What companies should learn from Mark Sanford

Reflecting on the political fallout of Mark Sanford's southern "swing", one could see this as another link in the epidemic chain of sex scandals that has really never been broken since the Clinton-Lewinsky link-up in 1998. I choose the word epidemic because it feels more like a contagious disease than just a misguided decision of an ego-centric power player. Including Sanford, 23 politicians have now succumbed to this epidemic since President Clinton, who of course was not the first-known case but is certainly now the best-known.

In his blog for GovExec.com, Scott Eblin accurately diagnosed the root cause of this type of misbehavior as a psychological fear of "not being enough". He attributes his conclusion to Eckhart Tolle, who wrote in his book "The New Earth" :

"Whatever behavior the ego manifests, the hidden motivating force is always the
same: the need to stand out, be special, be in control; the need for power, for
attention, for more... The ego always wants something from other people or
situations. There is always a hidden agenda, always a sense of 'not enough yet,'
of insufficiency and lack that needs to be filled. It uses people and situations
to get what it wants, and even when it succeeds, it is never satisfied for
long."

So what's the connection with corporations? Read Tolle's description of human behavior again, but now substitute a CEO or company president as the subject. Most of you can probably think of a dozen business leaders for whom this is an accurate profile.

The object lesson here is about leadership and culture. As fashionable as it may be for companies to de-centralized and democratize their organizations, it's a universal truism that all companies expect their top leader to model behavior and define the boundaries of the culture. When the CEO endorses a business growth strategy motivated by a "not enough yet" mentality, in the extreme you can get a criminal result such as Enron, Tyco or Adelphia; but more likely you will get middle managers and front-line managers to adopt the same self-interested behavior, justified by the rationale of "that's how you get ahead in this company". This is a rhetorical question, but if President Clinton had not blunted the immoral edge on adultery in 1998, do we think that 23 senators, congressmen and governors would have made their tragic decisions so blithely?

The alternative to "not enough yet" is "we have enough, so let's share what we have". This is the choice of companies who truly practice Corporate Social Responsibility, and who are able to achieve the proper balance between economic, social and environmental concerns. It requires companies to moderate self-interest (always in the name of shareholder interest...the dangerous trap) with an equal measure of selflessness. Where will this type of culture shift come from? It's never going to be the head of HR, or the CFO, or even the CMO who will stimulate this change, although those are vital supporting roles to legitimize and reward new employee behaviors. This has to come from the top of the organization, where conflicts between short-term financial performance and long-term community interest have to be mediated; where the generous spirit of volunteerism has to be modeled; where discussions with the Board of Directors to insist on their support of a broader versus narrower agenda has to be held.

Notice that this is the first time I've mentioned "brand" in this blog. While everything matters in the arena of brand building, in my view strong and principled corporate leadership matters most of all.