With this week’s announcement of Lord Myner’s departure as Chairman of the 170 year old Mutual Group, the Co-Op seems to be descending further into confusion & controversy.  Weirdly, he will still continue with the review, not from within, but externally.  How strange will that be?  Now, no one will feel compelled to be co-operative (there’s that word again) with what some will see as damaged goods.  Even the Labour Party seem to be rounding on him.

Notwithstanding the debacle of the failed take-over of Lloyds, the sacking of Paul Flowers (how was he allowed to be in that position by the authorities), it seems the business (can we still call it a business?) is staggering from one disaster to another.  They have announced losses at the Bank of £1.3Bn, with losses expected for a further two years.  The group may well declare a loss of close to £2Bn, and will also have to find a further £120m as their share of the Bank’s recapitalisation after declaring their part in the miss selling scandal.

Political connections also will confuse an already confused situation further, the Co-Op group gave £800k to the Labour Party last year, and many Labour MPs are also Cooperative Party members, including Ed Balls.  Calls by Lord Myners to stop political donations will not have endeared him to his own party.

There were descriptions by insiders of departing Co-op chief Euan Sutherland being some latter day  ‘Pol Pot’, who many believed was pushing the group to far and too fast, and Lord Myner was accused of not engaging with the members and Board.  It was obvious a group of insiders didn’t want the Mutual to be in any meaningful way, so got engineered their exit.

The very cumbersome way the Group manages itself goes back to the founding Rochdale Principles laid down a couple of centuries ago, but is it applicable to such a vast collection of businesses, some of which are represented by other mutuals that compete with the parent group?  There are examples of successful mutual groups, and the Co-Op would do well to mirror some of those.  It was crystal clear that no one was really keeping an eye out on what went on at the Bank, his appointments seemed to be made more on the basis of Buggins’ turn rather than ability.  A more professional body needs to oversee the day to day operations otherwise these failings will continue to occur.

All of this wrangling and infighting doesn’t bode well for the appointment of a new Chairman & CEO.  Who would be willing to take up such a mantel (or poisoned chalice)?  There are challenges, but when you embark on a mission, it’s difficult when you have both hands tied & your legs cobbled.  The Co-Op have also announced they will not pay bonuses due to other ex-Executives, something else to factor in when negotiating a contract with them.

So will someone be brave enough?  Of course, pay them enough, and get some guarantees of non-interference or a big pay-off, and a number of people will, but unless the group is really willing to change, it may be a futile exercise, with the possibility of it ending badly