The energy outlook: combining the options

Where can we get all the energy we will need for the rest of the century to heat our homes, cool our offices, run our hospitals, and keep our factories going? Not from the conventional sources of energy at home and certainly not from foreign oil, say these authors. According to their calculations, U.S. supplies of oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power will be inadequate, and U.S. importation policy has already made us dangerously dependent on the unstable, unpredictable Middle East. To lessen our dependence on imported oil, they say, requires a balanced program of adopting reasonable conservation measures, developing solar power, and producing energy from our usual domestic sources under new incentives.     

Should Shareholders Have a Say on Acquisitions?

Shareholders of U.S. corporations have lost billions of dollars in acquisitions they never approved. In the United Kingdom, the listing rules give shareholders a binding say when targets are large relative to their acquirers. A transatlantic comparison of M&A activity suggests that if U.S. shareholders had a say on acquisitions, U.S. acquirers would do fewer value‐destroying acquisitions and their own shareholders would experience smaller losses. The authors also report finding a significant difference in the performance of the large U.K. deals that are subject to a mandatory vote and those that are not. The United States has given shareholders a mandatory say on pay. Is it time for U.S. shareholders to have a binding say on corporate acquisitions?     

Your loyalty program is betraying you

Even as loyalty programs are launched left and right, many are being scuttled. How can that be? These days, everyone knows that an old customer retained is worth more than a new customer won. What is so hard about making a simple loyalty program work? Quite a lot, the authors say. The biggest challenges include clarifying business goals, engineering the reward structure, and creating incentives powerful enough to change buying behavior but not so generous that they erode margins. Additionally, companies have to sort out the puzzles of consumer psychology, which can result, for example, in two rewards of equal economic value inspiring very different levels of purchasing. In their research, the authors have discovered patterns in what the successful loyalty programs get right and in how the others fail. Together, their findings constitute a tool kit for designing something rare indeed: a program that won't do you wrong. To begin with, it's important to know exactly what a loyalty program can do. It can keep customers from defecting, induce them to consolidate certain purchases with one seller (in other words, win a greater share of wallet), prompt customers to make additional purchases, yield insight into their behavior and preferences, and turn a profit. A program can meet these objectives in several ways--for instance, by offering rewards (points, say, or frequent-flier miles) divisible enough to provide many redemption opportunities but not so divisible that they fail to lock in customers. Companies striving to generate customer loyalty should avoid five common mistakes: Don't create a new commodity, which can result in price wars and other tit-for-tat competitive moves; don't cater to the disloyal by making rewards easy for just anyone to reap; don't reward purchasing volume over profitability; don't give away the store; and, finally, don't promise what can't be delivered.     

Psychology, meaning and the challenges of longevity

Humankind has begun to reap one of the most valued harvests of its scientific and technological pursuits: a significant increase in human longevity. We now live longer than ever before, due in large part to advances in medicine and health care that provide those who have the opportunity to afford them a lifespan that for many approaches or exceeds the 100-year mark. It is now within the realm of possibility that people will live lives of 125 years or more within the next century. However, our ability to increase physical longevity may have outstripped our ability to deal individually and socially with these new lives, these new existences that go well beyond what has traditionally been considered a “working life”. How well-prepared are we psychologically to cope with the meaning of a life that extends to as much as 150 years or more? In this new “age of longevity”, what are the challenges for psychology as a resource for humanity in its quest to give definition to the experience of being alive, as well as for managing the affairs of everyday life? Traditional developmental theories in psychology tend to articulate early stages of life in detail, but are generally mute on the matter of later life. Cognitive psychology has been inclined to view longevity as leading to a deterioration of mental faculties due to “aging”. This paper examines the psychological implications of increased lifespans from an optimistic perspective by reviewing current developments in research on cognition, emotion and aging. The review identifies trends in psychology that, if emphasized and strengthened, may lead to improved theoretical frameworks that cast longevity in a positive light, and that identify how people can find meaning and fulfillment throughout their whole lifespan.

“Grow old along with me! The best is yet to be, The last of life for which the first was made.” Robert Browning “Rabbi Ben Ezra”

I first encountered Browning’s works as an undergraduate, and being a pre-engineering student at the time my tendencies toward poetry were stunted to say the best. Few of the great works of literature my teachers compelled me to read at that stage of my life and development made enough of an impact to last beyond the length of the course requiring their reading. Much has changed since then and my interests in literature and what literature has to say that is of value for our lives has deepened. But Browning’s enthusiastic call to join him in aging has always been a fascination. Indeed, what could be more of a contradiction to modern attitudes about becoming elderly than to claim “the best is yet to be”? What can be more of a challenge to how we approach the relationship between being young and being old than to claim that the last of life is “for which the first was meant”? What can the possible rewards of the golden years be that transcend the glorious enthusiasms, unfettered optimisms, and just pure physical conveniences of being young? Or, was Browning simply trying to sucker us all into a fait accompli, the hopeful outcome of which is the envy of the very youth that the aged often envy so much?There is little enough envy of the aged today. I approach these years with great caution, recognizing that how I look upon those who are two decades older than myself will, in turn, condition me to see myself in those years much in the way that I see them now. “Aging” is not something anyone really wants to do. We want to, at best, “grow older”, a perspective that carries with it a more positive spin: growing wiser, growing up, or simply “growing” with all of its new-age connotations of personal enlightenment and becoming. I am not “aging”, I am “becoming at one”.The language we have adopted to talk about the time-course of life, and particularly about the years in the latter third of that course, does much to frame both how we live those years and how we anticipate them in our youth. Our expectations are ones of decline, physical debilitation and mental infirmity. We “retire”, as in withdrawal into seclusion, away from the mainstream of life and into the backwater eddy of inaction. On the shelf.Much of this view has been reinforced by how humanity has approached examining this aspect of its own time course through science. We study aging with an eye to how its effects influence the abilities of those so afflicted to perform or operate compared to those who still have a grasp on their full faculties. And, of course, we find that as people grow older, they do not approach life in the same way as do younger people.Part of our view on life comes from the very way in which science is funded: those interested in the last of life often receive their support from the National Institute on Aging, not the National Institute on The Last of Life for Which the First Was Made. Research agendas often focus on identifying sources of infirmity and potential prostheses, either physical or social, that can ease the lives of the elderly on their way toward achieving the goal of successful aging. All too often, success in aging means imposing relatively few demands on social resources or on the lives of younger people, such as family members. In our “ageist” society, elderliness is not generally equated with status and stature. Less and less, the young “listen” to the old out of deep interest in their lives and their experiences. Wisdom is the providence of the freshly matured and recently educated.The shortcomings of life in the advancing years are many and well-documented in the research literature. Memory spans decrease, information retrieval becomes less reliable, and new information is less readily assimilated. As people become older, they appear to rely more and more on automatic processing of information, quick associations and the like, rather than deliberative and conscious reasoning [1]. For the older mind, intuition is at least moderately preferred over analysis. For example, younger people tend to interpret stories analytically, focusing on details, while older people tend to focus less on a story’s details and more on its “gist” and its underlying significance to things that are important to them [2], and tend to do better at grasping and dealing with information in terms of its holistic meaning [3 and 4].The effects of these differences in information processing between young and old can be seen in practical matters of everyday life, such as decision making and judgment. Johnson [5], for example, found that older adults use simplifying decision strategies more often than younger adults. These strategies, such as noncompensatory rules that consider only the positive or the negative aspects of a decision option but not both, relieve one of the psychological burden of making complex and effortful tradeoffs, at the possible expense of efficiency and accuracy. Chasseigne et al. [6] found that as people age, they become less consistent in their use of information in making judgments and predictions; even reducing the overall information load and demands on memory does little to improve the reliability of their judgments. ¹     

Breakthrough thinking from inside the box

Companies often begin their search for great ideas either by encouraging wild, outside-the-box thinking or by conducting quantitative analysis of existing market and financial data and customer opinions. Those approaches can produce middling ideas at best, say Coyne, founder of an executive-counseling firm in Atlanta, and Clifford and Dye, strategy experts at McKinsey. The problem with the first method is that few people are very good at unstructured, abstract brainstorming. The problems with the second are that databases are usually compiled to describe current--not future--offerings, and customers rarely can tell you whether they need or want a product if they've never seen it. The secret to getting your organization to regularly generate lots of good ideas, and occasionally some great ones, is deceptively simple: First, create new boxes for people to think within so that they don't get lost in the cosmos and they have a basis for offering ideas and knowing whether they're making progress in the brainstorming session. Second, redesign ideation processes to remove obstacles that interfere with the flow of ideas--such as most people's aversion to speaking in groups larger than ten. This article offers a tested approach that poses concrete questions. For example, what do Rollerblades, H?agen-Dazs ice cream, and Spider-Man movies have in common? The answer: Each is something that adults loved as children and that was reproduced in an expensive form for grown-ups. Asking brainstorming participants to ponder how their childhood passions could be recast as adult offerings might generate some fabulous ideas for new products or services.     

What's your story?

When you're in the midst of a major career change, telling stories about your professional self can inspire others' belief in your character and in your capacity to take a leap and land on your feet. It also can help you believe in yourself. A narrative thread will give meaning to your career history; it will assure you that, in moving on to something new, you are not discarding everything you've worked so hard to accomplish. Unfortunately, the authors explain in this article, most of us fail to use the power of storytelling in pursuit of our professional goals, or we do it badly. Tales of transition are especially challenging. Not knowing how to reconcile the built-in discontinuities in our work lives, we often relay just the facts. We present ourselves as safe--and dull and unremarkable. That's not a necessary compromise. A transition story has inherent dramatic appeal. The protagonist is you, of course, and what's at stake is your career. Perhaps you've come to an event or insight that represents a point of no return. It's this kind of break with the past that will force you to discover and reveal who you really are. Discontinuity and tension are part of the experience. If these elements are missing from your career story, the tale will fall flat. With all these twists and turns, how do you demonstrate stability and earn listeners' trust? By emphasizing continuity and causality--in other words, by showing that your past is related to the present and, from that trajectory, conveying that a solid future is in sight. If you can make your story of transition cohere, you will have gone far in convincing the listener--and reassuring yourself--that the change makes sense for you and is likely to bring success.     

Listening to accounting

There are algorithms for the transformation of accounting data into music, and there is suggestive evidence that it is possible to hear different patterns in it than we see when it is transformed into a graph. We cannot say with certainty whether those different patterns are really there, and we cannot even say that if they were, we would be able to perceive them audibly without a disciplining education similar to that which has traditionally taught us to seek and find patterns—knowledge—visually. We can say, however, that there is reason to believe that the mental pathways for the creation of auditory patterns and visual patterns are different. One forms anticipations of events in time; the other forms structures of points in space. One engages the emotions more directly than the other. Each employs different parts of the brain. There are indeed reasons why we might hear something more or at least something else in the music generated by an algorithm than we might see in a picture that was created from the same data.     

To sum up: avoiding unsustainable futures

An analytical summary of the discussions on the European Societal Bill follows that ‘unacceptable futures’ can be avoided.The papers in this Special Issue of Futures have tried to unfold the many faces of the Societal Bill, that is the behaviours, and their financial counterpart, of the social groups more effected by expected demographic changes. We did so in particular by focusing on modelling strategies that translate parameterised behaviours into economic flows through the channel of institutional arrangements currently operating in European societies, i.e. eligibility conditions and tax and benefits formulae. As for the last point one must not forget that certain behaviours respond strategically to certain eligibility conditions.Our aim in this paper is to conclude on the implications of the previous analysis. These implications are quite varied and they will be summarised at different levels. Despite a certain pessimistic stance occasionally used here in order to emphasise the consequences of doing nothing, we want to argue that prompt societal adaptation can be a way to avoid what we will latter call “unacceptable futures”.In a way, what we do in this chapter is not a full futures analysis for we mainly explore the “trends” scenario rather than anticipate alternative, and more acceptable, futures. However, we will say something about alternatives latter on. For the time being, let us set the scenario of the “unacceptable futures” in order to ascertain the order of magnitude of the challenge ahead and the need for action.Societal adaptation is obviously the key word for action. Individuals, by nature, will always try to counter those developments that hit them worst and institutional and administrative arrangements should facilitate this while assuring social compatibility. The fuel for the engine of change—individual action—will always be there but the engine itself must change so as to select the best behaviours by creating the right incentives. Welfare enhancing institutional innovation thus goes well beyond mere financial balancing of the Societal Bill. If well designed, it will also imply financial soundness. The latter however can be obtained without the former. But without institutional innovation and behavioural change the financial soundness of the Societal Bill would hardly make us better off.     

Large-scale participatory co-shaping of technological developments: First experiments with PARDIZIPP

A future-oriented participatory procedure on the basis of the Delphi method was developed and empirically tested a first time with the goal to improve the shaping of technological developments. The technology under study here was micro-electronics or rather their relationship with labor and the test took place in NorthRhine-Westphalia.Today problems exist in all walks of life. There is a lot of talk about today's problems as if they were new, though one has heard similar arguments throughout history. How do we assess if we are really in danger of bringing the world to an end? Although this danger appears real, it would not be the first time in history that people have thought and felt like this--However, one thing that is new are the consequences of modern sciences and technology, which are not suited to given social and environmental requirements. They have given rise to questions concerning the quality of the decision-makers. The questioning of many of these decisions has increased for some time and is now getting more and more specific, with a demand for quality and information rather than managerial skills and competitiveness from the decision-makers. The term ‘decision-maker’ describes those who determine the application of technology, science and technical equipment which has either existed for a long time already or has recently been developed.--It is not easy to change the structures and processes of decision-making so that new structures and processes will be more suited to social and environmental requirements. We have tested our ideas as to how this could be done, in an empirical project. Although we called it ‘Project NRW-2000’, it would probably be better described as an experiment.--We persuaded 90 ordinary people to participate in this project as ‘experts on daily life and work’. This group was asked to work in six regional sub-groups and discuss, with reference to three given normative societal scenarios for the year 2020, the relationship between microelectronics and labour markets of the year 2020, on the basis of a participatory Delphi procedure. Before we elaborate on the concept of our project in Section 3, we would like to outline it in terms of the mainstream of the sociology of technology as well as with research on ‘acceptance’ in Section 1. In Section 2 we will briefly illustrate the framework of the research programme ‘Socially Oriented Shaping of Technology’ of the state of Northrhine-Westphalia, which funded our research project. Section 4 particularly deals with the participatory elements of our project, while Section 5 is devoted to the development of the scenarios. Section 6 sums up the results of the ‘scenario-construction’. Regarding specific elements, we restrict ourselves to topics concerning technology, labour, and the relationship between women workers/employees and technology. As a final outlook we deal with the political implications of our approach. All that is left is to remind our readers that we regard this project as a first application or experiment within our overall approach.     

Large-scale participatory co-shaping of technological developments: First experiments with PARDIZIPP

A future-oriented participatory procedure on the basis of the Delphi method was developed and empirically tested a first time with the goal to improve the shaping of technological developments. The technology under study here was micro-electronics or rather their relationship with labor and the test took place in NorthRhine–Westphalia.Today problems exist in all walks of life. There is a lot of talk about today's problems as if they were new, though one has heard similar arguments throughout history. How do we assess if we are really in danger of bringing the world to an end? Although this danger appears real, it would not be the first time in history that people have thought and felt like this—However, one thing that is new are the consequences of modern sciences and technology, which are not suited to given social and environmental requirements. They have given rise to questions concerning the quality of the decision-makers. The questioning of many of these decisions has increased for some time and is now getting more and more specific, with a demand for quality and information rather than managerial skills and competitiveness from the decision-makers. The term `decision-maker' describes those who determine the application of technology, science and technical equipment which has either existed for a long time already or has recently been developed.—It is not easy to change the structures and processes of decision-making so that new structures and processes will be more suited to social and environmental requirements. We have tested our ideas as to how this could be done, in an empirical project. Although we called it `Project NRW–2000', it would probably be better described as an experiment.²—We persuaded 90 ordinary people to participate in this project as `experts on daily life and work'. This group was asked to work in six regional sub-groups and discuss, with reference to three given normative societal scenarios for the year 2020, the relationship between microelectronics and labour markets of the year 2020, on the basis of a participatory Delphi procedure. Before we elaborate on the concept of our project in Section 3, we would like to outline it in terms of the mainstream of the sociology of technology as well as with research on `acceptance' in Section 1. In Section 2we will briefly illustrate the framework of the research programme `Socially Oriented Shaping of Technology' of the state of Northrhine–Westphalia, which funded our research project. Section 4particularly deals with the participatory elements of our project, while Section 5is devoted to the development of the scenarios. Section 6sums up the results of the `scenario-construction'. Regarding specific elements, we restrict ourselves to topics concerning technology, labour, and the relationship between women workers/employees and technology. As a final outlook we deal with the political implications of our approach. All that is left is to remind our readers that we regard this project as a first application or experiment within our overall approach.     

In praise of boundaries. A conversation with Miss Manners. Interview by Diane L. Coutu

The past three decades have been a time of increasing informality in the American workplace. It's easy to characterize this growing comfort with the casual as a positive step for workplace culture, an outgrowth of the American democratic belief in workers' equality. Informal environments are said to be more trusting and open, and workers who are free to express their personalities are more comfortable and thus more creative--right? According to etiquette guru Judith Martin--known far and wide as Miss Manners--informality in the workplace may do more harm than good. Without some formality in social intercourse, Miss Manners argues, human interactions end up being governed by laws, which are too heavy-handed to serve as a guide through the nuances of personal--or professional--behavior. Since our earliest beginnings, we have developed formal rules to accompany shared human experiences, such as eating and mourning. Yet, says Miss Manners, something in us rebels against form and etiquette, and every so often, an anti-manners movement takes hold, and people come to believe that following etiquette is unnatural. One recent such movement has led to the belief that a distinction between our work life and our professional life is unnecessary. If we hope to reassure our customers that we are indeed professional, however, we need to be aware of the boundaries of professional behavior. On the whole, Miss Manners argues, informality in the workplace leads to a host of problems, from making employees feel pressured to "socialize" with coworkers during weekends and evenings to sexual harassment. Despite the shortcomings of informality in the American workplace, though, Miss Manners believes that we have the best code of manners the world has ever seen-in theory. In practice, American etiquette is undoubtedly still a work in progress.     

How to make experience your company's best teacher

In our personal life, experience is often the best teacher. Not so in corporate life. After a major event--a product failure, a downsizing crisis, or a merger--many companies stumble along, oblivious to the lessons of the past. Mistakes get repeated, but smart decisions do not. Most important, the old ways of thinking are never discussed, so they are still in place to spawn new mishaps. Individuals will often tell you that they understand what went wrong (or right). Yet their insights are rarely shared openly. And they are analyzed and internalized by the company even less frequently. Why? Because managers have few tools with which to capture institutional experience, disseminate its lessons, and translate them into effective action. In an effort to solve this problem, a group of social scientists, business managers, and journalists at MIT have developed and tested a tool called the learning history. It is a written narrative of a company's recent critical event, nearly all of it presented in two columns. In one column, relevant episodes are described by the people who took part in them, were affected by them, or observed them. In the other, learning historians--trained outsiders and knowledgeable insiders--identify recurrent themes in the narrative, pose questions, and raise "undiscussable" issues. The learning history forms the basis for group discussions, both for those involved in the event and for others who also might learn from it. The authors believe that this tool--based on the ancient practice of community storytelling--can build trust, raise important issues, transfer knowledge from one part of a company to another, and help build a body of generalizable knowledge about management.     

Knowledge, limits and boundaries

In this paper the underlying concern is the problem of knowledge. How do we understand the world, what is ‘scientific’ knowledge, and to what extent is this knowledge limited by the fact that the world in which we live is complex? The problems associated with the status of our knowledge of the world have been central to philosophy all along. Here I will focus on the way in which the acknowledgement of complexity transforms some of the traditional conceptions of (especially scientific) knowledge. I will also examine the notions of boundaries and limits, arguing that these notions are not problems we have to get out of the way, but that they are inevitable as soon as we start talking of ‘knowledge’.     

巨龙与袋鼠——中注协陈毓圭秘书长接受澳大利亚特许会计师协会会刊“Charter”杂志专访

如今,中国与澳大利亚两国之间的关系越来越牢固。那么,中国的注册会计师是如何看待两国的这种更加紧密的关系呢?近日,澳大利亚特许会计师协会会刊Charter杂志就此议题对中国注册会计师协会副会长兼秘书长陈毓圭博士进行了专访。     

Toward governance for future generations: How do we change course?

In 1987, the UN World Commission on Environment and Development—perhaps better known as the Brundtland Commission—concluded that our present societal course is irresponsible toward future generations. Ten years later, we have hardly come closer to a solution of our planet's long-range problems. But how do we change the course? Are there viable pathways that can take us from the present stalemate to a society that cares for future generations? The bottleneck is not a lack of good proposals for approaching sustainability. It is rather the lack of strength to implement them. Discussions about strategies and motors of social change have very often been absent on the `green' agenda, but exceptions do exist. This article will present and analyse main strategic profiles within an expanding flora of literature about sustainability.     

Creativity under the gun

If you're like most managers, you've worked with people who swear they do their most creative work under tight deadlines. You may use pressure as a management technique, believing it will spur people on to great leaps of insight. You may even manage yourself this way. If so, are you right? Not necessarily, these researchers say. There are instances where ingenuity flourishes under extreme time pressure--for instance, a NASA team within hours comes up with a primitive but effective fix for the failing air filtration system aboard Apollo 13. But when creativity is under the gun, it usually ends up getting killed, the authors say. They recently took a close look at how people experience time pressure, collecting and analyzing more than 9,000 daily diary entries from individuals who were working on projects that required high levels of creativity and measuring their ability to innovate under varying levels of time pressure. The authors describe common characteristics of time pressure and outline four working environments under which creativity may or may not flourish. High-pressure days that still yield creativity are full of focus and meaningful urgency--people feel like they are on a mission. High-pressure days that yield no creativity lack such focus--people feel like they are on a treadmill, forced to switch gears often. On low-pressure days that yield creativity, people feel like they are on an expedition--exploring ideas rather than just identifying problems. And on low-pressure days that yield no creative thinking, people work on autopilot--doing their jobs without engaging too deeply. Managers should avoid extreme time pressure when possible; after all, complex cognitive processing takes time. For when they can't, the authors suggest ways to mollify its effects.     

Reflections on the ontological status of risk

In this article we discuss the concept of risk in an ontological perspective. Risk per se is not a self-explaining concept that ‘exists’ by its own virtue. Our discussion is therefore based on existing methodologies and epistemological claims concerning risk. With these claims as our point of departure, we examine risk in relation to the concept of time, state of affairs (the state of the world) and events and discuss relations and constitutional issues for the risk concept. Drawing on a relation between time and state of affairs, we argue that risk is rooted in the transition from the future to the present. Risk is being constituted by the transition from a myriad of future possibilities into one present reality (one actual contingent world). This implies that risk is not ontologically something of the future, but rather something of the present. However, we argue that risk does not exist in any ontological sense. What actually exist are possible (future) states of affairs and these may or may not be interpreted to hold risk. An implication of this is that all risk claims are subjective.     

Can we control health care costs?

The health care system will never go bankrupt, the author of this article asserts. But the expense of maintaining it is putting such a strain on our resources that bankruptcy sometimes seems not so far off. The controls and devices we use, like certificate-of-need requirements and health management organizations, obviously have not slowed the rise in costs. We need to focus our attention on three elements in the picture that can do the most about curbing expenditures: the health care administrator, the physician, and the business organization (the labor union as well as the corporation). The author offers suggestions for action from these quarters.     

Developing your leadership pipeline

Why do so many newly minted leaders fail so spectacularly? Part of the problem is that in many companies, succession planning is little more than creating a list of high-potential employees and the slots they might fill. It's a mechanical process that's too narrow and hidebound to uncover and correct skill gaps that can derail promising young executives. And it's completely divorced from organizational efforts to transform managers into leaders. Some companies, however, do succeed in building a steady, reliable pipeline of leadership talent by marrying succession planning with leadership development. Eli Lilly, Dow Chemical, Bank of America, and Sonoco Products have created long-term processes for managing the talent roster throughout their organizations--a process Conger and Fulmer call succession management. Drawing on the experiences of these best-practice organizations, the authors outline five rules for establishing a healthy succession management system: Focus on opportunities for development, identify linchpin positions, make the system transparent, measure progress regularly, and be flexible. In Eli Lilly's "action-learning" program, high-potential employees are given a strategic problem to solve so they can learn something of what it takes to be a general manager. The company--and most other best-practice organizations--also relies on Web-based succession management tools to demystify the succession process, and it makes employees themselves responsible for updating the information in their personnel files. Best-practice organizations also track various metrics that reveal whether the right people are moving into the right jobs at the right time, and they assess the strengths and weaknesses not only of individuals but of the entire group. These companies also expect to be tweaking their systems continually, making them easier to use and more responsive to the needs of the organization.     

Thinking about ... leadership. Warts and all

Does using Tyco's funds to purchase a $6,000 shower curtain and a $15,000 dog-shaped umbrella stand make Dennis Kozlowski a bad leader? Is Martha Stewart's career any less instructive because she may have sold some shares on the basis of a tip-off? Is leadership synonymous with moral leadership? Before 1970, the answer from most leadership theorists would certainly have been no. Look at Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tsetung--great leaders all, but hardly good men. In fact, capricious, murderous, high-handed, corrupt, and evil leaders are effective and commonplace. Machiavelli celebrated them; the U.S. constitution built in safeguards against them. Everywhere, power goes hand in hand with corruption--everywhere, that is, except in the literature of business leadership. To read Tom Peters, Jay Conger, John Kotter, and most of their colleagues, leaders are, as Warren Bennis puts it, individuals who create shared meaning, have a distinctive voice, have the capacity to adapt, and have integrity. According to today's business literature, to be a leader is, by definition, to be benevolent. But leadership is not a moral concept, and it is high time we acknowledge that fact. We have as much to learn from those we would regard as bad examples as we do from the far fewer good examples we're presented with these days. Leaders are like the rest of us: trustworthy and deceitful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To assume that all good leaders are good people is to be willfully blind to the reality of the human condition, and it severely limits our ability to become better leaders. Worse, it may cause senior executives to think that, because they are leaders, they are never deceitful, cowardly, or greedy. That way lies disaster.