The unrestrained exercise of self-aggrandizing power has fueled the rise of a

generation of Destructive Achievers (DAs). Although the DA possesses the

charisma of a Leader, his self-interest erodes the ethical base of
the organization and can lead to its destruction.

The Interrelationship of
Ethics and Power in
Todays Organizations
Charles M. Kelly

.robably the best-kncwn comment about
power is Lord Acton's "Power tends to corrupt
and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Will
and Ariel Durant qualified this observation
by suggesting, "Power elements even more
than it corrupts, lowering the guard of fore-
sight and raising the haste of action."
Although modern behavioral scien-
tists also warn of the potential dangers of
power, they take a more kindly view of its ac-
quisition and use. In fact, a great deal of
training and self-help materials now are
devoted to assisting the modern executive in
his quest for greater influence, control, and
prestige in the organization.
Encouraging a more utilitarian view
of power, David C. Mci^lelland (writing in
the Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 24,
No. 1, 1970) observed, "America's concern
about the possible misuse of power verges at
times on a neurotic obses:iion." John P. Kotter
echoed the point in Power in Management
(AMACOM, 1979) by warning executives, "I
have seen many extremely able people lose a
key promotion or lose favor with their su-
periors, making a turning point in their
careers, because of their unrealistic ideas
about power."
Such opinions are based on be-
havioral and organizational research, as well
as direct observations of the realities of hu-
man institutions. Essentially, both sources
yield the same valid conclusions: The use of
power is necessary and inevitable; it must be
sought to be acquired; and there are predict-
ably successful ways of getting it.
Unfortunately, ethics and values
suffer, not because their importance is de-
nied, but because they are given a distinctly
subservient role to the facts of human be-
havior. Although writers make the obligatory
references to ethical desirabilities, and even 5
 to the power advantages of ethical behavior,
their usual emphasis is on the more appealing
aspects of acquiring and using power.
I suggest that our recently acquired
knowledge about power fails to add to our
ability to use it wisely. Moreover, it has be-
come a justification for power's more cynical
exploitation. In fact, the increasing sophisti-
cation in the practical use of power could well
be a major cause of the steady decline of all
kinds of maturing institutions corpora-
tions, including the family business, as well as
whole societies.
Thomas J. Peters and Robert H.
Waterman Jr. cited 43 "excellent" companies in
their book In Search of Excellence (Harper &
Row, 1982). Subsequently Business Week
reported ("Who's Excellent Now?" Nov. 5,
1984) that 14 of these companies had "lost
their luster." Peters and Waterman responded
candidly, "If you're big, you've got the seeds
of your own destruction in there." The "excel-
lent" companies just seemed to be big corpo-
rations that were "losing less fast."
How can this pessimistic view be
possible when there has never before been so
much knowledge about the managerial and
behavioral sciences? It would be foolish to
pick a single cause of the difficulties, but a
candidate for first choice has to be the interac-
tion of the organization's ethical base and the
individuals it chooses to exercise power.
Over the past 25 years I have con-
ducted well over 1,000 in-depth interviews
with the superiors, peers, and staff of "focal"
managers in many different kinds of organi-
zations. Because of agreements with respon-
dents, I could not communicate conclusions
or assessments to anyone other than the focal
managers involved. As a result, 1 have been
able to observe (on an unusually comprehen-
sive basis) the working behaviors and the per-
ceived values of individuals, the impact these
had on other personnel and organizational ef-
fectiveness, and the resultant increase or de-
6 crease of individual power. Certain value
orientations toward working relationships
vis-a-vis the use of power became evident.
Five personality types appeared: Leader, De-
structive Achiever, Builder, Innovator, and
Mechanic.
For our purposes it is sufficient to
define the Leader as an ethical manager with
charisma who effectively leads a group for
the net long-term benefit of the organization.
A Builder is an ethical and effective man-
ager, but without charisma. The Destructive
Achiever has the charisma of a Leader but
lacks his operational values; this achiever's
net effect on the long-term welfare of the or-
ganization is negative. The Mechanics are the
people who are functionally competent in
their professions (they can be chemists, law-
yers, or janitors); they maintain the state of
the art but don't advance it significantly. The
Innovator is at the cutting edge of his pro-
fession and contributes to its creative break-
throughs. Of course, as with all behavioral
categories, there are no pure types; everyone
incorporates some of each, albeit to varying
degrees.
Since the qualities and behaviors
of Leaders are well recognized, this article
will focus on the Destructive Achiever (DA).
He is easy to confuse with a Leader, and
his impact on lower-level Leaders, Builders,
Mechanics and, especially. Innovators is
disastrous.
THE DESTRUCTIVE ACHIEVER
Destructive Achievers come in a variety of
types: Harry Levinson's "Abrasive Personal-
ity" {Harvard Business Review, May-June
1978), Michael Macoby's "Gamesman" {The
Leader, Simon & Schuster, 1981), or David C.
McClelland's "Personalized Power" (with
David H. Burnham, "Power Is the Great Moti-
vator, " Harvard Business Review, March-
April 1976), among others. They all have in
common some combination of strengths and

CHUCK KELLY IS president of Charles M, Kelly
& Associates, Charlotte. N.C.. a member firm
of the Association of Maiagement Consultants.
He received a Ph.D. in industrial commu-
nications from Purdue University and has
taught at Syracuse Unive'sity. the California
State Universities at San Diego and Long
Beach, and the State University of New York at
Plattsburgh. Kelly has worked with corporate,
government, and hospital organizations, and
his research and consultirg activities have dealt
with subjects ranging from nurse supervisory
effectiveness to corporate/company senior staff
relationships. His recent (.rticles have appeared
in Research Management, Sloan Management
Review, National Produc:ivity Review, Business
Horizons, and Training a i d Development
Journal. His current work focuses on ethical
behaviors and their relationships to traditional
organizational values, systems, and procedures.
weaknesses that causes them to seek and use
power in ways that achieve short-term results
at the expense of long-i-ange effectiveness.
In a few cases this combination ap-
pears to be a basic personality or character
flaw, but usually it results from the person's
developmental environment. For a variety of
reasons, the person uses power in a way that
destroys trust and commitment, suppresses
innovation, and gradually changes a vibrant
organization to the classic systems-bound,
survival-oriented bureaucracy.
The Self-Righteous DA
This does not mean that the person is inten-
tionally unethical. In fact, a common type of
DA is the self-righteous manager who strong-
ly believes in his own absolute value system.
One staffer noted;
You can disagree with him about almost any techni-
cal subject. In fact, he seems to enjoy it; he brags
about how his staff will fight him all the time. But
never disagree on some issues, especially about peo-
ple. If a mistake is made, it's never an honest mistake.
The guy was either careless, lazy, or incompetent.
And if you defend him, you open yourself to
attack-of even being disloyal. Your own personal
standards are suspect.
Another staffer in a different situation added:
"He genuinely can't stand 'yes' men. But don't
disagree with him."
The self-righteous manager has in-
tegrity in the moral sense in that he conscious-
ly lives by the strict standards he has set for
himself and everyone else. But his values
respect for others, honesty, and the other
commonly accepted tenets of good manage-
ment are not integrated with his actions. His
absolutism prevents him from objectively
analyzing problems or discovering the real
causes of success or failure.
The Dishonest DA
A small number of DAs have an inherent self-
serving orientation well beyond the normal,
to the point of dishonesty. A staff member
comments:
Last week he took a break from a meeting and gave
me a call. He said that he told them that we had al-
ready done the tests, and that it would be my neck
if I didn't get them done by 11:30. I can'l believe that
he hasn't been caught doing things like that.
The Developed DA
The majority of DAs originally were poten-
tial Builders and Leaders who learned the
 wrong lessons. As a result of both their for-
mal training and their job experiences, they
have lost their idealism and have become
"realistic, bottom-line" achievers. A market-
ing associate relates:
He told me that he had instructed his production peo-
ple to cooperate with us in making the necessary
product changes. Yet one of his subordinates told one
of mine that the message was, "Cooperate if you feel
it i5 needed, but you're still going to be judged on the
basis of present production schedules."
The DA has become an independent
entrepreneur within the organization. His fo-
cus is on the success of his own business a
plant, a department, a marketing district, etc.
The welfare of his corporate society comes
second whenever a conflict of interest arises.
WHY MANAGEMENT PROMOTES D A S
Despite his net negative impact on the long-
term welfare of the organization, the DA has
a significant competitive edge over the Build-
er and, occasionally, even the Leader.
The senior executive suddenly had
to leave the meeting. He had become physi-
cally ill as a result of discussing plans to dis-
''[Ljeaders feel they can delegate power to those
who will most likely further their own goals
regardless of the persons questionable sense
of values. Those whose ethics are unquestioned
hut whose ability to deliver appears less
8 certain usually come out second best."
miss large numbers of employees. Besides be-
ing aware of his obligation to stockholders,
he genuinely cared about the welfare of his
employees, as well as the total organization.
Yet this same executive later promoted to
plant manager an individual who had few of
his values. The new manager was known to
be bottom-line oriented, in the negative
sense, and he viewed employees as expend-
able resources. His ethical considerations were
limited to the perceived rightness of the short-
term economic demands being made on him.
Consciously or subconsciously, even
well-intentioned Leaders are inclined to favor
DAs over Builders (and occasionally over
subordinate Leaders) when choosing between
approximately equal candidates for promo-
tion. Confident of their own ethics. Leaders
feel they can delegate power to those who will
most likely further their own goals, regardless
of the persons questionable sense of values.
Those whose ethics are unquestioned but
whose ability to deliver appears less certain
usually come out second best.
This partially accounts for the bar-
rage of publicized misdeeds of corporate per-
sonnel. In the case of a computer-chip pro-
ducer for sensitive military equipment, over
100 people were involved in, or had to know
about, the falsification cf quality control test-
ing. Yet senior manag(;ment claimed igno-
rance of the illegal or highly unethical prac-
tice. Other news items include the deliberate
approval of defective welds in a nuclear
power plant, falsificaticn of expense charges
by a defense contractor, check kiting by a
brokerage firm, and on-iission of test data in
a drug manufacturer's reports.
By promoting DAs, management can
"benefit" from their short-term value orien-
tations, yet remain insulated from blame
when longer-range con;>equences inevitably
show up. The items that reach the newspapers
are the more blatant results. Far more costly
are the day-to-day deterioration in employee
morale and the resultant loss of quality
productivity.
The DA's Competitive Edge
The major reason Leaders are so vulnerable
to this promotional bias is that they have per-
sonal rapport with DAs; DAs seem more like
Leaders than do the Builders, Mechanics, or
Innovators. DAs have the charisma of profes-
sional image; they dress well and speak well;
they are persuasive, knowledgeable, ener-
getic, and competitive; and they have a sense
of urgency and are willing to work long
hours.
DAs also exprt ss the same values as
Leaders the production of a quality prod-
uct; good customer service; high ethical stan-
dards; and the development, involvement,
and participation of Icwer-level personnel.
These leadership behaviors and expressed
values are easily observed, even in the brief
contacts that managers have with personnel
several levels down.
In spite of suggestions in current
training materials, it is difficult for Builders
(or Mechanics and Innovators who are capa-
ble of becoming Builders) to develop such
charismatic traits to a competitive level. It is
certainly harder for them than for those who
come by it naturally by virtue of personality
or family or cultural background. Builders'
performance appraisal forms feature the fol-
lowing kinds of comments with maddening
frequency:
George continues to demonstrate superior technical
ability. He can break a problem down into its basic
components in order to come up with practical solu-
tions. He has excellent rapport with his peers and his
subordinates. Communication upward and his up-
ward image continue to be his problem.
Fred is well respected by all those who work with and
for him. Superiors, especially those some distance
fronfi him, are not sure of his abilities. He needs lo
work to improve their confidence.
His outspoken manner sometimes gives upper
management the wrong impression of a negative at-
titude.
Good downward and lateral communications. Needs
to devote more effort to upward communication.
These assessments identify genuine
individual weaknesses; in excessive numbers,
however, they become indictments of the
managements that made them weaknesses.
These managements have created a culture in
which: (1) many solid performers cannot be
fully effective in their day-to-day interactions
with others, especially upper management
and (2) a personality profile and its accom-
panying values continue to be underrepre-
sented in management's decision making.
Attempts to help Builders confront
such an environment (one-to-one counseling,
training in assertiveness, effective presenta-
tion, persuasive interviewing, etc.) may actu-
ally add to the cynicism some Builders feel.
Many Builders believe that the problem lies
with higher management's values, not their
own skills.
The number of employees who have
an old-fashioned dislike and distrust of self- 9
 serving power is far greater than is generally
recognized. Many have literally turned them-
selves off to organizational pressures for the
dynamic conformity. They consider it de-
meaning to have to devote time to communi-
cations designed primarily for their own or
their superior's personal advancement. One
respected and effective technical group leader
reacted to a coaching session in this way:
I know what you're saying is good advice. But I'm just
not going to be that way. I'm respected in this plant.
People know they can come to me and I won't take
advantage of them or take undue credit, I'd just as
soon not do all that "communicating" if that's what
it takes to get promoted.
The cumulative negative effects of
management's promotional bias cannot be
overemphasized. Every time a DA is pro-
moted and the ethical difference between the
DA and other candidates is apparent to the
staff, the organization's value base is dimin-
ished and the way is opened to even faster de-
terioration. No action of management has
more impact on its operational ethics than the
10
people it promotes, dismisses, or allows to
stagnate.
Management Bias and the Perception of
Performance
When Builders become successful following
promotion, management is usually some-
what surprised and pleasantly relieved. Man-
agement cannot quite understand how such
an unimpressive person can meet the urgen-
cies of the business, especially at the next
higher level, whatever that level is. Consider
these superiors' reactions:
John's group gets results, and I find it difficult to criti-
cize his performance. I know this sounds crazy-and
I apologize for it but if he would just look n:iore
xworr I erf when we have a crisis, I would feel a lot more
comfortable. He doesn't seem to have that sense of ur-
gency that's necessary to get things done.
I know Chuck is doing a fine job where he is. But he's
working in a confined environment. I can't see him
taking on that crowd we've got in marketing.
On the other hand, management is
surprised when the DA fails; he seems to have
all the trappings of a Leader. The DA looks
like a Leader even when he is accepting the
blame for failure. He does it with class and in
such a way to make it obvious that the cir-
cumstances just were not right. He knows
where he made his mistakes and now will be
an even better manager.
When the Builder fails, manage-
ment's suspicions are confirmed and the per-
son's influence in the power structure is per-
manently reduced. When the DA fails, he
frequently is transferred or promoted much
to the astonishment and dismay of his subor-
dinates and peers. Two examples:
We're transferring [DA] to head up the Southeastern
Division, He's got what it takes to get things done,
but he's going to need help. We know he created iome
real morale problems where he was. He's got to learn
that you just can't go into a district and replace every-
one who's only average. We don't have that many su-
 perior people around. We all have to learn how to interaction are easy to observe, evaluate,
manage a pretty typical group of people. teach, and apply. On the other hand, opera-
We're moving (DA) to a staff job where he'll have no tional ethics and values are usually very diffi-
one reporting to him. And now he'll be the one who cult to observe or measure; moreover, they
has to get cooperation from the plants. He needs to
are impossible to instill by way of an educa-
appreciate the negative effects that his arrogant atti-
tude has on others. Let him see what life is like from tional setting.
the other side for a change. [In spite of the DA's very As a result, the verifiable expedien-
poor reputation, he was later promoted over his cies of the present increasingly become the
previous peers in the line organization.]
standards for the future. They are a self-
fulfilling prophecy or, in the case of power, a
The strengths of DAs are easily ob- self-degenerating reality. In spite of good in-
served, as are Builders' weaknesses: in both tentions, a person's ability to manipulate his
cases, the upward projection of power and environment, combined with the opportunity
profile. But the strengths of Builders and the to do so, quickly outstrips the development
weaknesses of DAs are difficult to observe: of values he knows he's supposed to have.
the downward and latei^al communication of This leads to what philosopher Abraham
integrity, or lack thereof. Kaplan called the "'ordinal fallacy' . . . first I
Problems escalate when an organi- will achieve power, then use it for the public
zation pursues growth c^r is reorganizing, and good." {The New World of Philosophy, Vin-
takes the stance that management positions tage Books, 1961.)
cannot be blocked by nonpromotable people. Nowhere is this fallacy more evi-
In such an environment, inexperienced peo- dent than in the proliferation of personal and
ple with "potential" are chosen over those organizational success-through-power for-
with proven performance. Unfortunately, DAs mulas. Even in highly respected academic
appear to fit the psychological and behavi-
oral "profiles" of succes;>ful executives as well
as Leaders do and, in liome situations, even
better.
Whereas Leaders can appreciate the
obvious strengths of subordinate DAs, DAs
cannot abide some of the strengths of subor-
dinate Leaders. There ire likely to be severe
disagreements about the subordinate Leader's
longer-range orientation; his apparently un-
realistic, "soft" approacli to exercising control
and discipline; and hi; predictable lack of
genuine support for the DA's counterproduc-
tive behaviors and decisions.

THE SELF-FULFILLING, F'ROLIFERATING DA

The problem with research and training in

management and the behavioral sciences is
that the mechanics and procedures of human 11
 journals, one reads of the importance of
dressing for success, cultivating the behav-
ioral manners of those in power, making sure
of a personality "fit" between boss and em-
ployee, actively seeking power (and making
sure that upper management notices) ad in-
finitum, ad nauseam.
It is all good advice in the sense that
it works. As more people heed the advice,
however, the more managers expect subor-
dinate conformity to these proven qualities of
effective "leaders." It's easier to assess a subor-
dinate's skills in personal demeanor than to
assess his operational values or his actual
contribution to long-range effectiveness. This
is especially true when the manager is inex-
perienced in the employee's area of expertise.
Consider the perceived necessity of
a personality fit between boss and employee.
As this truism becomes an accepted fact of or-
ganizational life, it justifies an increasing
number of abuses. Dismissal of an employee
becomes an unquestionable managerial right;
the manager feels less need to adjust to the
deviant but effective or innovative employee.
Lee Iacocca (writing with William Novak in
lacocca. Bantam Books, 1984) described the
12
reason given to him for his discharge from
Ford: "Well, sometimes you just don't like
somebody."
Not only must immediate staffers
conform to the boss's idiosyncracies, fre-
quently so must employees several levels be-
low. As a culture norm, pleasing the boss has
priority over objective problem solving. It is
expected; successful people do it; and the
only way to effect change is to work within
the culture of the organization. This, by abdi-
cation, has become its operational system of
ethics.
A comprehensive AMA survey by
Dale Tarnowieski presented a shocking view
of employee opinions regarding the promo-
tional ethics of American organizations. {The
Changing Success Ethic, AMACOM, 1973.)
Eighty-eight percent of all respondents felt "a
dynamic personality and the ability to sell
yourself and your ideas" is more important to
career advancement than "a reputation for
honesty or firm adherence to principles."
Those who feel that the survey
respondents were unduly harsh in their judg-
ments should consider the actions of top
managements in sick industries who award
themselves large bonuses or who negotiate
"golden parachutes" for themselves while lec-
turing discharged employees on the risky na-
ture of free enterprise. Such enlightened self-
interest is likely not to be limited to top
management or to the few organizations that
made the headlines.
How THE DA IMPACTS OTHERS
The DA's most negative impact is on innova-
tion and creativity, whether in technical re-
search, human resources training and devel-
opment, marketing, data processing, or some
other area. His major accomplishment is mas-
tery of the system, as opposed to a meaning-
ful improvement of personnel, product, or
service. Whereas a Leader appreciates, pro-
tects, and helps the Innovator, the DA views
him as an impediment to his short-term goals
and as disruptive of his system.
If the DA and the Innovator have
the same area of expertise, the DA may see
him as a constant personal threat, especially
if they previously were associates. The DA's
first priority will be to remove the Innovator
from influential communication networks.
One Innovator relates:
The first thing he did when he took over was to stop
the two most successful projects that I was working
on projects that my previous boss and I had agreed
to. Without even asking aaout them or trying to un-
derstand them, he dismisssd them as being too theo-
retical and unlikely to get any practical results. Then
he gave me several picayune projects of his own that
any new college hire could do.
If the DA and the Innovator have
different areas of expertise and the DA's tech-
nical competence isn't threatened, then he
simply puts greater pressure on the Innovator
for quick results on present projects or shifts
him to projects with faster payoffs. An Inno-
vator comments:
We had a great group when [Leader] was here. We
were making solid progreiis in several areas and were
achieving a lot. Every mi^mber was involved. [DA]
now totally ignores the projects that don't have high
visibility and doesn't have the slightest idea what a
couple of his people are doing. He's pushing hell out
of the rest of us. All our results are overblown. He
reports favorable outcones before we've actually
analyzed the data. He's literally raping the group of
its accomplishments over the last three years; I feel
sorry for the next guy that inherits it."
creativity is to adopt the latest fad or techno-
logical development that has already proved
workable. Hence, as the Innovators are ren-
dered harmless or leave the organization, the
better Mechanics become the new Innovators.
The DA sees them as being more suited for
the supervision of innovation.
The effect of the DA on the Leader
and the Builder varies. Depending on the
strength of their ethical principles, the weight
of their golden handcuffs, and their perceived
chances of influencing the system favorably,
they decide either to leave or to adapt to the
environment.
And adapt they must. Any person is
vulnerable to the DA's disfavor. It is usually
a simple matter for the DA to build a charac-
teristic weakness, or even an unappreciated
strength, into a sufficient reason to demote or
dismiss an individual once the DA perceives
him to be unsupportive or disloyal. Leaders'
and Builders' legitimate criticisms of higher
management will be presented as evidence of
their having negative attitudes, being resis-
tant to change (if they oppose attempting too
much), or being too theoretical (if they advo-
cate trying something new or different).

By definition, innovation is unex-

pected, and it is usually difficult to under-
stand or appreciate on first exposure. There-
fore, under the DA, "iimovation" takes on a
new meaning. The patently obvious becomes
innovative because it gi ves the DA something
new that he understands and can implement
with predictable results. The DA's idea of 13
 As more DAs and Mechanics enter
the power network. Leaders, Builders, and In-
novators become proportionately less in-
fluential. The organization increasingly takes
on the character exemplified in much of the
current literature on power, and decisions are
based more on systems implications and
communication effectiveness than technical
merit. To the extent that DAs have been able
to replace the problem-solving climate with a
more political climate, it becomes crucial for
organizational survival that those who have
good ideas also develop the power and skills
to get them acknowledged and accepted.
This is no easy task. Many meetings
are now verbal sparring matches although
they may appear to be coldly professional.
The intrinsic merits of solutions may have lit-
tle to do with decisions; the problem-solving
objective has become secondary to control
for its own sake; and people win or lose. Sev-
eral examples:
Marketing manager: "We spend end-
less hours on the phone and in meetings to de-
velop better sales forecasts. Our record for
accuracy has been terrible. When we've done
the best we know how, we submit them to the
directors. They immediately say that they're
unacceptable and that we know that we can
do better than that. Now we have two addi-
tional problems: How can we inflate which
figures and do the least harm to manufactur-
ing, and how can we explain later why we
were wrong7"
Maintenance manager: "My people
are working 10-12 hours a day and get-
ting tired of it. It's never going to end. We
haven't done any preventive maintenance
for two years. The time and money lost
when a machine breaks down in the middle
of a run is tremendous, and it'll get worse.
But to IDA], every priority is geared to to-
day's production."
Industrial relations manager: "Right
14 now, this very minute, we're in the process of
firing engineers who have a superior rating
(top 35%) because of the headcount cutback.
Now [DA] tells us that every facility must re-
cruit at least two new college hires this year.
There is a principle somewhere that you can't
have a year without bringing in new blood!
Explain that one to me."
Production manager: "We have been
told that we have no choice it's a matter of
survival. We either have to meet our produc-
tion and cost-reduction goals or admit that
we can't conipete and get out of the business.
The trouble is, we've been told that three
times in the last ten years. It's boom, expan-
sion, bust, and cutback. And at each stage of
the cycle, we have to prove that we are loyal
soldiers who can bite the bullet and go the ex-
tra mile."
R&D group leader: "There is no way
we can meet all our objectives. Objectives are
only added to the list, never taken off. On
each project, [DA] wants us to explore every
possibility that higher management has sug-
gested, no matter how illogical. Anything
they want, he assures them we can do; and if
we don't deliver, it's our fault. The situation
has become so impossible, people don't care
any more."
The tragic solution to situations like
those above is often a management change or
a reorganization. Of course, those in charge
of the change are the same ones who caused
the problems in the first place. They again
will be inclined to pick other DAs with "can
do" attitudes who apparently have what it
takes to quickly whip a group back into
shape. Once the cycle is well entrenched, it
recreates itself.
A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE
When I was a new assistant professor at Syra-
cuse University, I found myself at a cocktail
party with some colleagues who were curious
 about my consulting activities. In spite of my
best explanations, one of them asked, "Do
you really think you can improve corpora-
tions?" After my effusively affirmative an-
swer, an elderly literciture professor har-
rumphed an appraisal of my understanding
of world history: "Dr. Kelly still believes in
the perfectibility of mankind."
Many successful managers read his-
tory the same way as the professor, and they
have concluded that the realities of organiza-
tional life dictate that standards of integrity
and ethics are properly left in textbooks and
classrooms. (How else could the spokesper-
sons for the American Tobacco Institute pres-
ent their united attacks on common sense?) In
too many decisions involving employees, the
public, and stockholders, little or no time is
spent on what should be done. Instead of
solving the ethical causes of their problems,
top managers prefer to rely on self-serving
communications and sophisticated manage-
ment systems and controls. Even the devel-
opment of values, philosophy, and mission
statements (recognized tools of organiza-
tional change) become perfunctory steps in
'Many successful managers... have concluded that
the realities of organizational life dictate
that standards of integrity and ethics are
properly left in textbooks and classrooms. . . .
In too many decisions involving employees,
the public, and stockholders, little or no
time is spent on what should be done."
the process of implementing the Compleat
Power Formula.
As managers become even more
"professional," they abstract themselves fur-
ther from both their product and their
producers. They become communications ex-
perts, information handlers, and financial
analysts. It makes no difference to them
whether they are producing plastic toys or
paper towels; human resources are an ex-
pense to be minimized. As a result, values
must suffer.
Whenever a subgroup separates it-
self from its community in a superior way, its
value orientation becomes either absolutist
(we have the right answers and, therefore, the
right of coercion) or subjectivist (what's in it
for us?). It doesn't matter what the superi-
ority is based on; sex, race, age, organiza-
tional level, or organizational function.
To the extent that a subgroup inte-
grates itself with other subgroups as equal
members of the community, its value orienta-
tion is objectivist. All subgroups and their
members are part of the objective reality
and contribute to the community's under-
IS
 standing of its problems and challenges.
Rather than coercion or manipulative persua-
sion between individuals and groups, the mo-
dus operandi is information/idea sharing and
mutual problem solving.
In other words, when top leaders
isolate themselves from their own organiza-
tion or society, their communications and de-
cisions inevitably reflect absolutist and sub-
jectivist values. As other levels adopt the
same values, the prophecy of the imperfect-
ibility of man is refulfilled; and counter-
productive behaviors are legitimized through-
out the organization.
REVERSING THE TREND BY
REJOINING THE WORKFORCE
A recent CBS News/N.Y. Times poll found
that 55% of respondents believed most execu-
tives are not honest. Asked for his reaction.
The Conference Board's Patrick McGuire said
that management has to convince employees
that unethical practices will not be tolerated.
He added that policy statements on ethics in
16
the workplace "don't mean a fiddler's damn
if the corporate culture means that people
who transgress this code do so with impu-
nity." ("Low Marks for Executive Honesty,"
The New York Times. June 9, 1985.)
McGuire's implied solution is used
in today's organizations and that fact, un-
fortunately, is the major part of the problem.
Organizations have become overly dependent
on the traditional formula: Senior manage-
ment develops organizational policy; it per-
suasively communicates its policy to person-
nel; and it polices and punishes those who
violate its published standards.
The problem with this formula is
that it has virtually no influence on senior
management itself i.e., those who set the
ethical standards for organizations. Unaware
of its own biases, and regardless of its com-
municated intent, senior management bases
its actions on what it perceives to be the
values within its own ranks and society at
large. Our challenge, therefore, is to make
ethical ideals a genuine part of the total
system especially for senior managers. In-
stead of limiting ourselves to the way we are,
we must strive to become better.
I suspect this can best be achieved
by developing better ways of capitalizing on
what we already know: people at all levels
have a lot more to contribute to the organiza-
tion than is generally acknowledged; partici-
pation increases employee commitment to or-
ganizational goals; and group-generated
norms are the most effective determinants of
actual behavior. If these assumptions are cor-
rect, senior managers need to reestablish their
presence in the organization in such a way
that they can learn (or relearn, if they have
forgotten) from their own employees that:
Employees have a universal desire to
work in an organization with high ethical, as
well as quality and production, standards.
The desired ethical standards of all lev-
els and functions are identical and are the (supposedly more persuasively) the purposes
same values society universally endorses. (In and procedures of their programs. On the
fact, top management's proclamations of other hand, when they experience firsthand
policy and philosophy, I'requently developed the obvious pain of employees who want very
after long and agonizing; discussions, usually much to do a quality job in a company they
are only polished versions of these same can be proud of, their reaction is quite differ-
values.) ent and very positive. Lower-level employees
Unethical behavior by managers results also get a better appreciation of manage-
in tremendous long-terr:i costs to the organi- ment's problems and its sincere efforts to
zation. make the right decisions.
Senior managtjrs will have to inter-
act with greater ranges of employees and
learn objective problem-solving behaviors CONCLUSION
(versus persuasive or power-oriented be-
haviors). This will require that they be will- To achieve a more ethical use of power, one
ing to confront and opi?nly discuss the defi- must understand current organizational real-
ciencies of their own operational values, ities, which include the unwarranted conclu-
behaviors, and organizational systems. Those sion that certain counterproductive behaviors
who have taken such risks have learned sig- are normal and even acceptable for the per-
nificant, though sometimes painful, lessons. son who has or seeks power. These beliefs
In groups that included diagonal slices (all easily lead to a lack of commitment to the
levels represented) of an organization: long-term welfare of the organization, de-
Employees have reported that they get structive special-interest conflicts, and a re-
positive or negative impressions about man- duced sense of community as organizations
agement's values and ethical standards from grow larger and more complex.
its promotional choices. Leaders cannot allow these beliefs
Technician groups have admitted that
they had sabotaged trials of DAs in R&D en-
vironments.
Operator groups have admitted they had
sabotaged production equipment in manu-
facturing units managed by DAs.
Employees will maliciously comply with
the DA, but will go the extra mile for the
Leader or Builder.
Management and control systems rarely
work as intended; most need adjustments to
be effective.
If control-oriented managers saw
these same items in a written report, or heard
them through the chain of command, their
first reactions would probably be to apply
more controls, try to identify and punish the
disloyal troublemakers, and recommunicate 17
 to remain undisputed by virtue of their
absence or inaction. The most important
presence of leadership is its active participa-
tion in the mutual development of behavioral
norms, both by example and by the explicit
discussion of values and mutual expectations.
(The creation of documents of ethical inten-
tion are little more than exercises in creative
writing if this is missing.)
Leadership's most important action
is the vigilant stewardship of its human re-
sources. Leaders should develop and promote
those who support its values and correct or
remove those who don't.
We've never been able to figure out
how to reliably prevent the cyclical decline of
great civilizations, religions, armies, or cor-
porations. But if we cannot bring ourselves to
believe that man and his organizations are
perfectible, at least we must believe that we
can improve our own areas of responsibility
according to some set of ethical standards. To
do otherwise is to abdicate to the natural en-
tropy of power.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Excellent cases for the constructive uses of power
have been presented by David McClelland and
John Kotter. Based on behavioral research, McClel-
land's popular articles provided modern managers
with some of the earliest and most effective justifi-
cations for the power motive in executive be-
havior: "The Two Faces of Power" (Journal of Inter-
national .Affairs. Vol. 24, No. 1, 1970) and with
David Burnham, "Power is the Great Motivator"
18 {Harvard Business Review, March-April 1976). In
Power in Management {AMACOM, 1979) and
Power and Influence (Free Press, 1985), Kotter per-
suasively combined traditional management con-
cepts with the power dimension to demonstrate its
necessary role in a broad range of management
situations.
The apparently constructive use of pow-
er tactics to combat others' destructive uses of
power, however, raises serious concerns. Suresh
Srivastua & Associates in Executive Power:
How Executives Influence People in Organizations
(Jossey-Bass Inc., 1986) and Andrew Kakabadse
and Christopher Parker in Power, Politics, and Or-
ganizations (John Wiley & Sons, 1984) have each
compiled a broad array of articles on power, some
of which raise doubts about our ability to ever
manage it wisely or reliably. Many of the currently
recommended solutions for improving organiza-
tions utilize the same processes that are character-
istic of destructive power politics, and which are
antithetical to objective problem solving.
In The New World of Philosophy (Vin-
tage Books, 1961), Abraham Kaplan insisted that
the business of philosophy is to pull things togeth-
er, to make a coherent whole out of the congeries
of ideas and perspectives to be found in the various
domains of culture, and relating to all the various
aspects of experience. The danger of "piecemeal
philosophizing" is that Important interrelation-
ships may not be understood. Two classic works
that describe the interactional effects of process
(e.g., participation versus direction), values
(equality versus superiority) and the various uses
of power are Harold Lasswell and Abraham Kap-
lan's Power and Society: A Framework for Political
Inquiry (Yale University Press, 1950) and Kaplan's
American Ethics and Public Policy (Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1963). "Power is only one of the
values and instruments manifested in interpersonal
relationships, and it cannot be adequately under-
stood in abstraction from other values."
// you wish to make photocopies or obtain reprints
of this or other articles in ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS,
please refer to the special reprint service
instructions on page 80.