Thursday, January 31, 2008

Biblical Leadership & Ethics

1. Develop 4 scenarios involving completely different work environments that would be appropriate for a D1, D2, D3 and D4 employee. Briefly describe each employee, giving them a personality, behaviors, attitudes and relevant skills consistent with their type. Once you have developed each employee, provide them with a leader whose style is appropriately suited for them, and describe the leader in the same ways. If you prefer, some of your leader/follower scenarios may be built on parent/ child or teacher/student relationships.

D1: Don has just been hired as a department manager for a small company. His prior occupation was pastor of a small church, where he used almost none of the technical skills needed in this manufacturing environment. He was quiet, and non-confrontational especially relating to any technical subject; he always second guessed himself. Fortunately, his boss has made sure that all the instructions for accomplishing the day to day tasks are current and up-to-date. After going through the full list of tasks ahead for that day, he instructs Don to read the instructions carefully and ask any questions that he may have. Together, they go through the instructions for the first set of tasks and Don is able to get clarification for each point that seems ambiguous. His boss reminds Don where he can be found and that if at any point he needs clarification, just ask additional questions until it is clearly understood.

D2: James has been working as a CAD drafter for four and a half years. He is older than most of the people he works with. He is happy to be assigned tasks that are the same from day to day with little variation. When he is asked to work outside his comfort zone, he shuts down, gets grumpy, and irritable. He knows quite well how to work within the drafting software, but lacks the mechanical aptitude to understand complex behavior of non-standard mechanisms. His manager needs him to complete some work that is more difficult than what James is used to, but he is the only one available to complete the task before the due date. Knowing that James may need additional help with a particular piece of the task, his manager takes additional time to tell him that he is capable and gives some general direction on how to accomplish the specific troublesome task. His boss then tells James that when he gets to that piece he would like to come back and see how he is progressing and offer any needed assistance.

D3: Kenneth is a clerk in a deli at the local supermarket. He has worked there for six years and is the now the senior worker. The only one in the department with more experience is the manager. He is confident and loves his job. He is very personable, and loves to help people. As a great planner, he has been supervising the night shift very successfully for the last 2 years. Kenneth's boss just got Jury Duty for the next 10 days and will only be able to be there over the weekend. Mr Jury Duty has seen Kenneth train all the current employees to do every part of their jobs. Kenneth is a great teacher because he is able to explain the how and why of each function. To assure Kenneth that things would run smoothly, he gave a few words of encouragement and leaves a checklist of the major things that must be done that Kenneth is not usually responsible for. The he leaves with one last word of confidence.

D4: Ben has worked as an auditor for 23 years. He doesn't want anything more than the job he started at, Auditor 1. It is comfortable, it pays the bills and there is virtually no stress. In fact, he can almost do his job while sleeping, but tries hard not to prove that. His superior is a 21 year old kid just out of college, who is officially an Auditor 2. He was only an Auditor 1 for three months before he was promoted because he was a ladder climber and had high aspirations. Both of them understood the circumstances and dealt with each other as such. Ben was assigned an audit, then did all that needed to be done. As for his “boss”, he used the work review time as an opportunity to gain understanding and experience that this 23 year veteran exuded.

2. Looking at any one of the 4 scenarios you developed, explain why the leader/follower pairing is appropriate given the circumstances, and anticipate what direction the leader will try to move the follower given the fact that their relationship is successful.

Kenneth (D3) had a boss that knew he was more than capable to do the job that needed to be done. He was also perceptive enough to know that Kenneth may be uncertain of his ability to make sure all the tasks get completed. So he left a tool, the checklist, to ease Kenneth's mind and give Kenneth the assurance that all was being cared for, that nothing was being forgotten. Kenneth's department manager was training him to be able to take over his job.

3. In this same situation, explain what step the leader might appropriately take toward restoration if the follower's performance declines.

If declining performance is noticed during the weekend return of Mr. Jury Duty, he will be able to assess whether additional tools should be left or if other, more detailed instruction could be put in place for the next five day absence. He should be able to encourage Kenneth in the specific area of need. Then give some specific pointers on how he has done things that has mitigated the problems currently faced by Kenneth.

4. Discuss how application of Situational Leadership is meant to be generative and redemptive in its design as opposed to static or maintenance-oriented.

I believe that the whole premise for this style of leadership is that for every situation you must independently asses the need and react with the appropriate style. As people change and grow they may move into different categories and need to be managed with respect to the new situation. The originators describe the model as a way in which to analyze the situation and react in a predictable manner to ensure the best possible outcome.

5. Finally, looking at Situational Leadership in your own work/life context, can you see examples where leader/follower styles are in conflict? Describe one briefly, and how you might counsel the leader to modify their style to help resolve conflict issues.

Yesterday, I saw a great example of conflict where the owner of my place of employment walked by a group of engineers who were in the middle of a design review for manufacturability. The owner did not know what the meeting was for but immediately jumped into the discussion and laid out the plan on the best way to make the part. Unfortunately, his taking charge got the entire group off track of the goal, and caused some resentment and frustration with the person who was leading the meeting. I had a conversation with the group later in the day and they all respect the opinions of the owner and desire his input, but by jumping in and taking over meeting they were reduced to feeling worthless. After all, we hired these engineers to do the design work. By giving such a detailed plan (which was opposite the direction the group was moving) it made them all feel as if he thought they were stupid.

The counsel I would give to the owner is that we all appreciate the input and desire him to be part of the process, but he needs to present his ideas and allow them to fuel the brainstorming of the entire group. I have given this advice and it must not be the correct advice for this situation, because he has not changed. But... it is his company, he can do what he wants. It just will not be as successful as it could be.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Biblical Leadership & Ethics

1. The founding partners of KRW claimed to be strong on integrity and responsibility to their clients. How were those values aligned with their organizational actions?

In the beginning their actions were not aligned. Some of the misalignment may have been related to the relatively new business. Their ideals were possibly untested and they had not thought through the process of ‘what to do if …’ What was clear from the story is that the first reaction to a stressful and new situation was not the most moral response. They were thinking only of themselves and not what those choices would do to others. If they had been honest with themselves they may have looked at the goals of their business and realized that they were very selfish. That may be acceptable if there is only one or two people in the company. As they grew, their goals or attitude of “let’s have fun and make money” did not grow with them.

2. How did KRW owners handle organizational responsibility during their first financial crisis?

The owners of the company were thinking of their goal; to “have fun and make money”. Unfortunately, they acted as if that were their only responsibility when the first real financial crisis was upon them. In their minds the objective of their business was at stake so they went to the first solution that may have alleviated their soon expected failure to meet their goal. They laid off most of their workforce. Their decision was shortsighted and not fully founded. They gave severance packages to the workforce and in some cases, had hired them back before they had even burned through the severance money. That says to me that those workers were paid to sit at home under pretty stressful circumstances. KRW could have done much better to have continued to employ those workers but refocused them on building the business. They would have gotten something for the money paid out and improved their business at the same time. But hindsight is 20/20.

3. What action finally triggered a fundamental realignment of KRW’s priorities? Was it proactive or reactive?

After, once again, pushing their staff beyond breaking point, one of the managers laid down the law. In essence, the staff declared, 'we are valuable assets and you must treat us as such. We will continue to work hard for you if you will exhibit the values you strive to teach; having integrity and doing the right thing.'

The change was simply reactive. The owners did not objectively look at the organization to evaluate how to improve the labor problems, so when it came to a head they had no alternative than to change into what the employees were asking for. After all, it was not outrageous things being demanded. If they were to put the same goal to the company as a whole, it would have been a much easier realization to see that unmeetable expectations and overburden do not equate with “having fun and making money”. If they had looked at the company in this way, they may have seen the problem and corrected it in a proactive manner.

4. What role did KRW owner/partners play in re-articulating organizational values?

According to the article it was the employees who grabbed onto the rudder and started to steer in a new direction. They seemed to be able to clearly articulate what their individual goals were. When the individual goals were evaluated together they seem to meld into one new mantra: “do the right thing”. It appears the company knew the theories and was able to teach them, but putting them to practice in a business model was outside their ability.

5. How did KRW owners handle organizational responsibility during their second financial crisis? What had changed?

During the second financial crisis they were able to make better choices. Some of this likely was the experience they had gained; they did not want to make the same mistakes. But also, the culture had changed. It was no longer an institution focused on profit of owners only, but the wellbeing of the entire company. Owners/executives even sacrificed their own money to make sure those who had truly shaped the organization were able to remain employed for as long as possible. Times were tough but loyalty was very high. In part because they were able to make a difference, but also because the owners were now living what they sought to teach and were looked up to.

6. In the end, how well did KRW leadership come to embrace their responsibility to serve others?

Once the cultural change took place it appears that the leadership was able to see the results of behaving according to the ethical compass. Although the change was lead by staff, it was adopted throughout the rank and file. Each person in the organization was able to see the value that the company had for society and see their dreams coming true; “make the world a better place”. Leaders were so effected by the changes they made personal sacrifice for those who worked for them.

7. In this case, how would you assess the impact of moral realignment on organizational long-term viability?

Moral realignment was essential for them to continue doing business. The “train wreck” really happened while they were experiencing a time of growth and success. They did not have any mechanisms in place to deal with the reality of growth. They needed more work done, but did not have the skills or trained resources to do it. The first ditch solution: put more pressure on the good workers you have to become more productive. When stress is high and a multitude of tasks are ahead you can rarely work efficiently without some accountability and prioritization. In this case the owners were called on the carpet to be accountable to the actions of not giving proper resources for the work at hand.

8. How might this scenario have played out differently if KRW leadership had acted in alignment with positive established principles and values from the beginning? What would you have done?

KRW ended up as a good organization which valued the people and customers they worked with. If they had started off on that road, they may have arrived sooner. Instead of wasting money and time during the first financial crisis, they may have been able to focus on internal processes that would ensure smooth growth and a full declaration of goals, values and missions. With the direction declared each employee would have been able to make each choice in harmony with the company. Maybe they would have had a plan in place to implement if another financial crisis were to present itself. Then in 2001, they would have enacted the plan and made the modifications needed to ensure their success.

If I were at the helm, I may have made some of the same mistakes. Ethics being the center of focus for now, I would like to say that being selfish and ignoring the impact of my decisions on others would not be one of them. It is truly hard to say what I would have done, I have one advantage over them, I see the entire story knowing how it ends. How wonderful would life be if we knew the outcome of each decision? Fortunately, we do know the end of one story: Christ wins and we spend eternity with Him!

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Biblical Leadership & Ethics

Week One – Case Study:

Johnson & Johnson CEO,

James Burke

1)What actions did Burke take upon assuming direction of J & J that helped affirm and develop the existing moral climate?

As one of the first noted point of business after he was named CEO of Johnson & Johnson, Burke called the leaders of the company together to discuss the validity of their Credo (Murphy & Enderle, 1995). Simply because it was one of the first things he set out to do showed that it was important to him. It also demonstrated to the rest of the organization that he meant to do business by the “rules”. Not just any rules, but the Credo which was set in place by his predecessors. It showed his loyalty and that he was interested in making sure it was still viable. Have things changed since the original draft? Where there additions that should be inserted? Was it still the basis for how they ought to behave organizationally? Apparently there were things that needed improvement because it was modified slightly.

By placing the Credo into the corporate eye and elevating it's content, Burke was able to give everyone within the company a standard with witch to measure themselves. Weather it is how they interact with customers, vendors or coworkers they had universally understood guidelines. Before they spoke or made action they were enabled to discern weather it was the right thing to do. When we all have the same guidelines we can be sure we are working with one another an not against, ensuring progress toward becoming a better organization.

2) When the first Tylenol poisoning incident occurred, how did Burke's responses directly reflect specific declarations in J & J's Credo?

Burke's response to the first poisoning was a direct reflection of the first three lines of their Credo:

We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients,
to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services.
In meeting their needs everything we do must be of high quality.

Burke was stating with the companies actions that the customers who use the product were first in priority. The company pulled 31 million bottles of Tylenol from store shelves, even though it is likely that most were not tampered with, because they did not want to chance any further mortality from low quality (Murphy & Enderle, 1995).

Burke was leading by example. Although the mistake was not directly their fault, they accepted responsibility because they did not do enough to prevent the tampering. Near the end of the Credo they state their willingness to ensure mistakes are paid for. Rhode (2007) describes how this is one of the most important aspects of leadership, leading by example. We was willing to lead in this case by putting the public before the business. The huge cost of the recall may have seemed like a loss, but in the long term everyone benefited. The drug industry made improvements to packaging, Johnson & Johnson was seen as a company who cared and Tylenol is still used and accepted by consumers today.

3) What proactive steps did J & J undertake to ensure against future repetition of the criminal incident?

The first time the medicine was poisoned, Johnson & Johnson went after the root cause. Once it was discovered that the poisoning was post manufacturing they set up press conferences to alert the media to avoid any further problems. They organized the removal of product from shelves to assure consumers the problem was being solved. Next they worked with government agencies to improve the packaging so that it was tamper proof (Murphy & Enderle, 1995).

Then it happened again. They were already working diligently to prevent tampering and did not have any further ways they could ensure the safety of the consumers. So, in 1986 they removed product from the stores altogether. This must have been a challenging decision to make since Tylenol was one of the main brands for the company and was a major contributor to the success of Johnson and Johnson, with Burke at the helm (Murphy & Enderle, 1995).

4) When Burke permanently withdrew Tylenol capsules from the market after the second poisoning incidents, what message was he sending to both the public and his own internal clients?

By permanently removing the product from the shelf he was again saying that the consumer and truly the view of Johnson & Johnson products must be preserved. He desired that the customer be safe and would hold a high view of the companies products. Since the product was once again tainted, that product must be removed. Its removal showed the public that Johnson & Johnson had taken the initiative. This was also good marketing. Taking the product out of the limelight, gives meaning to the saying “out of sight; out of mind.” The customers apprehension was removed completely until the perceived risk was gone. For example, I can go to the store and purchase Extra Strength Tylenol right now, without even the slightest hesitation, in fact I have some in my kitchen drawer.

The internal customers (his management and employees) were able to be proud of their work because Johnson & Johnson did the right thing. They could rest assured that in the little things their employer would do what was best for themselves, not just what looked best on the bottom line. In many places of employment the idea that employees are being taken advantage of is rampant. I sincerely hope that this idea is only spread because employers are poor communicators or are having trouble in an area of policy; not actually trying to take advantage of the ones who do the work, who make the organization what it is.

5) What conditions had to exist to allow Burke to exercise the kind of decision power he exercised?

Burke must have been in a situation where his team asked the hard questions. The management team looked at the situation and undoubtedly had debate over what to do. There may have been some who wanted to take the same stand as the FBI stating that a full recall was not necessary. But through skillful debate, problem solving and a moral compass Johnson & Johnson was able to make that choice. It is unlikely that he made the decision alone, but because they had their Credo written and it was part of the culture, he could have made the same decision on his own. This points out the power of the moral compass and the benefit of having the alignment model visible and easily accessible as seen in Moral Intelligence (Lennick & Kiel, 2007).

6) After the incidents and Burke's reactions, how do you think the public saw Burke? Johnson & Johnson?

The public was stunned that there had been two different incidents of poisoning. Seeing that Burke was willing to completely remove a product from the shelf gave confidence that he cared for consumers. Even beyond the profit of his company.

The public was in disbelief that Johnson & Johnson was dealing with this issue again. Since this company did not know how to solve the tampering problem, they were loosing stock value, and consumer confidence. Then Johnson & Johnson pulled the product. I think the public would have been comforted that Johnson & Johnson were looking out for them. The removal of the product fueled questions from the public. But what about these other over the counter medications? Don't they have the same problem? What are they doing to ensure my safety? How are they going to prevent me or my family form being the next victim? They turned this truly tragic moment into a scenario where the Public now only trusted them. Brilliant marketing based on ethical principals.

7) Evaluate Burke's performance throughout his tenure as CEO in terms of moral and emotional competence. How did his actions demonstrate alignment with his moral compass? Finally, how did Burke help J & J take steps toward becoming a morally intelligent organization?

During Burke's employment as CEO of Johnson & Johnson, he acted according to his personal ethical standard. He was fortunate to align himself with a company that shared those standards. His moral competence was, from what I know, superb. Every situation was met with a decision that was gaged carefully by the companies Credo and his personal ethics. As far as his emotional competence, he seemed to be a talented reader of others. He directed the Credo to be reestablished getting input of others on his management team. He correctly predicted the reaction of the public and was able to use that emotional information to make wise business decisions. He was in all actions aligned with his moral compass.

Burke took the lead and demonstrated that morality was one of his critical drivers. It was not just something spoken about, but displayed in every action, and it worked. It worked for Burke because he was continually promoted, and respected. It worked for Johnson & Johnson because they were able to come through several crisis situations and become stronger through them. It worked for society because now medication has many warning labels and anti-tampering protection for consumers. Although ethical leadership may be uncomfortable at times, it is the better choice in the long run.

Lennick D. & Kiel F. PhD (2007). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance & leadership success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Murphy, P.E. & Enderle, G. (1995). Managerial ethical leadership: Examples do matter. Business Ethics Quarterly 1, (5). 117-121.

Rhode, D.L. (Jan. 2007). Moral leadership: Inspire ethical behavior. Leadership Excellence 24, (1).