Who is culpable, for instance, for extraordinarily high CEO wages?   Considerable finger wagging has been going on in the press at CEOs about this.  It isn’t the CEO who sets his or her own salary; it is the board of directors.  Yet boards of directors were invisible to the press in these stories.  Often our assumptions may lead us to conclusions that malign others without full consideration for the facts.  This disturbs me greatly but I know I have done it, too.  Why is that?

Walking with a friend, I mentioned a situation that was just this kind of wrongful maligning, and she asked me, “How long does it take to find a witch?”  She was referencing the days in Europe from 1480 to 1700 when legally sanctioned and official witchcraft trials resulted in from 40,000 to 100,000 executions. It was decided someone was a witch, and that person was immediately burned at the stake.  Perhaps it is popular to not trust CEOs because the media are on a CEO witch-hunt.

While we’ve moved beyond flagrantly burning people at the stake, we still do character assassinations every day in the form of judgment and gossip.   Some of this finger wagging and witch-hunting and broad-brush painting is projection — making someone else responsible for what we, ourselves, don’t want to be responsible.  So I ask myself, is my promise about business leaders leading with integrity and love and listening for people’s greatness about convincing leaders to be that?  Or is there some culpability in how I, and others listen for a leader to be great?

I believe there’s a pandemic malaise that creates its own dissonance and a noise within which leaders are trying to lead.  The expectation that leaders should be responsible for all wrongs is abdication of personal responsibility, and in the United States anyway (where I live), it is a serious problem.

I would like for EVERY individual in an organization, be it government, non-profit or for-profit, to SEEK OUT and TAKE UP their part in building successful entity, using the energy they spend criticizing leadership and putting it into taking personal responsibility to own their own accountability for results.

For more on this topic you can request on this website, www.accountabilitypays.com, the larger thesis from which this excerpt was taken.

Personally, I got appointed the babysitter when I was the oldest of 4 children.  It has taken me YEARS of committed introspection into the topic of accountability and what is available out of being accountable, to bring any lightness to this topic.  I did name my company “Accountability Pays,” so I do see a light at the end of the tunnel. Unless we want to suffer the consequences, we are accountable at work and at home, however we define it.

What if we could bring fun, play and ease to the conversations we have about being accountable?  The conversations I’ve usually had were focused on making someone wrong.  And if you’ve gotten to adulthood, you already know how that plays out!  It is not pretty for either party, when being made wrong or making another wrong.  It is the blame game, sound and fury signifying nothing, some version of “If you were different, if you were responsible, if you did things like I do them then all would be fine.”  That conversation does not usually go well UNLESS you are committed to coming out the other side with both people whole and complete, no kidding.  One of my fellow thinkers on this topic said it this way;  “The relationship is committed to workability for everyone.”

If being accountable — all of us being accountable — were fun, playful, easy what would be available?

Some of you think I’ve been smoking some illegal substance.  No, I have not.  What I know from my own experience, and sharing experiences with others, is that when everyone is accountable (clear, focused, results oriented) then the entity (relationship, organization) exudes vitality.

Think about a time when everyone did what they were supposed to do and you experienced what some call “flow.”  Stuff just got done!  People supported the whole with whatever was required, without being asked, even if it didn’t fit neatly into their job description.  Almost every one can think of one experience like that, and it was memorable, but seemingly not repeatable.  Why is that?  What I just described is the experience of being accountable with fun, play, and ease.

Here are a few quick rules that I’ve found work to bring fun, play, ease — and therefore vitality — to conversations for accountability.

1. Don’t make people feel that they are wrong for doing it the way they are currently doing things, even if you don’t think they are right.
2. Engage them in a discussion of what is possible if all pull on the oars of the boat headed in the same direction.
3. ASK for their impression of what could be done, and LISTEN.
4. Assume that if they do not understand you, it is because you did not communicate fully, not because they were stupid/not listening/whatever you made up about them.
5. Remind them of how great it will be when celebration time comes around.
6. Make them feel part of something bigger than themselves, something that is important.
7. Watch them come alive.  Watch them dip into their inner reserves.  Watch them perform beyond your expectations, as a valued and valuable team member.

Practical Implications: The results provide the most granular view to date of how individuals with complex meaning-making may think and behave with respect to complex change initiatives. This provides insight into the potential future of leadership. Social Implications: This study is an initial exploration of what leader development programs may need to focus on in order to cultivate leadership with the capacity to address very complex social, economic, and environmental challenges.

So what is consciousness?  Webster’s top four definitions are “1. a. the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself; b. the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact; c. awareness; especially concern for some social or political cause. 2. the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind. “

Consciousness is often associated with a connection to a higher power, an inner knowing that comes from reflective states such as meditation.

Being conscious means you really do not lose your temper when you might have before.  It means attending to the triple bottom line (profits, people, planet) when strategically planning for the company’s future — recycle, give employees time and money to support causes outside the organization.  It means getting involved in the industry to create sustainability practices that shift the entire business model, not just your own organization’s actions.  It means caring about things like the environment, politics and its effects, the global state of affairs.  For example, if your business uses dry ice, find a replacement.  Dry ice pollutes.

It means setting aside your ego’s need to be liked in exchange for something greater than your organization and greater than your self-interest.  Consciousness is access to deeper meaning, deeper awareness.  It is access to fulfillment not found anywhere else.  And yes, it takes intention and discipline.

I would wish it for everyone who leads anywhere, any time.  That means all of us!

Where have you seen it?  When have you practiced?  Have you missed the opportunity and kicked yourself?

Serious truth seekers don’t fit well in organizations that stifle the flow of information, or place significant value in the pecking order/hierarchical management structure.  They don’t take kindly to gossip or the blame game, either. Then again, truth can be a slippery slope.

Mark Twain said, “Get the facts first, then you can distort them as much as you please.” Twain was speaking of human nature.  Is there really THE truth? Facing the truth may be admitting that you don’t have the answer.  Or you can’t make the deadline, in which case the sooner you communicate that truth, the sooner others can adjust to a new reality.

Once you have identified what you think is the truth, what do you do with it? Is it YOUR truth, or do you hold it as universally true for others and assume they are on the same page as you? Do you hold it up for scrutiny?

In businesses that are working hard to move toward a common goal, most of the breakdowns stem from the damaging impact of believing others have access to, or share your version of the truth.

I conduct a team-building exercise with senior executive teams, first assessing participants’ behavioral preferences using the Harrison Assessment then identifying their version of the company’s challenges.  So the inquiry is made in the context of individual impressions of how the company is held back from the goals.  Once everyone is debriefed and feedback is gathered, then together we examine their “filters” on the truth. This four-hour team exercise sucks the judgment right out of the room and makes way for a whole new version of truth exploring, putting it where it will best serve, i.e. exploring the boundaries of one’s own version of the truth.

If the leadership of the company is focused on measuring people against the right indicators — actions that produce desired results — and everyone is questioning their own truth, the resulting cultural synergy is a perfect backdrop for stunning breakaway success.

Is your organization poised for success by exploring “truth” in healthy ways?

Look further and you will find many companies distinguishing themselves by pursuing the triple bottom line; Nordstrom, Southwest Airlines, Panera Bread, The Container Store, Whole Foods — being purposeful in a larger sense while pursuing self-interest.  The proof of effectiveness is in the financial, social, and environmental effects and is often associated with the monikers “sustainable” organization, or corporate citizenship, or conscious capitalism.  For more examples,  http://www.forbes.com/impact-30/lander.html.

Besides being the conscious thing to do, the triple bottom line has appeal for ‘A’ players — people who want to work for a purpose greater than themselves, who will work harder for the privilege of making a difference.

Breakaway Success is accomplishment beyond measure.  And yes, to get there, measure, measure, measure!  But only measure what is meaningful.

What is meaningful?  Most accountants measure what has already passed, and that has to be measured — sales, profits, ROI, G&A, etc.  Nothing new here and not necessarily meaningful to top performers, particularly younger workers who decide where to work based on the green/social capital of the organization.

And yes, financials are important. The Harvard Business Review, January 2010 issue’s presentation of The Best-Performing CEOs in the World said their objective was to present a long-term measure to assess CEOs and to inform CEO searches and succession planning, looking at stock returns, the fundamental scorecard for CEOs of public companies.  They looked at three measures:  country-adjusted return, industry-adjusted return and change in market capitalization during their tenure.

The following are words and phrases emanating from the 2011 CEO Summit on Conscious Capitalism. http://vimeo.com/33738729. Well-being of the people, the world.  Value for stakeholders.  I win, you win, the world wins.  Businesses operating from higher ideals that animate business. Profit is the byproduct, and purpose underlies that.  If you make a difference, often the money will take care of itself.

Paradoxically, NOT focusing wholly on profit will provide more profitability because the focus is on win-win.

How is your organization measuring its success?  I am eager to hear your stories.

Different teams require different structures, so for example sales teams require CRM.  That should be obvious, but for some organization it isn’t.  They probably aren’t reading this blog, because they have fallen behind in their technology savvy.

Today there is no excuse for not capturing sales data.  If you experience resistance from your sales management or a sales team member, you may be getting feedback from someone who doesn’t want to be measured, which suggests that person isn’t an ‘A’ player.  Look more deeply.

Senior executive teams need meetings with one another on a regular basis, and I do not mean meetings that get put off when there’s an emergency.  Consider that there are emergencies because you aren’t strategically thinking together regularly.

‘A’ teams need a leader who challenges them to think their best thoughts, be on their best behavior as a leader.  Challenging conversations are a structure.  They need report cards, theirs from you and theirs to you the CEO/President/Founder/Grand Poo-Bah of any title.  They need off-sites for strategic thinking and planning.  Those are structures.

What else do they need as a structure?  Executives need to be able to count on having conversations that matter deeply, whether they ask for them or not, in part because they need to learn how to hold those conversations with those who report to them.  I recently was asked to help a CEO hire a senior executive.  We used the Harrison Assessment to profile the candidate against the expectations of the position.  His results scared the potential employee off.  The CEO’s executive coach said to me, “Probably a good thing.  If the candidate doesn’t want to delve more transparently into himself then he won’t be a good fit for this team.”

If you need support for generating conversations that matter, on this website you can order senior executive team conversation starters.   And if you want to keep and inspire ‘A’ teams with structures, you will look beyond the obvious ones, which you know with your eyes closed.

“When we began the research project, we expected to find that the first step in taking a company from good to great would be to set a new direction, a new vision and strategy for the company, and then to get people committed and aligned behind that new direction.

We found something quite the opposite.

The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there.  No, they first got the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it. They said, in essence, “Look, I don’t really know where we should take this bus.  But I know this much: If we get the right people on the bus, the right people in the right seats, and the wrong people off the bus, then we’ll figure out how to take it someplace great.”

If it were my organization, I think a safer bet would be to know something about where the bus is going so I could get people who are aligned with that vision of the future.  Probably that future isn’t sealed in absolutes with the business plan written, but the future is in the mind’s eye of the founder or the current leader and can be elucidated.

Dr. Peter Drucker said, “The ability to make good decisions regarding people represents one of the last reliable sources of competitive advantage since very few organizations are very good at it.”

I can tell whether human resources (the people) in an organization are valued by two indicators:  1) the senior human resources executive is a member of the strategic executive team or not, and 2) to whom the human resources department reports.  In a company of any size where human resources is a department, if the senior executive of that department does not report to the CEO, how likely is it that the key leverage of an organization — its people — is under-valued?

Pretty high.  So that is the first seat that I would get right, and the rest of the people equation will begin to foster success that should drop to the bottom line.

What is the scenario at your organization?  Comments?  Observations?

What is Employee Engagement? 

Here’s what I see.  Employee engagement is employees working in an organization in a way that an owner would work, with something at stake in the future success of the organization and a sense of worth that comes from contributing to something greater than their own self-interest.

So when managing the philosophy of human resources in your organization, what are the principles that would garner either engagement or optimally passion for people doing their job?

We are currently putting in new flooring, and two guys are downstairs as I write this blog chatting away in another language as they set the tiles that we will live with for many years to come.  Are they artisans designing my future environment, attending to whether the tiles look good in that configuration?  Or are they talking about their evening, a good steak, their children and just making a dollar?

If you are working from the triple bottom line — profits, people, and planet — your employees’ attitudes matter.  If you want employees to be responsible for the bottom line then they have to have a stake in the results the company produces, and that does not mean your job is to make them HAPPY.  Rick Tate of Impact Achievement Group recently wrote an article pointing out that it is productive employees who have great morale, yet many performance reviews reflect a belief that great morale leads to productivity.   Happy is a result of productivity, not an access to it.

You are responsible for their experience of productivity in many ways, one of them is what you measure.  “A” players like to be measured, and “A” teams like to be measured.  If you are measuring what matters they know it, you know it, and you will have engaged employees.

How do you measure employee engagement (or better yet, passion)?  I welcome your stories!

I have a dream that leadership opportunities come only to those who demonstrate that their decisions are informed by deeply held core values. Lee Thayer, author of Leadership: Thinking, Being, Doing and I are on the same page about that.

Lee says, “The right values and beliefs are the “right stuff.” If you don’t have “the right stuff,” then you are not going to accomplish anything extraordinary, either individually or as a leader of others. And if those key others are not right-minded, right-hearted, and right-spirited (if they don’t have “the right stuff”), then your mission will likely fail. The right values and beliefs are critical because values and beliefs do not take us where we want to go. They take us in the direction they go. Their direction and their ends are inherent in them. They are blind to everything but their own ends. Get them right, and they will carry you along to where you want to go. Get them wrong, and they will carry you along to wherever they are headed.”

In your organization haven’t you observed someone with a title who has position power, but someone else has credibility and whose decisions people would choose to follow? I certainly have. If hiring choices have been good optimally the person with position power also is someone people would choose to follow. That scenario is least stressful on all systems and the people in them. It is also the path to extraordinary success.

Yet when was the last time you had a conversation with someone in leadership about their character as evidenced by the values that underlie their decisions?

Maybe it’s time to bring that background issue to the foreground at an executive session. Your employees know who you are, really.

I invite your comments, questions, and thoughts.

So what is transparency?  Transparency is a choice, a value in an organization that optimizes candor (telling the truth regardless of the impact of that truth, fast and forward).  These authors assert that candor maximizes the probability of success.

Transparency has to be lived as a value from the top of the organization down through its toes, where it does the walking.  And it either walks its talk or it doesn’t.  Like pregnancy, there is no such thing as being partly transparent.  What would that be?  We’ll tell you the truth part of the time but not all of the time?  It’s up to you to guess which part is true, though.

Like humanity, this is a complex subject in application.  We have seen the absence of transparency in highly visible cases where leaders did not intend to dupe their stakeholders, reality just got away from them at Enron, British Petroleum (BP) and most of the global organizational financial failures that created our drop in economic safety in the world.   Reality was known in these cases, it was not transparent to those who could make a difference before the crisis.

Does transparency occur differently inside an organization with the lightening speed of the digital era, where things said cannot be retracted?  The magnitude of emails and sometimes-careless comments and thought, can complicate discerning transparency for actionable matters.

These authors assert that transparency begins at home, in your own organization, where you will build a muscle around being transparent so that when called for in the world at large, you won’t be left without capacity for it like BP’s ex-CEO Tony Hayward, who eventually got around to admitting BP was not prepared for a category disaster he called “low probability, high risk.”    They also call for leaders to empower transparency in both directions — enabling others to “speak truth to power.”

You do know what I mean.  And if you have built a muscle around screwing your courage to the sticking point to look into the mirror, and if you enable your people to show you a mirror, good for you!  If you have not, there is no time like the present.

Tell me your stories, your questions, your thoughts.