Already a member?
Sign in
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 11 2006, 12:18 AM EST (current) | Patty | 2 photos added |
| Dec 3 2006, 6:28 PM EST | Patty |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
 |
“To laugh often and love much; to win the respect of intelligent persons and the affection of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give of one’s self; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm and sung with exultation; to know that one life has breathed easier because you have lived—this is to have succeeded.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson*
THIS WEEK I WAS DELIVERING A SPEECH AT A MIDWEST company as an opening to an offsite retreat. The head of the business unit introduced me, and in his introduction, he said, “Remember, we’re not here to be nice people. We’re here to produce shareholder value, to make the stock more valuable. That’s why corporations exist. That is the only measure by which we succeed or fail as a company, and by which we succeed or fail as leaders.”
I want to pose a question to you: Do you really believe that? Do organizations exist only to move up the stock price? Don’t organizations exist to serve a need? Maybe the needs of a consumer who wants a dishwasher to save time and energy. Maybe the needs of another business that needs a widget to operate a key piece of machinery that delivers mail on time. Maybe a drug that cures cancer, or a breakfast bar that is easy to eat on the go.… There are a million products and services, and without serving a need or desire, those products and services disappear quickly in a competitive marketplace. As a leader, is the only value you provide that of building shareholder value?
There is a new movement afoot, one that questions this “Wall Street only” definition of success in business. The proponents of it are many: Companies like Anheuser-Busch, British Airways, The Body Shop, Diageo, General Motors, Mead, Shell, Patagonia, Starbucks and many others are using more than just Wall Street to measure their success. They are following a growing trend by reporting on economic, environmental and social dimensions of their activities, products and services. One catchphrase for this new way of looking at corporate success is the “triple bottom line,” and we can all use a dose of it to prompt great thinking about how we benefit the world through our leadership.
The triple bottom line measures impact on three levels:
- economic
- social
- environmental
When you think about your own life and work, how would your contribution to your organization measure up? How have you helped the organization to grow economically? How have you helped the organization to serve the community or the greater good?
You may respond, “I help the company grow economically every day, and how am I going to take time out of doing that to ‘serve’?!” I want to challenge that idea for you. Think of a time when you were extremely successful at a given job. My guess is that you succeeded because you were giving of yourself in some way—you were fully engaged, focused and ready to deliver. You were calm and centered, and you knew what you were doing was important in some way.
Success doesn’t always mean making the most money, having the most toys or being the highest on the company ladder. Success is better defined by other currencies: time, relationships, influence, power and survival in a challenging global environment, and by our contribution to society.
As leaders, one of our key functions is to set an example for the people we lead. Not all of these people will achieve the same level of wealth, prestige or power that you have. What inspires people is not your material possessions, but the kind of person you are. Do you live up to your word? Do you set the kind of example people want to follow? And, in the words of a wise executive I once met, “Am I making this the kind of company I’d want my kids to work for?”
All of us leave a legacy. For some, it means an inheritance for our children or grandchildren. For others, it means an organization, program or service we’ve created that we will hand over to those who come next. Legendary entrepreneur Charles Schwab has not just created a successful for-profit investment organization, he has also developed corporate giving programs and a family foundation that funds not-for-profit groups providing opportunities to disadvantaged and learning-disabled kids. Schwab himself was saddled with paralyzing dyslexia as a child. Who knows? He may be helping to develop the next Charles Schwab through his charitable works. What is the legacy you’re building for future generations as a leader?
How do you define success?
Resources
* While this quote is widely attributed to Emerson, many scholars do not believe it to be his.
Success is better defined by other currencies: time, relationships, influence, power and survival in a challenging global environment, and by our contribution to society.How Nike “Just did it.” Looking for inspiration from corporations that already incorporate social responsibility into their definitions of success? “The Path to Corporate Responsibility” by Simon Zadek in the December 2004 issue of Harvard Business Review (www.hbr.org), details how companies evolve into model citizens, using Nike as an example. When activists charged Nike in 1992 with unacceptable working conditions in their suppliers’ factories, Nike’s first response was defensive, saying many other companies were guilty of the same practices. It didn’t take long to realize this response would not make the charges go away, nor would it solve what the company acknowledged was a problem. Over the next 10 years, the athletic gear company struggled with how to right the wrongs, going through five organizational growth stages and learning from what didn’twork, often finding the root of the problem farther up in the management chain than expected. For example, they found that performance incentives for procurement teams were based on price, quality and delivery times. This undermined the company’s own efforts to comply with its code of conduct because it encouraged buyers to circumvent the code. Today, Zadek considers Nike to be in the “civil” organizational stage, promoting broad industry participation in corporate responsibility. Zadek does ask whether doing good pays off. Corporations engaging in the process have considered the expense of corporate responsibility to be an element of the cost of doing business. The bottom line, though, is that doing good does not necessarily make a difference in stock value. Instead, Zadek says, “In the short term…variations in financial performance are usually attributable to business fundamentals, such as design, cost of sales and market forecasting.” But, he adds, “As with any business opportunity, the chances to make money by being good must be created, not found.” —Nancy Branka |
