Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘ethics’ Category

Why are so many countries questioning the quality and effectiveness of their leadership? Is it a lack of preparedness?
This blog examines some issues relating to responsibility, ethics and power in leadership.  I have drawn on some older material to help my reflection, and suggest that we seldom consider how we should prepare for success as a precursor to good performance.  None of this is new, but has it been forgotten?
Leadership has been described as a serious meddling in the lives of others (De Pree, 1991:7).  This implies that leadership embodies a responsibility of leaders for, or toward, those who are led.  
Yet a common scenario in modern business (since the late 1980s) is:
… good, respected and successful leaders, men and women of intelligence, talent, and vision who suddenly self-destruct as they reach the apex of their careers.  (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:266).
An Australian newspaper article from that time (Barker, 1995:14) reported that a concern for ethics in business is:
 a response to what is now called “ the excesses of the eighties” – the economic damage done to the nation and individuals by greedy, irresponsible and often corrupt business people who were feted as national heroes.
Ethics in management is a significant theme in the recent.  But why is it that leaders get caught up in a downward spiral of unethical decisions?
Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:266-267) seek to:
 debunk the notion that ethical failure of our leaders is largely due to lack of principle and/or the tough competitive climate of the 80s and 90s. (Equally, we could say the same for the more recent past)  Rather, we would like to suggest that many of the violations we have witnessed in recent years are the result of success and lack of preparedness in dealing with personal and organisational success.
Other evidence (Barker, 1995; LaBier ,1986) supports this contention that little attention is placed on preparing people to deal with the trials and dilemmas associated with success in modern society.  As success is the goal of every leader (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:270) it is surprising that it does not rate more significance in management and leadership literature.
The biblical story of David and Bathsheba is used to outline four potential by-products of success: 
·      lose of strategic focus;
·      privileged access;
·      control of resources;
·      inflated belief in personal ability to control outcomes.
Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:267-269) write that “… the good and successful King David of Israel, believing he could cover up his impropriety, took Bathsheba to his bed while her husband was off in battle.”  
David is not where he is supposed to be (loss of strategic focus), he “delegated, then ignored what was happening”.  David had time on his hands, and a viewing position atop the palace roof to view Bathsheba at bath (privileged access).  David then manipulates the situations (controls resources, and tries to control outcomes) sleeps with Bathsheba who falls pregnant, brings her husband in from battle in the hope he will sleep with his wife and cover-up David’s impropriety, and eventually causes the husband to be killed.  The manipulation is exposed.  “David, in short, chose to do something he knew was clearly wrong in the firm belief that through his personal power, and control over power, he could cover up”.
When kept within reason, privileged access and control of resources are positive and justified requisites for success.  Privileged access is “essential for comprehensive strategic vision” and control of resources is “necessary for the execution of strategy” (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:269).  Loss of strategic focus and inflated belief in personal ability are essentially negative (see Table 3)
Table 3:  Possible outcome experienced by successful leaders
Positive/Benefit
Negative/Disadvantage
Personal
Level
Privileged Access
Position
Influence
Status
Rewards/Perks
Recognition
Latitude
Associations
Access
Inflated Belief in Personal Ability
Emotionally Expansive
Unbalanced Personal Life
Inflated Ego
Isolation
Stress
Transference
Emptiness
Fear of Failure
Organisational
Level
Control of Resources
No Direct Supervision
Ability to Influence
Ability to set Agenda
Control over Decision Making
Loss of Strategic Focus
Organisation on Autopilot
Delegation without Supervision
Strategic Complacency
Neglect of Strategy
                                                                                (Source: Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993: 270)
The benefits of success to the leader and the organisation are obvious.  Less readily apparent is the personal “dark side” of success which revolves largely around three psychological issues outlined by Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:270-271).  These are:
·      Climbing the success ladder exposes leaders to negative attitudes and behaviours.  There may not be apparent, but nonetheless come with the territory of successful leadership.  Negatives that could be reinforced include unbalanced personal lives, a loss of touch with reality and an inflated sense of personal ability.
·      Leaders may become emotionally expansive – “their appetite for success, thrills, gratification, and control becomes insatiable”.  They can lose the ability to be satisfied.  They can become personally isolated and lack intimacy with family and friends, losing a valuable source of personal balance.  They “literally lose touch with reality”.
·      Other factors include stress, fear of failure and the “emptiness syndrome” (“Is this all there is to success?”)  An inflated sense of ego can lead to abrasiveness, close-mindedness and disrespect. 
Success does not necessarily lead to undesired behaviour as Ludwig and Longenecker (1991:271) are careful to record:
We are not suggesting that all successful leaders fall prey to these negatives that are frequently associated with success, but rather want to make the case that success can bring with it some very negative emotional baggage.
However, it is useful to recognise the seven lessons from David’s experience (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1991:271) provide a useful framework for reflection:
  •  Leaders are in their positions to focus on doing what is right for their organisation’s short-term and long-term success.  This can’t happen if they aren’t where they are supposed to be, doing what they are supposed to be doing.
  • There will always be temptations that come in a variety of shapes and forms that will tempt leaders to make decisions they know they shouldn’t make.  With success will come additional ethical trials.  
  • Perpetrating an unethical act is a personal, conscious choice on the part of the leader that frequently places a greater emphasis on personal gratification rather than on the organisation’s needs.
  • It is difficult if not impossible to partake in unethical behaviour without implicating and/or involving others in the organisation
  • Attempts to cover-up unethical practices can have dire organisational consequences including innocent people getting hurt, power being abused, trust being violated, other individuals being corrupted, and the diversion of needed resources.
  • Not getting caught initially can produce self-delusion and increase the likelihood of future unethical behaviour.
  • Getting caught can destroy the leader, the organisation, innocent people, and everything the leader has spent his/her life working for.”
The important lessons for Ludwig and Longenecker (1992:272) is for leaders to recognise it could happen to them, and to be aware that:
Ethical leadership is simply part of good leadership and requires focus, the appropriate use of resources, trust, effective decision making, and provision of model behaviour that is worth following.  Once it is lost it is difficult if not impossible to regain.
Further Reading
Barker G (1995)  The glove that tempers the iron fist.  The Australian Financial Review Magazine. July. pp.14-21
Burdett  J O (1991)  What is empowerment anyway?  Journal of European Industrial Training. 15(6):23-30
De Pree M O (1989)  Leadership is an Art.   Melbourne: Australian Business Library, Information Australia.
De Pree M O (1991)  Leadership Jazz.  Melbourne: Australian Business Library, Information Australia.
Eisler R (1995)  From domination to partnership: The hidden subtext for organisation change.  Training & Development 49(2):32-39
LaBier D (1986)  Modern Madness: The Emotional Fallout of Success.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Ludwig D C and Longenecker C O (1993)  The Bathsheba syndrome: the ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics 12(4):265-273

Peace W H (1991)  The hard work of being a soft manager.  Harvard Business Review. 69(6):40-42,46-47

Read Full Post »

What is it that we want our agriculture to do? 

Australia agriculture continues to put food on the tables three times a day.  It continues to innovate and contribute to the nation’s prosperity.  It continues to eke out efficiencies in the production system. Though much is to be lauded, much needs to change.  

And it’s more fundamental than support for drought ravaged businesses.

Modern agriculture is grounded on the belief that the primary objective of the industry is to produce as much food and fibre as possible for the least cost.

These twin goals have long shaped farming, and underpinned agricultural research.  But with evidence that food is wasted in developed countries, that food security is a now accepted as a major global issue,  and issues of environmental degradation and health problems such as obesity, we need to define what it is that we want contemporary agriculture to do.  Social media abound with comment, much ill-founded on food and food security issues. At the same time we see heightened interests in food and cooking, and in urban agriculture/vegetable growing.  There is a sense we are missing the big picture.  Then there is health – over consumption of energy rich food, imbalance diets and obesity.
Is modern agriculture about producing cheap food? What other values might apply to agriculture, such as preserving landscape and countryside? Can we change the profitability of the system? What should the drivers be for a new agriculture? What is prosperity in contemporary agriculture?
Engaging in public debate on these issues and acknowledging their complexity will help define the shape of future agricultural research and our farm and food systems.
I was reminded that none of this is new when I came across a recent paper by David Fraser, an animal welfare researcher at the University of British Columbia.  This paper reminded me of two earlier contributions of David’s:
  • Fraser D (1999) Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures.  Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65: 171-189, and
  • Fraser D (2001) The “New Perception” of animal agriculture: legless cows, featherless chickens and a need for genuine analysis.  Journal of Animal Science 79: 634-6411
The second title relates to an often cited quote in animal welfare literature about a (disputed) claim by an animal geneticist that his organisation was attempting to ‘breed animals without legs and chickens without feathers’.
The quote highlights, however, concern felt in some quarters over the direction of modern agriculture. While gene technology is poised to deliver many benefits to agriculture in the fight against disease, reduced environmental impact and enhanced food nutrition and quality, it could fancifully be argued that the technology might one day be equally capable of delivering a legless cow. Nowhere in modern agriculture is the polarisation of different viewpoints on the direction of animal agriculture more evident than in the fields of gene technology and animal welfare.
In these debates and others, such as the growing divide between production and sustainability science, a far better analysis is required of complex issues in order to answer the questions of what we want agriculture to do.
David Fraser describes the polarised views on modern agriculture in terms of the ‘new perception’ and the ‘neotraditional portrayal’. In the new perception, agriculture is regarded as detrimental to animal welfare, controlled by large corporations, motivated by profit, causing world hunger, producing unhealthy food and harmful to the environment.
At the other end of the spectrum, Fraser defines the neotraditional portrayal of the industry as beneficial to animal welfare, mainly controlled by families and individuals, motivated by traditional animal care values that lead to profit, augmenting world food supplies, producing safe and nutritious food and not harmful (often beneficial) to the environment.  Literature from both ends of the spectrum tends to provide information that supports one of these polarised viewpoints while often failing to acknowledge the complexity of the debate, or attempting to establish a middle-ground.
Research undertaken by the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington indicates that the demand for animal protein will double within 20 years. This demand is been propelled by urbanisation and increased income, particularly in the developing world.
However, if we are going to increase livestock production, for example, to double protein production, major changes will be required in how we produce our product. If we increase per animal productivity two or three fold, then we would also have to reduce environmental impact by a similar amount.  While this may be technically possible within a reasonably short timeframe, is this what we want agriculture to do? How do we want to use the resource?
The agricultural production sector is often criticised for not meeting the triple bottom line (social, economic and environmental) yet by the same token we, in the developed world vote in the supermarkets for cheaper food.  This not only challenges the viability of farming, it also means that much of what we do as societies is at cross purposes.  There are many questions to be asked.

Will we accept that profitability of farm enterprises, and especially family businesses, is a legitimate aspiration?

Will consumers accept the harvesting of native species, such as the Red or Grey kangaroo in countries like Australia, as an ecologically sustainable source of meat? 
Should we be paying more for food and consuming less? What is food?  Rather than seeing beef just as a staple in the food system, could our mindset change so that we also think of beef as producing zinc and iron that can be injected into diets at critical times in human development – for example, in early childhood for brain development and early teenage years to combat iron deficiency. (Zinc and iron deficiencies appear to be two major nutritional issues in both the developed and developing worlds.)  In doing so, we change the whole value proposition for meat, and better returns to producers, and enhanced benefits to consumers.
These are just a few examples of the challenging questions to be asked, questions that cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” but must be debated vigorously by a range of stakeholders in the public arena.  An effective response will be systemic.
Consumer confidence in science has been shaken in recent times by issues relating to food safety and diseases, such as bird flu.  In order to avoid misrepresentation, scientists have at times been reluctant to acknowledge any potential risk to food safety for fear that such an admission will distort the debate. Yet, with uncertainty comes awareness and planning for any potential unforeseen consequences.
Risks can be managed effectively without raising public concern if potential risks to the food chain are acknowledged and a system of surveillance, monitoring and detection put in place that enable quick remedial action to address any problems that may arise.
Scientists should not be isolating ourselves from controversy because the technical complexity of issues we are dealing with in the community now is such that we need to participate in the public debate.  Nor should other members of the community ignore the requirement to engage openly and responsibly in that debate.
Undoubtedly, we need more simultaneous research at all levels – from sub-cellular to ecological – in order to develop a greater understanding of issues at the boundaries of science and social and community impacts.  
We need to public debate too.  An informed debate and based on genuine analysis. 

What is it that we want our agriculture to do?

Read Full Post »


In recent conversations I have been challenged by the notions that many organisation continue to come unstuck because  of unethical behaviours of leaders and managers.  But is it just at the top that we have problems?

Organisations can create an environment conducive to ethical behaviour.  It all comes down to how people – and I include both employees and clients – perceive the way they are being treated by the organisation and its management.  And the extent to which they can influence what happens.
Three factors come into play.
  •  Purpose:  use values, hopes, and a clear purpose statement to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
  • Professionalism:  by knowing as much as we can about our job and striving to perform effectively we develop an identity with the purpose and pride ourselves and of our organisation.  Knowing what is at risk can help you resist temptations to behave unethically. 
  •  Perspective: be reflective in our practice.  Make time to pause and reflect, make yourself aware  of what is going on around you. See the big picture and all the impacts.  Respond and adjust, using purpose as your reference point.

Read Full Post »

Holding organisations together when all is going well is not an easy task.  When all is going well you can inadvertently wander away from core business. Success bring a certain amount of freedom to explore, and can lead to complacency and slowness to respond to circumstances. Success is not often something for which we prepare. 

It is in that context that we can ask:

Why have so many seemingly successful companies failed in recent years?  Why is there widespread anxiety over company/organisational leadership?  Why are so many countries questioning the quality and effectiveness of their political leadership?

Is it a lack of preparedness?  Is it an inability to cope with success?  Have we even thought about what success is?
The following examines some issues relating to responsibility, ethics and power in leadership.  I have drawn on some older material to help my reflection, and suggest that we seldom consider how we should prepare for success as a precursor to good performance.  None of this is new, but has it been forgotten?
Leadership has been described as a serious meddling in the lives of others (De Pree, 1991:7).  This implies that leadership embodies a responsibility of leaders for, or toward, those who are led. 
Yet a common scenario in modern business (since the late 1980s) is:
… good, respected and successful leaders, men and women of intelligence, talent, and vision who suddenly self-destruct as they reach the apex of their careers.  (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:266).
An Australian newspaper article from that time (Barker, 1995:14) reported that a concern for ethics in business is:
a response to what is now called “ the excesses of the eighties” – the economic damage done to the nation and individuals by greedy, irresponsible and often corrupt business people who were feted as national heroes.
Ethics in management is a significant theme in the recent.  But why is it that leaders get caught up in a downward spiral of unethical decisions?
Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:266-267) seek to:
debunk the notion that ethical failure of our leaders is largely due to lack of principle and/or the tough competitive climate of the 80s and 90s. (Equally, we could say the same for the more recent past)  Rather, we would like to suggest that many of the violations we have witnessed in recent years are the result of success and lack of preparedness in dealing with personal and organisational success.
Other evidence (Barker, 1995; LaBier ,1986) supports this contention that little attention is placed on preparing people to deal with the trials and dilemmas associated with success in modern society.  As success is the goal of every leader (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:270) it is surprising that it does not rate more significance in management and leadership literature.
The biblical story of David and Bathsheba is used to outline four potential by-products of success:
·      lose of strategic focus;
·      privileged access;
·      control of resources;
·      inflated belief in personal ability to control outcomes.
Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:267-269) write that “… the good and successful King David of Israel, believing he could cover up his impropriety, took Bathsheba to his bed while her husband was off in battle.” 
David is not where he is supposed to be (loss of strategic focus), he “delegated, then ignored what was happening”.  David had time on his hands, and a viewing position atop the palace roof to view Bathsheba at bath (privileged access).  David then manipulates the situations (controls resources, and tries to control outcomes) sleeps with Bathsheba who falls pregnant, brings her husband in from battle in the hope he will sleep with his wife and cover-up David’s impropriety, and eventually causes the husband to be killed.  The manipulation is exposed.  “David, in short, chose to do something he knew was clearly wrong in the firm belief that through his personal power, and control over power, he could cover up”.
When kept within reason, privileged access and control of resources are positive and justified requisites for success.  Privileged access is “essential for comprehensive strategic vision” and control of resources is “necessary for the execution of strategy” (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:269).  Loss of strategic focus and inflated belief in personal ability are essentially negative (see Table 3)
Table 3:  Possible outcome experienced by successful leaders
Positive/Benefit
Negative/Disadvantage
Personal
Level
Privileged Access
Position
Influence
Status
Rewards/Perks
Recognition
Latitude
Associations
Access
Inflated Belief in Personal Ability
Emotionally Expansive
Unbalanced Personal Life
Inflated Ego
Isolation
Stress
Transference
Emptiness
Fear of Failure
Organisational
Level
Control of Resources
No Direct Supervision
Ability to Influence
Ability to set Agenda
Control over Decision Making
Loss of Strategic Focus
Organisation on Autopilot
Delegation without Supervision
Strategic Complacency
Neglect of Strategy
                                                                                (Source: Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993: 270)
The benefits of success to the leader and the organisation are obvious.  Less readily apparent is the personal “dark side” of success which revolves largely around three psychological issues outlined by Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:270-271).  These are:
·      Climbing the success ladder exposes leaders to negative attitudes and behaviours.  There may not be apparent, but nonetheless come with the territory of successful leadership.  Negatives that could be reinforced include unbalanced personal lives, a loss of touch with reality and an inflated sense of personal ability.
·      Leaders may become emotionally expansive – “their appetite for success, thrills, gratification, and control becomes insatiable”.  They can lose the ability to be satisfied.  They can become personally isolated and lack intimacy with family and friends, losing a valuable source of personal balance.  They “literally lose touch with reality”.
·      Other factors include stress, fear of failure and the “emptiness syndrome” (“Is this all there is to success?”)  An inflated sense of ego can lead to abrasiveness, close-mindedness and disrespect.
Success does not necessarily lead to undesired behaviour as Ludwig and Longenecker (1991:271) are careful to record:
We are not suggesting that all successful leaders fall prey to these negatives that are frequently associated with success, but rather want to make the case that success can bring with it some very negative emotional baggage.
However, it is useful to recognise the seven lessons from David’s experience (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1991:271) provide a useful framework for reflection:
  •  Leaders are in their positions to focus on doing what is right for their organisation’s short-term and long-term success.  This can’t happen if they aren’t where they are supposed to be, doing what they are supposed to be doing.
  • There will always be temptations that come in a variety of shapes and forms that will tempt leaders to make decisions they know they shouldn’t make.  With success will come additional ethical trials.  
  • Perpetrating an unethical act is a personal, conscious choice on the part of the leader that frequently places a greater emphasis on personal gratification rather than on the organisation’s needs.
  • It is difficult if not impossible to partake in unethical behaviour without implicating and/or involving others in the organisation
  • Attempts to cover-up unethical practices can have dire organisational consequences including innocent people getting hurt, power being abused, trust being violated, other individuals being corrupted, and the diversion of needed resources.
  • Not getting caught initially can produce self-delusion and increase the likelihood of future unethical behaviour.
  • Getting caught can destroy the leader, the organisation, innocent people, and everything the leader has spent his/her life working for.”
The important lessons for Ludwig and Longenecker (1992:272) is for leaders to recognise it could happen to them, and to be aware that:
Ethical leadership is simply part of good leadership and requires focus, the appropriate use of resources, trust, effective decision making, and provision of model behaviour that is worth following.  Once it is lost it is difficult if not impossible to regain.
Further Reading
Barker G (1995)  The glove that tempers the iron fist.  The Australian Financial Review Magazine. July. pp.14-21
Burdett  J O (1991)  What is empowerment anyway?  Journal of European Industrial Training. 15(6):23-30
De Pree M O (1989)  Leadership is an Art.   Melbourne: Australian Business Library, Information Australia.
De Pree M O (1991)  Leadership Jazz.  Melbourne: Australian Business Library, Information Australia.
Eisler R (1995)  From domination to partnership: The hidden subtext for organisation change.  Training & Development 49(2):32-39
LaBier D (1986)  Modern Madness: The Emotional Fallout of Success.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Ludwig D C and Longenecker C O (1993)  The Bathsheba syndrome: the ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics 12(4):265-273
Peace W H (1991)  The hard work of being a soft manager.  Harvard Business Review. 69(6):40-42,46-47

Read Full Post »

Holding organisations together when all is going well is not an easy task.  When all is going well you can inadvertently wander away from core business. Success bring a certain amount of freedom to explore, and can lead to complacency and slowness to respond to circumstances. Success is not often something for which we prepare. 

It is in that context that we can ask:

Why have so many seemingly successful companies failed in recent years?  Why is there widespread anxiety over company/organisational leadership?  Why are so many countries questioning the quality and effectiveness of their political leadership?

Is it a lack of preparedness?  Is it an inability to cope with success?  Have we even thought about what success is?
The following examines some issues relating to responsibility, ethics and power in leadership.  I have drawn on some older material to help my reflection, and suggest that we seldom consider how we should prepare for success as a precursor to good performance.  None of this is new, but has it been forgotten?
Leadership has been described as a serious meddling in the lives of others (De Pree, 1991:7).  This implies that leadership embodies a responsibility of leaders for, or toward, those who are led. 
Yet a common scenario in modern business (since the late 1980s) is:
… good, respected and successful leaders, men and women of intelligence, talent, and vision who suddenly self-destruct as they reach the apex of their careers.  (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:266).
An Australian newspaper article from that time (Barker, 1995:14) reported that a concern for ethics in business is:
a response to what is now called “ the excesses of the eighties” – the economic damage done to the nation and individuals by greedy, irresponsible and often corrupt business people who were feted as national heroes.
Ethics in management is a significant theme in the recent.  But why is it that leaders get caught up in a downward spiral of unethical decisions?
Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:266-267) seek to:
debunk the notion that ethical failure of our leaders is largely due to lack of principle and/or the tough competitive climate of the 80s and 90s. (Equally, we could say the same for the more recent past)  Rather, we would like to suggest that many of the violations we have witnessed in recent years are the result of success and lack of preparedness in dealing with personal and organisational success.
Other evidence (Barker, 1995; LaBier ,1986) supports this contention that little attention is placed on preparing people to deal with the trials and dilemmas associated with success in modern society.  As success is the goal of every leader (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:270) it is surprising that it does not rate more significance in management and leadership literature.
The biblical story of David and Bathsheba is used to outline four potential by-products of success:
·      lose of strategic focus;
·      privileged access;
·      control of resources;
·      inflated belief in personal ability to control outcomes.
Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:267-269) write that “… the good and successful King David of Israel, believing he could cover up his impropriety, took Bathsheba to his bed while her husband was off in battle.” 
David is not where he is supposed to be (loss of strategic focus), he “delegated, then ignored what was happening”.  David had time on his hands, and a viewing position atop the palace roof to view Bathsheba at bath (privileged access).  David then manipulates the situations (controls resources, and tries to control outcomes) sleeps with Bathsheba who falls pregnant, brings her husband in from battle in the hope he will sleep with his wife and cover-up David’s impropriety, and eventually causes the husband to be killed.  The manipulation is exposed.  “David, in short, chose to do something he knew was clearly wrong in the firm belief that through his personal power, and control over power, he could cover up”.
When kept within reason, privileged access and control of resources are positive and justified requisites for success.  Privileged access is “essential for comprehensive strategic vision” and control of resources is “necessary for the execution of strategy” (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993:269).  Loss of strategic focus and inflated belief in personal ability are essentially negative (see Table 3)
Table 3:  Possible outcome experienced by successful leaders
Positive/Benefit
Negative/Disadvantage
Personal
Level
Privileged Access
Position
Influence
Status
Rewards/Perks
Recognition
Latitude
Associations
Access
Inflated Belief in Personal Ability
Emotionally Expansive
Unbalanced Personal Life
Inflated Ego
Isolation
Stress
Transference
Emptiness
Fear of Failure
Organisational
Level
Control of Resources
No Direct Supervision
Ability to Influence
Ability to set Agenda
Control over Decision Making
Loss of Strategic Focus
Organisation on Autopilot
Delegation without Supervision
Strategic Complacency
Neglect of Strategy
                                                                                (Source: Ludwig and Longenecker, 1993: 270)
The benefits of success to the leader and the organisation are obvious.  Less readily apparent is the personal “dark side” of success which revolves largely around three psychological issues outlined by Ludwig and Longenecker (1993:270-271).  These are:
·      Climbing the success ladder exposes leaders to negative attitudes and behaviours.  There may not be apparent, but nonetheless come with the territory of successful leadership.  Negatives that could be reinforced include unbalanced personal lives, a loss of touch with reality and an inflated sense of personal ability.
·      Leaders may become emotionally expansive – “their appetite for success, thrills, gratification, and control becomes insatiable”.  They can lose the ability to be satisfied.  They can become personally isolated and lack intimacy with family and friends, losing a valuable source of personal balance.  They “literally lose touch with reality”.
·      Other factors include stress, fear of failure and the “emptiness syndrome” (“Is this all there is to success?”)  An inflated sense of ego can lead to abrasiveness, close-mindedness and disrespect.
Success does not necessarily lead to undesired behaviour as Ludwig and Longenecker (1991:271) are careful to record:
We are not suggesting that all successful leaders fall prey to these negatives that are frequently associated with success, but rather want to make the case that success can bring with it some very negative emotional baggage.
However, it is useful to recognise the seven lessons from David’s experience (Ludwig and Longenecker, 1991:271) provide a useful framework for reflection:
  •  Leaders are in their positions to focus on doing what is right for their organisation’s short-term and long-term success.  This can’t happen if they aren’t where they are supposed to be, doing what they are supposed to be doing.
  • There will always be temptations that come in a variety of shapes and forms that will tempt leaders to make decisions they know they shouldn’t make.  With success will come additional ethical trials.  
  • Perpetrating an unethical act is a personal, conscious choice on the part of the leader that frequently places a greater emphasis on personal gratification rather than on the organisation’s needs.
  • It is difficult if not impossible to partake in unethical behaviour without implicating and/or involving others in the organisation
  • Attempts to cover-up unethical practices can have dire organisational consequences including innocent people getting hurt, power being abused, trust being violated, other individuals being corrupted, and the diversion of needed resources.
  • Not getting caught initially can produce self-delusion and increase the likelihood of future unethical behaviour.
  • Getting caught can destroy the leader, the organisation, innocent people, and everything the leader has spent his/her life working for.”
The important lessons for Ludwig and Longenecker (1992:272) is for leaders to recognise it could happen to them, and to be aware that:
Ethical leadership is simply part of good leadership and requires focus, the appropriate use of resources, trust, effective decision making, and provision of model behaviour that is worth following.  Once it is lost it is difficult if not impossible to regain.
Further Reading
Barker G (1995)  The glove that tempers the iron fist.  The Australian Financial Review Magazine. July. pp.14-21
Burdett  J O (1991)  What is empowerment anyway?  Journal of European Industrial Training. 15(6):23-30
De Pree M O (1989)  Leadership is an Art.   Melbourne: Australian Business Library, Information Australia.
De Pree M O (1991)  Leadership Jazz.  Melbourne: Australian Business Library, Information Australia.
Eisler R (1995)  From domination to partnership: The hidden subtext for organisation change.  Training & Development 49(2):32-39
LaBier D (1986)  Modern Madness: The Emotional Fallout of Success.  Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Ludwig D C and Longenecker C O (1993)  The Bathsheba syndrome: the ethical failure of successful leaders. Journal of Business Ethics 12(4):265-273
Peace W H (1991)  The hard work of being a soft manager.  Harvard Business Review. 69(6):40-42,46-47

Read Full Post »