Annotated Bibliography for paper "Leadership, Ethics, and Communications: Foundations of a...

Bibliography 1

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

LEADERSHIP, ETHICS, AND COMMUNICATIONS:

FOUNDATIONS OF A SUSTAINABLE ORGANIZATION

By:

Bryan Hill

MNGT 6000

Webster University

Bibliography 2

Annotated Bibliography

This annotated bibliography contain articles, reviews, and other items on the subjects of

organizational leadership and communications, and related topics such as ethics, integrity, social

responsibility, scriptures from world religions, and how these subjects apply to various

organizational functions. This annotated bibliography is not an exhaustive list of articles which

were reviewed, as a substantial number of other articles were found to be pertinent and quite

excellent. However, the following have been included to provide information for the reader.

Critique of Article No 1

Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2008). Human Resources Management (12th

ed., pp. 21-25, 239-

240). Mason, OH: Thompson Southwestern

The authors make several points in discussing the relationship of ethics and integrity to

communications and leadership at the strategic and organizational levels—specifically within the

context of how an organization‘s human resources department can play a key role in ensuring the

success of each attribute. Mathis and Jackson (2008) find that:

On the strategic level, organizations with high ethical standards are more likely to

meet long-term strategic objectives and profit goals….[and to be] viewed more

positively by individuals in the community and industry, as well as by consumers

and employees….translat[ing] into bottom-line financial results and the ability to

attract and retain human resources (p. 21).

Mathis and Jackson, like many other researchers and authors, stress that ―the primary

determinant of ethical behavior is organizational culture, which is the shared values and beliefs

in an organization‖ (p. 22). This culture, as they point out, directs how those within the

organization make decisions. They also state that there are ―four elements of ethics programs‖

Bibliography 3

which, if they are implemented and actively pursued, will create an ethical organization. They

are: (a) ―A written code of ethics and standards of conduct;‖ (b) ―Training on ethical behavior for

all executives, managers, and employees;‖ (c) ―Means for employees to obtain advice on ethical

situations they face, often provided by HR;‖ and (d) ―Training for confidential reporting of

ethical misconduct or questionable behavior‖ (Mathis & Jackson, p. 23). These suggestions are a

common theme among those who know how to establish and maintain an ethical organization.

Some others may expand on these basics, but these are common.

The authors use UPS, the delivery company, as an example of an organization that

―delivers [on] ethics and corporate integrity‖ (Mathis & Jackson, p. 23). As a matter of fact, for

UPS, ethics is a principal way to achieving competitive advantage in the marketplace (p. 23).

And, as the authors suggested, it is also one way UPS hires and retains the kind of employees

they feel will fit their culture. Each employee, upon being hired, receives a detailed ―code of

conduct manual….includ[ing] specific examples of ethical situations that employees may face

and how to respond to them‖ (p. 23). UPS updates the code of ethics manual on a regular basis

and the code is ―reinforced annually through training session and communications‖ (p. 23).

Again, communications is a key to ensuring successful ethics, integrity, culture, and leadership.

As has been suggested in other articles, UPS has a hotline established some employees

may call to voice ethical concerns or to report on unethical practices they have witnessed. For

UPS, this hotline is operated through an external contracting agency which compiles the

information, sends it to UPS‘ ―special compliance department [within HR]…where

investigations and follow-up are handled….[and then given as] [r]egular summaries…to

department managers and senior executives‖ (Mathis & Jackson, p. 23). To learn from past

Bibliography 4

mistakes and further reduce the occurrence of unethical practices, on an annual basis at UPS,

―managers complete a ‗conduct code‘ report that asks specific question about ethical problems

that have arisen during the year‖ (p. 23).

From the perspective of Mathis and Jackson, ―[o]rganizations that are seen as

ethical…have longer-term success….[and] human resources is the ‘keeper and voice‘ of

organizational ethics‖ (p. 23). Beyond just what is legal for an organization to do, the question of

ethics ―pose[s] fundamental questions about fairness, justice, truthfulness, and social

responsibility‖ which cannot be written into comprehensive laws which cover every situation (p.

23). To help the individual in making ethical decisions, the authors suggest asking himself or

herself to important questions. ―Does the behavior or result meet all applicable laws, regulations,

and government codes? Does the behavior or result meet both organizational standards and

professional standards of ethical behavior?‖ (p. 24).

The authors also turn to a quick discussion of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act—passed after the

Enron crisis—as the act applies to human resources. Congress passed the act ―to make certain

that publicly traded companies followed accounting controls that would reduce the likelihood of

illegal and unethical behaviors‖ (Mathis & Jackson, p. 25). According to the authors, the biggest

concerns revolved around ―executive compensation and benefits‖ (p. 25). The act also specifies

that all publicly-traded organizations establish codes of ethics, set up ethics hotlines, and ―have

anti-retaliation policies for employees who act as whistle blowers…‖ (p. 25). As another

byproduct, organizations now have increased ―verification processes‖ which check against

untruthful reporting of employee hours (p. 25).

An additional step that many organizations take is to administer tests which ―asses the

Bibliography 5

honesty and integrity of applicants and employees. Employers use these tests as a screening

mechanism to prevent the hiring of unethical employees, to reduce the frequency of lying and

theft on the job, and to communicate to applicants and employees alike that dishonesty will not

be tolerated‖ (Mathis & Jackson, p. 239). Currently, about 28% of organizations are employing

the use of honesty and integrity tests—however, organization must ensure they ―relate the test

content to specific job content;‖ otherwise a successful suit may be brought against the

organization for invasive questioning and discrimination (pp. 239-240).

An additional point brought out by Mathis and Jackson involves ethics and the

multinational or global organization. Because different nations have different cultural, legal, and

political views, and because they may also have different views on what is ethical and what is

not, global organizations have to take into consideration not only their own ethical values, but

those of the country in which they are conducting business. This can become tricky. In some

nations, it is common practice to bribe officials to get anything done, or done in a timely fashion.

It may even be legal in that country to adopt practices which are not legal at home. But just

because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. It may be customary to present a business

official with a gift in one part of the world, but U.S. laws have strict limitations on what can be

done in this regard, and so the U.S. organization must still respect U.S. laws. An organization‘s

legal department should be able to help leaders to make the ethical (and legal) decisions

necessary. In fact, ―the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits U.S. firms from

engaging in bribery and other practices in foreign countries that would be illegal in the United

States‖ (Mathis & Jackson, p. 22). For this reason, many global organizations either completely

disallow any practices of bribery or gift-giving or, as in the case of giving gifts, have very strict

Bibliography 6

guidelines set in place on how much can be given, to whom, and in what context; plus full

reporting must be done. As the authors state, these bribery and gift-giving practices can give an

unfair advantage to competitors from other nations which don‘t have laws which restrict such

practices overseas. Those organizations are able to conduct business more quickly and able to

secure more favor through the commonly accepted bribery and other practices.

With the above in mind, the authors point out that U.S. organizations must ―make ethical

distinctions between bribery and gift-giving, particularly given differences in business practices

in various Asian and Eastern European countries.


Thompson, A. A., Jr., Strickland, A.J., III, & Gamble, J. E. (2008). Crafting and Executing

Strategy: The Quest for Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases (16th

ed., pp. 10-11,

24-29, 338-341, 420-422, 435). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

The authors implore organizational leaders to make sure, when selecting between

possible organizational strategies, to choose ones that ―can pass the test of moral scrutiny;‖ in

other words, that the strategies only contain actions which fall in the ―should do‖ category and

not the ―should not do‖ category, and that the action ―allows management to fulfill its ethical

duties to all stakeholders‖ (Thompson, Strickland, & Gamble, 2008, pp. 10-11). The authors

make a good point in addressing the fact that sometimes strategies seem to fall in a ―gray zone‖

in between what logically seems ethical and what logically does not seem ethical. It is during

those times where decisions will be made based on ―how clearly the boundaries [have been]

defined‖ (Thompson, et al., p. 10-11).

In discussing senior executives, the authors say that those with ―strong ethical

Bibliography 7

convictions are generally proactive in linking strategic actions and ethics: They forbid the pursuit

of ethically questionable business opportunities;‖ expect all employees to embrace and follow

those ethics; establish ―organizational checks and balances…to monitor behavior;‖ enforce the

ethics and codes of conduct; ―provide guidance…regarding any gray areas;‖ and are ―genuine,

not hypocritical‖ (Thompson, et al., 2008, p. 10-11).

Shifting gears away from ethics, which allow for the use of these topics in the paper, the

authors make a good distinction between an organization‘s strategic vision and its mission: ―A

strategic vision portrays a company‘s future business scope (‗where we are going‘), whereas a

company‘s mission typically describes its present business and purpose (‗who we are, what we

do, and why we are here‘)‖ (Thompson, et al., 2008, p. 24). The authors also state that, ―An

effectively communicated vision is a valuable management tool for enlisting the commitment of

company personnel to actions that get the company moving in the [common] intended direction‖

(p. 25). Also, ―Strategic visions become real only when the vision statement is imprinted in the

minds of organization members and then translated into hard objectives and strategies‖ (p. 26).

The focus placed here on strategic visions and missions is that organizations often have their

ethics built into these visions and missions; and the same statements just made hold true for

making the organization‘s ethics and values embedded in the culture and lived by the

employees—they need to be made tangible and get all employees on the same sheet of music,

granting there will always be some employees who prove the undesirable exception and should

be released from the organization. The authors give a half-dozen examples of vision statements

by highly recognizable companies, of which is that of Charles Schwab, which states: ―To provide

customers with the most useful and ethical financial services in the world‖ (p. 26). This

Bibliography 8

illustrates their emphasis of ethics within their strategic vision.

The authors also discuss a term known as ―strategic inflection points,‖ which are points

along the path of an organization where it is determined that ―change‖ is needed and where

―tough decisions [need to be made] about the company‘s course‖ (Thompson, et al., 2008, p. 26).

The changes are often specifically identified by internal or external organizational development

(and change) practitioners, or perhaps a combination of the two, whose job it is to determine,

alongside the senior executives, what problems exist within the organization, what changes need

to be made, how to go about making those changes and instituting them (and generally

embedding them in the culture), and then measuring the rate at which the changes are being

embraced and implemented, and the effectives of those changes on bringing about the desired

results. As mentioned many times previously through this annotated bibliography, unethical

decision making and practices often lead to situations which tear an organization apart and also

cause a loss of reputation. It is at these times, in particular, that a change agent—an

organizational development (OD) practitioner—is needed.

As ethics are involved in an organizations strategy, objectives, culture, decision making,

and organizational development and change, it is useful here to view the author‘s idea of what

constitutes ―the payoffs of a clear vision statement:‖ (a) ―it crystallizes senior executives‘ own

views about the firm‘s long-term direction;‖ (b) ―it reduces the risk of rudderless decision

making;‖ (c) ―it is a tool for winning the support of organizational members for internal changes

that will help make the vision a reality;‖ (d) ―it provides a beacon for lower-level managers in

forming departmental missions, setting departmental objectives, and crafting functional and

departmental strategies that are in sync with the company‘s overall strategy;‖ and (e) ―it helps an

Bibliography 9

organization prepare for the future‖ (Thompson, et al.,2008, p. 26).

The authors address ―linking the vision/mission with company values‖ and describe core

values as ―the beliefs, traits, and ways of doing things that…guide the pursuit of [an

organization‘s] vision and strategy, the conduct of company‘s operations, and the behavior of

company personnel‖ (Thompson, et al., 2008, p. 27). ―[T]he stated core values and ethical

principles are the cornerstones of the corporate culture‖ (p. 435). Thompson, et al., go on to state

that:

Values, good and bad, exist in every organization. They relate to such things as

fair treatment, integrity, ethical behavior, innovation, teamwork, top-notch

quality, superior customer service, social responsibility, and community

citizenship….built…around four to eight traits that company personnel are

expected to display and that are supposed to be mirrored in how the company

conducts its business (p. 27).

The authors say that some organizations only have ―window-dressing values;‖ they sound

nice when read, but aren‘t lived by the leaders or the employees—they aren‘t stressed or put into

practice. These organizations have stated values that seem to have been listed as a way of

checking off their list that they have some. However, in contrast, there are organizations where

―the values become the company‘s equivalent of DNA‖—―character, identity, and behavioral

norms‖ (Thompson, et al., 2008, p.28). Thompson, et al. (2008), further state:

In companies with long-standing values that are deeply entrenched in the

corporate culture, senior managers are careful to craft a vision, mission, and

strategy that match established values, and they reiterate how the values-based

Bibliography 10

behavioral norms contribute to the company‘s business success. If the company

changes to a different vision or strategy, executives take care to explain how and

why the core values continue to be relevant. Few companies with sincere

commitment to established core values ever undertake strategic moves that

conflict with ingrained values‖ (pp. 28-29).

The authors list several organizations and their core values—again, including ethical

actions. For Kodak, these include, amongst others: ―respect for the dignity of the individual,

uncompromising integrity, unquestioned trust, [and] constant credibility‖ (Thompson, et al.,

2008, p.28). At Home Depot, these include: ―giving back to the community [social

responsibility], respect for all people, doing the right thing, taking care of people, building strong

relationships, and creating shareholder value‖—committed to ethically creating wealth for the

shareholder (p.28). Toyota includes ―respect‖ and ―quality‖ [there is an ethical obligation to do

your best]; DuPont includes ―ethics, respect for people, and environmental stewardship;‖ Heinz

includes ―Empowerment…to empower our talented people to take the initiative and to do what‘s

right,‖ as well as ―respect‖ and ―integrity‖ (p.28).

Returning to the discussion of organizations which have ―a wide gap…between [their]

stated values and [their] actual business practices‖ (Thompson, et al., 2008, p. 29) are the

author‘s examples of Enron, Arthur Andersen, WorldCom, and others. To quote the authors,

Thompson, et al., state that:

Enron…touted four corporate values—respect, integrity, communication, and

excellence—but some top officials engaged in dishonest and fraudulent

maneuvers that were concealed by ‗creative‘ accounting; the lack of integrity on

Bibliography 11

the part of Enron executives and their deliberate failure to accurately

communicate with shareholders and regulators in the company‘s financial filings

led directly to the company‘s dramatic bankruptcy and implosion over a six-week

period, along with criminal indictments, fines, or jail terms for over a dozen

Enron executives. Once one of the world‘s most distinguished public accounting

firms, Arthur Andersen was renowned for its commitment to the highest standards

of audit integrity, but its high-profile audit failures and ethical lapse at Enron,

WorldCom, and other companies led to Andersen‘ demise—in 2002, it was

indicted for destroying Enron-related documents to thwart investigators (p. 29).

Thompson, et al (2008), also give their two-pointed argument for why an organization

should have an ethical strategy: ―[a] because a strategy that is unethical in whole or in part is

morally wrong and reflects badly on the character of the company personnel involved and [b]

because an ethical strategy is good business and in the self-interest of shareholders‖ (p. 338). The

first has been greatly discussed already. For the second, Thompson, et al., suggest there are three

levels of ―business costs‖ of unethical business decisions and actions:

Level 1 costs [include] government fines and penalties; civil penalties arising

from class-action lawsuits and other litigation aimed at punishing the company for

its offense and the harm done to others; [and] costs to shareholders in the form of

a lower stock price. Level 2 costs [include] legal and investigative costs incurred

by the company; costs of providing remedial education and ethics training to

company personnel; costs of taking corrective actions; [and] administrative costs

associated with ensuring future compliance. Level 3 costs [include] customer

Bibliography 12

defections; loss of reputation; lost employee morale and higher degrees of

employee cynicism; higher employee turnover; higher recruiting costs and

difficulty of attracting talented employees; adverse effects on employee

productivity; costs of complying with often harsher government regulations (p.

339).

Returning to culture, the authors distinguish between those organizations which have

―strong cultures‖ and those with ―weak cultures.‖ The overall point being that those

organizations with a strong culture often have a harder time in having those cultures changed.

Therefore, if an organization has a strong ethical culture, then the organization will generally

produce ethical decisions and actions. Whereas, if the organization has a strong culture, but that

culture does not focus on ethical decision making and actions, it is often an unethical

organization where change to ethical decisions and practices will be much harder to implement.

If the culture is weak, then whether it is weak ethically or unethically, the more dominant trait is

the one which will take precedence in action. The authors state that, ―In a strong-culture

company, culturally-approved behaviors and ways of doing things are nurtured while culturally-

disapproved behaviors and work practices get squashed‖ (Thompson, et al., 2008, p. 420).

Thompson, et al. (2008), also state that:

Three factors contribute to the development of strong cultures: [a] a founder or

strong leader who established values, principles, and practices that are consistent

and sensible in light of customer needs, competitive conditions, and strategic

requirements; [b] a sincere, long-standing company commitment to operating the

business according to these established traditions, thereby creating an internal

Bibliography 13

environment that supports decision making and strategies based on cultural

norms; and [c] a genuine concern for the well-being of the organization‘s three

biggest constituencies—customers, employees, and shareholders (p. 421).

The one positive to an organization with a weak culture is that it is usually much easier to

then go in and change the culture—especially important if the culture has somewhat unethical

practices; the culture may not be so firmly entrenched and, therefore, the leaders and employees

may be more willing to make necessary changes—to becoming an organization with firm ethical

values (Thompson, et al., 2008, pp. 421-422).


Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2006). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication: Knowledge,

Sensitivity, Skills, and Values (6th

ed., pp. 118-122, 373-374). Boston: Pearson—Allyn &

Bacon

Ms. Shockley-Zalabak identifies the difference between ‗values‘ and ‗ethics.‘ Of values,

she says they are ―that which makes something desirable, a subjective assessment of worth that

motivates human behavior and serves as a yardstick against which we measure choices‖

(Shockley-Zalabak, 2006, p. 118). According to this definition, values are not inherently moral—

simply desirable and esteemed important enough to prod one into action. However, ethics,

according to Shockley-Zalabak, ―although related to values, are the standards by which

behaviors are evaluated for their morality: their rightness or wrongness‖ (p. 118). She goes on to

apply this to communication, stating ―ethics are the moral principles that guide our judgments

about the good and bad, right and wrong, of communication, not just communication

effectiveness or efficiency‖ (p. 118). For example, there is a lack of communication ethics in the

Bibliography 14

practice of false advertising—speaking half-truths, deceptive photographs, misleading credit

terms, bait and switch advertising versus in-store supply. Although not discussed in her work in

this book, Enron senior executives lacked communications ethics when they continued to suggest

to their employees and stockholders that it was a good time to buy Enron stock, while secretly

selling their own in advance of the collapse.

Ms. Shockley-Zalabak summarizes the work of several communications researchers and

academics in providing definitions of ethical communication. Summarizing the 1976 work of

DeVito, she states, ―in contrasting ethical and unethical communications, [DeVito] suggests that

ethical communication supports individual choice based on accurate information about

alternatives. Unethical communication prevents individuals from acquiring needed information

important for choices….[U]nethical behaviors include lying, extreme emotional appeals, and

preventing communication‖ (Shockley-Zalabak, p. 119). Further summarizing Ms. Shockley-

Zalanak, in 1991, Redding ―categorize[d] common organizational messages that he classifies as

unethical….[into the following]: coercive, destructive, deceptive, intrusive, secretive, and

manipulative messages [which, according to Redding] all violate important ethical standards‖ (p.

120).

Hence, Enron senior executives were guilty of more than just lying, they were guilty of

―preventing [stakeholders] from acquiring [accurate financial] information important for

choices‖ to buy or sell stock to protect their investments and retirements (Shockley-Zalabak,

2006, p. 119). Enron stakeholders were not given ―accurate information about alternatives‖—the

alternative of buying stock, which is to sell it (p. 119).

Additionally, the 1968 work of Paul Keller and Charles Brown states that ―growth and

Bibliography 15

development‖ of an individual are made possible when there is an environment of ethical

communication (Shockley-Zalabak, 2006, p 119). The antithesis of this truth can be seen in an

environment of deception, sharp criticism, and backstabbing—in this environment it is harder for

one to have positive, productive growth and development.

Ms. Shockley-Zalabak states that organizations are made up of individuals and a variety

of interpretations of what constitutes ethical behavior. More than that, professional organizations

may have their own value systems—such as the American Medical Association, the Society for

Human Resource Management (SHRM), or the Organization Development Network. These

values systems also come into play as employees may be members of these professional

organizations and may also adhere to their standards for ethical conduct and practices. The

human resources professional may have his or her own personal values and ethics, but also bides

by the ethics of the SHRM—both in addition to the ethics and values which are imbedded in the

culture of the organization.

She also gives a good summation of the conflict between differing views of ethics. To

quote Ms. Shockley-Zalabak (2006):

Employees have individual value systems and make individual judgments about

the rightness or wrongness of communication behavior. Even in organizations in

which openness is encouraged, an individual employee may choose not to notify a

supervisor of a serious mistake. The individual judges this behavior as ethical

because of his or her intent to correct the problem. The employee‘s supervisor, on

the other hand, may consider it unethical to withhold information that could affect

the productivity of the group. An absolute judgment about the rightness or

Bibliography 16

wrongness of the employee‘s behavior is difficult. It is possible to understand,

however, that individual and organization values can differ, contributing to

different interpretations of ethical behavior‖ (p. 120).

In 1985, Rebecca Rubin and Jess Yoder, building upon the 1955 work of Karl Wallace,

identified ―four habits‖ of ethical organizational communications. First, the ―habit of search [is]

[e]thical communication that willingly explores the complexity of any issue or

problem….[which] requires generating valid information and evaluating new and often

controversial findings‖ (Shockley-Zalabak, 2008, p. 122). Second, the ―habit of justice [is]

[e]thical communication that presents information as openly and fairly as possible with concern

for message distortion‖ (p. 122). Not only should the information be ―presented for maximum

understanding‖ without including in the message any unintentional slant toward a certain bias,

but also when the message is received, one should use the ―habit of justice [to] examine [one‘s]

own evaluation criteria and potential biases that contribute to distortion in meaning‖ (p. 122).

Third, the ―habit of public versus private motivations [is] [e]thical communication based on

sharing sources of information, special opinions, motivations, or biases that may influence

positions….[or to be more precise] [h]idden agendas are discouraged for both message senders

and receivers‖ (p. 122). Fourth, the ―habit of respect for dissent‖ [is] [e]thical communication

that encourages opposing viewpoints and arguments‖ (p. 122).

To summarize the above four habits, Shockley-Zalabak (2006) states that:

[I]ndividuals and groups are engaging in ethical communication behaviors when

they thoughtfully analyze problems and issues, are open to diverse types and

sources or information, conduct their deliberations openly without hidden

Bibliography 17

agendas, and not only respect different viewpoints but also encourage

disagreement and dissent to produce superior ideas and solutions. From this

perspective, unethical organizational communication behavior suppresses the

examination of issues, withholds relevant information to pursue personal interests

or motivations, and uses dissent to press for personal rather than organizational

advantage‖ (p. 122).

Further, she states that the person who is actively involved in strategic communications

must balance ―personal responsibility with…broader…organizational ethical responsibilities‖

(Shockley-Zalabak, 2006, p. 373). Ms. Shockley-Zalabak informs the reader that:

Cheney and Christensen (2001) provide an important description of ethical—

moral issues related to strategic communication. [They] identify seven broad

issues with ethical, moral, and even legal implications resulting from planned

communication: the posited character or integrity of the source of the message;

the defensibility of a particular message; the legitimacy of a pattern or campaign

of messages; the practical impact of a message or the cumulative effect of a series

of messages; the openness of the structure of communication between an

organization and its publics/audiences; the articulation/representation of genuine

public interests; and the question of shared responsibility‖ (pp. 373-374).

She goes on to look at the messages that organizations impart during advertising and

marketing campaigns, stating that:

We have all questioned the truth of particular organizational messages.

Advertising claims are often exaggerated, with consumer complaints frequently

Bibliography 18

hidden from public scrutiny….Strategic organizational communication is an

intentional effort to shape our perceptions. Themes selected for marketing,

advertising, and crisis management may focus or frame an issue away from the

product or service to a more generally accepted societal good‖ (Shockley-

Zalabak, 2006, p. 374).

Ms. Shockley-Zalabak turns to liquor, gun, and tobacco manufacturers as examples of

crafting messages which steer away from public concerns that, if honestly addressed, might

cause a loss in sales. Instead, these manufacturers choose messages which bypass ―specific

product advantages or features,‖ or disadvantages, and instead talk about how the products

promote ―freedom, individuality…[and] fun‖ (Shockley-Zalabak, 2006, p 374). In this particular

section, Ms. Shockley-Zalabak closes by stressing the joint responsibility which must be

assumed by organizations and the public for ―ethical-moral evaluation of messages and their

potential influence‖ (p 374).


Wilson, S. (2002). Real People, Real Crises: An Inside Look at Corporate Crisis

Communications (pp. 15, 17, 22, 29, 37-39, 139-141, 144, 147). Winchester, VA: Oakhill

Press

―It can take decades for an organization [or a person] to build a good reputation, yet it can

be destroyed in just a few hours‖ (Wilson, 2002, p. 139). That is the focus of Chapter 11,

Reputation Management, in Mr. Wilson‘s book. A crisis can be naturally occurring and

externally-generated, such as an earthquake, or man-made and internally-generated, such as

embezzlement by a senior executive. The crisis itself may not have been the result of unethical

Bibliography 19

decision making, yet the way an organization handles the crisis can have ethical implications

and, therefore, implications for the leaders‘ integrity and the organization‘s reputation. When an

organization is undergoing a crisis, often the media is covering it and the public is following it.

―A company is never stronger than its reputation‖ (p. 139). Protecting the ―image‖ and

―reputation‖ of the organization is at ―the heart of crisis management communications‖ (p. 139).

Author Wilson (2002) says that ―reputation management and crisis management are

intertwined. A company that doesn‘t care about crisis management doesn‘t really care about its

reputation‖ (p. 139). Wilson also gives additional weight to crisis management over some other

organizational functions. He says that, ―Advertising, public relations, community relations, and

good business practices are important in managing corporate reputations. But when the chips are

down, crisis management is imperative‖ (p.140).

Wilson warns against disgruntled employees or former employees seeking ―revenge

or…attempting to correct perceived wrongdoings‖ by trying to destroy an organization‘s

reputation—regardless if whether what they claim is true or not (Wilson, 2002, p. 140). Other

stakeholders can try to do the same—such as customers or investors or suppliers. ―By destroying

an organization‘s reputation, people can destroy the organization itself, or at least severely

cripple its ability to function normally‖ (pp. 140-141). To interrupt the ability of an organization

to function—to produce or to serve—is to create a crisis for the organization; it breaks the

normal routine and forces resources to be diverted elsewhere to remedy the situation (p. 29).

In addition to trying to protect the reputation of an organization, one of the main

responsibilities of the crisis management communicator—usually the CEO or other senior

executive previously selected to act in that role—is to decide what is the message that needs to

Bibliography 20

be addressed to the public. Within this message should be three to five talking points which need

to be stressed during media interviews and press releases. Further, when interview questions

begin to take the organization‘s media spokesperson away from it message, or when more

investigation is needed to answer those questions, the talking points provide a bridge back to the

message. To assist in developing those talking points, and in managing a crisis, is why

organizations form crisis action teams and generate crisis management plans and crisis

management communications plans.

Leadership is essential. Communication is critical. So are integrity and ethics.

If an organization is going through a crisis, or has recently gone through a crisis,

particularly one involving a real or perceived ethical lapse and the tarnishing of the

organization‘s reputation, it should consider establishing ―a major goodwill campaign‖ (Wilson,

2002, p. 144) with its stakeholders, and the public in general. This is in addition to making actual

changes in the organization‘s practices, culture, and values so that the same stimulants which

created the crisis do not reoccur. According to Wilson, the goodwill campaign should include an

increase in ―speaking engagements, media interviews, and public appearances‖ (p. 144). He says

that, an organization should ―consider carefully every element of communication that [it]

control[s], whether…newsletters, magazine articles, letters, or email….to bolster [its] image as

much as possible‖ (p. 144). This also includes advertising.

There are a number of other important points about honesty, integrity, and

communication throughout his book. Wilson, in discussing one organization‘s preparation to

handle an environmental impact ―crisis,‖ states, ―We had made contacts with employees,

shareholders, government and community leaders, as well as the news media. We knew where

Bibliography 21

we stood on the issue and so did everyone else. The company believed in its position and it

believed it had done the right thing‖ (Wilson, 2002, p. 15). He says that, ―If you reduce crisis

management to its simplest form, it is this: Determine what is the right thing to do, and then

figure out how to do it‖ (p. 37). The leaders of the organization believed in their ability to make

ethical decisions. They were transparent on the issue with all stakeholders. They confronted the

crisis head-on, and they began immediate communications with stakeholders and the media.

Wilson, in talking about speaking with participants of the crisis management

communications workshops he conducts, says: ―I tell [them] about the importance of their first

response….what they do and what they communicate during the first minutes or first hours of a

crisis may well shape public opinion for hours, days, weeks, and possibly forever‖ (Wilson,

2002, p. 17).

Wilson (2002) suggests following some ―simple rules‖ to effectively and efficiently

―communicat[e] with the public during a crisis‖ (pp. 37-38): (a) ―Be absolutely open and

honest;‖ (b)―Less is better….Stay away from too many details….[which] just generate more

questions and increase the probability that you‘ll say the wrong thing;‖ (c) ―Take the lead and

take control….early, even if you‘re not 100 percent ready….If you wait, you‘ll just be reacting to

someone else‘s agenda;‖ (d) ―Speak with one voice….When times do call for more than one

spokesperson, make sure they‘re reading off the same page. Mixed messages are confusing and

lead to doubt and distrust and can undermine your credibility;‖ (e) ―Get outside the box. See

things the way others see them….Look at the crisis from the outside in‖ (pp. 37-38).

Further, in ―develop[ing] crisis management [communications] strategies,‖ Wilson

(2002) suggests leaders ask themselves three sets of questions (p. 39):

Bibliography 22

First: What do we know? What are the issues? Second: What are the concerns?

What are the questions? What will people want to know? [And], Third: What are

the actions we need to take? What are the messages we need to convey? (p. 39).

As a warning to answer questions honestly and ethically, and to be prepared with what

one is going to say when interviewed or conducting a press conference, Wilson (2002) says:

[B]e comfortable….Reporters…seem to have a sixth sense, almost a built-in lie

detector that sends out an alarm when the person they‘re interviewing gets a little

too nervous answering a question. In dealing with reporters, it‘s not just what you

say, but how you say it….[B]e believable (p. 22).

The same advice can be given when addressing all stakeholders—employees, board

members, investors, and others.

Returning now to Chapter 11, a final comment by Wilson (2002) on the subject of

reputation:

[N]o one should ever take a corporate or personal reputation for granted.

Reputations do not have a strong life of their own. They are fragile. They must be

nurtured, protected, and strengthened on a regular basis. They are far too valuable

to be ignored (p. 147).


Craig, S. & Lucchetti, A. (2008, November 17). Goldman Chiefs Give Up Bonuses. The Wall

Street Journal, pp A1, A16.

Seven executives at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., including CEO Lloyd Blankfein, may be

setting the standard for executives at other financial and mortgage institutions to follow by

Bibliography 23

requesting their organization not pay out to them ―tens of millions of dollars‖ in 2008 annual

bonuses. The organization is granting their request.

While the executives will each still be receiving their $600,000 base pay, they decided

that not taking the bonuses was ―‘the right thing‘ to do‖ in light of the current financial crisis.

The organization will still be giving bonuses to the hard-working ―lower-level‖ employees who

serve the organization. Paying bonuses will help to retain the employees who might otherwise

take their talent to another organization if they did not receive the extra pay. This same concept

is one of the main reasons organizations pay such high salaries and bonuses to their executives—

to keep other organizations from making money off of their talents.

While spokespersons for both Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley said that no decisions

on executive bonuses had been made yet at their organizations, many in the industry believe that

Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs is setting a precedent most other executives in the industry

will follow. John Mack, the CEO of Morgan Stanley, declined a bonus in 2007 because of the

organizations loss in the fourth-quarter last year.

Another reason why the executives on Wall Street may choose to follow suit and suspend

bonuses is because those bonuses, as well as salaries, are disclosed to the public. Organizations

need to win back the trust of the public—investors, and taxpayers footing the bill for the bailout.

There is a big concern that taxpayers, through the government-provided bailout loans, of which

Goldman Sachs and at least eight other companies are sharing $125 billion, may be paying the

bonuses of executives who have placed the economy where it is. Since 2002, $312 billion in

salaries, bonuses, and other benefits have been paid to employees of Merrill Lynch, Morgan

Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Bear Stearns.

Bibliography 24

The current financial crisis came about, in part, because of the losses realized this year as

a result of securities which were backed by subprime mortgages which have been at a high

default rate. Other events which have triggered this crisis are the merger of Bear Stearns with

J.P. Morgan Chase; the buyout of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America Corp; and the filing for

bankruptcy protection by Lehman Brothers. During this time, Goldman Sachs has ―fared better

than other firms, but [still] its stock is down more than 60% this year.‖


Sorkin, A. R. (Ed.). (2008, October 22). A.I.G. to Suspend Millions in Executive Payments

[Electronic Version]. The New York Times. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/aig-to-suspend-millions-in-executive-

payments/

This article focuses on the decision by American Insurance Group (A.I.G.) to ―suspend‖

payout of $600 million reserved for 2008 executive bonuses—and a ―freeze‖ of the remaining

$19 million dollars due in contract severance to former A.I.G. CEO Edward Liddy, who was

―ousted‖ this past June—in response to actions taken by New York Attorney General Andrew

Cuomo to ensure that taxpayers are not funding 2008 bonuses for Wall Street executives through

monies A.I.G. will receive as part of a government bailout. Specifically, Attorney General

Cuomo had discussions with A.I.G. senior executives to construct the agreement, and followed

those discussions up with a formal letter to Edward Liddy, Chairman and CEO.

Speaking to reporters, Attorney General Cuomo said, ―‘Once a company accepts tax

dollars, there are different rules. These are taxpayers who did not voluntarily make an investment

in these companies. In many ways it was a forced investment.‖ He went on to say, ―‘There

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/aig-to-suspend-millions-in-executive-payments/

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/aig-to-suspend-millions-in-executive-payments/

Bibliography 25

should not even be any contemplation of bonuses for executive performance because I find it

hard to conceive of a situation that you could justify a performance bonus for management that

virtually bankrupted the company.‘‖

The article also identifies that it was A.I.G.‘s financial products unit, lead by Joseph

Cassano, which ―undertook many of the complex financial transactions that pushed the company

to the brink of collapse.‖ Mr. Cassano, who was fired, would have received $70 million from the

established bonus fund for 2008.

A.I.G. spokesman Joe Norton said, ―‘We have received the letter and the letter is

consistent with our discussion with the attorney general and with actions we have taken.‘‖

In the letter written by the attorney general, he says:

‗To be clear, it is my position that until the taxpayers are repaid with interest the

more than $120 billion that has been used in the rescue financing of AIG, no

funds should be paid out of these pools to any executives. As AIG recovers using

taxpayer money, these pools should not be used to reward executives ahead of

taxpayers.‘

The attorney general also says:

‘I believe that rebuilding trust in our capital markets requires executive

compensation packages that are rational, fair, and based on bona fide performance

measures that are disclosed to the public. We must ensure that executive pay

package structures no longer create improper incentives for executives to

overleverage their companies and manipulate the books for their own short-term

financial benefit.‘

Bibliography 26

Attorney General Cuomo ends the letter by saying, ―‘I applaud the different tone you are

now setting at AIG which augers well for the company going forward, and I hope it will set a

new standard for corporate culture at similarly situated firms.‘‖


Kiel, P. (2008, September 26). Insiders Detail How Bottom Line Drove Credit Ratings.

ProPublica.org. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://www.propublica.org/article/insiders-detail-how-greed-drove-credit-ratings-926/

In this post, Mr. Kiel refers to a Bloomberg report written about a key link between the

―mortgage lenders who loosened lending standards and then passed the risk on to Wall Street,

where mortgage-backed securities became all the rage.‖ This link was ―the major credit rating

agencies, particularly Moody‘s and Standard & Poor‘s….[who] gave much of the risky securities

their highest credit rating [AAA], effectively preserving the illusion that they were risk-proof.‖

Although, ―[f]aulty analytical models and inadequate staffing played a role,‖ the primary

problem was that there was a conflict of interest—the ratings companies were supposed to grade

the investments based on their financial risk and their reward potential, but the companies made

their money grading the securities provided by the banks. If the customer (the banks) was happy,

then more business could be conducted; and if more business was conducted, then more money

was made. Also, when the ratings companies gave the securities high grades, such as the perfect

AAA gold standard, that was when the ratings companies made the most money. ―‘The ratings

companies earned as much as three times more for grading complex structured finance

products…as they did from corporate bonds.‘‖

This practice became the focus for these companies, beginning in 2000, according to

Bibliography 27

Bloomberg. At this time, according to a former manager for Moody‘s, ―one Moody‘s executive

‗visited Wall Street banking customers to pledge a closer, more cooperative relationship and

asked whether any of his analysts were particularly difficult to work with.‘‖

According to testimonies and e-mails secured by the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC), ―pressure‖ was put on the analysts at these companies to make the numbers

work to give the coveted AAA rating. ―‘My mandate was to find a way. Find the way,‘‖ said a

former senior analyst for Standard & Poor‘s. An SEC report has on record ―former analysts [who

admit] that the ratings were essentially fictional.‖ ―An analyst at [one] rating agency complained

that her firm‘s model didn‘t capture ‗half‘ of the deal‘s risk, but that ‗it could be structured by

cows and we would rate it.‘‖ On the record was Standard & Poor‘s managing director, Frank

Raiter, who admits to being ―told ‘to just guess‘ at the value of [the] complex securities, to ‗put

anything down.‘‖ According to Mr. Raiter, ―…if we could have hired a supreme being to tell us

exactly what the loss was on a loan, [the ratings agencies] wouldn‘t have hired him because the

Street wasn‘t going to pay us extra money to know that.‘‖

As reported by Bloomberg, and included in this post, here is a great summary of what

happened with how much money in these subprime loan-backed mortgage securities:

‘[T]he New York-based companies stamped out top ratings on debt pools that

included $3.2 trillion of loans to homebuyers with bad credit and undocumented

incomes between 2002 and 2007. As subprime borrowers defaulted, the

companies have downgraded more than three-quarters of the structured

investment pools known as collateralized debt obligations issued in the last two

years and rated AAA.‘

Bibliography 28

As written by one analyst in a 2006 e-mail, ―Let‘s hope we are all wealthy and retired by

the time this house of cards falters.‖


Ethics Scoreboard.com. (2004, February 21). Faint Whistle: Enron and Ethics. Retrieved

October 22, 2008, from http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/enron.html

A brief article, information new to this paper include that Jeffrey Skilling lacked four key

leadership ethics: ―responsibility, competence, prudence, and accountability.‖ The article states

that, regardless of whether or not Skilling was guilty of breaking the law, his actions were still

unethical and morally corrupt. His lawyers pleaded on his behalf that he only took the advice of

lawyers and accountants, but the article rebuts that ―CEOs [don‘t] take orders from lawyers and

accountants,‖ they give them. ―A CEO like Skilling says [to the lawyers and accountants], ‗We

have this idea that seems to allow us to hide our losses without violating any laws. Will it

work?‘‖ The lawyers and accountants could have refused to be complicit, but they did not. The

article asks two pretty common sense questions, and follows up with answers which show some

of the results of this crisis. First: ―Should the accountants have independently refused to assist

Enron‘s scheme? Yes, and that is why, in a nutshell, there‘s no longer a firm called Arthur

Anderson‖. Second, ―Should the lawyers have taken steps to alert stock-holders? Yes…that‘s

why the SEC and the American Bar Association have developed new rules.‖ Yet, as the article

states, it is Skilling who is still ultimately responsible for his decisions, ―the actions of executives

under his supervision, [and] for the quality of lawyers and accountants he hires.‖


Gilman, S., DR., Hand, P., Dr., Navran, F., & Brown, J.. (2008). Ten Things You Can Do to

Bibliography 29

Avoid Being the Next Enron. Ethics Resource Center. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://www.ethics.org/resources/avoid-being-enron.asp

The article suggests ten actions an organization can take to prevent unethical decision

making and actions on the part of any employees—Board, CEO, or line-level employee.

First, ―Examine your ethical climate and put safeguards in place.‖ Since all organizations

have cultures, whether purposely planned or not, an organization should examine their culture in

regards to ―attitudes, perceptions, values, standards of conduct, pressures to commit misconduct,

communications, risks and vulnerabilities.‖ The organization should make sure its corporate

values have been ―internalized‖ by ―all stakeholders‖—including the ―Board, senior leadership,

[and] employees at all levels.‖

The authors list three questions the organization should ask itself. ―Are employees

rewarded for succeeding at any cost or are they urged to be shepherds of the corporation‘s

reputation as well as its assets?‖ ―What pressures do they face to commit misconduct?‖ And,

―What systemic problems exist that could encourage good people to make bad decisions?‖

Second, ―Don‘t just print, post and pray.‖ The authors state that an organization‘s ―Ethics

Code‖ or ―Code of Conduct‖ is the result of the organizations ―missions, visions, strategies and

values,‖ and that if leadership takes the time to make sure the codes are ―thoughtful and

effective,‖ then the codes will ―provide guidance for making ethical business decisions that

balance conflicting interests.‖ The ―Codes of Conduct‖ should be ―living documents‖—capable

of being revised as needed, taken seriously, and respected and followed by all stakeholders,

beginning with the senior leadership of the organization. The authors remind the readers a very

simple, yet very common and important fact, ―Ethical lapses at the upper echelons of

http://www.ethics.org/resources/avoid-being-enron.asp

Bibliography 30

management tend to be perceived as tacit permission to choose the ‗path of least resistance‘ at

lower levels.‖ Therefore, to set the best example, and to be able to expect the same ethical

commitment and actions from their employees without being hypocritical, leaders must ―hold

[themselves] to the highest standards of conduct….honesty, transparency and trustworthiness.‖

They must also ―refuse to tolerate misconduct among their peers,‖ employees, or any other

stakeholder. The authors also recommend the organization ―publish the Code [of Ethics or

Conduct] every year in [the] annual report.‖

Third, ―Build a robust ethics infrastructure that is self-sustaining.‖ The authors

recommend that, ―Corporations should have a committee of independent non-executive directors

on its Board of Directors who are responsible for ensuring that systems are in place…to assure

employee compliance with the Code of Ethics.‖ The systems include annual ethics ―staff

training,‖ evaluations of compliance systems, appropriate funding and staffing of the corporate

ethics office, and effective protections to employees who ‗blow the whistle‘ on perceived actions

contrary to the spirit and/or letter of the Code.‖ The ―effective protections‖ include hotlines that

can be called to leave anonymous tips or seek guidance in making ethical decisions. Here, again,

the authors stress that the Code of Ethics should remain ―dynamic‖ (―living documents‖) that can

be continuously updated to reflect new ethical issues.

Fourth, ―Publicly commit to being an ethical organization.‖ Here the authors state that

organizations which go public with their ethical commitments, as well as actions, have better

results is keeping ethical and are considered ―more trustworthy‖ by all parties than organizations

which ―stay silent‖ about the ethics and actions within the organization. Transparency is key.

They suggest issuing an annual ethics report and display the organization‘s ―vision, values and

Bibliography 31

codes of conduct on their Web sites.‖ Other locations not mentioned include prominently

displayed within stores, catalogues, brochures, office lobbies, break rooms, and elsewhere.

They suggest that, ―Every member of the Board of Directors…should…sign the Code of

Ethics and pledge…support…to the Code.‖ In addition, ―All outside law firms and auditing

firms that [serve the organization] should be required to sign…[and] understand…the

corporation‘s Code of Ethics.‖

Fifth, ―Separate auditing from consulting functions.‖ This removes both perceived and

actual conflict of interest. To directly quote the authors:

Allowing Arthur Anderson to both audit and consult with Enron created at least

an appearance of a conflict of interest. Subsequently, hiring Arthur Anderson

employees as Enron employees who then managed the affairs of their former

colleagues made this a real ethical conflict of interest. The independence and

integrity of financial auditing organizations are fundamental to the stability and

growth of…free markets throughout the world (Gilman, Hand, Navran, & Brown,

2008).

Sixth, ―Talk with employees at all levels…often!‖ The article states that, ―Failure to

communicate…can be fatal.‖ The authors discuss the concept of ―Managing by Walking Around

(MBWA),‖ and how it is a great tool for leaders and managers to ―communicate their (task and

ethical) expectations and requirements in daily, informal meetings with employees.‖ The authors

say that employees have two basic concerns regarding their jobs: ―what is expected or required

for them to survive and to be successful (tasks and ethics)….[and] to know ‗how they are

doing‘‖ at it. The authors also advise organizations to ―Communicate…Goals, Roles,

Bibliography 32

Expectations and Priorities.‖

Organizations should communicate to the employees the ―short term and long term goals

of [their] job….how their goals support the organization‘s mission and vision….[and to] tie

[those] goals to the code of conduct or code of ethics.‖ They suggest remind the employees that

―how you accomplish a goal is just as important as accomplishing the goal itself. Cutting corners

can hurt the corporation, its reputation and, eventually, the individual employee.‖

Regarding roles: ―Let employees know how their piece of the job fits into the bigger

picture. Remind them of their importance and value.‖

As for expectations, Gilman, Hand, Navran, and Brown, (2008) suggest organizations

should:

Be certain that employees understand exactly what you expect. What has to be

done? When? To what standards? How will it be evaluated? What should they do

if they encounter any roadblocks or unanticipated changes? How do you want

them to handle questions and /or ‗gray areas‘ where expectations may be unclear

or conflicting?

Remind your employees of the organization‘s operational priorities….Be

clear about what you expect them to do when they experience conflicts between

any of these core values. Clarify what constitutes ethical conduct.

Seven, ―Build ethical conduct into corporate systems.‖ ―Define‖ the ethics and values of

the organization. ―Train your employees on their ethical responsibilities….[and] [t]each people

how to translate the pledge into specific actions that support the pledge and build trust.‖ Devise

tools to measure or quantify how well your ethical code works. Also, as the authors suggest, if

Bibliography 33

employees ―live‖ the ethics, reward them; if they don‘t, then they should be fired.

Eight, ―Establish an Ethics Committee to constantly keep the organization focused on the

seven main provisions of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines of 1991…‖ The Guidelines state

that two senior-level personnel must be selected by each organization to be responsible for

ensuring organizational ―‘compliance‘‖ with their established ―‘standards and procedures.‘‖ In

accordance, the authors believe there are seven principal ―functions‖ that an ethics committee

should focus on:

Function One. Review the definitions of [ethical] standards and

procedures….[and] communicat[e]…[them] to employees….[to] ensure that

employees both understand and accept the ethics program.

Function Two. Assume responsibility for overall compliance….[and]

serve as the court of last resort concerning interpretations of the organization‘s

standards and procedures. When and if inconsistencies come to light in this

manner, the committee should make recommendations on improving the existing

compliance mechanisms. And, as always, there should be follow-up to ensure that

compliance recommendations have been understood and accepted.

Function Three. [B]alance the rights of individual applicants and

employees against the organization‘s need to avoid risks that come from placing

known violators in positions of discretionary responsibility. This includes the

oversight of background investigations on employees/applicants who are being

considered for such positions.

Function Four. Communicate the organization‘s [ethical] standards and

Bibliography 34

procedures….to ensure every employee understands and accepts the

organization‘s ethical guidelines….[and] provide regular training sessions…‖ In

addition, ―the ethics committee should solicit stakeholder input regarding how

standards and procedures are defined and enforced….[and the organization

should] create ways of providing proof that each employee has received the

appropriate documents and understands the standards and procedures described.

Function Five. Monitor and audit compliance….[to ensure] that the organization‘s

goals, objectives and plans do not conflict with its ethical standards and

procedures.

Function Six. Serve as primary agent for enforcement and discipline….to

ensure consistent responses to similar violations of [ethical] standards and

procedures (versus applying different standards to different employees based on

their position, performance, and function).

Function Seven. [E]nsure that offenses are not repeated. When violations

do occur, the ethics committee should have ways to identify why they occurred. It

is also important that lessons learned from prior violations are systematically

applied to reduce the chance that similar violations can take place in [the] future.

Nine, ―Choose to live your corporate values.‖ The authors suggest that if an organization

not only tells employees what the ethical values of the organization are, but also ―empower[s]

them to make decision based on those values, [then the organization] will free them to take

action even when specific guidance isn‘t readily available.‖

Ten, ―Keep the lines of communication open.‖ In this last recommended action, the

Bibliography 35

authors stress finding out what the employees think is ―going right,‖ ―going wrong,‖ and ―what

makes [them] uncomfortable in their jobs.‖ The authors state that, if the organization will do this,

then it will be able to determine what kind of potential unethical decisions or actions may be

committed. They also stress that ―ethical issues [must get] communicated up the corporate

ladder.‖ Finally, they advocate open and honest two-way communication at all times.


Rozycki, E. G., Ed. D. (1993) Leadership vs. Morality: An Unavoidable Conflict? (Widener

University) [Electronic Version]. In Philosophy of Education. The Proceedings of the

Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society (pp. 266-274). New

Foundations.com. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/MoralLeadership.html

In this paper, Dr. Rozycki asks questions regarding whether leadership and morality are

mutually exclusive; whether the ―standards of judgment‖ required to be a ―heroic leader‖ is ―in

conflict with common notions of morality,‖ or being a ―moral leader.‖

Dr. Rozycki says that in addition to ―judgment,‖ the process of ―education‖ is also

involved. He says that people can be educated to be heroic leaders and they can be educated to

be moral leaders.

Dr. Rozycki states:

It is also a matter of whether one can learn to be a heroic leader, given the

constraints of acting morally. Or vice versa, whether one can learn to be a moral

person in the contexts of being called to heroic leadership.

According to Dr. Rozycki, people want organizations—their leaders and employees—to

http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/MoralLeadership.html

Bibliography 36

do ―more good than evil,‖ which is why people look for ―moral heroic leadership.‖

Using the military and ―elite private educations‖ as examples, possibly errantly, Dr.

Rozycki says both stress heroic leadership as the goal for the leaders they wish to produce. In

these examples, Dr. Rozycki says that heroic leadership is promoted as:

…acting through organizations to get the job done

[through]….[l]eadership…stimulated by providing incentives to rule-

breaking….done cleverly enough to avoid getting caught in the act….[and] to

achieve a superordinate good, if only from the perspective of the immediate group

to which one belongs.

Dr. Rozycki gives an example of how a student at a prestigious board school can perform

a grandiose hoax that may get the student expelled, yet the precise ability to devise and pull of

the hoax gets the same student ―welcomed‖ at another prestigious school. Dr. Rozycki states

that, ―Rule-breaking done with wit and style can become a mark of distinction.‖ He also gives

the example of military recruits being told to get a job done, but not given the resources to

accomplish the mission, and that they are expected to use their intelligence to acquire the

resources, but that they are also not exempted from being punished should they get caught

stealing. ―In both cases,‖ states Dr. Rozycki, ―there is some sense that a ‗higher‘ good is served

by the competition that often subverts rules that govern ‗ordinary‘ situations.‖

Dr. Rozycki says that, in a study called ―The Romance of Leadership,‖ it was determined

that over a number of years, articles published in the Wall Street Journal, other business journals,

and even scholastic writings, considered a person to be a leader only when they achieved a goal

or accomplished an action of a high enough impact. ―Leadership is the management of the

Bibliography 37

important, even the near cataclysmic. Leadership is heroic.‖

As another example, Dr. Rozycki says that, often ―administrators‖—the word used to pull

―leadership‖ out of the equation—are considered to be ―leaders‖ when actions taken by others

within their organization have no direct ―cause and effect‖ relationship to those administrators.

He is basically saying that ―administrators‖ are considered to be ―leaders‖ when actions by

others yield positive results, and ―failed leader[s]‖ when the actions by others produce negative

results. Dr. Rozycki does not admit that all ―administrators‖ have as a natural duty, the

responsibility to ―lead‖ those who work for them and that, as such, some ―administrators‖

effectively lead their followers in a positive direction, using moral decision making, and that

other administrators equally effectively lead their followers in a negative direction through

unethical decision making. Dr. Rozycki also fails to factor in the responsibility of the leader to

help set the culture of the organization; to exemplify it; and to empower others to live it as well.

Regardless of the culture—whether moral or not—the ―leader‖ sets the tone from the top and,

just as children mimic their parents and learn through observation, some adults do not exercise

their personal responsibility for moral choices, and to break away from those bad examples, and

therefore follow those bad examples; whereas others believe that the actions taken by the leaders,

even if unethical, must somehow be generally acceptable as the right thing to do.

Dr. Rozycki states that, ―The basic risk of leadership is encountering interference with

one‘s effectiveness. The leader is expected to ‗break the rules‘ from time to time to achieve

greater goods. But only success justifies this ‗outlawry.‘ Even then, whether a ‗greater good‘ has

been achieved may be a matter of substantial controversy. It is difficult to be a leader, especially

in a pluralistic society.‖

Bibliography 38

To truly get to the kernel of Dr. Rozycki‘s philosophy—that there is something

―particularly disturbing about discussion of ‗moral, heroic leadership‖ and that the thought is too

―simple‖—the following two paragraphs are included in their entirety in order to preserve his

exact meaning:

Dr. Roczycki, in discussing morally defective organizations and leaders, says:

The mythos of heroic leadership seems to require that a ‗real leader‘ be the cause

or author of the organizational act. This leads to an interesting dilemma. One kind

of morally defective organization is one which prevents moral veto power by

individuals over organizational acts. Individuals other than the leader become

mere functionaries, instruments of the leader‘s will. An administrator can only be

a cause or an author of a organizational act, that is, a ‗heroic leader,‘ if his action

cannot be vetoed by his subordinates, i.e., if the organization is morally defective.

Thus, leadership presumes a morally defective environment of action.

Any action performed by one constrained from the exercise of moral

choice is ceteris paribus morally defective. So, even if the administrator‘s

command is morally correct, the organizational action will necessarily be morally

defective. But if the organization is not morally defective, i.e., each actor within it

may veto the administrator‘s cause or command on moral grounds, then the

administrator is not the author of the organizational act. The organizational act in

a morally non-defective organization is substantially the act of those moral agents

who execute it. Thus, the administrator‘s act, even if moral in such circumstances,

is not heroic leadership.

Bibliography 39

Dr. Rozycki states that organizations have as ―common ‗perversions‘‖ the facts that:

―solutions in one place create problems in others places; policies are not implemented;

inconsistency is tolerated; [and] there is duplication of effort.‖ He continues, ―The very viability

of the organization may require tolerance of deviance from what some may consider to be the

‗ideal.‘

Dr. Rozycki also says that, for the sake of managing society, leaders who are guilty of

crimes are punished as an example to the followers who are left free to be condemned by their

own guilty consciences. He uses, as an example, the execution of Nazi leaders after World War

II while thousands of followers were not punished.

Dr. Rozycki continues:

Given the basically pluralistic nature of any modern society, too much ‗morality‘

is probably counterproductive in terms of social control. Too strict an

enforcement of rules — moral or legal — might cause the kind of resistance

which eventually might bring the legitimacy of those rules into question. It is

interesting to consider that morality and social stability may compete with one

another. Fervent moralists, as we have long suspected, are closet revolutionaries.

Dr. Rozycki goes on to pose the question, why aspire to, or seek, heroic leadership? He

also discusses the subjects of: ―the problem with morality;‖ ―fixing the blame: the mythology of

fault;‖ and ―morality and social control.‖ Regarding ―the problem with morality,‖ Dr. Rozycki

states that, ―The most interesting dilemmas are those where good competes with good.‖ He does

not ask: who is it who should define what is moral?

Dr. Rozycki concludes by saying, ―Finally, the role of the moral, heroic leader, though

Bibliography 40

conflicted, and, even, ultimately, tragic, may best be understood as that of a teacher who

provides us with common understandings of the moral basis of social action.‖


Hancock, J. (2008). Enron: Innovation Corrupted [Review of the book Innovation Corrupted:

The Origins and Legacy of Enron’s Collapse]. InsideWork.net. Retrieved October 22,

2008, from http://insidework.net/resources/articles/enron-innovation-corrupted

This post by Jim Hancock is a review of the book Innovation Corrupted: The Origins and

Legacy of Enron’s Collapse, by Malcolm S. Salter, written for Harvard Business School‘s

Working Knowledge series. The book, itself, was written from research gained through court

documents released after the completion of the trial, as well as from public records. The book

also shows the involvement of others outside of Enron who helped to facilitate the corruption.

The following are quotes from Mr. Salter‘s book.

―Once Enron‘s ethical drift took hold, its collapse was only a matter of time.‖

Enron was an innovative company, and its downfall can be traced to

supreme arrogance bred by considerable success, some extremely poor

diversification decisions, and poorly conceived and implemented administrative

practices that led, over time, to reckless gambling and ethical drift. This drift was

facilitated by Enron‘s bankers and advisors and largely missed by its board of

directors and other watchdogs.

[S]upreme overconfidence and perverse financial incentives led to a

gladiator culture in which executives proposed—and risk managers and the board

of directors approved—a growing number of risky gambles with high expected

http://insidework.net/resources/articles/enron-innovation-corrupted

Bibliography 41

returns. Meanwhile, building on intense lobbying to encourage further domestic

deregulation and limit federal oversight of the energy industry, Skilling

encouraged Enron executives to exploit to the hilt recent Securities and Exchange

Commission rule changes as well as then-current tax rules.

To help disguise the company‘s deteriorating financial position, many

outside advisors and bankers either colluded in or acquiesced to these

questionable transactions. Enron‘s sophisticated risk analysis and control system

also experienced serious breakdowns. These breakdowns, along with

management‘s increasing aversion to truth telling, isolated the board from many

evolving realities. In addition, Enron‘s supernormal growth and skyrocketing

stock price made it difficult for most directors to challenge management‘s

strategy and tactics.

At Enron there were many opportunities for enormous personal gain that

distracted top executives from the essential tasks of maintaining institutional

integrity and building stable relationships with shareholders and employees.

In this vacuum, abstract definitions of purpose unrelated to corporate ideals,

distinctive competences, and organizational opportunities easily gave way to

uncontrolled criteria such as personal preference and opportunism.

Perverse incentives are legion throughout our system today. For example,

perverse incentives for both mortgage brokers and investment bankers helped

create the subprime crisis that we are now living through.

Mr. Salter also includes in the book many questions that leaders and others within

Bibliography 42

organizations who ask themselves about what happened and to serve as a check over themselves

and their own organizations. Seven were listed in the review. I have included four here which

reflect the themes of this paper:

Why did Skilling, at critical moments, treat differences of opinion,

pushback, and penetrating questions from both insiders and outsiders as either

stupid comments or narcissistic insults rather than opportunities for constructive

dialogue?

Why did Lay‘s espoused faith and Christian values fail to guarantee his

moral leadership and protect the enterprise from increasing immoral behavior?

How did Skilling and Lay imagine that their personal conduct could

influence the behavior of others within the company?

What internal images of personal leadership and stewardship did their

behavior reflect?


Csorba, L. (2006, April 7). Enron: trial reveals leadership, hiring brought company down

[Electronic version]. Houston Business Journal. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2006/04/10/focus2.html?t=printable

Mr. Csorba says that several of the most crucial lessons to be learned from the Enron

collapse were: ―building cultures of trust matter [but] leadership matters…most;‖ personnel

decisions can become costly; and that ―there is a canyon of difference between competence and

character.‖

Csorba says that people familiar with the culture and practices of Enron describe the

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2006/04/10/focus2.html?t=printable

Bibliography 43

culture as one of ―manipulation, infighting, backstabbing and fuzzy math,‖ as well as ―greed,

distrust and deception,‖ where the word ―integrity‖ was constantly used but seldom practiced,

and where ―suspicious minds, not trusting hearts, ruled its organizational body.‖ Enron was a

place with ―a consistent manipulation of accounting rules, but also a pattern of careless

recruitment practice.‖ In short, Enron had an ―utter lack of leadership.‖

With the flavor of Scripture, Csorba says, ―Management constructed this house on the

sands of deception, lies and fraud, instead of building it on the solid foundation of trust and

transparency.‖

As proof that Enron‘s leader‘s ―words were hollow,‖ and that they weren‘t walking the

talk, Sherron Watkins, an Enron employee who testified for the prosecution during the trial of

Kenneth Lay, et al, said that notepads would be distributed by leaders, to employees, with the

following quote by the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ―Our lives begin to end the day we

become silent about things that matter.‖ Csorba describes Watkins‘s reaction as one of

―bafflement.‖

Csorba discusses how Enron hired a ―turnaround guru‖ named Stephen Cooper to help

the organization through bankruptcy. However, Cooper found that ―99 percent of Enron‘s

problems weren‘t market driven, but leadership related—a massive breakdown in accountability

and governance.‖

Rather than ―examin[ing] whether [a potential employee‘s] moral character matched the

company‘s so-called fidelity to integrity,‖ Enron recruits were often hired based on ―academic

credentials, innovative ideas and raw ambition.‖ This was the case with Andy Fastow, who

caught the attention of Jeffrey Skilling and was ―recruited [away] from Continental Illinois Bank

Bibliography 44

[because] he helped pioneer a system of raising capital by selling notes backed by risky loans.‖

Csorba records that the Enron Board of Directors, lead by Kenneth Lay, completely gave

away any integrity it had ―the day he and his board voted twice to lift the conflict of interest rules

for his CFO to play his games with off-balance sheet partnerships, both for the benefit of his, and

his employer‘s, crooked gain.‖

During the trial, other ―former Enron executives…also acknowledged they fudged

numbers, plundered reserves to boost earnings and dished out bogus information.‖

He offers several suggestions to other organizations in their hiring practices by saying

that ―Enron‘s hiring managers‖ should have ―evaluat[ed] character‖ by ―examining how recruits

manage privilege; their ambition; whether they mentor others; whether they are mission-minded

to serve something larger than themselves; and whether they view business as simply an amoral

exercise.‖

Mr. Csorba closes the article by saying, ―perhaps Lay and Skilling wish now that they

would have listened more to their critics, and a lot less to their CFO and themselves.‖


Blohowiak, D. (2004, November 10). Enron: Aftermath Teaches Yet Another Leadership Lesson

[Electronic version]. Lead Well Institute. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://leadwell.com/db/1/4/274

The article briefly states that Enron went from being a large organization with many

employees and a large economic presence in Houston, Texas, but ended up leaving many

employees ―unemployed or financially devastated.‖ Those who were chiefly accused were the

former Chairman, the former Chief Executive Officer, and the former Chief Accounting

http://leadwell.com/db/1/4/274

Bibliography 45

Officer—Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and Richard Causey, respectively.

The article does not state the history of the organization, nor the actions which caused

Enron to crumble. It simply presupposes everyone knows the story. Then, the article uses this

presupposition to discuss the difficulty which arises in critically yet impartially judging

someone.

Mr. Blohowiak says that:

Prejudice—positive and negative—enter the equation whenever any of us is

called upon to render an assessment of, or make a judgment about, the actions of

another person….especially…someone with whom we have a relationship or

about whom we have an opinion [and that]….The difference between seeing a

situation…as objective or subjective, is often your personal feelings….[which] is

near impossible to set aside.

The converse can also challenge us: when we coldly make a decision that

will affect others with little or no regard for the human impact of our ‗business

decision.‘

Using himself as an example, he admits that, as a manager of an organization or when

instructing college students, ―I‘d excuse a subpar performance from someone I generally liked

and respected; or I‘d come down inordinately harshly on the work of someone I didn‘t

particularly care for.‖

He says this is ―Being human,‖ but also says that, ―As a leader, your credibility depends

on treating everyone fairly.‖ He calls for leaders to be ―discipline[d]‖ and ―conscientious,‖ and to

balance their ―emotions‖ with ―objective data‖ and critical thinking.

Bibliography 46


Reh, F. J. (n.d.). Lessons Learned From Enron: Say ―No‖ to Yes-Men. Retrieved October 22,

2008, from http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Enron091902.htm

Everybody likes to be in a comfort zone—even leaders. But leaders cannot live there.

Leaders cannot surround themselves with people who think just like they do, and who don‘t

question their thinking, their ethics, their decision making, their communications, and their

actions. Leaders must avoid groupthink. Leaders must develop and nurture a culture where their

closest advisers may speak freely and question their leader. Leaders must support themselves

with a team that is unafraid to call their integrity into question. It may be an unpleasant

experience for both parties, but it keeps an ethical leader ethical and protects the organization;

leaders are paid for this discomfort and scrutiny. This same culture should be extended

throughout the organization—where any employee can share their ideas of transforming the

organization, and where they can question the organization‘s motives, policies, and actions.

Mr. Reh states that:

There are many lessons that can be learned from the collapse of Enron. Any

organization has an obligation to all of its stakeholders, not just its shareholders,

and those obligations were not met in this case. Executives at Enron made

decisions that were wrong. Some of their decisions may have involved illegal

activities. Many people also are beginning to question the professional conduct of

auditors Arthur Andersen. Did their interest in preserving their income cloud their

judgment?

It seems Arthur Andersen was guilty of a very prevalent ethical debacle—conflict of

http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Enron091902.htm

Bibliography 47

interest.

Leaders are responsible for creating the vision for an organization—or perpetuating one

already in place and guiding it, as is the case when a new leader is brought in. At times, leaders

will need to realign the organization with that vision. At other times, leaders will need to shape

that vision here and there to help an organization where its vision has failed, wasn‘t focused, or

was too small. It is the responsibility of the leader to communicate that vision throughout all

levels of the organization—enlisting the support of vice-presidents and division managers to take

that vision and apply it to their functional areas; calling on managers to take ownership of the

vision and empower their staffs to do the same; and taking full advantage of the communication

staff to spread the vision throughout organizational communications, making sure that vision is

incorporated into the culture which the leader creates and fosters for the development and growth

of the organization and the people associated with it.

Mr. Reh continues:

When your company culture allows people to challenge ideas, suggestions, and

plans, you create an organization of thinking, committed people capable of

producing the kind of innovation and productivity required to succeed today.

However, if your company culture does not [allow] dissent, if people who suggest

alternatives are castigated for not being "team players", you produce an

environment of fear, stagnation, and antipathy. Not allowing appropriate dissent

will kill your company.

Every person throughout the organization is responsible to someone else—for this reason

alone, a strong sense of and commitment to ethics would be vital. Although organizations have

Bibliography 48

varying depths to their organizational structure—varying levels of hierarchy—line-level

employees report to their supervisors or managers, who in turn may report to a higher manager

or regional or divisional manager, who may then report to a vice-president. The vice-president

will have to answer to the president and/or CEO; and the president and/or CEO answers to the

Board of Directors which, if the system works, answers to the shareholders (stockholders). Each

level calls for people to act as leaders, whether they are assigned the role by the organization or

have the role unofficially attributed to them through the willing consent of others.

Further, Mr. Reh discusses our responsibility to our leaders and our organizations to give

them our honest opinions:

It is our responsibility to our bosses to be honest with them, to tell them what we

really think, even if we disagree. Especially if we disagree. You, and every one of

your peers, need to discuss issues openly, frankly, and with the best interests of

your area clearly visible. You need to give the boss as much information and as

many options as possible. Don't be afraid to fight hard for what you believe to be

right. Be professional about it, but be candid too.

―However, once the boss has made a decision, the discussion and arguing and dissent

must stop. [At that point,] you have an obligation to support your boss in that decision. You

expect it of your people; you should do no less‖ (Reh, n.d.). This is a part of ethics that concerns

hypocrisy—one cannot expect their own employees to listen to them without any questions

asked, and yet still expect to be able to freely question their own leaders.

―Challenging the status quo has to be a top priority in any organization. Accepting the

status quo leads to stagnation. Stagnation will kill any organization….Being a yes-man is

Bibliography 49

damaging to the individual, not just the company‖ (Reh, n.d.).

A final thought from Reh is the necessity for leaders to surround themselves with people

who provide diversity to balance out the similarity. Reh says:

Avoid the temptation to surround yourself with individuals who are so similar to

you that they can't offer a different perspective. Don't surround yourself with

people who are so afraid that they won't dissent. Reward creativity and original

thought in your decision-making process. Hang on to those people who have

mastered the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable.


The Associated Press. (2008, October 23). Greenspan admits ‗mistake‘ that helped crisis

[Electronic version]. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Chairman who left his post in February of

2006 after serving for 18 ½ years, testified before the House Oversight Committee on the current

financial crisis. During his testimony, he admitted to what the article called ―flaws in his thinking

and in the workings of the free-market system.‖

Basically, Mr. Greenspan had believed that those who served as leaders in the banking

and mortgage industry would, through deregulation, act in the best interest of their stockholders

and organizations—protecting their investments and equity—by not choosing to fill the market

with subprime mortgage loans and securities backed by them. He now calls the ―mistake‖ a

―flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world

works.‖

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Bibliography 50

Mr. Greenspan did own up to making mistakes in his thinking and actions, including that,

because there had never been such a ―collapse‖ in home prices on a nationwide-level before, that

he did not believe it was possible. The article also quotes Mr. Greenspan as saying the housing

and economic crises have ―turned out to be much broader than anything that I could have

imagined.‖

In the article is written that Henry Waxman, the Chairman of the House Oversight

Committee, attributed the crisis to actions on the part of the Federal Reserve, the Securities and

Exchange Commission, and the Treasury Department. It also states that others pointed their

criticisms toward Mr. Greenspan. The article quotes Mr. Waxman as saying, ―Our regulators

became enablers rather than enforcers. Their trust in the wisdom of the markets was infinite. The

mantra became that government regulation is wrong. The market is infallible.‖ To which Mr.

Greenspan responded by blaming investors eager to purchase those subprime mortgage-backed

securities mentioned above, and saying that those investors ―did not worry that the boom in

home prices might come to a crashing halt.‖

Mr. Greenspan went on to say, ―Given the financial damage to date, I cannot see how we

can avoid a significant rise in layoffs…unemployment…threats to retirement funds and

increased job security.‖

The article does not say whether Mr. Greenspan should have accepted more blame for the

crisis, nor whether banking and mortgage leaders should come forward to admit their mistakes as

well.


Avolio, B. J., Weichun, Z., & May, D. (2004, June 22). The impact of ethical leadership

Bibliography 51

behavior on employee outcomes: the roles of psychological… [Electronic version].

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. University of Nebraska-Lincoln,

Gallup Leadership Institute. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-development/290762-1.html

This paper explores how ethical leadership psychologically impacts employees and sets

the condition in which they make decisions and take actions—such as being honest and

demonstrating loyalty. The basic argument is that when employees feel and believe themselves

to be empowered by their organizations, through their leaders—and this empowerment is

actually demonstrated through leadership action, and the employee takes reciprocal action—then

the employee develops a trust in the leaders and a commitment to the organization. ―The

consistency between [a] leader‘s true ethical intention and [their] behavior‖ is the leader‘s

―authenticity.‖

The authors use the 2001 work of Aronson to state that, ―Leaders are obligated to set a

moral example for organizational members and to determine those organizational activities

which may be detrimental to the values of society in general‖ (cited in text).

Avolio, Weichun, and May (2004) further say that:

[When] [l]eaders exhibit ethical behaviors...they help to elevate followers' moral

awareness and moral self-actualization. [Therefore], ethical leadership

encompasses more than the fostering of ethical behaviors….[and] create the right

conditions and organizational culture…to foster the development of ethical

behavior.

The authors look to China, and Confucius, to see that, ―gentlemen can convince the world

http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-development/290762-1.html

Bibliography 52

only with their noble ethics."


National Association of Corporate Directors. (2008, October). Key Agreed Principles to

Strengthen Corporate Governance for U.S. Publicly Traded Companies. Retrieved

October 22, 2008, from

http://www.directorship.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/2/7d77608e0e0a8a1fb1df2d3593f948

48fe/misc/heyagreedprinciples.pdf.

This document includes the Principles, an Introduction, and letters by Kenneth Daly, the

President and CEO of the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), and John

Castellani, the President of The Business Roundtable.

Per Kenneth Daly:

The current economic crisis has eroded public and investor confidence in

corporate governance. American corporations must take action to restore the

public trust. For the past year, we have worked with business leaders and

shareholder groups to create the attached set of Principles to serve as a framework

for strengthening governance for U.S. publicly traded companies….[and to]

empower board leadership, particularly in the areas of oversight of risk, corporate

strategy, compensation, and transparency.

Part of the Board Responsibility for Governance includes ―setting the tone‖ of ethics,

integrity, and transparency of the organization and all ―financial disclosures and controls,‖ and

acting as a watchdog to ensure the organization obeys all laws and government regulations.

According to the Principles, the role of the director of the board requires ―integrity, objectivity,

http://www.directorship.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/2/7d77608e0e0a8a1fb1df2d3593f94848fe/misc/heyagreedprinciples.pdf

http://www.directorship.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/2/7d77608e0e0a8a1fb1df2d3593f94848fe/misc/heyagreedprinciples.pdf

Bibliography 53

judgment, diplomacy, and courage.‖

The NACD recognizes that the existing corporate climate include pressures to please, and

―scrutiny‖ by, all stakeholders—each with their own ―interests in its operation and success‖—

and the need to try and balance these diverse and ―competing [interests] and pressures‖ while

still trying to position the organization for long-term success while also being aware of the short-

term values that are often the key focus of stakeholders and financial analysts.

While the President and other management leaders are accountable to the Board of

Directors, the principle of Independent Board Leadership provides ethical safeguards which help

prevent conflicts of interest from arising between the President and CEO and the Board. The

NACD recommends, through this principle, that board leadership be evaluated annually to

ensure independence.

For the NACD, the principle of Integrity, Ethics, and Social Responsibility is key to the

creation and maintenance of organizational culture and the cornerstone of building sustainable

relationships with stakeholders. According to the principle:

The board plays a key role in assuring that an appropriate corporate culture is

developed, by communicating to senior management the seriousness with which

the board views the matter, defining the parameters of the desired culture,

reviewing efforts of management to inculcate the agreed culture (including…[a]

review of compliance and ethics programs) and continually assessing the integrity

and ethics of senior management.

Further, integrity, ethics, and social responsibility are:

…at the heart of effective governance, and should factor into all board

Bibliography 54

decisions…particular[ly]…when considering management proposals; assessing

internal controls and procedures; reviewing financial reporting and accounting

decisions; and…when discussing management development and succession

planning. [Also, the] board should pay special attention to how members of senior

management approach their own conflicts of interest.

The principle of Shareholder Communications stresses developing a strong relationship

between the board and the shareholders and always keeping the lines of communication between

the two open and flowing. While traditional communications will still be relied upon, such as the

―proxy statement, annual report, annual meeting, and other meetings and

correspondence....Boards should also consider…developing stronger relationships with investors

through candid and open dialogue…about corporate governance issues and long-term strategy

issues.‖


Galuszka, P. (2008, October 22). NACD Offers Guidelines to Bolster Public Confidence. BNET

(Business Network). Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=1439.

Mr. Galuszka gives a brief synopsis of the ten Key Agreed Principles to Strengthen

Corporate Governance for U.S. Publicly Traded Companies, established in October of 2008.

These principles were formed in recognition of a breakdown in organizational ethics and as a

response to the waning public trust of organizations and their Boards of Directors, particularly

during this current economic collapse. Mr. Galuszka says that, while the principles raise the

standards for corporate governance, there is still a longs ways to go in many areas, including

http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=1439

Bibliography 55

―backing many aspects of corporate democracy, such as direct shareholder nominations of

director candidates.‖

Mr. Galuszka‘s synopsis of the principles are that Boards of Directors must be

responsible for designing and ensuring ―competent‖ and ―transparent‖ ―[self-]governance,‖ ―free

of management control,‖ ―free to set their own agenda,‖ and able to adapt and grow and the

organization changes. The culture of the organization should have as its foundation ―integrity,

ethics and responsibility.‖ The Boards must ―pay attention to‖ and be ―accountable to

shareholders,‖ being ―objective in their outlook,‖ and carefully consider[ing] non-binding

resolutions proposed by them.‖ ―Shareholders should be allowed to elect directors by a majority

vote [and if] a director does not get a majority vote in an uncontested election, [then] he or she

should resign.‖ There should also be open and effective communication between shareholders

and the Board.


International Business Ethics Institute. (n.d.). Business Ethics: A Corporate Advantage.

Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.business-ethics.org/corpadv.html

Strong ethics offer an organization several advantages.

Within the marketplace, customers and investors often decide who to do business with or

invest in based on the ethics of the organizations they are considering.

Strong organizational values and ethics that are embedded within the culture and are

actively practiced, not just given lip-service to, are linked to ―improved employee morale,

reduced employee turnover and increased productivity.‖

The International Business Ethics Institute (IBEI) says that:

http://www.business-ethics.org/corpadv.html

Bibliography 56

Once damaged by scandal or unethical behavior, a company‘s reputation may

never recover - resulting in lost revenue, low employee morale and increased

governmental and public scrutiny. Emphasizing responsible business conduct is

the surest means of preserving a company‘s intangible assets.

Many governments throughout the world ―provide strong legal and financial incentives to

corporations that establish standards of conduct and provide ethics education and training to

employees.‖ This is another example where honesty does, indeed, pay dividends.


Pinchot, E. (2008). Can We Afford Ethics? Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://www.pinchot.com/MainPages/BooksArticles/OtherArticles/

CanWeAffordEthics.html

―[E]thics is [not] a luxury—it‘s a staple in the success on any enterprise‖ (Pinchot, 2008).

The old bureaucratic way of managing an organization is with top-down control,

centralized planning, and multiple levels of management. Leaders ―feel coerced to manage things

for the short term bottom line.‖

Ms. Pinchot says:

To flourish in the modern marketplace, we need extraordinary commitment from

all employees, often to do the impossible: to achieve unprecedented quality and

responsiveness in products and services along with heroic frugality, to create

incredible levels of integration and collaboration within and without the

organizations, and especially to pull off continuous, brilliant, and cheap

innovation‖ (2008).

Bibliography 57

According to Ms. Pinchot, ―We must build organizational cultures in which

freedom and personal initiative can cohabit with cooperation, caring and a highly integrated

harmony.‖

Today, organizational leaders consider many new factors as a part of ethics—including

―quality of work life and minimizing environmental degradation.‖

Ms. Pinchot (2008) says, ―Effective societies and effective companies alike have their

grounding in ethical basics that rest on freedom and democracy: the value of [individual

personal] diversity; distributed power [the empowering of employees to make ethical decisions

which affect planning, performance, and profits]; continuous reality testing [through ‖what Max

De Pree calls ‗lavish communications,‘ which only occur in organizational cultures that promote

truth and never suppress or limit the distribution of information‖]; distributed leadership; global

ethics; acting for the long run [versus short-term gain]; and the Golden Rule.‖

Ms. Pinchot (2008) continues:

In these circumstances of increasingly empowered and self-organized

employees, simple rules and rigid policies are not enough to guide employees.

There must be a shared sense of where the organization is trying to go, and then,

because ends never justify means, a deep respect for ethics. The power of

leadership is in providing ethical and effective power to the people.

Leadership…must be as distributed as intelligence—free people cannot

collaborate without sharing the big picture, cannot move forward effectively

without a common mission, cannot self-test and self-renew without accurate

feedback, cannot count on each other without trust in a common and widespread

Bibliography 58

moral wisdom.

[W]e must develop in ourselves both the analytic and the heartfelt, the

canny trader and the caring compatriot…the competitor and the partner.

Freedom extended to people embedded in a deep sense of community is the basic

lesson the Japanese are teaching the world….[and] we must learn to be ethical not

only to the level of company and beyond to the level of our national communities,

but to extend our ethical boundaries to include the world

‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you‘ is the basic rule for

community survival. Those groups which survive well will treat each other and

even their customers as equals, with consideration and respect. Internally, the

‗Golden Rule‘ is needed to prevent our worst – destructive-in-fighting, stifling

authoritarianism, diverting status-seeking. This principle is the basis of pulling

together and getting done anything of value…..We function best when we can

count on others, and others on us, and when we are willing to collaborate with our

colleagues and customers on mutual goals. Every workplace that has long-term

success rests on community values: mutual support, caring for each other, our

customers, and the worlds we share, and being responsible to learn and change so

as to produce unquestionable positive value--or jeopardize everyone's survival.

In the future, ethics will play an even greater role in business, and those organizations

that are the most ethical, that are driven by time-tested values that are generally accepted as

universal, and that make ethics a foundational aspect of their culture, will be recognized by

consumers with their purchases and employees and investors with their loyalty.

Bibliography 59


Ethics Resource Center. (2008, June 12). Performance Reviews Often Skip Ethics, HR

Professionals Say. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://ethics.org/about-erc/press-

releases.asp?aid=1150

According to an article published by the Ethics Resource Center (ERC), ―In a new

national survey, only 43 percent of human resources professionals said their organizations

include ethical conduct as part of employees' performance appraisals‖ (2008).

The study, The Ethics Landscape in American Business, is the third such study jointly

conducted by the ERC and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) since 1997.

The study looks at the attitudes towards ethics of human resource professionals and the

organizations where they work.

According to the ERC (2008), the findings show that ―human resource professionals…are

their organizations' primary resource for ethics-related issues, and…help create ethics policies.

But most don't feel…truly part of the ethics infrastructure. Instead, they are just asked to ‗clean

up‘ the situations caused by ethics violations.‖

Susan Meisinger, president and CEO of SHRM, said, ―Human resource professionals are

integral to the process of creating and maintaining ethical organizations—from helping to write

ethics and compliance programs and procedures, to disciplining ethical breaches....Organizations

can benefit by bringing HR professionals into the early conversations when planning ethics-

related programs" (Ethics Research Council, 2008).

Using the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations (FSGO) as a benchmark,

which outlines six fundamentals of ―a comprehensive ethics and compliance program,‖ the ERC

http://ethics.org/about-erc/press-releases.asp?aid=1150

http://ethics.org/about-erc/press-releases.asp?aid=1150

Bibliography 60

was able to use the study to determine that, of the human resource professionals surveyed, 7

percent work for an organization that does not have any kind of ethics program whatsoever, and

only 23 percent have a ―comprehensive ethics and compliance program in place.‖ The ERC

found consolation in that ―82 percent of HR professionals said they reported ethical misconduct

when it was observed, compared with 61 percent of employees.‖ The reasons for HR

professionals not reporting ethics violations were that they either felt they could not do so

anonymously or felt that those who committed the ethics violations would go unpunished.

The six fundamentals of a comprehensive ethics and compliance program are: ―written

standards of ethical workplace conduct;‖ ―means for an employee to anonymously report

violations of ethics standards;‖ ―orientation or training on ethical workplace conduct;‖ ―a

specific office, telephone line, e-mail address or Web site where employees can get advice about

ethics-related issues;‖ ―evaluation of ethical conduct as part of regular performance appraisals;‖

and ―discipline for employees who commit ethics violations.‖

The article listed three ―key findings‖ of the survey:

Ethical misconduct most commonly identified by HR professionals

included abusive or intimidating behavior toward fellow employees, plus abuse of

e-mail or Internet privileges. Employees (U.S. average) cited instances of

colleagues calling in ‗sick‘ inappropriately, and people taking credit for someone

else's work.

HR professionals think that top management (77 percent) would be less

likely to be held accountable if caught violating their organization's ethics

standards than supervisors (86 percent) and non-management employees (91

Bibliography 61

percent).

A small proportion of HR professionals (19 percent) and employees (U.S.

average: 11 percent) reported feeling pressure by others (within their organization

or externally) to compromise their organization's ethics standards, company

policy, or the law (Ethics Research Council, 2008).

The HR staffs of many organizations seem to be underutilized by leadership. A

professional HR staff should be able to help the leaders of an organization not just establish and

implement ethics policies, but also help in creating vision and culture and facilitate the

embracing of both by all stakeholders.


Ethics Resource Center. (2008). Ethics Resource Center Calls on McCain and Obama to Make

Ethics High Priority if Elected. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://www.ethics.org/

―Poll Shows Americans Overwhelmingly Support Strong Ethical Leadership in

Washington‖ (Ethics Resource Center, 2008, ―ERC Calls on McCain‖). Americans are

disillusioned with many of today‘s organizational leaders—political, governmental, and

religious. As a result, Americans want to see reform in leadership and increased ethical

responsibility.

The federal government is the largest organization in the United States of America. It is

probably also the most visible and, in addition to media and religious organizations, has the most

influence and direct control over people‘s lives. The federal government is filled with

organizations whose leaders are not proficient at effective communication, and whose leaders

and followers, alike, frequently make unethical decisions and engage in unethical practices.

http://www.ethics.org/

Bibliography 62

According to their Web site, ―The Ethics Resource Center (ERC) is the nation‘s oldest

nonprofit research organization devoted to ethics in the workplace.‖ Prior to the 2008

presidential election, the ERC asked both McCain and Obama to make ethics a priority concern

for the soon-to-be newly-elected administration. In particular, the ERC asked for the new

administration to ―raise ethical standards for federal [employees].‖

―A national poll conducted by the ERC from 19-22 September found that 88 percent of

those polled—regardless of demographics—thought that a strong ethics plan was important for

the new administration.‖ [Not quite verbatim, but close, so I have put it in quotes.]

Patricia Harned, President of ERC, said that, ―It seems the American people at the

moment don't think 'Washington' and 'ethics' belong together in the same sentence….It is critical

that the next President, whoever it is, seize the opportunity to start re-building the public's faith

in their government institutions.‖

In 2007, the ERC conducted the National Government Ethics Survey and found that

federal employees made a much greater number of unethical decisions than the public even

realizes. The survey showed that most of these unethical decisions can be traced back to the

environments where the employees work. Environments are the product of the culture and values

of the leaders and the organization. It is up to the leader to embody the culture and values and to

bring the organization together in living them. It is up to the leader to ensure that organizational

policies create an environment conducive to ethical decision making. While the kinds of

pressures which may permit an individual to make an unethical decision cannot be altogether

eliminated, the leader can continually stress to the organization the importance of ethical values,

and can create a culture where unethical decisions and actions are not only punished, but where

Bibliography 63

employees know they are free to anonymously report ethics violations without fear of reprisal.

Harned wrote in her letters to McCain and Obama that:

Conflicts of interest, abusive or intimidating behavior, and lying to employees are

particularly common, and fraud is as likely to occur in government as in the

private sector. ‗This is borne out, unfortunately, by some of the recent disclosures

about misconduct in the federal government. For example, the reported actions of

Interior Department workers engaging in sex, drugs, meals, ski trips, and sports

tickets from members of the oil industry they were supposed to be monitoring

(ERC, 2008, ―ERC Calls on McCain‖).

Harned goes on to write:

Our research has shown that building and reinforcing an ethical workplace

requires an organization's top leaders to focus on two complimentary initiatives.

First is the installation of a rigorous ethics and compliance program that

communicates and upholds a broad set of ethical principles. That must be

followed by a continuing dedication to building and maintaining an ethical culture

(ERC, 2008, ―ERC Calls on McCain‖).


Sankar, Y. (2003, March 22). Character Not Charisma is the Critical Measure of Leadership

Excellence. [Electronic version]. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.

Baker College, Center for Graduate Studies. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://www.allbusiness.com/print/595063-1-22eeq.html

This paper, like many others, states that there is an ethical crisis in leadership, stemming

http://www.allbusiness.com/print/595063-1-22eeq.html

Bibliography 64

from a lack of character on the part of many leaders, and focuses on this crisis and its link to two

thoughts on leadership—charismatic leadership, and character-based (or ethical) leadership.

As stated in the paper, ―The character of the leader is grounded on such core values as

integrity, trust, truth, and human dignity, which influence the leader‘s vision, ethics and

behavior.‖ Not only may the leader have a very strong moral ethic—or strong character—but he

or she may be considered ―charismatic,‖ as well. While the nature of the term ―charisma‖ has

been diluted over the centuries from its original meaning as a person who has been ―gifted‖ with

special qualities from the Holy Spirit, or a ―higher power,‖ to what is today thought of more as

being ―inspirational‖ or able to inspire others to meet organizational goals or to believe in

themselves or their common cause, charisma is not what sustains an organization as it faces

ethical decisions. ―Charisma is not connected to ethics, moral literacy, mentoring or the design of

an ethical culture for the organization by the leader. It is the character of the leader that is

connected to these elements of a leader's behaviour.‖ Charisma can be found in leaders with both

good and bad moral characters, and people follow them both. Both the leader, and the culture of

the organization he or she leads, should be sustained and guided more by character than by

charisma. It is the character of a leader which makes one choose to be a servant or a mentor.

―Character acts as a moral compass for guiding others along the ethical path.‖

The author next states that a ―value-based‖ leader ―has to be 95 percent psychologist‖ in

order to understand those he or she is trying to lead. By understanding the people, the leader

understands their values and what motivates them. The leader is able to form relationships with

them and inspire trust. The psychological aspect helps the leader to know if his or her people are

―truly following.‖

Bibliography 65

The author explains that, historically, the study of leadership began with the desire, or

very real need, of finding a ―guardian.‖ People needed protection and they were looking for a

new leader that had the ―guardian‖ qualities of the last leader. Over the millennia, the quest for

and study of leadership became ―demythologized, secularized, empiricized, democratized, and

psychologized, and now…notions of values, ethics, and morality have been leached away,

ignored, or depreciated as irrelevant.‖

As the author says, it doesn‘t take a good value system to be able to issue a command or

an order, but it does take a good value system for someone to make the ‗right‘ ethical decisions

to sustainably lead an organization. The overall value system for an organization is created by

the leader(s), incorporated and sustained by the culture, and transmitted to the followers through

relationships built through good communications.

As Sankar (2003) states:

Organizational values are developed and reinforced primarily through value based

leadership, a relationship between a leader and followers that is based on shared,

strongly internalized values that are advocated and acted upon by the leader.

Leaders influence cultural and ethical values by clearly articulating a vision for

organizational values that employees can believe in, communicating the vision

throughout the organization, and institutionalizing the vision through everyday

behaviour, rituals, ceremonies, and symbols, as well as through organizational

systems and policies.

Charisma focuses on personality attributes such as dynamism, style,

image, inspiration, symbolic behaviours (House, 1977) impression management,

Bibliography 66

emotional intelligence (Coleman, 1998), extroverted style, self-confidence,

empathetic understanding, and admiration for articulating a vision (Shamir, 1995).

CEO charisma represents a potentially key component of strategic leadership

(Bass, 1990; Hunt, 1991). However, an alternative conceptualization is that

charismatic leadership may occasionally be more personalized in nature where the

leader is self serving, self-aggrandizing, and exploitative of others (Kets de Vries,

1993; Klein and House, 1998) displaying high levels of Machiavellianism (i.e.

maximizing one's self interest at the expense of others through the use of

manipulation and deceit) narcissism and authoritarianism causing loss of self

initiative and self control of their followers.

Leaders whose personalities are characterized by a high degree of

narcissism are driven by intense needs for power and prestige. The use of coercive

power, intimidation, and deception are some of the strategies used to enhance the

power visibility of these charismatic lenders (Sankar, 2003).

As Mr. Sankar also states in his paper:

Conger et al (1989) observe ‗charisma‘ is a Greek word meaning ‗gift of grace.‘

Its earliest use can be traced to the Bible, in which St. Paul employs the term in

two letters (Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12). He enumerates such things as

wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, healing, and the ability to understand and express

oneself in different languages as gifts (charisma) endowed by the Holy Spirit on

particular people.

Mr. Sankar then goes on to trace the evolution of the term. He quotes Max Weber from In

Bibliography 67

the Theory of Social and Economic Organization, published in 1947: ―[The charismatic leader] is

set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least

specifically exceptional powers or qualities.‖

Next, Mr. Sankar summarizes the works of others, such as House and his colleagues who,

in 1991:

…attribute[d] three characteristics to charismatic leadership: (1) extremely high

levels of self-confidence, (2) dominance, and (3) a strong conviction in the moral

righteousness of their beliefs. House, Spangler, and Woycke (1991) define

charisma as ‗the ability [of] a leader to exercise diffuse and intense influence over

the beliefs, values, behavior, and performance of others through his or her own

behaviour, beliefs, and personal example.‘ They see charisma as a ‗relationship or

bond between a leader and subordinates‘—an attribution assigned by the

followers coupled with personality trait[s] intrinsic to the leader. Moreover, a

follower's belief in the charismatic's divine link is watered down to ‗inspirational

powers‘ [that have]… no divine connotations. Inspiration [is simply] defined as

the extent to which a leader stimulate[s] enthusiasm among subordinates for the

work of the group and says things to build their confidence in their ability to

successfully perform assignments and attain group objectives.

Sankar relates that many are finding that the term ―charisma‖ does not fit well into

organizations today because the historical meaning requires belief in a supernatural force, which

many people do not accept. Sankar then follows on to say that the ―emergence‖ of such

―charismatic‖ leaders today would require ―a major crisis at the societal level….a life-and-death

Bibliography 68

situation to ignite dormant charisma, if there is room for such a thing in today‘s modern skeptical

mind.‖ This paper was published in 2003; almost 18 months after September 11. That was such a

time where charismatic…albeit highly ethical…leaders were needed. This is true even more

today as the world economy is collapsing. These are the major crises at the societal level that

should inspire such leaders.

Sankar also explains that it is the follower‘s belief in the ―transcendent mission of the

leader and their belief in the divine source of this transcendence‖ that produces the ―motivational

power‖ of charisma.

To serve as a segue into The Dark Side of Charisma, the next major section of his paper,

Sankar emphasizes that:

When charisma is secularize[d]….[t]his puts a big question mark on the

motivational value of such watered-down charisma. Without a belief in a

transcendent mission and divine calling, charismatic leadership is not much more

than another leadership style or personality strait. Divorced of its divine

connotations, it becomes little more than charm or an aura. There is no difference

between it and the popular meaning people attach to it in [the] everyday use of the

term.

This segue is also a warning. When leaders who are ―charismatic‖ in the secular or

―popular‖ sense are able to rally masses to a cause they believe in, those leaders have the

exponential power to cause much destruction, suffering, and death—Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jim

Jones, David Koresh, and others. In creating a demarcation line between the characters of good

and bad charismatic leaders Sankar states, ―The dark side of charisma is essentially a crisis in

Bibliography 69

character or character flaws of the charismatic leader, which neutralize his/her core value of

integrity and his search for excellence.‖

Sankar refers to the work of Conger and Kanungo who, in 1998, published their ―theory

of charismatic leadership‖ which discussed, in part, the negative character traits of leaders who

are ―on the dark side.‖ Sankar agrees with Conger and Kanungo and believes that ―character…is

the major determinant of leadership excellence.‖

Sankar gives an excellent summary of many character flaws of charismatic leaders and

the impact it has on their followers as they lead. I have included this summary in its entirety:

Charismatic leaders can be prone to extreme narcissism that leads them to

promote highly self-serving and grandiose aims. As a result, the leader's behaviors

can become exaggerated, lose touch with reality, or become vehicles for pure

personal gain. In turn, they may harm the leader, followers, and the organization.

An overpowering sense of self-importance and strong need to be at the center of

attention can lead charismatic leaders to ignore the viewpoints of others and the

development of leadership ability in followers. We might even classify

charismatic leaders as positive or negative by their orientation toward satisfying

their own needs versus those of their followers. For example, negative charismatic

leaders presumably emphasize a devotion to themselves over their mission. They

also are likely to promote personal identification and dependence on themselves

over a more straightforward endorsement and internalization of the values and

ideological goals they are promoting. Positive charismatic leaders, on the other

hand, are more likely to emphasize the mission rather than themselves and to seek

Bibliography 70

internalization over personal identification.

Sankar then contrasts this ―dark side‖ of charismatic character with traits which are

positive, and uses the 1991 work of House and his colleagues to do so. They proposed that

―positive and negative‖ charismatic leadership could be classified as both ―socialized‖ charisma

and ―personalized‖ charisma. In summarizing House and his colleagues, Sankar says:

Their theory holds that although the socialized charismatic leader has a high need

for power, it is counterbalanced with high activity inhibition, low

authoritarianism, an internal locus of control, high self-esteem, and low

Machiavellianism. These ‗balancing‘ characteristics shape the socialized leader's

behavior such that it emphasizes the collective interests of followers. The leader's

tendency is to govern others through more egalitarian means, to work through

established channels of authority, to address followers' needs, and to approach

motivation through empowerment. In contrast, the personalized leader has a high

need for power that is instead coupled with low activity inhibition, high

authoritarianism, an external locus of control, low self-esteem, high narcissism,

and high Machiavellianism.

These characteristics promote leadership behavior that is largely self-

serving. Such leaders govern in a totalitarian manner, discourage questioning of

their decisions, advocate goals that largely benefit themselves, disregard

legitimate institutional channels, and use punishments and rewards to motivate.

Among their followers, they prefer to foster dependence and unquestioning

obedience over independent thinking.

Bibliography 71

Sankar asks, ―How can we judge the two charismatic leadership forms to be ethical or

unethical?‖ He then goes on to say that we must first define what it means to be ethical. His

definition is ―that which is morally good, or that which is considered morally right--as opposed

to that which is legally or procedurally right.‖ He paraphrases Saint Thomas Aquinas in saying,

―the moral goodness of behaviors should be judged on the basis of the objective act itself, the

subjective motive of the actor, and the context in which the act is performed.‖ Sankar goes on to

correlate this with a leader of an organization, and expresses the characteristic approaches he

feels the ethical leader would be focused on:

The ethical nature of charismatic leadership in organizational contexts manifests

itself on three dimensions: the leader's motives; the leader's influence strategies;

and the leader's character formation. Charismatic leaders exhibit ethical leadership

when they (1) strive to operate with an altruistic intent, (2) utilize empowering

rather than controlling strategies to influence followers, and (3) endeavor to

cultivate virtues and abstain from vices to build their own character. A virtuous

character is the building block of leadership excellence.

Sankar continues on throughout his paper to explore these subjects. He talks about the

character of a leader—with ―core values‖ and ―sub values‖—and how these values relate to

integrity. He discusses how a good leader uses his or her ethics to ―govern‖ how they lead their

lives and how they lead others. His uses these subjects to establish his views on the relationship

between character and mentoring others. As Sankar states:

The leader can be a mentor or role model because of his/her character not his

charisma. Mentoring is a value-based concept. The leader's credibility as a mentor

Bibliography 72

is enhanced by her core values, ethical vision, moral commitment and her

conception of her duty to organizational members. For example, trust is a core

value in mentoring. Trust comes from character, not charisma.

Sankar also discusses ―moral intelligence, insight and imagination‖ and establishing the

―ethical culture‖ of an organization, and how both are connected, again, to ―character not

charisma.‖

Regarding ―moral literacy‖ Sankar says:

[It] consists of the basics of ethics, ethical principles, rules of conduct,

conceptions of right and wrong, moral intelligence, imagination and moral

commitment to our moral heritage and ground rules for decision-making….It is

from moral literacy that a leader can articulate the core values that drive his or her

vision and the… essentials of an ethical culture of his or her organization. It is in

the decision making process, the essence of management, that a leader's moral

vision, values, and imagination are tested in volatile environment.

Towards ―ethical culture‖ Sankar says that leadership is paramount because ―integrity (or

the lack of it) flows from the top down.‖ He refers to surveys and statements both from the

organization Business Roundtable: ―‘To achieve results, the Chief Executive Officer and those

around the CEO need to be openly and strongly committed to ethical conduct, and give constant

leadership in tending and renewing the values of the organization.‘" Citing the results of the

companies surveyed, Sankar explains why ―the single most important factor in ethical decision-

making [is] the role of top management in providing commitment, leadership, and example for

ethical values.‖ Seeing the leader(s) as ultimately responsible for communications within an

Bibliography 73

organization, Sankar suggests communicating those values through the means which are

typically witnessed—―speeches, company publications, [and] policy statements.‖ Sankar notes,

though, that the most important way a leader can communicate ethics, values, and integrity

within the culture of the organization is by living them through his or her ―personal actions.‖

Sankar says that:

Top leaders are responsible for creating and sustaining a culture that emphasizes

the importance of ethical behaviour for all employees every day. When the CEO

engages in unethical practices or fails to take firm and decisive action in response

to the unethical practices of others, this attitude filters down through the

organization. Formal ethics codes and training programs are worthless if leaders

do not set and live up to high standards of ethical values based on their character.

Perhaps one of the most valuable and constructive portions of Sankar‘s paper is a

comparison and contrast given to show character traits and actions which compromise a leader‘s

integrity and what the antithesis of, or remedy for, each would be. The negative aspect is stated

and the remedy follows in parentheses:

Displays Arrogance by becoming puffed up with their own importance,

exaggerating their worth to the organization, and speaking only with people at

same or higher level. (Possess humility).

Promotes Self-interest by exploiting the organization for own purpose and

focusing on "what's in it for me" when considering actions. (Maintain concern for

the greater good).

Practices Deception by making untrue statements, taking credit for the

Bibliography 74

work of others, and using misleading facts to defend positions. (Be truthful).

Breaches Agreements by delivering services late, or failing to follow an

agreed upon decision process. (Fulfill commitments).

Deals Unfairly by making judgments without researching facts,

discriminating in hiring and promotion, and assigning the most interesting

projects to a favored few. (Strive for fairness).

Shifts Blame by declining to acknowledge personal responsibility, falsely

accusing others, and denigrating the reputation of colleagues. (Take

responsibility).

Diminishes Dignity by withholding recognition, declining to invite or

accept input, exhibiting discourteous and impolite behavior. (Have respect for the

individual).

Retains Envy by begrudging others success, and Competing at every

opportunity. (Celebrate the good fortune of others).

Neglects Employee Development by Providing superficial Performance

appraisals and failing to coach or train staff. (Develop others).

Avoids Risks by refusing to confront unjust actions, or declining to stand

up for principle. (Reproach unjust acts).

Holds Grudges by failing to let go of hard feelings, and finding ways to

get even. (Be forgiving).

Declines to Extend Self by withholding help and assistance in times that

matter, and being ungenerous in rewards. (Extend self for others).

Bibliography 75


Tahmincioglu, E. (2008, November 5). Should You Admit A Mistake. MSN Careers. Retrieved

November 13, 2008, from http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Article/MSN-1702-Workplace-

Issues-Should-You-Admit-a-Mistake/?sc_extcmp=JS_1702_msnbc&SiteId=

cbmsnbc41702&ArticleID=1702&gt1=23000&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=9ac9a34baa0f

4bd4b34ee78827d2b7e6-279884155-VP-4

Quoting human resources (HR) and other business sources, Ms. Tahmincioglu looks at

whether it is always wise for one to admit their mistakes in the business world and what some

positives and negatives are of doing so—such as whether there ―could be a hidden cost to

admitting any error.‖

Carol Tavris, a social psychologist and one of the authors of Mistakes were Made (But

Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, says that it is not

common anymore to see people in politics and the business world—particularly finance—take

responsibility for their mistakes. At least they don‘t seem to be doing so publicly.

Ms. Tahmincioglu points to the collapse of Wall Street and the economy and says that

admitting mistakes has been a rarity. She gives the example of Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld,

who was at the helm during the collapse, and his testimony before Congress. During his

testimony, he defended both his decision making and his actions as ―prudent and appropriate,‖

saying that the collapse was a combination of short selling, government actions, and other

factors.

Angie Morgan, one of the authors of Leading From the Front: No-Excuse Leadership

Tactics for Women, asks how society feels about CEOs who don‘t accept responsibility and

Bibliography 76

admit their mistakes. She points to the fact that these leaders have lost their integrity. As Ms.

Morgan says, ―Respect is the ultimate reward you can get as a leader."

Ms. Tahmincioglu then states that the decision of whether or not to admit a mistake

depends of the seriousness or weight of the mistake, ones approach to correcting the mistake, and

how managers at the organization react to mistakes being made.

Ms. Tahmincioglu relates a mistake made by Ms. Morgan while she was stationed in

Australia as an officer in the Marine Corps, and what she learned about making mistakes from

the experience. Ms. Morgan had sent two Marines into the Outback without any radios and,

when they did not return that evening, immediately went to her commander to admit the mistake

and the risk of life she had put those Marines in.

Ms. Morgan relates that, after the Marines were recovered, her commander discussed

with her what she did and what she should have done to not put the two Marines in that situation.

While Ms. Morgan admits to learning that, ―When you acknowledge mistakes, you can start

looking for solutions,‖ she also observed the importance of effective and efficient

communications within an organization—especially during a potential crisis. As Ms. Morgan

recalled, her commander ―utilized his communication channels to get a sense of where they were

last seen, which allowed him to send out Humvees in those areas to try and locate them….His

actions were immediate."

Another instance Ms. Tahmincioglu writes about was when a copywriter had just

received a large number of direct-mails back from the printer. The mailers were supposed to

advertise to lawyers a $265.00 dollar reference book, but the price came back $26.50. The

employee went into her supervisor, Ms. Lin Grensing-Pophal, an expert in HR management, and

Bibliography 77

admitted to making the mistake. She also was prepared with two courses of action for correcting

the mistake, and offered to have the cost of fixing the mistake taken out of her salary.

The employee not only did not have to pay the costs associated with the mistake, but also

acted as an example to Ms. Grensing-Pophal, who now makes sure she also always used the

employees three point approach to admitting mistakes—do so immediately, take ―full

responsibility,‖ and offer solutions. Ms. Grensing-Pophal identifies that the mistake did not fall

squarely on the copywriting employee, even though she took full responsibility for it. Also

making a mistake in that situation was the project manager for the direct-mail and the

proofreader.

As Ms. Grensing-Pophal says, ―Mistakes, in my opinion, are not opportunities to chastise

or place blame, they're opportunities to learn and improve."

Ms. Tahmincioglu quotes author Tavris who says that children are supposed to learn how

and why to admit mistakes as they grow up, but often witness parents and other adults reacting

like ―making mistakes means you are stupid or incompetent,‖ rather than the healthier belief and

approach of those who do admit to mistakes—that ―those mistakes [are not] a reflection on their

own character and ability.‖

According to Paul Facella, the CEO of Inside Management, a consulting firm, and the

author of Everything I Know About Business I Learned at McDonald's, ―The ability to admit a

mistake may also depend on your own conscience.‖ Facella tells how, at McDonald‘s and at

many other organizations with a similar culture, employees are made to feel ―comfortable‖

admitting their mistakes, and that, "In most situations, if people are honest and explain what they

did, and it had no true malicious intent, then most organizations will acquiesce and like that."

Bibliography 78

Facella says that one should weigh the consequences of admitting to a mistake and,

unless the person truly feels they should not do so, then it is best for them to determine when and

where to admit to, and explain, the mistake to ones managers. Author of The Integrity Dividend,

Tony Simons agrees and says that within large organizations, a mistake is usually made by a

collective group of people and, as such, so they should admit to the mistake together.

Ms. Tahmincioglu finishes the article talking about the possible legal implications of

admitting to a mistake. Tony Simons says such implications include ―loss of bonuses or even jail

time,‖ but fails to mention other financial repercussions that result from a lawsuit.

Ms. Tavris, though, believes too much fear has been built up of people being fired or

otherwise ruining their career by admitting to large mistakes. Mr. Simons adds that it may even

help one‘s career to admit mistakes because it shows responsibility and that one can be trusted;

and people like that. However, he also adds that people should understand that admitting to a

mistake may also bring severe consequences as well, and so people should ―be able to read if

those around [them], and the company [they] work for, are worthy of the truth.‖ This, though,

overlooks the issue of integrity and the scriptural bases of many religions which instruct not to

lie—which can include withholding information.


Shikoh, R. (2005, May 15). Islamic Business Ethics: Book Review [Review of the book Islamic

Business Strategies]. DinarStandard. Retrieved November 4, 2008, from

http://www.dinarstandard.com/management/EthicsBookReview051505.htm

In this article for the DinarStandard, an online magazine detailing ―Business Strategies

for the Muslim World,‖ Rafi-uddin Shikoh reviewed the book Islamic Business Ethics by Dr.

http://www.dinarstandard.com/management/EthicsBookReview051505.htm

Bibliography 79

Rafik Issa Beekun. As Mr. Shikoh states at the beginning of his review, ―Islamic Business

Ethics… addresses key principles of management from an Islamic point of view with a stated

goal to help Muslims engaged in business to act in accordance with the Islamic system of

ethics.‖ Mr. Shikoh also informs the reader that the author uses verses, or Surah, from the Qur‘an

to magnify and explain Islamic business ethics.

Shikoh states that this book was written to appeal to everyday Islamic businesspeople, to

give them practical application, and not to delve into the minutia of Islamic ethic teachings.

Shikoh also states that the book was designed to address global business, the global economy,

and the technology used in its operation. Shikoh points out that the author, in addition to talking

about organizational ethics and leader‘s responsibilities from an Islamic perspective, also

compares these ethics and business practices to those of five other ―dominant ethical systems‖

around the world.

Shikoh briefly defines ethics in the manner most people are accustomed to thinking about

it, as ―a set of moral principles that distinguish what is right from wrong.‖

Shikoh states that the author points to certain fundamental aspects of Islamic ethics:

discovering intentions when judging another‘s ethical or unethical actions; freedom of belief; and

the individual experience of purification during one‘s life. As Shikoh writes, ―By behaving

ethically in the midst of the tests of this worldly life, Muslims prove their worth to God.‖

Shikoh states the author‘s points that maximizing profits should not be ―the ultimate goal

or only ethical outcome of trade in Islam,‖ but that neither does Islam ―reject profits or trade and

does not aim to remove all differences in income and wealth that may result in various social and

economic classes.‖ As identified in the article, the scripture used to support this is Surah 18:46,

Bibliography 80

which states ―Wealth and sons are allurements of the life of this world; But the things that

endure, good deeds, are the best in the sight of your Lord, as rewards, and best as the foundation

for hopes." This coincides with Judeo-Christian verses which talk about storing your treasures in

Heaven as opposed to on earth, because the things of earth fade, rot, and are otherwise eventually

destroyed. The treasures stored in Heaven are good works, which are recorded and follow a

person into judgment, according to the teachings of the Judeo-Christian faith. And throughout

the history of the Jewish nation, as well as Christian nations, the profits of hard work are

honorable and many classes have always existed and have been honored by God. So, for the

Muslim, the Jew, and the Christian, while riches and fame and other kinds of prosperity are good

things, it is treating others well—by being respectful and being honest—which should be the

main pursuits of a person; the rest are to come as rewards, not goals.

Shikoh illustrates the author‘s use of five foundational aspects which are at the heart of

Islamic ethics—unity, equilibrium, free will, responsibility, and benevolence—and addresses

each with corresponding ―business implications.‖ Regarding unity, which addresses the Islamic

concept of ―oneness of God,‖ businesses should not discriminate against any stakeholder—

whether an employee, vendor, supplier, investor, consumer, or other person—on the basis of

race, religion, gender, color, or other distinguishing point. Shikoh gives the author‘s example

from Surah 49:13, which states, ―O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and

have made you nations and tribes, that you may know one another." This is also in harmony with

Genesis 1:26-28 from the Holy Bible, which states, ―Then God said, ‗Let Us make man in Our

image, according to Our likeness….in the image of God He created him; male and female He

created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‗Be fruitful and multiply; fill the

Bibliography 81

earth and subdue it…‖

Shikoh also uses the author‘s example from Surah 25:67-68 to explain how the Islamic

leader should strive for balance and equilibrium in his or her organizational practices: ―Those

who, when they spend, are not extravagant and not niggardly [stingy], but hold a just (balance)

between those two extremes.‖ This could be used to illustrate fair wages and benefits, or pricing,

or other things which are negotiated.

Shikoh displays the authors listing of business trades which are unethical and

unallowable for the Muslim businessperson: selling alcohol or drugs, prostitution, or ―any kind

of trade involving uncertainty.‖ He also highlights the fact that the author uses examples from

Wall Street and savings and loan scandals in the United States and across the world, to

demonstrate instances where there has been an obvious lack of ethics. It is pointed out that the

author not only uses non-Muslim examples of unethical business practices, but also addresses the

reputation Muslims have for bribery, lack of transparency in business, discrimination across

stakeholders, breaking contracts, cheating, and lying.

The author, according to Shikoh, frames the discussion of ethics as a part of an

organization‘s ―social responsibility.‖ Shikoh also points out that this discussion on Islamic

social responsibility for an organization is strikingly similar to the global business practice and

trend of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). As the author and Shikoh point out, for the

Islamic businessperson (and leader), corporate social responsibility is directed towards

responsibility to one‘s stake holders, society, and nature.

Shikoh illustrates the author‘s concept of the organization‘s responsibility to its

stakeholders, and those stakeholders responsibilities back to the organization. Whereas Islamic

Bibliography 82

organizations and their leaders have a social responsibility to their employees for practicing

ethical hiring and firing, for establishing fair wages and maintaining safe working conditions,

and for guaranteeing employee privacy, the employees have the organization as their own

stakeholder and, as such, is responsible for having no conflicts of interest, being honest, and

improving their skills through training. Shikoh also goes on to list the authors various examples

of social responsibility toward other stakeholders such as supplier, buyers, financiers,

competition, investors, partners, consumers, and the general public, and states that the author

details in his book what should be typical principals and practices for Islamic leaders and

organizations.

Regarding making and fulfilling contracts with complete honesty, Shikoh uses the

authors quote of 2:282 from the Qur‘an, which states, ―…When you deal with each other in

transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing. Let

him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear his Lord God, and not diminish aught of

what he owes.‖ Clearly, for the Muslim leader and businessperson who wishes to remain ethical

and save their integrity, as with religious and non-religious businesspeople from other lands, all

place a prime importance on honoring contractual obligations as one aspect of ethical business

practices.

Shikoh also states that the author uses Islamic principles to discuss subjects such as the

ethical treatment of animals used in investigative research for pharmaceutical organizations, and

ethics which govern an organization‘s responsibility to the people and nature in the disposal of

manufacturing byproducts or other potential abuses of the environment and the potentially

dangerous implications on the health of citizens.

Bibliography 83

Shikoh lists actions which the author suggests Islamic business leaders institute within

their organizations. These include: ―developing a Code of Ethics to guide the organization's

ethical principles in all its interactions; ensuring compliance by appointing key organization

actors to an ethics review panel; appointment of an ethics advocate to probe management's

decisions regularly; selection and training incorporating an employee's ethical responsibilities to

help set common expectations and understanding within the organization; and, adjusting the

award system to reward ethical behavior and encourage repetition.‖

Shikoh also informs the reader that the author lists practical responsibilities that the

Islamic individual has towards the organization which are based on Islamic teachings.

―These…include honesty and truthfulness; keeping your word; loving God more than trade;

supporting intra-Muslim trade; being humble; using mutual consultation in business affairs; not

dealing in fraud or bribery; and dealing justly.‖

Two further examples, illustrated through Islamic text, which Shikoh gives the reader of

the article, based on the writings of the author‘s book are:

…in discouraging the temptations to exaggerate and lie about one's products or

services during sales or marketing, the importance of honesty and truth is

referenced as laid out by this saying of the Prophet Mohammad (saaw): ‗The

merchants will be raised on the day of resurrection as evil-doers, except those

who fear God, are honest, and speak the truth.‘ Similarly, the following Ayah

(4:29) is used in support of Muslims not resorting to extravagance (the

extravagant behavior of the dot-com companies during the internet boom comes

to mind here): ‗O you who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in

Bibliography 84

vanities: but let there be amongst you traffic and trade by mutual good-will: nor

kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God has been to you Most Merciful.‘

This article should make it clear to the reader that Muslim, Jewish, and Christian business

leaders, as well as other leaders, have much in common regarding business ethics and share

many tangents of faith.


An Interfaith Declaration: A Code of Ethics on International Business for Christians, Muslims,

and Jews. (1993). Center for Global Ethics. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from

http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Codes/cmj_codes.htm

The Declaration, in its entirety, is based on a series of international, intercultural, and

interreligious meetings held between theologians, educators, and business and government

leaders representing the three ―monotheistic‖ world faiths of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity,

over several years and concluded in Amman, Jordan in 1993. The purpose was to move beyond

stereotypes and religious and cultural differences, and identify common personal and business

ethics shared by members of the three faiths which have their origins in the Abraham of the

Tanach (Judaism), Holy Bible (Christianity), and Qur‘an (Islam), and found in their Scriptures. It

discusses points of ethics and also how these traditional ethics are being supplanted by a new

breed of ethics which is less moral boundaries and requires less responsibility. The Web site also

lists a complimentary paper written by Simon Webly, entitled Values Inherent in the Interfaith

Declaration of International Business Ethics.


Shafer, I. H. (Ed.). (1998, September 5). ―Mission‖ Web page. Center for Global Ethics.

http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Codes/cmj_codes.htm

Bibliography 85

Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/mission.htm

A Universal Declaration of a Global Ethic was created to find common ethical grounds

for organizations across all main religious and ethnic populations and cultures. It was created

primarily through The Center for Global Ethics, and is associated with the Global Dialogue

Institute, the Institute for Interreligious, Intercultural Dialogue, and the Journal for Ecumenical

Studies, all located at Temple University in Pennsylvania, and under the direction of Leonard

Swindler, Professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue at the university.

It is the mission of The Center for Global Ethics to:

…coordinate the work of thinkers, scholars and activists from around the world,

who are working to define, implement and promote policies of responsible global

citizenship. As profoundly interconnected members of a global community, we

recognize the need to develop and advance the acceptance of a viable and

sustainable Global Ethic.


Reingold, J. (2008, November 24). Meet Your New Leader Fortune, 145-146.

According to Ms. Reingold, the ―visionary leader‖ is becoming less desirable and the

―Lifeguard‖ leader is becoming the preferred style. The visionary leader is seen as largely

responsible for the current economic crisis. She says that a recent Harvard Center for Public

Leadership study showed that confidence and trust in business leaders has dropped considerably

further than for any other segment of leaders—including political and media leaders (Reingold,

pp. 145-146).

The visionary leader of the ―1980s,‖ through this year, was ―supposed to be omnipotent;‖

http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Center/mission.htm

Bibliography 86

a ―Lone Ranger with…loyal Tontos;‖ a celebrity focus of the organization who was ―worshipped

by business magazines;‖ and was subject to being removed by the Board of Directors for

admitting ignorance (Reingold, pp. 145-146). His or her evaluation, estimation of leadership

ability by others, pay, and bonuses were determined by their ability to execute ―ever more

dramatic moves, such as mergers, acquisitions, or other gambles….[with] [t]he stock

price…widely accepted as a real-time CEO report card, [and] the numerical proof of success…‖

(Reingold, pp. 145-146). Reingold quotes management expert C. K. Prahalad, who said, ―We

took the complex nature of leadership and converted it into a single metric by basing

compensation on the stock price‖ (p. 145, cited in text).

Reingold states that, with previous generations of leaders—such as the founders, and the

next generation which focused on maintaining the organization—the goals of the leaders were

centered on creating long-term success for the organization, the shareholders, and other

stakeholders. But, quoting economist Milton Friedman, for visionary leaders the ―social

responsibility of business [was] to increase profits‖ (p. 146). She says that, ―[w]hile the visionary

leaders talked about teamwork, they believed that they could control their firm‘s destiny by

themselves, citing any attempts to regulate their businesses as hostile and anticompetitive‖

(Reingold, p. 146).

Reingold uses the example of former Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O‘Neal. When he took

over the reins in 2002, he had ―the express mission of catching up with the more aggressive

trading firms‖ (p. 146). She says that not only did he bet the entire 100-year-old company on

investments in subprime-backed mortgages and ―outsized leverage,‖ he also took home a ―$160

million severance package‖ when ―the bet went bad‖ (Reingold, p. 146).

Bibliography 87

Reingold says that the visionary leadership style ―has failed‖ and that Enron and the dot-

com bubble burst were some of the first signs that visionary leadership had major faults (p. 146).

She references Rakesh Khurana, of the Harvard Business School, in saying that, while

―‘charismatic‘ leaders didn‘t boost performance in the long run….[still] the visionary persevered,

his gambler‘s instincts honed and rewarded in a lightly regulated, winner-take-all environment‖

(Reingold, p. 146).

The Lifeguard style of leadership, on the other hand, is arising out of this ―financial

chaos‖ to lead with values that suit this ―environment of increased regulation, diffuse power, and

stagnant stock prices‖ (Reingold, p. 146). According to Reingold, the Lifeguard is focused on

long-term success, and has situational awareness and the ability to study the environment and

identify ―weak signals,‖ calling for a shift in strategy and even ―the courage to….tear up the

strategic plan‖ (p. 146). She states that the Lifeguard leadership approach is more conducive to

an ―interconnected, ever more turbulent world‖ (Reingold, p. 146). These leaders are not afraid

to admit to what they don‘t know, nor are they afraid to work with and take the advice of others,

or to ask for help (Reingold, p. 146). Other characteristics which make the Lifeguard so

attractive is that he or she works well in and with teams, does not have to be the one setting the

rules and is happy to follow the rules set by others, and is not a leader just for the money but also

for intrinsic reasons (Reingold, p. 146).

Reingold says that Good to Great author Jim Collins believes that it is a leader‘s

―legislative‖ skills which now make him or her attractive and not ―executive‖ skills; that ―top

CEOs will be those who are able to create the conditions for things to get done rather than hand

down orders;‖ and, like John F. Kennedy, the ask a lot of questions when they don‘t know the

Bibliography 88

answers (Reingold, p. 146).

She quotes the director of Harvard‘s Center for Public Leadership, David, Gergen, who

says, ―The CEO of the future is going to have to be someone who deals well with government‖

(Reingold, p. 146). The CEO, according to Reingold, now has to more heavily weigh the ―world

of competing entities, ranging from regulatory agencies to angry shareholders, from consumers

to foreign powers‖ (p. 146).

Reingold tells how Xerox CEO Anne Mulcahy and Home Depot CEO Frank Blake are

both implementing ways to motivate their employees without using more money to do so. They

are turning more and more to empowerment. They give employees ―more decision-making

power,‖ increased recognition for the good work they do, and inspire the employees to be

intrinsically motivated—focusing on the ―challenge‖ and not just the money (Reingold, p. 146).

Annotated Bibliography for paper "Leadership, Ethics, and Communications: Foundations of a...

Leadership & Management

Transcript of Annotated Bibliography for paper "Leadership, Ethics, and Communications: Foundations of a...