Motivation, Rewards, and Leadership

The good news is that the world really is all about you.  

Therefore, the world is what you make it. 

_____________________________________________

Here are a few thoughts-for-the-day with which you may, or may not, agree.  Regardless of how you feel, I hope you find a moment to stop and think about your beliefs and the basis upon which those beliefs have been built.

1.  Employees do not need to be motivated - In organizational life managers are often charged with the productivity and well being of the staff.  It is management's job to make sure the staff is focusing on the task at hand, and that everyone is sufficiently motivated.

But, is it really management's job to motivate you?  Is the manager the one responsible for each person's motivation?

If we assume that it is management's job to motivate us, we assume that we are not inherently motivated.  The cause of motivation is outside of us - a gift to be received from someone else.  If we don't receive the gift every day, we will not feel motivated.  This belief places the responsibility for the level of motivation squarely on management's shoulders, giving us someone to blame when motivation falls below required levels.

I suggest that this model is flawed.

Yes, management has a role to play in creating an environment that does not squash motivation like an unwelcome bug.  "It is right and human for managers to care about the motivation and morale of their people, it's just that they are not the cause of it." (Koestenbaum and Block - Freedom and Accountability At Work)

We are also responsible for our own morale.  If we come to work depressed, it is not only management's responsibility to pull us out of our depression.  If we feel unmotivated by our work, it is not only management's job to detect our lack of motivation and give us a rousing pep talk.  We are all responsible for our own morale and motivation.

We have freedom; we have a choice.

(See: Motivation, Vision and Motivation in this blog)

2.  Rewards do not explain and drive behavior -  The holy grail of compensation has long been "What gets rewarded gets done."  If you want something done, put a reward on the result.  If you want to encourage a certain behavior, put a reward on it.  The reverse has also been true - if you want to discourage a behavior or result, take away a reward (usually money) every time it happens.

Yes, compensation systems are important.  Yes, compensation systems are often designed based on a desire to encourage certain behaviors.  No, compensation systems are not successful in creating long-term motivation, and achieving desired results.  Short-term results, maybe.  But, long-term results, no.

By focusing on money, organizations have found a simple and quick way to push individual performance to great heights for short periods of time.  However, it is often easy for self-serving employees to take advantage of these money-based incentives, increasing their compensation at the expense of the organization's long term health.

For the long-term it's not what gets rewarded that gets done.  It's what is rewarding gets done. (Katzenbach - Why Pride Matters More Than Money)

As an alternative, treat employees as you would anyone who is actively contributing to the wealth of the organization.  They are the ones who are creating the products and services that make the organization successful.  Compensation is important, but not because it will change behavior.

(See: Money and Motivation in this blog)

3. Leadership is abundant, not rare - Many organizations are leader-focused.  The person at the top of the hierarchy is the fearless leader, and those in the rest of the organization are the followers.  Leadership is reserved for those with titles and offices, for those who attend the board or leadership team meetings.  Employees are trained to do their jobs, or put through employee development programs to help them become better employees, supervisors, and managers, but they are not considered leaders.

Yes, it is very important for the top leaders to offer a clear vision, set the tone for the corporate ethics and values, keep the organizational culture connected to the realities of the market, and to display the courage to take action.  This is a seat of great power that comes with great responsibilities.  It is important that these top leaders use their power with care and grace, for they are creating a tone that will color the behavior of others.

But these leadership behaviors are not reserved to only the nose-bleed seats.

Organizations will find that, given the opportunity to take on the challenge, leaders exist at all levels.  What is required is for managers and supervisors to create the space for others to take action.  

No, not everyone wants to be a leader.  

But, people rise to a challenge.  If you want to encourage leaders at all levels, you need to start by making room in your organization for people of good character to understand the vision and share it with others, express their ethics and values, touch the realities that define their market, and both see the courage of the leaders at the top, and show their own courage by making choices and taking risks.  

(See: A Leader's Power, Ownership, 100% Responsibility, Changing Minds - The Importance Of Character in this blog)

___________________________________________


Thanks for taking the time to read through this blog entry.  Hope it sparked some thoughts or feelings about leadership. 

If you are interested in more thought provoking reading, the preceding is largely based on the work of Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block in Freedom and Accountability At Work.

My thanks go to Dr. Koestenbaum for his long dedication to improving both government and business organizations.

Steering By The Rear View Mirror

As corporate and government leaders we depend on data and historical trends to make sense of today's economy.  We look at quarterly performance, study charts of changing sales numbers, analyze trends in housing prices, and examine the number of new jobs created last month.  Unfortunately, much of the data has been disappointing, or worse, very negative.  Then, using this historical data, we make policies that take us into the future.

All of these are valid sources of information.  These indicators, and many more, have lead to a general agreement that the depth and breadth of the recent recession has had a devastating effect on both business and government.  Unemployment has been at unprecedented levels.  In addition, the world economy has been tested almost to the breaking point several times.

Working on the assumption that this is all true, then it stands to reason that caution should be the word of the day for organizations that want to survive.  Our tendency has been to cut back, lower costs, reduce services, hunker down and weather the storm.  It comes as no surprise that this is what the majority of our leaders have advised for several years.

This advice may have been very appropriate for the time.  After all, who could argue with recent history?  It is natural for us to set our course based on past experiences.  It is natural for us to make forecasts based on historical data.  It is natural for us to be cautious.

However, the one thing we can count on in life is change.  When things change, whether that change is rapid or gradual, an organization needs to be able to react by adjusting its course to match the new conditions.  There comes a time when leaders, boards of directors, or others charged with steering the corporate ship must take their eyes away from the rear view mirror and focus on the road ahead. 

Here's the challenge: History, and our natural caution, would tell us to hold to our conservative course until things have turned around.  In other words, we should hold on until we see recovery in our rear view mirror.  It's a bit like riding a roller-coaster sitting backwards.  But, if we prepare ourselves for what has passed, that last dip or rise, we will not be ready for what is coming.

Our program cuts and reductions in products and services have prepared us to survive the past, but are we prepared for the future?

Have our cuts placed us in a position where we cannot respond to the future opportunities and demands?  Are we put in a position where we need to gain back customers, or the trust and confidence of the communities we serve?

Today, we find ourselves, in both business and government, in a position where our roller-coaster ride is beginning to move upward.  But, how many organizations are prepared to take on the demands of a improving economy?  Do we have a game plan for recovery?

For businesses, now would be a very good time to know what needs to be done to win back customers that left because of reduced service, responsiveness, or lack of innovative products.

For government, now would be a very good time to know what long-term effects past decisions to defer maintenance will have on the long-term integrity of infrastructure, and how service reductions will change the quality of life in our community.

It takes courage to buck the popular trend.  (See the "Great Leadership In Troubled Times" post in this blog)  A leader who begins talking about recovery when "everyone knows things are bad' may have trouble selling the message that we need to recreate our organization to deal with a growing economy.  But today, the organizations that are ready to move to the next level of success are the ones that will ride the proverbial roller-coaster without suffering a bad case of whiplash.

Yes, things have been difficult.  But, we cannot let that historical fact turn us into a deer in the headlights of a recovering economy.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time, and still maintain the ability to function." (As quoted by Marcus Buckingham in First Break All The Rules.)  I would modify this slightly for this discussion by suggesting that the test of a first rate leader is the ability to hold two opposing models of success in the mind at the same time, and retain the ability to move forward.

As much as we would like for life to be full of quick and perfect answers, the truth is that life is messy and full of shades of gray. (See the Polarities post in this blog)  Business is not simply good or bad.  In these interesting times we need to be prepared for both good and bad.  The economy is not simply good or bad.  Today it is a complex mix of both good and bad. 

The natural tendency is for the people in our organizations, both leaders and staff alike, to demand certainty.  They want black or white answers to every question.  But, the organizations that succeed in this economy will be those that can embrace uncertainty, and navigate these hazy, uncharted waters.

This is an interesting time for people within organizations at all levels.  This is a time when everyone needs to learn from the past, but look to the future.  If we insist on steering by the rear view mirror, we will all crash and burn.

Legacy

Let's say you are a manager who has worked in an organization for a number of years.  You have worked hard to create new processes and systems that assure that your division is working at top efficiency.  You have developed a policy manual, written rules, and if you happen to be in government, you have written ordinances, resolutions, and helped create laws that reflect the desires of the community.  And, today you receive an attractive offer to go to another organization.

You have enjoyed your work, put your heart and mind into the tasks of creating a great organization.  You feel invested in the success of your current employer.  But, this offer is too good to pass up.

As you pick up the phone to make the call accepting the offer you pause to think about what will happen to the people and systems you are leaving behind.  You think about your legacy.

Your thoughts may be that things will be just fine.  After all, you created the right rules, and set up the right processes.  What could possibly happen?

Six months after you leave you run into a team member from your old company.  The first thing out of her mouth is "Why did you leave?  Everything has changed.  It's not the same place without you."

This does not take you by surprise.  After all, the manager they hired to replace you changed all of the systems, rules, and processes. 

Your say, "Yes, I have heard that the systems all changed.  We had it running pretty well before I left, didn't we."

But your friend says, "It's not about systems and processes.  The new ones work as well as the old.  It's about how we work together, how we communicate, and how we feel about the organization.  It's about what is valued, and our pride in our work."

And, this is when you learn about your legacy.

All of this time you were thinking that the things you built, the words you wrote, the rules or laws you helped create, the way you made things run, was your legacy - what you were passing on to the next generation.

But, in reality, your legacy was found in the minds you touched, the values you instilled, the environment you created, and in your authenticity, your ethics, your vision, and your courage.

Systems and rules can be changed.  Structures can be torn down or sold.  Political tides can (and will) ebb and flow.  Corporate climate can change.  None of these contain your legacy.

The only thing you leave behind with any certainty is what is carried in the hearts and minds of those you have touched.

Use your time wisely, for whether it is short or long, it is not unlimited.  Give those who will carry on when you step out of the organization the gift of a legacy that will serve them well when they stand in your shoes.

-
-
-

Keat's Epitaph
Here lies one whose name was writ in water.

-

-

-

For another look at the concept of legacy, you might enjoy this blog entry found on the Fast Company web site - What Is Your Leadership Legacy by Craig Chappelow

Learning Is Doing

In these tough economic times more and more workplaces, both business and government, have sharpened their pencils, gotten down to brass tacks, cut out the fat, tightened their belts, and adopted new production measures - because we all know "what gets measured gets done."  It has been very important for managers and leaders to be able to prove that each and every employee is doing what needs to be done, every minute of every day.

Top management has said that if you are not at your post, focused on your assigned task, you are not doing anything.  And, if you are not doing anything, you are wasting the company's time and money.

The concerns of management certainly can be understood.  Stockholders are unforgiving of companies that do not operate efficiently.  Citizens are unforgiving of governments that waste taxpayer dollars.  In either case, dissatisfaction with the organization's leadership can lead to changes at the top.   CEOs and politicians alike hold positions that are constantly at stake.

So it is not surprising that management's emphasis has remained on ensuring that employees are doing something that contributes to the success of the organization; doing those things that can be measured, proven, and demonstrated with hard facts.

In the face of this emphasis on facts and reality (See blog posts on The Leadership Diamond and Reality), true leaders are faced with the dilemma of finding ways to operate a profitable and efficient organization while still encouraging employee growth and learning.  These leaders understand the need to take care of today by delivering efficiency and quality, and to take care of the future by investing in the managers and leaders of tomorrow.

In a recent blog post (Learning and Teaching) the need for learning, both adaptive and generative, was discussed.  Adaptive learning is the learning that helps us survive.  Organizations, like individuals, must learn in order to compete, gain resources, and survive in a competitive climate.  Generative learning is the learning that "enhances our capacity to create" (Peter Senge).  It is this learning that lets the organization move beyond mere survival, create new and better solutions, and reach new levels of achievement. 

If an employee spends time learning, improving the chances that the organization will survive or will reach a new level, then that employee is doing something that contributes to the long-term success of the organization.

Even when the immediate results of the learning cannot be measured in profitability, number of widgets made, or popularity in the polls, learning that leads to the creation of good and competent managers, leaders who can take the organization to the next level, or creative thinkers that discover new ways of solving the problems of today is essential to the success of the organization.

If you are a leader, manager or politician, you have the opportunity to ensure that your organization is taking time to step back from the business of the day to take in the big picture (see The View From The Balcony), encouraging creativity and experimentation (see Everyday Creativity), expanding knowledge and skills (see Knowledge Skills and Talents), and improving the health of the organization.  All of these efforts will help you create a successful organization.

In successful organizations learning is doing.

Freedom and Accountability

Every act we perform is, in its foundation, a free one (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 49)

___________________________________
The western world is in love with the concept of freedom.  It is the most precious aspect of society.  Whether it is the freedom of religion or speech, the freedom to choose our political leaders, or to pursue the life we choose without fear of interference from individuals or governments, freedom is essential and paramount in all things.

However, when we move from our societal craving for freedom to our personal lives, or the workplace, we seem ready to give up our freedom and are willing to put our happiness and our level of motivation in the hands of someone else.  In the workplace we call this someone else "management".  It becomes management's job to give us rewarding work, to motivate us, to make us into high-performing individuals and teams.  We tell ourselves that our mechanical systems of rewards and punishments, measurements, strategies, or command and control structures get the behaviors that we want from our organizations.  In short, we create these devices to help eliminate the need for the exercise of free will.

Koestenbaum and Block suggest that this "escape from freedom," as Erich Fromm called it, is in large part due to the fact that "...with freedom comes accountability, and with accountability comes guilt, and with guilt comes anxiety.  Since our freedom leads to anxiety, it is easier to repress it than to bear it proudly." (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 30)  Both in our lives and in our work it is often easier to deny our freedom and allow others to choose than to make difficult choices ourselves.

But this creates an interesting paradox.  By allowing others to choose I have made a choice.  I have chosen to give others the power to choose for me, which in itself is an exercise of my free will.  Therefore, I am still accountable, at least to myself, for the results of my decision.

Arguments are sure to be put forward showing how, at least in certain circumstances, I had no choice in the matter:  "I hate this job, but if I don't come to work I will be fired.  I have no choice but to come to work."  Or, "The law says I have to pay my taxes.  I have no choice.  If I don't pay my taxes I will go to jail."

When these statements are examined more closely we see that there is an element of choice in each.  I choose to continue to go work at a job that I hate because I am unwilling to deal with the consequences of walking away from the job.  Instead of choosing to look for another job, I choose to continue working at the one I have.  I am accountable for my choice to continue in an unpleasant job instead of changing my situation.  I choose to pay my taxes because I am not willing to be accountable for the consequences related to not paying my taxes.  Regardless of why I made the choice to pay my taxes, it is still my choice to make the payment.

We are not always in control of the alternatives among which we may choose.  Having free will does not imply that life will always be perfect, or that the choice of another option would have provided us with great happiness.  But through the exercise of our free will we are able to embrace our humanity, and to take on the succession of risks that life has to offer.

Recognizing that we are free gives us the ability to exercise control over our existence, and lets us shift from blaming others for how things are to being accountable for our life.  "Once the inevitability [that we are accountable] is recognized, we will be inclined to place the full blame [or credit] on ourselves rather than on others or on objective situations beyond our control."  (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 79)

The good news is that you have free will, and that opens up a world of opportunity.  The bad news is that you have free will, and that opens up a world of accountability.  Good luck with both.

The Language of Leadership

German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) once said "Language is the house of being."  And, although when a philosopher speaks one must be careful about implying the wrong meaning, in this case Heidegger has said a mouthful, particularly for those interested in leadership.

Noted philosopher, author, and mentor, Dr. Peter Koestenbaum, amplifies Heidegger's statement by suggesting that everything exists in language.  Without language there is nothing (Do You Have the Will to Lead, 2002, 18 minutes into the program material).  Therefore, the words that a leader chooses are fateful.  In Koestenbaum's view, a leader who wants to change the culture of an organization must start by changing the language.  (The Philosophic Consultant, 2003, P. 87-88)

Although this can be a monumental task, it can be done.  When Dee Hock, the person responsible for the creation of what we now know as the Visa Credit Card system, was trying to establish what he called "an equitable international credit system", conflict and confusion reigned supreme.  Representatives from countries that were traditional enemies were expected to work together.  Religious, cultural, and class differences were constantly boiling just below the surface.  Open and direct communication was not part of the international culture.

In his book Birth of the Chaordic Age, Hock notes "Rarely was a person referred to by name.  The language suggested object or thing, not person. " But, as the leader of the effort, Hock began to casually, "... and, without suggesting that anything was amiss," change this conversation by always responding with the person's name, and gently questioning the characterization.  As he changed the language related to personal relationships, the tenor of the language used by others changed.  The words that Hock used were fateful - he nudged the organization into a culture that recognized its members as people, not a race, class, or nationality.  (Birth of the Chaordic Age, Dee Hock, 1999, P. 234) 

The language we use exposes our customs, traditions, norms, espoused and hidden values,  rules of the game, skills, competencies, habits, and more.  To use the terms of Koestenbaum's Leadership Diamond, the language we use exposes our Vision, Ethics, Reality, Courage, Polarities (and how we mange them), and our desire to achieve Greatness.

One of the great challenges for a leader is to consciously choose the right words, to create what Dr. Koestenbaum calls "an envelope of language", to construct the House of Being that surrounds the successful organization.  Your challenge is to be purposeful in your choice of words, and the time to use them.  This requires deliberate thought, planning, tenacity, and dedication to the desired outcome.  

The goal is not to ignore the things that need to be addressed by simply using positive language.  Denying the reality of our current situation does not help or change the organization. 

The goal is to use opportunities to communicate, as Dee Hock did, address what needs to be changed, and to shift the course of the organization toward what we are trying to create as a result of our effort.

_________________________________________________________________________

For more about language and its role in leadership see the earlier blog entry A Leader's Power.

Money and Motivation

For decades the newspapers have enjoyed reporting about Corporate America gone wrong with stories of greed inside Wall Street and big-energy, and wrongheaded decisions by corporate leaders.  Even after so many years of learning from the school of hard-knocks, the business community continues to make decisions that cause the common person to scratch their head and wonder how such smart people can be so dumb.

We all wonder what is it that makes these Captains of Industry, and the people who follow them, choose the path that leads to having their names and faces plastered on the front page as they do the "perp-walk" into the court house?

The answers are probably many, but at least one is tied to the subject of Money and Motivation.

Without getting into a long conversation about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, "the forces that motivate us tend to shift depending on our personal needs." (Why Pride Matters More Than Money, P. 27)  Everyone is driven to fill basic needs, but what is considered "basic" can vary from person to person. 

Our drive to make money beyond the amount required to provide basic needs is tied to our motivation to achieve recognition as an important and successful person.  Corporate America has learned how to use this drive in its leaders and employees to press for higher and greater achievement of certain goals, usually the sale of products, and accumulation of earnings for the company.

This is a focus on individual success, and what author Jon Katzenbach refers to as Self-Serving Pride.  Each individual is pressed to achieve a goal, sometimes at the expense of others within the organization, and sometimes at the expense of the organization itself.  Enron and the financial market collapse are great examples of workers achieving individual goals and seeking individual rewards regardless of the effect of their behavior on the health of the company or community.  Katzenbach suggests that organizations are missing the point when it comes to constructive motivation.  He writes about the power of pride, particularly institution-building pride, and its role in motivation.

By focusing on money, organizations have found a simple and quick way to push individual performance to great heights for short periods of time.  However, it is often easy for self-serving employees to take advantage of these money-based incentives, increasing their compensation at the expense of the organization's long term health. 

But for the success of the institution over long periods of time it is important to appeal to the employee's emotional commitment, and to establish systems that support the creation of institutional pride.

Leaders need to understand that what motivates the people at the top of the organization is not necessarily what motivates people on the front line.  Therefore, the things that build institutional pride at the top (quarterly earnings, competitive advantage, brand) are not necessarily the things that build institutional pride for the majority of the workforce (working for a highly respected organization, being trusted and supported by managers and supervisors, high quality products, having the tools and systems that allow employees to do great work).

People who are emotionally committed to something - be it a person, a group, an enterprise, a cause, or an aspiration - behave in ways that defy logic and often produce results that are well beyond expectations.  They pursue impossible dreams, work ridiculous hours, and resolve unsolvable problems.

The organizations that have found ways to tap into this emotional commitment are the ones that create long term success by meeting the basic needs for all employees, and establishing reward systems that recognize individual, team, and organizational success.  The employees within these systems take pride in being part of a winning team, and an organization that is highly respected.

Katzenbach points out that "money attracts and retains, whereas pride motivates." (Why Pride Matters More Than Money, P. 128) 

In our society, money is an important part of any compensation system.  Pay must be competitive, sufficient, and focused on creating institutional-pride.  But, without other systems in place that create institutional-pride, employees will always go to the organization that offers the highest pay.

Organizations that create institutional-pride retain the top performers, gain the advantage of emotional commitment, have employees who care about the quality of the service and product, and can achieve greatness.

What Makes a Culture Successful?

For decades there has been a discussion going on in the ranks of culture wonks regarding whether corporate culture has a significant impact on a firm’s long-term economic performance. The conventional wisdom says that there is a direct link between corporate culture and success. But, where was the proof?

In the early 1990s John Kotter and James Heskett published Corporate Culture and Performance, in which they studied the relationship between culture and success. Their work uncovers some of the things a manager or leader can do to create a culture that supports the success of the organization.

Admittedly some of the examples in the book are dated. The economy of 2009 has taken some very good companies into uncharted territory regardless of their culture. But, if we look at culture as something that survives beyond the economic cycle, that creates a foundation of the vision, ethics, reality and courage for those who live within the culture, we find that Kotter and Heskett have some great advice for leaders even in today’s turbulent times.

Having a strong culture is often cited as an important element in an organizations success. Kotter and Heskett point out that having a strong culture is not enough. History is full of examples of organizations with strong cultures that were either negative or did not adapt as the world changed around them. Strength of culture does not guarantee success.

These non-adaptive cultures were often characterized by arrogance, bureaucracy, centralization, and insularity. Managers tended to hold on to strategies that were no longer relevant. And, managers in these organizations were likely to make it difficult for anyone below them to implement new processes or procedures. The hierarchy required involvement from the top when implementing new or better strategies. (P. 142 – 151)

Successful cultures were those that had values and norms that helped it adapt to a changing environment. In these cultures managers paid close attention to the world around them, and made incremental changes in strategies and practices to keep the firm’s culture in alignment with “reality”. (See prior blog entries on Reality.)

These managers and leaders were driven by a desire to meet the needs of all constituents – customers, employees, stockholders, and the community. These values also emphasized the importance of people (See prior blog entries on Ethics.), and processes that encouraged changes that created “…competent leadership throughout the management hierarchy.” “[T]his value system is key to excellent performance … because it tends to energize managers and get them to do what is needed to help firms adapt to a changing competitive environment.” (P. 143)

The research of Kotter and Heskett has empirically shown that valuing vision, ethics, and reality are essential to a culture’s success. Their work also suggests that managers and leaders need to exhibit free will and courage to successfully lead their organizations through turbulent times.

……………….

For those of you who are interested in leadership, this might be a good time to go back and review some of the early posts on this blog related to the Dr. Koestenbaum’s work on the Leadership Diamond – Vision, Ethics, Reality, Courage.

Here are a few links, just to get you started:

Leadership Diamond Basics
Free Will
Going Deeper
What is Real
Change
Polarities
Asking the Right Questions

……………….

How to Search Prior Blog Entries:

To search for prior entries on this blog, you can type key words into the search box located in the upper right portion of any blog page. Typing "Reality" into the search box will yield all blog entries where the term "Reality" has been used.

Ethics and the Prince - Situational Ethics Today

In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli published a book titled The Prince, a work that would become synonymous with a complete lack of moral and ethical behavior in the pursuit of power. In the 496 years that have passed since its first publication, The Prince has been reviled and rejected by many, while it has been studied and embraced by various leaders and scholars for its raw and unvarnished assessment of how leaders (Princes) come to power, and how they retain their position in the world.

One chapter (chapter XVIII) titled "In What Way Princes Should Keep Their Word", is of particular interest for those studying leadership in both public and private positions. Machiavelli has the uncanny knack of putting into words behaviors, feelings, and beliefs that exist deep within many who find themselves in leadership positions, and exposing the related costs and benefits in nonjudgmental terms. He applies no value systems other than those related to the desire to obtain and retain power. (Peter Koestenbaum would refer to this dark side of human behavior as the shadow side of the Leadership Diamond).

Here is an example from the beginning of chapter XVIII:

How praiseworthy it is that a prince keeps his word, and governs by candor instead of craft, everyone knows. Yet, the experience of our own time shows that those princes who had little regard for their word and had the craftiness to turn men's minds have accomplished great things and, in the end, have overcome those who governed their actions by their pledges. (P. 62, The Prince, Bantam Classic edition, March 1981)

Today's headlines are filled with examples of leaders who, knowingly or unknowingly, still subscribe to Machiavelli's assertion that those who have the "craftiness to turn men's minds" will be the ones who succeed in our society.

Machiavelli goes on to say:

... a wise prince cannot and should not keep his pledge when it is against his interest to do so and when his reasons for making the pledge are no longer operative. If all men were good, this would be a bad precept, but since they are evil and would not keep a pledge to you, then you need not keep yours to them. Nor did a prince ever lack legitimate reasons by which to color his bad faith." (P. 62, The Prince, Bantam Classic edition, March 1981)

Today, as in Machiavelli's time, situational ethics often come into play. When I assume that you are not ethical, or will not live up to your promises to me, I am immediately freed from any responsibility to keep my promises to you. Or, when the situation under which a promise was made changes, I am no longer expected to live up to my promise. I am free to behave as necessary under the new circumstances.

How often have we used this reasoning to excuse our decision to abandon a promise, contract, or pledge? This happens in both private industry and government. It happens in both national politics and local city councils. It happens among families and friends. We have seen this in many debates over the financial crisis, pension reform, and employment relationships. We have seen this in international business, foreign relations, and cultural conflicts.

The challenge for leaders is to be conscious of this natural and deeply rooted ability to rationalize away reasons to maintain ethical standards when situations change. Peter Koestenbaum writes that "... ethics contains two important elements. One is the profound value of empathy and the other is the overarching power of principle." (P. 108, The Philosophic Consultant) Maintaining a leader's connection to empathy and principle in a world of changing realities is challenging at best.

Koestenbaum goes on to say that "Being ethical is always a decision."(P. 114, The Philosophic Consultant) It is a choice, an act of free will. Therefore, it is necessary that leaders remain conscious that they have a choice when it comes to how they will demonstrate their ethics to the world.

Machiavelli explains that we can easily sacrifice our ethics to achieve what we see as a necessary end. Koestenbaum challenges us to keep empathy and principle in our minds as we choose what our behavior will be.

For leaders, the constant struggle is that what is easy is not always ethical, and what is ethical is not always easy.

Dealing with Resistance

In the last blog entry we took a very quick look at some of the forms of resistance that you might encounter as you embark on a change effort. This topic seems to hit home with many of you, and has raised the natural question of how to deal with resistance when it is encountered in its various forms. Therefore, this blog entry contains a few thoughts about what to do when you find yourself face to face with resistance.

Peter Block says that “there is no way you can talk {someone} out of their resistance because resistance is an emotional process. You cannot talk people out of how they are feeling.” He goes on to say that “the basic strategy is to help the resistance blow itself out, like a storm.” (Flawless Consulting, P. 161)

Block suggests that there are three steps to dealing with resistance:

• Identify in your own mind the form of the resistance (see the description of the types of resistance in the previous blog entry.)
• Name the resistance – use neutral language to describe the form that the resistance is taking.
• Be quiet – let the person respond to your statement about the resistance. Don’t keep talking. Live with the silence and tension.

(Flawless Consulting, P. 163)

Use open ended questions or statements, instead of questions or statements that can be replied to with yes or no answers.

If you encounter a situation where the person or group you are working with is avoiding responsibility for the problem or solution, you might say "You don't see yourself as part of the problem." Then, be quiet, and listen.

If you are working with someone who is giving you very little, and one word answers, you might say "You are giving me very short answers. Could you say more?

If you are working with someone who is silent, you might say "You are very quiet. I don't know how to read your silence."

You are probably beginning to get the idea. Your statement begins with a description of the behavior (You are very quiet.) which is followed by a question or statement about what is needed (can you say more?) or how this affects the work you are trying to do (I don't know how to read your silence.).

(Flawless Consulting, P. 163-166)

This process of identifying, naming and being quiet provides a mechanism for getting the resistance out on the table so it can be addressed.

It might also be helpful to think about resistance in terms of the Leadership Diamond model that has been covered a number of times in this blog. This model is based on the importance of vision, ethics, reality and courage. Peter Koestenbaum writes that resistance to vision is blindness. Resistance to reality is denial. Resistance to ethics is indifference. Resistance to courage is fear. (Leadership – The Inner Side of Greatness – P. 29)

Being aware of these concepts may help you identify the form of resistance that you are encountering. For example, someone who is constantly asking for more and more detail may be expressing a lack of confidence, or their fear. Your statement to this person might be "Your need for lots of detail tells me that you are uncomfortable with this project (or change effort). Tell me what is making you uncomfortable." Or more directly, "What are your fears?"

And finally, as you work with change efforts it is helpful to keep in mind the fact that organizations are not mechanical devices that can be changed by removing one part and replacing it with another. Change is an organic process. It starts small with seeds of ideas, a few people with a new vision, or a spark of brilliance, and grows over time into something that will change the organization forever. Resistance to the growth of new ideas, processes, and structures is normal even in nature. But, just as in nature, growth is difficult to stop. Leaders who are unafraid to identify and name resistance can clear the path for healthy growth that will bear the fruits of success.

(See the April 1999 FastCompany Magazine for an article by Peter Senge on this subject.)

Authenticity

The entries in this blog over the past year hopefully have made it clear that there is more to leadership than sitting down in an office with your name on the door and giving orders. We have all worked with people who approached leadership from this perspective, but I doubt that many of us would consider these people good role models, or the kind of leaders we would want at the helm when crossing the unknown sea.

There are also leaders who inspire in us a willingness to tackle the most difficult problems, or to go where no one has gone before. And, they are able to do this without having to raise their voice or demand our compliance.

What is the difference between these two types of leaders? Why are we bored and demotivated by one, and inspired to reach for the stars by the other?

There are probably many reasons, but I want to suggest one answer that deserves your consideration.

When we believe that we have a leader who truly cares for us and our success, who believes in our abilities, who listens and considers our suggestions, who supports us in success and failure, and who communicates his or her thoughts and feelings; in short, when we have a leader who is authentic in every way, we feel valued, and are willing to invest ourselves in the success of that leader and our organization.

In August of 2001, Peter Koestenbaum described Authenticity in the following way:

Authenticity includes:

1. Underscoring the centrality of both caring and integrity in helping people to feel valued and treated fairly. This is ethics.


2. Supporting people in mastering the anxiety of grave uncertainty, the insecurity of frequent failures, and equip them to rely on their inner resources to maintain their dignity as well as their obligations to the future of the whole organization. This is courage.


3. Strengthening people to survive amidst the chilling environment of a harsh economy, bitter competition, political infighting, and unforgiving stock exchanges. This is reality.


4. Lighting up the intellect to fashion new, creative and imaginative solutions to intractable problems. This is Vision.

(Peter Koestenbaum - August 6, 2001)

Peter Block, an organizational development consultant who has spent many years working with leaders, describes authenticity in the following way:

Deeply understanding the other person's point of view gives feeling of authenticity. The first order of business is to understand the situation rather than correct the other person's perception. (The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion, p. 168-169)

Authentic behavior... means you put into words what you are experiencing... as you work. (Flawless Consulting, second edition, p.37)

Authentic leaders listen, support others, express their feelings and thoughts, make visible what is going on inside their heads,

Also, authentic leaders help others move from dependency (the theory that the leader or manager is totally responsible) to an understanding that each person is responsible for exercising their own free will and choice.

Paternalistic behavior on the part of a leader removes power, choice, and freedom from the employee. Authentic behavior leads to empowerment, and an understanding that the individual must exercise his or her free will to affect the work environment.

It must be noted that authentic behavior on the part of a leader can create anxiety in those who follow. Anxiety should not be seen as a negative emotion. In fact, growth cannot happen without anxiety. Every time you enter a new situation you experience some level of anxiety. The important thing is how you deal with the anxiety. Do you try to remove yourself from the situation that is causing the anxiety, or do you embrace the anxiety and allow it to give you the energy and courage to face the new situation? Removing yourself assures that the anxiety will go away. But, facing the anxiety and leaning into your discomfort assures that you will grow and develop new skills and abilities.

This entry is a work in progress. For me, authenticity remains one of those things that we all know when we see it, but is hard to describe in words. Your suggestions and thoughts on how to improve this description of authenticity would be appreciated.

Regarding: The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems

The following story was posted as a comment to the blog entry titled "The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems". I thought this was a good example of trying to lead within social and political systems, so I have moved it from the comment section to a full blog entry. I hope you find this story interesting.

Bob, thanks for taking the time to share this experience with us.

___________________________________________

I read with great interest, your posting of 9/27 on "The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems" in the Leadership Diamond Blog.

You posed the following question:

"Do any of you have opinions about how a leader who finds him or herself within a "political system" can succeed using the leadership concepts and models we have discussed in this blog?".

The definition of success in such an environment, may differ from more traditional definitions. If you will indulge some personal history, I will attempt to explain how success turned out for me. Perhaps it will be helpful to others.

I held a middle-management position in a "political system"-driven organization for about seven years. For the first five years, the company was privately held, owned and headed by an idividual and later acquired by a publicly held company who owned and operated it for the last two years I was there. No matter who owned it, it remained a very political system.

For the vast majority of those seven years, the company grew about 30% each year and experienced an employee turnover rate of 33-40% per year, a good percentage of those being terminated by the organization.

The turnover rate among my staff, I consider to be near zero. We lost one young staff member to a tragic automobile accident, and one other because her spouse was transferred to another city due to a reorganization at his company. None left by choice or by force.

My mission, with regard to my staff, was to provide an environment for them to succeed by insulating them as much as possible from the negative environment of the larger organization. I placed myself in between to channel "the bad stuff" to me and "the good stuff" directly to them.

The examples you cite contrasting social systems with political systems rang true for me. You quote:

"Within Political Systems:

Feedback: Never trust positive feedback from immediate boss, there will always be a “price tag” included. Trust third-party feedback but not from direct supervisor."

I was fortunate in that I could trust my boss to a greater degree as he was a person of good character. But only so far, as his own survival was at stake as well. For survival, it was imperative to develop a trusted peer network for information. The more data points, the better. Those relationships were developed incrementally over time as you learned who was trustworthy and who was not. It amazes me to this day how quickly information could flow in the event a storm was brewing.

"Decision Making: Never make decisions until the last possible moment. Keep your options open."

Yes. And I would further add, make no decision unless you're forced to. Things that stick out, tend to get chopped off.

I was not familiar with Dr. Koestenbaum's work then. Having more knowledge of it now, I believe that by applying the principles of the Leadership Diamond, one can be "successful" doing the right things in one's sphere of influence.

If these principles are not valued at the management level of the organization, though, I am not convinced that one can accomplish this long-term. Unless the "top" is willing to change, you'll eventually be plowed under by the organization's true values.


Bob

Friday, October 10, 2008 1:07:00 PM

The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems

All of the entries in this blog to date have assumed that the target audience (our readers and leaders) live and work within a system that values people who are open, communicative, care about the human element in the organization, and are proactive and energetic. However, Richard Beckhard and Reuben Harris, in their book Organizational Transitions – Managing Complex Change, Second Edition, point out that not all organizations are based on the values typical of what they call "social systems" (systems that are concerned with the social order of the organization).

Some organizations will form around "political systems" that may have vastly different "reasons for being" than systems that take on the values of "social systems". Beckhard and Harris point out that “Political behavior is behavior designed to further the goals of a person or group, more or less regardless of the effect on others. Some rules of political-system behavior are vastly different from rules of social-system behavior.” (P. 25)

They include an example that contrasts the feedback and decision making structures within political and social systems to illustrate their point:

Within Social Systems:

• Feedback: Always provide open feedback on positive and negative aspects of behavior. Emphasize the positive, support and reinforce.
• Decision Making: Get facts quickly, make decisions, take risks.

Within Political Systems:

• Feedback: Never trust positive feedback from immediate boss, there will always be a “price tag” included. Trust third-party feedback but not from direct supervisor.
• Decision Making: Never make decisions until the last possible moment. Keep your options open.

(From Figure 3-1 System Norms – P. 25)

If it is true that some systems have political values that are inconsistent with the values of social systems, then perhaps leaders in "political systems" as defined by Beckhard and Harris should behave differently from those who exist within social systems.

Do any of you have opinions about how a leader who finds him or herself within a "political system" can succeed using the leadership concepts and models we have discussed in this blog?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Dee Hock on Leadership

I have been rereading a book titled Birth of the Chaordic Age by Dee Hock, founder and former CEO of VISA, in which Hock describes his experiences in pulling together one of the largest (if not the largest) credit card company in the world in 90 days. His story of finding order in chaos (living in a chaordic world) is both fascinating and inspiring.

But it is his philosophy about leadership, people, and management that draws me back to his work today. In this time of chaos in our world, our work, and our lives, his thoughts on leadership speak of character, trust, caring, and power – not power over people, but power that takes the organization to a higher level of dedication to service and ethics.

Here are a few quotes from Birth of the Chaordic Age (1999), published by Berrett-Koehler, Inc.:

Leader presumes follower. Follower presumes choice. One who is coerced to the purposes, objectives, or preferences of another is not a follower in any true sense of the word, but an object of manipulation. Nor is the relationship materially altered if both parties accept dominance and coercion. True leading and following presume perpetual liberty of both… (p. 67)

A true leader cannot be bound to lead. A true follower cannot be bound to follow. (p. 67)

The first and paramount responsibility of anyone who purports to manage is to manage self; one’s own integrity, character, ethics, knowledge, wisdom, temperament, words, and acts. (p. 69)

The second responsibility is to manage those who have authority over us: bosses, supervisors, directors (p. 69)

The third responsibility is to manage one’s peers – those over whom we have no authority and who have no authority over us – associates, competitors, suppliers, customers – the entire environment. (p. 69)

…[I]f one has attended to self, superiors, and peers, there is little else left. The fourth responsibility is to manage those over whom we have authority. The common response is that all one’s time will be consumed managing self, superiors, and peers. There will be no time to manage subordinates. Exactly! One need only select decent people, introduce them to the concept, induce them to practice it, and enjoy the process. If those over whom we have authority properly manage themselves, manage us, manage their peers, and replicate the process with those they employ, what is there to do but see they are properly recognized, rewarded, and stay out of their way? It is not making better people of others that management is about. It’s about making a better person of self. Income, power, and titles have nothing to do with that. (p. 70)

This does not mean that the leader has nothing to do. On the contrary, a leader’s job is complex and requires the dedication of mind, body and soul.

First and foremost it requires that a leader select decent people. These people must be ready to work in an environment where they are responsible for their own actions – they must manage “self”. They must choose accountability, and be ready to take on the challenge of being leaders within the organization from whatever position they may hold. They must have the courage to be part of a system, however chaotic it may be, where they are as responsible as their “leader” is for success.

Once these “decent” people have joined the organization and have accepted the mantle of leadership as described by Hock, the leader’s role becomes one of making space for the work to happen, (more on the concept of “making space” in a future blog entry). This involves not only getting out of the way, but also providing time, resources, information, and removing barriers so that the important work of the organization can get done.

Perhaps you have noted the connection between Hock’s approach to leadership and Koestenbaum’s theory of the Leadership Diamond. Hock is heavily invested in ethics – the caring for how your actions, or lack of action, affects others, character, and authenticity; and courage – the free will and choice involved in being a leader, choosing to start with managing “self”, and playing a leadership role regardless of your place in the hierarchy.

There is a great deal in his writing that any leader might find helpful and inspiring in times when chaos threatens to engulf the world.

The Good Society

During the last few thousand years, philosophers and authors have tried to define the role of government in creating The Good Society. These great thinkers struggled to define the perfect social system and the quality of life experienced by the people that lived within the systems they envisioned. Their approaches differed, and the quality of the resulting societies changed based on the values held by each of the philosophers.

In his book The Executive's Compass – Business and the Good Society, James O’Toole provides an interesting overview of several thousand years of philosophical thinking about The Good Society, and which of those societies might be best for humanity. O’Toole says:

• To Aristotle, it [the good society] permits some of its members to live “the good life.”
• To Hobbes, it provides sufficient order to allow material progress.
• To Locke, it guarantees life, liberty and property.
• To Rousseau, it preserves as much as possible of the conditions of liberty and equality that humankind enjoyed in “the state of nature.”
• To Adam Smith, it has nearly absolute economic freedom.
• To Thomas Jefferson, it consists of people who live in small-scale, rural communities characterized by a high quality of life.
• To Alexander Hamilton, it consists of people who live in modern industrial cities characterized by a high standard of living.
• To Marx, it has nearly absolute economic equality.
• To J.S. Mill, it allows nearly absolute social freedom.
• To Harriet Taylor Mill, it allows women to enjoy the equality of opportunity with men.
• To Weber, it is governed by laws, so that no citizen is treated arbitrarily.
• To Martin Luther King, it guarantees the “natural rights” of all its members, without regard to their race, sex, religion, or class.

(p. 19-20, The Executive's Compass – Business and the Good Society, James O’Toole, 1993)

How can there be so many different definitions of what constitutes The Good Society?

Perhaps the answer can be found by applying some of the principles of the Leadership Diamond.

The Ethics point on the Diamond gives us some insight into this question. From an ethical perspective, every philosopher defined The Good Society based on an underlying set of values and assumptions about how people within a society should be treated and live. Their underlying ethics and values shaped their thoughts about the quality of life people within the society should experience. Their underlying ethics and values also helped each philosopher clarify his or her thoughts about equity and justice.

When we see that it is possible for so many thought leaders to differ widely on the definition of what constitutes The Good Society, it should come as no surprise that governments across the country, and around the world, have difficulty agreeing on exactly how government should behave to create what is best of the community.

Perhaps the answer is that there is no single Good Society, and to recognize that there are many societies that may be chosen by a community to serve its needs. Perhaps what is necessary is for the community to invest the time and effort to first define its values, and to use those value statements to help define the vision of what it is they want to create as a result of their efforts. Once defined, perhaps the role of government is to reflect the ethics and values of the community in its effort to live within The Good Society.

What are your thoughts on The Good Society, and the role of government in its creation?

LPV: Leadership Point of View

(The following was contributed by Mark S. Thanks, Mark, for taking the time to share your thoughts with the group. The "Pizza Lunch" that Mark refers to is a monthly lunchtime gathering of people who want to share ideas and thoughts about leadership.)

_________________________________

I brought up the topic of the importance of a “leadership point of view” (LPV) at one of our recent Dr. K. pizza lunches. This is a concept/phrase I learned in my Masters of Executive Leadership program at the USD School of Business and was coined by Ken Blanchard. Jim suggested I explain this idea further in this blog.

Developing a LPV is just another way of saying what do you really believe in, where did it come from, and how will you enact it in your business and personal lives? On the surface, this idea seems pretty basic, but it is amazing how few leaders have taken the time to really dig deep and answer the following questions:

Who are the influencers (leaders) in your life who have had a positive (or, in some cases, negative) impact on your life, such as parents, teachers, coaches, or bosses? What did you learn from these people about leadership?

Think of your life purpose. Why are you here, and what do you want to accomplish?

What are your core values that will guide your behavior as you attempt to live your life “on purpose”?

Given what you’ve learned from past leaders, your life purpose, and your core values, what are your beliefs about leading and motivating people?

What can your people expect from you?

What do you expect from your people?

How will you set an example for your people?

These questions are all important to explore in the role as an “authentic leader”.

Finally, at the end of exploring these questions, we all were required to share our LPV with the rest of the class. This was intended to be a precursor to sharing our LPV with the people we lead at work. It can’t be overstated how important it is for the folks you work with to learn more about their leaders - where they came from, what they value, what they expect from “you” and what you can expect from “me”.


(Editor. I just want to add a few words about "authenticity". Dr. Koestenbaum talks about Leadership being the sum of two vectors - Competence and Authenticity. Competence deals with skills and abilities, while authenticity deals with character. The questions that Mark has outlined above go to the heart of who you are. The answers become a way of examining your character. This exercise is well worth your time if you want to learn more about yourself.

Also, take a look at the Blog Entry titled Asking the Right Questions for more on this subject. Also you might find the short story at the bottom of that entry interesting.)

Emotional Intelligence and the Leadership Diamond

In the highly acclaimed book Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman, and his co-authors Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee, describe the attributes of great leadership. In chapter one, in the first paragraph they say “Great leadership works through the emotions.”

This bold statement moves the discussion of leadership away from formulas and “how-to” manuals into the realm of the mind, and the human side of the workplace. Goleman says

No matter what leaders set out to do … their success depends on how they do it. Even if they get everything else just right, if leaders fail in this primal task of driving emotions in the right direction, nothing they do will work as well as it could or should.

Goleman and the co-authors go on to show how emotional intelligence (EI) includes elements of self-awareness and self-management, social awareness, and relationship management.

As you read Goleman’s thoughts about leadership you discover that ethics and empathy play a huge role in defining great leadership. Words such as emotions, self-worth, transparency, honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, flexibility, initiative, optimism, empathy, understanding, the needs of others, inspiration, and cooperation are used to describe the traits of great leaders.

Those of you who are familiar with the leadership diamond may be seeing the connection between the Ethics point of the Leadership Diamond and the characteristics of great leaders described by Goleman.

Goleman goes on to connect the Ethics and Vision points of the diamond by stating:

Of all the EI competencies… empathy matters most to visionary leadership. The ability to sense how others feel and to understand their perspectives means that a leader can articulate a truly inspirational vision.” (Primal Leadership, p. 59)

For those of you interested in how the human side of the Leadership Diamond works, I encourage you to pick up Goleman’s book, Primal Leadership, and give it a quick read. You will learn that great leadership (part of what creates an opportunity to achieve Greatness as defined by the Leadership Diamond) is a key factor in the success of an organization. Using your emotional intelligence, and being able to get in touch with the human side of the organization is an essential part of achieving "greatness". But, it does not take a Super Hero (male or female) to be a great leader. We all have the ability to bring our emotional intelligence to the forefront, and to create opportunities for our greatness within our organizations.

Goleman’s work is a valuable contribution to those trying to become great leaders, and leaders who can successfully apply the Leadership Diamond in their daily life.

Ethics

The Ethics point on the Leadership Diamond is probably one of the most difficult to define. When we hear the word "Ethics" we immediately think of the most common meaning: the process of dealing with the difference between what is right an wrong, or the more philosophical use of the term related to existing within society's rules and morals. Although these definitions are helpful, when we use the term in relation to the Leadership Diamond we have an additional layer of meaning to consider.

Ethics, when used as part of the Leadership Diamond model means being of service, doing things that honor you and others as human beings, and understanding that people matter. Ethics incorporates empathy for others and understanding that there are principles that help us decide which path leads to integrity, trustworthiness, and keeping our promises. (The Philosophic Consultant, © 2003, p. 107-108).

In the larger world, a breach of ethics can lead to punishment and jail. This lapse in ethics usually means that laws have been broken, often for personal gain at the expense of others. This is what we saw with ENRON, Broadcom, and Tyco, just to name a few. It is also hundreds of cases of backdating stock options, misuse of corporate money, and other examples of fraud.

However, in the leadership world of Peter Koestenbaum, ethics goes deeper than the legal system. At its philosophical roots ethics contains empathy and principle. “Empathy is the struggle against emotional indifference. And principle is the fight against unscrupulous behavior.” (The Philosophic Consultant, © 2003, p. 108). Dr. Koestenbaum goes on to add that ethics involves “reaching out, understanding how other feel, and caring about that.” He also says that principle is “doing what is right, not necessarily what feels good, keeping promises, integrity, and being thoroughly trustworthy."

In its Leadership Diamond context, a breach of ethics could be a behavior that would be considered illegal, but it is more likely that this ethical slip would be a personal failure of character that would make it difficult for the person creating the breach to be a strong and effective leader.

If we look at the ethics of the law as the body, the ethics of the Leadership Diamond would be the sole. The two together make the complete person, and the effective leader.

The authors of the Successful Manager’s Handbook (Previsor, © 2004, p. 586-588) suggest that in order to make ethical decisions in business, a manager or leader must give thought in advance to a number of factors that will affect the decisions made in support of the business. These factors include:

• The values involved for the individual, company, community
• How different constituencies view the issues before you
• What your values and code of ethics tell you about the decision you are about to make
• The consequences of the various choices you might make
• Listen to and consider the concerns of others

Finally, a leader should not leave the consideration of ethics and conduct until faced with a situation requiring immediate action. Devoting time to examining personal, organizational, and community values, morals and ethics, and developing your own code of ethics that supports your vision of what you are trying to create is essential to being able to use the strength of the Leadership Diamond in to create greatness in all that you do. 

(Note - Wikipedia has an interesting article on Ethics on its web site. Although Wikipedia is not known as a reliable source of information for academic purposes, you might find this summary of the philosophical view of ethics an interesting read.)