Transparency and Accountability are great concepts and are tremendously popular words nowadays, but, working in the area of Corporate Responsibility reporting, but with reference to general communications from companies and other organizations, it is clear to me that it does not matter how much you say, or what you say.
What matters, is that what you say is true; but even then, what about what you do not say? It is perfectly fine to say the truth, but not say certain things, and thus, in effect you are not telling the truth -but how do you say everything (of course, being truthful about everything)?
This is the challenge, and one complicated by the fact that revealing such information may well be commercially sensitive or create difficult situations for those involved. The easiest answer is to work out what you need to say that people want to know about, as much as possible -and for each of these topics have a group of people who can represent those who might want to know the information and can decide what information should be released or not to ensure the overall picture is fair.
You might also want a second group of people to then be able to actually know all that information: the bad, the good, the sensitive etc, and be able to judge that what was said is a fair reflection or not.
Now doing both will be very hard and time consuming, but might be necessary in some situations, where it is important to rebuild trust after having lost it. In reality, no-one will go to such extremes to prevent losing trust, but will after they lose trust and get desperate!
Each organization needs to tell the truth, and that requires telling the good, the bad and the ugly. If not, no-one will trust what you say, and that seems to be the problem with business now. Business has not tried hard enough to say the truth, and now wonders why no-one trusts business! Business has to get its act together, and find a solution.
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Mandatory Sustainability Reporting?
Last week the Global Reporting Initiative that has led the movement behind Sustainability Reporting (which goes by several other names as well) called for reporting to be mandatory in light of the recent financial crisis and even lower lack of trust in business that this is generating. This is a real change from their previous position that reporting should be voluntary; though they did encourage reporters to use certain criteria.
However, I think what needs to happen is not just for reporting to be compulsory, but that the contents of Reports needs to be mandated in one specific (and new) way. Every company should have to set a level of risk and be required to report any event or activity that is above that level from both a historic perspective, and future perspective.
Thus a Report would say:
"Last year there were 9 events or actions (etc) that represented a significant risk to the business. These 9 events were xxx and we responded by yyy, and to prevent these happening again we have/will do zzz"
"We expect this year, that the major risks will be around ffff, ggg and hhh. Thus we are doing iiii to prevent them".
Right now Reports are too opportunity focused and are not really providing investors (or other stakeholders) with a real assessment of their CR related risks (or indeed business risks, depending on how you define CR). There needs to be a degree of honesty from companies about what has gone wrong in order to ensure stakeholders the company is dealing with this.
In this sense, CR reports could be a very useful, strategic and forward-looking, activity that is adding real value. I still struggle to find many reports that mention any of the negative aspects of a company's work.
Whether the kind of CR report I mention needs to be publicly available is not particularly important. Of course the report needs to be (legally) available to regulators and to investors -and as such, this report does not need to be succinct -instead it needs to be comprehensive and large companies are going to need to, presumably, have long reports if there were so many activities that breached the threshold (that should be set by the company through a stakeholder dialogue that meets some minimum legal level).
If a company chooses to make the report publicly available (and easily navigable online), this would be a bonus; though I would expect certain contents would need to be kept our of the public-eye for privacy, regulatory and competitive reasons.
However, I think what needs to happen is not just for reporting to be compulsory, but that the contents of Reports needs to be mandated in one specific (and new) way. Every company should have to set a level of risk and be required to report any event or activity that is above that level from both a historic perspective, and future perspective.
Thus a Report would say:
"Last year there were 9 events or actions (etc) that represented a significant risk to the business. These 9 events were xxx and we responded by yyy, and to prevent these happening again we have/will do zzz"
"We expect this year, that the major risks will be around ffff, ggg and hhh. Thus we are doing iiii to prevent them".
Right now Reports are too opportunity focused and are not really providing investors (or other stakeholders) with a real assessment of their CR related risks (or indeed business risks, depending on how you define CR). There needs to be a degree of honesty from companies about what has gone wrong in order to ensure stakeholders the company is dealing with this.
In this sense, CR reports could be a very useful, strategic and forward-looking, activity that is adding real value. I still struggle to find many reports that mention any of the negative aspects of a company's work.
Whether the kind of CR report I mention needs to be publicly available is not particularly important. Of course the report needs to be (legally) available to regulators and to investors -and as such, this report does not need to be succinct -instead it needs to be comprehensive and large companies are going to need to, presumably, have long reports if there were so many activities that breached the threshold (that should be set by the company through a stakeholder dialogue that meets some minimum legal level).
If a company chooses to make the report publicly available (and easily navigable online), this would be a bonus; though I would expect certain contents would need to be kept our of the public-eye for privacy, regulatory and competitive reasons.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Building communities
Very interesting perspective here, especially in light of the traditional view that we should identify problems and try to solve them. Here we need to inspire people to come together to imagine something better, give them a stake in developing a successful outcome, encourage alternative opinions and create mutual accountability and commitment which should be recognized. Some lessons to be learned.Community, to Block [the author], is about membership, feeling part of something larger than oneself, feeling at home, relating to the rest of the world — and participating in, owning, and being accountable for what one creates with others. It matters not whether the community is a small group, a neighborhood, a city, a multinational corporation, a global governance organization, or any other structure. Organizing any human enterprise is an exercise in developing community.
Block has applied rigor and years of experience in honing his understanding of how people can work together to create what they need and desire, “a future distinct from the past.” He focuses on the structures of belonging, giving detailed attention to the many elements of design, location, and process that contribute to having productive conversations, gatherings, and relationships. He says, for instance, that conversations should be structured around questions that evoke not answers, but commitment, accountability, and the possibility for transformation. These include questions of invitation (not mandate, coercion, or persuasion); questions about possibilities, how we wish to live in the future (not problems to be solved); questions about ownership that lead people to accept responsibility; questions about dissent that leave space for authentic doubt and reservations; questions about commitment that evoke promises and accountability for observable results; and questions about gifts that surface what we and others can bring to the quest for a different future.
taken from a review of Best Business Books 2008: Capitalism and Community, by strategy + business
Friday, January 18, 2008
How can a corporation make a difference?
If a corporation takes a broad aim of 'to improve the environment, to support education, to increase transparency' or anything else, for various reasons -selfish and altruistic, what are its best options?
Well, ultimately the biggest difference occurs from systemic changes and behaviour changes -none of which are easy, but which a corporation can support by working with government, with business associations and with initiatives (i.e. research, pilots, advocacy).
The next step would be to support others that are helping make systemic change; they are often doing this by raising awareness or improving accountability (naming and shaming, for example) and this could be the media or civil society or initiatives to build participation in decision making. This, again, often requires supporting existing initiatives and helping scale them up -or it could be to seed something new (but that will be sustainable or will have a defined end date).
Next could be to improve the ability for enforcement of laws and to improve the ability to meet legal requirements or implement legal reforms which may mean supporting NGOs, training government officials, training teachers, supporting training institutes, organising skills sharing etc. Supporting Universities can be a good way to support promising research, build capacity in teaching institutions etc.
Next, is the difference the corporation can make itself through its operations and its products. Making its operations more sustainable (Reducing waste, improving safety etc) and by developing products that are more sustainable.
Finally, once the corporation has got itself to a decent level it needs to start helping others reach this level, it needs to raise the bar. Not only does this provide massive benefit for the company in terms of PR, but it also raises the standard and forces its competitors to meet it. Best practise needs to be shared and others inspired to achieve. Influence should be used, especially on business partners and suppliers.
Ultimately it is the market that affects businesses and if the market mechanism is used to force others to improve, whilst the corporation stays ahead of the market, the corporation will always be first to market (since it is creating the market!). It is thus in its best interest to effect legal change that influences the market and to support the implementation of that legal change.
Well, ultimately the biggest difference occurs from systemic changes and behaviour changes -none of which are easy, but which a corporation can support by working with government, with business associations and with initiatives (i.e. research, pilots, advocacy).
The next step would be to support others that are helping make systemic change; they are often doing this by raising awareness or improving accountability (naming and shaming, for example) and this could be the media or civil society or initiatives to build participation in decision making. This, again, often requires supporting existing initiatives and helping scale them up -or it could be to seed something new (but that will be sustainable or will have a defined end date).
Next could be to improve the ability for enforcement of laws and to improve the ability to meet legal requirements or implement legal reforms which may mean supporting NGOs, training government officials, training teachers, supporting training institutes, organising skills sharing etc. Supporting Universities can be a good way to support promising research, build capacity in teaching institutions etc.
Next, is the difference the corporation can make itself through its operations and its products. Making its operations more sustainable (Reducing waste, improving safety etc) and by developing products that are more sustainable.
Finally, once the corporation has got itself to a decent level it needs to start helping others reach this level, it needs to raise the bar. Not only does this provide massive benefit for the company in terms of PR, but it also raises the standard and forces its competitors to meet it. Best practise needs to be shared and others inspired to achieve. Influence should be used, especially on business partners and suppliers.
Ultimately it is the market that affects businesses and if the market mechanism is used to force others to improve, whilst the corporation stays ahead of the market, the corporation will always be first to market (since it is creating the market!). It is thus in its best interest to effect legal change that influences the market and to support the implementation of that legal change.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Corporations helping community or vice versa?
I fully believe that business can be the solution to poverty. The process is simple:
1. Identify the problem
2. Identify the solution (technological, training etc)
3. Innovate to provide the solution to the problem.
Point 2 is actually quite easy, and there are already solutions to almost every development challenge, be it finding water, preventing HIV/AIDs etc. Point number 3 is where the challenge lies. So far government has failed to provide the solution in most developing countries for various reasons (money, ability etc). Can business do better? Well they also need to overcome problems, such as providing the solution cheap enough, ensuring there are qualified people to distribute and provide the solution, ensuring the solution is suitable to local needs and so on.
If a company can do that, great. Companies can profit from helping the community. If they do that, then there is a clear motive for business to invest money in helping raise awareness of the problem, the need for their solution and their proposed solution (possibly through NGO partners).
This is the issue: when does this become unethical? Health companies already understand this uneasy balance when they go to doctors to tell them about their solution to a health problem. This means the doctor will use that product to solve the problem, but is it actually the right or best product -or just the only product the doctor knows about? How to stop the doctor accepting bribes for distributing that product and not another one? Will the patient lose the trust of the doctor knowing how closely associated the doctor is to the company (and companies often havea lack of trust)?
For me, working in an NGO, where we have the trust of the community, we would gladly like to (and already do, to some extent) promote certain products (and sometimes subsidize them) -in fact we are keen to help companies understand the problems and help them develop a solution, but where is the line between promoting something that will help solve a problem and becoming (in effect) a distributor for the company? How does this affect the trust the community has in us, if they link us so closely to a company?
1. Identify the problem
2. Identify the solution (technological, training etc)
3. Innovate to provide the solution to the problem.
Point 2 is actually quite easy, and there are already solutions to almost every development challenge, be it finding water, preventing HIV/AIDs etc. Point number 3 is where the challenge lies. So far government has failed to provide the solution in most developing countries for various reasons (money, ability etc). Can business do better? Well they also need to overcome problems, such as providing the solution cheap enough, ensuring there are qualified people to distribute and provide the solution, ensuring the solution is suitable to local needs and so on.
If a company can do that, great. Companies can profit from helping the community. If they do that, then there is a clear motive for business to invest money in helping raise awareness of the problem, the need for their solution and their proposed solution (possibly through NGO partners).
This is the issue: when does this become unethical? Health companies already understand this uneasy balance when they go to doctors to tell them about their solution to a health problem. This means the doctor will use that product to solve the problem, but is it actually the right or best product -or just the only product the doctor knows about? How to stop the doctor accepting bribes for distributing that product and not another one? Will the patient lose the trust of the doctor knowing how closely associated the doctor is to the company (and companies often havea lack of trust)?
For me, working in an NGO, where we have the trust of the community, we would gladly like to (and already do, to some extent) promote certain products (and sometimes subsidize them) -in fact we are keen to help companies understand the problems and help them develop a solution, but where is the line between promoting something that will help solve a problem and becoming (in effect) a distributor for the company? How does this affect the trust the community has in us, if they link us so closely to a company?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Community
Everyone and everything is part of a community, though how large the community is and who/what is in it varies. Human beings seem to change communities more than most species, moving between communities and changing communities more and more often. At what cost?
Communities developed as people realised they needed to trust others to survive and work with others for the common good of their community. Nowadays we leave communities searching for spouses, education, jobs, fun, adventure or just something new and different. Ironically the people that are forced to leave communities are often the ones that do not -they are forced to leave because occasionally they did something to offend the community, but most likely because the community is unable to provide for those within it any more.
A sense of community is essentially similar to a sense of social responsibility, though a sense of community is easier to define and provides more tangible benefits to those within it. It is, I believe, not a bad thing to move communities, but the bad thing is that once we move out of a community we often do not move into another one, or we do not recognise the one we have moved into -how big is it? who is in it? what are the commonalities holding the community together?
We don't recognise our community because we are not trying to; we are not trying to because we do not recognise the value of a community -to us or to others. We do often end up in some kind of community, whether we want to or not, but then we are not entirely aware of it, and are not sure if it is the right community for us. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. These new communities that we join are often short-lived or only based on a social nature; thus there is no long-term commitment to the community, especially it's physical environmental nature.
We need to identify our community and it's impacts. We need to recognise it for what it is worth and strive to improve the value we get from it, and the collective value within it, as well as how it interacts with other communities. I worry that as we lose our sense of community, we venture into the unknown -with unknown consequences, both short and long-term. What community are you a part of?
Communities developed as people realised they needed to trust others to survive and work with others for the common good of their community. Nowadays we leave communities searching for spouses, education, jobs, fun, adventure or just something new and different. Ironically the people that are forced to leave communities are often the ones that do not -they are forced to leave because occasionally they did something to offend the community, but most likely because the community is unable to provide for those within it any more.
A sense of community is essentially similar to a sense of social responsibility, though a sense of community is easier to define and provides more tangible benefits to those within it. It is, I believe, not a bad thing to move communities, but the bad thing is that once we move out of a community we often do not move into another one, or we do not recognise the one we have moved into -how big is it? who is in it? what are the commonalities holding the community together?
We don't recognise our community because we are not trying to; we are not trying to because we do not recognise the value of a community -to us or to others. We do often end up in some kind of community, whether we want to or not, but then we are not entirely aware of it, and are not sure if it is the right community for us. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. These new communities that we join are often short-lived or only based on a social nature; thus there is no long-term commitment to the community, especially it's physical environmental nature.
We need to identify our community and it's impacts. We need to recognise it for what it is worth and strive to improve the value we get from it, and the collective value within it, as well as how it interacts with other communities. I worry that as we lose our sense of community, we venture into the unknown -with unknown consequences, both short and long-term. What community are you a part of?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Participation
Levels of Participation is what possibly used to be 1 aspect separating businesses from NGOs from governments -but the recent trend has been for everyone to take-up participation in different ways which is now another example of the blurring of the line between the 3.
Governments all try different models of participation as democracies or even as autocracies too various degrees; with citizens able to vote on certain people or decisions as well as have access to information and the ability to input into ideas, processes etc through consultations.
NGOs have long had to use participation to find volunteers and raise funds and utilise some sort of research to start an idea and then to affect real change engage people in their activities as much as possible.
Businesses used to only use participation for market research and employee unions, but now involve employees much more, customers and their ideas much more and stakeholder engagement is the buzz word around to identify new opportunities and understand potential risks.
Though all kinds of participation are different within sectors and within organisations there still is a trend for all 3 sectors to increase their participation: for government it is a way to increase their legitimacy (which is getting lower), for businesses it is a way to increase trust and hopefully increase profits and for NGOs it helps increase their impact.
Participation for me is a great thing as it helps create mutual accountability between groups, increases communication, gains greater agreement, inspires confidence and generates ideas amongst other things. Of course there are limits to how much participation is useful -however I believe these limits should be decided by the 'participants' rather than those deciding. If it requires too much time for too little benefit, let the 'participants' say! If 'participants' are not qualified for certain discussions, let them realise so!
Power to the people, greater participation and greater involvement can unite this world slowly and surely to achieving better things for more people in better ways. After all, who will complain if an idea they contribute to fails? Though they might not take responsibility, they will still be happy about the process of decision making -and this is the key point for participation. The process is more important than the result and if 'successful' will often achieve better results in the wider sense.
Governments all try different models of participation as democracies or even as autocracies too various degrees; with citizens able to vote on certain people or decisions as well as have access to information and the ability to input into ideas, processes etc through consultations.
NGOs have long had to use participation to find volunteers and raise funds and utilise some sort of research to start an idea and then to affect real change engage people in their activities as much as possible.
Businesses used to only use participation for market research and employee unions, but now involve employees much more, customers and their ideas much more and stakeholder engagement is the buzz word around to identify new opportunities and understand potential risks.
Though all kinds of participation are different within sectors and within organisations there still is a trend for all 3 sectors to increase their participation: for government it is a way to increase their legitimacy (which is getting lower), for businesses it is a way to increase trust and hopefully increase profits and for NGOs it helps increase their impact.
Participation for me is a great thing as it helps create mutual accountability between groups, increases communication, gains greater agreement, inspires confidence and generates ideas amongst other things. Of course there are limits to how much participation is useful -however I believe these limits should be decided by the 'participants' rather than those deciding. If it requires too much time for too little benefit, let the 'participants' say! If 'participants' are not qualified for certain discussions, let them realise so!
Power to the people, greater participation and greater involvement can unite this world slowly and surely to achieving better things for more people in better ways. After all, who will complain if an idea they contribute to fails? Though they might not take responsibility, they will still be happy about the process of decision making -and this is the key point for participation. The process is more important than the result and if 'successful' will often achieve better results in the wider sense.
Monday, February 12, 2007
What is the role of NGOs?
NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) is a very loose term covering all kinds of organisations: normally anything that is not a government or for-profit enterprise. It could include churches, chambers of commerce, business association, lobby groups, trade unions, charities and more.. However the way it is generally used is to describe an organisation that is organised like a business in order to serve a social purpose and without focusing on profits.
Thus typically there are 'grass-roots' NGOs often formed from a few volunteers campaigning for a local issue or providing care for some disadvantaged section of society; there are larger charities that provide welfare to those in need and there are the bigger Development NGOs that aim to influence government and business and effectively use resources to e.g. reduce poverty on a large scale.
Moving quickly past such a brief summary, in recent times there has been a blurring between business and NGOs into the so-called world of 'social enterprises' whose primary goal is to serve society but who wish to make profits at the same time. Many think that these are more effective at solving societal problems as it is more sustainable, more competitive and more efficient. It is noted that the best way to solve problems requires large-scale solutions and these kinds of scales or innovations are often only achieved through a profit incentive and a functioning market to make organisations more effective.
NGOs are often profitable in some sense: selling a service to make money (e.g. running a home for disabled people) or providing benefits to a corporate partner (e.g. advise on reducing their environmental footprint or training their suppliers) -they just pay less tax and promise to spend any profit on further programs. They do not have owners as such, and this is normally seen as their advantage: no money to stock-holders or to rich private owners. However it is also seen as a disadvantage: who are they accountable to?
Interestingly NGOs and businesses alike seem to be converging on a model that governments ar supposed to use -but often fail to do so. The model of being accountable to various stakeholders locally and otherwise. Governments are notoriously slow to change, and rarely due if changes negatively impact those in power, or those who might get in power. Now that many companies engage with local groups; NGOs engage with local governments and communities it seems like both sectors are listening.
It's pretty clear that NGOs are not changing the World; neither are ineffective governments (which are still too frequent around); and neither are aid agencies. Business, it seems, could be the answer; but it requires a stable environment and infrastructure and this is often lacking. Thus the current trend for NGOs to work with governments and businesses (using Aid) to try to focus on this issue 'sustainable livelihoods'. Is this the future role for NGOs?
As the most trusted type of organisation in the World, will NGOs be able to bring partners and stakeholders together to find solutions to allow business to flourish -to create meaningful jobs? Jobs, is the ultimate issue here -and this is really only something that a business (whether it is for-profit or not; including collaboratives) can provide. This week the good news is that more people have jobs now than ever before, but more people do not have jobs too (as the population constantly grows).
I am excited by some of the work that Plan is doing in China: trialling new methods and schemes that government (especially in developing countries) is unable to try (too slow, too corrupt, too cumbersome, too political, too hierarchical, too poorly trained); raising issues that otherwise have no-one to raise them and so on. The end result should be either government, business, or individuals doing something different that is better than what they were doing before.
The problem is so much that NGOs do is not sustainable, not an efficient use of resources -and often fails. Not that it is always their fault: after all most businesses fail too. Interestingly NGOs tend to try much much harder than businesses to make their projects a success. I am still looking for the balance between time/money spent researching, measuring etc vs. actually doing, subsidising, training etc.
In the future I see NGOs having to better define their 'ownership' in order to work out where they fit in society; since their roles overlap with all other sectors (including the media). I see them struggling to keep their 'independence' whilst being involved in so many 'partnerships' (including revenue generating activities). I think accountability will be come a bigger issue: NGOs will have to carefully balance how they spend their money on staff (pay more to get better?) and on research and evaluation. But I hope that NGOs will be given more slack to fail more, learn lessons and so on. International NGOs will need to start incubating ideas, being more innovative, spinning off from themselves to remain flexible and innovative and better define their relationships and purpose to other (grass-roots) NGOs.
In many areas NGOs are in competition with each other for resources: a good thing no doubt; but more partnerships are likely to form to prevent competition ruining funding streams or affecting transparency. NGOs have undoubtedly become more professional; and the next step is to move into the relm of M&A, spin-offs and so on. It excites me to end this post with the concept of taking the real world to NGOs: could venture capitalism have a role with development? How can you define the worth of an NGO? There already exists 'tables' of NGOs which are most effective with their money. It would be great if these very basic methodologies could develop -and who knows what might happen?
Business is having its time turning into an NGO through social enterprises; now NGOs need to do their bit to come towards business by tackling the challenges outlined above. And, who knows maybe a time will come when NGOs and Business will be one and the same -all serving to create jobs and services that society needs, whilst being accountable (and responsible) to society.
Thus typically there are 'grass-roots' NGOs often formed from a few volunteers campaigning for a local issue or providing care for some disadvantaged section of society; there are larger charities that provide welfare to those in need and there are the bigger Development NGOs that aim to influence government and business and effectively use resources to e.g. reduce poverty on a large scale.
Moving quickly past such a brief summary, in recent times there has been a blurring between business and NGOs into the so-called world of 'social enterprises' whose primary goal is to serve society but who wish to make profits at the same time. Many think that these are more effective at solving societal problems as it is more sustainable, more competitive and more efficient. It is noted that the best way to solve problems requires large-scale solutions and these kinds of scales or innovations are often only achieved through a profit incentive and a functioning market to make organisations more effective.
NGOs are often profitable in some sense: selling a service to make money (e.g. running a home for disabled people) or providing benefits to a corporate partner (e.g. advise on reducing their environmental footprint or training their suppliers) -they just pay less tax and promise to spend any profit on further programs. They do not have owners as such, and this is normally seen as their advantage: no money to stock-holders or to rich private owners. However it is also seen as a disadvantage: who are they accountable to?
Interestingly NGOs and businesses alike seem to be converging on a model that governments ar supposed to use -but often fail to do so. The model of being accountable to various stakeholders locally and otherwise. Governments are notoriously slow to change, and rarely due if changes negatively impact those in power, or those who might get in power. Now that many companies engage with local groups; NGOs engage with local governments and communities it seems like both sectors are listening.
It's pretty clear that NGOs are not changing the World; neither are ineffective governments (which are still too frequent around); and neither are aid agencies. Business, it seems, could be the answer; but it requires a stable environment and infrastructure and this is often lacking. Thus the current trend for NGOs to work with governments and businesses (using Aid) to try to focus on this issue 'sustainable livelihoods'. Is this the future role for NGOs?
As the most trusted type of organisation in the World, will NGOs be able to bring partners and stakeholders together to find solutions to allow business to flourish -to create meaningful jobs? Jobs, is the ultimate issue here -and this is really only something that a business (whether it is for-profit or not; including collaboratives) can provide. This week the good news is that more people have jobs now than ever before, but more people do not have jobs too (as the population constantly grows).
I am excited by some of the work that Plan is doing in China: trialling new methods and schemes that government (especially in developing countries) is unable to try (too slow, too corrupt, too cumbersome, too political, too hierarchical, too poorly trained); raising issues that otherwise have no-one to raise them and so on. The end result should be either government, business, or individuals doing something different that is better than what they were doing before.
The problem is so much that NGOs do is not sustainable, not an efficient use of resources -and often fails. Not that it is always their fault: after all most businesses fail too. Interestingly NGOs tend to try much much harder than businesses to make their projects a success. I am still looking for the balance between time/money spent researching, measuring etc vs. actually doing, subsidising, training etc.
In the future I see NGOs having to better define their 'ownership' in order to work out where they fit in society; since their roles overlap with all other sectors (including the media). I see them struggling to keep their 'independence' whilst being involved in so many 'partnerships' (including revenue generating activities). I think accountability will be come a bigger issue: NGOs will have to carefully balance how they spend their money on staff (pay more to get better?) and on research and evaluation. But I hope that NGOs will be given more slack to fail more, learn lessons and so on. International NGOs will need to start incubating ideas, being more innovative, spinning off from themselves to remain flexible and innovative and better define their relationships and purpose to other (grass-roots) NGOs.
In many areas NGOs are in competition with each other for resources: a good thing no doubt; but more partnerships are likely to form to prevent competition ruining funding streams or affecting transparency. NGOs have undoubtedly become more professional; and the next step is to move into the relm of M&A, spin-offs and so on. It excites me to end this post with the concept of taking the real world to NGOs: could venture capitalism have a role with development? How can you define the worth of an NGO? There already exists 'tables' of NGOs which are most effective with their money. It would be great if these very basic methodologies could develop -and who knows what might happen?
Business is having its time turning into an NGO through social enterprises; now NGOs need to do their bit to come towards business by tackling the challenges outlined above. And, who knows maybe a time will come when NGOs and Business will be one and the same -all serving to create jobs and services that society needs, whilst being accountable (and responsible) to society.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Stability
Stability and change. Most people, especially in the corporate World will argue that you need to continue to innovate to succeed. In literary terms you can find 'sayings' both for and against change; in political terms everyone is always talking about change; in our personal lives we are always against change and upheavals.
I find this topic interesting just because in different situations, leadership might require stability, and others might require change -and it is impossible to create any kind of generalisation or advice on this. There are, of course, issues related to responsible leadership: a duty to understand what impacts changes might have on people (many are unforeseen) or a duty to be brave enough to change ahead of the times rather than after the times, in order to remain competitive.
I want to focus on the Political World though: Looking at Iraq, life was not great before Saddam Hussein, and it will hopefully be much better 'after him' -though when the 'happy' 'after him' period arrives is anyone's guess. Change is never easy (personally, politically or professionally) and Iraq is a simple way of asking, is the change process worth it? Even if the end result is better than before the change, the change process might be so bad (or so long) that is outweighs the benefits of the change altogether.
People like stability; people do not like to take risks and there needs to be a big enough motivation to take risks; or else those risks won't be taken. You could argue that in Iraq things were not bad enough (yet) that people were willing to risk doing whatever was needed to change the status quo. Now its clear that it is not so simple as to say that the US acted like an external consultant, assessing that 2002 was the time that the change should happen: that the risks were good enough (because there were many reasons for their intervention); but looking at a political situation through a corporate viewpoint draws interesting parallels.
Who should instigate change? The internal staff (or citizens) or the external consultant/new CEO (revolutionary leader or attack/'invasion' by another country)? How can the change process be best managed -and what is the goal of that change? Interestingly I think looking at Iraq from a business point of view it's clear that the US (apologies for simplifying such a controversial and complex issue) had a vision for the 'post-change period', but had only though of the first few strategies for getting there, underestimated the time to complete the change, forgotten to think about what the impacts of the change might be on different stakeholders, ignored what the 'competition' might do, misjudged the time frame and so on. Anyone reading this could draw their own parallels to various situations.
The end of the day is that business knows how hard change is, there are thousands of models and theories and good and bad examples.. there are though some simple rules that most MBA schools will teach. But what about political change? Even looking at more modest changes, like a domestic election leading to a change in political party leadership, there seems to be no real understanding of how to create the change, what the vision is, what the strategies are and so on. At least, that is a very initial statement.
With deeper reflection, I believe that there are many successful cases of political change, and what seems to be common with all of them is that change was so desperately needed that it was simple and obvious to work out the details, the strategies, to get stakeholder support etc. Nowadays most western countries don't have serious need to change, therefore whatever supposed changes they initiate (and most mainstream parties in most developed democracies seem to be very alike) they are not very successful. Now if change was really needed then an extreme party (communist, fascist or whatever) would take over... therein lies the issue: these parties will take over once the need is great enough and they get enough support. However it is in the current mainstream parties interests to stop that from happening.
The competition in the corporate world is much greater; the need for change is often more pressing and more is at stake. Politically countries can afford somewhat to just be stable, making minor changes, and sometimes companies can do the same -other times companies cannot afford that whatsoever. So maybe politics needs to look at itself from a corporate viewpoint; to look at issues about stakeholders, visions and strategies, goals and accountability, 'change or die' perspectives, scenario planning, competitive analysis and so on. This is an interesting topic to explore more of in the future.
Meanwhile I'm more interested in the 'tipping point' that leads to successful changes.. when are what pressures so great that change happens? who instigates the change? was the change worthwhile? For me, time is the most important issue with change. Try to make the change quickly. Get it over with, then tweak it. Everyone will argue with change, no-one likes change, everyone is suspicious of new things and demands will change, pressures will change... so much will change as time drags on that the whole change process becomes based on a cause that has changed and a vision that is no longer relevant. So, responsible leaders need to understand this (no matter what they are leading), they need to prepare, research, strategise. But most of all they need to get their timing right. Make the change at the right time -get it finished when that time is still right.
Then start thinking about other issues in change mangement: expectation setting, vision setting, leadership, buy-in, progress communication, stakeholder participation and agreement etc etc. How much of this has ever been done politically? Only when the situation was so bad that enough people could easily identify the problem and the problem was so serious that it had to be changed NOW and quickly has political change been successful (of course other factors are useful too, like outside support or copying other successful models) -overall change is about time, and about need. Right now some of the world is slowly starting to realise that change is needed, and quickly, to stop climate change or HIV/AIDs. But the world is not there yet. The pressures for change are not direct enough, not important enough, not relevant enough to create the tipping point needed. Lets hope though that this change will come, it will come quickly, be done quick enough, and be successful. Isn't is scary to compare the battle in Iraq with the battle against HIV/AIDs?
When will the end come? Who really wants the end? Are those who have the means to end it willing to end it or do they know how to end it? Is it just getting worse? The longer it goes on, the worse it gets -that is for certain.
I find this topic interesting just because in different situations, leadership might require stability, and others might require change -and it is impossible to create any kind of generalisation or advice on this. There are, of course, issues related to responsible leadership: a duty to understand what impacts changes might have on people (many are unforeseen) or a duty to be brave enough to change ahead of the times rather than after the times, in order to remain competitive.
I want to focus on the Political World though: Looking at Iraq, life was not great before Saddam Hussein, and it will hopefully be much better 'after him' -though when the 'happy' 'after him' period arrives is anyone's guess. Change is never easy (personally, politically or professionally) and Iraq is a simple way of asking, is the change process worth it? Even if the end result is better than before the change, the change process might be so bad (or so long) that is outweighs the benefits of the change altogether.
People like stability; people do not like to take risks and there needs to be a big enough motivation to take risks; or else those risks won't be taken. You could argue that in Iraq things were not bad enough (yet) that people were willing to risk doing whatever was needed to change the status quo. Now its clear that it is not so simple as to say that the US acted like an external consultant, assessing that 2002 was the time that the change should happen: that the risks were good enough (because there were many reasons for their intervention); but looking at a political situation through a corporate viewpoint draws interesting parallels.
Who should instigate change? The internal staff (or citizens) or the external consultant/new CEO (revolutionary leader or attack/'invasion' by another country)? How can the change process be best managed -and what is the goal of that change? Interestingly I think looking at Iraq from a business point of view it's clear that the US (apologies for simplifying such a controversial and complex issue) had a vision for the 'post-change period', but had only though of the first few strategies for getting there, underestimated the time to complete the change, forgotten to think about what the impacts of the change might be on different stakeholders, ignored what the 'competition' might do, misjudged the time frame and so on. Anyone reading this could draw their own parallels to various situations.
The end of the day is that business knows how hard change is, there are thousands of models and theories and good and bad examples.. there are though some simple rules that most MBA schools will teach. But what about political change? Even looking at more modest changes, like a domestic election leading to a change in political party leadership, there seems to be no real understanding of how to create the change, what the vision is, what the strategies are and so on. At least, that is a very initial statement.
With deeper reflection, I believe that there are many successful cases of political change, and what seems to be common with all of them is that change was so desperately needed that it was simple and obvious to work out the details, the strategies, to get stakeholder support etc. Nowadays most western countries don't have serious need to change, therefore whatever supposed changes they initiate (and most mainstream parties in most developed democracies seem to be very alike) they are not very successful. Now if change was really needed then an extreme party (communist, fascist or whatever) would take over... therein lies the issue: these parties will take over once the need is great enough and they get enough support. However it is in the current mainstream parties interests to stop that from happening.
The competition in the corporate world is much greater; the need for change is often more pressing and more is at stake. Politically countries can afford somewhat to just be stable, making minor changes, and sometimes companies can do the same -other times companies cannot afford that whatsoever. So maybe politics needs to look at itself from a corporate viewpoint; to look at issues about stakeholders, visions and strategies, goals and accountability, 'change or die' perspectives, scenario planning, competitive analysis and so on. This is an interesting topic to explore more of in the future.
Meanwhile I'm more interested in the 'tipping point' that leads to successful changes.. when are what pressures so great that change happens? who instigates the change? was the change worthwhile? For me, time is the most important issue with change. Try to make the change quickly. Get it over with, then tweak it. Everyone will argue with change, no-one likes change, everyone is suspicious of new things and demands will change, pressures will change... so much will change as time drags on that the whole change process becomes based on a cause that has changed and a vision that is no longer relevant. So, responsible leaders need to understand this (no matter what they are leading), they need to prepare, research, strategise. But most of all they need to get their timing right. Make the change at the right time -get it finished when that time is still right.
Then start thinking about other issues in change mangement: expectation setting, vision setting, leadership, buy-in, progress communication, stakeholder participation and agreement etc etc. How much of this has ever been done politically? Only when the situation was so bad that enough people could easily identify the problem and the problem was so serious that it had to be changed NOW and quickly has political change been successful (of course other factors are useful too, like outside support or copying other successful models) -overall change is about time, and about need. Right now some of the world is slowly starting to realise that change is needed, and quickly, to stop climate change or HIV/AIDs. But the world is not there yet. The pressures for change are not direct enough, not important enough, not relevant enough to create the tipping point needed. Lets hope though that this change will come, it will come quickly, be done quick enough, and be successful. Isn't is scary to compare the battle in Iraq with the battle against HIV/AIDs?
When will the end come? Who really wants the end? Are those who have the means to end it willing to end it or do they know how to end it? Is it just getting worse? The longer it goes on, the worse it gets -that is for certain.
Friday, November 18, 2005
CSR is about strategy
Although you could look at CSR as common sense (and justifiably so), I prefer to look at it from a strategic perspective. From most of the people I have spoken to they can grasp what CSR is, but they still cannot quite grasp how it can be implemented strategically to the company's advantage.
Actually I find that most people have different definitions of strategies anyway, and unless you are at the head of an organisation, you never really get to really think about 'what a strategy is'. I believe a strategy is an idea of how to take the organisation forward. Normally I find that a strategy is just the detailed description of achieving a goal. This is important for sure, and maybe can be called a strategy -in which case my definition of a strategy can be looked at as a strategic strategy.
A Strategic strategy is thus a strategy that is often new, most definitely long-term thinking, definitely involves some kind of changes and should be related to the nature of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is the notion of how your organisation can be better than the competition. This requires identifying what the company has that others don't (it could be a certain patent, it could be a certain person, specific resource, or just an idea) and then exploiting that advantage to push the organisation ahead (it thus also requires an alaysis of who the competition are and what they are doing, as well as a similar internal analysis). A Strategic strategy is a strategy that specifically aims to ensure the company's growth and sustainability long-term, it looks to exploit an opportunity.
I think you'll understand what I mean if i continue with how I see CSR as a strategic strategy. A bad understanding of CSR is the notion of CSR as charity. A better understanding of CSR is the notion of CSR as new market opportunities or as comparative advantage. An excellent example of the former is GE's ecomagination initiative and of the latter is the Co-operative Bank. Briefly explained, GE wants to make more money whilst making the World a better place and the Co-operative Bank attracts more customers because it refuses to invest in certain companies, sell its products to certain customers and does a lot of other ethical/enviro-friendly initiatives in order to build its brand as distinct from its competition.
However, this is still not how I see CSR as about strategy (although both companies may actually see it my way, I don't know). I see CSR starting from the question how a company can be more responsible; and realising that a company must operate responsibly. But ideally if the company has positive impacts on society then it must ensure that the company continues to have that positive impact and thus continues to exist and increase that impact. Thus CSR is about the future, about building a sustainable business. From this premise the company needs to look at how it can survive and how it can grow and how it can continue to do this responsibly. This is the ultimate aim of CSR.
Below this the focus can be on the company's triple bottom line impacts, on its processes and operations, on its stakeholder engagement and so on. First companies must see CSR as a top line strategic strategy, then they can see how their processes can support this. Then they can look at what else is needed -such as how can we distinguish ourselves, how can we be more flexible, opportunist and creative. These ideas need to be thought through because they support the ultimate strategy of creating a lasting, responsible enterprise. Certainly these aspects are the core of CSR, but until the employees view these aspects as part of the broader, ultimate strategy, they will never quite understand CSR. They will continue to see just one of these aspects (Health and Safety for example) and most unfortunately they will fail to recognise that their HR activities, their reporting/accountability processes and more are a crucial part of CSR.
Since CSR is about doing good business, responsible leaders should understand this concept -of strategy and how CSR is related to that. Most importantly leaders should ensure those they are leading understand this. CSR should be used as a fad, as an excuse to drive an organisation forward, as a focus for generating ideas and improvements to the company: Ultimately as a way of bringing diverse ideas and components of an organisation together with the goal of making the organisation more sustainable.
Actually I find that most people have different definitions of strategies anyway, and unless you are at the head of an organisation, you never really get to really think about 'what a strategy is'. I believe a strategy is an idea of how to take the organisation forward. Normally I find that a strategy is just the detailed description of achieving a goal. This is important for sure, and maybe can be called a strategy -in which case my definition of a strategy can be looked at as a strategic strategy.
A Strategic strategy is thus a strategy that is often new, most definitely long-term thinking, definitely involves some kind of changes and should be related to the nature of comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is the notion of how your organisation can be better than the competition. This requires identifying what the company has that others don't (it could be a certain patent, it could be a certain person, specific resource, or just an idea) and then exploiting that advantage to push the organisation ahead (it thus also requires an alaysis of who the competition are and what they are doing, as well as a similar internal analysis). A Strategic strategy is a strategy that specifically aims to ensure the company's growth and sustainability long-term, it looks to exploit an opportunity.
I think you'll understand what I mean if i continue with how I see CSR as a strategic strategy. A bad understanding of CSR is the notion of CSR as charity. A better understanding of CSR is the notion of CSR as new market opportunities or as comparative advantage. An excellent example of the former is GE's ecomagination initiative and of the latter is the Co-operative Bank. Briefly explained, GE wants to make more money whilst making the World a better place and the Co-operative Bank attracts more customers because it refuses to invest in certain companies, sell its products to certain customers and does a lot of other ethical/enviro-friendly initiatives in order to build its brand as distinct from its competition.
However, this is still not how I see CSR as about strategy (although both companies may actually see it my way, I don't know). I see CSR starting from the question how a company can be more responsible; and realising that a company must operate responsibly. But ideally if the company has positive impacts on society then it must ensure that the company continues to have that positive impact and thus continues to exist and increase that impact. Thus CSR is about the future, about building a sustainable business. From this premise the company needs to look at how it can survive and how it can grow and how it can continue to do this responsibly. This is the ultimate aim of CSR.
Below this the focus can be on the company's triple bottom line impacts, on its processes and operations, on its stakeholder engagement and so on. First companies must see CSR as a top line strategic strategy, then they can see how their processes can support this. Then they can look at what else is needed -such as how can we distinguish ourselves, how can we be more flexible, opportunist and creative. These ideas need to be thought through because they support the ultimate strategy of creating a lasting, responsible enterprise. Certainly these aspects are the core of CSR, but until the employees view these aspects as part of the broader, ultimate strategy, they will never quite understand CSR. They will continue to see just one of these aspects (Health and Safety for example) and most unfortunately they will fail to recognise that their HR activities, their reporting/accountability processes and more are a crucial part of CSR.
Since CSR is about doing good business, responsible leaders should understand this concept -of strategy and how CSR is related to that. Most importantly leaders should ensure those they are leading understand this. CSR should be used as a fad, as an excuse to drive an organisation forward, as a focus for generating ideas and improvements to the company: Ultimately as a way of bringing diverse ideas and components of an organisation together with the goal of making the organisation more sustainable.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Disconnectedness
Some of you may have heard of the G8 (Group of 8 wealthiest nations) who meet yearly, and on occasion of their meeting in Scotland recently, there were several concerts around the globe organised to raise awareness of some key decisions those Leaders (India and China are also invited as observers) could make and their impact on poverty.
A recent online discussion took place with some comments on what these concerts did or did not achieve and why; and by taking on some of the thoughts I have developed some thoughts around the idea of disconnectedness which explains a lot of things, and is an important aspect for responsible leaders to bare in mind.
The example I will use is Climate Change and poverty. For climate Change, none of the people who are causing it (the 'west') are actually witnessing its consequences on them (more flooding in Bangladesh doesn't affect them, for example), and if some of the consequences do (for example a hurricane in Florida, USA) then there are always externalities that can be blamed -in the case of the weather, this is always unpredictable and it cannot easily be correlated with climate change, and the changes happening are gradual (not instant). All of this means people do not see the consequences of their actions.
With poverty, there are many charities showing videos of poverty in rich countries and these have an impact on people; who donate money. But, the amounts they donate have little real impact. What might have a bigger impact is buying products from those countries, changing trade rules and so on. Not only do people not donate more money (because although the pictures are horrific, they are only pictures) but they do not change other lifestyle/business options (since the impacts of these only indirectly affect them).
This idea, I believe, is universal; that unless you see a strong correlation (ie. relationship) between your individual actions and either individual or larger consequences then you won't change your actions in order to change the consequences. In a business concept one of the obvious applications to this idea, is how 1 person contributes to an organsiation.
Someone may steal some stationery, not seeing any impact, or they might make a decision with an impact on someone else, or in the future (so not affecting them). For the individual these actions make no difference, but for the organisations they do. Similarly when designing a business plan, the individual should see how they contribute to the whole, and how non-performance affects the bigger results.
Its important then to motivate people with incentives that are directly related to the individual's contribution. Its important for mutual accountability so that when someone does something, the results are noticeable (positive or negative). Think about what other situations this 'disconnectedness' occurs in and how you could remedy it -how can you change processes so that the inputs and outputs are closer aligned?
And if you can think of any ways of making poverty less disconnected for rich people, maybe we can find solutions to those kinds of problems too!
A recent online discussion took place with some comments on what these concerts did or did not achieve and why; and by taking on some of the thoughts I have developed some thoughts around the idea of disconnectedness which explains a lot of things, and is an important aspect for responsible leaders to bare in mind.
The example I will use is Climate Change and poverty. For climate Change, none of the people who are causing it (the 'west') are actually witnessing its consequences on them (more flooding in Bangladesh doesn't affect them, for example), and if some of the consequences do (for example a hurricane in Florida, USA) then there are always externalities that can be blamed -in the case of the weather, this is always unpredictable and it cannot easily be correlated with climate change, and the changes happening are gradual (not instant). All of this means people do not see the consequences of their actions.
With poverty, there are many charities showing videos of poverty in rich countries and these have an impact on people; who donate money. But, the amounts they donate have little real impact. What might have a bigger impact is buying products from those countries, changing trade rules and so on. Not only do people not donate more money (because although the pictures are horrific, they are only pictures) but they do not change other lifestyle/business options (since the impacts of these only indirectly affect them).
This idea, I believe, is universal; that unless you see a strong correlation (ie. relationship) between your individual actions and either individual or larger consequences then you won't change your actions in order to change the consequences. In a business concept one of the obvious applications to this idea, is how 1 person contributes to an organsiation.
Someone may steal some stationery, not seeing any impact, or they might make a decision with an impact on someone else, or in the future (so not affecting them). For the individual these actions make no difference, but for the organisations they do. Similarly when designing a business plan, the individual should see how they contribute to the whole, and how non-performance affects the bigger results.
Its important then to motivate people with incentives that are directly related to the individual's contribution. Its important for mutual accountability so that when someone does something, the results are noticeable (positive or negative). Think about what other situations this 'disconnectedness' occurs in and how you could remedy it -how can you change processes so that the inputs and outputs are closer aligned?
And if you can think of any ways of making poverty less disconnected for rich people, maybe we can find solutions to those kinds of problems too!
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Decision Making
Having mentioned accountability before, it is interesting to note the recent European Constitution discussions, in that there is a big focus on decision making. Some countries' parliaments have decided on behalf of the country, other countries have decided to let their people say in a referendum. There are arguments for and against referendums in various circumstances, and they make for interesting reading.
Having elected a government, should you trust them to make the right decisions? If you elect a government based on their manifesto, are they only allowed to do what they wrote in their manifesto (and thus extra decisions need to be voted on)? and so on.
Its interesting from a leadership point of view to draw parallels with leadership styles -how much do you involve your stakeholders (or voters), how much do you listen to them and how much should they control what you do? Without a detailed analysis of the development of business's decision-making it seems clear that what has developed is supposed to be the most efficient.
This means that since there are so many stakeholders it might not be sensible for them all to have some say in how the business is run, but just to let those who should know best to make the decisions (presuming they are making them for the good of the business and not for themselves). A separation of the decision makers from the stakeholders can therefore be a good thing (within reason). However it might also be that if someone can create a better way for stakeholders to have their say, to create the right long vs. short term focus, to create an environment whereby different opinions can be discussed and somehow lead to an agreement then maybe the decision making in businesses would change.
So far, no-one has managed that. For a start, stakeholders are so numerous, with such varied motives and powers that its nigh impossible to create an agreement amongst them. Most businesses are based on the idea that 1 set of stakeholders (shareholders) hold the most power and the rest voice their opinion in a less direct way (through the media, through consumer groups, through lobbying, through buying or not buying etc).
However, as some countries political leaders are realising the internet can be used to create forums for discussion, to create opportunities for feedback and to create much easier ways to 'vote' on decisions. In that, if it takes months or years to organise an election physically, it could be done virtually in minutes with the promotion/education not requiring printing or distribution and with the administration of a vote done online with automatic counting. Thus should leaders embrace the internet to look into new models of decision making?
Its clear that there is a delicate balance between everything: between voting on every minor decision and not voting at all are 2 extremes. Voting on a new CEO but not voting for the Head of Asia for example is a narrower line.
Leaders certainly need to engage with stakeholders and take their opinions into account when making decisions; and leaders must use their own judgment to decide what opinions to listen to and what weight to be placed on each. Indeed, an element of objectivity is often crucial, if not impossible to actually possess.
When you are making decisions, who will they impact? who will have a say in them? who are you listening to and what biases are distorting your vision? Is your decision-making style consultative or dictative?
Having elected a government, should you trust them to make the right decisions? If you elect a government based on their manifesto, are they only allowed to do what they wrote in their manifesto (and thus extra decisions need to be voted on)? and so on.
Its interesting from a leadership point of view to draw parallels with leadership styles -how much do you involve your stakeholders (or voters), how much do you listen to them and how much should they control what you do? Without a detailed analysis of the development of business's decision-making it seems clear that what has developed is supposed to be the most efficient.
This means that since there are so many stakeholders it might not be sensible for them all to have some say in how the business is run, but just to let those who should know best to make the decisions (presuming they are making them for the good of the business and not for themselves). A separation of the decision makers from the stakeholders can therefore be a good thing (within reason). However it might also be that if someone can create a better way for stakeholders to have their say, to create the right long vs. short term focus, to create an environment whereby different opinions can be discussed and somehow lead to an agreement then maybe the decision making in businesses would change.
So far, no-one has managed that. For a start, stakeholders are so numerous, with such varied motives and powers that its nigh impossible to create an agreement amongst them. Most businesses are based on the idea that 1 set of stakeholders (shareholders) hold the most power and the rest voice their opinion in a less direct way (through the media, through consumer groups, through lobbying, through buying or not buying etc).
However, as some countries political leaders are realising the internet can be used to create forums for discussion, to create opportunities for feedback and to create much easier ways to 'vote' on decisions. In that, if it takes months or years to organise an election physically, it could be done virtually in minutes with the promotion/education not requiring printing or distribution and with the administration of a vote done online with automatic counting. Thus should leaders embrace the internet to look into new models of decision making?
Its clear that there is a delicate balance between everything: between voting on every minor decision and not voting at all are 2 extremes. Voting on a new CEO but not voting for the Head of Asia for example is a narrower line.
Leaders certainly need to engage with stakeholders and take their opinions into account when making decisions; and leaders must use their own judgment to decide what opinions to listen to and what weight to be placed on each. Indeed, an element of objectivity is often crucial, if not impossible to actually possess.
When you are making decisions, who will they impact? who will have a say in them? who are you listening to and what biases are distorting your vision? Is your decision-making style consultative or dictative?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Accountability
So Tony Blair got elected again, despite some sources maintaining that the opposition party (Conservatives) actually got more votes. Well, he didn't cheat, but he running a system whereby those who he is directly accountable to -the people, do not seem to have much of a say in his performance.
Now, I am not saying that it is easy to create a democratic system; since every country has a different one, there is obviously no right method. However I do believe that there should be pressure for reform if the system is functioning so badly.
Accountability is crucial. How can he claim to represent the majority of the British people if he does not? Therefore he should govern the country on the principle that he represents only 20% of the population. Thus the rest of the population should have a way of expressing their opinion in order to represent themselves, and this could be through a demonstration, like the 1 million people (of a total population of 60 million) who protested about Iraq. That is a sizable number, should they be taken more seriously if they march again, since now the government would have to listen to them more (before Tony Blai actually did have a bigger proportion of the public who supported him).
Every organisation needs to be accountable. To who, is an interesting question, and one that brings up the topic of stakeholders. Who are stakeholders, who are the most important, how can you represent them or engage with them, how can you be transparent with them and how can you ensure you do not operate as to create a conflict between stakeholders?
Responsible leaders need to pay close attention to these issues -they need to think about their accountability, and choose an option that is suitable. Unfortunately its harder to me more precise than that, since different types of organisations, and they are distinguished based on their accountability. Needless to say all organisations should ensure that the accountability method they have selected is working as intended. If not, maybe its time to reconsider. Who are you responsible for? How can you be responsible to them?
Now, I am not saying that it is easy to create a democratic system; since every country has a different one, there is obviously no right method. However I do believe that there should be pressure for reform if the system is functioning so badly.
Accountability is crucial. How can he claim to represent the majority of the British people if he does not? Therefore he should govern the country on the principle that he represents only 20% of the population. Thus the rest of the population should have a way of expressing their opinion in order to represent themselves, and this could be through a demonstration, like the 1 million people (of a total population of 60 million) who protested about Iraq. That is a sizable number, should they be taken more seriously if they march again, since now the government would have to listen to them more (before Tony Blai actually did have a bigger proportion of the public who supported him).
Every organisation needs to be accountable. To who, is an interesting question, and one that brings up the topic of stakeholders. Who are stakeholders, who are the most important, how can you represent them or engage with them, how can you be transparent with them and how can you ensure you do not operate as to create a conflict between stakeholders?
Responsible leaders need to pay close attention to these issues -they need to think about their accountability, and choose an option that is suitable. Unfortunately its harder to me more precise than that, since different types of organisations, and they are distinguished based on their accountability. Needless to say all organisations should ensure that the accountability method they have selected is working as intended. If not, maybe its time to reconsider. Who are you responsible for? How can you be responsible to them?
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Running a responsible corporation
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)