This is an interesting article. I have heard the same from the leaders I have had the privilege to work with.
The comment at the end about free market at work is a good one. Just as consumers can instantly choose with whom to do business, or more importantly not to do business with (Bud Light, Disney as examples), employees can and do make the same decisions about the organizational value proposition.
There are so many forces and idea colliding in this space at the same time, there is no clear cut answer. Some believe in the concept of shareholder supremacy, the ultimate stakeholder. Others that the purpose of a business is to advance a mission or a cause.
I do believe that more of the granular functions of some of the topics you broach can be delegated, however, direction comes from the C-suite. And the truth is, not everyone will always be happy.
Given the reality of the demands and polarizing opinions of DEI and ESG, the Product versus Culture demands, to be all things to all people at all times is not only impossible, it's completely unrealistic. The question for me becomes, who is ultimately responsible for the org as a whole, as it's own entity? Does the CEO decide the stance on DEI and ESG and delegate the execution of that vision? Is the CEO subservient to the shareholders, the employees, the board, or society as a whole?
One could rationalize making a trade off in share price (Disney) and subverting shareholders' interests in the name of greater DEI and social issue compliance stances. Boeing, hiring an accountant as CEO, does make me question the focus of the organization. The merger of McDonnell Douglas and Boeing set the stage for an organization focused on managing financially as opposed to a focus on collaborative engineering. Now, efficiency has trumped quality and safety and, if you adhere to Milton, the shareholders are suffering more now than ever before. In this example, product/ops overtook quality/people and we see now the result of that. Even DEI is being backed away from (Blackstone) in some large orgs, and the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action in universities is adding fuel to that fire.
No easy answers. The worst thing they can do is say nothing. So who decides the direction? Who is ultimately accountable for the org as an entity? I work with CEO's, COO's, CHRO'S and I must say, I do not envy the stress of those roles. Our discussions always come back down to whether their personal beliefs align with the organization they lead, can they effectively communicate those beliefs and vision, and who inside the org is on their side. If they feel out of alignment, burnout is practically inevitable. In fact, burning out and leaving is actually the best case in that scenario. The worst case being forced out after effectively lashing out in a way that hurts the org and their credibility.
Nicely written and agree with so much of what you have addressed. I would add that in the Arsenal example and the “business” decision not to honor Ozil with any actions but then to take a stance on Floyd was probably also driven by the size of the market in China and the hard stance the CCP takes to shut down dissent.
You have indeed brought out a very important issue .
How about having plurality of CEOs or A Bench of CEOs ?
The tradition of One CEO who is the Be all and the End all is not necessarily the best model for the future . Functioning of churches under plurality of elders is a new testament pattern . The supreme courts function under a bench of judges . There is no reason why such a system cannot work .
I do sense that leaders are suffering from similar pitfalls that an average consumer faces: too much noise.
The social stances are a good example of companies overreacting to the events in 2020.
Perhaps leaders will need to learn how to discern permanent issues versus those that are more transient while also learning to gauge what % of staff actually care about any given issue. Some issues have an unusually small but highly vocal group of supporters.
A fascinating observation piece from the perspective of the CEO
I'm a proponent of self-aware leadership and would love to know more about your thoughts on how a leader operates in this context. Towards the end, you make reference to juggling, focussing, transparency. What more can you tell us about self-awareness within this leadership context?
Maybe it's a conversation we should have on my podcast!!!!!!
This is an interesting article. I have heard the same from the leaders I have had the privilege to work with.
The comment at the end about free market at work is a good one. Just as consumers can instantly choose with whom to do business, or more importantly not to do business with (Bud Light, Disney as examples), employees can and do make the same decisions about the organizational value proposition.
There are so many forces and idea colliding in this space at the same time, there is no clear cut answer. Some believe in the concept of shareholder supremacy, the ultimate stakeholder. Others that the purpose of a business is to advance a mission or a cause.
I do believe that more of the granular functions of some of the topics you broach can be delegated, however, direction comes from the C-suite. And the truth is, not everyone will always be happy.
Given the reality of the demands and polarizing opinions of DEI and ESG, the Product versus Culture demands, to be all things to all people at all times is not only impossible, it's completely unrealistic. The question for me becomes, who is ultimately responsible for the org as a whole, as it's own entity? Does the CEO decide the stance on DEI and ESG and delegate the execution of that vision? Is the CEO subservient to the shareholders, the employees, the board, or society as a whole?
One could rationalize making a trade off in share price (Disney) and subverting shareholders' interests in the name of greater DEI and social issue compliance stances. Boeing, hiring an accountant as CEO, does make me question the focus of the organization. The merger of McDonnell Douglas and Boeing set the stage for an organization focused on managing financially as opposed to a focus on collaborative engineering. Now, efficiency has trumped quality and safety and, if you adhere to Milton, the shareholders are suffering more now than ever before. In this example, product/ops overtook quality/people and we see now the result of that. Even DEI is being backed away from (Blackstone) in some large orgs, and the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action in universities is adding fuel to that fire.
No easy answers. The worst thing they can do is say nothing. So who decides the direction? Who is ultimately accountable for the org as an entity? I work with CEO's, COO's, CHRO'S and I must say, I do not envy the stress of those roles. Our discussions always come back down to whether their personal beliefs align with the organization they lead, can they effectively communicate those beliefs and vision, and who inside the org is on their side. If they feel out of alignment, burnout is practically inevitable. In fact, burning out and leaving is actually the best case in that scenario. The worst case being forced out after effectively lashing out in a way that hurts the org and their credibility.
It is certainly a brave new world.
Thanks for the piece Robert. Appreciate you!
Nicely written and agree with so much of what you have addressed. I would add that in the Arsenal example and the “business” decision not to honor Ozil with any actions but then to take a stance on Floyd was probably also driven by the size of the market in China and the hard stance the CCP takes to shut down dissent.
Correct. If it's really something you value, then it needs to cost you something.
Thank you .
You have indeed brought out a very important issue .
How about having plurality of CEOs or A Bench of CEOs ?
The tradition of One CEO who is the Be all and the End all is not necessarily the best model for the future . Functioning of churches under plurality of elders is a new testament pattern . The supreme courts function under a bench of judges . There is no reason why such a system cannot work .
I do sense that leaders are suffering from similar pitfalls that an average consumer faces: too much noise.
The social stances are a good example of companies overreacting to the events in 2020.
Perhaps leaders will need to learn how to discern permanent issues versus those that are more transient while also learning to gauge what % of staff actually care about any given issue. Some issues have an unusually small but highly vocal group of supporters.
Well said Ruben. The very vocal minroity can skew the impotances of something.
A fascinating observation piece from the perspective of the CEO
I'm a proponent of self-aware leadership and would love to know more about your thoughts on how a leader operates in this context. Towards the end, you make reference to juggling, focussing, transparency. What more can you tell us about self-awareness within this leadership context?
Maybe it's a conversation we should have on my podcast!!!!!!
Sure, happy to connect