Leadership, Power and Ethics – Huh?

So by now we’ve all heard about the scandal with retired general and former head of the CIA, David Petraeus. Some of my European colleagues have balked that we can be a bit uptight in the U.S. when it comes to mixing business and personal – and that may be the case. However, as that is the culture in which we live (and lead) - those in positions of power need to conduct themselves within certain boundaries. Obviously someone failed to have this conversation with David Petraeus or former Lockheed Martin CEO, Christopher Kubasik.

As an organizational development and leadership practitioner - I often work with C-Level executives and Military and Civilian leaders. Sometimes the work is focused on them - leadership development and coaching - though often it is focused on the organizations they lead and helping them to improve in one way or another. Regardless, I often stress to leaders in positions of power that their actions, ethics, values, and behaviors have a direct impact on the attitudes and behaviors of those they lead and thus on the organizational culture. Those impacts can be positive or negative.

As Ken Hultman and Bill Gellerman say in their book, Balancing Individual and Organizational Values, ethics are standards of good/bad or right/wrong behavior, and morals are standards for avoiding or minimizing harmful or bad behavior/wrong behavior. Thus, a moral is also an ethic, but not all ethics are morals. They are internal to a person. Organizations as such don’t have values and ethics, but since they are comprised of human beings, their cultures are shaped by the values and ethics of those human beings. If those human beings at the top – leadership – commit unethical behaviors - what kind of message does that send to those they lead?

In the recent cases of David Petraeus and Christopher Kubasik - did their unethical actions have a negative impact on their respective organizations? Kubasik’s actions “did not affect the company's operational or financial performance," the company has stated. Though damage control has already begun, I think time will tell. I do give Lockheed credit – they have a written code of ethics for employees, when they found out their leadership violated this code, they forced his resignation. The CIA and the government on the other hand, have been a bit slower in taking corrective actions.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” - Lord Acton

As an OD practitioner I was once told something by a mentor that still sticks with me today, you may not be able to make people change their values; however, you can help them see the wisdom of changing their behaviors.  As Cameron & Quinn state “An organization’s culture is reflected by what it values, the dominant leadership styles, the language and symbols…” Interviewing 1709 CEOs from 64 countries and 18 industries, (from September 2011 to January 2012) IBM identified that the top organizational attribute to draw out the best from their workforces was ethics and values (65%). So what does it say about the culture of an organization when those selected to lead it have somewhat sketchy values and ethics?

Values and ethics are important, and apparently power does corrupt.

“Values (and ethics) are the fuel which drive the engine of desire to make vision a reality…” – Broholm

What kind of reality do you want for your organization?

About Scott Span, MSOD: is President of Tolero Solutions - an Organizational Improvement & Strategy firm.  He helps clients to facilitate sustainable growth by developing people and organizations to be more responsive, focused, productive and profitable.

Email | Website | LinkedIn | Twitter | Blog | Facebook

________________________________________________________________________________

*All Rights Reserved. Reproduction, publication, and all other use of  any and all of this content is prohibited without authorized consent of Tolero Solutions and the author.

CEO to Commander in Chief: Do The Same Skills Apply?

Achieving the leadership status and title of the Commander in Chief – President of the United States of America - is the highest appointed leadership position one could achieve.  Sure – being a CEO is also a great achievement and the role is also intricate and complex. But leading a group of employees is much different than leading an entire nation.

I mean…they don’t call the President the Commander in Chief (CIC)  for nothing!

With an election happening next week, leadership qualities are coming to the forefront.  One candidate was a former CEO. So - putting on my organizational development practitioner hat - politics aside, left or right or red or blue, this raises an interesting question.

Just because someone was a CEO does that mean they have the leadership skills to be Commander in Chief (CIC)?

Some may argue that good leadership is good leadership –- whether you’re managing kids at home, serving as the CEO of a company, or as the Commander in Chief of a nation.  (for more on our take on good leadership, feel free to see some previous articles on the topic  including  one relating to politics)

Can CEOs run the U.S. equally or better than a candidate with a traditional political background?  Various articles and studies have been done on this topic. The reality is, that though many leadership roles do require similar traits, they may also require different decision making processes and application of those skills and traits. Just because you may have certain skills and traits to be a success in one leadership role doesn’t necessarily mean you have the skills and traits to be successful in another.  Even if you do - can you execute actions using those skills and traits in a way that will contribute to success in the same way for  two different roles.

“…. 56% (of CEOs surveyed) also believe maintaining voter confidence is more difficult than securing the support of shareholders and directors as CEO.”

– Korn/Ferry CEO Survey Aug. 2012

Let’s take a look at some key leadership traits, and considerations, from the perspectives of CEO and the Commander in Chief:

Accountability

• CEO – CEO’s and the CIC often have a different view on accountability. Though CEOs are hired, they are not often elected to serve the people, but to serve the shareholders. Since CEO’s are mostly accountable to boards and shareholders, decisions can often be driven by money, and not what is in the best interests of those they lead.  A CEO is often more accountable for balance sheets than the welfare of their employees.  This can often prohibit them from putting the interests of their people ahead of that of finances.

• CIC – Though the balancing of financial matters and people matters is a shared struggle to an extent - the CIC is elected by all the people, not just appointed by a select group of peers - and thus is accountable first and foremost for the well being of those who elected him/her.  One could argue that level of accountability includes commitment to balance sheets, though, when looking at financials, the CIC is most often doing so from the perspective of what is best for the people.  In addition, the CIC is required to make life and death decisions, not just financial decisions. The CIC is accountable to serve the people who elected him/her, and not shareholders, in financial matters and matters of life and death. Most CEOs are not.

Transparency

• CEO – CEO’s don’t often see a need for transparency. They very rarely share personal information – which they may not want to share publicly. The job of a CEO doesn’t require corporate citizenship or social responsibility in leadership. Though more CEOs are making the choice to be socially responsible - it is not a mandate of the job.  Besides very specific legal mandates and policies - nothing requires that a CEO be transparent (though those that are not will most likely see a negative  impact on performance.) The CEO’s leadership often tends to be extremely secretive as CEOs often think personal information is not in the domain of those they lead.

• CIC – The CIC knows that not even the most intimate moments are off limits. The CIC is required to think through decisions, beyond profit and loss statements, and to consider all available points of view. When communicating his/her decision, the CIC is often required by law to do so in a transparent manner. Of course politics is politics, scandals are scandals. Not every CIC chooses to be or can be transparent about every decision -whether personal or legislative – however, the expectation of transparency tends to be more prominent both from the CIC perspective based on the expectation from constituents. The general public, as often supported by law, can demand much more transparency from the CIC than employees can from a CEO.

Engagement

• CEO – Engaging in authentic communication is an imperative trait for any great leader if they wish to have supportive and trusting followers.  Though it is important for a CEO to be a tough, no-nonsense, competent negotiator, it is also easy for a CEO to take a ‘my way or the highway’ view. This view will often alienate followers, not engage their support. If someone doesn’t like what the CEO is saying, then as the head honcho, it’s often too bad. CEOs don’t often invite disagreement. They can feel little need to explain or justify their thoughts and decisions and this view can often negatively impact followership engagement.

• CIC – Can the CIC also take a ‘my way or the highway’ view to communication and decision making?  Sure they can.  However, they will often get little accomplished in doing so (particularly reelection). It is often the support of the constituency that helps the CIC drive their agenda through the legislative process. The CIC needs to take a different view on engagement if they intend to govern in the best interest of the people. This view not only includes being a competent negotiator, it also includes a certain leavel of diplomacy and the ability to engage with those they serve to gather varying opinions and information, and adjust decisions accordingly. These are skills many CEOs don’t often choose to exercise as they often see no need.

Now – to be clear I’m not saying that it’s not possible that leaders of corporations can make good leaders of government and vice versa. And I'm also not saying that all CEOs and all CICs are the same. What I’m saying is they tend to look at things a bit differently, thus even if sharing the same skill set, they often take different actions motivated by those different views and experiences. It's less about the debate of having the skills (assuming one does) and more about the ability to apply them in a given situation. Thus, being a good leader at one job is not necessarily synonymous with being a good leader at the other.

Leadership ability is often the deciding factor as to whether something succeeds or doesn’t – in business and in politics.  Whether you’re debating who to vote for or who to work for – take a hard look at their leadership skills as related to their work, and ask yourself – do they have the skills to succeed in this role? Am I ready to follow their lead?

NOTE: This article is not intended for political debate and does not endorse a specific candidate. It is simply to raise the question of leadership qualities, and if in fact they translate from one position to another, using a real time example of such an instance.

About Scott Span, MSOD: is President of Tolero Solutions - an Organizational Improvement & Strategy firm.  He helps clients to facilitate sustainable growth by developing people and organizations to be more responsive, focused, productive and profitable.

Email | Website | LinkedIn | Twitter | Blog | Facebook

________________________________________________________________________________

*All Rights Reserved. Reproduction, publication, and all other use of  any and all of this content is prohibited without authorized consent of Tolero Solutions and the author.