Essential Leader

Tylenol

                In line with our conversation about servant leadership and leading with integrity, the Tylenol Tragedies story showcased character-based leadership in action. While there were sections of the story that portrayed these leaders (Jim Burke included) as pragmatic damage control analysts, reading the story through revealed Johnson & Johnson’s true colors: what their business credo preached was genuine. The awareness these leaders displayed, the attention they paid to the safety of the public, and the actions they took set the bar of corporate responsibility where it belongs: a case-study benchmark worthy of presidential admiration.

            While reading the story, it occurred to me that the actions these leaders took, especially those of Jim Burke, seemed quite natural, instinctive. Sure, they were measured, calculated even; but the extent of their determination to do the right thing, while navigating a near-death business crisis, revealed the depth of their commitment to their own philosophy—their own definition of what is right.

Because of their commitment to their clear and concise business credo, they found themselves thrust into the role of leading well beyond the concerns of their own corporate survival. Jim Burke and his executive committee played a primary leadership role in the consolidated effort to address this new danger threatening the public. At the risk of proven media ridicule, Burke took the initiative and partnered with news media to improve their response. They also found themselves leading the way with government agencies to address the immediate safety of the public and the long-term safety of the industry. What impressed me the most, however, was their decision to abandon the capsule approach to over-the-counter products entirely, risking their market share based on their concern for public safety.    

Successful Leaders Employ Systems Thinking

A system is “a combination of related elements organized into a complex whole” (Encarta World English Dictionary). Systems exist at every level: our planet lives within a galactic system, every country and its natural resources live within planet earth’s system, all organizations live within their country’s political and social system, and all employees live within their organizations’ cultural system. What makes systems both fascinating and of significant consequence is that they are inherently interconnected.

More than ever before, managers who wish to lead with integrity must develop the ability to recognize and understand the systems in which they operate and how to affect change within them; ignoring these interdependencies can lead to immoral behavior, sometimes in the extreme, often without awareness or intent. 

To thrive in the 21^st century, Peter Senge, author of The Necessary Revolution, proposes that leaders must recognize the four factors that shape all situations: events, patterns, systemic structures and the mental models that shape those patterns and structures (2008, p. 174). Easiest to recognize are events, as they are visible to all; the key question at this level is “what just happened?” The next step is to consider the trends behind that event, or to ask “Have we been here before?”  From there, the leader must go yet further to determine what forces are at play that caused these patterns to occur. Finally, the leader must consider the assumptions behind the trends that allow this reality to persist  (Senge, 2008, p. 173-176). 

Recognizing systems and how they impact reality is a critical skill to develop. Equally importantly is prioritizing the time required for teams to assess the systems at play in their world. Doing these two things will lead to an increased level of leadership integrity, and undoubtedly a greater level of financial success.

The Tylenol Tragedies

After reading the case study on the Tylenol tragedies in the early and mid 1980’s I have to say that Johnson and Johnson made a believer out of me.  The company really stood up and made people their primary concern.  Not money, not market share, not blame, but people.  While reading this I continuously agreed and believed that the actions taken demonstrated multiple virtues which other companies would be wise to emulate.

At first glance Jim Burke did want McNeil to handle the situation without Johnson and Johnson because he was concerned about protecting the parent company’s brand. However it seems to me that he came to understand that the right thing to do was to stand up and accept responsibility (even before it was known that Johnson and Johnson was just as much a victim as those who lost their lives).  Johnson and Johnson was set to lose money because of the tragedies, however they were going to still maintain their global dominance over their competitors in the market. 

In essence they really didn’t have to step up and assist to the degree they did. They didn’t have to conduct such a large scale recall. Nor did they have to go against the advice of the FBI and FDA (even though it would have benefited them to do so). However they did and they showed that they weren’t willing to profit at the expense of others.

Throughout the entire incident Johnson and Johnson also maintained an open and honest relationship with the press and customers. This to me is what set them up for success.  The steps and systems they developed for communication to keep everyone informed was a masterstroke of humanity. They wanted to answer every concern they could, relieve as many fears as possible, and protect as many people as possible from a contaminated product.

In the end, through their actions Johnson and Johnson showed they not only meant every word of their credo, but they could live up to it as well. In today’s corporate environment, I think there are lessons to be learned from studying the Tylenol tragedies.

Grounded Visioning

In reading Jay Vogt’s “Recharge Your Team: The Grounded Visioning Approach” (2009), I found strategies for creating a vision with any size team, or an entire organization in as little as half of a day. Who wouldn’t want to know more about that? This seemed highly suspect to me and also peaked my interest since the premise of grounded visioning is based on appreciative inquiry. This is a popular theory being quoted for organizational change planning in my field of work.  Mohr and Watkins (2002) talked about the foundational principles of appreciative inquiry as the appreciation of people and the organizational system as well as the ability to communicate the strengths or best practices of an organization, to design a vision for the future. Vogt (2009) takes the tenets of appreciative inquiry and puts them into a user friendly guide with sample agendas for various forums for grounded visioning planning sessions.

 

Using the Appreciative Inquiry process, organizations examine and identify areas where their current systems are successful, and then determine ways to make those successes more constant. The process involves storytelling and interviewing to draw on the best of the past in order to effectively visualize a successful future. Questions used in these sessions invite participants to share what attracted them to and what keeps them with the team or organization. High points, success stories as well as dreams, hopes and aspirations are shared. The final question being, “What is the one reason for optimism that those dreams, hopes, and aspirations might actually come to pass? (p. 49). This process works according to Vogt (2009) because it is a low cost, easily implemented, collaborative and positive method.

 

I could see this method functioning with a small team, but it is quite a stretch for me to imagine this working effectively for large scale organizational change visioning. I have participated in a number of fast paced visioning sessions that were meant to accomplish much in a short amount of time. I have also seen a great deal of progress made in a short time, with an approach similar to grounded visioning. The issue that seems to derail the process is the work that needs to happen after the initial meeting. People leave with specific leaves tasks assigned for completion. Often there is no one who monitors and reports back to the group as a whole, about the progress being made. I would benefit more from a part two to this book. It would give user friendly tools for setting the vision in motion and the ongoing monitoring of progress.

 

~ TR 

Barack Obama: a 21st Century Leader

We stand at the beginning of the 21st century facing a time of incredible change, increasing complexity and worldwide challenge. The extent of the issues and the intricacy of their interrelatedness demand a caliber of leadership not easily found yet necessary for humanity to move safely through the 21st century and beyond. What is needed in the 21st century are enlightened leaders who can guide civilization to a secure destination. A 21st century leader is one who leads with both competence and character; one with the experience and knowledge to understand the topics they are responsible for, and the courage, faith, justice, prudence, temperance, love and hope to wield it responsibly (Kolp & Rhea, p. 20).

In considering one of the most visible leaders of the 21^st century, Barack Obama has shown a number of traits that match a more 21st century style. Perhaps most notably is his ability to provide a vision for change that inspires hope, faith, connection and service.  In a BusinessWeek article describing Obama’s first trip to Europe, it said that he “inspired by actively listening, acknowledging, relating, confronting, setting boundaries, and defining an inescapable future — and in that sequence. He did not favor the new at the expense of the old; he did not favor friends at the expense of others; he was more concerned with impact than results. Obama impressed by listening to the arguments and demonstrating how much he knew of the issues on the agenda and how interested he was in understanding them. He solicited reactions to counterarguments that he offered and also took personal notes” (Mourkogiannis, April 24, 2009).

While this is not a description of “action” in the traditional sense – no war was won or deal signed – the abilities to listen, understand, respect, share, enlighten and inspire are the oil that greases the machine to get there. It's this nuance that we need in our leaders to successfully face this new era of change, challenge and opportunity.

show me the... capital...?

 

I love the simplicity of the four questions to creating value or building worthiness that are offered in Kolp & Rea’s book, Leading with Integrity (2006). These value-laden questions guide us as we become better human beings in the world, whether our world is career, home, social. As we progress to become better leaders by being aware, paying attention and taking action we also can progress by asking ourselves to do the following: reflect, be compassionate, act for social justice, and learn from mistakes.

It is such a simple idea that as we are better in the way we relate to others, more socially capable, grounded and “good” (as in value-filled, worthy) so it goes that our influence and outcomes in the world increase. Ironically, simple is not always the most modeled and practiced. I love to think that we could move to developing individuals – leaders – who invest in social capital as a first step in building effective “capital” making.

This definitely strikes home for me, as I had a relative who truly was an entrepreneurial genius. His ideas were bound to make money – and they always did, ultimately, for someone else. The reason he was never successful was due to his lack of integrity in the way he did business and treated other people.

And so, maybe as human beings, we really are looking for leaders and business people who can show us the capital (social!)… because that’s what counts.

Was Hitler a Leader?

            As I considered who to take a closer look at as a leader, many inspirational and high quality leaders went through my mind. I considered exploring the styles of Caroline Myss, Ghandi, the Dali Lama, and many others. But there was a conversation that kept coming back to me and had me stuck: Hitler. In class, we had been discussing how one’s values make such a difference in their leadership style. What I got stuck around was: how someone like Hitler, who truly followed his convictions, could create such devastation? How could someone so horrific in history be considered a leader? I decided to pursue the answer to my own question.

            So much of it depends on how one defines what leadership is. There are many different styles, and there are those who are successful and those who are not. There are also situational leaders, and then there are those who seem to be able to lead no matter where they are. Leadership, it seems, rests not on one specific definition, but on a continuum – making room for someone like Hitler to be included.

            The complex circumstances of the times that allowed him to come into power are incredible, but like it or not, he was a leader. In my mind however, he was a failed leader of catastrophic proportions. If there is value to what he did, it was to show us how not to be as leaders. May history never repeat itself!

~LC