Maak and Pless Responsible Leadership
6.1
So for a long time, there has been a tension between civil society and businesses in terms of who is responsible for the
consequences, for the wider impacts of business in the community.
Looking at how far do leaders responsibilities extend towards the wider community, and a variety of stakeholders, and we will be
engaging in that debate, and looking in detail at how leaders might think about taking on that challenge.
Thinking about the controversial idea that perhaps that isn’t the role of leaders at all. Some people still maintain that a business
leaders responsibility is only to the shareholders and to the people who work in the organisation.
6.2
nature of responsible leadership in business.
1) business leaders as responsible only to owners and shareholders and any activity that is not focused on delivering returns
to owners and investors, is an irresponsible use of company resources (Friedman, 1970).
2) stakeholder perspective, which argues that businesses have much wider responsibilities that extends to all their
stakeholders.
3) responsibility for mitigating the effects of climate change and redirect the resources of business and industry to
addressing this issue.
6.3
Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society
Maak and Pless (2006) propose a model that relates responsible leadership (RL) to stakeholder relationships. They suggest that
leaders have responsibility for a wide group of stakeholders, such as employees, clients, customers, business partners, the social
and natural environment as well as shareholders. This is in contrast to the 'Economic' model, which holds that CEO's and business
leaders should be responsible only to their owners and shareholders (Friedman 1970).
Maak and Pless suggest that stakeholder relationships should be based on inclusion, collaboration and co-operation and they
outline some of the behaviours and actions that would constitute Responsible Leadership towards each of these groups:
Employees
Responsible leaders mobilise people and lead teams. They coach and reinforce employees to achieve goals in ethical and
respectful ways.
Clients and customers
RL's ensure their products meet the needs of clients and customers, are safe and not harmful, and that real risks are
communicated.
Business partners
RL's ensure that ethical, environmental and labour standards are respected and applied by their business partners. to
ensure that business relationships with underprivileged communities builds sustainability and enables prosperity and
growth in partner businesses, in line with the UN sustainability goals.
Social and natural environment
RL's are sensitive to the world in which they operate. They assess the impact of business decisions on the social and natural
environment.
Shareholders (A shareholder is always a stakeholder, but a stakeholder is not always a shareholder. A shareholder owns the
shares of the company. A stakeholder is a member of a group that has an interest in the company's business for multiple reasons
RL's safeguard shareholder investment capital and ensure an adequate return. They respect their rights and ensure regular
communication and transparent reporting on the economic, social and ecological performance of the corporation. They are modest
about their own remuneration and balance the short-term profit against the long-term sustainability of the business.
They summarise responsible leadership as
'The art of building and sustaining good relationships to all relevant stakeholders' and 'weaving a web of inclusion' where a leader
engages themselves among equals
remembering that it’s a relational model.
the outside we have examples of the kind of stakeholder groups that they’re talking about, citizens, family, employees and direct
reports, customers, board members, other stakeholders, suppliers, peers, and future generations
In the centre, they’re looking at the characters and qualities that responsible leaders need to display in building these relationships,
so you have,
Visionary - thinking about the responsible way ahead
OUTSIDE> being a storyteller, who creates the vision and conducts the conversations about building the future
Servant(facilitate possibilities),
OUT> the coach facilitating and supporting people in those relationships
Steward (responsible for the longer term sustainable structure)
Citizen (that a responsible leader should think of themselves as a citizen embedded in civil society
OUT>creating the boundaries, the systems and the processes to keep sustainable process
responsible leader should be a weaver(tessitore)
One who weaves relationships, thinking in network terms, how do you build relationships across the networks that you are
embedded in?
Voegtlin, Frisch and Walther (2019)
make a distinction between primary and secondary stakeholders.
Primary stakeholders are those groups who are fundamental to the survival of the corporation, such as employees, customers, and
shareholders.
Secondary stakeholders are those who are affected by the organisation but are not essential to its survival such as local
communities, NGO's and groups that represent wider social concerns.
Expert
efficiency orientation and display leadership fulfilling organisational performance goals.
respond to the concerns of such primary stakeholders as shareholders, investors and customers.
Facilitator
motivating employees, integrating them and caring for their needs.
Citizen
The role of leader as citizen concerns itself with secondary stakeholders. moral obligations to society and the environment,
-closer to management than to leadership
-does not include visionary, storyteller and change agent from the previous model.
Maak and Pless emphasise the need for ambidexterity and a 'both/and' approach to resolving the paradoxes encountered when
attempting to behave responsibly towards different groups.
COMMENT
The leadership required now and in future is globally responsible, based on the interconnectedness of the world and on the
recognition of social and environmental needs, aimed at contributing to the creation of a sustainable economy.
It's necessary vision and courage to place a decision making process and a management practice in a global context.
Interact with a variety of stakeholders, opposing interests implies a necessary dialogue with everyone.
I was struck when i read recently that an activist hedge fund managed to get its candidates elected in board of directors of the oil
company Exxon, with the mission to address energy transition.
I always believe that the driver will be money in business, but the challenges and pressures for the future will increasingly lead to
incorporating stakeholders' perspectives and priorities in strategic objectives, so i brelive the three visions should a bit to be
updated
6.5
Peter Senge and others (2015) propose another model that goes beyond these models and embraces the idea of complex systems
that sees leaders as operating within complex dynamic systems and intervening to create change. Like Maak and Pless, they see an
essential function of responsible leadership as collaborating to co-create solutions to complex problems.
They see system leaders as exhibiting three capabilities:
The ability to see the larger system
In any complex setting, people typically focus their attention on the parts of the system most visible from their own vantage point
… helping people see the larger system is essential to building a shared understanding of a complex problem.
The ability to foster reflection and generative conversations
Deep shared reflection is a critical step in enabling groups of organisations and individuals to actually 'hear' a point of view
different to their own and to appreciate emotionally as well as cognitively, each other's reality.
The ability to shift the collective focus from reactive problem solving to co-creating the future
This shift involves not just building inspiring visions but facing difficult truths about the present reality and learning how to use the
tension between vision and reality to inspire truly new approaches.
Senge and his co-authors offer a number of practical tools for leading change from this perspective in the article 'The dawn of
system leadership'.
This view of responsible leadership emphasises collaboration and co-creation and goes further in seeing the responsible leader as
one who is engaged in creating the conditions for creative problem - solving in complex systems.
'The dawn of system leadership'.
Mandela
-Exploring their different ideologies and their implications openly and together resulted in the moderating of potentially divisive
differences that could have ripped the nation apart, such as whether or not to nationalize critical industries.1
-The simple idea that you could bring together those who had suffered profound losses with those whose actions led to those
losses, to face one another, tell their truths, forgive, and move on, was not only a profound gesture of civilization but also a
cauldron for creating collective leadership.
European root of "to lead," leith, literally means to step across a threshold-and to let go of whatever might limit stepping forward.
-As Ronald Heifetz has shown in his work on adaptive leadership,2 these leaders shift the conditions through which others-
especially those who have a problem-can learn collectively to make progress against it. Most of all, we have learned by watching
the personal development of system leaders. This is not easy work, and those who progress have a particular commitment to their
own learning and growth. Understanding the "gateways" through which they pass clarifies this commitment and why this is not the
mysterious domain of a chosen few.
-Indeed, one of their greatest contributions can come from the strength of their ignorance, which gives them permission to ask
obvious questions and to embody an openness and commitment to their own ongoing learning and growth that eventually infuse
larger change efforts.
-As these system leaders emerge, situations previously suffering from polarization and inertia become more open, and what were
previously seen as intractable problems become perceived as opportunities for innovation.
-The first is the ability to see the larger system. In any complex setting, people typically focus their attention on the parts of the
system most visible from their own vantage point.
-The second capability involves fostering reflection and more generative conversations. Reflection means thinking about our
thinking,
The third capability centers on shifting the collective focus from reactive problem solving to co-creating the future. Change often
starts with conditions that are undesirable, but artful system leaders help people move beyond just reacting to these problems to
building positive visions for the future.
GATEWAYS
-Real change starts with recognizing that we are part of the systems we seek to change.
ROCA
critical to Roca's success has been its ability to build transformative relationships with the young people it works with. It does this
by what it calls "relentless" outreach and relationship building.
- The practice begins by getting all the critical players in any situation into a circle and opening with each person saying a few words
about his deepest intentions. The central idea behind the circle is that what affects the individual affects the community,
-In their book Leading from the Emerging Future, Otto Scharmer and Katrin Käufer describe three "openings" needed to transform
systems: opening the mind (to challenge our assumptions), opening the heart (to be vulnerable and to truly hear one another), and
opening the will (to let go of pre-set goals and agendas and see what is really needed and possible).
- These three openings match the blind spots of most change efforts, which are often based on rigid assumptions and agendas and
fail to see that transforming systems is ultimately about transforming relationships among people who shape
-If you tell a great designer something is impossible-like you cannot make a world-class running shoe without glues-they get very
excited. It is the challenge that engages them."
-Systemic change needs more than data and information; it needs real intelligence and wisdom. Jay Forrester, the founder of the
system dynamics method that has shaped our approach to systems thinking, pointed out that complex non-linear systems exhibit
"counterintuitive behavior."
-system leaders work to create the space where people living with the problem can come together to tell the truth, think more
deeply about what is really happening, explore options beyond popular thinking, and search for higher leverage changes through
progressive cycles of action and reflection and learning over time
-System leaders understand that plans and space are the yang and yin (e’ il simbolo del tao, bene male) of leadership. Both are
needed. But what is needed even more is balance between the two.
-Often this starts with simple questions, like Winslow's "Do we know what is in our product?" For educators, it might be "What
happens for the child when she or he is outside of school?" Systems mapping can be used to extend this inquiry by helping
stakeholders build a visual picture of the relationship and interdependencies beyond the boundaries they normally assume.
-Tools for fostering reflection and generative conversation. Tools that help foster reflection and generative conversation are aimed
at enabling groups to slow down long enough to "try on" other people's viewpoints regarding a complex problem.
-Two other tools we have often seen used by system leaders are "peer shadowing" and "learning journeys.
-Gradually, as business and NGO partners got to understand one another better as people and as professionals, the cognitive
dissonance between them became less, and the power of their differing views grew. "We do see the world very differently, and
that is our greatest strength,"
-Embedded in tools like peacekeeping circles, dialogue interviews, peer shadowing, and learning journeys is a disciplined approach
to observation and deeper conversations called the "Ladder of Inference."
-Tools for shifting from reacting to co-creating the future. Building the capacity to shift from reacting to co-creating is anchored in
relentlessly asking two questions, What do we really want to create? and What exists today? This creative tension, the gap
between vision and reality, generates energy,
- Most organizations are consumed by the tasks at hand. Others spend large amounts of money on staff development with little
return. The missing element is often a clear vision for how the work itself becomes developmental.
-Balancing advocacy and inquiry | all change requires passionate advocates. But advocates often become stuck in their own views
and become ineffective in engaging others with different views.
DAWN AWAKENING
Lao Tzu eloquently expressed the idea of individuals who catalyze collective leadership:
The wicked leader is he whom the people despise.
The good leader is he whom the people revere.
The great leader is he of whom the people say, "We did it ourselves."
-Organizations and initiatives like those described in this article have succeeded because of a growing awareness that the inner and
outer dimensions of change are connected. As our awakening continues, more and more system leaders who catalyze collective
leadership will emerge.
AIRBUS
Airbus collaboration - even before the creation of Airbus SAS - my impression when I joined, and I learned this over the months as I
started, it was all part of this ethos of Europe, creating Europe as a powerful entity, a rival or an equivalent to America.
-I joined there were really two parts, the first part was all about culture change. Airbus at that stage had developed 10 key
behaviours, we later reduce those down to 6 values. We have four national companies who have previously been competing for
workshare, … how do we create that kind of ethos?
-The second part of my role was the Airbus people strategy, which was called growing together. … how we do talent development
in the company, how we do recruitment, how we do rewards, job grading, all that kind of thing.
-And it took me a while to understand that actually each of the separate groups of executives, for example the German executives…
were having their own local meetings in Germany. ... I had to find friends and lobby in advance and really understand that bigger
picture, before I went to the executives. I really had to do a lot of work outside
6.6.2 This group task has two parts.
First, put yourself in the position of the senior management of Airbus in 2004. From the evidence you have here, were the senior
management behaving responsibly towards their stakeholders?
Discuss the case with your group and then nominate someone to post a group response in the comments thread below (maximum
150 words).
You will find the second part of the group task in Section 6.7.
6.6.2 Mr Miller did what I believe is the right approach for different stakeholders, in an international context, national groups
are created, not always united but the linguistic context is a vehicle for this. Then, slowly revealing itself, cultural contests are
created, cultural synergies (eg I have often decided things together with the English men drinking a beer), the same vision is
reached, clearly referring to different lead managers to which each group is an advocate of one's own, but certain decisions ,at
strategic technical level can be the same, I think it is important for this to be sincere in recognizing the skills of both individuals
and groups and what they can offer you in terms of your knowledge and development, recognizing a trusting interdependent
relationship to develop during the time.
6.7
I think we refined the values of the company at that point going from 10 key Airbus behaviours down to 6 key values. We were also
talking about the need to get profitability up, costs down. It was really trying to convey the vision of the company, and also
collecting feedback, and this is a key part of it, so it was two way communication, so as well as communicating out, we were
receiving people’s feedback as part of this process.
everybody was extremely critical of the leadership of the company. Ultimately, they were critical of the executive committee of the
company.
The primary message that came back out of this was what we referred to as a green light culture.
Suddenly it would appear that everything had gone wrong. What came back out of this work the group of 17 did was that people
were afraid to report what was really going on.
On the 10th of December 2004, the Airbus executive was given authorisation by the shareholders to announce the A350
For me personally, I had two messages, a message of fantastic news and celebration coming from the top executive, and then I was
beginning to hear from my own staff and through them what was going on lower down, that people were worried, people felt over
loaded, overwhelmed.
• Are your responsibilities in your current role limited to your contractual duties, laws and regulations? - Are due diligence and
compliance with regulations sufficient?
It is a technical role overwhelmed by the law and by the procedures to be followed, my responsibilities are not always limited by
the rules
• Do you have a responsibility to speak up at all times if you see any behavior or activities that you deem unethical?
It is mandatory being responsible for the safety of the workers, they are a kind of lightning rod
• Are you responsible for the health and emotional well-being of our colleagues?
emotional not formally, but for health I have responsibility
• Are you accountable for the actions of others that your organization's activities could affect or influence?
yes, many times I feel like an instrument of approval of the decisions made by others that must be endorsed only for the position I
hold
6.8
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS)
on the 2nd of July 2006 … somebody called Christian Streiff was appointed as the CEO of Airbus. He developed a really, really strong
cost cutting plan, which he believes Airbus should implement,
In this very, very rapid period, we’ve lost Gustaff Humbert as CEO, then we lose Christian Streiff as CEO, and then incomes Louis
Gallois. At this point, as somebody, you know, within the system, it’s very, very chaotic
So for me personally, it meant that a lot of the key players were changing.
For me, I’m finding that my key kind of, supporters or whatever, are moving on or leaving. Then the question for me personally is,
you know, where do I go from here?
My hope was that I would be able to carve out a niche perhaps within the Strategy Team. That wasn’t to be, so in the end, in June
2008, like a lot of other Brits and others, I left, and I moved on.
Who, or what, was responsible for the growing crisis at Airbus?
Discuss the case with your group and then nominate someone to post a group response in the comments thread below
(maximum 150 words)
Was it a commercial success? Clearly No. From that point of view, it was a drastic failure.
Was it delivered on time? It was two years late, but actually, so was the Dreamliner when that came later on, and frankly, that’s
typical of many infrastructure projects,
would I call that a drastic failure? Not really.
I understood that from an innovation point of view, from the point of view of creating a plane, which if you watch a film of the first
flight of it taking off, it is an amazing plane. It is a staggering feat of engineering.
- the level of international collaboration on this project is extraordinary. Almost every major airport in the world was adapted in
order to allow the A380 to land
So in terms of an innovation and an international collaboration project, I would say this was a phenomenal success.
----
https://www.spiegel.de/international/airbus-leadership-crisis-management-shakeup-doesn-t-end-airbus-turbulence-a-424819.html
He added that the technicians and engineers responsible maintained right to the end that they would be able to deal with the
aircrafts teething problems.
We have looked through all the transcripts of past board meetings and have come to the conclusion that they contain no indication
of problems with the A380,
----
WHAT IS THE PRICE OF INNOVATION?
From what you have understood of this case and looking at the A380 project from the widest stakeholder perspective.
Was the airbus programme really a drastic failure?
Comment below (Maximum 150 words)
For many stakeholders it was a failure, I believe that from the beginning it was thought that the number of passengers would
increase, but this mainly due to the success of low cost airlines, the growth of passenger air traffic had always been increasing from
2000 and it looked like it was going to keep growing forever, but not for the industry for which the A380 was created.
I agree that at an international level it was an interesting collaboration project, but if the perplexities from bottom layers engineers
did not reach the decision-making spaces, this I consider a failure gap in leadership too. And about innovation I think it came late,
not adapted to the pace of the market, and therefore it participates in the delays, even if it has been a boost for many new future
technologies.
Unilever
Polman recognised that to achieve the change he sought, he would have to encourage change in the behaviour of his primary
stakeholders; shareholders, suppliers and most important, customers.
Clmate and inequalities > global goals, live in harmony, bring humanity back to business
---
At the start of this lesson we suggested that there was a debate about the nature of responsible leadership. Some argue that a
leader's responsibility should be primarily to the owners and shareholders of a business and it is a business leader's duty to put the
interests of that stakeholder group first. They further argue that in doing so, businesses will produce good outcomes for all and that
competition and market forces will ensure good discipline and beneficial social outcomes. Changing the purpose of an organisation
to embrace a wider sense of responsibility to all stakeholders, provokes and encourages radical innovation. Innovation is risky.
Is it responsible for a business leader to take these risks in pursuit of a higher purpose for their business?
Add your response to the comments thread below (Maximum 100 words). Once you have done so you will be able to move to the
next lesson.
‘’The Role of Responsible Leadership in Creating a Risk Culture that Promotes Sustainable Innovation in Business Evangelia Fragouli1 & Victoria
Chukwudum’’
I think the key role for responsible leadership is in creating a risk-oriented culture that stimulates and supports sustainable
innovation. Who invest in a culture of risk, who continually stimulate innovation, are generally successful.
Based on how they will affect stakeholder behaviors and how they'll fit new ideas into the organization's goals, values and strategy,
this change can be nurtured.
In any case Leaders can suffer the uncertainty of sustainability and be led to be conservative to reassure the stakeholders, but with
the risk of losing opportunities for innovation.
It is always needed a compromise on the strategy to be implemented and clearly a shared vision on the very long term with all
partners.
