Considering the intense focus on corporate values, ethics, and social responsibility, I found the interview with Lynn Sharp Paine, the John G. McLean Professor at Harvard Business School, along with the excerpt from her new book, both timely and thought provoking.Accounting scandals, stock option backdating and the increasing demands of a highly educated workforce for more social responsibility are driving the trend, but it’s not a new idea.

“Noting a seeming shift in public opinion, a leading U.S. legal theorist speculated in 1932, “…a sense of social responsibility toward employees, consumers, and the general public [might someday] come to be regarded as the appropriate attitude to be adopted by those who are engaged in business.”

According to the Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility, a 1999 survey of more than 25,000 individuals across twenty-three countries on six continents, two in three people say that companies should go beyond their traditional functions of making a profit, paying taxes, creating jobs, and obeying the law. In addition, respondents said, companies should also try to set a higher ethical standard and contribute to broader societal goals. In other words, companies should achieve profitability in ways that help build a better society. In all but three of the countries surveyed, 50 percent or more of those surveyed took this position…August 2000 survey in the United States. 2 Some 95 percent of these respondents said that companies should sometimes forgo some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities.

Indeed, as the size and importance of corporations have increased, so has the general propensity to view their activities through a moral lens.

Excerpt from Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Imperatives to Achieve Superior Performance, McGraw-Hill, 2002

For those in, or who aspire to, leadership roles, this is about more than keeping your legal department happy or even focusing on the spirit, not just the letter, of the law,

“More managers are waking up to the ways in which positive values contribute to a company’s effective day-to-day functioning, as well as its reputation and long-term sustainability.”

Q: Having a positive value system in place can help contain costs by heading off trouble. But can improved values also add to the bottom line?

A: I’ve alluded to some of the ways positive values can add to the bottom line. And research points to others that I discuss in the book-better access to talent, enhanced employee commitment, better information sharing, greater creativity, enhanced reputation, and so on…But I caution managers against focusing only on the financial case for values…

What’s important to recognize, as I argue in the book, is that today’s companies are being held to a higher standard. Financial results are a must, but in addition, leading companies are expected to achieve those results by acting in an ethically acceptable manner. This represents a dramatic departure from centuries of tradition holding that corporations are by nature amoral and thus incapable of assuming responsibility, adhering to ethical standards, or exercising moral judgment. But abundant evidence shows that companies today are expected to do all these things…

This shift in our understanding of the corporate personality has profound implications for management. Among other things, it means that managers must develop more robust ethical reasoning skills and increasingly subject their decisions to ethical as well as financial analysis…

You should also be awake to the fact that this is the path to your own career success—whether continued or to come. Just as business is being held to a higher standard, so are its leaders.

If you want to be the person that people look up to, listen to and follow; whose suggestions carry weight and who comes to mind when a promotion or career-making project is being staffed, then remember that people aren’t stupid, so you need to embrace, walk and work by the values you talk.

Read the full interview by Carla Tishler.

I loved David Zinger’s comments today at Slacker Management on Guy Kawasaki’s hilarious take on a list of management theories. (I’ve loved Guy’s commentary on the world since I met him in 1999 when his first book, Rules for Revolutionaries, came out, I still have my autographed copy).

Guy says, “You can use the page as a test: Anyone who knows all these theories is someone you shouldn’t hire.”

David says, “Go ahead, let’s see you communicate and obfuscate at the same time.”

My first thought when I saw the list was, “what an addition to the BS Bingo matrix!”

Take the time to read the posts because I’m not going to rehash them, but I would like to take it a step further and talk about why it’s so crucial for managers to truly communicate with their people.

For managers, communications is about more than talking clearly, it’s about providing all the background necessary for people in the company to understand why they are doing their jobs, as well as what jobs they are to do.

Think of it this way, operational communications provide people information on how to do their jobs, while management communications tell them what their jobs are and why they do them, giving form and purpose.

Many of the problems that managers face daily are created by their own poor or inaccurate communications, often as a result of using jargon in an effort to sound sophisticated, knowledgeable and with it.

This doesn’t work for two reasons. even if you, as a manager, really do understand the jargon—often not the case—it’s unlikely that all of your people will. Worse, they may have their own individual understanding that has nothing to do with your intended meaning. This happens frequently enough with words of one or two syllables, let alone multi-syllabic management-babble.

You can eliminate a propensity in this direction by remembering three points…

Your goal is to provide your people with all the information needed to understand how to perform their work as correctly, completely, simply, and efficiently as possible.

You do this by providing clear, concise, and complete communications at all times.

Your results will be to make your company more successful, you a more effective manager with better reviews, and your employees happier and more productive.

Some of these are making the rounds on the Net, some have been around for ages, but the first one is an original of mine.

I have a million GB memory running on 1k of RAM.

Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Ever stop to think—and forget to start again?

I smile because I don’t know what the hell is going on.

Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.

And the last two are well worth taking to heart

Don’t take life too seriously; no one gets out alive.

He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.

An interesting post by José de Francisco led me to a Business Week story on an experiment that NEC just started. José summed it up this way, “Basically, the experiment is about capturing and analyzing the researchers’ workday, including note taking, reading materials, water-cooler chats and brainstorming sessions. To regain a clear leadership in high-tech innovations NEC feels they need to develop best practices by first understanding how their own magic sauce comes about.”

What struck me in reading the article was that, in spite of the skepticism over the effort’s value, the effort itself required a major cultural upheaval and a lot of guts just to try it.

Further, since it’s not a fast experiment yielding quick returns the gamble is much greater than many companies would try.

And that, in itself, should be considered a win.

Leadership has been a source of fascination to humans for centuries, both AC and BC. We research, dissect, write, discuss, preach, teach, and study it, all with the goal of defining it so people can learn how to do it and then improve it.

It’s considered a soft science, a moving target, amorphous and difficult to pin down. It’s often found in unlikely places and not found in the expected ones.

How in the world can that be compared to a computer, with it’s unyielding hardware and logical, literal software?

In computing, the term I/O refers to input, whatever is received by the system, and output, that which results from the processing.

Programmers know that the results coming out of the computer won’t be any better than the information given it, and this phenomenon is know as “garbage in/garbage out.”

And there you have the similarity with leadership, as well as management, culture and everything else in life.

What comes out is a function of what you put in.

Blindly accepting everything offered by even the most brilliant source will result in garbage out at some point.

Learning/improving leadership skills requires critical thinking on your part. No one person, past, present or future, has all the answers. You need to evaluate the available information, take a bit from here and a bit from there, apply it to your situation and, like a computer, process it. The result will be at least slightly different from what you started with, because you’ve added the flavor of your own life experiences, knowledge and MAP to the mix—and that’s good, it shouldn’t be an exact copy.

Leadership is a living organism, growing and changing all the time and you’re contributing to that growth.

According to Nestle SA Chief Executive Officer Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, “[Conductor] Claudio Abbado is an artist, but he’s also a good leader. And one thing that leaders have in common — whether in art, business, or politics — is an ability to be sensitive toward people. You have to have the ability to motivate people to do more. A good conductor can change the sound of a whole orchestra with a glance or a gesture.”“I had given a talk in which I compared the role of CEO to that of an orchestral conductor. I invited all the [Nestle] managers to sit next to the musicians of a French orchestra during a rehearsal. The orchestra also tried to play for a while without a conductor, so that they could see the difference, and it wasn’t long before the whole thing went astray. The quality of a performance depends on what the conductor does. There was a lot of discussion after that, they saw that if it is to work, the musicians also have to assume responsibility.”

The Lucerne Festival Orchestra, Abbado’s brainchild, is a hand-picked ensemble with the Mahler Chamber Orchestra at its core. Key positions are filled by leading orchestral musicians and soloists from around the world.

As with all-star soccer teams, an orchestra made up of top musicians is not necessarily a top orchestra.

There are two main lessons you want to take away from this. Leaders need to retain a strong sensitivity to people, all people, not just the stars; and that hiring all stars (even if it was possible) won’t guarantee your company’s success.

Additional leadership guidance comes from Steve Harrison, author of The Manager’s Book of Decencies: How Small Gestures Build Great Companies., who says “that decent leaders all have one common trait: humility. Unlike star CEOs who seek the limelight, these low-key leaders are ambitious for their companies, not for themselves. They avoid executive pomposity like the plague. All that stuff about pretentious perks and rank having its privileges – for them, that’s not what leadership is about,” and cites Colgate-Palmolive Co. chairman Reuben Mark; Nucor Corp.’s former CEO Kenneth Iverson (who died in 2002); Campbell Soup Co. president and CEO Douglas R. Conant; Southwest Airlines Co. chairman Herbert Kelleher; and Dial Corp.’s former president and CEO, Herbert Baum as leaders who get it.

This is really simple for those of you who want to develop strong leadership skills. Think about it. All you have to do is be considerate and respectful of others and practice the kind of manners and politeness that seem to be out of date.

In other words, learn to think them, them, them, instead of me, me, me.

In the wake of years of corporate misconduct, there’s been tons of talk about the necessity of building ethical corporate cultures. Along with the talk have come dozens of books, hundreds consultant offerings and thousands of articles detailing how to do it.Much of the advice is aimed at CEOs and the senior ranks of management and focuses primarily on building a culture that doesn’t lie, cheat or steal-obviously, a key requirement in today’s world.

But a true ethical culture goes well beyond that, valuing all employees at all levels, recognizing the need for, and developing ways to add, sustainability and environmentally positive practices, being socially responsible—all while staying profitable.

A good place to start is with plain old-fashioned decency, according to Steve Harrison’s new book, The Manager’s Book of Decencies: How Small Gestures Build Great Companies..

“I know there are leaders are out there who’ll look at this and say, ‘I don’t have time for nice, just show me the money,’ ” Mr. Harrison says. “But being decent isn’t about being nice or doing things more slowly or spending more money – it’s about treating people fairly and focusing on what will make people want to stay in a company.”

Of course, decency is best when it starts at the top, but even when it doesn’t it can still be practiced at any level, by anyone, in the company.

Many acts of decency boil down to, or are grounded in, plain old good manners and politeness, the lack of which people have been bemoaning for years. The reason given is that they’re too busy to act politely—but it’s amazing how quick the same people are to notice rudeness and disrespect when they’re on the receiving end.

Whatever you want to call it—decency, politeness, respect, manners—try it in your life and watch your world slowly change for the better.

I write constantly about the importance of culture, and that why your MAP must be, at the least, synergistic with the culture of any company you join, no matter your position.But outside validation is always nice and Dave McGinn in Saturday’s Financial Post offers telling proof.

According to a recent survey of 200 executives from across Canada, the overwhelming majority — 99.9% — report there is a direct correlation between corporate culture and financial performance. As well, 77% said cultural fit is more important than skills in external hires. When it comes to hiring from within, 61% of the executives said fit outweighs skills. The study was conducted by Waterstone Human Capital, a Toronto-based search firm.

“Fit is critical,” says Marty Parker, Waterstone’s managing director. “Everyone recognizes that both skill sets and fit are important, but even at the senior executive level, you can teach skills.”…

Jerry Stilson, a partner at Cenera, a Calgary-based human resource and business consulting firm, says…”You can have all the skills in the world, but if you don’t fit into the culture, if you don’t fit with the values of the organization, it costs the company big money to replace you. … it is a two-way street. People have to figure out the kind of organization that works for them, too.”

So what does all this mean to you, personally?

First, really know yourself, your MAP, not just your public persona, but who you truly are.

Next, define the parameters of the values, attitudes, and philosophy that you can whole-heartedly support—this is a totally subjective exercise and has nothing to do with any specific position, responsibilities or salary.

Finally, be prepared to walk away from an offer where the culture isn’t at least synergistic with, or truly doesn’t fit, your MAP, just as quickly as you would walk from a candidate who didn’t fit.

A couple of years ago KG Charles-Harris, a talented leader/CEO I work with, sent me an article from HBS Working Knowledge, a free online publication from Harvard Business School geared to the interests of business leaders and I strongly recommend subscribing to it.My favorite contributor is James Heskett, the Baker Foundation Professor, who fosters superb discussions in a forum framework that usually generates in excess of 100 intelligent, well thought-out comments, then analyzes and sums up the public input.

I received the summation of How Much of Leadership Is About Control, Delegation, or Theater?, yesterday and I thought it would provide food for thought to my readers.

Dr Heskett opens the forum this way, “The flood of writing about leadership continues. It reflects our fascination with what many believe to be the most important influence on organizational performance. In a thought-provoking book published last year, Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton suggest that the overriding impact of leadership on performance is a myth, or at least only a half-truth. 30 years ago, in reviewing research on leadership, Pfeffer concluded at that time that actions of leaders most often explain no more than 10 percent of performance. Such things as a company’s operating environment, the economy in general, or its long-run success or failure account for more of its current performance.

Findings published since then have done nothing to change Pfeffer’s mind. But he also concludes that it may be quite important for leaders to perpetuate the myth of having significant control over performance. As employees, we expect it of our leaders. In our behavior, we defer to leaders. And that reinforces their tendency to act like what we expect of leaders. According to this line of thinking, it may require that a leader act out the role, concealing real feelings in the process. In short, it suggests that some part of leadership is theater that perpetuates the half-truth that leaders are indeed in control. … It may be important for us to believe that our leaders have control over performance, whether or not it is true, particularly in times of turmoil or concern about the future. So to what degree should leaders become thespians, creating an impression that fits expectations? How does one do this and still maintain some sense of modesty and perspective that Jim Collins, in his research, has identified with the most effective leaders? Is some part of leadership about creating the myth of being in control while subtly transferring it to others in the organization? Or, as Pfeffer and Sutton ask, “Should leaders be in more complete control of their organizations?” What do your personal experiences lead you to believe about these issues? What do you think?”

I loved Andy Grove’s description of leadership, “Well, part of it is self-discipline and part of it is deception-deception in the sense that you pump yourself up and put a better face on things than you start off feeling. But after a while, if you act confident, you become more confident. So the deception becomes less of a deception,” especially since I’ve always believed that so much of who we are and what we do is a function of how we think.

I realize it’s asking a lot, but for those of you really interested in a world-view of leadership it’s worth reading all 127 comments, not just the summation, although it’s excellent.

Taking over Leadership Turn got me thinking. People always talk and write about “leadership” with a positive spin, but there are plenty of talented, even brilliant, leaders on the dark side. Leadership skill is neither good nor bad—it just is. Being a talented leader has absolutely no connection with being ethical or with leading people in a socially recognized positive direction.

The article Jonathan Farrington cited on August 14 says, “By leadership, we mean the ability to shape what followers actually want to do…”, but history tells us that people are more than willing to be shaped in socially unacceptable directions—think Jeff Skilling or Hitler.

Of course, if the leader crashes and burns, his constituents will claim that they were led astray unwillingly and/or had no idea what their leader was up to.

And in some cases that might even be true, but, in general, people hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see—consciously or not.

Remember, MAP is an amalgamation of a person’s mindset, attitude, and philosophy; it’s not inherently good and comes with no intrinsic ethical standards. A leader will follow his own MAP, drawing people to his vision and building buy-in from his constituency in order to achieve his goals.

Each group, whether country, business, organization, or family, sets its own standards and, within the larger picture, demands that they be met by its leaders and punishes those who don’t meet them.

As a constituent within the group you have a responsibility to intelligently evaluate the standards to assure that they are, at the least, synergistic to your own MAP, and to further evaluate whatever leaders arise against those standards, rather than accepting them blindly or because “everyone else does.”

The decision to use innate leadership talent and/or hone additional leadership skills should be a conscious one even if forced on you by circumstances beyond your control. Assuming a leadership position with no thought or conscious guidance is to become a puppet—probably not your preferred role or one that you’d enjoy.

The ability to lead doesn’t force you to become a leader, any more than perfect pitch forces you to become a musician.

When it comes to leading, following or opting out there are choices, as there are with all things related to MAP.

Think about them, then choose wisely and well—if not comfortably.