Profitably Healthy Companies: Principles of Organizational Growth and Development

We, admittedly, are partial to the Burke-Litwin organizational model, however, with good reason. The backbone of the model, which we have reproduced in figure 11.1, expressly tethers organizational success to leadership and specifically claims that the leadership-performance connection is mediated by culture. Thus, leaders enhance performance by developing a climate that is conducive to high performance. This intuitive set of relationships between leadership, culture, and performance has been of keen interest to researchers for some time and will occupy most of our attention in this chapter.

The popular press consistently stresses the dependence of organizational success on culture. Bestselling business books routinely tout the imperative of culture to organizational performance, such as Corporate Cultures by Deal and Kennedy, Theory Z by Ouchi, In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman, Built to Last by Porras and Collins, and Good to Great by Collins.3 Fortune’s annual roll call of the best companies to work for is based on anonymous employee reports of the culture under the implicit assumption that healthy cultures are associated with financial success.⁴ Corporate executives certainly are believers in that claim. Some 92 percent of them believe that culture is directly related to firm value.⁵

As an invisible social force with profound effects on behavior, the importance of culture as an integral complement to strategy, control systems, authority structures, and such makes sense.⁶ As we have made clear throughout the book, shared beliefs and values reduce the transaction costs associated with communal goals. In particular, companies with strong cultures—beliefs, norms, and values that are thoroughly and deeply engrained in the organization—delegate and communicate more, require less internal monitoring, coordinate activities more swiftly and effectively, rely less on influence tactics to get things done, and produce more satisfied and motivated employees.⁷

One of the most exhaustive studies of culture was performed by John Kotter and James Heskett who tracked the cultures and performance of comparable companies over four years.⁸ The results showed that companies with healthy cultures had about five times the sales and ten times the stock returns over the period examined. Other studies with more modest timelines similarly demonstrate the tie between culture and financial performance.⁹ For example, an ambitious study of thirty-two high-technology companies showed that the traits of CEOs are directly related to culture, which, in turn, was related to both financial (e.g., revenue growth, Tobin’s Q) and nonfinancial (e.g., analyst recommendations, employee attitudes) outcomes.¹⁰ Sufficient evidence has accumulated to suggest that culture, indeed, is a factor in organizational performance,11 especially when companies have a clear mission, a penchant for teamwork, and homogeneous and strong cultures (i.e., commonly and robustly felt).¹² Furthermore, a summary of this research attributes strong cultures to healthy, effective leadership.¹³ Indeed, research shows that the cultures companies develop are largely associated with the personality traits and actions of executives.¹⁴ In fact, about a third of the variability of cultural attitudes and beliefs can be traced to management’s personal proclivities and practices.¹⁵ Thus, leaders distill and frame the complexities of the world into prototypical behaviors that characterize desired meanings that others experience as culture.¹⁶

The criticality of culture may be felt most acutely when organizations merge, and a mismatch in cultures results. Although the reasons and percentages for merger failures vary by industry and type of merger (e.g., focused versus diversification), it is conceivable that about 70 percent of all mergers fail to produce the financial results expected, and some are just plain ruinous.¹⁷ For example, when Daimler acquired Chrysler, the deal was hailed as a merger of equals and blessed by the respective boards. At the time of the acquisition, both companies were profitable. By the time Daimler shed Chrysler, Chrysler’s value had declined by roughly three-quarters over a nine-year span—a direct loss of $37 billion.¹⁸ Both companies grossly underestimated the cultural divide that followed the purchase. First, Daimler assumed much more strategic and operational control than an association between equals would have resembled. The disillusioned employees at Chrysler watched as careers were derailed, promotions overruled, and expectations thwarted. Second, the formal and highly structured management styles at Daimler were at odds with the more free-flowing and relaxed styles at Chrysler. Every practice from administration of pay to the reimbursement of travel expenses became a new source of irritation to Chrysler employees. Thus, began widespread disaffection, critical employee departures, and a consistent unraveling of the venture until Daimler’s only alternative was to salvage what they could of the remains.¹⁹

Everyone who has worked in an organization knows the affective power of leadership and culture, both good and bad. The clearest, most direct evidence for the effects of leaders on performance is from team-level analyses that examine how positive and negative supervisory behaviors influence groups. On one hand, several studies have documented the adverse effects of abusive supervision and incivility on employees’ mental and physical health, job satisfaction, and performance.20 One grim illustration of the ill effects of incivility comes from a recent medical simulation. Twenty-four teams from neonatal units throughout Israel took part in a simulation in which a mannequin connected to medical instrumentation was depicted as suffering from a serious but common disorder called necrotizing enterocolitis, a condition in which bowel tissue disintegrates. The teams’ task was to diagnose and treat the infant. Ostensibly, an expert was observing the teams’ performance and could communicate with the teams. In the control condition, the expert made no extraordinary comments. In the rude condition, however, the expert exclaimed that the quality of medicine in Israel was poor and that the team would not last a week in his department. The results: composite diagnostic and procedural performance scores were significantly lower for members of teams exposed to rudeness than the scores of members of the control teams, thereby showing how modest doses of incivility can impair medical care.²¹ Uncivil oversight fractures psychological safety within teams and disrupts healthy exchanges among team members.²² In the simulation, teams in the rude condition were less likely to share information and seek help.

On the other hand, supportive, inclusive management practices that provide assurances of safety allow people to take reasonable risks, make mistakes, speak up and challenge the status quo, ask for help and request resources, and contribute in ways one thinks best without fear of reprisals or being undermined.²³ These senses of security are conveyed by egalitarian workplaces that downplay power differentials, enforce norms of respect, encourage the approachability and accessibility of executives, and invite give-and-take feedback in considerate, constructive ways. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that groups that are able to produce safe environments have members who more openly and beneficially interact, learn and grow, display greater creativity, and conceive of themselves as potent and efficacious actors.²⁴ This translates into better individual and organizational performance and lower turnover.²⁵ Companies have good reasons to make people feel safe.

Unfortunately, once incivility and uglier forms of misconduct are released into the workplace, the plague spreads.²⁶ Coworkers and other observers who witness the mistreatment of colleagues are affected. These third parties experience increased stress and lower morale, mental health, productivity, and commitment to the company, and they perform more poorly on problem-solving and creativity tasks.27 Furthermore, team performance is impaired as the effects of abusive supervision of some members of the team spread to adversely affect other members.²⁸ Incivility has expansive, destructive consequences. It is fair to say that incivility is contagious, ominously spreading its dark culture throughout organizations and into family life.²⁹ We describe a particularly pernicious form of leadership in table 11.2 called the dark triad.³⁰ This composite of traits, when exhibited by CEOs, has been found to disrupt the smooth workings of top management teams and to have cascading negative effects on attitudes throughout the organization.³¹

Many theories exist about the attributes that make a superb leader. We have summarized several of these in box 11.1 and applied a rudimentary classification to distinguish among these theories. These theories have both distinct and overlapping characteristics and have slightly different organizational aims and functions. Some of these theories concentrate on personality and some focus on facets of leadership that are believed to directly influence employee motivation.

Years ago, we interviewed twenty-five CEOs known for their kindness—and effectiveness—and distilled the text of those conversations into six traits: compassion, integrity, gratitude, authenticity, humility, and humor.³⁶ These are not all-inclusive traits but are traits that make superior leadership possible. For example, we list humility as one of our virtues. As it happens, humble leaders are more likely than less-than-humble leaders to stimulate innovation by creating an environment in which people more readily help one another and process information in more balanced, unbiased ways.37 Indeed, a recent meta-analysis shows that these leaders who are quite literally grounded (humus—the root for humility—is Latin for earth) significantly reduce counterproductive work behaviors—behaviors that are contrary to the interests of the organization.³⁸ All of the traits we list have concomitant research that connects the importance of the trait to the outcome measures of import to organizations—mediated by what the trait enables leaders to do. Again, our original set of traits was incomplete, and we have since enlarged the set to include other traits with clear links to performance, such as conscientiousness,³⁹ which is one of the main factors on the Big Five personality inventory that assesses achievement motivations and self-discipline, and is one of the most consistent predictors of leadership effectiveness.⁴⁰ (Energy, self-confidence, and decisiveness rounds out our current list of leadership traits.)

In returning to the Burke-Litwin model, a major, overlooked feature of their model is that they separate the leader from leadership. Several organizational experts have since made the same point: leadership is not possessed by an individual but rather is a social construction of the leader.⁴¹ Leadership has a “thing-ness” that emerges from a host of social relations in which the leader is engaged and the multiplicity of decisions that they make by which leadership is materialized.⁴² Character counts, but only insofar as it enables followers to see what a leader has to offer. A leader with odious dispositions or indecent inclinations would prohibit others from appreciating what leaders have to say no matter how good they otherwise are. A person’s true character, if known, can either create a barrier to communications or facilitate the flow.

This raises the question, “What exactly is the materiality of leadership?” Stated differently, “How will we know good leadership when we see it?” Our answer hinges on our view of leadership as an open concept.⁴³ This notion is borrowed from Wittgenstein’s idea of family resemblances, in which he claims that the necessary and sufficient conditions for some concepts cannot be specified. He used games as an example: there are many different kinds of games that have common properties that allow us to categorize them as “games, but none have the exact same features.”⁴⁴ We believe that, like games, a precise definition of leadership cannot be stated. Any one definition will leave something out that another theorist will believe central. This is readily seen in the list of competing theories we provided in box 11.1. The best we can do, therefore, is name the criteria that would qualify a person as a leader and to render an opinion about the quality of their leadership based on those criteria. This is similar to the way we evaluate other things in our lives. By way of example, say you go to a movie with friends. Afterward, each person renders an opinion on what they just watched. Experienced movie-goers will back their opinions by appealing to certain aspects of the movie, such as character development, plot, costume design, and sound. The informed viewer is equipped with a set of criteria that they apply to render an opinion to which similarly informed viewers will, mostly, agree. Additionally, although we use the same criteria to evaluate movies, not all criteria will be equally relevant to each movie or weighted in precisely in the same manner by every critic. We would not apply the criteria as stringently to the maker of a student film as an experienced director.

The criteria we developed is based on our knowledge of the leadership literature as well as criteria that have been developed in other evaluative domains, mainly the arts.45 These criteria provide the foundation for a sensible discussion about who is good and who is not. This set of criteria allows informed observers to distinguish the exceptional from the ordinary and provides a language to communicate the differences. On the positive side, for example, leadership may be described as inspiring, consistent, creative, unique, passionate, and engaging. Alternatively, leadership may be perceived as unpleasant, phony, inept, unfocused, boorish, and pedestrian. Evaluative terms like these serve as the bases for some consensus about what constitutes greatness.

So, let us suggest the following twelve criteria for judging the artistry of leaders:

Perhaps the best exemplary case of an incomplete leader involves charisma, a term introduced into the leadership lexicon by Max Weber.46 Charismatic leaders exude confidence; however, not all charismatic leaders are good and effective. They all have a knack for invigorating employees through their colorful visions of the future and motiving them toward a common goal.⁴⁷ There are, however, two types of charismatic leaders. Some are focused on the social good and the welfare of people, whereas others have a strong strain of Machiavellianism and narcissism who craftily advocate outlooks best suited to their personal interests—combined with severe deficits in competence.48 In fact, studies show that these latter charismatics become so enamored with their inspiring ideas that they are completely out of touch with operational demands.⁴⁹ The differences between competent and incompetent charismatics are hard to detect at first. Without keen discernment, both kinds of leaders initially are believable, often giving the ersatz leader time to flee before discovered. In fact, people frequently overweight leaders’ confident message delivery over content (judge a book by its cover) when determining their competence, and erringly mistake glibness for leadership.⁵⁰ For example, Billy McFarland was twenty-five when he convinced people to partake in a stupendous party in the Bahamas called Fyre Festival. Like Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, he convinced investors to chase his dream and employees to keep working despite their reservations. Ultimately, the gourmet cuisine Billy promised was a slice of cheese on bread (with rudimentary side salad) and the luxury accommodations he assured were leftover tents from a hurricane relief cache.⁵¹

Notably absent from our list of leadership criteria is results. Our point is that, yes, we expect good leaders to win against rivals and have a tangible product to show for their efforts, but we would not appreciate them as leaders unless their process had some identifiable quality that made them and their work worthy of our admiration. To succeed as a leader, they must orchestrate the company’s activities and create a relationship with their people in ways that demand respect for the skill involved. That is, the evidence must show that the results were achieved through genuine strengths attributable to the leader.

The twelve criteria we outlined would allow us to differentiate the relentless cost cutter whose exploits over a three-year span dramatically increase earnings from the leader who prudently and artistically reshapes a company while minimizing the detrimental effects on its future—and makes money doing so. The former creates a wasteland bereft of focused, forward energy and employee engagement, whereas the latter shepherds people through the trials of a troubled organization while enlarging their interests and their capacities to perform.

This “cluster” approach to leadership we advocate makes the work of the assessor more challenging because there are no simple cutoff criteria, two-by-two boxes to fit people into, or infamous red lines to delineate the good from the bad and ugly. No prepackaged outputs describe people as a homogeny to whom we assign labels. There is a person who must meet the strenuous requirements of being a leader: a person who has strengths and liabilities and who others look at with a circumspect eye in the hope that this person somehow embodies qualities that make him or her special and worthy of our attention, who will enrich our work, and change our lives. The best leaders give us perspective on our social condition (good or bad) and a greater appreciation of our world, ourselves, and our choices. Moreover, they challenge, excite, comfort, and motivate. They bring us closer together by providing a forum for shared experiences and by forging a sense of community. Leadership animates our social encounters and can change our lives in ways that are as invigorating and real as being hit by a wave.

Once again, the items on our list are traceable to research that support their inclusion. For example, engagement captures the intellectual stimulation dimension of transformational leadership.52 leaders who encourage others to reflect on their work, to think of new approaches to nagging problems, and to participate in innovative projects inspire greater effort through the intellectual challenge.⁵³ Transformational leaders simply convey greater intrinsic meaning to the work and elicit more creativity from followers. In essence, good leaders invite people to throw themselves into their work, emotionally and intellectually.⁵⁴

The concept of engagement is ubiquitous in organizations, although efforts to promote and measure engagement have not always met expectations. Initially called on to fight in the war for talent and armed with a seductive business rationale that promised better business results, the concept of engagement has been a staple of organizational thought for twenty years. Yet what if we discovered our methods for measuring engagement all these years have been wrong? Can we identify a better way that is consistent with psychological principles and imparts more practical applications in the workplace?

Historically, organizations have conceived of engagement as the energizing sum of what employees like and do not like about the policies and practices of their employers, often as relayed through their managers. Employee engagement, however, may not be as dependent on what people like and dislike as much as the relative balance between their likes and dislikes. The idea that individuals’ satisfaction depends on the ratio of their positive to negative experiences has been around for some time, as popularized by researcher John Gottman’s analysis of married couples. He showed that couples were likely to stay married if their positive experiences and feelings about each other outnumbered their negative experiences and feelings. Observational and diary studies showed that couples with “positivity ratios” of 5:1 were almost certain to weather the inevitable storms and stay together, and almost certain to divorce or separate as these ratios approached 1:1. These positivity ratios, then, were found to predict both relationship quality and durability.55

Researchers extended work on positivity ratios to other facets of life, showing that people with higher positive to negative experiences report better relationships, greater personal satisfaction, and higher work satisfaction. Studies also show that people with higher positivity ratios are more likely to “flourish,” defined as striving toward one’s potential, withstanding normal everyday stresses, working productively, and contributing to one’s community.⁵⁶ When the positives in the workplace increase, people think more expansively and flexibly, are more willing to undertake novel activities and experiment, are more resilient, exhibit greater self-control, are more self-efficacious, and see their environments as more supportive and encouraging. Positivity is like the proverbial perpetual motion machine that fuels itself: positive people can generate their own resources to persevere and succeed.

Research generally has found that people with ratios of greater than 3:1 are significantly more satisfied with their employers and more likely to stay. These results demonstrate that ratios of positive to negative attitudes are indicative of potential turnover. The fact that more positive experiences are required to offset negative experiences is consistent with what is known as the negativity bias. Negative experiences weigh more heavily on people than corresponding positive experiences. The good things that happen to us are less potent and decay faster than negative experiences so that it takes approximately three goods to equal one bad.⁵⁷

This new formulation for engagement dramatically changes how we approach employee motivation and intervene in the workplace. This revised definition suggests that many things may make work life more satisfying and worthwhile and that any number of changes may make the workplace more appealing and increase engagement. We need not hunt for the one program improvement that will change everything. Creating a more experientially invigorating workplace in its myriad manifestations will go a long way. This new view more aptly represents an index of organizational health that is highly contingent on the aptitude of leaders. This is not an index of happiness or prescription for escape from hard work—far from it. Most of what people do at work is work, and they would prefer to derive a robust sense of purpose and satisfaction in doing just that. Therefore, we are in search of something more substantive than pleasure when we invoke a new and different era for engagement. Let’s call it fulfillment.

Getting people to focus inwardly on themselves is called objective self-awareness, and this focus can be achieved rather simply in experimental settings.58 Looking in a mirror does it. As does listening to a recording of one’s voice, hearing one’s own heartbeat, and writing a story about oneself. Researchers found that simply putting an image of human eyes (“watchful eyes”) and recommended pricing (pricing was posted in all conditions) over an honor-system coffee dispenser and collection container produced almost three times the monetary contributions. This effect presumably occurs because the eyes induce people to look inwardly and reflect on the right standard of conduct.⁵⁹ Art, too, elicits self-awareness, as in the “museum effect,” in which studies have shown that people perusing museums become more mindful of who they are, where their lives are going, the way they interact with others, and the future of society and the planet.⁶⁰ Reflection on, and group discussion about, works of art have the same effect of increasing participants’ (in this case, managers’) self-awareness.⁶¹

Instructure views self-awareness as one of three critical attributes that employees need to develop (self-esteem and sound judgment are the other two), and it finds interesting ways to instill this quality in the workforce. Using the artistic form of film as a mirror, one group showed us an example of how this can be done. Recently, at the annual all-employee meeting, the marketing department presented video reenactments of employee suggestions and complaints that it had gathered throughout the year. One complaint concerned the bulk ordering of Pop-Tarts, which distributors ship without identifying the flavors on the foil wrappers. Employees presented this as a problem; apparently, it is difficult to sniff out the flavors through the wrappers. Marketing’s video showed the CEO and CFO standing in a dimly lit basement labeling packages of Pop-Tarts. It was very funny. More important, the company demonstrated its ability to laugh at itself and not take itself too seriously. Instructure also is putting problems in perspective by vividly depicting the triviality of many concerns and thereby suggesting that there are more important matters to worry about and attend to. It is an open invitation for people to examine what really matters.

Most studies that investigate culture use values as the proxy for culture for two reasons. First, values are the deepest measurable facet of culture—as opposed to superficial artefacts such as mode of dress.62 Second, values represent guiding principles that profoundly influence how we think and act.⁶³ That is, values describe what people view as important and shape their goals.

Many different scales measure values (see box 11.2 for a list of several of these).⁶⁴ No single cultural profile emerges from this literature to suggest a given set of values that are diagnostic of success. More generally, compendiums of values are typed as constructive or destructive depending on whether the values are normatively sound and consistent, or are inconsistent, with the organization’s mission. For example, a destructive culture is one in which the first concern is productivity, with ethics and safety trailing far behind in importance.⁶⁵ A constructive culture is one in which the company has adopted a more balanced outlook of business in society. We trust you know what we mean. The press is filled with examples of cultures gone terribly wrong in cases in which falsified or defective products and services are knowingly passed off to consumers or deleterious financial results meticulously disguised and hidden from investors. Fortunately, most organizations do not make it into the press for those reasons. Most companies try to inculcate values to live by with easily recalled mnemonics. Instructure has as their value system, COOTIES (customer experience, openness, ownership, trust, integrity, excellence, simplicity).

Again, no list will conclusively relate to organizational success, however, we believe a minimum number of cultural traits are necessary for success. Several of these have been discussed throughout the book and are aptly supported by the research evidence as essential. We provided our suggested list of values in the first two columns of table 11.3. The first column represents the basics: cultural attributes that are required for success. The second column represents cultural values that are more action-oriented and add to or accentuate the basic cultural values. We view the latter as depending more on the preferences of the company. For reference, the third and fourth columns are a summary of the most recurring values in a study of the S&P 500.⁶⁶

It is remarkable how easily and quickly cultures can deteriorate. Yet it is a well-known phenomenon in psychology. The spontaneous acquisition of a behavioral repertoire is perhaps most fatefully illustrated by the Stanford University prison experiment.68 The experiment randomly separated participants into prisoners and guards in a simulated prison environment. Although the prison guards had prescribed duties, experimenters did not instruct them on how those duties should be carried out. The experiment was prematurely stopped because of mounting aggressive behaviors displayed by the guards. This demonstration of behavioral change showed that people who we would regard as ordinary on the street might act in unusual and alarming ways under certain circumstances. For many student participants, nothing especially revealing in their character would have predicted their treatment of the prisoners—and fellow students. Researchers have offered different explanations for the results of the prison experiment. One explanation posits a capacity to objectify others as categories, as opposed to seeing them as individuals and to impute to a group certain characteristics that make members seem less than human—deserving of, or impervious to, harsh treatment.⁶⁹ When in groups, people tend to adopt the prevailing norms of the group. If the norms of the guards are to be tough with the prisoners, then that is the way they will behave.⁷⁰ This interpretation, however, does not explain why a norm of intimidation should form.

Recent work by Keltner and associates suggests that differential power may play a role.⁷¹ He finds that more powerful individuals are more likely to engage in rude, selfish, and unethical behavior. Moreover, very little is required to elicit the differential authority of leaders over others. Imagine three people who just met, one of whom is casually selected as the designated leader by the experimenter. Although the trio are working on a presumed writing task, the experimenter places a plate of four freshly baked cookies in front of the subjects for a snack. Guess who eats the extra cookie?

Keltner suggests that the indulgences and abuses of the more advantaged and powerful are significant. Evidence unequivocally supports his claim, as bullying disproportionately occurs between people at different organizational ranks and with differential power.⁷² Part of the reason for this may be that people of rank can exert control over others; however, they also seem to be less sympathetic to and distressed by others’ predicaments than those without similar authority: the social distance between people appears to widen their emotional distance.⁷³

We have seen power’s hammer enough times to realize that the phenomenon is real. On several occasions we have seen friendly, charming employees transformed into fiends once they were promoted into managerial positions. Malice lies dormant until released through the disinhibiting effects of power. Power acts as an amplifier that reveals people for who they really are.74

One of the primary ways to control the incursion of the obscene into the workplace is to put a premium on leadership and on leaders who enforce respectful relations among members of the workforce. We get the people we deserve as leaders in our governments and organizations when we do not take our commitments to values and to each other seriously, and when we allow those who care about neither to fill the void.

Not everyone who goes to work each day will find meaning and personal satisfaction in what they do. Yet everyone should find respect and safety. Showing respect is not so hard. It entails expressing interest in what employees want for themselves, listening to what they say, sincerely considering their perspectives, figuring out ways to use and grow their talents, and showing appreciation for what they do. When we swaddle our blue- and pink-capped babies, we wish simply for their future happiness; we do not expect that there will be those, similarly born, who will prevent that from happening. The best chance for our institutions is to mobilize our greatest weapon: a mission-driven community based on the governing premise of quality leadership. It is a community that thrives on the energies and abilities of people and that resists giving in to those whose motives reduce purpose to daily survival.

If companies want better management, they will need to pay more attention to those whom they have entrusted to lead. In our estimation, companies remain too accommodating of managerial abominations who take their organizations perilously close to new-age sweatshops. Without changes in our attitudes toward the way people should conduct themselves and relate to others in the workplace, our fear is that institutions will linger longer in an aged form, and on the wrong side of history. When it comes to people, companies seem out of step. Despite the known value of leadership in improving employee welfare and productivity, most of the glory for gains in corporate productivity are attributed to capital improvements, financial maneuvers, and technological advances. We credit the efficiencies of new machines, the facility of intelligent systems, the advances of momentous innovations, and the accretion of smart investments for corporate progressiveness. In contrast, we attend too little to our management practices, which, sans soot and grime, remain archaically mired in an age of “dark satanic mills” (as decried by William Blake). Unvarnished capitalism seems well past its prime. But we do not need a new economic system; we need a variation on a theme that is more just and responsive to the human condition. We need more talk about quality of life alongside GDP, productivity, cost containment, and jobs, for better financial results do not ensure better lives. To enhance human welfare, we need institutions that are prepared to refute an ethos of selfishness and survival and that boldly embrace corporate communities that are more receptive to human virtues.

In that regard, let us close with a thought experiment. Imagine you are in an audience and we, on stage, place before you an ordinary looking chair and say, “This is a chair.” You would likely shrug and begin to wonder why you signed up for the event. Suppose, however, we brought out the same chair and this time said, “This is a work of art.” You ultimately may conclude that it seems no more remarkable than a common chair but not before exploring what value this object may hold as a work of art. Therefore, you look at it in a different way than an ordinary chair trying to see that special value it may hold. This chair demands your attention in ways in which a purely functional object does not. We think, “This is your leader,” requires the same pause and reflection. It is a big statement to make. It is about value and effect. The statement serves as an invitation to see what else beyond the merely useful may be there, thereby commanding attention that the ordinary does not. We have become too accepting of the commonplace, the merely functional, when in actuality people deserve more and our institutions could use more.

Name	Components
Leavitt	Technology
	Tasks
	People
	Structure
McKinsey 7S	Strategy	Style
	Structure	Shared values
	Systems	Skills
	Staff
Burke and Litwin	Strategy/mission	Culture
	Structure	Systems
	Tasks	Individual needs
	Leadership	Management practices
Nadler and Tushman	Informal organization
	Formal organization
	People
	Tasks
	Strategy

Narcissism: Arrogant, with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and desert; over-evaluates skills, appearance, intelligence, etc.; doesn’t admit to mistakes or take advice, although may feign to do so; infatuated with themselves.
Narcissism: Arrogant, with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and desert; over-evaluates skills, appearance, intelligence, etc.; doesn’t admit to mistakes or take advice, although may feign to do so; infatuated with themselves.
Machiavellianism: Self-centered, pragmatic schemers who, through deceit, manipulate others into getting what they want; exploit situations and others for personal gain indifferent to others’ plight.
Some of the Things They Do	Some of the Effects They Have
Reject ideas and initiatives, undermine, coerce, scapegoat, invade privacy, behave vindictively, intimidate, humiliate, control/micromanage, reward/help themselves	Low job satisfaction, low productivity, distress and anxiety, exhaustion, absenteeism, turnover, counterproductive behaviors, undermining of self-confidence/sense of worth, degradation of personal/home life, illness and depression

Level of Analysis	Name of Scale
National	GLOBE
	World Values Survey
Organizational	Competing Values Model
	Denison Organizational Culture Survey
	Organizational Culture Profile
	Organizational Culture Inventory
	Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
Individual	Rokeach Values Survey
	Schwartz Values Survey
	Chinese Values Survey

Our List		Summary Values
Basic	Basic+	Theme	Sample Adjectives
Cooperation	Conscientiousness	Communication	Rewarding, fun, energetic
Fairness	Diversity	Community	Openness
Life satisfaction	Innovation	Hard Work	Trust, honesty, fairness
Purpose	Learning	Innovation	Customer, commitment, dedication
Respect	Openness	Integrity	Collaboration, cooperation
Security	Optimism	Quality	Environment, caring
Trust	Quality/Service	Respect	Diversity, empowerment, dignity
Truthfulness	Responsibility	Safety	Health, work–life balance, flexibility
	Sportspersonship	Teamwork	Creativity, excellence, improvement
	Standards
	Sustainability
	Urgency