The excerpt below is from a paper of mine which will be published in the Special Issue of the Corporate Governance Journal and presented at the 2011 colloquium of EABIS, the Academy of Business in Society. I have co-authored the paper with Andrew Kakabadse and Nada Kakabadse.

The paper will be published on September 5th and looks at the core values which must underpin CSR programmes if they are to be effective.

On April 20th, 2010 an explosion on the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil rig exposed the United States to an historic ecological disaster.

This episode illustrates the limits of CSR programmes currently undertaken by global businesses. The logical rules and regulations which business and government leaders created did not work to exemplify the broadly shared social values that US society deemed to be important.  Representing our deeply held values and the metaphorical expressions of our beliefs, these accountability structures must change over time to continue to align with prevailing beliefs and core values. This global CSR failure also reflects the dynamic process which CSR programmes must undergo over time.

Emerging markets can also learn a valuable lesson from this case study as they continue on their path of economic development. Their CSR programmes should also reflect their own cultures’ unique social norms and be dynamic enough to respond to unprecedented threats due to increased stakeholder scrutiny and constraints on environmental and other resources.

Exploring this case study provides important theoretical lessons for companies in emerging markets and elsewhere to consider.  For instance, can increased regulation prevent corrupt or unaccountable corporate practices? Are voluntary systems of accountability fundamentally flawed and fuelled only by corporate disdain for regulation? And to what extent should markets be allowed to dictate the course of play vis-à-vis the more arm’s length yet expensive bureaucracy created by government regulation?

Corporate responsibility cannot be practiced if various personal attributes do not exist in the individuals within the company.  These consist of the four pillars of leadership, ethics, personal responsibility and trust, all of which are dynamic in nature. Incorporating these personal qualities can help improve the planning and practice of CSR programmes as well.

Recently I learned that a leadership article that I wrote with Andrew and Nada Kakabadse, A dynamic theory of leadership development, has been recommended for British police officers by the National Police Library. (It’s on page 20 of their newsletter here or here.) It’s always nice to discover that an audience you didn’t expect appreciates your work.

I’ve been working on a questionnaire, along with Andrew and Nada Kakabadse, about leadership. We’ve reached the stage where we would like feedback before proceeding. I’d be grateful if you could take our survey — it should only take 10 – 15 minutes of your time — and hope you find it interesting.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/leadership_opinions

Leadership is a developmental process, based on the type of worldview which a leader holds.  But what is truly ethical leadership and can it be applied in practice?

As previous blog entries have discussed, people tend to make choices – and leadership decisions – either as a Theta or a Lambda.  Thetas seek affiliation and order whereas Lambdas seek achievement and challenges.

Many people, from philosophers to business strategists, have attempted to understand the fundamental nature of leadership.  Some, such as the 19^th-century Scottish thinker Thomas Carlyle, argued that ‘great men’ or leaders are born, and that they hold naturally the essential skills which end up being mimicked by others.

Others, such as those from the developmental school of thought, believe that leadership skills are accumulated over time based on one’s experience and how one anticipates or sets expectations for the future.  In this sense, the leader is not born but rather ‘developed’ over time.

In my academic writing, I have argued that leaders tend to plan organisational activities and strategies based on their respective worldview (Theta or Lambda).  For instance, a Lambda leader who seeks challenge and creation may not naturally be able to provide the feedback and support that a Theta employee may need.  Conversely, a Theta leader who seeks unity and certainty may stifle the creative contributions and drive for personal achievement that Lambda employees offer.

As a result, ethical leaders must constantly strive to respect the worldviews of others within the organisation while remaining true to their own way of seeing the world.  This dynamic process suggests that truly ethical leadership is impossible to achieve in practice.  Rather, it can only be pursued as an ideal based on constant engagement with colleagues and other stakeholders.

Having previously dominated diamond supply and exercised near total control over diamond distribution, the diamond industry market leader De Beers now accounts for just 40% of global diamond production and 45% of distribution. In the face of competitive and regulatory pressures, De Beers has recently sought to adapt its role from being the custodian of the industry to acting merely as a major player. However, its retreat from a position of industry dominance is creating tensions within De Beers and among industry participants.

This paper seeks to explain De Beers’ behaviour and the reaction of the industry in terms of paradox management and identifies the requirement for a new form of leadership to replace the previous monopoly situation and guide the diamond industry into a better future.

Mostovicz, I., Kakabadse, N. and Kakabadse, A. (2007), ‘The diamond industry as a virtual organisation: Past success and challenging future’ Strategic Changes, December 16(8), 371-384. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/jsc.809

In this paper it is argued that human interpretation is an inherently paradoxical and complex mechanism.

Human interpretation is underpinned by values, preferences and contrasts, and assumptions, and surfaced through an idiosyncratic combination of personal choice and logic (Pinker, The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature, 2003). In order to find ways through interpretive diversity, Janusian thinking is a conscious and purposeful mechanism (Rothenberg, Creat Res J 9(2–3):207–231, 1996) that allows each one to think paradoxically.

Coping with paradoxes is not only a cognitive challenge in trying to resolve the irresolvable but also an emotional one, as emotion might distort the paradox. Janusian attitudinal mapping allows individuals to face the true paradox and to review the assumptions behind it. Such review may modify or even abolish certain assumptions altogether.

However, Janusian attitudinal mapping is an emotional undertaking that should follow the three elements involving social reform for advancing and fostering knowledge: shock, open communication and experimentation, and paradox leadership (Lewis, Acad Manage Rev 25(4):760–786, 2000).

Mostovicz, I., Kakabadse, N. and Kakabadse, A. (2008), ‘Janusian mapping: A mechanism of interpretation’, Systematic Practice and Action Research, published online. http://www.springerlink.com/content/1xj3t0gqj223v52j/, March 4th, 2008, DOI 10,1107/s11213-008-9092-x.