I'am aware that I've yet to mention a business yet, and I hope at least half of this blog will focus on the 'corporate' from CSR; as I firmly believe businesses can provide the responsible leadership that is required. If they can themselves be responsible, then their employees and customers, suppliers and local communities can also learn and become more responsible. One of the few things that are 99% certain in life is that everyone has (or desires) a job. If the employer provides responsible leadership, it will make a big difference, and I am sure that businesses from 1 to 1 million people, make up the majority of global employment (and have the potential to employ anyone who is currently unemployed!).
A brief aside: I would love to go on about every topic I blog about; I am sure theses exist about each individual topic, and there are man other issues that can sprout from each blog (each with their own theses); but in the interest of retaining readers, I want to encourage readers to develop their ideas and follow any other issues that occur to them on these topics. Anyway, I am sure I will return to certain topics from a different perspective in the future.
On to the topic in question. I do not want to dicuss the purpose of a corporation; but just to question how an organisation that is not directly elected or accountable (to the 'community') can best function. A corporation has many stakeholders. A succuessful corporation should ensure that all stakeholders are satsifed with its performance (some stakeholders are more important than others, depending on whose theories you believe); yet the key to a successful organisation from the viewpoint of 'responsible leadership' is how the organisation runs.
A viewpoint on CSR that I currently agree with, is that CSR is an attitude more than anything. As such this attitude should be deployed by all who make up the corporation in everything they do. What is this attitude? It is one that is fundamentally about ethics. It is about how one person's actions affect the environment (and in this case I do not mean the 'green environment', I mean the external environment -everything outside of the individual) directly and indirectly.
When a corporation is set up it should consider its inputs, outputs and processes. Its processes are important as they govern the employees' attitude. Thus the way employees communicate, the way they plan, implement, monitor and report their activities is important. How should a corporation create a conducive environment for its employees to have an attitude of responsibility?
[First it needs to be stated that every person needs to demonstrate responsible leadership; leadership is a personal atribute everyone requries, so they can lead their own life responsibly. It is not about management. It does not require having others to lead; but it often involves others.]
Well, I am no expert, but some things need to be stated clearly. A corporation needs to ensure that each person is happy with their job; that they can achieve what they wish; or higher (depending on how much of a 'motivator' you are!). A simple set of values needs to be established as the norm for how employees should operate. Simplicity is the best.
When making decisions, the relevant stakeholders in that decision need to be consulted. When making actions, the consequences of those actions need to be carefully considered. People should be valued and respected. The things people require to exist should be valued and respected.
People need to trust others; transparency and accountability form the core of any organisation. Without them no organisation can function successfully. What makes an organisation stand out is the ability to have the best inputs. From a labour perspective, this means valuing (and benefitting from) diversity and innovation. It means encouragement and reward. It means friendship. It means valuing others outside the corporation. It means valuing others inside the corporation. It means valuing others. It means respecting others. It means demonstrating responsibility.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
The UN
Well, if there is one Organisation that exists that requires (and should demonstrate) responsible leadership, this is it. Its ironic really that the organisation designed to prevent further conflict by encouraging debate has turned out to be so ineffective.
Or has it? In short the UN shows that democracy is a complex thing; how do you ask 200 or so nations to agree on anything (and how do you define 'agree', is it a majority?)? How do you ask people to work for an Organisation without showing bias or subjectivity, when every man or woman has their own history and perspectives? How do you make an Organisation representative if half its representative countries struggle to have more than a few Universities to educate its envoys? Should the UN have more or less power? Should it be directly elected? What bodies should do what, where should the UN intervene and on who's behalf? The list could go on and there are many questions that equally apply to the European Union/Commission (another blog...).
In the end the UN can only do what those who control it want it to do, or will let it do. It seems to me to be somewhere between a company which is not democratic and a government which 'is'. Yet the UN has few powers but a broad agenda, it has little direct impact but massive stature and it has 6 billion different points of views on what it should achieve, and how; yet 6 billions people refuse to let it do anything at all.
For the UN, which more than anything else exists in order to represent 'good', 'ethics', 'responsibility' or however else you want to call it, the ongoing debate about corruption within it is eve more destructive than the everlasting debate as to its role and functionality. For if the UN suffers from corruption and abuse, then there is no point having it at all. If there is no corruption, but the UN achieves something, then at least it achieves something. Nothing that is corrupt can be a positive force in the World.
I would hope that those within the UN should realise their responsibility to the World, that they directly have, more than any other human beings. I would hope they would be the kind of people who would think carefully about their actions, and uphold the highest standards (that they are so keen to promote). For a crisis like the one currently in the media to even have come so far is a disgrace. For the investigation to have to be called its a disgrace, and for it to be called over a decade after the allegations of corruption began is ridiculous. I am very sure that no-one or no Organisation can be perfect, but some things are so basic that most people or organisations can get them right. For the UN to be involved in sexual abuse amongst its peacekeepers puts a mockery on the Millennium Development Goals aiming at male-female equality!
I hope that this issue can encourage debate on how best people can serve such an organisation (or 'the greater good') -how can people be objective and not abuse friendships? how can they be less selfish? how can ethics be installed in a workforce covering the globe, yet still remain locally relevant and culturally sensitive? how can an organisation hope to have a bigger impact without spending so much time and effort on internal management ensuring compliance?
Should Kofi Annan stay or go? No-one is perfect and most seem to believe in him as the right leader (or did until theis new evidence arose) for the UN. However if he, and his organisation, loose the respect and status that they currently have; a new leader must be required. For without the respect people have for an organisation designed to improve the World, the UN has nothing.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Zimbabwe...
This post could be a long one....Zimbabwe is the country led by Robert Mugabe. Who undoubtedly is the World's worst, most irresponsible leader, currently alive.
Although Mugabe has 'only' been responsible for around 50,00 deaths (there are surely individuals alive and free who have killed more); personally, I cannot think of a subject that frustrates me more than Mugabe. 1 man, who for 16 years ruled a country that seemed to do all right. It produced a surplus of food and has wonderful natural touristic resources, such as the Victoria Falls (on the border with Zambia). Ever known a tourist go to Zimbabwe in the last 4 years? This is when he forced the White farmers to give the farms to the State. Now they are run by inexperienced black farmers, who got the farm based on their relationship to Mugabe. It seems that the farms could still produce food, but those running them do not know how to, and do not want to.
They have no incentive when they are handed as much as they want from Mugabe; a corrupt dictator who steals money, food and anything else given in aid, investment or handouts. In fact inflation is in the hundreds of % and unemployment is around 80%. It is a tribute to the people that they are still alive (although apparently, within 12 months, the situation will turn from dire to deadly).
How can 1 man let his country become the worst place in the World to do business? How can they justify 'free' elections when voters names are made up, food not given to those who vote against him and opposition candidates openly murdered (this seems rare, as most are already in prison)....the list could go on. Journalists rarely are allowed in officially, and unofficial ones face 2 years in prison. So how can any leader justify this to himself, or to others?
How can he be personally happy with what the direct consequences are of his actions? Unless he has not left his palace in 4 years, and therefore genuinely unaware of the situation, I cannot believe such a person exists. Its not that he has a misguided vision (for example, Hitler), its that he is deliberately locking up his own countrymen, starving his own people. It is not that he is just killing the 'white farmers' (like man of the ethnic or racist wars globally), its that he personally profits from the unhappiness of 90% of his country (the other 10% are those he pays to deprive the 90%!).
I would like to presume that every person is a genuinely 'good' person inside, and only does bad things due to misguided teachings, influences, psychiatric state or beliefs. I don't know Mugabe personally. I wonder if any of these categories fit him, or if he is genuinely a bad person? A misguided person might believe in reclaiming land from colonialists; but would be aware (after 4 years) that the policy needs altering when output falls so dramatically.
So responsible leaders need to be aware of their actions. They need to engage with others in order to determine the consequences of their actions (then they could make informed decisions). Responsible leaders need to have a moral conscience; they should act on it. They should allow others the freedom to be themselves -allow them the freedom to life, to choice, to speech, to work. They should not deceive others, they should not deliberately (or accidentally) harm others (in this case, needlessly).
Lastly, I believe this is the 1 country where so little from the rest of the World, could so easily make such a big difference. Where are the responsible leaders in this World who are willing to make a moral stand for what they believe is right. In some cases, personal morals are not global -people disagree. In this situation, I would like to find someone who thinks that Mugabe should stay in power and is a positive force for the World. Anyone out there believe that?
Although Mugabe has 'only' been responsible for around 50,00 deaths (there are surely individuals alive and free who have killed more); personally, I cannot think of a subject that frustrates me more than Mugabe. 1 man, who for 16 years ruled a country that seemed to do all right. It produced a surplus of food and has wonderful natural touristic resources, such as the Victoria Falls (on the border with Zambia). Ever known a tourist go to Zimbabwe in the last 4 years? This is when he forced the White farmers to give the farms to the State. Now they are run by inexperienced black farmers, who got the farm based on their relationship to Mugabe. It seems that the farms could still produce food, but those running them do not know how to, and do not want to.
They have no incentive when they are handed as much as they want from Mugabe; a corrupt dictator who steals money, food and anything else given in aid, investment or handouts. In fact inflation is in the hundreds of % and unemployment is around 80%. It is a tribute to the people that they are still alive (although apparently, within 12 months, the situation will turn from dire to deadly).
How can 1 man let his country become the worst place in the World to do business? How can they justify 'free' elections when voters names are made up, food not given to those who vote against him and opposition candidates openly murdered (this seems rare, as most are already in prison)....the list could go on. Journalists rarely are allowed in officially, and unofficial ones face 2 years in prison. So how can any leader justify this to himself, or to others?
How can he be personally happy with what the direct consequences are of his actions? Unless he has not left his palace in 4 years, and therefore genuinely unaware of the situation, I cannot believe such a person exists. Its not that he has a misguided vision (for example, Hitler), its that he is deliberately locking up his own countrymen, starving his own people. It is not that he is just killing the 'white farmers' (like man of the ethnic or racist wars globally), its that he personally profits from the unhappiness of 90% of his country (the other 10% are those he pays to deprive the 90%!).
I would like to presume that every person is a genuinely 'good' person inside, and only does bad things due to misguided teachings, influences, psychiatric state or beliefs. I don't know Mugabe personally. I wonder if any of these categories fit him, or if he is genuinely a bad person? A misguided person might believe in reclaiming land from colonialists; but would be aware (after 4 years) that the policy needs altering when output falls so dramatically.
So responsible leaders need to be aware of their actions. They need to engage with others in order to determine the consequences of their actions (then they could make informed decisions). Responsible leaders need to have a moral conscience; they should act on it. They should allow others the freedom to be themselves -allow them the freedom to life, to choice, to speech, to work. They should not deceive others, they should not deliberately (or accidentally) harm others (in this case, needlessly).
Lastly, I believe this is the 1 country where so little from the rest of the World, could so easily make such a big difference. Where are the responsible leaders in this World who are willing to make a moral stand for what they believe is right. In some cases, personal morals are not global -people disagree. In this situation, I would like to find someone who thinks that Mugabe should stay in power and is a positive force for the World. Anyone out there believe that?
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Africa...
SDN: promoting real sustainable development, "Let Africa fight its own devils".
Another hot topic, certainly, and one that focuses on how the rich can most help the poor. Leaders of the rich world have a responsibility to help others (it is in their best interest, as world leaders are finally realising, in regards to terrorism or immigration etc). How they do this, is in great dispute!
Most solutions focus on aid (in-kind or monetary) and technical support. Ironically a lot of this focuses on removing current processes that were put in place by rich countries to start with (such as trade barriers, debt and so on) -which shows how short-sighted the leaders who implemented them were.
I wanted to comment on this particular article, since one of the big changes in recent times has been that Aid agencies should work together towards common goals (!) and with the host country government (if possible); the aim is that the poor tell the rich what they need, and how that should be used. That sounds like a good idea. In the past, aid organisations presumed they knew best, and provided conditions on the support they gave (focused on reforms). This idea is now losing credibility; hoping that the poor will create the necessary reforms themselves (be them the same or different to what the rich have suggested/forced before).
This article argues along the free market lines, that actually what has most helped the poor in the past has been the free market, and supporting institutions. Should these exist, aid would not be needed (although it makes an exception for AIDS which is a 1-off 'first' in world history) to overcome poverty (over time), and any solutions would be long-term, natural and sustainable. Thus the rich should focus on providing the environment/framework/institions for countries to then develop themselves out of poverty. Certainly, they should remove the artificial restrictions they imposed (import tarrifs etc) before, but most importantly, they should aim to provide advice and change the institutions that are ineffective in much of Africa.
What should responsible leaders do when they want to do something, but no-one quite knows what the best way is to do it? Working in partnership with those they want to help is the obvious way to devise the solutions, however this has never happened before. The rich have never dealt with the poor -they just deal with those who supposedly 'represent' the poor. Now as NGOs grow more powerful (and presuming they can better represent the poor and be accountable to them), this could change -but the change is too slow.
The second thing is they should start with changing themselves. Set examples. As with the Tsunami, compete with each other as to who can hope the most, quickest! For so long, the rich have realised the impact of debt interest payments are having and the impact of trade restrictions...and what has happened? and what more is likely to happen? The answer is little (something will happen, but not enough for sure!), because we have to balance our own self-interests with our desire to help others. IF both these changes adversely affected the rich, so that they become worse off; then this would help no-one. the trick is that someone explains and creates a precise strategy for how to make these changes without long-term adverse changes.
That is the trick, but the crucial aspect, is that it requires some responsible leadership. It requires someone to start taking action, to do what they say, to acknowledge the consequences of their actions; to make decisions, to bravely set an example. Everyone talks about requiring more action; which is great, in theory. And example: The rich are discussing the World trade issue (Doha round in the WTO); great. They are even engaging different stakeholders in this, and even talking to the poor. But, it is not enough. Why only meet every 6 months? Why does the 'round' take years and not months?
Granted, the changes required are big, and need to be carefully managed. But if there was the will, then there would be a way. And right now, it is clear that the will does not exist, for a multitude of reasons, not to be discussed here. Responsible leadership requires determination, effort and a long-term vision. Not a short-term, selfish perspective.
Another hot topic, certainly, and one that focuses on how the rich can most help the poor. Leaders of the rich world have a responsibility to help others (it is in their best interest, as world leaders are finally realising, in regards to terrorism or immigration etc). How they do this, is in great dispute!
Most solutions focus on aid (in-kind or monetary) and technical support. Ironically a lot of this focuses on removing current processes that were put in place by rich countries to start with (such as trade barriers, debt and so on) -which shows how short-sighted the leaders who implemented them were.
I wanted to comment on this particular article, since one of the big changes in recent times has been that Aid agencies should work together towards common goals (!) and with the host country government (if possible); the aim is that the poor tell the rich what they need, and how that should be used. That sounds like a good idea. In the past, aid organisations presumed they knew best, and provided conditions on the support they gave (focused on reforms). This idea is now losing credibility; hoping that the poor will create the necessary reforms themselves (be them the same or different to what the rich have suggested/forced before).
This article argues along the free market lines, that actually what has most helped the poor in the past has been the free market, and supporting institutions. Should these exist, aid would not be needed (although it makes an exception for AIDS which is a 1-off 'first' in world history) to overcome poverty (over time), and any solutions would be long-term, natural and sustainable. Thus the rich should focus on providing the environment/framework/institions for countries to then develop themselves out of poverty. Certainly, they should remove the artificial restrictions they imposed (import tarrifs etc) before, but most importantly, they should aim to provide advice and change the institutions that are ineffective in much of Africa.
What should responsible leaders do when they want to do something, but no-one quite knows what the best way is to do it? Working in partnership with those they want to help is the obvious way to devise the solutions, however this has never happened before. The rich have never dealt with the poor -they just deal with those who supposedly 'represent' the poor. Now as NGOs grow more powerful (and presuming they can better represent the poor and be accountable to them), this could change -but the change is too slow.
The second thing is they should start with changing themselves. Set examples. As with the Tsunami, compete with each other as to who can hope the most, quickest! For so long, the rich have realised the impact of debt interest payments are having and the impact of trade restrictions...and what has happened? and what more is likely to happen? The answer is little (something will happen, but not enough for sure!), because we have to balance our own self-interests with our desire to help others. IF both these changes adversely affected the rich, so that they become worse off; then this would help no-one. the trick is that someone explains and creates a precise strategy for how to make these changes without long-term adverse changes.
That is the trick, but the crucial aspect, is that it requires some responsible leadership. It requires someone to start taking action, to do what they say, to acknowledge the consequences of their actions; to make decisions, to bravely set an example. Everyone talks about requiring more action; which is great, in theory. And example: The rich are discussing the World trade issue (Doha round in the WTO); great. They are even engaging different stakeholders in this, and even talking to the poor. But, it is not enough. Why only meet every 6 months? Why does the 'round' take years and not months?
Granted, the changes required are big, and need to be carefully managed. But if there was the will, then there would be a way. And right now, it is clear that the will does not exist, for a multitude of reasons, not to be discussed here. Responsible leadership requires determination, effort and a long-term vision. Not a short-term, selfish perspective.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Was war 'legal'?
A lot of my posts will be about articles in the news, about leaders and their decisions and actions. And why not kick this off with one of the most controversial topics around: Iraq.
Back before the war started the UK parliament voted on whether to go to war (although this was not a decision that would bind the government). Although it was close, the decision was to go to war; primarily on the argument that Iraq had, or would soon have, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), that would threaten the UK or others. Separate to the debate about the existence of the WMD, another key consideration was that, even if it was true, would this be a just reason to launch a pre-emptive attack? The Attorney-General, advised that as Iraq had been in breach of International Law (UN resolutions), then it was legal (this would also ensure that the combatants could not be tried for illegal actions, amongst other things).
It now appears that the advise that the Attorney-General gave is in dispute. How crucial the advise is is debatable, but it was certainly of great importance. His role, as 1 person - as the legal expert, and his actions, had significant consequences. Was his input truthful? Was he swayed by others (media, government pressure, even his own personal feelings)?
The debate has arisen over whether what he said (and he said different things in private as he did in the publicly released statements) was "a summary of his advice", "his opinion", "his view" or "a definitive statement". This matters a lot it seems (less so now than before the war presumably!). For me, it is a matter of the independence of the judiciary from the executive. It is a matter of taking responsibility for one's actions (and their consequences). It is a matter of being ethical and open. It represents a great example of where responsible leadership is required. It was not for this leader to make a decision; although his information would influence the decision made. It was for him to provide what was asked of him and what was expected of him. Did he do that?
Responsible Leaders need to demonstrate a firm belief and commitment in their own actions, and when decisions are made, or information released (especially in an official capacity) be sure that they are aware of the consequences, be sure they make the right decisions and stand by them. Most of all leaders need to be clear themselves of their actions, and effectively communicate this to others. Clarity is crucial.
What we will find out once/if any further information is released (declassified) may be interesting. But, it is clear, that for such a debate to have arisen, means that the Attorney-General has not demonstrated responsible leadership. Nobody is perfect, but everybody should aim to be.
An introduction...
Inspired to write a blog about something I am personal about rather than about personal stuff, it was easy to choose this subject. For a while I have been interested in making the World a better place -reading about Sustainable Development, learning how the World works and so forth.
I am greatly interested in CSR -Corporate Social Responsibility. For those of you who have heard of this concept before you will also have frequently come across the term CR -Corporate Responsibility (why just social?). Once could argue over this, but not right now. Also, CSRers will be aware of the usefulness of the tools etc developed for the purpose of CSR, and that they should be applied in non-corporate organisations as well. Hence, the 'C' is being dropped too.
I wanted to mention this, because, this reasoning is absolutely not the way I see responsibility. I see responsibility not as a definition, but as a condition. For you to exist, you must take some responsibility for ensuring your continued existence, and as this is so related to others (from 1 to 6 billion), you must therefore have a responsibility to the World you, we, live in.
If everyone was responsible, if everyone realised that responsibility is an attitude -and one that we should possess- and if everyone realised that responsibility it not a time based concept, then the World would truly be a better place. What I think 'better' means will be developed in future posts, but I do want to explain more on the 'time' concept.
Each individual needs to think about their own future as well as their present. We need to realise that our current actions impact our future actions: the near future and the distant future. We need to realise that how we act now influences how we will react in the future in similar or future scenarios; and thus to make the right decision now, will make future decisions easier (or ideally, decisions on the same subject, unnecessary). We need to be aware of how we spend our time, and realise that an investment in time now, will save time in the future. This means we have more time to spend -more time to spend on doing whatever we want; more time to make our own (and if you choose, others) lives better.
Finally, for me, responsibility is a personal thing. Be responsible -be ethical -be true to yourself. By doing this, we will inevitably translate this into our actions, and our interactions with others. This is leadership -it starts with yourself, and it extends to how to deal with others.
So, if this introduction has made you interested, or made you think, then stay tuned, and I'll do my best...
p.s. please excuse any spelling mistakes in this or other posts. I'm native english, but when my thoughts flow, spelling is not a consideration
I am greatly interested in CSR -Corporate Social Responsibility. For those of you who have heard of this concept before you will also have frequently come across the term CR -Corporate Responsibility (why just social?). Once could argue over this, but not right now. Also, CSRers will be aware of the usefulness of the tools etc developed for the purpose of CSR, and that they should be applied in non-corporate organisations as well. Hence, the 'C' is being dropped too.
I wanted to mention this, because, this reasoning is absolutely not the way I see responsibility. I see responsibility not as a definition, but as a condition. For you to exist, you must take some responsibility for ensuring your continued existence, and as this is so related to others (from 1 to 6 billion), you must therefore have a responsibility to the World you, we, live in.
If everyone was responsible, if everyone realised that responsibility is an attitude -and one that we should possess- and if everyone realised that responsibility it not a time based concept, then the World would truly be a better place. What I think 'better' means will be developed in future posts, but I do want to explain more on the 'time' concept.
Each individual needs to think about their own future as well as their present. We need to realise that our current actions impact our future actions: the near future and the distant future. We need to realise that how we act now influences how we will react in the future in similar or future scenarios; and thus to make the right decision now, will make future decisions easier (or ideally, decisions on the same subject, unnecessary). We need to be aware of how we spend our time, and realise that an investment in time now, will save time in the future. This means we have more time to spend -more time to spend on doing whatever we want; more time to make our own (and if you choose, others) lives better.
Finally, for me, responsibility is a personal thing. Be responsible -be ethical -be true to yourself. By doing this, we will inevitably translate this into our actions, and our interactions with others. This is leadership -it starts with yourself, and it extends to how to deal with others.
So, if this introduction has made you interested, or made you think, then stay tuned, and I'll do my best...
p.s. please excuse any spelling mistakes in this or other posts. I'm native english, but when my thoughts flow, spelling is not a consideration
The preface...
This blog is not a personal blog; it is an opportunity for awareness to be raised about the issues of responsible leadership, for examples and relevant news items to be highlighted and for the subject to be explored further.
It will be simple, but it will diverge to cover any topic that might be relevant. I am not one for long words, so don't expect any. Just expect some personal observations and comments.
Feedback and comments are greatly appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)