Loyalty

D

Departed

Guest
Why loyalty is like your bathroom scale
COLLEEN ALBISTON
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jun. 22 2014, 7:00 PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Jun. 20 2014, 6:04 PM EDT

This column is part of Globe Careers’ Leadership Lab series, where executives and experts share their views and advice about leadership and management. Follow us at @Globe_Careers. Find all Leadership Lab stories at tgam.ca/leadershiplab

It started as a conversation over dinner with an accomplished group of peers from around the world about millennials – whether they will pursue their careers in a single company or, as someone suggested, “make a guest appearance” – but it soon turned into an animated debate about what constitutes the most important attribute in a work relationship.

We all agreed that loyalty is the thing we value above all else.

Loyalty is a trait that rises above an MBA from the best school or insight gained from time with a competitor. It’s more important than the highly sought understanding of data analytics or the willingness to pull an all-nighter.

After working remotely for a year with some members of this group on a project, it was also clear that we felt loyalty – to each other and to the leader-among-equals with whom we were working.

So what does loyalty look like?

Loyalty is clear, like glass.

Our group had a level of transparency between us. We shared knowledge and information. We passed our ideas like batons in a relay race. The candour and pace of sharing information was refreshing. It’s risky to share information that could harm you if used outside its intended purpose or outside the group. But in return for this trust, you get valuable feedback that has the benefit of broader thinking.

Loyalty is dependable, like your first bike.

We honoured our commitments to each other, showing up prepared and on time. Our meetings were often called on short notice and at inconvenient times, and sometimes involved plane rides and sleep-robbing time zones. Yet despite how busy we all were, it was rare for someone not to make a meeting. It felt important to be there – to contribute, to be helpful and to be loyal to the cause, the leader and each other.

Loyalty is honest, like your bathroom scale.

It won’t always tell you what you want to hear, but it gives you information you trust and keeps you coming back for more. As a group, we challenged the ideas on the table, and each other. Respectfully, but loudly, we debated the merits of the direction we would recommend. Most of us would live with the final decision for years, so we were not shy about expressing our concerns or our ideas to make it a little bit better.

We respected and liked each other. I felt confident that, even if the end result did not go the way some of us wanted, we would fully support and adopt it. When the leader presented our recommendation to the executive committee – with all the investment and commitment that went into it – she never doubted there was a loyal team behind her.

I believe that millennials will do just fine – with the boomers, and the Gen Xers and Gen Yers – if they take loyalty to heart. Indeed, the whole alphabet of us will do just fine if we do the same.

Whether you stay at one company for your entire career (a definition of loyalty from an earlier time) or make a guest appearance; whether you lock into a department or join an agile work team as a consultant; or whether you work from a distant shore or in a cube farm, one way to move ahead is to remember the value of loyalty.

Find the people who will be loyal to you and the people to whom you will be loyal. They might not seem obvious at first, so choose them carefully. True loyalty is not a one-way street; if it only flows only one way, it is at the expense of another person.

When you find your people, do your best work with them. Have their backs, share your knowledge and challenge their ideas. Go to them with your biggest problems. Have the tough conversations and see how they handle them, what kind of advice they give and the level of confidentiality they observe.

Think of them like your family – but please don’t mistake this for favouritism, which implies preferential treatment that has not been earned.

Loyalty is a gift worth giving – and a wonderful thing to receive in return.

Colleen Albiston (@clalbiston) is the chief marketing officer at Deloitte Canada (@DeloitteCanada), a professional services firms that provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/leadership-lab/why-loyalty-is-like-your-bathroom-scale/article19273910/
 
As long as people understand that loyalty is built on mutual respect and respect has to be earnt, then all is right with the World... :35:
 
spurdon - 25/6/2014 15:37

I don't understand the concept of corporate loyalty at all if I'm honest.

Corporate loyalty is about people and people create a culture.

Read Steve Jobs authorised biography and Jonny Ives story; you'll get what culture can create then and how it engenders corporate loyalty.
 
You misunderstand me I know what it means. I just can not conceive of any kind of loyalty to any corporate entity. Loyalty is indeed about individuals friends family to wider society, but to an organisation that exists to enrich it's shareholders...hmmm nah not for me. It is antithetical to near enough all I believe in.
 
spurdon - 26/6/2014 15:11

You misunderstand me I know what it means. I just can not conceive of any kind of loyalty to any corporate entity. Loyalty is indeed about individuals friends family to wider society, but to an organisation that exists to enrich it's shareholders...hmmm nah not for me. It is antithetical to near enough all I believe in.

In companies with a positive culture, those that stand out are where it's shareholders are it's employees and it's employees are it's shareholders...

Of course if making a profit is against your principles or your politics then I understand why you don't get it..
 
The word profit is so easily misconstrued. Organizations need to create excess funds to pay people to perform R and D. If this was not happening society would not be able to move forward or have the ability to solve the problems created by lower mortality rates.
 
Things are looking up....WAY up......

Is it the end of the imperial CEO?
Theresa Tedesco | June 28, 2014 7:31 AM ET

JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon, General Electric's Jack Welch and Research in Motion's Jim Balsillie: They are all superstar figures, known as much by name as for their business prowess.

General Electric’s Jack Welch. Research in Motion’s Jim Balsillie. And Wall Street investment banker Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase. They are all superstar figures, known as much by name as for their business prowess. As chief executives they shaped corporate agendas and created a cult of personality that transcended their companies. Ditto for that special breed of founder-CEO, such as Lululemon’s Chip Wilson, American Apparel’s recently ousted Dov Charney and auto-parts magnate Frank Stronach of Magna International, whose antics have entertained and shocked investors over the years, often at the same time.

But the imperial CEO is increasingly less prized in these post-recession years. The so-called chief ego officers and their high-handed leadership style, so prevalent during the past 20 years, now look out of place and out of touch in the age of aggressive shareholder activism and social media.

In their place, highly acclaimed “nice guys” such as Satya Nadella, who succeeded larger-than-life Steve Ballmer as Microsoft Corp.’s chief in February, are ascending to the top job as corporate boards increasingly take the view that the potential returns generated from the qualities of humility and self-effacement likely exceed those linked to high profile and celebrity.

“Everyone is very focused on credibility and not celebrity and that’s a big part of how boards envision the job of CEO today,” said Leslie Gaines-Ross, a New York-based chief reputation strategist who has extensively researched executive and corporate reputation.

“The trend is toward a more emotionally intelligent leader who can understand, get, appreciate and value his or her people,” added Eric Schiffer, a U.S. consultant who advises Fortune 500 companies. “A high profile doesn’t matter; being down to earth is what matters.”

As companies across Canada and the U.S. transition senior executives in and out of the corner office, either through planned succession or forced terminations because of scandal, crisis or poor performance, the pendulum is gently swinging in favour of a compassionate, benevolent chief executive and away from the imperial boss. This is especially true in industries that are highly regulated, such as financial, as well as in the retail and consumer sectors where likeability is vital.

New leaders are expected to be self-deprecating and collaborative team builders who can successfully execute corporate strategy below the public radar. And profiles are cultivated and nurtured as a means to an end — advancing the business — not just to burnish the image of an individual.

“People aren’t willing to accept self-serving people in top jobs anymore, so boards are putting a lot more thought into choosing the right person to set the tone at the top,” said Richard Powers, senior lecturer at the University of Toronto’s Joseph L. Rotman School of Management.

Changes in the rules governing the accountability and liability of boards have played a major role in motivating directors to rein in their managers. As shareholders increasingly hold directors responsible for guiding corporations, the folks gathered around boardroom tables are tightening the leash on their top executives, especially if that person is also chairman of the board.

Another critical factor is the damage caused by the reputation dents many companies endured after the 2008 financial crisis. Nowhere is that more obvious than on Wall Street, long a breeding ground for alpha dogs. The banking industry, having been brought to its knees six years ago, is now subject to hyper scrutiny from regulators and the public.

Unlike the halcyon years prior to the credit-market collapse in 2008, few companies now want their CEOs to be the prominent face of an industry that is under siege.

For example, Michael Corbat, who replaced high-profile Vikram Pandit as head of global banking powerhouse Citigroup in 2012 after a boardroom clash, is largely unrecognized in Manhattan, eschews the well-heeled eateries frequented by his competitors, declines to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and recently apologized to shareholders that Citigroup failed a recent stress test, an important measure of success in U.S. banking, according to the New York Times.

“There are many ways to build a reputation other than on a glossy magazine cover,” said Ms. Gaines-Ross. Today, schmoozing with the rich, powerful and famous in Davos is out; while trade association conferences are in because that’s where customers and business prospects tend to roam, she said.

Yet CEOs do need to build some kind of presence because a company’s reputation is so linked to that of its leaders. But that bruising from the recession has placed a higher premium on integrity and made many boards more sensitive to communication risks.

The Internet and social media have helped foster an environment where every comment is magnified, dissected and criticized, which is why the days of the CEO as a media darling musing about matters unrelated to the business are dwindling.

It’s about striking a balance. New York-based governance expert Beverly Behan said many of the major corporations she advises on succession planning don’t want an individual star, but they don’t want a wallflower either.

“Any CEO needs to demonstrate a certain level of confidence, leadership and charisma to rally people to their cause,” Ms. Behan noted. “If you’re sitting humbly in the corner office largely invisible, that doesn’t work either.”

Clearly, some high-profile leaders have been a huge boon to their businesses. Consider Richard Branson, founder and chief executive of Virgin Group Ltd., who has been universally credited with successfully connecting with customers, senior leadership teams and front-line workers.

Besides, as Mr. Schiffer cautioned, sometimes a public image may be deceiving. “You can be low key and still be a tyrant,” he said, while it’s possible “to have a CEO with a healthy ego that has not let his or her ego run amok.”

Ultimately, boards are increasingly searching for a charismatic leader with presence, yet isn’t a showboat; someone who is decisive and yet collaborative.

For example, Microsoft’s Mr. Nadella has sound technical credentials, is well respected on Wall Street, charismatic and still low profile, having toiled inside Microsoft’s hugely profitable Cloud Enterprise division. Yet at the time of his appointment in February, the 46-year-old was prominently described as “one of the nicest guys you could meet,” and one “who cares about his people and his team.”

In China, e-commerce giant Alibaba Group named Jonathan Lu, a virtual unknown and company lifer, to replace outgoing Jack Ma, the rock star of that country’s Internet industry, famous for inviting celebrities such as actor and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to speak at company events. Mr. Lu was unveiled in March 2013 and the company’s press release described him as a “low-profile” leader.

Still, governance experts agree that while the pendulum is swinging away from the imperial leader, they caution there are risks if it swings too far in the opposite direction.

Most notably, it could diminish and weaken the top position by making it less attractive to lure top talent. After all, the buck has to stop somewhere and a company, its employees and stakeholders need to know exactly where.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/28/is-it-the-end-of-the-imperial-ceo/?__lsa=9153-3137