http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/ 15 Views on leadership from our panel of experts. en Copyright 2009 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:47:40 -0500 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=4.2-en http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss In spite of Sarah Palin's prominence as best-selling author, Hillary Clinton's stature as Secretary of State, and 51% of the workforce now being female, we still face a crisis in women's leadership, according to The White House Project's just-published study, Benchmarking Women's Leadership. The majority of Americans are comfortable with women leading in all sectors, but the reality is women hold only 18% of leadership positions across the 10 sectors we examined, including politics, business, law, sports, academia, journalism, religion, film/TV, nonprofit, and military. In politics, for example, women have lost ground in the last decade as elected statewide executive officials and have made only incremental gains in Congress, where they currently comprise 17% of leadership. On a global scale, the U.S. ranks a dismal 71st out of 189 countries, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in terms of women in legislatures, trailing behind nations such as Pakistan, Cuba, and United http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/our-leadership-crisis-where-are-the-women.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/our-leadership-crisis-where-are-the-women.html Women in Leadership Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:47:40 -0500 Corporations contribute to society by producing goods and services that improve the quality of life and providing employment with fair wages and decent working conditions. Some companies do even more by educating its workforce and encouraging employees to contribute to their communities through philanthropy and volunteer activities. However, the practice of direct corporate philanthropy raises questions. Would the funds that go to philanthropy be better spent as venture capital to create new products and jobs? Employment is certainly one of our highest priorities as a nation. Who decides about the philanthropy? Would the shareholders agree this is where there money should go? Shouldn't they have a say about which charities they want to support? Republicans often argue that taxes should be cut because "you are a better judge than the government of where to spend your money." This is arguable in the case of government that spends money on education, http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/venture-capital-over-charity.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/venture-capital-over-charity.html Corporate leadership Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:22:46 -0500 Corporate philanthropy can be extremely relevant when it is strategic. While it is fine for corporate philanthropy to align with short-term marketing objectives, which makes such philanthropy more likely to be sustainable over time, it is most strategic when it meets the long-term needs of its philanthropic partners. Best is when it helps to build capacity so that effective organizations can grow to scale and have a management core that is as strong as its programming. As is the case with most leadership challenges, marshaling support in corporate philanthropy for investments that may not pay off until the long-term is the toughest task of all, but also promises the greatest return on investment. As a director on the board of Timberland I've seen what corporate philanthropy can accomplish in building the capacity of high-performing organizations like City Year, and also in leading on issues like climate change and reducing the http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/the-best-of-corporate-philanthropy.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/the-best-of-corporate-philanthropy.html Corporate leadership Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:52:04 -0500 If you poll big-city mayors around the United States, they would overwhelmingly support the notion that corporate philanthropy is as relevant today as it was a century ago. However, they are also likely to note that this philanthropy has evolved as the needs of the cities have changed and the profile of the corporate leader has changed. Decades ago a corporate leader was likely to be someone who was rooted in the community of the company for many years. Today heads of corporations may or may not have long-standing personal ties to a community, but they do have strong interests in assuring that the area in which their company resides is a thriving one. Corporate philanthropy manifests itself in many ways. A type of general philanthropy is a donation to arts institutions. Such donations are made for the general well being of the community, the corporation acting as a civic-minded http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/big-cities-corporate-solutions.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/big-cities-corporate-solutions.html Corporate leadership Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:26:33 -0500 In analyzing business's desired role in society, it is best to think of the corporation as citizen. One of the obligations of corporate citizenship---as is the case for private citizens with means---is to provide philanthropic support for important "social goods" where neither the market nor the government do an adequate job. Indeed, corporate citizenship is a much better concept for evaluating business's activities in society than the much narrow and somewhat misleading phrase "corporate social responsibility." Corporate citizenship has three elements. First, it involves high economic performance----the sustained, durable provision of outstanding goods and services which benefits shareholders and other stakeholders (creditors, employees, retirees, customers, suppliers, communities etc.) over time. The enormous good done by the fundamental business activity on durable basis---creating the goods and services that make the economy work and grow---is a core characteristic of good citizenship. In this connection, even large corporations are turning to forms of http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/defining-corporate-citizenship.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/defining-corporate-citizenship.html Corporate leadership Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:24:36 -0500 The need for corporate philanthropy has never been greater. Unemployment in the United States is at more than 10 percent. Countless people have lost their homes. Many cannot afford health care. Around the world, millions are without food and clean water. Philanthropy is certainly no panacea, but it can go a long way toward addressing serious problems here and abroad. Few entities can match large corporations in their ability to dispense the level of funds that make a positive difference. If the moral imperative is not enough to inspire a corporation to act philanthropically, then it should consider the dividends it can reap for itself from charitable giving. Philanthropy increases the visibility of a company. It enhances the reputation of the business and, by extension, the reputation of its products. Consumers are more likely to embrace a company if they know that it is producing environmentally friendly products, and they http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/dividends-of-giving.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/dividends-of-giving.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:20:54 -0500 In response to this week's On Leadership question: In an era when business leaders are retooling their mission and methods to be more socially responsible, and social entrepreneurs are using market mechanisms to solve social problems, is corporate philanthropy still relevant? Sure, most organizations, mine included, will continue to write checks, but that's not the end of what many are doing under the heading of corporate philanthropy or community involvement. In fact, I see a new beginning, as businesses look to be far more engaged and strategic in how they work with non-profits. What I find so exciting in this shift is the blurring of roles -- non-profits and social entrepreneurs behave more like businesses, and for businesses, there is a sweet spot where social mission merges with the organization's strategic interests. It's true "just send the check" philanthropy has been flat lining for years - the figure of about http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/getting-our-hands-dirty.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/getting-our-hands-dirty.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:15:59 -0500 Although promising, corporate social responsibility (CSR) isn't a blunt instrument; we won't smash our countless social problems by heaving it in one, devastating, oafish wallop. In theory, CSR recognizes that businesses have an obligation to the world greater than the profit that can be extracted from it. Using this model, increasing numbers of businesses incorporate current social issues, such as reducing global warming, into their business plans. Market mechanisms now present a new, innovative piece to the larger puzzle of achieving social justice. Yet, we must recognize the market is limited in its capacity to improve societal problems. CSR, and other market mechanisms, reduce social issues to a matter of profitability. But what happens when addressing social issues is no longer seen as profitable? And what of other social issues that seemingly defy market solutions: drug abuse, domestic violence, racial profiling, and gender discrimination? The current framework of CSR appears http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/eitheror-irresponsiblity.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/eitheror-irresponsiblity.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 07:02:24 -0500 In response to this week's On Leadership question: In an era when business leaders are retooling their mission and methods to be more socially responsible, and social entrepreneurs are using market mechanisms to solve social problems, is corporate philanthropy still relevant? Of course there's nothing wrong with charity, but the best way for companies to become good citizens is through the way they operate their business. Rather than focusing a small percentage of revenue toward philanthropy, companies should be examining the impact of their product and how they spend the bigger dollars. Switching from Styrofoam to post-consumer waste might help a packaging company make a more meaningful contribution to sustainability than a token donation to a environmental non-profit. Investing in a local production facility or even a community bank could help support a local economy more effectively than a donation to a nearby jobs program. At Honest Tea our largest http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/the-biggest-dollars.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/the-biggest-dollars.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:50:22 -0500 Remember what it feels like to be a kid with money burning a hole in your pocket? Your grandpa gave you $10 and because you had it, your purpose was to spend it. Most likely, you spent it on something you didn't need or, in retrospect, even want. Your purchase wasn't connected to any larger thinking. I imagine corporate philanthropy can play out the same way if executives are not careful. Corporate philanthropy should be a vehicle not a purpose, a strategy not a goal, a method not an end in itself. For corporations to be relevant in promoting social good, they should start with this question: "What would it look like for our company to exercise civic leadership?" Civic leadership, or leadership for the common good, is in short supply in America, and we need more of it from everyone - government officials, non-profit executives, everyday citizens, religious officials, http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/too-many-chicken-dinners.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/too-many-chicken-dinners.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:44:22 -0500 After spending a recent lunch hour asking Goldman Sachs to place all or part of its $23 billion in bonuses in a fund to aid our country and postpone all foreclosures in 2010 -- just as Americans stepped up to aid their company -- I am not convinced that corporate America is retooling their mission and methods to be more socially responsible. In fact, the behaviors of many big banks and many on Wall Street seems to portend a return to a "I got mine, so long sucker" economy, an economy marked by risky behavior, and companies who seem to salute no flag but their own corporate logo, and worship no God but the almighty dollar. Although harsh words, they are sadly the reason why 79% of Americans do NOT believe their children will lead a better life than their parents -- the unique and enduring American Dream. Corporate philanthropy http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/so-long-sucker.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/so-long-sucker.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:33:47 -0500 The late Milton Friedman got it wrong when he wrote many years ago that any corporate leader that gives a portion of company profits to philanthropy is "a pure, unadulterated socialist." Actually, thoughtful corporate philanthropy, like that practiced by Target, Wal Mart, Merck, Novartis, Exxon, Goldman Sachs and many other companies is capitalism at its best. At a time when non-profits are struggling to balance their budgets and endowments are deflated, corporate philanthropy is more important than ever. Companies should not rely on government to address social inequities and long-standing societal problems, like health care, education, job creation, environment, and global peace. In a time of rising profitability, corporations have an obligation to step up their philanthropic efforts to collaborate with non-profits and government organizations to help address these intractable problems. This should be an integral part of their missions and business strategy. Social entrepreneurs are great, but they need http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/what-milton-friedman-got-wrong.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/what-milton-friedman-got-wrong.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:30:15 -0500 We live in a world that is defined by increasingly obsolete (and often downright false) choices: Are your products low-price or high-quality? Is your brand a "passion brand" or a mass-market brand? Is the goal of your organization to make money or have a positive impact in the world? For the best companies, these formerly either-or choices are now both-and requirements. That's what makes business today so confusing, so challenging, and, when things click, so exciting and creative. The same goes for the future of corporate philanthropy, and the relationship between business success and social good. We are living in the age of disruption. You can't do big things anymore if you are content with doing things a little better than everybody else or a little different from how you did them before. In an era of hyper-competition and non-stop dislocation, the only way to stand out from the crowd http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/acid-test-of-strategy.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/acid-test-of-strategy.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:11:44 -0500 Corporate philanthropy is and will continue to be a crucial element in any attempt to tackle complex social issues, both because it is needed by society and because it is good for corporations themselves. From society's perspective, corporations often hold the key to the solutions: whether the know-how to develop a malaria vaccine, the engineering capability to devise a water processing system, or the technology to manufacture low-cost computers. Corporate philanthropy is not just about money, but about lending human talent and organizational capabilities not available elsewhere. Governments, NGOs and social enterprises often lack the resources to contract these services at current market prices and can only rely on corporate philanthropy to secure them. From the perspective of the corporation, there are also clear benefits: - As more consumers incorporate social considerations in their purchasing decisions, brands can benefit from strategically associating themselves with the right social causes. - Corporations http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/lending-talent.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/lending-talent.html Corporate leadership Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:06:39 -0500 The acquittal of Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin--two former hedge-fund managers at Bear Stearns--on securities-fraud charges raises an interesting question for leaders. The trial turned on whether or not Cioffi and Tannin had deliberately painted a rosy picture of the subprime market to investors while privately acknowledging the market was in serious trouble. The question is: At what point does exhorting one's employees, troops, investors, donors or even parishioners to keep the faith in the face of deteriorating circumstances verge into behavior that is morally indefensible or even criminally liable? To put the matter bluntly, if each CEO, military commander, fund manager or non-profit leader were brought to trial for raising hopes that were dashed after the fact, we'd better start building jails on every street corner, even if relatively few such cases were won. In fact, one of the very most important parts of leadership is motivating people to http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/were-all-hedge-fund-managers-now.html http://views.washingtonpost.com/leadership/panelists/2009/11/were-all-hedge-fund-managers-now.html Economic crisis Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:00:50 -0500