Bringing Ethics into Your Leadership Strategy

In recent years ethics in business have been studied more closely. With what seems to be increasing opportunity to behave unethically in business, costing credibility of the company, its individuals, and innocent bystanders, what are the checks and balances to ensure moral behavior? 

The dynamic at play is of unique consequence; laws have been implemented to insist upon certain transparencies and practices, e.g., penalizing the act of bribery or inflation of revenues. Yet, according to the National Business Ethics survey, employees – or members of the organization – on whom society relies for whistleblowing, are consistently silenced for fear of employer’s retaliation. With this knowledge, researchers seek to understand what influences individuals to behave ethically.

In sorting through the data, I think the most helpful insights are as follows: individuals rely on their judgment about an ethical issue but place more importance on social expectations. Meaning, when social consensus is high (agreement that something is unethical) individuals more often than not follow suit – e.g., charitable behavior is “good.” This shared behavior can supersede the self-view, acting as a motivator to behave ethically. (If interested in the full study by Albert, Reynolds, and Turan, 2015, I will gladly make it available to you.)

The reason this matters: societies – and micro-societies (your office) can drive and influence behavior. Knowing this, I wanted to look for how. How can we make sure we are leveraging ethics as a culture-driver?

It’s two-fold. Companies have an opportunity to incorporate their values into decision-making. Further, the company values should align with ethical expectations. In fact, researchers emphasize the importance of trust and trustworthiness as a guiding principle. After additional research by Hoover and Pepper (2015), it was found the practice of sharing ethics statements, publicly, increased approval ratings both externally and internally.

Sure, anyone can conjure up an ethics statement, but it circles back around to the essentiality of using frameworks every day. The example I often return to is the importance of a vision statement. This isn’t merely a statement. It needs to be the leading force and the guiding light behind every employees’ behavior. From an ethical perspective, leaders have an opportunity to integrate a complementary ethics statement. (Just in case there is any uncertainty about how a person should behave!)

The goal is to enable each person to take responsibility for their decisions, irrespective of the existence of a formal organizational hierarchy. This ownership mentality – guiding employees to do the right thing – helps decrease the fear of retaliation for the expectations are ubiquitous. This, in turn, creates commonality among team members and social expectation which, as the research tells us, influences others through social consensus.

Changing "Me First," to You, First.

It’s a “me first” society. I’d even argue our self-centered approach is worsening; from entitlement, to straight up narcissism, the absence of humility and selflessness is becoming systemic. It’s finding ways into every corner of our lives, including the workplace.

Robert Greenleaf crafted the phenomenon of servant leadership over 40 years ago. Empirical research has since been completed to identify not only what servant leadership should ideally be, but what it looks like in practice.

I am a proponent of not only adopting the behavioral components of servant leadership but honestly believe the ripple effect of servant leadership is incomparable.

Servant leadership is about others. From attentive listening to empathizing and nurturing, servant leadership focuses on developing each person’s full potential. From my viewpoint, the most powerful part of servant leadership is the desire to put followers first, empowering them in the process.

I am not saying you should forget about your needs, but instead, understand the principles of servant leadership to grasp the associated benefit (for you and for others!). One of the critical elements of servant leadership is ethical and sustainable behavior. Meaning, servant leaders not only lead with ethics as the cornerstone of their decision-making, but make an exerted effort to be concerned for those with less fortune. Are there inequalities and injustices in the workplace? As a servant leader, your goal is to try to remove them; this transcends beyond daily leadership and into global influence.

The essential piece to servant leadership is the ability to empower. As a leader, you shift authority to those you are leading. Helping team members be self-sufficient and make decisions on their own builds followers’ confidence. Sharing control is monumental. How do leaders lose their way? Power. Control. Egocentrism. By providing freedom and encouragement to employees to handle difficult situations, they buy into the notion that their decisions affect others. As a result, he or she become motivated and accountable members of the organization.   

The focus here is on the leader’s behaviors; the north stars are empathy, placing followers’ needs first, helping followers succeed, behaving ethically, empowering, and creating value for the community. Why is servant leadership worth investigating? Outcomes of servant leadership include an increase in follower performance and growth, improvement in organizational performance, and societal impact.

Having a deeper understanding of servant leadership allows you to determine if this approach is right for you. If you’re interested in testing your current servant leadership capabilities, send me a note.

Recruitment & Leadership Pairing: An Approach for Employee Retention

I recently conversed with the owners of Exploration People, Melinda Williams and Jennifer Gould. Their expertise in placing talent within the eCommerce vertical enabled our paths to cross quite naturally. Upon reflection of our conversation and the undeniable necessity of strong talent acquisition, it got me thinking: How do recruitment professionals and leadership consultants work together to help companies create an ideal workforce?

Management consulting and recruitment specialists are mutually exclusive; yet, we are in the business of people. These functions are more closely linked than what first meets the eye.

Both work streams are responsible for technical capability; where I am responsible in assessing leadership theory appropriately and using my rolodex of knowledge to prescribe the issue and, with it, implement programming to improve situations, recruiters are responsible for thoroughly understanding the scope of the position as well as the mechanical skill-sets the candidate must possess. Just as the technical components are essential, so too are the relationships that are built along the way. The ability to understand people – truly comprehend motivations, limitations, potential, and possible blind spots – is really where our work comes in.  As I said, we are in the business of people.

We sat down to discuss. I wanted to learn why candidates – from the lens of recruiters who have dedicated time to proper vetting – stay with companies. The results are unsurprising, and business owners will be served well to take note.

Value

Value is identified as one of the three components that must be taken into account for a retention strategy. Jennifer and Melinda are frequently asked by candidates how the companies for which they are interviewing value their people.

Value comes in different forms – from salary to other rewards, and of course, recognition. While wage needs to be commensurate with industry standards, I have found it’s often not about the salary alone. It’s about the culture within the company.

Take this example: person one (1) works for company ABC and earns 20% more than another person, person two (2), who works for DEF. Person 1 is never thanked, seldom recognized, and morale is low. Person 2, while earning less, is regularly recognized by their boss for a job well-done, is trusted to accomplish the work, and is appreciated for who they are and how they contribute to the company. Unsurprisingly, they are more motivated to come into work, and the 20% difference in pay is a moot point.

Companies need to be able to answer these questions in the interview process:

1. How is change handled and communicated?

2. What is the corporate culture? Not the marketing words associated with mission and vision, but what are the actual values of the people within?

3. What type of recognition and rewards can be expected?

Growth

In my climate assessments, a key piece of feedback received is about upward mobility. What is the path to further achievement and what potential is there for growth? Without these discussions being held regularly, professional paths are ambiguous. This leaves employees feeling bored or “stuck” and limits longevity.

Companies may have grand plans for an employee, but if they aren’t discussed, documented, and action-oriented, the employee may leave never knowing there was the positive intent.

Regular reviews must be a part of the business framework; not only to discuss performance but to discuss potential and professional development. Further, feedback doesn’t always need to be scheduled. Encourage managers to speak with team members about aspirations and performance regularly. This allows corrections to be more fluid and enables plans for the future to be actualized, not just discussed.

Autonomy and Flexibility
In saving the best for last, Melinda and Jennifer find independence and flexibility to be the most common theme that is discussed with candidates. A common mistake that managers make is to keep their grip too tight. Instead of empowering employees, they think their control will produce better results. (This micromanagement can, and should, be undone!)

A common fear that candidates possess is whether or not they will be trusted to do their jobs. This goes back to the cultural framework as well as the coaching and self-awareness that is needed for managers.  If the person is a top performer but is never allowed to work from home, and this is something that adds value to their life, employees will feel mistrusted, and this leads to an absence in motivation. Giving a good employee space and flexibility to do what they were hired to do speaks volumes.

A Strategic Combination
The recruiter’s new reality? A desire to place candidates in workplaces where cultures are encouraging, dynamic, and free of toxicity. To me, these means the necessity to invest in organizational development, and personal development has never been higher. The interconnectivity between recruiters and leadership consultants, too, is an apparent fit. How I support people within organizations to become the best versions of themselves contributes to the overarching retention strategy. If we can correct fundamental issues, such as the aforementioned top three, candidates will be eager to evolve with their company. The people companies seek, and Melinda and Jennifer look diligently to uncover, will be a very worthwhile investment.

As such, the power-packed approach of engaging the right talent – Melinda and Jennifer’s part – and enabling candidates’ success through organizational change and development – my part – is undoubtedly well-aligned.

Flat Structures: Why They Work… Until They Don’t.

Flat structures have a special lure. “Come work for us, we have a flat organization.” It’s almost as if those words insinuate no explanation is needed! It’s a flat org! Get excited, people.  

In retrospect, the organizations I worked for that claimed they were flat, were in need of some serious direction, structure, and unit empowerment.

Structural options have less to do with the classification, and more to do with how companies interpret the benefits. Further, it has to do with how the organization wants teams to behave within their cohorts.

Let’s start with the types of organizational structure. The most often defined is a traditional hierarchy. This stems from the “modernized” working age that occurred in the industrial revolution. Even before that, though, the government emphasized the chain of command. The order was clear, and often age was associated with relevant experience. For a constantly changing global workplace, a one-size fits all approach is no longer good enough. New structures were considered for the evolving workplace. Flat organizations came to be, then flatter organizations, and then holacratic frameworks (to name the primaries).

The traditional hierarchy:

The traditional hierarchy maintain the bureaucracy many of us have learned to despise. The red tape of checks and balances remove the ability to get work done. Traditional hierarchies mute critical thinkers and, regretfully, empowerment suffers. In the process of minimizing productivity – coinciding with the speed to communicating – companies become less competitive. The ability to pivot becomes a memory of the past.

Some company owners fall into the traditional hierarchy without meaning to. And, as the company scales, no one stops to reconsider if the structure is supporting company goals. The first check and balance: Each year, look at the reporting lines and consider other frameworks. Is there another that better aligns with the goals of your organization?  

The Flat Structure:

I alluded to this – the flat structure has previously been seen as sexy. Here’s the thing: a true flat structure means there are no job titles, no seniority, no reporting formalities, no executives. Come one, come all, we are equal. So, if you’re reading this thinking, hmm, my company is “flat” but there are indeed seniors, executives, and clear titles, word to the wise: your org isn’t flat.

Some companies are able to make flat organizations work splendidly; if an employee wants to start their own project, then they are responsible for securing funding and building their team. In a way, they are part owners (without the equity). This takes ample trust. If you’re comfortable with this construct, proceed!

Most typically, flat organizations are doable with a young and small company. Think of it this way, when you start your company, you may be able to have everyone report to you. However, when there are 15-20 people on board (and still growing) there simply aren’t enough hours in the day for everyone to report to you. Your time will not be used efficiently, and you will end up working twice as long in the workday.

Holacratic:

The primary goal here is to empower and enable decision making. This term is best known thanks to our friends at Zappos. Holacracy has with it its own rules and guidelines; if you’re interested in a deeper look, check out this resource. The way I see holacratic structures is like this: reporting structures are in place, but rather than everyone rolling up, teams roll laterally or diagonally. Leaders are empowered to approve decisions in their respected areas, and every decision does not need to go up the ladder.

The truth is, any hierarchy that ensures empowerment will function very differently than bureaucracies as we know them. Structure helps maintain order and minimizes ambiguity. But, as conveyed, too much structure leads to a stifled and slow-moving work environment. If we look at structures as a tool for leadership development, we can reinvent how hierarchies are defined. Note: I find flatter organizations and holacratic structures have some some overlap. My preference? Take parts from each that work best for you.

At the root of all of this is people management, not organizational line management. If you want your workplace to be collaborative and dare to encourage creativity, as well as question the status quo, enforce a structure that promotes collaboration (flatter or holacratic structures) but doesn’t require only one, or few, people’s omnipresence (flat).