Are You a Good Leader?
You will be if you draw on key ethical principles. Here’s how to do it, whether you’re a CEO, a banker, an entrepreneur, or anyone else in business
“Never underestimate the other guy’s greed.” This isn’t just a classic line from the 1983 Brian De Palma film, Scarface (written by Oliver Stone). It also reflects the attitude that has caused the economic disaster we’re now clawing ourselves out of.
Isn’t it time for a new way of thinking?
I propose the following leadership guidelines for C-level executives, investment bankers, entrepreneurs, and everyone else whose decisions can affect the financial well being of other people.
1. WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GANDER IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE.
At a time when companies are slashing their labor forces and freezing salary increases, and when some employees are being asked to take lower-paying positions, it is deeply unethical for leaders to retain their sky-high compensationand to expect enormous bonuses. They should follow the example of Michael Kneeland, CEO of United Rentals, who recently asked for, and was given, a 20% pay cut. Let’s hear more reports like this one.
2. KNOW YOUR PRODUCT.
According to a recent three-part story in The Wall Street Journal, the willingness of investors to buy and sell financial products whose complexity they didn’t fully understand was one of the primary catalysts of the bust. From our current sober perspective, it seems unbelievable that self-identified experts could be involved in transactions with so much at stake and at the same time be ignorant about exactly what it is they were buying or selling, but this is what happened, and on a grand scale, no less.
Because money was being made in these deals, no one thought to question what was going on or had the strength of character to speak up about any suspicions. However, knowing your product isn’t a nicety of doing business. It is an ethical obligation-to your company, your clients, and yourself.
3. WINNING (AT ALL COSTS) IS FOR LOSERS.
Most of us were taught that we should treat people the way we’d like to be treated ourselves. However, too many business leaders have failed to take this seriously. Instead, the guideline seems to be, “Get all you can by any means necessary.” Look at credit-card companies that charge exorbitant interest rates, changing customers’ fees without telling them why. These companies defend such practices on the grounds that they will lose their competitive edge if they don’t play hardball.
This kind of leadership is shortsighted, unfair, and ultimately bad for business, since the consequences will be more federal regulation and oversight. Good leaders know that if they don’t regulate their businesses themselves, someone else will.
4. TELL THE TRUTH.
A leader has an ethical obligation to be honest with stakeholders about issues that directly concern them. One of these issues is the leader’s own health. Consider the recent 10% drop in Apple stock after CEO Steve Jobs announced that he was taking a five-month medical leave of absence. Because Jobs battled pancreatic cancer several years ago, there was speculation that his cancer had returned, even though Jobs had announced earlier that he was merely suffering from a “hormone imbalance.” While stockholders may have punished Jobs for his announcement, he did the right thing in saying he was taking a leave for medical reasons. There is no shame in being ill, and true leadership involves being forthcoming about one’s illness-and anything else that can affect the flourishing of the organization.
5. PREVENT HARM.
When you can reasonably foresee that a decision is likely to hurt people and you make that decision anyway, you’re being both irresponsible and stupid. For example, subprime mortgage lenders and brokers who lend money to people likely to default are enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of us, since the federal government may be called upon for financial rescue.
What such predators don’t realize is that in the long run, their practices will come back to haunt them in the form of bankruptcy filings, bad PR, and perhaps even prison time for the worst offenders. The good leader recognizes that preventing harm to clients and company alike is both an ethical responsibility and a wise business policy.
6. DON’T EXPLOIT.
It is easy to take advantage of a situation for financial gain, but doing so isn’t consistent with good leadership. After Hurricane Ike hit last year, the wholesale price of gasoline shot up, which was nothing more than price gouging.
In the short run, companies that exploited a natural tragedy may have profited financially, but the long-term negative consequences are real and significant: In New York State, for example, more than a dozen companies were fined more than $60,000 for unfair business practices following Hurricane Katrina. Of course, the reason to do the right thing is simply because it is the right thing to do. But it is also true that taking the low road can be harmful professionally and personally.
7. DON’T MAKE PROMISES YOU CAN’T KEEP……
…and keep the promises you make. There are rare circumstances in which we not only have a right but an ethical obligation to break a promise, but generally speaking, we have a strong duty to be true to our word. This is, after all, one of the primary ways that we show our respect to people. Recall that last March, Dr Pepper said it would give out free cans of soda to “everyone in America” if Chinese Democracy, the long-overdue album from Guns ‘n’ Roses, came out by the end of the year. When Axl Rose surprised the music world by releasing the album in November, the beverage company was unable to deliver a soft drinksto everyone who wanted one (Whether it’s ethical for a band that has only one of its original members to call itself “Guns ‘n’ Roses” is another matter.) Good leaders are careful to make only those promises they are likely to keep and keep the promises they do make. When they are unable to keep those promises, they own up to it, which brings us to the next rule of good leadership:
8. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR MISTAKES.
Transparency and accountability should be the new buzzwords. This means, in part, that business leaders who make mistakes should apologize to those they have let down and do whatever is necessary to make amends. In the wake of the toy industry’s lead-paint scare in 2007, Mattel CEO Robert Eckert took the high road and told a Senate subcommittee that the company failed “by not closely overseeing subcontractors in China whose toys didn’t meet U.S. safety standards,” and that Mattel was working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure that these products would be safer. It must have been extraordinarily difficult for Eckert to apologize publicly, but by finding the courage to do so, he demonstrated ethical leadership.
9. PEOPLE, NOT PROFITS.
We often recite-incorrectly-President Calvin Coolidge’s statement, “The business of America is business.” (What he actually said was, “The chief business of the American people is business.”) But far more important is what followed that statement: “Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence.” Coolidge’s policies are often blamed for bringing about the Great Depression, but if enough people had heeded the latter statement, perhaps our history would have been different. Money has no intrinsic value; it is good only for what it can get us. For the good leader, this means that the ultimate goal in business-and life-is not hoarding riches but making things better for all, especially the neediest.
10. BE KIND, NOT KING.
The relentless quest to be No.1 can blind us to what’s really valuable in life: being a decent human being. Yes, good leaders are enthusiastically devoted to accomplishing their mission, but this pursuit cannot be at the expense of the well being of others. For example, leaders with the unenviable task of letting people go will avoid taking the easy way out . No one likes being the bearer of bad news, but the good leader does so with the dignity that leadership of the highest order demands.
BONUS RULE: YOU ARE NOT YOUR CAREER.
It’s admirable to be passionate about your job, but passion can easily become obsession, and that’s where the danger starts. When your life’s work becomes your life, it is time to take a step back and reevaluate your priorities. I’ve already shown why you ought to take vacations andstay home when you’re sick. More critical than either of these is recognizing what’s really important in life-and it’s not your career, no matter how satisfying that may be. Good leaders not only make room for family, friends, and spirituality; they know these are the things that truly make life worth living.
It should be obvious by now that the above rules apply not just to those in the financial sector but to everyone else, too. They are, after all, based on the five fundamental principles of ethics: Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, Be Fair , and Be Loving. As Peter Drucker pointed out, it is not enough to do things right; we must also do the right things. The good leader today is concerned not only with getting from A to B, but with deciding whether B is worth getting to in the first place.
Dr. Bruce Weinstein is the public speaker and corporate consultant known as The Ethics Guy. His new book, Is It Still Cheating If I Don’t Get Caught?, (Macmillan/Roaring Brook Press) shows teens how to solve the ethical dilemmas they face. For more information, visit TheEthicsGuy.com.
This article originally appeared on Businessweek.com on January 30, 2009 as part of Dr. Weinstein’s regular column, “Ask the Ethics Guy”. It was reprinted with the expressed permission of Dr. Weinstein.
The Courage to Promote Freedom
Developing leaders often confuse leadership with one of the four “Ps”:Â Power, Position, Privilege and Property.
I recently confronted a leadership challenge very familiar to me. In a lead role, I wanted something specific to happen in connection with a very important matter. A team member, however, wanted something different. I had the ability to compel my wishes to be realized. Instead, I chose to reason with the team member, holding open the possibility that their will, rather than mine, would be realized. Other members of the team were puzzled. Why didn’t I just use my power as the leader to force what I wanted?
Developing leaders often confuse leadership with one of the four “Ps”: Power, Position, Privilege and Property.
As Aristotle recognized, man is a political and social animal, and much of human experience involves relationships. Of course, human relationships provide most of what we value, and there is much positive in social interactions. But experience working with groups also reveals the powerful negative feelings that relationships can produce. Given an opportunity to describe social experiences in organizational life, many people will unleash a torrent of complaints about their mistreatment at the hands of others. As Sartre wrote succinctly, “Hell is other people.” Much suffering arises from negative interactions in which powerful individuals dominate others. The quest for the Ps often springs from a desire to avoid such domination.
Because leaders often acquire the Ps, the practice of developing leadership skills sometimes drifts into an inquiry about how to increase dominance, how to “move up,” “get control,” “gain influence.”   Leadership may be transformed into an exercise in acquiring, and often hording, desired resources. A new leader often wants to learn how to marshal the Ps effectively in order to get more and more of them, like a monopoly player who uses effective game strategy to own everything, converting competitors into losers.
Crucial insights about the nature of leadership can be gained from surfacing the dark material that informs using the Ps. What lurks within that dark side? The Ps share something unsettling: they work by depriving others of freedom. In human relations, what is power but the capacity to compel someone to do something irrespective of how they think or feel about it? Power is dominance. Similarly, position entails the ability to use one’s organizational status to bring power to bear upon a desired objective. Position is organizational power. An organization chart teaches people where they are in “the power structure.” Privilege involves having certain powers attached to one’s social identity. The privileged may use this power against others to achieve their goals. In turn, property is nothing more than resources (financial, tangible, human) that the owner may control without the consent of others. The more consent required, the less valuable the property. The Ps reinforce one another with extreme effectiveness. As the Ps grow, dominance increases exponentially.
So what does this have to do with leadership? Nothing. That’s the point. The Ps stand in stark contrast to leadership.
So what does this have to do with leadership?
Nothing. That’s the point. The Ps stand in stark contrast to leadership. Through effective leadership, someone who lacks power, position, privilege or property, may nevertheless exert influence and create change. Stated another way, leadership can still work when the Ps fail. Leadership transcends power, position, privilege and property. Consider Nelson Mandela, who led South Africa from within an 8 foot square prison cell. The influence that emerges from leadership has a fundamentally different nature than the influence that the Ps afford.
The Ps carry an implicit message: follow my lead, or suffer a loss of freedom. People follow at the point of gun in order not to be shot.  They follow a person of position in order to avoid ejection from the group. They follow a person of privilege in order to avoid social stigma. They follow money or property in order to avoid being cut off from such resources. Indeed, if a person has enough money and property, resources alone can no longer be used to influence them.  The risk of separation from income is the fundamental coercive power in the modern workplace.
In contrast, leadership works through engaging and enhancing the freedom of others. In that sense, leadership transcends coercive and instrumental approaches to human relations. Leadership does not view other people as strategic objects, pieces on a chessboard. The baseline of the leadership approach is an appeal to free will. Such an approach inherently respects, preserves and cultivates individual freedom. The implicit message of leadership as an approach to human affairs is: follow me because you choose to do so, follow me freely because we have a shared vision, a shared destiny.
Leadership thinkers often lose track of this important insight because effective leadership may lead to entanglement with the Ps. The person who effectively engages the freedom of others may find themselves with strong allies, and with power, position, privilege and property. This is a critical moment. People may freely choose to follow those who also have the ability to compel them, to limit their choices. People may volunteer to follow the one with the gun, the one who is king, the one who has become elite, the one with the riches to purchase loyalty.  But something in the bond will also be tested and distorted once domination comes into play. When domination enters the leadership arena, people may perceive a loss of freedom. Thus leaders risk becoming despots when they acquire and use the Ps.
Does it matter how the world changes, how people influence one another?
Isn’t the really important question about what happens, about the outcome? And what about “might for right?” Many leaders feel that they lose nothing in wielding the Ps to achieve justice. Many see “might for right” as a choice grounded in a realistic and pragmatic world view. After all, what is a just war? Why not use force to achieve good? Isn’t it OK to use force-military, economic, psychological, social-to achieve justice? But leadership as a practice in human relations questions “might for right,” offers a path beyond it.
Leadership transcends the implicit trade-off in which individual interests are sacrificed for community interests as a result of power relations. One who chooses justice freely, rather than being compelled to a just result, finds his or her individual interests served while responding to the interests of the community. In this way, leadership promotes future evolution while remaining robust in the face of shifting configurations of power. The problem with “might for right” is that the Ps are fleeting and temporal, and thus justice achieved through the Ps withers when the Ps erode, as they always do in the aftermath of war, politics, business and community conflicts. Justice built on top of power crumbles with the loss of power.
Choosing to use leadership rather than power made my life more challenging. Leadership calls forth the courage within us to transcend power, position, privilege and property, and to promote freedom on the road to justice. Leadership demands courage because, without the Ps, it offers a less certain path forward; it exposes us to the risk that others will not agree, will not follow freely. It confronts the potential for others to lead. But the reward warrants these risks, because justice freely chosen, achieved through the evolution of human freedom, has a special quality. Such justice endures.
Leadership and Achieving a Vision: How Can the Health and Medical Profession Lead a Nation?
What do you think of when asked about effective leadership?
- A bold, charismatic communicator?
- A trusted, wise counselor?
- A group of quiet, behind-the-scenes collaborators?
All are valid attributes as history shows successful leadership has come in many different styles.
Similarly, who comes to mind as a model of an effective leader?
- An experienced, respected diplomat like General Colin Powell, the former U.S. Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
- An unassuming grassroots organizer like Rigoberta Menchú, the liberator of Guatamalans?
- Or is it an impassioned activist like the late Paul Wellstone, Minnesota’s former U.S. Senator?
Now consider advancing a new vision for health and health promotion. Â What comes to mind when you consider success stories in creating broad reaching change?
- An upstart corporation that transforms an industry like Ted Turner achieved with CNN?
- The glacial but inexorable women’s rights movement?
- Or the astonishing impact of the World Wide Web on economic and cultural globalization?
It is clear from the proliferation of leadership books and speakers aimed at business success that no one has cornered the market on leadership. Indeed, leadership and quality improvement programs suffer from a “book of the month club” reputation with the attendant employee cynicism about yet another approach to working smarter. Moreover, meta-analysis of leadership literature shows leadership studies, much like health promotion, to be derived from an eclectic set of theories espoused by a multi-disciplinary range of professions. Nonetheless, there are commonalities that can be gleaned from both the academic and the popular wave of interest in leadership. Principles of authenticity, service to others and shared power all offer insight for health promotion leaders intent on affecting positive, sweeping, measurable and memorable improvements in society.
Creating and achieving a new vision for health in America will require broad professional readiness to abandon practices with marginal or no scientific merit, and to instead mobilize passionate, dedicated advocacy for studying and implementing evidence-based health promotion practices.
These concepts have been shared in more detail in the American Journal of Health Promotion. 2003 Nov-Dec;18(2):162-7, iii.
The Diet Debacle: A Case Study in the Need for Leadership in Health Promotion.
There is no more conspicuous example of failed health and medical policy in America in the past decade than the emergence of our obesity epidemic. The controversies about what should and shouldn’t be done to prevent and manage obesity has been simmering for nearly as many years as it’s taken for the epidemic to take hold. The alarming scale and disturbing implications of the obesity trend are coming to a boil at about the same time the public is being exposed to the troubling lack of agreement among health promotion professionals about what can be done to reverse, or even slow present rates. Perhaps the most widely discussed report on the subject in years came not from a health professional but from a journalist. Gary Taube’s New York Times exposé entitled “What if it’s all Been a Big Fat Lie?” created more layperson water cooler discussions, practitioner soul searching, researcher angst and editorial response than any health article in recent memory. Perhaps it was simply an example of writing about the right topic at the right time in the right place, nevertheless, Taube’s newspaper story likely produced more scientific reaction than any journal article on the subject. That a journalist, not a leading health promotion professional, set the terms of the debate is but one dimension of the profession’s leadership failings that Taube’s diatribe about scientific discrepancies reveals.
Taube’s “Big Fat Lie” describes the often contested differences between the effects of the Robert Atkin’s high protein diet compared to the low fat diet more generally prescribed by dietitians and health agencies as well as popular practitioners like Dean Ornish. What was more inflammatory than Taube’s premise that the much-maligned Atkins diet may be effective was his investigative reportage about the prospect that low fat diet recommendations not only don’t work, but may actually be the culprit in spawning today’s overweight populous. An examination of the merits and shortcomings of Taube’s story is beyond the purview of this post, besides, rebuttals have already been done much more ably by others. What is relevant to this discussion of leadership is the byproduct of this latest calamity over what works or doesn’t work in health promotion: a befuddled, exasperated and increasingly cynical public.
Clearly, weight control program providers have a long and growing history of offering programs without proven results. When most developing countries struggle with a gross national product less than what Americans spend to lose weight, finding effective interventions transcends the need for better science. Focusing on, and confining service offerings to, evidence-based interventions requires an ethical and moral dimension. Whose role is it, if not that of a profession’s leaders, to align the principles of the field with the conduct of its practitioners?
Regardless of the negative reviews Taube received for his provocative indictment of normative recommendations in weight management, it’s undeniable he was able to prey on the confusion and fears of the average consumer because they have been subjected to years of a nutrition and fitness education roller coaster. From the perils of yo-yo dieting to the ins and outs of trans fats, hydrogenates and antioxidants and from the thirty minutes of activity most days of the week to the hour of activity everyday of the week, the advice of the health promotion professional may soon rate along side the promises of politicians. To be sure, messages to the public need to change as research changes, so to some extent transient guidelines are a function of a relatively young science. Still, leadership means empowering others with information, not alienating them through equivocation.
The average health leader has the most honorable of intentions. Still, the root cause of our legacy of prevaricating recommendations has been a lack of a clear vision. When health promotion professionals are “promoters” first and scientists second it shouldn’t be surprising that they want to be the first to teach about the latest interesting, albeit incremental, gain in knowledge about health. It is this counterproductive reliance on sparse evidence, as well as the gaps in existing evidence, that underscores the need for a paradigm shift summarized in the table below.
Join me in viewing this blog as a safe place for examining current health and medical leadership challenges and threats. Please comment back with your own “From and To” recommendations and let our dialogue begin!
| From | To |
| Primary focus on individuals | Focus on groups/populations |
| Teaching about health improvement | Creating learning environments, systems for social change |
| Individual behavior change | Social learning and networks |
| Discrete disciplines compete | Inter-disciplines coalesce |
| Isolated problems | Integrated practices |
| Risk based disease management | Assets based community development |
| Market-based programming | Evidence-based health education |
| Health services | Community activism |
| Cost-containment | Value added productivity |