Don't Compromise!

If you’re anything like me, you’re probably getting almost as wearily angry hearing about British MPs expenses as you are about having paid them. A mere two months ago, we were commenting here on the then current furore about senior bankers and the financial crisis. We’re almost in danger of forgetting all that now as we focus on the shocking revelations about the Mother of Parliaments having been caught with her metaphorical fingers in the petty cash. It seems that, now the bears have returned to Threadneedle Street, the bulls have stampeded through London, leaving plentiful evidence of their droppings in Parliament Square. (To highlight one memorable expenses claim, bulls are not the only animals whose um … output has figured in the proceedings.)

And now the spotlight is on the MPs, we can see exactly where their self-regulation of remuneration and reward has left them. And what has happening while the lights were out has appalled us: if only we’d heeded the warning of J K Rowling -

Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain.”

It’s more than an issue of Fiscal Prudence – who some of us are wondering isn’t just a female figment of the Prime Minister’s imagination. It’s an important question of integrity and trust in leaders:  and polls are turning and heads are rolling as a result. From a thousand possible headlines, here’s just one from The Times that gives you (thankfully only as a figure of speech) a flavour of the proceedings: Loo seats, pet food and horse manure give us a whiff of what makes a modern MP.

While reform is now – rapidly if somewhat belatedly – underway, perhaps one of the biggest shocks is that the public are shocked. Surely public figures being a little ‘creative’ in claiming against their expense accounts is more akin to finding out your grandparents know just as many swearwords as the average rapper than it is to an outrageous shock: just because it’s not happened before our eyes and ears before doesn’t make it that unlikely, does it? The long-departed poet Byron had shown insights into human nature, trust and morality long before the tabloid press showed an interest:

We are all selfish & I no more trust myself than others with a good motive.

MPs expenses claims for flatscreen TVs occur for the same reason as male dogs’ personal hygiene regimes: they do it because they can. (And in neither case does kissing them afterwards become a more attractive proposition.) In the context of leadership, morals, integrity and trust, however, there’s possible slightly more to the MPs’ expenses saga than just nature. The fact that so much of what has been claimed was entirely ‘within the rules’ does bring a couple of other factors – culture and entitlements – into play.

Operating within a culture where claiming on expenses was seen as perfectly ok, it should come as no surprise that so many did. But one role for any leader, manager (and HR department) is set clear guidelines and limits on what is acceptable, permissible, or even a right or entitlement.

The HR Bartender blog has two good posts, both of which have a bearing on on this little moral vipers’ nest: Benefit or Entitlement – which looks at how things can metamorphose from benefits or perks into ‘entitlements’ if we’re not watchful, and Tacit Approval – which addresses the dangers of not swiftly countering inappropriate performance or behaviour. Reprehensible attitudes and behaviour are a problem even when they’re short-lived, but allow them to continue unchallenged and they can become not just individual habits but a culture than spreads to others. Put too many powerful ‘magnets’ on our behaviour and it’s little wonder our moral compasses can’t find ‘true north’ anymore. Or as Thomas Macaulay once observed:

The measure of a man’s real character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out.

But there’s a simpler element to this whole sorry saga that’s central to leadership – character. As one of the ten points in his evolving Leadership Manifesto is his own blog, George Ambler includes:

Leaders understand that character matters. Character establishes the foundation for trust. Without trust you cannot lead.

Despite his way with an acid remark – and in replying ‘I think that it would be a good idea’ to the question ‘What do you think of western civilisation’ he undoubtedly raised the bar – Gandhi was an observant man who recognised both the spiritual and social aspects of humanity. Here are his seven defined social sins:

• Wealth without Work
• Pleasure without Conscience
• Science without Humanity
• Knowledge without Character
• Politics without Principle
• Commerce without Morality
• Worship without Sacrifice

(If you’re either reliably pure, or beyond redemption, there’s a fascinating resource on sin at virtue at http://www.deadlysins.com/).

So what would you list as the seven deadliest sins of leadership and management? (As generous natured souls we’ll assumed you’ve successfully conquered ‘lack of self-awareness’ before responding …)

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine