In 1953, General George Marshall (1880–1959) became the first professional soldier to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for the United States’ economic aid and reconstruction program for Western Europe that was named after him—the Marshall Plan. Marshall was held in high esteem for his integrity the whole world over.
His military career began in 1897 when he was 17 years old, and just a year later he was already an active participant in the Spanish-American War in the Philippines. During World War I he led military operations by the U.S. Army in France. In 1936 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general, and in 1939 he was appointed chief of staff of the U.S. Army. In that capacity, among other things, he was in charge of preparing for the United States’ possible involvement in World War II. When the United States entered the war toward the end of 1941, Marshall became responsible for training, organizing, and stationing U.S. troops. His performance record in making people choices during that period is a splendid example of great management. He was personally responsible for hundreds of decisions on filling leading posts, and the high quality of those decisions was instrumental in the success of the Allied forces.
As a close advisor to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Marshall also took part in the Allies’ conferences in Casablanca, Quebec, Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam. In 1944, Marshall was appointed General of the Army, supreme commander of the U.S. Army, a very rare distinction.
After World War II, newly elected President Harry Truman appointed Marshall special ambassador to China, entrusting him to mediate between the two adversaries Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek. Marshall duly rose to the task, which demanded not only the highest credibility on both sides, but also presupposed deep trust in him as a person. It was between 1947 and 1949, when Marshall was U.S. Secretary of State, that he initiated the European Recovery Program alluded to above, which is better known as the Marshall Plan. This was an exceptional management achievement and a major contribution toward resolving conflicting interests. When this source of aid was curtailed in 1952, industrial production in Western Europe was already higher than it had been before the war. In 1950 and 1951 Marshall continued to work for President Truman as U.S. Secretary of Defense. In 1959, on top of his 1953 Nobel Peace Prize, Marshall was awarded the prestigious International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen for his outstanding contribution to European unification.
Let us now take a look at one of the most important characteristics of any manager, here exemplified by George Marshall: integrity.
Marshall exercised his duties as chief of staff, special ambassador, and minister under the toughest domestic and foreign policy conditions. Sometimes he faced not just opposition, but open enmity, as on the part of the Republican politician Joseph McCarthy, who indirectly accused him of treason.
The clearest indication of the special esteem in which Marshall was held and of his true status are perhaps the fact that Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin accepted him as a fourth member of their inner circle, affording him equal standing. Churchill himself once even wondered if, “Perhaps he [Marshall] was the greatest Roman of them all.”1 High praise indeed from such a distinguished historian, who subsequently went on to earn a Nobel Prize for Literature essentially for his accounts of historical events.
Marshall always adopted the same straight, open approach when dealing with people from all kinds of interest groups. He treated his workers, colleagues, bosses, and even the most deeply hostile parties in the same upright manner, displaying the same integrity. It was this that prompted people to place almost unlimited trust in him and repeatedly enabled him to establish dialogue and instill consensus even when the clash of interests could not have been greater. One distinguished biographer, Ed Cray, summed up George Marshall’s trustworthiness by saying that, “Marshall had become an icon of integrity.”2
Management skills and know-how can be acquired, but integrity cannot be learned: it is something a manager must have and bring to the job. Integrity is a fundamental prerequisite for managers. The management of an organization may have only a few ways of influencing the degree of integrity displayed in it, namely leading by example, selecting appropriate staff, and setting clear rules of conduct, but they are extremely important.
People in organizations follow the lead set—and above all exemplified—by those at the top. So the spirit of the organization is shaped at its very summit, and it is from there that a corporate culture of integrity, high performance, and responsibility must emanate. Since there is no way of compensating for a lack of integrity, the standards demanded at the top of an organization must be high. Where no such positive example is set, the organization will be unable to develop an effective corporate culture that creates trust.
Nowhere is an uncompromising commitment to integrity clearer than in staff selection, which both tests and provides evidence of whether required standards are actually being met. One simple, but also very profound question is this: “Would I want my son or daughter to work for this person? Would I want my children to follow his example?” Since strong managers, particularly if successful, shape others through the example they set, it is important to decide if the organization—and especially the younger people in it—can justify following such an example. People who set an indefensible example do not belong in management, regardless of how intelligent or successful they may be. Organizations that compromise on integrity are already on the wrong track.
Organizations must have clear, reliable rules of conduct that are consistently applied in practice. Where these rules, or somebody’s word, or a pledge cannot be relied on, the trust in the organization and its leadership will be destroyed. Conversely, certainty that an organization will behave reliably and predictably creates the kind of solid trust that is essential for enabling a calm, constructive response to inevitable occasional errors.
Human beings forgive many weaknesses and errors, but not a lack of integrity. They will absolve neither the individual who acted without integrity, nor the manager who appointed someone lacking integrity as their boss. Nor will they pardon the fact that the person in question is being allowed to continue managing. The credibility of management will hinge primarily on how seriously it demands unconditional integrity.
Make sure that integrity plays a pivotal role in people decisions. Ask yourself whether you would like your child to work for the person in question.
When you take up a new post, decide whether you are willing to follow the example set by your boss.
Act with integrity yourself, and make sure your organization embodies integrity, too.