These were: through a series of serendipitous events, he had put the company in position where its success was so great, it simply could not keep on at the same level of profitability and, second, the board had fatally delayed appointing his own successor. The overall problem, said Greenbury, was just not leaving soon enough -- in other words, when the going was still good! If he had left a couple of years earlier, his successor would have taken all the blame for what happened. Looking back, Greenbury reluctantly said that he should have treated the press better -- but look how they treated him by being such pests. and, yes, he was a bully and "did push colleagues hard on their ideas. 'But my experience was that when people had the courage to argue their case, they believed in it. Once I had been persuaded, I would put my whole weight behind the policy.'" Indeed, it was definitely true that he detested when anyone else talked to the cursed press. Apparently, Greenbury would fire off emotional line-by-line rebuttals to journalists who had written anything which he felt had traduced his beloved corporate charge. These became known throughout Fleet Street as 'Rickograms' and no business correspondent was truly blooded until he or she received one. In addition, some business associates have accused him of having no sense of humor. This, too, is unfair, Greenbury said. He just found it impossible to see the funny side of any jibe about his beloved M&S (Gwyther, 1999).

Overall, he was able to agree that no people are as good as others sometimes make them out to be, nor as bad as when people start to...

"There's got to be something in-between." Most observers concede that Greenbury's decade-long tenure at M&S was productive. Rick introduced disciplines. He made people ask questions about how many individuals it took to do a certain job, and he introduced a greater awareness of the need for control.
Greenbury once said if he had his whole life over again, he would be a "professional footballer" and not even get into retail. However, if he had to start over again at M&S, "I'd make a conscious effort to be more patient and less blunt, and I'd find more time for my family. But the biggest change I'd make would be to retire as planned in July'98. When the board asked me to stay on for two years I should have said: 'No, we agreed '98. Ten years is long enough as CEO. That's when I'm going. After that, it's your problem.'" (Management Today, p. 28). Ah, very crusty to the very end!

The basic problem was that Greenbury was a passing style of management. This controlling, ruthless form of leadership is heading out to sea, and it is hoped that a kinder and gentler and more respecting one takes its place -- but still can be competitive and reach its goals.