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

Wally Bock has an excellent post regarding his rethinking of the value of the MBA Oath and its possible effect on future ethics. Wally quotes from a post by Scott Eblin entitled “Why we need an MBA oath.”

“What doesn’t get said, doesn’t get heard. If the MBA Oath causes even a few leaders to stand up and say out loud how they intend to conduct themselves then it was worth the effort of writing and promoting it.”

That idea dovetails perfectly with a tongue-in-cheek op-ed column by Edward E. Sanders, an adjunct lecturer at New York City College, textbook author and entrepreneur.

Sanders suggests that today’s leaders got their ethics lessons watching JR and Gordon Gekko and many followed in their footsteps, so perhaps Hollywood could produce a new batch of TV shows and movies that focus on CEOs making tough choices and doing the right thing.

Perhaps Tom Hanks (as a John Wayne character) could play the role of a competent and honest CEO — a person respected and trusted, and who inspires others to do the right thing when confronted with compromising choices.

Sanders may be on to something. How about a group of forensic accountants fighting financial crimes a la CSI.

Most kids need ethical examples beyond their parents and they do look for them in their various entertainment forms.

The problem, of course, is money.  All entertainment mediums build their offerings around what sells and what sells is from the dark side.

It doesn’t matter that JR and Gekko get their comeuppance at the end, viewers’ well-developed “but me” tool reassures them that their outcome will be different.

But like the MBA Oath, it can’t hurt and it might help.

Image credit: Flickr

Eleven thousand business books are published every year. Amazon currently lists more than 60 thousand books on leadership alone. There are also magazines, web sites, e-books, audiobooks, podcasts, and blogs. They all offer ideas on what to do. (Thanks to Wally Bock for the great stats.)

Much of what is written is anecdotal.

Much of what is written is more for self-aggrandizement as pointed out in this post by Jim Stroup.

And too much is garbage, pure and simple.

What it all has in common is the idea that if you do what the author did, or says to do, then you will become a leader whatever the situation, circumstances or your experience.

Obviously, this is poppycock. Nobody would even think of suggesting this kind of ‘do it my way and succeed’ approach to an athlete or entertainer, so why think that leadership, or managing, for the matter, is any different?

Little of what’s out there involves the rigorous kind of research that forms the basis of most subjects.

That lack is starting to be addressed by Harvard Business School.

According to professor Rakesh Khurana “If we look at the leading research universities and at the business schools within them, the topic of leadership has been actually given fairly short shrift. … What we tried to incorporate in the Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice is how each different perspective illuminates key elements such as similarities and differences in leadership across task, culture, and identity.

Khurana also says that “Leadership just wasn’t tractable by large databases.” No surprise there, much of what involves human MAP isn’t.

But it was this comment that resonated loudest with me.

“There is no single “best” style of leadership nor one set of attributes in all situations.”

In conjunction with the effort to increase serious research, HBR is running a blog for just six weeks called Imagining the Future of Leadership. The articles are, in general, excellent and the comments interesting. Check it out and add your own thoughts.

I don’t believe that Harvard is the last word, but it is encouraging that a serious and respected institution agrees that the subject is complex, doesn’t fit neatly into a specific field and sees the need for much more than is currently available.

Flickr photo credit to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/patriciadrury/3237604522/

Budget woes are disrupting state and local governments and everything they fund. Cuts are being made and what better place to cut than those things that don’t show up immediately? Things that are either out of site, like infrastructure, or that can be pushed off to when times are flush(er), such as learning.

As most CEOs will tell you how better to reduce costs than to reduce headcount? And that means firing teachers—more than 100,000 come June and that’s not all.

As a result, the 2010-11 school term is shaping up as one of the most austere in the last half century. In addition to teacher layoffs, districts are planning to close schools, cut programs, enlarge classes and shorten the school day, week or year to save money.

Politicians, especially local pols, tend to focus on supplying instant gratification to their constituency in order be reelected, so even as the economy improves you can’t count on the money being replaced and teachers rehired—assuming they are still available.

It’s far easier to use smoke and mirrors to show that kids are doing just fine in the brave new reduced budget world—smoke being standardized tests as viewed through the mirror of lowered standards.

Education offers little in the way of instant gratification to voters, rather it offers whining kids complaining about homework, tests and tough teachers who have the nerve to expect them to stop texting, pay attention and learn. (What nerve.)

Not all kids are whining, some in New Jersey are protesting the cuts approved by voters .

The mass walkouts were inspired by Michelle Ryan Lauto, an 18-year-old aspiring actress and a college freshman, and came a week after voters rejected 58 percent of school district budgets put to a vote across the state (not all districts have a direct budget vote).

The full damage of cuts now won’t be felt for years to come, but the voting public has both long and short-term memory loss and the pols who did it will be long gone—or moved to a higher level.

And America will be left wringing its hands and moaning about its loss of world leadership and the incredible difficulty of finding good talent to hire.

Image credit: 19melissa68 on flickr

Today is Earth Day and much will be written on what it will take to create a sustainable future for all life on our planet and it will be written by those far more knowledgeable than I.

The basis of the actions that must happen to assure a sustainable future is the MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) required to enable it. MAP is composed of three parts that are formed over time starting in early childhood. Mindset and attitude are the main focus; they are the ones most commonly written about and discussed.

But it is philosophy upon which the other two rest making it the most important and it is philosophy that most often is assumed or ignored—especially when it comes to young kids. After all, developing philosophy requires high level reasoning and common wisdom says that young kids can’t do it.

However, as is often the case, common wisdom is wrong.

Matthew Lipman, then a professor at Columbia University, argued that children could think abstractly at an early age and that philosophical questioning could help them develop reasoning skills. … Professor Lipman’s view opposed that of the child-development theorist Jean Piaget, who asserted that children under 12 were not capable of abstract reasoning.

To build a truly sustainable future is more likely to happen if the changes required are driven by the ‘P’ in MAP, rather than by unthinking dogma and ideology.

You would think that anything that helped kids develop the kind of life skills that make for better citizens would be welcome, but the ability to conceptualize and reason are no longer the focus of education.

…many school officials either find the subject too intimidating or believe it does not fit with the test-driven culture of public education these days.

Building a sustainable future isn’t a function of multiple choice questions, so we, today’s adults, had better choose wisely the tools that are required and then see to it that the tomorrow’s adults can use them—or there won’t be much future for their children.

Image credit: FlyingSinger on flickr

If you were the boss and 40% of your employees said they were more interested in non-monetary rewards and felt that evaluating them on a single factor for jobs that required multiple skills were unfair would you proceed anyway with merit pay based on a single factor and expect it to be a good motivator?

That is the basic question in the drive for merit performance for teachers.

A March survey of teachers provided an inside look at their thoughts.

Teachers don’t want to see their students judged on the results of one test and they also want their own performances graded on multiple measures.

Most value non-monetary rewards, such as time to collaborate with other teachers and a supportive school leadership, over higher salaries. Only 28 percent felt performance pay would have a strong impact and 30 percent felt performance pay would have no impact at all.

Of course, worker input won’t slow management’s moving forward (rarely has, rarely will)

The biggest problems with merit pay is defining and applying valid measurement of success.

For example, only 6 percent of teachers surveyed said graduating all students with a high school diploma was one of the most important goals of schools and teaching, while 71 percent said one of the most important goals was to prepare all students for careers in the 21st century.

Whereas standardized test are the holy grail of school administrators.

Merit pay has a checkered background whether you are looking for proof that it works or proof that it doesn’t.

The problem isn’t the money, it’s the structure put together to award it.

Keeping it fair means keeping it free from political pull and other forms of favoritism. It means acknowledging that teachers can’t control what is happening to the kids in their classes and finding a way to account for that.

“Your mother and father just got a divorce, your grandfather died, your boyfriend broke up with you: those kinds of life-altering events have an effect on how you do in class that day, through no fault of the teacher whatsoever.” –Debra Gunter, middle school math teacher in Cobb County, Ga.

One survey result was surprising because it actually creates more work for teachers, but it was held by the majority.

A majority of teachers surveyed said they would like to see tougher academic standards and have them be the same in every state, despite the extra work common academic standards could create for them.

This definitely makes sense, especially given the mobility of the US population, but it’s unlikely to ever pass muster with state and local school administrators. It would also be interesting to see how it flies helicopter parents, considering it’s their complaining that has fostered termination of “tough” teachers.

Money has always been the quick fix, used by managers and parents alike, to achieve their desired ends, even though there is no proof that it is effective or sustainable. And there is no reason to think that teachers are any different.

I think that if the structure and standards aren’t improved along with embracing merit pay then success is unlikely.

What do you think?

Image credit: JadeGordon on flickr

Last week we looked at the talent being lost as a result of profiteering by for-profit trade schools and colleges. But what of American talent graduating from America’s top schools?

We know that America needs talent. We need talent in all walks of life; we need talent at every level of business, but some of our best talent is being lured away by Asia, Inc.

The lure is coming from Chinese, Korean, Japanese and other Asian corporations; they are successfully recruiting, wooing and hiring the best and brightest at top tier business schools all over the country.

“There is a sense that the center of gravity is shifting,” says Julie Morton, Booth’s associate dean for career services. … “This has never really happened before, except in little spurts, where you have a fairly large group of talented, recent MBAs asking for assignments in China, Vietnam, India,” says Jeff Joerres, CEO of global staffing firm Manpower. Adds Richard Florida, professor at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management: “I don’t think many of us thought Asia would become the destination for top Western talent—but it is.”

Part of this shift is recession driven, but the ‘shifting center of gravity’ is cause for concern.

It’s not that the skills and knowledge acquired from international work isn’t valuable, of course it is, but it means that talent is lost to America for the next five years, give or take, when we need it most.

Additionally, foreign students are returning home to found companies, rather than staying in the US. That isn’t comforting considering that immigrant entrepreneurs founded 25.3 percent of the U.S. engineering and technology companies established in the past decade, according to a 2007 study from Duke University.

A bit of recession silver lining comes in the form of B-school grads taking an entrepreneurial path when they can’t find a job.

And there is a bipartisan (believe it or not) effort to gain talent by creating a “founder visa,” a two-year visa for any immigrant entrepreneur who can secure $250,000 in capital from American investors. After the two years are up, the person could become a permanent resident if his or her business has created five full-time jobs in the U.S., raised an additional $1 million, or hit $1 million in revenue.

But they are a long way from passing the legislation.

I find it sad that amidst all the rhetoric and hand wringing our so-called leaders in Congress do little-to-nothing—usually in the service of lobbying groups or an inflexible ideology that sees only the past and has little concern for the future if it involves change.

Image credit: budgetstoc on sxc.hu

Recessions such as the current one have always encouraged people to think about education, whether traditional or trade, and that always bring out the sharks—especially when federal money is involved.

“At institutions that train students for careers in areas like health care, computers and food service,… tuition that can exceed $30,000 a year.”

They borrow to pay it because they are sold the idea that there is a job at the end of the tunnel; too often the jobs don’t materialize, but the debt is all too real.

Even worse are the promises made by for-profit colleges to the tens of thousands of young Americans who serve in our armed forces.

The five largest provide classes online and charge $250 a credit (as opposed to $50 a credit at local colleges on bases), which allows them to receive the maximum reimbursed by U.S. taxpayers…

Taxpayers picked up $474 million for college tuition for 400,000 active-duty personnel in the year ended Sept. 30, 2008, more than triple the spending a decade earlier… degrees from any accredited college provide a boost toward military promotion, credentials from online, for-profit schools can be less helpful in getting civilian jobs, especially in a tight labor market.

But this is America, land of opportunity and if they are anything the for-profit colleges are focused on opportunity.

With Congress and the Defense Dept. making noises the colleges followed a tried and true path of other for profit companies—when you can’t do it in-house acquire it from outside. So they are buying smaller, weaker colleges and, presto, instant accreditation.

ITT Educational Services didn’t pay $20.8 million for debt-ridden Daniel Webster College in June just to acquire its red-brick campus, 1,200 students, or computer science and aviation training programs. …the Nashua (N.H.) college’s “most attractive” feature was its regional accreditation… Regional accreditation, the same gold standard of academic quality enjoyed by Harvard, is a way to increase enrollment and tap into the more than $100 billion the federal government pays out annually in financial aid.

Make no mistake, this is our problem, yours and mine, and it doesn’t matter what your politics are.

These are the people who will form the bedrock of the US workforce in the coming decades; who are struggling to improve their lives or who have given up years building their own career and spent those years protecting yours.

They deserve better than an apathetic public or lobbied Congress that turn a blind eye or timid efforts as education funds are plundered so a few can gain wealth on the backs of America’s talent.

Next week we’ll take a look at another source of lost talent. Please join me.

Image credit: Alan Cordova on flickr

Today’s post will be relatively short, because I want you to take time to read a NY Times article called Building a Better Teacher.

Education is an industry and from any viewpoint, it’s obvious that American education is in trouble—poor quality, low productivity, enormous turnover and bad press.

There is a raging argument about who are responsible—politicos (who hold the purse strings), administrators or frontline workers, i.e., teachers.

There is a move to shutdown underperforming plants and fire those frontline workers en masse.

Out with the old ad in with the new; the assumption being that “new” always means “better.”

In education as in any industry there are innovators and traditionalists—think Steve Jobs and the executives of the music industry.

Innovators: Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Michigan State’s school of education assistant professor, part time math teacher and originator of Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching, and Doug Lemov, teacher, principal, charter-school founder and author of Lemov’s Taxonomy. (The official title, attached to a book version being released in April, is “Teach Like a Champion: The 49 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College.”)

Traditionalist: Jonah Rockoff, an economist at Columbia University, who favors policies like rewarding teachers whose students perform well and removing those who don’t but looks skeptically upon teacher training. [because]… no research he can think of has shown a teacher-training program to boost student achievement. So why invest in training when, as he told me recently, “you could be throwing your money away”?

Hmmm, there was no market research to show that a personal music player would sell before the iPod changed history.

Read the article, it points the way to changes that will affect you no matter your age or if you have kids.

Changes that will determine America’s future.

Image credit: St Boniface’s Catholic College on flickr

Who do kids follow?

For the last several decades study after study have shown that kids pay more attention to the opinions of their peers than their parents.

More and more they take information and process it on their own.

Sure, their opinions are colored by the MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) of those who raised them, but not necessarily to copy them—sometimes they take the exact opposite position.

When it comes to working there is a belief that Millennials are different from all previous generations.

It’s not so much that what they want in their workplace is different from Boomers and Gen X; it’s that Millennials are more articulate in explaining it, more demanding in receiving it and faster to move if they don’t get it.

Last year I coined a new term, aMillennial, referring to someone who was chronologically of that generation, but without the entitled mentality—it’s the entitlement that irks most people.

In a recent survey new grads talked about staying in their company for 8.9 years, but HR assumes they will leave.

Razor Suleman, the 35-year-old CEO and founder of I Love Rewards, notes that U.S. Department of Labor statistics say most millennials will have 10 jobs by the time they’re 38.

“HR managers turn that around and say. . . . ‘That’s what they’re like,’ ” as if the employees only planned to stay for that long, said Suleman. “They don’t sort of turn it around and say, ‘Hey, wait a second, they wanted to stay 8.9 years and I missed seven years of retention.’ “

Most people look for a job, but hope to find a home.

Think about what you want in your home—great siblings who are interested and willing to help you succeed; great parents who understand that you need to make mistakes to learn and grow, who openly share their knowledge, but don’t expect you to be a carbon copy; who offer ways to stretch yourself with challenging tasks that contribute to the family’s success; a warm, safe physical environment—fancy or not; a fair allowance.

Translated in to workplace terms that’s what all generations want; aMillennials are just more willing to leave home to find it.

“Because if I was in a job that I was paid well, I loved what I was doing, I was empowered to make decisions, I was advancing, why wouldn’t I stay at a company?” — Rob Bianchin, college senior

Image credit: shirleybnz on sxc.hu