Saturday, June 12, 2010

Attahiru Jega: Echoes from the past

Professor Attahiru Jega, the INEC Chairman-in-waiting, was voted by the editorial board of Newswatch, a Nigerian weekly news magazine, as Man-of-the-Year, 1992. He had just led the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) to fight and win a battle against the military government. His appointment has been widely acclaimed. Below are my recollections of Attahiru Jega. Both Profile and Interview were published in Newswatch magazine, January 11, 1993. Vol. 17, No 2. The interview runs in this weekend edition of Lagos-based Evening Standard. Also available on: www.facebook.com/akintundemuyiwa

PROFILE

I am Not a Radical

By Muyiwa Akintunde

Attahiru Jega, ASUU president, earns his laurels for his principled stand in the university crisis

A few weeks ago, Newswatch asked Abubakar Abdulkadir Jega, a judge of the federal high court, to do a character sketch of Attahiru Muhammdu Jega, his maternal first cousin and national president of the banned Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU. Says the judge tersely: “He is very determined and resolute in the pursuit of whatever he believes in. Once he sets out on such a goal, he never looks back.”

Jega, the judge, should know Jega, the university teacher, very well. They grew up together and shared the same bed as kids. Last year, Jega, the academic, confirmed the assessment of Jega, the judge. He led his rag-tag army of lecturers against the military government to advance his crusade of lifting the Nigerian university system from the valley of decadence to the mountain of excellence. Like the biblical David, he did not allow his underdog position to shake his resolve. In the end, he brought the Goliath of a government wobbling on its knees, ready to answer the lecturers’ prayers. In recent years, no Nigerian government has been so worsted, one of the reasons he won the Newswatch Man of the Year award for 1992 in the first ballot.

For Jega, the battle against government’s neglect of the university system started almost as soon as he signed on as graduate assistant with the then Bayero University College (now Bayero University), Kano in 1979. He witnessed the decay of physical facilities, the over-crowding of hostels and classrooms, the dearth of books and the flight of bright academics to other sectors where the pay is plum. Then America opened his eyes, as it were, “to what universities ought to be.” When he returned in 1985 from Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, United States, where he earned a Ph.D in political science, he met the Nigerian universities in a more deplorable state than he left them. He decided to play a key role in stemming the rot.

The opportunity did not take too long in coming. In 1987, Jega, who was barely 30 years old, was elected ASUU president. His first major assignment was to fight for a new wage structure for university workers. In January 1988, the federal government introduced the elongated salary structure, ESS, as part of the civil service reform. It erased the 20 percent salary edge which university staff had over their counterparts in the civil service. ASUU, together with two other university unions – the Senior Staff Association, SSA, and the Non-Academic Staff Union of Universities, NASU – demanded for the restoration of the 20 percent differential. Idris Abdulkadir, the executive secretary of the National Universities Commission, NUC, replied that that would only be possible if the protesting workers were ready to lose pension and gratuity. ASUU, insisting on enjoying the best of the two worlds, gave the federal government a deadline of June 30 to meet the demand or have an industrial crisis on its hand. No side yielded ground. After seven months of muscle-flexing, the lecturers went on strike July 5.

Government acted swiftly. The day after, Jibril Aminu, a professor of cardiology and the then minister of education, appeared on network television to warn the lecturers that government would sack those who failed to return to work in 48 hours. The lecturers did not take Aminu seriously. But the government did. On July 8, the hammer fell on ASUU. It was banned. Jega spent a few days at the Ikoyi prisons, while other top officials of the union were harassed and prevented from travelling out of the country. Like soldiers humiliated at war, the lecturers retreated hastily to the classroom.

But the struggle continued for Jega. In 1990, he was given a second chance to lead the union after the ban was lifted August 28. His subsequent action was a testimony that he had learnt a few lessons from the 1988 clobbering. His new resolve could be summed up this way: Never again will ASUU make a selfish demand. In its June 15, 1991 letter with which it sought audience with Aliu Babatunde Fafunwa, a professor of education and minister of education, on the crisis in university education, ASUU did not limit its demand to salary increase and special allowances. It asked for increase in funds allocation to the universities and a return of autonomy of the universities eroded by the NUC and the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board, JAMB. That earned ASUU instant support from a public that was equally worried about the near collapse of university education.

It was a more united and determined ASUU that took on government in 1992. Unlike the 1988 episode, the May 25 strike action that followed a fruitless two-month negotiation engulfed virtually all the universities on day one. It was suspended five days later to allow the Industrial Arbitration Panel, IAP, look into the dispute. When the action resumed in July, it elicited the same prompt response from the branches. The government responded by applying the same old method of coming down hard on ASUU. Two days after the July 22 re-banning of ASUU, Vice President Augustus Aikhomu acted like a Lagos landlord: He issued a 24-hour quit notice to striking lecturers living in university quarters. That did not move the lecturers.

ASUU had read the government very well. Weeks before the ban, the union had worked out details of a new body – National Association of University Teachers, NAUT – render the proscription of ASUU ineffective. It reached out to human rights groups and distributed “Strike Bulletin” which admonished members not to be cowed by threats from government. According to one of the “Five If's” of the bulletin: “Legally, as tenants, we are entitled to stay in university houses for at least three months even if we are dismissed. It is not possible to physically eject 8,000 academics.”

Dolapo Akinsanya, a Lagos high court judge, to whom Jega complained on behalf of his colleagues, agreed. A strike task force was set up in most campuses to deal with saboteurs. In several universities, students, in solidarity with their lecturers, formed a protective shield around the lecturers’ quarters. In Jos, Ebele Amadi, wife of the deputy vice chancellor of the University of Jos, Unijos, and other lecturers’ wives, demonstrated around town in support of ASUU. A peace meeting of “representatives” of the universities called by Fafunwa was largely unsuccessful as ASUU leaders shunned it. Jega and his colleagues were prepared to fight to the end.

The government was panicky. It stopped talking tough but rather appealed to well meaning Nigerians to plead with striking lecturers. A number of eminent Nigerians called for truce. Ibrahim Dasuki, the Sultan of Sokoto, offered to broker the peace talks. ASUU insisted it was fighting a patriotic cause and was, therefore, ready for peaceful resolution of the crisis that paralysed the universities. But there was a catch. Said Jega: “If government is genuinely interested in funding solutions to the impasse, it should recognise the genuine representations of the academic staff of universities and negotiate with them.”

Eventually, the government/ASUU negotiation team got back to the conference table. Every point in the lecturers’ shopping list was well articulated with supporting data. When government berated the union for parading the fat salaries of their colleagues in poorer African countries without considering the inflationary rates in such countries, Jega replied swiftly: “The market for academics is international because research materials, books, journals, etc are not published here.” He then quoted the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, salary structure to prove that salaries of academics are horrible even at home. At the bank, the starting point for s senior supervisor is N40,000 in a year, while his equivalent in the university (a graduate assistant) earned N6,894. A professor was on a salary of N14,280 yearly, as against N135,000 for a CBN director.

The government negotiation team was persuaded that the university teachers had a good case. It proposed a 45 percent increase across the board. That was only 25 percent of the basic salary demanded by ASUU. Besides, the government proposal was silent on allowances for books, journals and research materials. ASUU turned down the gesture, breaking up the negotiation May 12.

The government complicated matters the next day when Senas Ukpanah, former minister of establishment, announced a salary package under which the highest paid academic staff would earn N83,000 yearly. To Jega, that was “an act of bad faith” as it did not represent the N44,000 starting point for a graduate assistant which the government reportedly made available to the union during earlier negotiation.

ASUU lost the protest. The agreement, signed September 3, placed a fresh graduate assistant on a yearly package of about N36,000, a great improvement on the former N6,894. A professor, who used to take home N19,280 in a year, is now worth between N70,000 and N100,000. A revolving housing loan scheme of N200,000 per beneficiary was also approved. According to Fafunwa, the implementation of the September 3 agreement will cost about N2 billion.

In a year that recorded a low price for petroleum product on the spot market (an average of $18 per barrel as against $21 projected in the 1992 budget), this seems a huge financial burden. The payment of the new salary package is already causing ripples in state universities which are in financial distress. Edo State University is still looking around for the N7.2 million salary arrears of its academic staff. Many state universities are pleading to pay 50 percent of the salary package.

The burden is not for governments alone to bear. By the agreement, industrial and commercial concerns are to contribute a pre-tax profit of five percent to an education fund. All universities would be entitled to draw from this fund. If all goes well, such funds would go a long way to substantially redress the inadequacies on the campuses. This is one big feather to the cap of ASUU under the leadership of Jega.

Jega is a study in paradox. His iron will was the push for ASUU during the last crisis. Yet, he bends to majority will. His colleagues at ASUU think of him as a democrat. Says Muazu Mohammed Yusuf, chairman of the Bayero University branch of ASUU: “At the level of ASUU, we acknowledge his ability to conform to democratic principles. In spite if the political environment created by the Babangida regime, which is partly of suppression of opinion and coercion, the democratic principles enshrined in the banned ASUU remains the source of our strength. The last strike was rooted in the popular support of every member of the union. At the meeting of ASUU, if there is contrary opinion, he considers it.” Having reached a popular decision, he follows doggedly the resolution without looking back.”

If every newsmaker were to hold on to the same principles as Jega, people-oriented publications would have run out of business. He does not talk about himself. The Newswatch team that spoke to him on two occasions recently applied all the tricks in the books but Jega stood firm on his resolve.

Newswatch: Now, let’s get to know about Dr Attahiru Jega, the private man...

Jega: (cuts in) I warned you, if this interview is about my person, you won’t get anywhere.

Newswatch: It is necessary for us to know what kind of childhood you had. At what point did you develop this radical posture...

Jega: (cuts in again) Radical? I don’t know what you mean by that.

Newswatch: You mean you’re not a radical, someone who desires change?

Jega: It’s not necessary to answer that question. Next question.

Newswatch: Okay, who are the lecturers that inspired you to make a career in...

Jega: No, I won’t answer that.

Newswatch: You graduated in 1978 during the Ali-Must-Go era. What role did you play?

Jega: That is not necessary.

Newswatch: You should tell us. Isn’t there a link between the role you play as ASUU president and your...

Jega: (cuts in again) Should there be a link? I think that has come out of a very uncritical consumption of Freudian psychology which tends to attribute people’s idea and practice with their own basic historical origin and socialisation process and I think it is a very faulty psychology. It is not only counter-productive, it is diversionary and I think as a nation, as an under-developed, neo-colonial country, we have had enough of diversions. We should spare ourselves those kinds of diversion. That is why I think that it does not serve any useful purpose for us to study, particularly, the personality of somebody who is barely 30.

Such modesty from a man who, at only 35, has walked his way into the hall of fame as Newswatch Man of the Year, 1992.

With Tony Iyare, Jonah Achema and Akanimo Udo-Akagha


INTERVIEW


‘Ideas, Not the Person, Interest Me’

By Muyiwa Akintunde

Attahiru Jega, national president of the proscribed Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU, spoke for over two hours with Newswatch’s assistant editors, Muyiwa Akintunde and Tony Iyare on the decay of the universities, the ASUU struggle and related issues. Excerpts:

Newswatch: It was quite possible for you to live a quiet life as a lecturer. Why did you choose to get involved in the ASUU struggle?

Jega: Anybody who has been in the Nigerian university system since the 1970s would have witnessed tremendous changes in the system. These changes were profoundly negative. There has been profound deterioration of physical facilities. There has been inadequacies of these facilities. There has been more or less intellectual stagnation because of lack of books and journals and materials. So anybody who has been in this system has only two options really: either to leave it or struggle to improve it. Many of our colleagues probably felt that the state and successive governments have been unconcerned about education; that our priorities have been misplaced; that although no serious country ever develops without paying attention to education in general and to universities in particular; that in Nigeria, our leaders don’t seem to give a damn about what happens to education. This is a serious dereliction of responsibility. And many of our colleagues, having been so trained, many people in the universities cannot be paupers by choice. Anybody who leaves the university system with a Ph.D can walk into any area of economy and still survive. So, many people who could not wait to struggle took the other option of checking out. They either check out and remain in other sectors of the Nigerian economy and still do better than they were doing in the university or they even check out of the country because, as intellectuals, we are internationally competitive. And they do even much better than they could have done if they had remained in the country.

But for some of us, the first option, we thought, was not in the interest of this country, because if everybody runs away from a problem, then in the end, that problem catches and encapsulates the whole nation. At a point, somebody has to say: “Look, this problem has to be addressed and that we are prepared to contribute to finding the solutions to that problem.”

So my motivation, clearly, is that I have witnessed the massive deterioration in the Nigerian university system. At the time I joined the university, I had higher expectations. After a while, I went to study abroad and even saw what universities ought to be. And by the time I returned to this country, I found that even what I left, there was further deterioration and dilapidation of the system than it had been when I was first there. At that point, since I was not prepared to leave. I decided that I will contribute in any way I can to find a solution to the problem that confronts us as a nation, particularly in the area of education.

Newswatch: What are the factors for the decline? Are you saying government should carry all the blame for the decline?

Jega: Oh, yes! First of all, education is a fundamental right. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The United Nations itself recognises that. But for Third World countries in particular, it is even more important as a right because an illiterate nation is a doomed nation. At the level of literacy, broad universal education is a fundamental right and every serious government must give it priority. At another level, if you want to develop, you must use those who have skills, those who have training, in order to build your own repository of manpower and skill for the development processes of the country. And that means that universities must be recognised as significant to national development and they must be given the priority they deserve. Universities, without sounding patronising or in any way condescending, are the single largest collection of people with skills and training for invention, research and for training the manpower needs of any country. So, once you ignore that, obviously you are doing that at the expense of the development of the country.

Unfortunately, most of our governments simply do not care. People are more interested in putting money in where they can get contracts and get something out of it. They are not interested in spending for classrooms or chemicals and laboratories and for buying books for people to study or for funding research.

In the context of successive military regimes in this country, there is even a profound anti-intellectual disposition, apparently based on their inferiority complex. Anybody who criticised them, they interpret it in the military context of an enemy. If you are against us, then it means you are an enemy. And intellectuals are people who do not take things for granted. They question things, enquire into things and take principled positions and military culture does not allow for that. And so, many military regimes in this country simply identify intellectuals as extremists, enemies of progress, subversives, and therefore, perhaps by so doing, consciously or unconsciously, also neglected education.

Newswatch: How far did the agreement with government address the problems?

Jega: The agreement we signed with government attempted to address some of these problems. But a lot more needs to be done. And that is why we are even much more worried by the fact that government is not implementing the agreement with the seriousness it deserves. We hope that these problems will be resolved, otherwise the problem that we are trying to resolve will remain with us and that more profound crisis will also be generated in the system. Crisis in the universities is not in the interest of this country and government has to do everything to avoid it. We have been showing remarkable restraint, for example, even over the implementation of the agreement. We signed an agreement which everybody, including government, believes was in the national interest. You agree on so many things that need to be done but not more than 20 percent of that agreement has been implemented. So, that gives one a cause for concern. We will continue to show restraint but there is a limit really to how far things can go.

Newswatch: You said earlier that a lot still needs to be done to stop the rot in the universities. What else are you worried about?

Jega: It is true that our conditions of service have improved as a result of the agreement. But, still, we believe very strongly and we are yet to be convinced to the contrary, that academic staff, even under the new package, are not being compensated for the value of the service they offer to this country. There is a very serious disequilibrium in the wage structure in this country. And unless a total review of that wage structure is undertaken, a proper demarcation of the remunerations of the different sectors of the Nigerian economy will continue to be problematic. Secondly, we agreed, for example, on the criteria for funding of the universities and what we consider to be the quantum of need, that is the minimum amount of money needed to fund the universities. What we agreed upon was bare minimum because we were all operating under the assumption that Nigeria is now in very difficult times and that everybody has to sacrifice and so on. If we want this country to develop, we cannot keep things at minimum level and expect it to produce the best. That is why we said what is contained in that agreement is a good beginning, it is an excellent beginning.

And then, of course, there are also certain inactions on the part of government that are making many of our colleagues to come to the conclusion that there is demonstration of bad faith. For example, people could not understand why the ban on ASUU has not been lifted up till today. We have shown goodwill, we have shown that everything that we have done is in the national interest. So why should the ban on ASUU not be lifted?

Newswatch: You insist that you will not talk about yourself. What is the guiding principle for this attitude?

Jega: Well, I don’t know. I think over time, maybe thorough my training, through my socialisation, I have come to the conclusion that our country can only move forward if we stop discussing personality and personal issues and we start discussing issues as issues. I think people should be more interested in the ideas that a person professes. What he wants to contribute and what he wants to do, rather than his background and what makes him as a person. If you have good ideas, if you have good, substantive contributions, then generations will live to benefit from those. So when we talk to somebody, when we become interested in somebody, we should become interested because of what he believes, because of the ideas that he represents, not because of his background and how he became what he is. I think once we begin to move from that, this country will move.



Monday, June 7, 2010

Africa’s World Cup and Mourinho’s Winning Ways

The FIFA World Cup is to be hosted in Africa for the first time. Muyiwa Akintunde highlights the values of personality brands on success in football and lessons brand managers can draw from it, using brand Mourinho as an example

For 80 years, Africa waited while Europe and South America virtually appropriated the hosting rights of the global fiesta. Now the waiting game is over. The FIFA World Cup is finally here on the African soil. South Africa is the stage beginning on Friday, June 11.

On July 11 when the curtain falls on the 19th edition of the FIFA World Cup, which of the managers will mount the stage to celebrate the moment of glory with his team? Vicente Del Bosque has the commitment to end Spain’s nightmare as super flop, while Diego Maradona parades perhaps the best collection of in-form players the championship has ever witnessed. Or will the day belong to Dunga of the Brazil that is hoping to win it for a record sixth time?

Coaches are rarely celebrated in the game of football. But in recent time, a certain Jose Mario dos Santos Felix Mourinho has turned the convention on its head and, in the process, provided learning for brands competing on the edge. Simply known as Jose Mourinho – or by this brand name, the Special One, this polemical figure in football was the ultimate hero as Internazionale Football Club recently achieved the record of being the first Italian side to win Serie A, Coppa Italia and Europe’s top prize (Champions’ League) all in one season.

Self-styled or not, the Special One is the football manager with the Midas touch. Virtually every team he touches achieves gold. For the 47-year-old, two European Champions League titles, a UEFA Cup, six league titles and eight other domestic trophies within a 10-year career in indeed phenomenal. A former assistant coach at FC Barcelona to Sir Bobby Robson and later Louis van Gaal – the same man his Inter side triumphed over at Madrid on May 22 – Mourinho came of age as manager of FC Porto where, in his second season in charge, he delivered UEFA Champions League title. It was the first time a Portuguese club will have its name on the trophy. He had also won the UEFA Cup as well as back-to-back domestic leagues and cup trophies.

While the world was still applauding, Mourinho developed hunger for achievements in a new environment, prompting a move away from FC Porto to Chelsea FC, which Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich had just acquired in July 2003 at age 36 with a desire for instant success. He was hungry for result with a club that had won the domestic league only once – in 1955. A season later and with the side still ending up as also-ran, Abramovich knocked on Mourinho’s door. Mourinho keyed into the opportunity that would help him reinvent his brand and opened a relationship that transformed the London club into a team where being No 2 in the domestic league is now a sin punishable by summary dismissal, as Mourinho’s successors, Avram Grant and Luis Scolari can testify. The club seems to have become accustomed with success, despite the fact that when Chelsea celebrated its centenary in 2005 as English Premier League champions, it was its second league title in 100 years and Mourinho’s first season at Stamford Bridge.

Mourinho’s first EPL title was won with the highest points total and best defensive record in English top-flight history at the time. And although the club lost the UEFA Champions League semi-final to domestic rivals Liverpool, Mourinho added the Carling Cup to the club’s trophy shelf in his very first season. Indeed but for 2009/2010 historic double – Premier League and FA Cup by Carlo Ancelotti 2004/2005 would have been the club’s most successful season ever.

Never someone to sit on his laurels, Mourinho strengthened the team ahead of his second season acquiring Michael Essien – a big miss at the 2010 FIFA World Cup – from French side Lyon, among other quality purchases. Chelsea quickly achieved result, racing away with a Premier League record of nine straight wins at the start of the campaign. Mourinho closed that season with Chelsea becoming the first London club to win back-to-back EPL trophies since the 1930s.

But Mourinho’s third season was different from the frontrunner experience of the previous two. Injuries to key players plagued the side which stumbled through the Christmas fortnight, a decisive period in the previous back-to-back title wins. As the casualty list lengthened, Mourinho was forced to play what he described as “survival football.” That strategy failed to deliver the third successive domestic league title and the club finished No 2. Chelsea lifted the FA and Carling Cups. In only three seasons, Mourinho had led the club to the full stretch of the domestic trophies available but his stay at Chelsea had only a few months to run. Barely two months into 2007/2008 season, Mourinho departed Chelsea under what the club called “mutual consent”, a euphemism for conflict of interests between the club owner and the club manager.

Mourinho stayed out of football for the rest of the season and signed for Inter in June 2008. In his first season, the Nerazzurri retained the Serie A title, a feat they improved upon in 2009/10 when they also won the Coppa Italia and the UEFA Champions League, becoming the first Italian football club to attain such feat.

The son of a Portuguese goalkeeper, Mourinho has developed into an iconic football brand. During his unveiling as Chelsea manager in June 2004, he launched the Mourinho brand deploying a subtle strategy hinged on publicity. He understands that the English media thrive on showmanship and therefore announced: “Please don’t call me arrogant, but I’m European champion and I think I’m a special one.” The media took a cue from that statement and robed him in a garb that would now define the Mourinho phenomenon, “the Special One.”

Despite his huge achievement with Inter, Mourinho moved on from the club largely because he couldn’t get the Italian media to buy into his stunts. He had managed to get himself on the wrong side of the Italian press more than once in his first year and even refused to deal with them in his more successful season. Italian football expert Gabriele Marcotti once commented that the Inter boss "overdid it a bit in terms of focusing on results" in his first season in Serie A.

For a man with a CV that bursts at the seams, few would deny Mourinho can be an inspirational, astute and effervescent coach; even fewer that he is one of the game's winners. If it's not his brash approach in the media, it's the accusation that he values substance over style. Despite his admirable credential, some are less convinced Mourinho upholds the values of "the beautiful game" or that his media performances do not occasionally lean too far towards football's dark arts.

James Eze, communications manager with Fidelity Bank, is not a Mourinho disciple. He says Mourinho’s win is a loss to football as the game is not only about result. Here is his assessment of the UEFA Champions League final: “Inter is such a poor image of the game. Look at the way Bayern completely dominated the first half. Inter just sat back and does every dirty thing possible to frustrate them. It is so cowardly and annoying. Mourinho’s cowardly approach to the game is a dampener. Picture this: one long pass, a header, a pass and a goal. And that was after a long spell of hapless defending. I could never love Mourinho. Never! It doesn’t matter how many trophies he wins. It is hard to imagine that he was once in Camp Nou.” Eze’s harsh views might have been coloured by his being a fan of FC Barcelona, which lost to Mourinho’s Inter in the UEFA Champions League semi-final.

On the flip side, Demola Olusunmade, Chief Operation Officer of Capital Media, a leading media independent, sees Mourinho as a brand that has delivered on promise. “There’s only one lesson, one single one from brand Mourinho: Match your brand communications with value delivery. Your value proposition should not be empty. It should deliver very tangible offerings. Act what you say! Imagine Mourinho with the current showman’s ‘swagger’ having nothing to show for his talk. The Mourinho brand will be empty without the streak of winnings he’s been recording.”

For Taye Ige, sports marketing professional and CEO of Hotsports Network, brand Mourinho offers learning for an ambitious brand, having delivered European title for an unlikely club, FC Porto and setting Chelsea on the high. “An ambitious brand at the bottom of the ladder has a few learning from Mourinho's trajectory to the top,” Ige begins. “Its managers must decide from the onset the place of their brand in the market and how they hope to get it to the top: by just being one of the products in its category and therefore achieving nothing extraordinary at the end of the day or by ordinarily doing things in a special way (like the Special One) to achieve extraordinary results. To do ordinary things in a special way involves a lot of strategy and managers of a brand intending to stand out like a Mourinho must be well equipped both intellectually and in terms of experience to achieve.”

Ige further analysed: “Managers of brands must specially care for the image of their brand in the market place. And it is not just perception, it must be perception based on substance. Mourinho's managers took time to groom him. But he too has something to offer. So at some point, perception meets substance and a super brand is created. The truth is that to become outstanding in the marketplace, a brand must truly have something beneficial to offer potential consumers. If in addition, its managers are able to create a unique, favourable perception for it, then a super brand or market leader is created.”

Mourinho’s own record has now become the measuring stick against which he and other ambitious managers at club and national levels will henceforth be judged.


This article can be found in M2, June 14, 2010 edition on pages 9 & 10. M2 is Nigeria's only Marketing and Management weekly published since 2004 (first as Brand and Products magazine). Its print version reaches over 20,000 professionals in Nigeria, while the online edition is accessed via www.m2weekly.com