Tibor Šimonka - No prosperity without successful individuals

Tibor Šimonka. A name that has resonated with the Slovenian public for decades as a byword for dignity, morality and an iron will, and at the same time for fairness and competence, as well as a feel for people. A feel for business. A feel for the environment in which he operates. A man who found his way in the old Yugoslav system, in independent Slovenia and abroad alike. A man of rich experience and unmistakable charisma. Tibor Šimonka unites what I see as the two basic and, to me, most cherished characteristics of a good leader: steel and softness, fused in one person. The first word that comes to mind when I recall my visit to the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia (GZS) and of SIJ – Slovenian Steel Group is, without doubt: aristocrat. And to avoid any misunderstanding: Mr Šimonka’s office is entirely free of status symbols.

Tibor Šimonka seems the kind of man who closes the door behind him when he goes home, and whose private crises the people around him learn about only much later, once he has already resolved them. Tibor says I am a person who certainly does not lack good taste. And that is rare to find these days. This compliment of his, the only one I received besides his telling me that he liked my way of thinking, has stayed with me as something especially warm. He was not overly keen on publishing our conversation, as he does not seek publicity. He is aware of the double-edged effect that appearing too often in the foreground of the Slovenian economic and political arena can have. Thanks to him, SIJ remains in my memory as an organisation that gives the loveliest business gifts and where, already at the entrance, at the first reception desk, they are expecting you. I find this first impression of welcome extremely important. And something genuinely Russian that we Slovenians still have to learn …

BEING A WINNER: WHAT HAS LIFE TAUGHT YOU ABOUT THE PSYCHE OF WINNERS?

M: Our first question is what it means to be a winner. If we look at life, at business, as a battle, you probably had to quite … I have familiarised myself with your career achievements, your CV. I was warned to come to the interview well prepared. You have changed environments a lot, left, come back. What can you tell me about the psyche of winners – what has life taught you about it, and what are the psychological laws behind asserting your interests in the world, achieving the goals you set yourself? Do you think there are key factors within the individual that determine this?

TŠ: You certainly have to have ambitions, because without them there is nothing. I did not have explicitly stated ambitions – nor did I set them for myself – but they were born along the way in every new position. Every position, every post gives you new skills, new insights, new experience. And ambitions build themselves on these foundations. But these ambitions, at least in my case, were not a career line, but rather opportunities that came with mastering and learning something, so that tomorrow you could do a little more. Situations themselves put me in specific positions, and I am not the type of person who would have been, from the very start … I believe many people acquire their ambitions later. Few are born winners. I believe they exist, but most successful people did not set out at the beginning wanting to climb among the great winners.

M: Only life showed them what they were good at, and they built on that?

TŠ: Exactly. And their surroundings and other actors gave them recognition or an opportunity – the two go together. That then pushes you into a new situation.

M: In my master’s thesis I also draw parallels between modern and ancient leaders, and it seems to me that, historically – if I scan my brain a little – the best leaders were often people whom circumstances forced to become leaders. Because, thinking further, those who seized power by force were not such mature leaders. Or were they?

TŠ: Really? You think in an interesting way, which I like. What means most to me is when those around me recognise my success, because then you take every next step with more confidence and, after all, with more joy.

M: To sum up, it seems that in your view real power comes from the ability to cooperate, the ability to bring people along with you and, as a leader, to show them that you are human, to dare to be vulnerable with them …

TŠ: True. You have to be human; you are not a superman and you cannot be one. First, you really are not, and if you show them that this is how you see things, a wonderful climate emerges. And the right atmosphere is a creative atmosphere. If the atmosphere is not right, everyone keeps their own thoughts to themselves. Someone who is very well paid will more or less overlook all these shortcomings. But they will not be creative. They will not be happy. And if they are not happy, in the long run they will not give everything they could. Or sooner or later they will leave. None of this is good for the company or for the leader. The leaders are to blame for this, never the individual. A leader must know this and, working with you, knows exactly what you are giving. And must sense whether you are satisfied or not. A leader must feel their people. This is where emotional intelligence comes into play.

M: One of the theses of my master’s thesis is also that a good leader must be very good at reading people. That they know themselves and are able to grasp, to read, the person in front of them. That they understand the interests of clients, partners, employees.

TŠ: It is good if they can. I always start from the assumption that the person in front of me is correct, honest and capable. And sometimes I get burned. That is why they say you women are better at this; you are more sensitive to certain things.

M: Perhaps you are too logical. We women leave more room for something irrational. Each sex has its strengths and weaknesses.

WITH NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION ALONE YOU OPEN OR CLOSE THE DOOR TO OFFERS

M: I think this leads us nicely to the next question. You spoke about a leader’s ethics, about how crucial it is to have a feel for people, to care for the well-being of society and of the company, not only for oneself. I believe that a higher position brings more moral dilemmas, so I am interested in how you dealt with this during your career. Did you put every goal through a filter of morality, or how did you reconcile your goals with the moral dilemmas that perhaps arose alongside them, and how did you guide your psyche through it all?

TŠ: A dilemma arises when the company or organisation you lead could achieve better results if its leader crossed a certain line. Today, in less developed environments, there are still many areas prone to corruption. In Europe and in well-ordered states governed by the rule of law, or socio-economic systems, there is less of it. Then there are corruption risks. You could close a deal that benefits the company, the company and its employees would gain a lot from it, you could show a large profit – but in deals of a corrupt nature. I used to work at Iskra, which was the largest Yugoslav company, not just the largest Slovenian one. And it exported many technologies, including military telecommunications equipment and systems, to countries whose rulers, generals, were very corrupt. You could close a deal at crazy prices, financially very good for the company, if, say, you agreed to hand over a certain share of the earnings to that person. To the ruler or the general. In Yugoslavia there was at one time even a commission at the National Bank to which you reported such a deal. So, make no mistake, you personally got nothing from it, everything was supervised, but it was still an act of corruption. This probably still happens somewhere in government deals. Whenever the state is on one side, corruption often appears. As for moral integrity … I worked in large companies, there were many business contacts and opportunities, but a supplier offered me something in return for being chosen perhaps once or twice. It certainly matters what kind of person you are. That is why I never wanted to discuss such matters. Whenever you take up a new position, you get so-called new friends, who disappear as soon as you lose the position. These friends come to you with deals, and I always sent them to the purchasing director or whoever was responsible. If you are the best bidder, you will get your chance, and only then can you drop by for a coffee with me. These things have to be kept out, because the pressure on you is considerable. But probably through your conduct you already signal to people whether you could be that kind of person or not.

M: So with non-verbal communication alone you can open or close the door to it? You raised an interesting idea – that to a great extent you can open or close that space without words.

TŠ: That’s right. That is why there were relatively very few such offers or attempts. In my circles in Ljubljana they always said that “Tibor isn’t one for business.” In the sense in which some people evidently understand it.

HOW TO BE A GOOD FATHER, A GOOD LEADER, GOOD FOR THE COMPANY, GOOD FOR EVERYTHING AT ONCE?

M: Let us extend the question to another area. Does a leader sometimes face many conflicting priorities? At some point you probably wanted to be a good father, a good leader, good for the company. How did you set priorities here at the expense of other things, or how did you cope with it? How did you resolve crises of competing interests?

TŠ: You cannot avoid it; the only question is whether it eats away at you psychologically or not. I still have a guilty conscience that I spent too little time with my children, but evidently that is how the opportunities were, or I judged that my partner could devote more time to them, or that was our agreement. You stayed at work because your wife understood that a career also means being away often.

M: At Perutnina Ptuj too?

TŠ: There too. Every day I came home at around eight in the evening. And I’ll tell you … I would take my two small children in my arms for half an hour, cuddle them a little, and that was all. I didn’t go out with them; only my weekends I would not let anyone take away. Most of the time I managed at least that. And my colleagues always knew – during the week they could reach me 24 hours a day, but Saturday and Sunday were sacred. Of course there is sacrifice. Anyone who claims they manage to balance all of this optimally – I don’t quite believe them. Then there is also the question of what they mean by optimal. If you function in this way – in line with your natural inclinations – it is effective, if we are talking about leaders. It is a different matter in other professions or activities. In sport you have to be aware of your comparative advantage over someone else, for example speed, the ability to adapt quickly, your style of play in basketball or football. With leaders the matter is somewhat more complex.

M: If I understand you correctly, in your view leadership is not so much a skill, but earlier we also talked about female subtlety. Is a leader very subtle, able to scan a situation, able to sense opportunities?

TŠ: In my opinion that is extremely important. Awareness of the context, of the situation. Today the level of education in companies and other organisations, such as public institutions, and in the public sector is much higher than it was decades ago. Education is no longer the decisive factor. And you cannot take people for fools. If you rule authoritatively from a position of power, if you don’t see them, don’t feel them, only hear them but never truly listen to them – that is not right.

M: As you said, it is interesting that this “happiness” of employees, the psychological reward, is in fact the biggest motivator – bigger than pay, bigger than anything.

TŠ: Respect is one of the main components; it is the foundation of all relationships. When they sense that you respect them, that you regard them as useful, that you recognise their value, their contribution. Sometimes you also give them the chance to express their opinion, even though you know you won’t get an answer, because the situation, problem or question is demanding. Being involved in solving a demanding problem means an enormous amount to them. Of course, you then cannot make their response conditional on a reward.

A LEADER MUST NEVER LOSE THEIR TEMPER, AND ON THE SECRETS OF SUCCESSFUL NETWORKING – TODAY YOU DO BUSINESS WITH THOSE YOU ENJOY WORKING WITH, NOT OUT OF NECESSITY; RELATIONSHIPS ARE ABOUT FEELING

M: Would you say that sufficiently frequent feedback is the key to success, to a good climate in the team? How do you give feedback so as to encourage motivation? So that employees do not take an assessment as criticism, even if its content is negative. So that, from this experience, a poor result becomes better – not worse, suppressed, less motivated.

TŠ: Under no circumstances may you lose your temper. There are very few people whom you have to criticise to get them going. The vast majority become passive and lose motivation because of negative criticism. You do have to show that something was not right, but at the same time that you are convinced they can do it, can solve it, and that next time they will succeed. You need to direct their attention and give encouragement. The employee will then try twice as hard on the next task and check everything three times.

M: We talked about trust. I trust most those people who see in me what I perhaps do not yet see in myself. I would go beyond all limits for them, for that illusion of myself, the ideal image that they actually see in me or manage to convince me they see. And now that we are on the human factor and working with people: for a leader, their own network and personal social circle also seem important to me. Earlier you said that in Ljubljana you already know the permanent network of people who move in politics and business. That they have this or that opinion of you. I would say that these decision-makers, or people in high office, are in a way complex, demanding individuals, strong characters. What, in your view, is the secret of the art of maintaining this social network, balancing interests, maintaining and nurturing ties? Perhaps a fusion of complementary interests and similar characters? What is the basis of good business relationships and of successful, effective, positive networking?

TŠ: Here we come to the soft things again. Today, business is increasingly done on the basis that you enjoy working with one person and not with another. There is an abundance of goods on offer, as well as of services and educated people, so as a rule you are not tied to anyone. And then you would rather work with someone who is similar to you in character, closer to you, or who cherishes the values we talked about at the beginning. Such people also find each other more easily in networking. After all, there isn’t much time for socialising. These are only occasional meetings, events, so it is sometimes quite pleasant to discuss some development – on the market or in society and politics – to discover similar opinions or a direction of response you consider right. Or you correct yourself and adopt someone’s good idea, for yourself or for someone else. In this way you already sort things out at the level of networking. You are not going to waste time on “boors”, because there is too little of it in life. Even financially very successful individuals without basic manners find it hard to get into this circle; you may not even greet them.

ON THE COURAGE IT TAKES TO DECIDE TO TRUST PEOPLE – ONCE, TWICE AND THREE TIMES, BUT THEN NEVER AGAIN

M: But in life you can’t really trust anyone, not always even yourself. And perhaps it is better to be disappointed now and then than to always suspect the worst. That second option seems to me almost more psychologically exhausting.

TŠ: There are two kinds of people. I know someone who says, as you do, that he trusts no one, not even himself. And he has a hard life. From that point of view he is a poor soul, isn’t he? I agree with you, Minka. I am a different type. In principle I trust a great deal. And usually I cannot forget a very great disappointment. Once enough is enough, it is enough. And no power can change that.

M: And then you also have a justified reason to cut someone off?

TŠ: That’s right. You give a first chance, a second, maybe even a third, but then it’s over.

M: I find it interesting how concepts connect. In psychology we learn that every relationship is a kind of analogy with a bank account. The minuses add up, the pluses add up, and once the balance falls too far below zero, the person automatically drops out. Our psyche unconsciously makes the decision that this is the end.

TŠ: I use other words for this: I can’t stomach it, or I have a lump in my soul that I can’t swallow.

M: It is said that depressed individuals see the world realistically and are in fact exceptional realists; on the other hand, without a certain optimism, which may not always be justified, it is hard to live.

TŠ: I’ll tell you a fresh anecdote. At the Chamber I meet high-ranking government representatives, and some of them, no matter what they say, I don’t believe, because they have disappointed me several times already.

M: Already for the third time, or not yet?

TŠ: We’re close to it. In a press statement I wanted to say that I had not shown disappointment and doubt. Because I still hope that this time they might really not disappoint me. It takes a while, but when you think it through very carefully … I am aware that another disappointment will probably follow, but that will be the last. In a given situation you still try to find some positive way out, if you are that kind of person.

M: It seems to me that it takes greater courage to be aware of the risk and still hope for a positive outcome than to look at everything cynically from the start. Cynicism seems to me essentially a kind of escape.

TŠ: If we are all cynics, we will get nowhere as a society, Minka.

ON THE SACRIFICES SUCCESS DEMANDS, WHICH YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND UNTIL THEY BECOME YOUR REALITY: WHAT ARE THE THINGS NOBODY WARNS YOU ABOUT?

M: When you mentioned high-ranking government representatives, and earlier as well, I was thinking about how some people too quickly believe they are powerful and start ruling with authority, and so on. How do you view the fact that everyone would like to belong to the exclusive 1%, yet many are unaware of what that means and what they actually want? My mum often repeats a saying from Gatsby, or from antiquity, or wherever it comes from: “When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.” What are people unaware of when they wish to reach the top and stay there? At first it probably seems cool to everyone to be influential, powerful, rich and so on. What are the dark sides that perhaps nobody warns you about enough before you take on leadership positions? The sacrifices that a career or success demands, but which we are not prepared for, or whose true nature we do not understand until we are faced with them?

TŠ: The latter. When you are starting your career, you are not aware of all this. You don’t think about yourself in that way then, and you are not critical enough. If you have truly ambitiously set out on a certain path, you will follow that path whatever the cost. But if you see too many weaknesses, risks or downsides, you won’t take it on. I have such a case in my extended family. Twice, someone had the opportunity for a very senior promotion, but turned it down. Because he has two small children, he decided to spend more time with his family. He can provide his family with a decent material standard and stability, but that’s it. He told me he would never be like me – who, in his view, spent every day at work, working on my career. If he meant that sincerely, great. But if it is only to avoid fears and for the sake of comfort, that is another matter. Then you are constantly …

M: Happy on paper, but not really, right? I won’t judge specific cases, but we often don’t take things on, or we condemn them, even though we strongly want them – we just don’t admit it to ourselves.

TŠ: Exactly. And then you condemn it as your own way of defending yourself.

NOTHING IS SO ISOLATED THAT ECONOMETRICS COULD GIVE YOU THE ANSWER: IN THE END, MOST DECISIONS COME DOWN TO A FEELING

M: Earlier we talked about sensitivity, intuition; on the other hand, it seems to me that a leader, especially when numbers and finances are in play, must also calculate, think strategically, weigh different options. How would you define intuition? What guides you in decision-making – intuition or strategic analysis? Or both?

TŠ: You won’t believe it, but that is an extremely difficult question. I would like to answer that the matter is very complex, that everything needs to be calculated very precisely. There are models, knowledge of how to calculate everything. But everything rests on certain assumptions, as we learned at university. Other initial parameters being equal – which is very rare. And that is when intuition steps in. Even when, as a manager, as a leader, you have calculated all the risks, anticipated them, included everything you know would contribute to a smart decision, in the end intuition always carries half the weight.

M: So you have to calculate everything first, but behind every decision there is intuition?

TŠ: That’s right. In the end, nothing is so isolated that econometrics, mathematics or physics could give you the answer.

M: In psychology, too, experiments are designed so that everything is under control except the variables being tested. But the fact is that it is never possible to control them all.

TŠ: It is true, though, that intuition is also the result of certain experiences.

M: The scientific definition of intuition is that it consists of experiences imprinted on our subconscious which form this gut feeling, and then you think it is something from the heart, the universe or who knows where. Earlier we briefly mentioned that so-called reading people was not one of your strongest predispositions. What are the key predispositions of a leader – what, in your opinion, are the internal factors, the personality traits that increase an individual’s potential to be a winner, to be at the top? Could you perhaps also describe some life circumstances, context, experiences? You said that a suitable candidate is often shaped into a leader.

THE IMPORTANCE OF WILL, DETERMINATION, OPTIMISM, NAIVETY, DRIVE AND ENTHUSIASM

TŠ: Predispositions for becoming a leader? Education, of course, but that is only one of the necessary preconditions, and far from sufficient. Sometimes it is not even necessary for someone to have a doctorate, an MBA or the highest level of education. It is, though, certainly an indicator of discipline in a certain period of life. But you need to find a critical mass of diligence and the ability to delay gratification; then you must have basic knowledge, and on top of that be able to acquire additional knowledge and the right role models. The sum gives you the appropriate knowledge, this critical mass, and also trust in the abilities of others who drive change. You must be aware that you alone are not enough and that you will have to work with people. Then you need to make a good start, and after that your goals can slowly begin to be realised. But you must have a professional foundation, diligence, self-confidence. Determination. Will, too. Sometimes even a little naivety. Optimism. The desire to accomplish something. A feel. Sensitivity. That is extremely important. A feel in every respect. First, how you perceive others. A feel for what is happening in the world. A feel for how to present something. Sometimes the way of presenting – what you said earlier – is very important. Not jumping at the first ball, knowing how to bite your tongue. That feeling: wait a moment, calm down. I have lived through many periods of crisis, so I always advise young people, now too, in harder times, with a question: Why does the gypsy laugh when it rains? Because he knows the sun will shine tomorrow.

M: The morning is wiser than the evening. And so on, right?

TŠ: That sense, that feeling, which you can’t measure precisely, but which is either present in a person or not.

M: Interesting. While writing my master’s thesis, I read a book, still under review, in which the author, who is very fond of graphs, posits that the amplitude of emotions in very successful individuals is much smaller than in average ones. It reminds me of a quote by Ciril Zlobec: “I do not celebrate my victories; defeated, I do not surrender.” Something along those lines. I think you talked about this too, didn’t you? When I first heard it in primary school, it seemed to me that a person who lived this way would be very successful. Do you know what I mean? No arrogance, no euphoria, no sadness at defeats either; you are simply aware that tomorrow there will be sun if today there is rain.

TŠ: If apathy grips you after every defeat, you no longer have the strength to keep building.

M: One last question, perhaps once more about the importance of self-confidence and vision for success. On what basis do you believe in yourself? You said partly on the basis of experience, of the path you have travelled. But to what extent must a good leader in a sense be a child – still uninhibited, primal, genuine? So that the enthusiasm you mentioned does not leave them?

TŠ: That is not so important for you, but for the others who follow you. Because it is pleasant when they follow you.

M: Because we like to believe “happy” people, right?

TŠ: Yes. And if you don’t show that you believe in the common project, that you are self-confident … That is then all the more important, and a guarantee of success. If you are merely self-confident and do foolish things, things go in the wrong direction. What matters is that you are the first to believe in the goal. With self-confidence – but it has to be realistic. Based on experience, knowledge and other factors. Then you convey it; you have to be convinced of it and believe in it. Then it will be fine.

A GOOD LEADER MUST BE SELF-CONFIDENT AND SOMETIMES MUST WEAR A MASK: WHEN THINGS ARE BAD, ALL EYES ARE ON THEM; IF THEY BECOME APATHETIC, IT IS THE END OF THE STORY FOR THE COMPANY

M: Are you also talking about self-confidence in realising possibilities, and not merely self-importance? And also about self-confidence in relation to the team and others, so that you don’t always put only yourself in the foreground? I imagine that during some crisis you were worried too, but if you had shown it to the team, it would only have made things worse. How did you hide your worries?

TŠ: That is exactly the self-confidence I had in mind. When things are bad, all eyes are on you. When things are good, everyone is a winner and takes the credit. But in a crisis, everyone looks at you. Did you come to work in a good mood? I never showed my private troubles. People were very surprised when they heard about them later. How successful that ultimately is, of course, is another matter. Perhaps you can’t hide everything. But the leader is the last person who should show apathy or that the position is lost. Of course, the leader is also the first who must point out poor performance and stress that things could have been done better, despite partial success. So a self-confident, optimistic way of communicating, because self-confidence combined with constant dissatisfaction does not lead in the right direction. If everyone worked that way, it would be fine, but since that is impossible to achieve, because some are better, you will always be relatively lagging behind and losing if you rest on your laurels. Because of this, a company can collapse over time or go bankrupt. You must know how to assess success and be very realistic about results, so that you are not satisfied too quickly. If we have succeeded at something for the moment, it does not yet mean that the final result will be good enough.

SUCCESS IN FORMER YUGOSLAVIA AND SUCCESS IN INDEPENDENT SLOVENIA: ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FLEXIBILITY FOR A LEADER’S RESULTS

M: I find it funny how far everything is psychosomatic. When you are a little ill, run down, and a project, a date, a meeting – anything you really believe in – is waiting for you, you simply get well. But if you have to tackle something you feel no passion for, you can’t carry it through, and you really do feel worse physically. Another question occurred to me during the interview. In which system did you find your way better, or what were the advantages and disadvantages of Yugoslavia and of Slovenia? There are probably many differences, and you have experience of both periods.

TŠ: You could say I was “successful” in both. That is also a quality of a good leader – adaptation. Flexibility. But the old system certainly could not have survived. It had no future, and it seems to me it considerably restricted the wider population. Clientelism came first; back then it mattered all the more whose man you were, whether you were ideologically pure. And that led nowhere. But it was much more comfortable, as long as it worked – that is, as long as the state could keep borrowing.

M: Comfortable for those at the top or those at the bottom? Or for everyone? There was no middle anyway, was there?

TŠ: From people who lived in both times I often hear that it was better back then. Material differences were not so obvious, and the feeling that we were all roughly equal, in good times and bad, satisfied people, or filled the unhappiness that came from watching how others lived. What was good – and is still the case today, which I think is right – is that everyone, regardless of their starting point, had equal opportunities for education and success, although today we are already moving somewhat away from that. This differentiation is beginning.

M: But from a psychological point of view the starting point you describe is completely wrong, because comparison leads to unhappiness. Everyone must know their own direction. The good side of today is the accessibility of education and so on.

TŠ: But it already starts with healthcare, and in some sports too. Tennis lessons for children have to be paid for. Minka, let’s say that in time you have a little girl who wants to ride horses. That alone is a big expense, and an even bigger one if she wants her own horse.

SLOVENIANS DON’T LIKE THE SUCCESSFUL, DON’T LIKE THE RICH, DON’T LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL

M: An interviewee, the father of a little daughter, told me that a horse saddle costs ten thousand euros. So he would rather buy two used ones for the same price, to balance it out at least a little. In one way I think it is good that we are a welfare state and that the paths to success are open.

TŠ: In my opinion they are still quite limited. Whoever succeeds out in the world has many people wanting to help them succeed. Here, many want to shoot you down as you climb.

M: Slovenians don’t like the successful. Envy. Researching the working conditions of cleaners is far more welcome than researching the psyche of the successful. But every country needs leaders. People don’t lead themselves. And the more developed leadership psychology is, the better a country will thrive.

TŠ: Minka, Slovenians don’t like the successful, don’t like the rich, don’t like the beautiful. Envy runs deep. In small nations it is all the more present. There is no prosperity without successful individuals. Muscles bring nothing; only brains bring something.

M: An individual must be capable. Sometimes it seems to me that people don’t understand visionaries like you and other successful individuals. They don’t like it when someone sees considerably further, looks into the future. And then it gets on their nerves. When I attended spiritual events, I felt that I bothered the women there. A friend told me it was because they would have to start working on themselves to look so good. At university I had the feeling that I bothered many of my fellow students because I am very managerially minded. At work I feel I disturb the structure a little, because I would like to go out on my own as soon as possible. But in the end you always find people who understand you, who want to reach further with you, run faster – if I return to Gatsby. And push boundaries.

Photo source: SIJ Group archive

This interview was conducted as part of my master’s thesis on the psychological characteristics that (pre)determine breaking through to and staying at the top in the Slovenian economic and political arena. The full version is expected to be published in the forthcoming publication The Dark and Bright Side of ‘Ruling’ the World: Insights of Slovenian Leaders into the Psychology of Breaking Through and Staying at the Top.