Ethics is a popular topic at corporate meetings today because management correctly sees the benefits. Good things tend to happen to companies that consistently do the right thing, and bad things tend to happen to those that even occasionally do the wrong thing. Being ethical is playing the odds.
Ethical companies have a competitive edge because people prefer to deal with firms they trust. They also benefit from high credibility; being believed is an enormous asset. In addition, ethical companies attract and retain employees better because they have higher morale. And finally, good ethics generates a good reputation, good will, and loyalty.
So it’s true: Good ethics is good business.
Most companies try to motivate employees to be ethical by stressing how doing so will benefit the corporation. The problem is, this amoral rationale is grounded in self-interest rather than morality. It has nothing to do with ethics.
Doing the right thing to get something in return is an investment, not a demonstration of character. Ethics based on self-interest is situational; ethics based on moral convictions is reliable. It’s the difference between acting ethically and being ethical.
Trying to motivate people to do the right thing by stressing benefits rather than values and virtue turns decision making into a cold cost-benefit analysis rather than a reflection of what’s right.
But if a company encourages employees to make decisions based on the supposed advantages, why should anyone put their firm’s interests above their own? In the absence of authentic moral conviction, why should employees refrain from unethical or illegal conduct if they think it will save their job or enhance their compensation? Clearly, what’s good for an enterprise is not always good for its employees.
My point is, it’s foolish and fruitless to expect most employees to sacrifice their financial well-being for the good of the company. On the other hand, many will do so in the name of honor, as a matter of conscience, and to earn the esteem and admiration of family and friends.
Corporations have a much better chance of deterring improper conduct by appealing to conscience and principle rather than risks and rewards.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Almost anyone can become a leader. Leadership can be learned. It depends on nature and nurture. Leadership can exist at any level, with or without formal authority. Most people are both leader and followers. They “lead from the middle.
Smart leaders need both soft and hard power skills: co-optive and command styles. Both transformational and transactional objectives and styles can be useful. One is not automatically better than the other. Leaders depend on and arepartly shaped by followers. Some degree of soft power is necessary. Presence/magnetism is inherent in some personalities more than others, but “charisma” is largely bestowed by followers.
Appropriate style depends on the context. There are “autocratic situations” and “democratic situations,” normal and crisis conditions, and routine and novel crises. Good diagnosis of the need for change (or not) is essential for contextual intelligence.
Leadership for crisis conditions requires advance preparation, emotional maturity, and the ability to distinguish the roles of operational, analytical, and political work. The appropriate mix of styles and skills varies with the stage of the crisis.
The information revolution and democratization are causing a long-term secular shift in the context of postmodern organizations—a shift along the continuum from command to co-optive style. Network organizations require a more consultative style. While sometimes stereotyped as a feminine style, both men and women face this change and need to adapt to it. A consultative style is more costly in terms of time, but it provides more information, creates buy-in, and empowers followers.