The "ethical dilemma" posed by Keith Cowan is nothing of the sort. Since
the values of openness, honesty and integrity are fundamental to learning
organizations as we have been speaking of them here, "compromising" these
principles in order to get positioned to implement them is patently
ridiculous.
But let's look at the assumptions here: It was assumed in advance that
the Board would make its decision based on a projection of C&C management,
and that the only way to persuade them otherwise would have been to
misrepresent yourself and what you believe. If this were true, why would
you seek to serve at the pleasure of such a Board? And what if it's not
true? It's too easy to ascribe the Board's selection of the other
candidate to their preference on this difference.
It is assumed that it would be possible to introduce these concepts into
the company without first getting the buy-in of the Board. Is there any
evidence, historical or otherwise, that this could happen?
My advice to this potential CEO would be to begin working with the Board
at the interview, undertaking their education around the importance and
value of creating a learning organization. Build the business case; if
there is no business case, chances of success are dim anyway.
...and beware the deepest trap of all: acting dishonestly because you
believe others will respond unfavorably to veracity. Honesty is not
telling fewer lies; it is telling the truth.
...so you behaved honestly, and your competitor got the job and is leading
the company poorly. What's your role? If you were up front with the
Board to begin with you could resurface your approach to managing the
company. Or, you could offer to assist the CEO and coach him/her into a
different leadership mode. You could ask for support for a skunk works,
to prove your theories. You could... ah, but the list is endless.
Easily said, I know, and difficult to do. But for my part the integrity
piece is critical, and whatever the situationists will say in response to
Keith's post, I believe there is no credible leadership possible when the
authority is acquired dishonestly.
>Let's create the following real life situation:
>
>You are a credible contender for the CEO position in an organization that
>you believe has a culture that would flourish as an LO. The Board are a
>typically traditional set of executives who have achieved their current
>position being good at "command and control" and want to see that kind of
>manager as CEO.
>
>You are pretty sure that if you portray yourself as that you will get the
>position and then be able to convince them to try a different approach
>because the company is in trouble.
>
>OTOH if you expose them to your ideas about an LO, you will make them
>uneasy and they will likely pick a command and control candidate who you
>know is quite good.
>
>So you can get the job by compromising yourself and then make a genuine
>difference, or you can stick to you honest set of values and let the C&C
>candidate take the company down the shute....Keith
>
>(PS this is a real situation and the C&C guy is having lots of trouble)
>
>I am interested in your ideas regarding how this case should play out?
>--
>
>Keith Cowan <72212.51@CompuServe.COM>
--Jack Hirschfeld How many years must some people exist jack@his.com before they're allowed to be free?
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>