bit, too. Uh part of the theme today, of course, will be technology and rapidly shifting technology and AI. And so I want to think a little bit about that and ask you um a question. Amidst all of the geopolitical change that we've touched a bit on, uh we're in, of course, another technology revolution. Um and I've heard you describe this as a paradox for leaders. Can you share a little bit more about what you mean by this by this phrase paradox for leaders when talking about this?
Yeah, I I think actually goes back to um probably your your opening question. And this this this geopolitical world that we're living in, I I think genuinely is is the most dangerous uh period of our adult lifetimes. Uh and I and I I said that in a in a speech when I announced an increase to UK defense spending, and >> [snorts] >> I was with the NATO secretary general at the time, and we were in Poland, and this is a few years ago, uh talking about this new geopolitical world and and the need for us to invest more and and rise to meet the the threats that we face. But the paradox, as uh as you put it, and what I said in the same speech, is is that the paradox of the moment is that it's at the same time the most transformational time that any of us have ever lived in. And and that is, of course, because of AI. Not exclusively because of AI, um but predominantly. And that's because AI is a general purpose technology, and these don't come along all that often, right? We're very lucky as policy makers, as practitioners, to be living at a time where this this technology has come along, which has, like steam power and electricity before it, the opportunity to transform every aspect of our lives, of our economies, and our societies, if if we harness it uh correctly. And and I think, you know, it's incumbent on us as leaders, you know, not to kind of listen to the first dialogue exchange that you and I had about all the the difficult geopolitics and kind of dive back under your duvet and not come out. You need to equally say, "Hang on, we're in living through this incredible moment, and I have the ability I have agency to shape our destiny, whether it's as an organization, as a country, and grasp this thing, learn the lessons from history about how best to do that. But actually, if if we properly harness this thing, I think we can deliver an enormous amount of prosperity and indeed more security uh to our citizens. So that's the paradox as I said of of the moment. You've got both of these things coexisting at the same time.
That's great. And so what I'm hearing you say is that this is really about spreading and deploying the technology effectively, responsibly, and principally. Can you elaborate a little bit on what that might look like in practice?
>> Yeah, I yeah, I think and and you think you hit on an incredibly important distinction, cuz often when people instinctively talk about how do you win in AI or who's winning the AI race, you know, your mind, and certainly the media headlines are drawn to this race for AGI, for superintelligence. I'm sure some of the people sitting in the audience are are working on it themselves, right? In this race who's going to get there first? Is it the US? Is it China? Which lab is ahead this week on which benchmark? Um Now, whilst that's certainly important, and as someone who believes deeply in, you know, Western liberal values prevailing, I very much, you know, want want the the US labs to win. I think it's important that they do. But I think the kind of more interesting race is the race you described. It's the race for what I call everyday AI. Like who can spread the benefit of this technology across their country for their benefit of their citizens as quickly and as broadly as as possible. Um and that I think is is the thing that we as policy makers need to focus more on, and and maybe doesn't get enough attention. And and history I think here is instructive. Because history um tells us something. And actually, I kind of I I learned this in a book that Brad Smith from Microsoft had had given to me when I left office. And one of the great advantages of leaving a job like being prime minister is you have time to think. And if you like all all people in these big leadership jobs will say the same thing. But carving out time to think when you're in those jobs is is enormously difficult. And the urgent always crowds out the important. But anyway, Brad had given me this book by Professor called Jeffrey Ding, who wrote this book called Technology and and Great Powers, Technology Diffusion and Great Powers. And it talks about this throughout history. And and the the kind of example, well, the his key point is the key takeaway is, look, you don't need to be the country that invents the technology to be the country that benefits from it the most. Right? So if if we're not Silicon Valley, if we're not Beijing, that's okay. We should take heart from that. And the example he gives, which I love, so forgive me for for spending a second on it, cuz I I think it's it's instructive, is is you go all the way This this pattern has repeated throughout history. You can go all the back way back to the Middle Ages and the printing press, which was a really seminal technological innovation of its time. Um it happened in Germany in a town called Mainz. Um uh but it wasn't Germany that even got the the benefit of inventing the printing press. It was actually the Dutch. And and when you under kind of go and look at well, why was that, there are a few interesting things that emerge. I The first was that uh you know, the the Dutch didn't have the same censorship laws that that Germany had. They were much more open about people being able to write and say what they wanted. Um so that obviously was a great boon for those in in the business of publishing the written word. Uh the The second thing was they didn't have the same history of guilds or unions that Germany had. And what those guilds served to do was essentially really tightly control who was allowed to to set up uh a printing organization or a printing press. You know, it's kind of like state licensing, which we do a lot of work on it at Stanford, and the impact of those restrictions. And then the third thing which I found interesting with a background in finances the much more developed capital markets in in Amsterdam meant that those involved in the printing business could much more easily hedge their paper costs, which were pretty volatile. And so you had these three kind of related institutional developments, uh none of which had anything to do with the printing press itself, uh but they allowed the Dutch to become not just the publishing powerhouses of Europe, but of the world. And and Erik uh Brynjolfsson, again, you know, of of our parish here, has has spoken a lot about this. And and it's figuring out what are the equivalents of those things that I just outlined today that will allow leaders to get the benefit of this technology for their organization for their country. Like what is that diffusion infrastructure architecture look like? And I mean, we can get into that. But that's the kind of the thesis, and I think that's where people need to focus more attention.
Yeah. That's such a great example, and it's a perfect example for kicking off the Stanford Leadership Institute, because of course, this is part of what we are really going to be grappling with, these sort of multi- layered, multi- very very sort of complicated context in which any kind of decision is made, and understanding all of those pieces at once is really what we are going to be about at this institute. So I'm really glad you took a little time to take that detour, and and to give us that wonderful example. Let me follow up though with a question, because it leads to the obvious, possibly next question, which is about regulation and regulation of AI. Maybe you could say a little bit about where you stand on this and what what you think it means to actually get that right uh from a governmental perspective.
Yeah, I this is it's one of these great things that you have to to grapple with when you're in these these jobs. I'm someone who's a free market conservative by by instinct and and tradition and generally believe that's the right approach for for creating growth, for creating opportunities, spreading prosperity. Now, of course, there are always sensible reasons to regulate where there are market failures and and other things or something else that we think the market won't protect that we that we value. And that your job in these policy roles is is to try and figure out that balance and and get it right. And obviously AI, you know, was was something that happened or at least thinking about it happened while I was in the office and you know, I was I was really struck by a meeting I had in Downing Street in in 2022 when Dario founded Anthropic, Sam from OpenAI and Demis from DeepMind all came to see me and we sat and wanted to talk to me about what they were seeing. And the fact that they had come together was in and of itself a big thing. There wasn't that many things that I think at that point they had done done together. But they were keen to come together and talk to me a little bit about the pace of the development and that was what they wanted to impress upon me was that this thing that all of them in different ways had been working on for a long time was really beginning to scale in a way that was surprising even them. And in a way they thought people like me needed to be informed about that, to be thinking about what that meant and we ended up having a very long series of thoughtful discussions thereafter which culminated in the the leaders summit on AI which I hosted at Bletchley Park. And and I'm really pleased that that summit series was a success. And the idea was look, this is this new thing that's come along which is going to be so transformational that it requires leaders to be able to come together and and discuss it in a dedicated forum, not just as a kind of panel discussion at a G7 or a G20, but it needs its own forum. And slightly differently to things like the G7 and the G20, because this development is happening largely in the private sector, I thought it was important that we brought the technology entrepreneurs and and developers together with the leaders in a forum and then we did that at Bletchley and subsequently that that summit's been held in in France and South Korea and and India um uh just a few months ago. And and so then now at least there's a forum to discuss these issues.
So, you know, what's the right approach? I I I tend to come down on the side of the argument that says we are too early in this uh for there to be very heavy top-down legislation of of AI. The technology is changing far faster than most governments and legislators can put laws in place and that doesn't strike me as a recipe for success. Given we talked earlier about the challenges that Europe in particular has with growth, innovation is a big opportunity to provide some growth. And so stifling this at birth, you know, again doesn't strike me as being the right thing to do. So, I took the decision that there there shouldn't be top-down new legislation regulation on AI in the UK. That was a different decision to the decision that the EU took. You know, they they put in place the EU AI Act which actually Mario who we were talking about earlier has subsequently said should be paused and rolled back which is which is now happening. So, I think they are recognizing uh that that maybe wasn't the right approach as as well. You know, that said, I that did doesn't mean that I think we should do nothing. And I think if if you're sitting in these jobs, your first duty always is the safety and security of your all citizens that you're very privileged to represent, right? At the end of the day, that is that is your responsibility and it rests solely with you. And something that's come along that the people developing the technology themselves have been very open with you about the potential risks like all new technologies provide for bad actors, for malicious malicious use and and then potentially more autonomous activity down the line. So, you know, we the the theme of our first summit in Bletchley was on this topic of AI security. And and my approach then was to say what we need is to develop the technical expertise in government. So, we created the AI Security Institute in the UK. We funded it well. It's independent of government in a sense. It's not a regulator and and its mission is to work actually constructively with the labs to evaluate these models before they are released to the public to identify potential risks in the areas of of cyber, uh bio, uh and you know, obviously nuclear and other threats as as well. So, in these, you know, very significant national security risks. Accepting that this technology is developing, there's a handful of very large models that potentially pose new risks, we should have the capability and the expertise to evaluate them so that we know at some point if there's a reason for us to do more than we can do that. So, we reached an agreement with the labs to do that and I'm really pleased to say that that has worked really well and it's a model that other countries have worked with the UK on. The labs have constructively, proactively provided the models and you know, you've seen recently obviously some discussion in the news about a new set of models posing some new cyber risks. It's important we get ahead of those. And so, I think that is the right you know, that is the right template for now. Look, that might change. It's something that we will have to constantly keep under review. But you know, what I what I said is a couple of things. You know, if you're in a country like the UK, you have to accept there's there's very little you can do about this on your own at the end of the day, right? This need the US given that these are largely US companies will need to decide how it wants to do this. It is focused on the race with China which is important and it's we can't let China get ahead in in that regard. So, that is a tricky dynamic. But the thing I'll maybe I'll leave it leave it here. Sorry for the long answer is, you know, why you know, someone who believes firmly in being pro-innovation, pro-growth, thinks that technology is an enormous force for good, you know, the reason we still have to to think a little bit carefully about this is because we have to win the battle for trust in the eyes of the public. And you know, obviously you you know, I'm virtually with you. We're sitting in Silicon Valley. We don't need convincing that technology is an incredible force for good. But actually the vast majority of our citizens in places like the US, the UK and others, their overwhelming feeling about AI is one of fear. It's one of pessimism. And and we need to change that if we want to capture all the benefits from it cuz ultimately people are not going to adopt a technology that they're scared or or fearful of. And part of our ability to win that battle for trust is going to be persuading them and showing them that we're on top of any risks that AI might bring and and we can handle them. So, I think actually, you know, being responsible about AI security is just the other side of the coin of ensuring that we can get all the benefits from it as well.
Mhm. That's terrific and yes, I know that at least what I have noticed here here on campus in the last couple of years is a real what feels like a move from fear to a move to a genuine excitement and engagement. And I also recognize that at Stanford and Silicon Valley, we're in a bit of a bubble on that with respect to AI. So, very very well said and a good reminder that we can't let our view of this be clouded by the space that we are in right now. Um your mention of trust I think is really important and it reminds me of the first time that we met last summer. And we had a long conversation about leadership and what it meant to you to be a GSB trained leader. And I want to come back to something we talked a little bit then about then. And we talked a little bit about your experience leading and the kind of uncertainty that we all experienced and we I think most of us had a lot of empathy for those like yourself who were in governmental positions at that time. And the weight of the decisions that you were taking every single day. And I'm hoping I can ask you to just reflect for the audience on what surprised you or you about yourself as a leader during that incredibly uncertain time.
Yeah, it um Yeah, I well, I I I I became Chancellor in February 2020. And you know, at the time it was a pretty exciting >> [laughter] >> Yeah. Um well, I the funny thing was at the at the time it was it's very much a battlefield promotion one might describe it as. Uh which was good training for when I became Prime Minister as well, it turned out. But the Yeah, I I inherited a budget day um uh from my predecessor. And so, I got this job but I had to deliver a budget for the UK which we do annually here and you would have seen it on telly maybe the Chancellor standing outside Downing Street with the red box and all of that. So, but I had to deliver that budget for the country in in 3 and 1/2 weeks, I think. So, and I thought when I got the job, wow, that you know, doing this budget is going to be the hardest thing I will ever have to do. But then but then obviously, you know, COVID struck and it turned out delivering that budget was the easiest thing I had to do for the next 2 and 1/2 years. And, you know, thinking back, you know, what what what did I learn? I you know, one of those moment that stood out for me very early. I remember I I was very young. Um I wasn't 40 yet at the time. I was 39. And I'd gone from having the most junior job in the cabinet. Um we we don't have a designated survivor equivalent in the UK. Um but uh if if there was I that was my job um in in the cabinet beforehand. I got from having that job to having, you know, the kind of second most important job after the Prime Minister. And and then this pandemic struck and and the thing that really struck me in the first kind of week of it, we had uh a failed gilt auction. And I really lots of economists in in the room and um and I as I I don't think, you know, my my debt markets class at the GSB, Darrell Duffy, don't think covered that um when when I was there. Um and and you know, that that hadn't happened in a very long time and just obviously for the non-economists or finance people in the room, you know, it's the government selling its debt and then you do that all the time. Normally it's totally fine, but we had a failed auction. So, that we didn't sell all the debt that we assume we would be able to. Uh it's kind of a once-in-a-very-long-time type of occurrence. And and that was a that was a moment of of uh extreme anxiety for me. Here I was, 39 years old. I just got this thing. We're in this no one had dealt with a pandemic before. So, I had to figure all that out. And then you're faced with a prospect that the country the government you know, you can't fund itself. And and and obviously it was it was fine and we could. But I I ended up having to negotiate uh something called the Ways and Means Facility with the Bank of England, which is a fancy name for an overdraft, it turns out. Which is rather If we can't if we can't finance ourselves, I can go basically ask Bank of England to to do an overdraft. We didn't end up needing it, but it was a precautionary measure. But it gave you a sense of of the kind of pressure and the stress of the moment.
I you know, I'd tell you that the one of the things I realized is in that moment, it's very easy to succumb to to kind of the temptation of self-pity. I it's very natural. I think actually for anyone, you think like why me? Right? Like why you know, why me? Like why is this happening on my watch? Right, uh first time in 100 years. Like why am I the person who's having to deal with this? And that can become like like obviously a very destructive emotion, right? And and you have to very quickly snap out of that. Uh and and and look everyone will get uh their different way to to snap out of that. You know, I I actually talked in the GSB commencement speech last year about Dharma. And it comes from my faith. It's concept of of doing one's duty and worrying less about the outcome. And you know, that helped me, but you really have to just snap out of this self-pity thing and be like, "Look, I'm here to do a job and my I've got to just do it to the best of my ability and focus on that and everything else is is what it's going to be." Um I think that was the first thing about this kind of crisis leadership. I the the second thing was about and you mentioned it and it's so important for the leadership forum is decision-making. I it's it again is kind of easy to get slightly paralyzed, right? You're having to make decisions without perfect information. You're generally stressed. The the decisions you're making have just the most enormous magnitude compared to the day-to-day decisions. Um and and you again you have just got to not let yourself get paralyzed by that. You have just got to make the decisions. Uh it doesn't mean you're going to get all of them right, but you have to have some comfort actually. I I won't I you might be sitting in the room, but I won't embarrass him. You know, one of my kind of mentors who who came from um you know, the Valley and said and said to me early in the job is like, "Look, you you've got to this point because on balance you're good at making decisions, right? You wouldn't be in these jobs if your judgment wasn't you know, on average better than most other people's. Have some confidence in that. So, just make the decisions cuz the inaction is um it is not helpful in that situation. Uh and so that you know, those are something And I guess the third thing is about I think you can never over-communicate, I think in almost any leadership role. That's one of my big takeaways in from the whole experience. Um and I certainly should have communicated more than I than I did. Uh that's one of my reflections. But in those crisis situations, that is true times 10. And and I think one thing I was very lucky and I'm you know, we we we all went through that period together. We were very lucky that in an attention deficit economy normally, you had you know, most of the country tuning in every night kind of like the 1950s or 60s watching a press conference for half an hour. You know, we don't you know, that that is was rare and I was quite spoiled in that regard that I have that ability to just really explain and reassure cuz your job is to reassure when people are worried. And the reassurance piece comes just from seeing you, hearing you, explaining what you're doing. And as I said, I got a kind of artificially um nice introduction to political communication cuz I had a very captive audience for 20 minutes most nights. Which later on obviously disappeared. And and it became a lot harder. But those are some of the reflections over that period which um which certainly have stayed with me.
Yes, thank you. And I'm really struck every time I talk to you about leadership um about how well you represent what I like to think about as the GSB leadership model. One piece of that is self-awareness. Your discussion today about self-pity of course ties in nicely with that. Another is decision-making. Um of course you've reflected on that quite deeply. A third is communications and you and I spent a lot of time talking about the importance of communications, holistic communications, part of which of course is listening so that you can take perspective of others and bring those perspectives into decision-making as Ken sort of talked about in his opening remarks. And then finally of course awareness of the context, which is really what we're doubling down on as we think about the leadership forum. So, I really I thank you so much for allowing um us to kind of ask you to reflect on your leadership because I think it really does such a nice job of um encapsulating what it is that I hope we impart on our students and um and our faculty and staff as part of being um part of Stanford GSB. So, I'm going to ask one last question and this is really about um thinking about your sort of current role representing in the UK Parliament, Richmond and North Allerton. What are some of the issues you're most concerned about right now in this moment?
Well, I mean, maybe actually to bring it to um something else I I spend my time on away from all the geopolitics and and the technology and and the the quest for growth. And and that is actually about social mobility. You know, how do we spread opportunity? And and for me, you know, my you know, our life has many chapters and it it's an odd thing to to finish the the jobs I did at the age of um you know, 44, 45 and still be thinking that I've probably got as much working life ahead of me as I've had behind me. And you know, one thing I'm using the time is is to really kind of focus on well, what what do I think is important to me? And you know, that was you know, our GSB admissions essay. And I I spoke about that then about the power of education to transform people's lives. Funny enough, my my wife also spoke about it in in her essay. Darrell is I don't know if he's in the audience. He he always claims that he read our essays separately and thought that we would end up together. >> [laughter] >> As I said, the the leadership classes and everything was superb, but the matchmaking was as I said even even [laughter] better. Um but uh it certainly been the the best um the best help to me as a as a leader as having her actually alongside me. But the um uh you know, you you you might lose the the office, the title, the role. It doesn't change who you are and what you're trying to do. And so, you just have to find a different outlet for it. And the great thing about this moment is my wife and I have the ability to work together on that. And we've set up an educational foundation called the Richmond Project named after my district, my constituency. Uh and it's to to tackle uh the issue of poor numeracy. And it's so that everyone everywhere can have better confidence with numbers. Because our belief if you have better confidence with numbers, you can live a better life. You know, whether you're a you know, a young parent with toddlers, whether you're a kid learning math at school, or whether you're someone later in life who wants to go back and and pick up the skills that you missed out on first time around to give yourself more control and and choice around your financial options. So, um you know, that's something we're spending time on and and I'm finding really fulfilling. It's nice to be able to do it a little bit outside of government. You can, you know, move a little bit faster. You can try take a little bit more risk. Uh and it's great actually to uh to have Stanford in our lives as we do that because one of the world's as you and I have talked about, Sarah, one of the world's leading authorities on financial literacy education happens to be a professor Lusardi, again of uh of our parish. So, it's a nice way to bring Stanford into that part of our our life. But um you know, I think the kind of reflective thing for me is Look, you know, the these jobs and titles, they come, they go. Um but ultimately, you always have to be anchored and true to your values. You know, what what matters to you, what motivates you, and and and you know, you I don't have the same outlet for that as I used to. It doesn't mean I still can't make a difference and we we're able to do it in a in another way, which we're finding really fulfilling and as that is a is a nice is a nice distraction away from some of the other things that we've been discussing for the the previous bit of the session.
Yes, wonderful. Well, I want to thank you on behalf of the entire audience for joining us here today. We all wish you well with and a speedy recovery from your surgery and thank you again Rishi for sharing your wisdom and sharing your reflections with us today. Please join me in thanking Rishi Sunak. Thank you.