Charles Conn

Interviewee: Charles Conn (Massachusetts & Balliol 1983) [hereafter ‘CC’] 

Moderator:  Rodolfo Lara Torres [hereafter ‘RLT’]  

Date of interview: 30 August 2024 

[file begins 00:02] 

RLT: So, I’m recording. Good morning, Charles. Good to be with you. I just need to start with these questions for legal and data protection purposes. Can you share your full name with me, please? 

CC: Yes. It’s Charles R. Conn. 

RLT: Thank you. And do we have your permission to record this interview? 

CC: Yes, absolutely. 

RLT: Perfect. Charles, as you know, we’re doing the oral history project, and I wanted to start with some questions around your life, before entering the details about your experience as a Rhodes Scholar and beyond. So, first, can you share with us a little bit about where and when you were born, and where do your ancestors come from? 

CC: Sure. Oh, God, I was born a long, long time ago now, in Phoenix, Arizona, which doesn’t really make sense, because my parents only lived there for six months, but that’s where I happened to be born. My mum is Canadian. My dad is an American, but he grew up in Canada. So, kind of, family history is mostly centred in Canada, but I grew up in Massachusetts, in small towns in Massachusetts. My dad had come down from Toronto to go to MIT and our family home was essentially based in Massachusetts all the years after that. 

RLT: Beautiful. Perfect. And where do your ancestors come from? So, both families have Canadian roots, but did they have Irish roots, English roots? Do you know? 

CC: I’ve done a little bit of that 23andMe and Ancestry digging, and our name-, the family goes back to-, the earliest I can find is in 1720, but already in the in United States, so I don’t really know very much about before that. The name is both Irish and Scottish. And 23andMe says that I’m pretty close to 100% from the British Isles. So, I guess that’s where it all comes from. 

RLT: Wow. That’s interesting and, kind of, already a prediction of what would happen later, in certain ways. Tell us a little bit about your family life and community life when you were growing up in those small towns in Massachusetts. 

CC: I grew up pretty much in, like, a picture of a 1960s television programme: you know, we’re living in a nice house in the suburbs with a mom who stayed home at that time and a dad who went off and worked in executive jobs. My dad was an engineer from MIT and did first engineering and educational films, and later was an entrepreneur. So, pretty standard 1960s growing up, actually. And of course, you know, all that changed, as it did for so many people in the 1970s. My parents split up and, you know, life became more topsy-turvy, as it was for lots of people in the 1970s. 

RLT: That’s interesting. So, do you have siblings? 

CC: Yes, I have one brother who is just a couple of years younger than me, who I’m still very close with and who still lives in New England. 

RLT: That’s perfect. So, tell me a little bit about, then, your primary and high school education in that 1960s growing-up world. 

CC: I went only to public schools, just ordinary public schools. So, first in Concord, Massachusetts, and then my family moved out to a little tiny town up on the New Hampshire border, called Dunstable, and I went to school in Groton, but not one of the fancy schools in Groton, Groton School or St. Lawrence Academy. I went to the public high school. So, very pedestrian. 

RLT: That’s great. And I think it was at that time, according to your Rhodes personal statement, that you discovered your curiosity for politics and economics in high school. How did that happen? Was there a teacher who stands out? 

CC: Yes. So, I mean, look, it’s always hard to go back and remember all of this stuff, but there was a teacher, called Mr Lawler. I think Dick was his first name. And he encouraged me to do Boys State, which was this, sort of, strange US civics thing where you would all go together and form a model government, you know, people from all over the state would go form a model government, and I thought that was pretty fascinating. Although I think I would say the most influential teacher on me was actually a third-grade teacher, Mr Drury, who introduced me to science, and particularly to biology. You know, we looked at pond water under a microscope and that, sort of, awakened a, kind of, curiosity in me and an interest in biology that continues to this day. So, yes, I think, you know, teachers are always incredibly important and, you know, those two good public school teachers, I think, more than the specific topics, awakened an interest in learning and understanding. 

RLT: That’s so interesting. And biology, I didn’t know that about you. Then obviously, you went to undergrad. Tell us a little bit about how you decided on your undergrad, the university, your major. 

CC: Yes. I went to BU, where, you know, I got a full scholarship and, you know, because of my parents’ financial situation, I, kind of, had to pick some place where I got a scholarship to go. I got into this wonderful programme called the University Professors Program there and I really met some remarkable professors, and one of which, who was called Paul Streeten-, he’s gone now, but he was an Austrian Jew who, you know, worked behind the lines as a commando and then escaped and actually ended up doing his undergraduate degree at Balliol College in Oxford. And he was an economist, a development economics, such a kind and inspiring man that I thought, ‘Wow, I have to figure out a way to get to Oxford.’  

RLT: Oh, wow, so really, one of the main influences on the decisions that came later. How was your major and your time at university. You were a top student, I assume, because of the Rhodes Scholarship. What were your hobbies? What were you doing?  

CC: Yes, well, so, the great thing about this University Professors scholars’ Program was that you could study whatever you wanted to. You didn’t have to fulfil any divisional requirements. So, I studied very broadly. I was interested in philosophy and logic and yes, politics and economics, but I also did a bunch of math, and in this programme, you could sample anything you wanted to, and there were wonderful senior professors who were your mentors. And you were always required to be doing a second project at the same time as your coursework. So, you also were allowed to take graduate courses. And so, I don’t know, I had this, sort of, image of being able to choose anything, and that felt like an intellectual smorgasbord where you could pick and choose, and that was wonderful, and that’s, you know, when obviously I really came alive to scholarship. Yes, I suppose, when you’re in love with learning-, I did well enough. Yes, absolutely. 

RLT: That’s great. So, at what point did you decide to apply for the Rhodes Scholarship, and how did you prepare for the application process? 

CC: Yes, well, the inspiration, again, was Paul Streeten, because I thought, ‘Well, who is this amazing man?’ And, you know, he did PPE at Balliol, and so, I thought, ‘Oh, if I want to be that kind of person, I need to do PPE at Balliol.’ And again, coming from ordinary family circumstances, had to figure out a scholarship. And at that time, there had only been two Rhodes Scholars from BU, and from many, many years before. So, there really wasn’t any help. The university didn’t have a system for vetting and grooming people to become nominees for the Rhodes Scholarship. So, maybe that was better, right? Because I also didn’t have a lot of the anxiety that people have today, right? I mean, there was an application that you could write away for, and this was all done on paper, of course, and I followed the process that was, sort of, laid out in whatever they mailed me. I do remember getting to the interviews which, you know, were in Massachusetts, which was back when we had the two-stage system.  

RLT: Yes. 

CC: So, competing first in Massachusetts always felt incredibly daunting, because you had, you know, all these amazing universities, and I remember going and I think there were 12 of us who were finalists, and it was me and Jerri Scofield (Massachusetts & Balliol 1983) from MIT and ten people from Harvard, and they seemed so amazing. And both, Jerri and I, advanced to the regionals, so I guess we were lucky [10:00] at that time. 

RLT: That’s amazing. And what about the finals? How was that process? We know that that’s a particular point in time in becoming a Rhodes Scholar, the final step of the process. How as that for you? 

CC: I guess it was so daunting that I just decided to have fun with it. You know, I had purchased my first suit, a lovely grey flannel suit, from J. Press in Harvard Square, and I just decided to have fun with it. And what an amazing committee I had, right? I had Michael Sandel (Massachusetts & Balliol 1975) and, you know, when I think he was in his late 20s, right?  

RLT: Oh, wow. 

CC: So, he was just a new professor. And Elliot Gerson (Connecticut & Magdalen 1974) was running the committee, and just amazing people. And, you know, they asked, I thought, fun and interesting questions. I’ll tell you a funny story about this, which is, all these years later when I was coming to work for the Trust, I was chatting with Elliot, and not only did he remember my interview, but he remembered the question that he asked and he remembered my answer, which is just crazy. I think it tells you a lot about Elliot. 

RLT: Well, probably also about you. Do you mind sharing the question and your answer? 

CC: Yes, because I’m a fisherman and I was, you know, a fly tyer and fisherman from a very young age, and he asked me what my favourite salmon fly was. I had been doing fishing with my dad up in Nova Scotia, and I had told him it was the blue charm, and all those years – you know, it must have been 40 years later – he remembered the question and the answer. So, of course, I felt enormously lucky, and I think anyone who wins, you know, it has to have been just a very good day. 

RLT: Absolutely. That seems like a very impressive selection committee. Do you still remember the question that you thought, ‘Oh, this is the toughest one,’ or ‘the weirdest one’? 

CC: No, and I think we can come around to it at the end, but, you know, I think over-preparation is one of the worst things you can do for something like a Rhodes interview, right? You really just have to answer truthfully, and if you don’t know the answer to something, you have to say, ‘I don’t know, but it seems to me,’ right? And I’m sure I had lots of questions like that. You know, I didn’t have a remarkable background and I answered the questions as best I could with the curiosity that I had. I guess on that day, in 1982, that was good enough.  

RLT: Well, more than enough. So, you were called, you were selected as a Rhodes Scholar. Did you realise what was about to happen? 

CC: No, I mean, not at all. Obviously, my mum, who is Canadian, thought, you know, being a Rhodes Scholar was the highest height you could achieve for a person of whatever I was at that age, 21 years old, and it was a big deal in Canada, where she had grown up. And so, I knew it was a big deal for me. I guess the thing that I was most excited about was that I was going to get to go, you know, to Oxford and study PPE, and obviously, you know, I put Balliol and PPE as my first choices and I had Paul Streeten’s recommendations. So, somehow that all worked out and it was exciting. Maybe there was one disappointment, which was, 1983 was the first year that we actually didn’t sail. 

RLT: I was going to ask you if you had been part of the sailing, or not anymore. You were the first with the plane. 

CC: First with the plane, and I remember, you know, to this day, sort of, getting off the plan, and there was a dinner in New York and then, you know, we all got together and got on the plane. I remember meeting Andrew Nevin (Ontario & Balliol 1983) who was, I don’t know, 18 or 19. He was one of the youngest ever. He had already done, you know, two degrees in mathematics and had done all his coursework for his PhD in economics at Harvard. He was 18 or 19. And I thought, ‘Oh, God, what have I gotten myself in for?’ 

RLT: What a class and, you know, the class of 1983, both from the American side and globally, is a very illustrious one.  

CC: Yes. 

RLT: Very, very impressive. 

CC: Yes, it was a wonderful group of people. It really was. 

RLT: That’s wonderful. So, you come to Oxford, you arrive here. Tell us about your time as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. What did that look like? 

CC: Yes. I mean, I guess, for me, it was all about the people, right? And so, continuing the theme of this remarkable group of people. I had the great fortune of, you know, being at Balliol doing PPE during the height of, sort of, Balliol PPE, with remarkable people like Wilfred Beckerman and Steven Lukes and Alan Montefiore, Andrew Graham, just remarkable people. And we all lived at Holywell Manor which was this, sort of, hotbed of intellectualism and, you know, dinners and lunches and breakfast were these constant arguments and, you know, just incredible people, you know, and Andrew Nevin, Keith Krause (Prairies & Balliol 1983), Mark Martins (Maryland & Balliol 1983), all from different backgrounds, but all so brilliant. And yes, so, it was-, I don’t know, They were certainly the best two years of my life at that time and arguably, I would say maybe, maybe still today. 

RLT: That is beautiful. You’re painting a picture that is very intellectually driven: debate, activities with very, very intelligent classmates and comrades. But tell us a little bit more about the time that you spent out of the classroom, or outside these intellectual debates. What were your activities? 

CC: Well, everything, and I think, you know, with that era, this manic focus on academics and doing, you know, obscure PhDs was not part of the Scholar experience. That was just about to happen. And you were very much encouraged by the Warden to make the most of the overall experience of being in the UK, being in Europe. And so, we all played sport. I had the good fortune to play rugby with John Wylie (Queensland & Balliol 1983) and Peter Donnelly (Queensland & Balliol 1980) and David Cohen (South Africa-at-Large & Balliol 1983) and Boris Johnson.  

RLT: Oh! 

CC: Just an amazing experience. I rowed with David Rose (Queensland & Balliol 1982) and, you know, just some amazing people. We spent lots of time in London and, you know, doing theatre and museums, and we all travelled together. So, I went on this crazy trip to what was then the Soviet Union with this group of people, a wonderful group of people. We used to call it the KGB tour. It was about £100 and it was indeed run by the KGB to Moscow and was then Leningrad, now St Petersburg. And a group of us, actually, after we finished, just after we finished our exams, travelled the Silk Road trade route – we did it backwards, of course – but from Europe all the way to Xi’an, China. So, that was Andrew Nevin and Keith Krause and Lucian Hughes. So, amazing, yes.  

RLT: That sounds really wonderful. So, really, that very intense Oxford experience, both academically and personally. 

CC: Yes. But it was very much being part of a group of people. Yes, it was intellectual, but it was a time when I think you were really encouraged to develop your whole self, and there was a lot of, obviously, you know, politics, in the early 1980s. There was a coal miners’ strike. The Balliol JCR was taken over by a Trotskyite faction who went and participated in violent counter-protests. You know, it was a crazy time. And, you know, there were Rhodes Scholar-led protests Nicaragua. And it’s funny, because many of the Rhodes Scholars who went on to become conservative politicians in the United States were, of course, very much not conservative politicians as young Rhodes Scholars, as you can imagine.  

RLT: That’s interesting.  

CC: I won’t name names, but you can go back and study the names.  

RLT: That sounds like a good idea, Charles. So, was your time in Oxford spent mainly with Rhodes Scholars. You mentioned Boris Johnson among some non-Rhodes Scholars. So, would you say there was a balance, or did you spend most of your time with them? How was that community? 

CC: Very much a balance. So, you know, all the sports stuff was very little Rhodes Scholars, right? So, I think, my rowing boat, the captain of the side was David Rose, who was a Rhodes Scholar. A remarkable-, they called him ‘The two-metre man,’ because he was two metres tall and 100 kilogrammes. A Blues boat oarsman. But no, most of the stuff we did in sports and outside was not Rhodes Scholars. There were a couple of Rhodes Scholars on the rugby team, but no. Obviously, at Holywell Manor there were a few. [20:00] But no, I think it was very much a fulsome experience. At that time, remember, Rhodes House was not a, sort of, welcoming place. While we did do a Rhodes ball, which was super fun, there was very little activity in Rhodes House. You would go in once a term to see the Warden, and occasionally you’d go in, if you ran out of money, to see Mrs Setty who was the accountant, right? And I know Andrew Nevins spent a lot of time going to see Mrs Setty. But no, life was very much not just Rhodes Scholars, which I think is a great thing.  

RLT: That’s beautiful. Well, all of this time, of course, has shaped a lot of your intellectual and personal development. And you mentioned how it began in high school with that remarkable teacher. Tell us a little bit about Oxford and the role in your intellectual and personal development. 

CC: Yes. Well, so, I mean, it’s, sort of, hackneyed to say it, but it changed everything. And it’s not because of the topics, right? It’s because I think, and maybe this is just how it was for me, but, like, in undergraduate life before oxford, you know, I found it was relatively straightforward to learn what they wanted to examine you on, right? You know, they told you what to read and they told you what you would be examined on. At Oxford, everything changed, right? Which is, they said, ‘Read broadly, and you’ll be examined by completely separate people from your tutors,’ right? And you can look at what past exam books are, but you don’t know what you’re going to be asked.  

And so, there’s this famous old story, right, about a Rhodes Scholar who show up at Balliol and goes to see the head of PPE at the time and, you know, he said, ‘Can I get a start on the reading?’ And, you know, a list of 100 books was pushed across to him and he said, ‘Which one should I read?’ and the tutor said, ‘All of them. And I think there was that idea that you were supposed to really know, not what you were going to be examined on, but you were supposed to know the whole field - and, you know, it was politics, philosophy and economics – in a way that made you a really educated person, not a person who was good at taking tests. And that changed everything for me. And I think, the combination of, you know, studying philosophy and politics and economics and the activism of the times, right?  

You know, and I suppose the Rhodes community is always full of activists, probably now more than ever, and the, kind of, command of the Scholarship, right, which is that you do service, changed my life. You know, you can’t just, sort of, pick a career and do what’s best for you. You have to figure out, ‘How can I be of service?’ And I think that combination of real intellectual foundations, philosophical foundations, for, ‘What is the good? How do you pursue the good?’ and the Scholarship’s ethic, which is to do good, to be of service to other people, not just service to yourself, helped push me off into a life that was very different from what it would have been had I not won the Scholarship. 

RLT: That’s beautiful. Thanks for sharing that. You know, this makes me think about how, when I talk to Rhodes Scholars, some of them allude to the burden of the Scholarship. And there is the burden of accomplishment, living a life of service, the community pressure, peer pressure, but also the burden of the legacy. So, there is a series of responsibilities that seem to come attached to the Rhodes Scholarship. How did that feel for you back then, and now?  

CC: Well, look, I think, of course, there’s an expectation that you do more than just look after yourself, and that expectation to do good and to be of service to people, I don’t know, I think it’s a bit precious to say that it’s a burden. I think it’s an incredible honour, you know, to be given this huge opportunity to be part of this community and part of this learning experience, and you know, we talk about-, it’s character, service and leadership. Like, to be part of a community like that may create expectations, but those expectations are mostly inside yourself, not from other people, and to call them a burden seems a little bit precious to me. I think, you know, it’s an honour that we get to be part of this, and yes, that’s what I think.  

RLT: Great. And what were your most memorable accomplishments during your time at Oxford? And you’ve probably already mentioned some of them, but were there any challenges or frustrations as well? 

CC: Sure. I mean, look, accomplishments: I was a student like any other student. I worked hard at PPE. You know, you have to write two essays a week and I remember literally being in tears over Hegel, trying to understand Hegel and trying to write something sensible – in tears and then in my cups over Hegel. But I don’t think I was a particularly special PPEist. I think, when I think back to the time I spent, my second time in the Trust, the people that I saw win the All Souls contest, right? 

RLT: Yes. 

CC: Those were clever people. So, I don’t-, accomplishments? I had a great experience being a PPEist and playing on these wonderful sporting teams and enjoying time with colleagues. Frustrations? Lots. I mean, you know, when you’re around people who are a very different level from the folks that you’ve done your previous work with, I think that was both exciting and terrifying, right? You know, to be around people who had finished their undergraduate at age 12, right? I wasn’t that kind of person. And it was also incredibly inspiring, to feel like there weren’t any limitations on what you could do if you would put your shoulder to it, right?  

RLT: Yes. 

CC: I think, what an amazing thing, at age 23, to feel like you could do anything. 

RLT: Yes. 

CC: Again, that’s why I think it’s, sort of, a gift rather than a burden.  

RLT: Absolutely. Is there anything, looking back, that you would change from your time at Oxford, or would you just do it exactly the same way? 

CC: I think that’s always a hard game to play. Like, you know, I don’t know, travel more, but I travelled tonnes. I certainly didn’t spend my time locked up in my room. And I mean, as you know well, since we work together, I always encourage the Scholars to make the most of their time and, you know, the truth is, you have lots of time before you come and lots of time after to very hardcore academic work, if that’s what you want to do, and I think it’s a little bit of a waste of your time in Oxford if that’s all you do.  

RLT: Thank you. And you answered there my following question about advice to Rhodes Scholars, future Rhodes Scholars: making the most of your time at Oxford. So, when. You finished and after your KGB and Silk Road trips, you come back to the States and begin a career. But did you begin your working career immediately, or did you go to graduate school immediately after? 

CC: I thought I wanted to be an academic economist at that point in time, and I applied for and was admitted to a PhD programme, and then, I don’t know, something weird happened. I think it was, like, a friend of my parents: somebody said to me, or I thought to myself, ‘If you’re going to be study economics, maybe you should actually have some experiences in the economy. I’d only been a student before that, right? And so, this thing called consulting had started showing up at Oxford. I think either BCG or McKinsey actually presented at Rhodes House, which was controversial and probably remains controversial. And I met these, you know, brilliant young people from BCG, and I thought, rather than jump right into the PhD programme, I should do a couple of years getting to know what businesses were like, and so, I went off and I did two years at BCG, which were amazing. I mean, again, I was surrounded by brilliant people who were curious and effervescent, and we worked on really interesting client problems, and that, sort of, took, me off track, in a way. I did go back to graduate school. I went to Harvard Business School, which is what consultants did, and I had one more dalliance with the PhD. I won this thing called the Dean’s Doctoral Fellowship, where they gave you a scholarship to go back across the river to do the PhD in economics. It was my second shot at doing the PhD in economics. 

RLT: Oh, amazing. 

CC: I know. I just felt like I really wanted to be in life, and the idea of doing five more years, you know, in an incredibly intense PhD programme, after so much education already, I just thought, ‘I’ve got to get into life.’  And so, I actually went to work [30:00] for McKinsey in Canada and then Australia and loved it. I loved every minute of it. 

RLT: That’s great. It seems that you began that career with consulting and then your interest continued to evolve, because after consulting, you were an entrepreneur – are still an entrepreneur – and have got into many other fields. So, how did the switch come about, when you were working for McKinsey and then you said, ‘Okay, I want to start something of my own, my own business.’ What happened there, and how did you come to the idea of being an entrepreneur.  

CC: Yes. Well, you know, you can backward explain all kinds of things. I remember feeling confused. You know, at all these big junctures. I remember feeling confused about what the right course was. And so, I think we backward fit to make it look like it was always super clear. I remember sitting on my bed, trying to figure out what the next right thing was, many times in my life. But in 1995, when I was in McKinsey, I loved problem-solving. I loved looking at all the different types of businesses and other problems that McKinsey worked on. But I could also see that McKinsey wanted you, increasingly, to work in one industry or one kind of problem, and I hated that idea. And so, the internet had started to happen in 1995, and I got excited about it, as ‘Here’s something that’s going to change everything,’ and it did change everything. And so, I quit my job just after being made a partner, and everyone thought that was crazy, and I literally pulled up sticks and went, moved to California and became a tech entrepreneur which was, you know, again, an unbelievably humbling experience, because I thought I knew a bunch about how to make businesses work and I turned out not to know very much at all. 

RLT: How did that feel then? I mean, what did you learn from that experience, from being offered a track to a PhD, being named a partner, and then, you are kind of starting from zero again, but really in a very different context, right? Because you don’t have the support anymore of big institutions, Harvard or McKinsey or BCG. So, that was a big leap for you. 

CC: It was scary. I remember, you know, we originally set up, like, in an office next to a dental hygienist practice in La Crescenta, California, which was, you know, behind a hot dog stand and across from a dive bar. And I lived in a little apartment with two other guys from work, and I slept on the floor. You know, we had mattresses on the floor and, you know, we were doing that startup thing. So, we worked 18 hours a day and drank warm Diet Coke and we tried to build something great. But you know, yes, you didn’t have the support. You didn’t have all the brand names, right? You know, the fancy brand names that Rhodes Scholars get addicted to, and that I would encourage them not to get addicted to. But it was also incredibly free. We got to invent something that didn’t exist and it worked, you know, and usually, it doesn’t work, but we were lucky. And I think that was an unusual time in history when you could attract really remarkable people to be willing to give up their safe jobs to become entrepreneurs. So, I was lucky to attract great people to that little company, and yes, so, we were lucky. 

RLT: So, tell us a little bit about the company. 

CC: Yes. So, the company was originally Citysearch, which was an online service: kind of, where to go and what to do in your community. It still exists and, you know, Yelp has come along after, a very similar kind of thing. And along the way, again, we got very lucky, and we first partnered with and then able to buy the online bit of Ticketmaster, and I bought match.com when it was just 13 employees and just a little, nothing online site, and then we went public, you know, which was the great dream of companies at that time and, you know, eventually got acquired. But, you know, look, it was fun. I wouldn’t spend my time on any of those topics today, but I think in my 30s and during that time of incredible, sort of, exciting business ferment, to be creating these new kinds of businesses that couldn’t have existed before the internet felt fun, and it did feel incredibly creative. 

RLT: Were there many Rhodes Scholars entrepreneurs that you could ask for advice? 

CC: Well, none, I don’t think. No. I mean, obviously, there were people from my business school class who had become entrepreneurial, but no, not really. Those were not very Rhodesy years for me. You know, I was working with California entrepreneurs. Well, California, I mean, those businesses were all built from people all around the world, right?  

RLT: Yes. 

CC: Just as is true today, right? That incredibly diverse group of clever, hardworking people. And it was super fun, I would say. 

RLT: So, from this entrepreneurship experience, what was your main takeaway? You mentioned you created something new, you assembled a big team. What was the main factor for your success, about which you say, ‘Yes, that helped me, that was what really made a difference’? 

CC: Look, I mean, you know, again, beware of backward fitting of stories. But I learned what leadership really is, and I learned what I couldn’t learn in McKinsey about actually managing businesses, and I learned, you know, about recruiting the very best people and then trusting them to do incredible work, and how to be genuinely collaborative, and I remain very close to that group of people to this day. I speak to about three or four of those people every week. And so, I think, yes, you know, you learn about working collaboratively in a place like McKinsey, but to run a company that has, eventually, 3000 people in it, right, you have to actually trust other people. You have to work on building a vision that you all share, and then you have to work in a way that trusts other people. 

RLT: Yes, that’s very true, and, I guess, something that you applied later on when you came back to the Trust. 

CC: I hope so. I hope so.  

RLT: But we will get to that later on. So, from that entrepreneurship era, you sold the business. What next, for someone like you? 

CC: Yes. Well, look, and this is a turn back in the Rhodes direction, right? Which is, I realised that however much fun it was to build businesses, and businesses, of course, employ people and, you know, meet people’s needs and do good things in the world-, but the purse, sort of, economics for profit world, I felt like I’d, kind of, done that. And all the way back to the beginning of your questions, which is, I went back to Mr Drury, this third-grade teacher, and biology, and, you know, I’d always an outdoors person and, you know, fisherman and lover of biology. I didn’t study biology as a university student, but I love biology. And then I thought, ‘What am I going to do next?’ And what called me was to do conservation environmentalism. And so, I met the people-, I met Gordon Moore on a fishing trip, the founder of Intel, the progenitor of Moore’s law, and he invited me to come work at his foundation. He had left Intel and he had built this foundation that was focused on environmentalism. And so, again, I quit. I quit my job and I went to work, actually for nothing, for zero money, to help Gordon build the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s environmental practice. And I worked on wonderful projects, including an atoll science centre at a remote, unoccupied atoll in the mid-Pacific, called Palmyra. We built a wild Pacific salmon ecosystems project which I was part of for 12 years and we spent 175 million dollars trying to save the wild salmon. And again, I got to work with amazing colleagues who were called to, you know, literally save the planet, and, you know, I think this idea of higher purpose certainly felt good. Frustrating and difficult, right? 

RLT: Yes. 

CC: Of course, because in environmentalism, on a good day, you do two steps forward and one step back and on a bad day, you do the reverse, right? But I loved it and I got to work, again, with hugely talented people. And Gordon is one of those people-he’s gone now- [40:00] but an inspiration of epic scale. You know, he was a billionaire but he was as humble and honest and good, right, as anyone ever could be, and he was an amazing role model for service, right? Gordon Moore was a titan, and he was really only about service, and he made this huge fortune, and he gave it away.  

RLT: It’s beautiful. And this seems to be a theme in so many of the people that you admire, that you consider role models, and that’s beautiful.  

CC: Yes. 

RLT: So, we’re getting close to the time when you became Warden and CEO of the Rhodes Trust. But before going there, I just wanted to ask you: when one looks at your career, you’re such a polymath of leadership, of business, consulting, entrepreneurship, foundations, environmental advocacy. You’re also a bestselling book author. How have you balanced all those different roles, and what, if anything, was the most important aspect of your leadership style to make those pivots, because all of these roles require different skills. So, first of all, how do you balance all of that? 

CC: Right. So, badly. You know, I think I always take on more than I should, and I always have this idea that your, kind of, sine and cosine curves means you’re not going to be busy on everything all at the same time. So, you can take on four or five things and only two or three will be busy at the same moment, and that usually turns out not to be true, right? So, I think I’m a bad example--you know, some people create this wonderful patchwork life that is done with grace and ease, or apparent grace and ease, and that’s never been true for me. I always take on a little too much and I always end up, kind of, working late and getting up early and working on the weekend. So, I don’t think I’m a good example of balance. I’m fanatical about the thing that I’m doing it when I’m doing it and, you know, things like writing a book, you have to be fanatical about it when you’re doing it and, you know, if you’re doing a regular job at the same time, you have to that on nights and weekends.  

So, I don’t think I have anything useful to tell people about balance. Then, the other question you asked is, you know, how do you pivot? I don’t know. I mean, every single time I’ve done a pivot, I’ve been terrified, including the pivot that you describe, which is to go from being an environmentalist to becoming an educator again, or an educational administrator, or whatever a Warden is. I was terrified, at every single juncture, that I didn’t know what I was doing, and with good reason. I didn’t know what I was doing. Every one of these job pivots, I didn’t know how to do, and fortunately, each time, I’ve been able to learn from others around me, and to learn just quickly enough to not make a complete hash of things, right? You know, so, I had wonderful colleagues at the Moore Foundation who taught me how to be an effective biology based environmentalist, and in John Hood (New Zealand & Worcester 1976) and the Trustees, I had people who really knew how to run educational institutions and were kind enough to hold my hand as I figured out how to do it. I think the leadership bit that I learned I actually probably learned working in a supermarket long before I was an entrepreneur, which is to be open book with people, lay all your cards on the table, create a common vision and trust other people. I mean, those things have been constant, right? 

RLT: Perfect. That’s beautiful. You mentioned a little bit that you sleep too little and time, time time, but I had the privilege to work with you and I know that, besides all of the things that we mentioned, you also value your passions outside of work, and that you work on them and take time for them. For example, you mentioned fly fishing. I remember that you once shared that you love to work with your hands and deconstructing and constructing things, like mechanical clocks.  

CC: Yes. 

RLT: Tell us a little bit about those hobbies and how they have helped you, in maintaining, maybe, your sanity.  

CC: But I think that’s exactly what they do, right? I mean, yes, I’m interested in vintage clocks and watches and how they work, and I restore old motorcycles from the 1930s. I’m a woodworker and fly tier and gardener and all those things have been, I think, really fundamental to mental health, right? Because when you work with your brain a lot, there’s something very soothing – I guess that’s the right word – about working with your hands and on projects that are very different from academic projects, working on projects which-, you know, you can literally take them apart logically. You know, I’ve been, building musical instruments, which are very fragile things, but under enormous pressures, and I think trying to figure out how to do that well requires a focus that takes you away from your intellectual worries, right? If you’re distracted when you’re stringing a guitar for the first time under 180lb of pressure, it doesn’t end well. 

RLT: I can only picture – and hear – what that is like. So, Charles, after this environmental leadership, you get a call to come to the Rhodes Trust in a very difficult time in its history. How did that happen?  

CC: Yes, it was crazy. I remember, I was actually at a ranch that I owned, in the southwest corner of Idaho, and I was in this tiny little town, just about to go, just about to lose cell service, because the ranch is 50 miles off the road, and I got this call from Dominic Barton (British Columbia & Brasenose 1984), who was my Rhodes classmate and a McKinsey classmate and a dear old friend. We worked together in McKinsey, Toronto. And he said, you know, ‘The Trust is looking for a new Warden, and it’s not in the best of shape.’  

So, I don’t know, it’s a pretty crazy thing, to take a call like that in the southwestern corner of Idaho and then, not many months later, end up, yes, trying to knot on a tie in Oxford, but that’s what happened. And I decided to put my hand in. I’d loved doing environmental work, but I’d been doing it for a dozen years, I was ready for a change. For all kinds of reasons, I was ready for a change, and yes, this was one of those-, I always felt like the Rhodes Trust had given me so much that, if it needed my kind of help, then I was up for it. I was not qualified to be Warden and CEO of the Rhodes Trust, at all. So, I guess I was one of the first – Don [Don Markwell (Queensland & Trinity 1981)] before me was the first Rhodes Scholar – and one of the first who wasn’t an English academic and I wasn’t an academic at all. But I guess they wanted someone who’d had this, sort of, CEO experience and who wasn’t afraid to get their hands dirty and to raise money and all of that kind of stuff. So, they took a risk, and I took a risk, to jump in and do it.  

RLT: Had you been in touch with what was happening with the Rhodes Trust? 

CC: No. 

RLT: You received the yearly letter from the Warden and things like that. 

CC: Yes. 

RLT: But had you been really involved with the community? 

CC: I mean, a little bit, in the sense that some of my friends had become Trustees after the 100th reunion as the Trust was, sort of, figuring out that it needed to be really restarted and renovated: I don’t know what the right terms are, but, you know, rebirthed. It had come into both financial difficulty and, I think, in a way, hadn’t really refreshed. This isn’t about throwing out what the Rhodes Trust is about, but to reinterpret and refresh that for 100 years later, right? And some of my friends – John Wylie and Dominic Barton – had joined the board. And so, I knew a little bit that there was stuff going on and, on the finance side, that it was reasonably dire. I had attended the 100th reunion and gotten to spend time with old friends. And so, it wasn’t entirely unexpected that it needed refreshing and rebirthing. [50:00] But of course, it was a surprise to be asked to put my hand in the ring. Yes. 

RLT: Perfect. Well, lots of factors going into this decision, and this was a very tough time, when you took charge.  

CC: Yes. 

RLT: Can you tell us a little bit about what you think was the key to your success in turning around the situation and, in general, your time during your Wardenship and being the CEO? 

CC: Right. Well, so, maybe I’ll say three things. One, once again, a story about people, right? You know, that incredible group of people that had already come together, the Trustees who had come together. You had all of them: Don Gogel (New Jersey & Balliol 1971), Mike McCaffery (Pennsylvania & Merton 1975), John Wylie, John McCall MacBain (Québec & Wadham 1980), just a remarkable group of people who’d come together with their time and with their brilliance in all different areas. And John Hood, you know, who-- I’ll get emotional, because I learned so much from him. He was so patient with me. You know, this remarkable former Vice Chancellor of Oxford and former Vice Chancellor in New Zealand and just an incredible person who, you know, really helped me learn how to do the job.  

So, people. And then, you know, that leadership thing that we talked about already, which is, you know, working with a team of people to lay out what the strategy should be. We did that on one page, right? And you remember the page, right? It had three horizons: ‘First, we need to stabilise things, then we need to put proper foundations in place and then, we can build out from there.’ And, as you know, we changed a lot of things, including how the Trust was branded and how the values of the Trust were interpreted and the experience that the Scholars had in Oxford, and how the Trust was seen externally.  

So, that was not the accomplishments of one person, that was the accomplishments of this incredibly dedicated core of Trustees and staff, you know, the staff that you were part of. John Hood, the huge work of the Rhodes community – 5000 living Rhodes Scholars – and the amazing, you know, creativity of the 300 or so Rhodes Scholars that are in residence at any moment in time. I can name-, you know, you and I can both do it: we can name hundreds of people who put their hand in to making the Trust refreshed. So, that sounds like a lot of blather, but it was about people and an open process in a group, you know, renowned for brilliance and creativity and for disagreeing on everything, right?  

RLT: We were discussing, before we officially started the interview, the Rhodes community and how the members of the community have very strong views, very different views. How do you manage that, as a Warden and as a leader, in a way, of the community? 

CC: Well, I had read these wonderful books, the Patrick O’Brian books – Master and Commander, etc – and I remember Captain Jack Aubrey, who was the protagonist in these books. You know, he always said, ‘Just go straight at it. Tell the truth and go straight at it.’ And Oxford is a place of politics and whispers and, you know, behind-the-scenes baloney. I decided that I was not going to play those games, but I would just tell the truth and go straight at it. And there was lots of opposition to what we wanted to do in Oxford, because we needed to raise an enormous amount of money, and that’s always a jealous thing, right? Every college thinks it owns its alumni, and there was lots of opposition in the Rhodes community to some of the things we wanted to do.  

And, you know, I remember when we were talking about opening up the Rhodes Scholarships for China and, you know, this very prominent Rhodes Scholar, who was a China expert and head of the Hong Kong committee at one point in time, was deeply opposed to it, and I learned something really important, which is, I could freeze him out and argue against him, or I could bring him into my office and have it out. And I brought him into my office and we had it out and he became, you know, the biggest helper in building the Rhodes Scholarships in China, right? So, there, I think to embrace the differences and to be open about the differences. You remember this too, right? Because, you know, we’ll talk about legacy in a minute, right, but you can try and iron over everything and pretend like there is no dissent, or you can iron over everything and squash dissent, or you can, you know, accept and encourage the conversation to happen, and the only way, of course, to succeed, is to do the last of those things. 

RLT: Yes. That’s beautiful. What was, let’s call it, your toughest decision, or maybe the most momentous decision that you had to make as Warden and CEO of the Rhodes Trust? 

CC: Well, the most fun stuff was, you know, creating this character, service and leadership programme so that people, you know, who were doing these arcane graduate degrees would have the same kind of experience intellectually that did as PPEists in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s. So, that was super fun, and hard, but also an amazing group achievement of the Rhodes community and especially that wonderful group of Rhodes Scholars currently in house. And then, the ones who had just gone down, you know, within ten years. You know all of those people. And then, the expansion of the Trust to become global, like, those were very hard things and also wonderful things.  

You know, the first time doing the selection for the Rhodes Scholarship for Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine: oh, my God, you know? And Liliane Chamas (Québec & St John’s 2009) and the others who made that come into being, and Wafic Saïd, who paid for it to come into being. Amazing. Hugely moving and difficult experiences. The hard one that was just hard was, you know, Rhodes’ legacy, right? You know, how do you deal with that? So, you know the path that we picked, and it wasn’t always the most popular path with the old Rhodes Scholars from the 1960s who wanted approach, or the young Rhodes Scholars, you know, who wanted to see Rhodes fall, right? And, you know, I did the best that I knew how to do, to steer the community, which-, you remember what I said, which is, ‘We actually don’t need to agree. The Rhodes Scholarship does not require agreement on a particular set of values.’ And this is incredibly important. Like, when you win the Rhodes Scholarship, there is an obligation that comes with it. It’s not an obligation to believe one thing. It’s not an obligation to be one way. There’s not one world’s fight, right? 

RLT: Yes. 

CC: We say, ‘Fight the world’s fights,’ not, ‘Fight the fight that we tell you to fight.’ And I would say that’s just as true for, you know, crusty old codgers who want it to be one thing or, you know, fiery young Rhodes Scholars who want it to be their thing, right? It isn’t any of your things. It is an obligation to make change in the world for the betterment of other people and other creatures, right? And so, each of us needs to interpret that in the way that’s meaningful in their lives. And so, the legacy thing? My view on it, and it’s still my view on it today, which is, Rhodes is, Rhodes was. It’s a ridiculous exercise to pretend like we weren’t associated with Cecil John Rhodes. We were. That’s where the money came from. The money actually can’t be reprogrammed, because of the Act of Parliament that created the Trust. And so, for me, it always felt like a much more honest exercise to accept that Cecil Rhodes was part of the legacy and to understand how we were different from those late 1800s values, which were the values of Cecil John Rhodes, were not the values that any of us want today.  

But the core ideas of the Scholarship, right, which is to be a servant to others, right, to do good in the world, to be a leader in the world, and to focus on excellence, those remain just as relevant today. And the fact that those four selection criteria were developed by Rhodes and Parkin, who were imperfect people, doesn’t diminish them in the least, right? So, I don’t know, I’m speaking perhaps impolitically, but that’s what makes sense to me, which is, those are good, enduring characteristics and we should interpret those in the way that’s meaningful today, right? There’s not some, sort of, constitutionalism about it. But neither should we use whatever the flavour of passion [1:00:00] of today to define what the Scholarship is. Each person gets to define what character, service, leadership and excellence means for them, and I defy the rest of the community to force their vision on that person. And, you know, one can look at the current generation of Scholars, and I love them, they’re amazing, and, you know, I also think they’ve got whatever their passion is, and as they get older, they’ll hopefully see those passions in the context of the broader set of things that the world needs to change, right? I’m an environmentalist, and that’s always been the most important thing to me, but I have enough perspective to know that social movements are incredibly important too, right? So, that’s probably more of an answer than you wanted.  

RLT: No, no, that’s beautiful, and we’re talking about the legacy and lots that is important to the Scholarship, so you have laid it out beautifully. Were you conscious that you were changing the Trust and the institution’s history, and not only the institution, the Rhodes Trust, but the Rhodes Scholarship, with all of its illustrious winners and history? Was it a very conscious thing? You mentioned that you needed to change lots of things, but were you aware that you would be expanding globally, that you would be creating partnership programmes like the Atlantic Institute and Schmidt Science Fellows? 

CC: Well, yes, I mean, yes, of course, it had to be, right? And, you know the one-pager that we used to guide the Trust and that we updated and, you know, because Rhodes is such an important, more than 100-year-old platform, to be able to have that platform benefit from the Schmidt Science Fellows or the Atlantic Fellows just made perfect sense to me. Of course, the Trust should be global. Why should we limit this amazing experience just to people who happened to be born in the countries that were important during Rhodes’ time, right?  

So, yes, those were conscious, and I will also, once again, hasten to say that those were all done in concert and partnership and with the agreement of the Trustees, who were very much drawn from all those different generations. You know the Trustees as well as I do, right? I mean, what an incredibly diverse group of people, you know, from giants like Sir John Bell (Alberta & Magdalen 1975)-, all of these people contributed to the refreshing. Again, we didn’t throw out the selection criteria or the core values around leadership and character, but we can reinterpret those for the 21st century. And it was required, right? It was required. It felt, in parts, very 19th-century, and in parts, very mid-20th-century, and those things were not fit for purpose with the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.  

So, I think it was an essential project. I mean, frankly, the Trust was not on a financial or strategic path to have impact on the 21st century, right? But again, that’s not my doing. That’s the doing of a group of Rhodes Scholars who recognised that this is something worth saving and refreshing, and that giant group of people came together, with their time and with their treasure, to transform the Trust. 

RLT: Thank you. We know, and this has been a theme of our conversation, that it’s about people and the people who are next to us as leaders. 

CC: Yes. 

RLT: And here, we need to mention, as well, a very important person who was with you, with quiet leadership, but playing a very important, key role in the history of the Trust: your partner, Camilla Borg. Can you tell us a little bit about her work and how that was for you guys? 

CC: Sure. I mean, well, first of all, none of this would have happened without her. I mean, it often, if not always, had been a two-person job. We always knew the partner of the Warden, and they were an important part of things. But partly because, you know, for the first time in history we had to raise an enormous amount of money, and we had to be everywhere in the world all at once, both, you know, being part of the constituencies, of course, and then expanding the constituency-, so, visiting new countries and then raising money everywhere in the world. None of that was possible without Camilla. You know, when you’re working a room with 100 people in it and trying to, you know, build support for this new vision of the Trust, to have someone who was just as passionate and just as energetic, you know, as your partner, in it, it would have been impossible without that.  

And, you know, I think also, I have a particular way of leading and I think it’s such an important thing to have someone who’s able to say, ‘Hey, calm down,’ or ‘Pay attention to this,’ or ‘Get some sleep. You’re incoherent.’ Just, yes, what a gift. What a gift to have someone who will just quietly make sure that you’re at your best and carries-, you know, it’s like when you’re carrying a couch. Could you do that by yourself? No, you need someone on one end of the couch and someone on the other end of the couch. So, thank God for Camilla. And as you know, she very quietly played a role with the Scholars and in the culture of what the Rhodes Trust was, and to encourage people to look after themselves, right? Because this is a time in the world where people suffer more from anxiety and depression, and she’s no stranger to those things, and I think she was really wonderful with that current Rhodes community that was there at the time, in addition to all the heavy lifting strategically and financially. So, yes, thank God for Camilla. 

RLT: And she played all of those roles that you were mentioning, but also helped physically transform Rhodes House. 

CC: Yes, in so many ways, as you know, right? I mean, we started, of course, the portraits were all of white men. She was the one who fixed that, of course, working with you and working with so many people in the Rhodes community. We literally renovated Rhodes House and, you know, we created the Warden’s residence, which is on the north side of the park, and of course, guided by so many Trustees, and none more so than John McCall MacBain, eventually we, you know, completely reconceived Rhodes House. And that wasn’t just Camilla, but Camilla played an important role in Rhodes House becoming a centre of convening, right? When I was a Scholar, I described it-, you know, it was this dark dusty where you went to beg for a bit more money and then came alive for one event, the Rhodes ball. Rhodes House is alive every day now, and I think Camilla was one of the key visionaries who said, ‘Why are we not using all of this incredible space in the middle of a city that doesn’t have incredible space? Why aren’t we using this for convening for people to come together to work on the world’s fights,’ right? And, you know, if there’s anything I’m proud of, right, it is that. And, you know, again, not my doing. The doing of so many people, including Elizabeth who followed me, and yourself, you know, and Peter, all the people who actually followed through and turned the House into what it is today. 

RLT: That’s beautiful. So, one final question about the Rhodes community. We talked a little bit about the friendships, this group of people that helped, the debate that you engaged in with them on topics in your leadership time. But you still have this unique vantage point. The Warden has a unique vantage point on the global Rhodes community and the Rhodes Scholars in Residence. What is the thing you learned about the Rhodes community from this particular vantage point that surprised you about it? 

CC: Well, you know, and this shouldn’t be surprising, and this will sound like a political statement and it’s not a political statement: just the incredible beauty and diversity of ways of being a good Rhodes Scholar, right? We always had this frustration, right? You’re trying to raise money, so you look for statistics: how many prime ministers and presidents, and then-, you, of course, have had to trade in this same currency, right? And you know, as I know, that however impressive it is to have the Bill Clintons (Arkansas & University 1968) and Malcolm Turnbull (New South Wales & Brasenose 1978) and Bob Hawkes (Western Australia & University 1953) of the world, and they are impressive, there are so many ways to be a wonderful Rhodes Scholar.  

You know, there are Rhodes Scholars who are secondary school teachers who transform lives, just as my life was transformed all those years ago by Mr Drury in primary school. The ideas of character, [1:10:00] service and leadership can be expressed in so many ways to help fix, you know, an incredible world, but a world that is always full of crisis and sadness, right? So, I knew already that this was a remarkable group of people, and now-, you probably can tell me better than I can how many Rhodes Scholars I met during my time – three or four thousand people – and the amazing diversity of ways that they’re making good in the world, the ways that they’re meeting that opportunity. Yes, obligation and burden, if you like, but the way that they’re meeting the challenge of what it means to be a Rhodes Scholar. 

RLT: That’s beautiful. You decided to step down after five years, during your term, and I can imagine that was a tough decision. Tell us a little about that and the next steps. I mean, now, you’re a bestseller. Already at Rhodes House you began, I remember, writing the first book – that I know of! – in your bestselling author career. So, tell us about that transition time from your role as Warden and CEO of the Rhodes Trust, something that I heard you say has been one of the most beautiful phases of your life and challenges in your life, to your next steps and your work today with both Patagonia and Monograph.  

CC: Sure. Yes. Well, so, look, in lots of ways, it would have been fun to do five more years, right? I mean, we got the truck out of the ditch and, you know, this broad group of people – again, not me, but a broad group of people – really put things on a better path. But that idea of, sort of, you know, sitting back and enjoying something that was now more steady state, you know, frankly, I thought it was better for someone else’s energy to come along, right? The ideas that we all developed together and that that group of Trustees that I worked with developed together, we largely brought that into being, and I think it was really the right thing to step down and let new energy come in, and so, I have no regrets about stepping down. And yes, it’s been incredibly-, I was exhausted. I’m sure you were too, right? And you kept at it.  

But we were all exhausted. It was a huge effort, and what a fun thing to get to go back to deep academic pursuit. You know, writing is that kind of a thing. Writing about problem-solving was a wonderful thing to get to spend time on. Of course, the pandemic was a terrible thing but also provided a window in which we could all work on some of these kinds of projects, and I got to do that. And then yes, I’m on this wonderful, you know, journey with Patagonia, I think or more in Patagonia, now as chair, this incredible company, maybe N of 1 company, that really does good in the world, not just makes money. That’s been an amazing journey, and starting Monograph, this investment firm that invests in, you know, life sciences, you know, medicine to transform people’s lives, again with a group of Rhodes Scholars. So, I’ve had all these twists and turns in a career. I certainly didn’t know how to be an author. I didn’t know how to be a Warden. I didn’t know how to be an author. I certainly didn’t know how to be a great life sciences investor. Thanks to wonderful, kind patient colleagues, I’ve managed to manage through this transition, and I look forward to whatever the next challenge is.  

RLT: That’s beautiful, Charles. Tell me about the books, Charles. You have this passion for problem-solving, and you have been a great problem-solver in your life. So, tell me how to write a book about problem-solving, probably something that everybody wants to know. 

CC: Maybe, or maybe not. I mean, look, everyone has their own journey, right? And my journey is this funny braid of, you know, biology and education and problem-solving and problems-solving. And I’m a person of modest talents and I learned a long time ago, probably before McKinsey but definitely in McKinsey and BCG, that a systematic and disciplined approach to how to take problems apart could yield amazing results. And part of that is just based in the, kind of, scientific method about how you get hypotheses and how you test them. But it’s always been a passion of mine. You know, I learned you could solve really complicated problems at the business level.  

But then later on, when I worked with Gordon Moore, we used the same approaches to solving huge environmental and social problems. And it just occurred to me, like, in the world we’re coming into, where you have artificial intelligence and robotics, you know, what is the role of humans in that world? And creatively solving complex problems is still something where humans have an edge. And I love the idea of empowering young people who are just going out into their work lives, in whatever field., to feel like they could be confident about solving problems creatively, and that’s where the idea of the books came from. I couldn’t have written the books before, you know, my late 50s, because I think it was that accumulation of problems that I’ve been personally involved in helping to solve that began to form themselves into a book quite naturally with a dear, dear friend and colleague of mines, Rob McLean. And then, the second books is really, in some ways, a prequel, which is about the mindsets that we bring to problem-solving, especially when everything is changing. The kind of world that we’re in today, people sometimes call it VUCA: you know, it’s volatile and uncertain, etc.  

RLT: Yes. 

CC: When everything is changing all the time, just applying the old frames to solve problems doesn’t work, and so, you actually need to solve each problem afresh. And the second book, which is called The Imperfectionists, is about getting started on solving problems even when things are changing quickly, which is accepting imperfection. And both have been just incredibly fun, not only to write, but then also to teach and to talk about around the world. So, yes, it’s been an incredible part of the last half decade of my life.  

RLT: Is there a new book? 

CC: Maybe. We’ll see. I’ve got some ideas. Camilla has told me, ‘No more books for a while.’  

RLT: Okay. Let’s see what comes next. 

CC: Yes. 

RLT: Now going back more into reflections and insights about the Rhodes Scholarship, you already told us a lot about how it has impacted your life, your career, the challenges that you faced in your journey, but more widely, on the role of the Rhodes Scholarship today, what kind of role do you think such a scholarship plays in global challenges today? And both the Scholarship and the Rhodes Scholars, right? 

CC: Well, look, I mean, first of all, one should say, in a humble way, the Rhodes Scholarship and Rhodes Scholars will probably play a small part in solving the world’s challenges. But I do like to think that, you know- there’s a Margaret Mead quote about this, isn’t there? But a small cadre of people who are, you know, armed with good character and, I would argue, good problem-solving capabilities and good values – I guess that’s the critical part of character – and who are not afraid to lead will actually be major contributors to the challenges that the planet faces. And when I look around and I see-, you know, like, Jake Sullivan (Minnesota & Magdalen 1998) is in China today. I guess he’s had 14 hours of meetings. Those are people who are, you know, quietly, behind the scenes, hopefully making it more likely that there is peace than there is conflict.  

In very direct ways, I think Scholars contribute and, as we discussed earlier, Scholars contribute in all kinds of unsung ways to making the world a better place, by educating people, by making city councils work better, you know, by all the myriad passions and causes that folks get involved in. And so, you know, the idea that there are groups of people out there-, and the Rhodes Scholarship is important, but not the only body that helps create public-minded, value-centred leaders, which is exactly what we need in a world that is, you know, moving faster and where there are both good actors and bad actors and, you know, things that are hard to control, like climate change. 

RLT: Yes. 

CC: This shouldn’t be a me-first world, right? That won’t work.  

RLT: That’s important. That’s beautiful. What is your advice for today’s [1:20:00] young people who aspire to follow in your footsteps, the different roles you’ve had in your career, whether as a Rhodes Scholar, or anybody who is trying to pursue an impactful career? 

CC: Right, well, they shouldn’t follow in my footsteps, of course. They should create their own footsteps. And, you know, you and I have had this conversation before, but it’s so important. Rhodes Scholars, by definition, in order to be selected, we’re very good at jumping through other people’s hoops. You know, you’re perfect academically, you’re perfect athletically, you’re perfect in every possible way, in standards that were designed by other people. So, once you win the Scholarship, throw all that out, right? You have to stop being driven by just meeting the standards that are set by external parties, and you need to start to trust your own set of values and your aspirations. And I think, you know, that is this strange process that we all go through, of learning to trust the voice inside that says ‘It’s time to change,’ or trust the voice inside that says, ‘Don’t do this next thing that gives you wonderful recognition. Do this next thing that actually changes the world.’ And not to be afraid of not just following in other people’s footsteps.  

I always like to think, you know, in your 20s, you should keep gathering skills, but in your 30s, you should really start to be bolder about your choices and not be-, and failure is not a bad thing, like, you know, where Rhodes Scholars are so afraid of failure because people put them on such pedestals, and it’s an awful long way to fall, isn’t it? But failing and learning from failing-, talk to John McCall MacBain about this. You know, he’s an incredibly successful person and the first thing he’ll tell you about are the things that didn’t work, because those things are the ones you learn enormously from. And I think the more cautious we are and the more we stick to the perfect resume, the less likely it is we’ll have real impact in the world. So, I’m not in the advice business, but if I were, that’s what I’d say. 

RLT: This makes me think, and maybe just going back to you, is there any failure in your career that left you with an important lesson learned? 

CC: Lots, I mean, including very recently. You know, after Rhodes, I did a job in Oxford running a venture capital group – before I started the one that I’m now – that I was fired from, and I got into a disagreement with board members about the correct direction, and I was fired, and that was devastating for me at the time. And now, it’s funny, because, you know, with a little bit of the fullness of time, I feel quite proud that I stuck to what I thought was right, and I learned a tonne about myself from that failure and it made me better at my current job, all the elements of that failure, including the parts that I contributed to, right? 

RLT: Thank you. So, our last question is about your legacy and what you wish to leave behind. 

CC: Oh, God, I mean, you know, legacy, that’s one of those crazy things, right? I spend no time thinking about my legacy. I suspect that none of us will be remembered, and that’s fine, right? Each of us contributes in a small way to making the lives of our fellow people and hopefully other creatures better. I don’t spend time on legacy. I hope that I do good work and that I’m remembered fondly with the people I worked with for caring about them as well as myself, and that’s as far as legacy goes for me.  

RLT: Beautiful. Thanks a lot, Charles. Is there anything else that we didn’t raise during this interview that you would like to raise? 

CC: No, I don’t think so. It was fun. It was fun to reflect on all these things again. And of course, it was such a great pleasure to work with you in doing the work we did together in the Rhodes Trust. 

RLT: Thank you, Charles. 

CC: Thank you, for taking the time. 

RLT: No, absolutely an honour. 

CC: Okay. 

[file ends 1:24:40]