Essential Leader

What strikes me as one of the biggest problems with corporate responsibility as out-lined in Leading with Integrity, Kolp and Rea, is the trickle down aspect of corporate policies. My years as a retail clerk with Meier & Frank left me responsible and accountable for circumstances way out of my control. They had a credit application mandate – for every 4 hours I worked, I was expected to solicit customers to apply for a store credit card. My reviews and raises were directly tied into this policy. I found many moral and ethical problems with selling a credit card with an interest rate of at least 22%. There were managers who encouraged soliciting teens and non-English speaking people as “they don't understand what you are saying and will fill out the form.” I was reprimanded and threatened with a “write-up”once for throwing out an application when the non-English speaking customer conveyed to me she didn't understand the form she was filling out. Although I was an exceptional employee with complete customer satisfaction, I was consistently denied the full raise I deserved as I refused to adhere to this policy.
So where does that leave the peon forced to carry-out corporate policies? The Brass at this company boasted of integrity and commitment to people with a subtle behind the scenes money maker. I resisted and paid the price. Yes, I could quit, and eventually did, but my economic situation dictated I work there. This retail corporation used Machiavellian cynicism and greed to ensure those without power carry out their unethical policies. Corporations are able to veil some of their more unethical and corrupt policies by removing their accountability with the blanket “we cannot be responsible for individual store policies.” How does one take a stand without a title?

The Importance of Transparency, Perfect or Not

There is a battle going on today, raging in front and behind the scenes, for who is running the ultimate show, humanity or the corporation. Today, it is the corporation who holds the most money, power and decision-making authority. As such, companies have the greatest impact on life on Earth (read: well-being on Earth), more than any government or religious institution. If you question that statement, see the documentary “The Corporation” and it will become crystal clear. As 1st world companies have spent the past couple hundred years solely motivated by shareholder wealth, it is no surprise that all other areas of focus took a backseat. Today humanity is demanding a recalibration to respect all living things and the Earth, in addition to making a profit. We see this represented by consumer demand for “corporate responsibility” and “sustainable” business practices. One challenge faced, however, is that “the term corporate responsibility has no widely accepted definition, so how can we achieve a fuzzy objective” (Kolp & Rhea, 2006, p. 155)? The same holds true for sustainability, which may have even more interpretations than corporate responsibility. While this is unfortunate and messy, vision and language uncertainty are common during radical paradigm shifts such as this. As the saying goes, what gets tracked gets measured, and what gets measured gets done, so what is most important now is not to demand complete interpretative consistency, only that every business put their corporate responsibility stake in the ground, and then track, measure and communicate against it. Because “a transparent world will expose imposters” (Kolp & Rhea, 2006, p. 151) and even if the definition of imposter varies, we still know a moral swindler when we see one.

Motives, Results and Training

Kolp and Rea in Leading with Integrity says that Thomas Aquinas believes that leaders are “teachers of virtue and caretakers of human needs” while aiming for “continuing improvement within themselves” and the people they serve “by cultivating and exhibiting high moral standards” (p. 152). I believe this is very true. I once had a boss who I considered, by Kolp and Rea’s standards, an average leader. He cared about his people and was very training focused, but he couldn’t get the results that his bosses wanted. So he was stuck in middle management position and had no prospects of moving beyond that. His motives and intentions were always good, but his results and consequences were lacking. My boss wanted his people to feel proud of their work and be at the top of their game. That required less “productive time” and more “training and learning time.”

Something I think Kolp and Rea failed to acknowledge was the fact that employees desire more educational training as a benefit. Whether it be direct payment for school, partial reimbursements, or confirmation that education will help them in their path within the organization, doing this will help the corporations attract a higher quality pool of talent.  Acknowledging this adds value to the company and I believe would help in making the company a learning organization. To attract top talent corporations will have to be open to what the employees want. They have to have a more circular approach in their management style rather than a top down atmosphere. Top talent will not accept top down approach and they want to be heard and want opportunities to learn and grow.  

The price we pay for...

Sunday’s Oregonian had two pieces that struck me as relevant to the chapter on Leadership and Corporate Responsibility in Kolp and Rea’s work (2006). One was a public review – question of integrity – of the “double-dipping” practices of the state treasury. The other was an editorial on socially responsible investing and it very wittily it began with the story of a woman choosing how to invest – an epidemiologist whose grandfather had made money selling tobacco and candy. Her comment was that she now needed to invest responsibly, to make up for the past.

So, how does this relate to Corporate Responsibility and the triple bottom line? Can we “make up for” our behaviors or practices as individuals and corporations, or is the impact made and the rest is compensation. Is a bit of green here or human rights there or good benefits here enough… when we sell foods that deteriorate health or have practices for profit that take advantage of others? Or a more complex question, even if our positioning is relatively clear, what if the motivation for that positioning is all economic advantage? And how does a company truly add value – that works for the employees, shareholders and customers?

 

As consumers, we are paying more attention to the power of our money to shape the world. Corporations are beginning to pay attention – although, the question of corporate integrity is at stake. These are not easy-answer-issues.  The one thing that is clear is that it matters how we treat each other and the world – whether as individuals or as corporations. And, that the exchange of dollars is a voice in that equation.

What defines success?

In reading chapter 8, “Leadership and Corporate Responsibility” in Kolp & Rea (2006), the kernel that jumps out at me is the question of success in terms of corporate strategy. In a very practical sense, profit is the initial answer to this question, as it is the immediate gratifier of business. What is lacking here is the systems thinking lens that includes the impetus and the outcome together into process analysis.
I wonder, if a piece of the puzzle here in reframing business successes to include citizenship is found in training self-awareness and values lead-leadership into corporate training as a way to allow individuals to get clear on their own interpretation of success. What if an unexamined population in terms of their own definitions of success is what is holding back the evolution of progressive corporate business practices?
If a corporation can only be as strong as its weakest member, then all members who operate with an unexamined measure of success can alter the course of the business practices. Tacit knowledge bases vested in profit as the only measure of success will inadvertently drive pure profitability in lieu of holistic business practices. So, what if the beginning of solving this pickle is to start at the individual level in training self-examination, values-lead leadership and a revised measure of success to organizational members. Then, citizenship can begin at the individual level and spread outward to the whole organization.

Cowardice: Not as Simple as Kolp & Rea Suggests

When examining Kolp and Rea’s three aspects of cowardice, I found myself disagreeing with not so much the ideas presented, but with the facile explanation of how ignorance, fear, and anxiety seems to only lead to cowardice. It appears to me that these three attributes, based on the author’s explanation, can have no part in the development or fostering of courage.

I think it is important to realize that everyone is ignorant because no one knows everything. Yes there are extremely intelligent people in the world, some of whom are specialist in multiple fields. However, no can be a specialist in every field. That makes ignorance a state of being. Ignoring is a deliberate act of choosing not to acknowledge something or someone. So ignorance and ignoring is not the same thing, no matter how the authors try to relate the words (p. 105).

Secondly, the authors to fail to see that fear can push people to be better than they are. It can be the catalyst to take on more responsibility. Fear of loss can force people to step up into a role they might not have taken on. How many single mothers step up and take chances, even through fear to provide for their children? I find the lack of discussion of fear as a positive motivator a regrettable choice by the authors.

Lastly, in exploring anxiety as an aspect of cowardice I think too much is made of Lee Iacocca’s “rise and fall” at Chrysler.  Today people clamor for the spotlight. If you’re not trying to get it you are not managing your personal brand as effectively as you should be.  Blogging, Linkedin, Facebook, and Twitter are all tools of social media to develop a presence.  The authors are saying that because Iacocca was focused on his personal branding by writing a book, doing television interviews and refusing to retire he was in a state of anxiety. I find this hard to believe with the agreement and evidence presented.

The way the authors describe cowardice, it’s anything but a “complex concept” and does no justice to the idea they try to present. It’s a shame really because I do agree with them when they say “the development of courage is the process of learning to live from our center, rather than learning to control our life (p. 108).”

Building Trust for Success

Trust. A seemingly simple word, only five letters long, known by all who live. This simple noun, however, holds within it a power that can determine the success or failure of every relationship in existence, including the relationship between the employees, partners and customers of a company.

As quoted in The Speed of Trust, Jim Burke, former Chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson said, “You cannot have success without trust. The word trust embodies almost everything you can strive for that will help you to succeed. You tell me any human relationship that works without trust, whether it is a marriage or a friendship or a social interaction; in the long run, the same thing is true about business, especially businesses that deal with the public” (Stephen R. Covey, 2006 p. 6). This includes bottom line success, the one outcome leaders world round are expected to deliver upon. Statistics show that “Employees who trust their senior management bring back 108% value to their share holders. On the other hand, employees who do not trust their senior executives only bring 66% back to their share holders” (www.sideroad.com, Building Trust in the Workplace). 

Leaders today need to recognize that if they hope to achieve the results expected of them, especially transformational leaders working to create a sustainable world, they need to prioritize goals and activities that build trust with those whom they depend on to get there. In Leading with Integrity: Character Based Leadership, it is recommended that trust creation be built upon three pillars:

1. Mutual trust  - a relationship built on goodwill and mutual support;
2. Shared goals – a relationship built on a shared vision, or future direction; and
3. Mutual faith in ability – a relationship built on mutual respect and trust in each other’s competence (Kolp & Rea, 2006, p. 123).  

With a concerted  and consistent effort towards trust-building, leaders will be surprised with the improved speed and ability by which they are able to create the success they seek. 

Character is destiny

Character is destiny…

 

It is an encouraging concept to integrate that courage, along with the other virtues, can be learned through practice and intention. When one takes this a bit further, the doors of life open wide. If “character is destiny,” as Heraclitus is quoted to say, and character is shaped by our virtues, and virtues can be learned… then it seems we all have the opportunity to shape our destiny. Kolp and Rea’s “Leading with Integrity: Character Based Leadership” (2006) highlights this in the chapter on courage in leadership. Yes, character is destiny in as much as we choose and intention to be courageous. I love the lines on page 101, “destiny is not predestination. To act courageously means to choose our attitude, our purpose, and our aim. But it does not mean that we can dictate or control how our choices will play out.” A leader has choice in attitude, direction, and action. A “level 5” leader stays true to the compass of virtues, acting in faith that we get “there” by walking the path with integrity. And so it is our character as a leader that has the highest value.  

The System of Leadership

Within an organization the leader has to be able to provide and accept feedback from his employees, and be willing to recognize that sharing power will take them further in effectiveness than a top-down management style. A character-based leader will purposefully create a climate and culture within the organization, a concept that goes back to the Buddhist belief “you create the world you live in”. Through creating shared values based on the seven classical virtues of Aristotle (courage, faith, justice, prudence, temperance, love and hope) (Kolp and Rhea, p. 20), a leader is creating a workplace that ensure values of trust and openness. These virtues and values shared throughout a workplace are the hallmarks of a true learning organization.  

When understanding leadership as a system, one has to realize that the purpose of system (in an organizational systems context) is to help the organization work. This too is the role of the leader, and he or she is judged by his competence (providing added value to organization) and character (develop virtues) (Kolp and Rhea, p. 3). In essence Aristotle’s seven virtues are moral tools that a leader can use in creating systems for not only him or herself, but also in building a strong foundation in the organization. For instance, the hiring practices, performance appraisals, employee benefits, yearly surveys, and reward systems, etc., would all be affected by the value virtue systems in place.  My favorite example is that of the organizations training program. Through investing in the training program an organization is not only providing monetary exchange for work provided, but the employee gains “experience and skill development” to keep them marketable in times of unemployment (Kolp and Rhea p. 4). Providing this type of social contract ensures that the leader is putting the organization’s employees before profits.

Tranformation... to Servanthood.

In my reading about Transformational Leadership, I am like the idea of helping others grow and support each other, of connecting people with a mission that inspires them to do their work within a larger perspective. This leadership perspective is one where the leader’s charisma is essential to the progress of the team or organization. The idea that the “charisma” of the transformational leader is the thing that motivates or transforms others means that in order to lead, one has to be a certain type of person  -- someone with a dynamic and captivating personality, an ability to communicate a mission, a set of qualities that influence. While Transformational leadership does aspire to higher purpose and the better good of the organization and its individuals, it does so  through the leader as the central point of influence. In an on-line article in  Psychology Today, author, Kendra Cherry comments that “the extent that a leader is transformational is measured first, by his influence on the followers” http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/transformational.htm . Something about this strikes me as problematic, partly because it relies so heavily on the power and influence of the leader, thus accentuating hierarchy more than empowerment.

Of course, this is why servant leadership “calls my name” (a little caveat here, it seems to me that servant leaders experience a sense of calling to their work. I have often heard, and personally experienced, the sense that I didn’t choose this work, it chose me). Servant leadership goes beyond my influence and beyond my kind use of power for good and asks more. I use my ability to give, to serve – to bring about empowerment for others. This idea touches on the tenants of Popular Education – which is part of my thesis work. But, I think I am going to let that thought stew a bit and save it for another post.