Publications

Less leadership breeds better leadership?

The second half of the 90's witnessed the birth of "transformational" leadership as the ideal model for directing corporations and organizations through their efforts to adapt to the new conditions of the competitive planetary game. A broad consensus has emerged among researchers and leadership "sellers", i.e. consultants, that corporations, especially large ones, should be convinced to invest in ambitious development plans for their managers, to "turn them into leaders of change".
True, one way or another, managers must lead adaptations or even radical changes in the strategy, organization and processes of a corporation. All this affects many internal players (management, employees, labor unions, etc.) and external players (clients, suppliers, etc.) who do not always understand the substance, reason, means or goals of these projects. Hence the virtually unlimited popularity of the "mission-vision-value" model, which is the basic credo of transformational leaders. However, the model is based on a few underlying beliefs that merit examination.

By defining a mission you become a missionary!

Can a business executive demand that his/her employees transform themselves into "soldier-monks"? "Missionary" organizations (churches and cults, among others) have an ideological foundation that unites their members, not an employment contract. Their strength lies in the unconditional and deep (authentic) adhesion of their members to the professed dogma, which demands a lot of time (it takes longer to train a priest than a doctor or an airline pilot). And therefore assumes that the dogma will remain unchanged! Yet, it is paradoxically to pave the way for changes in "entrepreneurial dogma" that executives take on a "mission", which will be reformulated when the next CEO takes over, or after the next takeover. If the executive is honest, the only dogma that lasts is profit for the shareholder. If the shareholder is not the employee, we wish the executive lots of luck in his evangelizing endeavor. His probable failure should be good news to him: "his" employees are more intelligent than he thought.

The second strength of missionary organizations is that indoctrination allows flexible, deferred control, and sometimes no control at all, since each member follows the dogma and related rules of his own free will. Many business leaders dream of this more or less openly.

One must recognize though, that even in the strictest congregations, the workings of this system are far from perfect, and when a deviant is caught red-handed by his superiors, the natural tendency is to cover it up internally, and completely hide it externally. Until the day the scandal explodes. Over the last few years, leading organizations, and sometimes entire sections of this "missionary" economy, have been dissolved, so widespread was the deviance, especially at the highest levels, which delays the scandal but eventually makes it even more resounding.
  

Vision makes a corporation blind!

True, Seneca taught us more than 25 centuries ago that there are no fair winds for a sailor who doesn't know where he is going. But the commander of the Titanic knew where he wanted to drop anchor. He just forgot about the external hazards (icebergs), and overestimated his internal capacities (solidity of structure, ship's maneuverability, crew's experience, ship owner's honesty). How many "vision champions", recently infuriated by the media, are dying or already dead from following their dream, often honestly, bringing with them soldier-monks who are increasingly hard to fool, and who, while they have learned from experience, will more or less openly refuse to board the next boat for Cythera? Whether driven by the illusion of consensus within the executive team, or by the contagious enthusiasm of a charismatic leader, vision leads a corporation to its loss if it causes one to forget that "strategy follows structure" just as much as structure follows strategy, though the Harvard managerial school of thought may beg to differ.

Lastly, as an anecdote, we point out that all these visions are strangely similar, regardless of the sector or corporation, and that they all seek to gain... leadership (in terms of volume, quality, profitability, attractiveness to candidates, etc.). This circular reasoning may be the joy of semiologists but it wreaks havoc on the economy, as we are reminded by the current craze in mergers - whose purpose is to reach "critical size", and which destroys more value than it creates - and by the recent implosion of the Internet bubble.

The value of values
After having defined or changed its mission and projected the corporation into the future by knocking it silly with visions, our leader - if he follows the recipe - will define values. Here again, we are entitled to seriously question the right of executives to seek to transfer values (their values?) onto employees. Just what do they expect from these employees? Acts of allegiance intended to support the projection of their ego through recklessly promulgated values, seeking something closer to an anagram (SERVICE and VALUE (!) are the most common ones) than deeper meaning? Or do they hope for behavior that is both productive and respectful of the rules?

Assuming that our leader is justified, and not to doubt his well-meaning intentions ("it's to help them adhere to the corporation's culture"), the professed values will not withstand a quick examination based on a solid scientific corpus (psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology). Indeed, values are not values "of" the corporation. They are "in" the hearts of men. If we are talking about corporate values, then we need to recognize that they emerge within every human group, and are certainly not dictated. Seeking to transfer a value (for example customer service) firstly and mostly reveals other values, those that emerge from the person who demands and leads the action of transferal.

It is illusory to seek to change the values of employees, unless they are adolescents, or very immature. Unless they have had extreme and traumatic experiences, adults do not easily change values. It is too complicated and dangerous, because they are organized into a complex, patiently constructed system whose balance is threatened by the slightest change.

Lastly, the charter of values runs into one main pitfall: the meaning that each person sees in words. Just one example: loyalty, a concept often bandied about. What does being loyal to a corporation mean? For some, it means being loyal above all to your direct superior. For others, it means being loyal to the customers, or to the shareholders, or to their peers. For some, it means obeying orders. For others, it means disobeying if the order seems disloyal. A corporation is the place where players with different purposes and agendas accept to collaborate temporarily in order to reach intermediate objectives together, which will allow each player to reach their own goals. Being loyal to one player may imply automatic disloyalty to another player. In "real life", each employee reinterprets the "loyalty" value according to his own hierarchy of values, and according to the coherence exhibited by his executives regarding the values they profess and those they apply. And no one is perfect on this final point - even great leaders!

Are we damned?

Yes, probably, for executives who continue to believe that the "Mission Vision Values" trio, drummed in during limp indoctrination operations will strengthen his leadership. His "followers" make him pay the price every day, but he remains blind to their silent denial: like Jacques Prévert's dunce, they nod their head yes, but their heart says no. He will complain a bit more each day about their inconsistency, their weak loyalty, their lack of commitment, perhaps even their dishonesty. He won't understand he has the followers he deserves.

No, for he who sees a corporation as a crossroad of players, each bearing values that interact, and that can generate tensions and conflicts. No, for he who understands that collective values emerge from it, but that they don't exist beforehand. Who is careful to replace his discourse on values with concrete behavior that conveys respect for people and processes, without seeking to impose or profess a moral. Who does not see himself as a "visionary", and is ready to challenge his assumptions and future projects with a critical eye (therefore with other players). And who renounces to convert the corporation into a missionary organization dedicated to crusades that only destroy financial and human values.