A few weeks ago I wrote that money isn’t the best motivator, lots of people have written posts with a similar theme and the idea is backed up by solid research.

But I saw a great video on the subject at Feld Thoughts and thought I’d share it with you.

(I’m not sure which I like more, the presentation or the technology that animates the whiteboard:)

Image credit: YouTube

Columnist Donald J. Myers, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel, bemoans the lack of integrity so prevalent today, in and out of the military.

The military goes to extreme lengths to develop integrity because, unlike the civilian world, a lack of integrity in the military costs lives — not just money.

I would argue that the excessive lack of integrity in the corporate world has also cost lives; the thousands whose lives were destroyed by Enron and the recent banking debacle, among others, cost lives and, although most are still walking, they are definitely wounded, some mortally.

The last couple of years media has been trumpeting the importance of leadership integrity and various surveys of global executives confirmed its importance.

But that was then and this is now.

Fast Company cites a new study by IBM—

For CEOs, creativity is now the most important leadership quality for success in business, outweighing even integrity and global thinking… The study is the largest known sample of one-on-one CEO interviews, with over 1,500 corporate heads and public sector leaders across 60 nations and 33 industries polled on what drives them in managing their companies in today’s world.

Here’s how the numbers broke down—

About 60% of CEOs polled cited creativity as the most important leadership quality, compared with 52% for integrity and 35% for global thinking.

(Yes, I realize that totals 147%, but it’s IBM…)

I have no argument with creativity, after all creativity gave us Avatar, iPods and Viagra, but it also gave us CDMs and CDOs.

This points up how important it is for leaders to practice integrity as they embrace creativity.

Image credit: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/963443

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nauright/2714309718/

The more I read/hear about leadership the less I understand.

Every day there are stories talking about someone’s good leadership or bad leadership—the adjective determined by whether the author agrees or disagrees with the vision/words/actions.

The stories cross the spectrum—politics, sports, business, religion, civic, non-profit, parenting [whatever].

I think the stories about “bad” leadership annoy me most.

Is a leader bad just because the author disagrees with the vision/words/actions?

If person A aspires to a specific positional leadership role is it enough to disagree with the vision/words/actions of the person currently in that role or does it behoove person A to present a cogent alternative?

Armchair leadership has the same value as Monday morning quarterbacking.

It is far to easier lash out, bash and tear something down, than it is to offer well thought out alternatives.

Emotions are more easily manipulated than minds—especially since ideology has replaced so much of independent thought.

Ideology isn’t just conservative vs. liberal; greed is an ideology, as is me-centric.

I think good leadership requires a more balanced approach, including the ability to say, “I was wrong,” rather than a dogmatic clinging to the vision/words/actions that are steering the ship straight onto the rocks.

What do you think?

Flickr photo credit to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/treehouse1977/3003180321/