When it comes to promoting ethical behavior, all of us are wounded healers. If sainthood were required in order to be an ethics advocate, there would be few of them. As Zig Ziglar said when confronted by those who said his church had a bunch of hypocrites in it, "Come on in. There's room for one more."
Adopting a positive image in order to promote good is understandable and desirable. We try to appear better than we are. [As I'm reminded every morning, clothes do make the man.] Some gaps between image and reality are permissible. The difficulty arises when the gap is too large. For example, we will permit politicians a certain amount of waffling but when there is a sizable distance between what is said and what is done, then trust is no longer deserved.
The same is true in various organizations. Leaders who say "Yes" but do "No" will only be able to get away with that under limited circumstances. Step past those boundaries and credibility will evaporate. Are the boundaries clearly marked? Not really and that creates further friction. I frequently see people cheering leaders who are, in my opinion, ethical eunuchs. Whenever that happens, I'm not sure which troubles me more: the leader or the followers? The violator or the apologists? To what extent does the leader's hypocrisy corrupt the followers?
I recall an executive who told me that in his organization, "We don't recover our wounded." They weren't shouting that revelation from the rooftops. It was a hard truth but, as hard truths tend to do, it triggered questions: What sort of leadership does that place have? And what sort of people remain there?
4 comments:
Reading the first paragraph reminded me of the time when I learned that my parents were human beings, too. It was about the same time I gave my youngest son a practical example of my own ability to fail to meet his expectations in a small but too public way for his taste. I've worked in zero-tolerance-for-failure environments but never cared for the atmosphere and found them destructive to building a resilient team.
"What sort of leadership does that place have? And what sort of people remain there?"
A very good question, one which is not as obvious as it might seem at first blush. One type of person who would stay at such a place has no realistic choice - too young or too old to get anything else, or making too much money to take a chance, or what-not. Another would be an executive who relishes that kind of environment. A third might wish to change it. A fourth might not think change is possible and has decided other companies are just as bad.
As Tolstoy illustrated in War and Peace, any one individual has only a limited influence on the culture of an entire company. Most careers are not planned, or at least don't really go according to plan. People find themselves in situations they did not anticipate and sometimes they choose to simply grow where they are, even if some of the soil is toxic.
Hi Michael, I'm currently studying Management Communication (last subject towards my BCom (PR)) and may I say I refer to your blog just as often as I do to the study material!! Fabulous posts. Keep them coming! :)
LA Grant,
I find zero tolerance programs to be mindless. There has to be an ability to take context into account or such policies treat people like machines.
Dan,
I understand why people may stay in toxic environments but believe they need to consider to what extent their continued participation implies an endorsement. I've seen some individuals who assumed a place was ethically run because they knew ethical people who worked there in executive positions. There are times when the ethical course of action is to leave.
Reka-Zsuzsanna,
That's great news! I'll do my best to provide helpful posts.
Michael
Post a Comment