Here is the Introduction to my latest book Compassionate Capitalism: A Return to the Soul of Business. Look for the book to come out in 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic.
Toxic to the environment; toxic to employees; toxic to families; toxic to society; toxic to the long-term vibrancy and health of human kind and, ultimately, all life on this planet.
What else can you say? Most organizations on the planet today are toxic to both the human spirit and the human condition. The results produced and positions espoused by capitalism, socialism, communism, theism, or any “ism” that you care to orient around are all supported and expressed through their organizations. The focus on short-term goals, the drive to produce results at any cost, the slavish deference to shareholder interest, profits, or philosophical ideology above all else, and the view that employees, natural resources and time are disposable components intended to be used in the relentless drive to ever increasing success contribute greatly to this malaise. All organizations that exist or have ever existed are failing, have failed or will eventually fail. While much good has been produced by many organizations, it's also true that what many leave behind as their legacy can take decades or centuries to undo. This isn’t cynicism this is fact.
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE business! Organizations fascinate me professionally. We are social beings and who we are and how we live and work is in large part defined by how we organize. AND, the way that most businesses and organizations have evolved their way of conducting their business has gone seriously off the rails.
What went wrong? That’s the focus of this book. What will set things back on track is what I will propose. This proposal is nothing short of a revolution in both thinking about what the business of business is…it’s also a revolution in thinking about what a leader is.
Any organization is complex. Even something as "simple" as an individual or a couple are potentially exhibiting the complex organizational dynamics of large global enterprises. There are hierarchies that inform who does what; there are values and rules that guide both decision making and behavior; goals are determined within the context of the purpose for being together; results are evaluated and rewarded or punished; and communication “problems” are ever present. There is an old Organizational Development joke that says “we designed the perfect organization and then screwed it up when we put people in it”. The human spirit doesn’t take kindly to captivity.
People – you and I – are infinitely complex. Each of us potentially represents the proto-organization. When all of our organizational “systems” are working in coherence and when all of the various “parts” that make me me are coordinating well the organization that I call “me” is healthy, vibrant, at ease, creative, growing, and generally just working well.
Which brings us to a question of leadership and how organizations are led. What is the responsibility of leadership and who is the leader that is ultimately responsible for how any organization produces its results?
Here’s a thought…there is NO leadership position to be had in any organization. There are however positions of ever increasing authority. These are NOT the same!
I’ve studied leadership and humans in organizations for almost forty years and it’s led me to the conclusion that leadership is embodied in every individual and is exerted at every level in every organization by every person in an organization. Everyone is a leader!
Let's look at this assertion a bit...
When all is said and done leaders simply cause movement. Yes, they do it in a variety of ways...personalities vary, situations call for different approaches, yelling is a favorite of many, command and control is often valued, empowerment is offered, and threats are made and rewards are offered. To paraphrase a bit, some of these ways work some of the time but none of them work all of the time. And, again, all of these are simply ways by which movement is caused. The logical implication being that they are not necessarily ways that a leader can count on to produce the movement necessary to cause the desired results...movement and results are different animals!
I define leadership as the activity of causing coordinated movement that produces actions that generate desired results. Therefore, when it comes to the issue of leadership development, the question needing to be addressed is really one of leadership effectiveness. Is the movement being caused effective in creating the coordinated movement necessary to cause the actions necessary to get the results we want? Coordinated movement is the measure of effectiveness. In it's highest form coordinated movement calls forth a compassionate engagement with other stakeholders.
Referring to leadership as a position or role that is to be occupied or taken on implies that one is or isn't a leader depending on whether they occupy or hold a certain position or title. This is why most leadership development activities are reserved for certain people and levels in organizations. This is also why focusing on specific roles or positions for leadership development has a very limited ROI when compared to what would be possible if a broader approach were taken.
Linking leadership to roles and positions separates the activity of leadership from the holistic and legitimate being-ness of an individual. We are all always causing movement in our lives. Therefore, we are all leaders. However, most of us are likely not as effective with our leadership activities as we could be.
Linking leadership to roles and positions excludes the development of leadership effectiveness as a universally legitimate aspiration for all in an organization (and in life). It very specifically tends to limit conversations about and explorations of leadership development to only the "deserving", the anointed, the hi-potential. It disempowers entire populations. De-linking leadership from roles and positions creates the possibility of tapping enormous creative potential in almost every organization on the planet.
If we all came to look at the movement we are causing in life as an explicit reflection of our leadership effectiveness how might we relate to each other, to life, and to the planet differently? How might we expect our capitalistic organizations, our governments and our institutions to behave? Would we be – and insist our organizations be – more compassionate? We are, each of us individually and collectively, leading us to our future. Make no mistake, the results we see "out there" are our results. Yours and mine. It's not "them" in positions of authority that have control. "They" are not the leaders we need to be different.