Leadership is TheatreBook by David M. Boje

Publisher: Tamaraland (Las Cruces, NM), 2005

Chapter 7: What is the Z Dimension of Leadership? It’s Participation with Ethics

ABSTRACTZ is the third SEPTET element, and it has everything to do with dialogs of ethics and participation. Now what is a leader if not someone who facilitates dialog among all the specialties and personalities of any organization? Some leaders know how to stimulate dialog and others can bring people with wildly different logics and views into collaborative dialog. Leaders stimulate more or less ethical dialog. This chapter is about “discursive ethics” of leadership. Dialog consists here of Four Voices of leadership (see next chapter).

TURTLE ISLANDSTORY IN 3 SCENES – The story that follows illustrates some points about ethics, and themes in this chapter.

1

SCENE 1: Turtle and Mosquitoes on Ocracoke IslandNarration: Ocracoke Island is in the Outer Bank area of North Carolina. Its Aug 07 and I am on vacation there. I

am exploring the marshy side of the islandGuest: “I see you are prepared for the mosquitoes.”David: (dressed in two layers of mosquito netting, broad brimmed straw hat, long sleeves, long pants, with

backpack) “I’m headed to the marsh side of the island, to a conservancy areas, thick with mosquitoes. Today I’ll hold them off. My eyes used to swell shut, when I was ten years old, living in Alaska. Would wake up and think I’d gone blind. Still allergic to them, but don’t swell as much.”

Guest: “Never seen so many mosquitoes here. Highly unusual.”David: (everyone says that, I say to myself. I walk doing the Tai Chi walk, Master Lee taught to me in

Manchester England, a few days ago. I head down the trail to the marshy side of the island. It is a forest thick with all kinds of trees called ‘Springer’s Point Nature Preserve’).

SCENE 2: Man versus Mosquitoes David: (out loud, talking to mosquitoes): “Today I am prepared. You will not penetrate my defenses. I am going

to sit under this tree, in the swamp, and meditate.”Mosquitoes: (of course they don’t talk, but I imagine this, as a swarm army comes my way) “We’ll see about

that.David: (don’t believe it. They are getting in between the layers. Me being a Jain, I am not allowed to kill even

an insect. Still, I think it is a commandment I will break, if they sting me, that rules is out)Mosquitoes: (the swarm attacks in greater number. A flank to left and right, and hitting Boje high and low)David: “That’s it. Most of you did not get through. A few bits, but only a few. I’m moving on”

2

SCENE 3: David Meets TurtleDavid: (I make my way to the shore, away from the forest, to where the wind blows and the swarm can not light on my body. As I walk along the shore, I look for sea shells, find some interesting feathers to make quill pens, then I spot it).Turtle: (does not speak. It’s dead. It’s hind legs are missing)David: (looks to the dredge barge, the one that keeps the channel deep enough for the car-ferry boats to bring tourists, and I am one of them, to this island. David decides to make this image, but with 4 legs, the image of Turtle Island in his leadership book).Narration: late hat night, awakening from dreamDavid: (writes in his notebook). ‘I dreamed of a green turtle. A gentle turtle, not the snapping kind. I could see it was green, in my dream. I will think on turtle as my spirit guide animal and learn what turtle ways I can. Like not to snap, to be wise in ways of having a shell to withdraw to, to return to the island.’

THREE STORY APPLICATIONS TO THIS CHAPTER1. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives versus Practical/situation ethics – It is to not lie, to not kill, and all

the other commandments. As Catholic, I know that the don’t kill rule is interpreted situationally (what Kant calls practical ethics), but as a Jain, its pretty categorical, you don’t kill any being, even the mosquito (as scene 2 illustrates). Still, I am not perfect, and have killed a few. I swat in a reflex.

2. Voices - 1st voice I hear is my own. 2nd voice I dialogue with the guest. 3rd voice, I hear the ethics of my Catholic upbringing and my more recent Jain (12 years now). 4th voice is voice of the voiceless turtle, laid slaughtered on the shore, and the voice in dream of the Green Turtle, as soft-shelled turtle. I reckon the dream is an answer to meditation to find spirit guide animals (part of my native tradition, not something everyone does, could do, or is allowed to do by their categorical imperatives)

3. Dialogism – It’s a word Mikhail Bakhtin coined. It means the answering of one another, not just in conversation (e.g. guest and me in scene 1), but in anticipating conversation (like this one I writing, and why I had photos to include for you), and the dialogism between species (humans & turtles or mosquitoes), and the internalized dialogism between voice of my varied spiritualities, and the wisdom to be gained by listening to the voiceless (animals and humans).

3

FOUR VOICES OF DIALOGUE. We focus here on the ethics (3rd voice that is categorical or practical) and most of next chapter is on the 4th voice (voiceless, a different sort of ethics).

A theory of leadership I developed to explain the Z-dimension of participation and ethics is called the Four Voices of Dialog.

• One voice monologue – the leader tells everyone what is what, and there is no real feedback. Very autocratic, not a listener when it comes to participation.

• Two voiced dialogue – leader speaks to the Other (in their head); there is an internalized Other who is dialogic, at least empathetically to the leader. Leader may or may not participate with this Other outside his or her own head.

• Three voiced dialogic – Moral Ethics! Maxims: “Thou shall not lie”; “Thou shall not steal”; “Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Third Voice is ethical; it is what Adam Smith  (1723-1791) called the voice of the internalized “impartial spectator.” The leader participates with an internalized ethical voice, one learned at Mother’s knee, or in socialization at church, temple, or other organized religion.

• Four voiced dialogic – This next voice is the voice of the voiceless; the voices of silence; it’s a voice present by its absence; examples: the animals, insects, human, or environment that is unable to speak. This is an internalized voice that is ethical and more aesthetic.

Dialogue, a conversation of participation among several people, in the same time and place, is not the same as “dialogic” (or dialogism). In the four voices model, 1st voice is monologue, and is neither dialog or dialogic. 2nd voice is internalized dialogue (better form of participation would be to meet the Other in face-to-face dialogue). 3rd and 4th voice are dialogic (& beyond simple face-to-face or imagined dialog). 3rd voice is the internalized spectator of one’s ethical voice (a transcendental voice), which is dialogic with the first two voices. 4th voice is voice of silence, one that speaks by its silence; it would speak if it were able or un-oppressed. 4th voice is dialogic to the other three voices. In 4th voice we expect an answer, but it does not come; yet the 4th voice leader invites its participation, opens oneself to voice of silence, and hears an aesthetic response.

Two key Ethics concepts:

1. Dialogism – we live in dialogic worlds, where multiple voices, here and now, before and anticipated, in dreams and ‘real’ time, interact. The ethics of dialogism is recognition of being in worlds where ours is not the only voice. It is a responsibility to notice, hear, and respond in action to those voices around us, especially the ones so easy to tune out, to ignore, to treat as not there at all.

2. Answerability – we are answerable. In my Turtle and Mosquitoes story, I am answerable for killing turtle, as tourist on the ferryboat, and as tourist swatting mosquitoes on nature preserve trail. I am complicit, a part of the relationship of species on Gaia, and am to blame for what happens, because I am a co-participant in the events of the island, by being there. I can turn my back on answerability, on the ethics of being the one person in the situation, looking at dead turtle, dressed in netting to cut back on the mosquito killing I do.

For example, I imagine what the old growth forest (nature preserve, in my story) spoke to me before it was clear-cut (to make way for more tourists). I imagine what this silent x-forest says to me, to my children’s

4

children who will never see such forest. Dialogic is Bakhtin’s (1973, 1981) concept, and can take several forms that are beyond “dialogue” of the simple here-and-now face-to-face conversation. I think my story illustrates this.

Z Narrative Dimension -  From Monophonic (single voiced) to polyphonic (many voices).    

   Figure Three adds a third dimension to what was displayed in Figure Three (and Two). This is the Y dimension of monophonic to polyphonic narrative. The (blue) boxes in the lower potion of the figure on the monophonic narrative types, whereas, the upper (orange) ones represents the polyphonic ones.  

Figure Four: Leader in Three Dimensions  © David M. Boje

In bureaucratic leadership, for example, there is mostly monologue; other voices are there on the stage but forbidden to speak, or they can only be whispered, their words unhearable, drowned out by the one official narrator who is authorized to take center-stage and speak and speak some more.

Kirkeby (2000: 232) argues it is the right of power to narrate events, to declare them romantic, tragic, comedic, or ironic, and then of course make them all  into a romantic narratives that fits the bureaucratic pension for monophonic (single voiced) influence. For any other voice to speak would be an act of bureaucratic espionage; certainly for the secretary to speak would be unthinkable rebellion.

5

Next I talk of dialogue, not the dialogic, but with Martin Luther King Jr. one could find both.

Dialogue - Aristotle defined dialogue (or diction) as the verbal and non-verbal exchanges among characters. Dialog is a resource to express character, plot, and theme of the charismatic leader script. The dialog of Martin Luther King has a pace, rhythm, repetition and stylistic that leadership researchers have identified as charismatic (Conger, 1991). "Let freedom ring." 

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring. 

To me, what MLK is saying is the 4th voice, hearing the freedom ring, that has gone voiceless.

Another example: General Douglas Macarthur would prepare for a guest, or a group by memorizing every fact he could about topics they were supposed to know as expert. In his flamboyance style, he would then dazzle them with his expertise and breadth of knowledge. Macarthur worked on his dialog, both in the office and on the floor of the Senate, to give a charismatic performance, often speaking his dialog from memory. You can read more about his style at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/macarthur_douglas.htm He managed his stylistics, making more participation appear to be happening, making 1st voice seem to be in dialog with the other.

Next I want to explore the 3rd voice, the voice of ethical participation.

ETHICS DIALOG OF THEATRICS OF LEADERSHIP

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785/1993) distinguishes between the ethics of “practical reasoning” and the ethics of “categorical imperative.” Practical reasoning ethics is about “means” to some end. Categorical imperative is an “end” such as “humanity” is an end unto itself. When a leader treats workers or customers as “means” to gain “profit” “power” “prestige” that is “practical reasoning.”

Categorical Imperative – be ethical even if it does not lead to your own happiness. Treat humanity as an “end” unto itself, not a means to avoid punishment or as means to attain profit, happiness, etc. “I should never act except in such a way that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785/1993: #402, p. 14).

Maxim – “A maxim is the subjective principle of volition” (Kant, 1785/1993: #401, footnote 13, p. 13). An example of a “maxim” is the leader’s “will.” The leader’s dialog can will their intent become a universal law, or that it be just practical reason.

An example of Categorical Imperative is the white lie.

[This means that when you tell a lie, you merely take exception to the general rule that says everyone should always tell the truth and behave that what you are saying is true. When you lie, you do not thereby will that everyone else lie and not believe that what you are saying is true,

6

because in such a case your lie would never work to get you what you want] (Kant, 1785/1993: #444, footnote 16, p. 15).

Are the 10 Commandments Categorical Imperatives or just Practical Reasoning? Are they imperatives or just guidelines? (Following is Wikepedia) is from Exodus:

Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship. Where My enemies are concerned, I keep in mind the sin of the fathers for [their] descendants, to the third and fourth [generation]. But for those who love Me and keep My commandments, I show love for thousands [of generations]. Do not take the name of God your Lord in vain. God will not allow the one who takes His name in vain to go unpunished. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to God your Lord. Do not do anything that constitutes work. [This includes] you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in your gates. It was during the six weekdays that God made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. God therefore blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and mother. You will then live long on the land that God your Lord is giving you. Do not commit murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not testify as a false witness against your neighbor. Do not be envious of your neighbor's house. Do not be envious of your neighbor's wife, his slave, his maid, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that is your neighbor's." (Exodus 20)

There are two sets of 10 Commandments, one I Exodus 20, 2nd is Exodus 34.

Which Ten Commandments? Source http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

First Tables of Stone (Exodus 20)("which Moses didst break") 

Second Tables of Stone (Exodus 34)("the words that were on the first") 

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. 

1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god). 

2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them. 

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. 

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. 

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn. 

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.  4. All the first-born are mine. 

7

5. Honor your father and your mother.  5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest. 

6. You shall not kill.  6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end. 

7. You shall not commit adultery.  7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread. 

8. You shall not steal.  8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning. 

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 

9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. 

10. You shall not covet.  10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk. 

OK, pick one, translate them into whatever is your faith, or if you are without faith, then what is your list of 10 ethical categoricals? From here, we just like at the “supposed right to lie,” the corporation’s right to lie.

WHAT IS THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO LEADER PARTICIPATION:The following are commonly taught templates of leader and follower in participative dialog:

TANNENBAUM & SCHMIDT 1958 Continuum of Leader Behavior (Autocratic to Democratic

BOSS CENTERED

LEADERSHIPCONTINUUM

SUBORDINATE CENTERED

LEADERSHIP

Use of authority by manager <----------------------> Freedom for subordinates

Manager makes decision and accounces it

Manager "sells" decision

Manager presents ideas and invites questions

Manager presents tentative decision subject to change

Manager presents problem, get suggestions, makes decision

manager defines limits; asks group to make decision

Manager permits subordinate to function within limits defined by superior 

TELL SELL CONSULT SHARE

Tannenbaum, R., Schmidt WH (1958), How to choose a leadership pattern. HarvardBusiness Review 36/2, 1958: 95-101. 

8

Note: The Autocratic to Democratic continuum model of Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) builds upon the early work of Lewin et al (1938), both autocratic and democratic styles are apparent, but laissez-faire is absent.

Main Point -> Again this is all about transactions, be it tell, sell, consult, or share. Share and consult transactions are nicer and more social than tell and sell, but it is still about transactions.

Mintzberg Managerial Roles

Mintzberg's (1973, 1975) classification of managerial roles. Mintzberg did observation studies of five chief executives, and found that they did not divide their time into planning, organizing, influence, lead, and control. Rather the manager played ten fragmented roles in a high interruption environment. Half of these managers' activities lasted less than nine minutes and are very transactional. 

INTERPERSONAL ROLES

1. FIGUREHEAD 2. LEADER 3. LIAISON

INFORMATION ROLES

1. MONITOR 2. DISSEMINATOR 3. SPOKESMAN

DECISIONAL ROLES

1. ENTREPRENEUR 2. DISTURBANCE HANDLER 3. RESOURCE ALLOCATOR 4. NEGOTIATOR

Out of the Box Interpretation  - Leadership is theatre, and the leader is suspended in a web of ten scripted roles. Some leaders use these roles with more persuasive power than others to influence spectators and other actors.

Does Nike have a First Amendment right to publicly claim that it is a leader in fighting sweatshops -- or is that false advertising? An example of white lie justified by Practical Reason: In leaderly dialog, you find occasions when the leader recommends a “white lie” as a expedient “means” to achieve rewards (profit, bonus, etc.) or avoid punishment (going to prison, losing market share, etc.). Nike Corporation, for example, argued that it can tell white lies in advertising (claiming that Nike does not contract with sweatshops, pays living wages, gives workers in Third World factories the right to organize, has safe working conditions, etc.) – that such white lies in its advertising is consonant with “Free Speech.”

Bill of Rights: 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

9

14th Amendment gives rights to former slaves; it was opened as a loophole in 1886 court decision that granted “personhood” to corporations, which is why Nike can legally claim protection under the 1st Amendment.1

Nike’s Little White Lies - In the mid-90s, Nike officials launched a public relations counter-offensive against charges that workers in its Asian factories were subjected to dangerous chemical exposure, physical abuse, and substandard wages. Nike sports marketing director Steve Miller, for example, wrote to university presidents and athletic directors in June 1996 to reassure them Nike was still a brand their teams could wear proudly. The company's subcontractors, he claimed, were obliged to follow "government regulations regarding minimum wage and overtime as well as occupational health and safety, environmental regulations, workers' insurance, and equal opportunity provisions" (Josh Richman, Mother Jones)2

Nike in 2003 agreed to pay $ 1.5 million to settle the lawsuit claiming the corporate dialog in its advertising, about global labor practices, was a pack of white lies (& some real whoppers). The suit was brought by Marc Kasky in 1998, a labor activist in San Francisco. The California Supreme Court, in a 4-to-3 decision in 2002, ruled that Nike's statements were commercial speech subject to the advertising law because Nike was "engaged in commerce" and its statements were "likely to influence consumers in their commercial decisions."3 Lest you be fooled, the $1.5 million went to the “Fair Labor Association” an enterprise founded and funded by Nike, Reebok, etc. to monitor global labor practices of these same corporations contract factories adherence to corporate codes of conduct; in short, it is if Nike lost the law suit, then settled by giving the money to its own enterprise.

Adam Smith (1776) on Sweatshop Wages: “A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation” (Smith, 1776, CHAPTER VIII Of the Wages of Labor ). 

Kant (1785/1993, #427, p. 65) takes the position that even a white lie, “does harm to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right.” Kant gives the example of a murderer who asks you if their intended victim is in your house; even then according to categorical imperative, a white lie is not allowed.

It is indeed possible that after you have honestly answered Yes to the murderer’s question, as to whether the intended victim is in the house, the latter went out unobserved and thus eluded the murderer, so that the deed would not have come about. However, if you told a lie and said that the intended victim was not in the house, and he was actually (though unbeknownst to you) gone out, with the result that by so doing he has been met by the murderer and thus the deed has been perpetrated, then in this case you may be justly accused as having caused his death. For if you had told the truth as best you knew it, then the murderer might perhaps have been caught by neighbors who came running while he was searching the house for his intended victim, and thus the deed might have been prevented. Therefore, whoever tells a lie, regardless of how good his intentions may be, must answer for the consequences resulting there from even before a civil tribunal and must pay the penalty for them, regardless of how unforeseen those consequences may be (Kant (1785/1993, #427, p. 65).

Derrida’s Rebuttal to Kant’s Categorical Imperative Against the White Lie - Derrida (2000) raises the issue, about what happens when two (or more) categorical imperatives come into conflict. What happens when “thou shalt not lie” under any circumstances comes into conflict with the categorical imperative “of 1 Source for Personhood of corporations and the Nike case http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=71102 Josh Richman, Mother Jones, “Greenwashing on Trial” 2001 http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2001/02/greenwash.html3 Source material http://reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/nyt_nikesettles.html

10

Hospitality?” There is an ethics of Hospitality, a maxim (will) that you do not give over guest in your house to a murderer. Is there a “supposed right to lie out of humanity” (Derrida, 2002: 67). Kant argues that one should never lie, under any circumstances. Derrida makes the maxim of unconditional hospitality by host or hostess to their guests something that is a categorical imperative (a maxim he seeks to make a universal law), the “laws of hospitality” (Derrida, 2000: 77, 81): “to give the new arrival all of one’s home and oneself, to give him or her one’s own, our own, without asking a name, or compensation, or the fulfillment of even the smallest condition.”

“Should one hand over one’s guests to criminals, rapists, murderers? Or lie to them so as to save the people one is putting up and for whom one feels responsible?” (Derrida, 2000: 151). Derrida’s reply is to cite the story of Lot, who did offer hospitality to strangers who it turns out were being hunted by murderer’s

Lot came out to them at the door, and having closed the door behind him said, “I beg you, my brothers, do no wicked thing. Listen, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, to treat as it pleases you. But as for the men, do nothing to them, for they have come under the shadow of my roof” (story of Lot from Genesis 19: 1-9; as told by Derrida, 2000: 153; see similar story, Judges 19: 23-30).

To what extent does one universal, categorical imperative, such as ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH, have precedence over another imperative, UNCONDITIONAL HOSPITALITY, over yet another, NEVER ABUSE WOMEN? In the stories from the bible, men give women to the rapists or murderers, rather than give up a stranger (given hospitality) or rather than tell a white lie.

Now the question arises: does a leader have an ethical categorical imperative NOT TO LIE, to tell the truth, even in advertising? Other questions: does a leader’s dialog, speak the truth, and does the leader have an unconditional obligation to extend hospitality to all workers, especially to women workers in a sweatshop in Asia, making garments or sneakers for some 1st world corporation?

Kant speaks of the Kingdom of Ends, the ideal utopia in which all people behave with categorical imperatives (speaking truth, extending hospitality, etc.). “We think that Kant’s utopia, the ‘kingdom of ends’, could hardly include ‘downsizing’ and involuntary ‘career re-adjustments’” and I will add lies in advertising and sweatshops for young women (Campbell, Parker & ten Bos, 2005: 46). Why? Because in Kingdom of Ends, ends matter, not utilitarian, practical compromises, not practical reasoning (where means to ends are paramount).

Global (free market) sweatshop trade is opposite to Kant’s project for perpetual peace, which is all about the means (sweatshop) justify the ends (lower prices at Wal-Mart; higher dividends to shareholders; humungous salaries for executives). People thinking of their own ends (i.e. greed), bring great harm to humanity.

You would have to conclude that business leaders, for the most part, operate using Practical Reason ethics; its Ok to tell white lies (even whoppers) if the extends the bottom line. Kent envisioned autonomous individuals, seeking to make their maxims universal, to operate with humanity as an end unto itself. It has been suggested that business ethicists invoke an instrumental interpretation to fit the bueinsss ethics of practical reasoning (Campbell, Parker & ten Bos, 2005: 52).

Dialog between leaders and followers, between leaders and customers, between leaders and society – is considered (un) ethical discourse. The ethical (or not) discourse of a top executive permeates the dialog of the entire organization; “he or she set the tone, influencing the behavior of the next tier of executives, and down the line to rank-and-file employees, although there may be an occasional exception or whistleblower” (Hartley, 1993: 310). This is the case in Bhopal (Union Carbide), unsafe consumer goods (GM Corvair; Ford’s Pinto), corporate mis-advertising (Nike), in predatory global practices (Wal-Mart), and in the energy fraud (Enron). When the dialog values bottom line (greed) over the hospitality to its workers, or the truthfulness of its

11

executives, it’s evident that (instrumental) practical reason, has precedence over Kantian categorical imperatives.

In dialog, there is a herd mentality; the herd follows the lowest ethical conduct of the leader. The energy traders followed the off-the-balance sheet behavior, and other practices of Enron. Reasons given by competitors who followed Enron, are same as those of the S&L scandal:

1. Since everyone else is doing it, it must be the thing to do2. If we don’t do likewise, we will be at a competitive disadvantage and our viability may even be

threatened (Hartley, 1993: 312).

This is the dialogic herd mentality, ways of discourse that invariable lead to practical reasoning to justify what is unjustifiable in the ethics of Kant’s categorical imperative.

You will read in this chapter about Enron’s attempts to tell white lies, about their attempts to cover up when those white lies were found out. There has prolonged denial and cover-up by many corporations, about the white lies, about worker safety, about environmental impact, about sweatshop labor practices. Nike and Wal-Mart blame their sub-contractors, or the oversights of their monitors. They try to escape responsibility, answerability and blame for sweaty practices.

It’s all about Public Image The white lies are a way to preserve public image to salvage a besmirched reputation, to engage in dialog of the white lie. A besmirched public image can negatively affect sales, profits, and those executive bonuses. Monsanto, Nike, Wal-Mart, and McDonald’s have “war rooms,” teams of public relations specialists dispatched like SWAT teams to counter any negative dialog on college campuses, in academic meetings, and anywhere in the public square where the whistles are about to blow. A corporate reputation has currency; protecting the public image at all cost, by whatever practical means, is the work of the war room. The history of these firms is one public relations disaster after another. The dialog between corporate leaders, their staff, the public, and the critics is all about disputing public image.

DIALOGUE Self-assessment using XYZ Model of leadership

If the leader is part director, what is the script, who is the characters, what is the plot of this leader adventure to change theatre? You can consider you as leader or a leader you are studying; what is the relevant dialog? How does the social field conspire to demand that this leader dialog be created and staged at this point in history?

What societal (discourse) script runs you? (are you a workaholic, shopaholic, substance-addict, sex addict, or just everyday Joe/Jane?) What is your character role in your life script? How does your inherited ancestral script, you’re here-and-now life script interact with what the societal scripts tell you to do, to be, to think, to imagine? How do other people (parents, co-workers, lover, boss) script you? Hw does society script you?

Phone solicitors have scripts, so do servers at McDonald’s and those associates at Wal-Mart: “How may I help you? Do you want fries with that…” Everyone who works has dialogic scripts to learn. Deviate from the script and the dialog-police turn up. Some scripts are written, others are in our head, put their by years of programming, by thousands of ads.

Main point: all the scripts of dialogue that we enact, to what extent do we put on the dialogic act, and when do we participate in its construction. People, who work in dialogic organizations, participate in decisions, they are not voiceless, their voice is not imagined in the head of 1st voice autocratic leader. They are not just told to speak their lines and turn their brain off. They bring their ethics (3rd voice) to work. The main point I want to make is about ethical dialog; when does the person act from their ethical voice in the here-an-now in time and place with others. When do they stand up for ethics of the voiceless (4th voice). When is it not

12

dialog (here-and-now face-to-face or phone-to-phone) and is dialogic across times and spaces (such as me and Georgie or Edward’s native wife & children, whom I never met, was not allowed to know about, until secrets were unleashed)?

In metatheatre, finding your ethical voice, listening to that third voice (the internalized spectator) can be quite difficult. We will define metatheatre, then look at the Enron case, where the 3rd voice (the ethical voice) was not being heard; and people followed scripted dialogues (were not allowed to speak), scripts made by others without much ethical reflection, or did not care about ethical considerations. Next we look at Enron and our post-Enron world, where every corporation tries to look ethical, to be transparent about its numbers and overseas practices, etc.

Yesterday (Sept 30 2002) I hear Gretchen Morgenson, the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist from the New York Times speak on the NMSU campus.

 

Provost Flores introduced her by raising some important questions:

 

1. Are CEOs of American corporations ethically challenged? 2. How do we raise the issue of ethics in our classes? 3. Can we rethink what we do in the business world?

 

Morgenson asked these questions:

 

1. Is greed a bigger problem than it has been historically? 2. Are executives more ethically challenged than before? 3. Are we witnessing a corporate crime wave?

 

        Lerach noted that the U.S. is "awash in the largest wave of financial fraud since the 1920s."

CEOs have become the chief cheerleaders, and in terms of dialog, the chief spinmeisters. They use their dialog to push up sales revenues when that is the measure of their performance, or shift liabilities into the asset column when that is the measure of their performance review. The charge is that executives lead according to what is best for their executive incentive plans. For WorldCom, it was billing; for Enron it was number of trades.

 

She qualified her remarks by saying she is a capitalist and not against big business. She is in favor of the free market and is not a socialist. But she is also concerned about the long term trend, the transfer of shareholder wealth to a few executives.

13

 

People in high places have abused the system. A few greedmeisters are destroying capitalism. She then offered the first line of this well known quote by Rohatyn:

 

Only capitalists can destroy capitalism. Populist capitalism of a type is very beneficial to the vast majority in our system, but an ethical tradition is needed to make it all work. When you have senior people walking away with hundreds of millions, leaving everyone else in the dirt, that is hugely depressing and very dangerous.                                                              —Felix G. Rohatyn (Ambassador to France in December 2000; Chairman of the Board of Aton Pharma, Inc., a company recently formed to develop and test a promising cancer therapy).

Gretchen Morgenson gave a list of corporate CEOs who were out to destroy capitalism:

1.      TYCO, she says gets the “Grasping Executive Award” - Dennis Kozlowski used company funds to buy homes and expensive artwork; he himself an $18 million apartment and $13 million worth of paintings.

2.      Qwest - CEO Joseph Nacchio – Qest was the Greediest of the greediest executives and companies in Fortune’s September 2, 2002 issue. Nacchio walks away with $200 million from his stock, after adding $1 billion in phony revenue. Executives sold $2.26 billion Phil Anshutz, Directoror of Qwest Communications, made $1.57 billion. Former CEO Joe Nacchiw, got paied $230 millionThe stock was at $65 and is now at $3. “Nacchio was paid a $1.5 million bonus, as well as a cash payout of $24 million, on top of his $1.2 million salary and miscellaneous stock options, for a year when Qwest teetered on the brink of bankruptcy” (Garcia Aug 25 2002 Alb Journal).

3.      GLOBAL CROSSING - Chief Executive Officers John Legere and Gary Winnick (founder of GC)– Winnick, worth $3.2 billion today, did accounting trickery similar to Enron. Winnick made $508 million in his stock sales. In October, Global Crossing pardoned two-thirds of a $15 million loan it made to newly appointed CEO John Legere when he worked for the company's Asian subsidiary. Former CEO Gary Winnick sold $735 million in Global Crossing stock. Salomon Smith Barney analyst Jack Grubman, boosted his Global Crossing stock and served as an adviser to them. He mad tens of millions on a merger he designed. Like Qwest, it sold network capacity to other companies, then bought the same amount back. Enron did with energy swaps. Stock boosting strategies bought this CEO, Gary Winnick, a $94 million house, but his shareholders took a $47 billion loss.

4.      WORLD Com – CEO Bernard Ebbers – used accounting trickery and Andersen auditors and Wall Street’s Jack Grubman, to boost stock prices. WorldCom counted $3.8 billion in ordinary operating costs as a capital expense in 2001 and 2002, so they could claim profits when they actually lost money. They shifted another $1 billion in operating costs to capital accounts during 1999 and 2000. Their whistle blower is Cynthia Cooper. The shareholder losses were $191 billion. CEO Ebbers made $408 million from loans he took against WorldCom stock.

5.      ENRON – CEO Kenneth Lay; former CEO Jeffrey Skilling – Used accounting trickery and metatheatre to keep the media, Wall Street analysts, regulators, employees and investors thinking Enron was more than it was. The result was a shareholder loss of $68 billion, while Enron insiders sold $1.1 billion in stock. And froze employee stock selling, while executives sold theirs. Fortune Magazine named Enron America’s most innovative company six times; they were not skeptical or critical; they

14

were cheerleaders. Enron hid its debt in 3500 off-the-books partnerships. Former division head, Lou Pai married a stripper and cashed in $270 million. Ken Lay marred is secretary Linda, and cashed in $102 million. Rebecca mark, former division head, cashed out $80 million. Jeff Skilling cashed out $68 million. Andrew Fastow made over $30 million on the off-the-balance sheet partnerships, plus his stock sales.

6.      Adelphia, a cable TV company, had claimed up to 500,000 fictitious subscribers while keeping two sets of accounting books, one of which inflated the amount it was spending on upgrading its cable systems. No wonder the company is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and is the subject of criminal investigations by two federal grand juries. Adelphia's auditors, Deloitte & Touche, also have a lot of Enron -style questions to answer.

Executives are over-paid: “Business Week reported that in 2000, CEOs in 365 top companies were paid 531 times more than their average hourly worker. In 1980, they were paid 42 times more” (Garcia, 2002). The Robber Barons are back, says Morgenson. The "robber barons" of the late 19th century brought American capitalism into disrepute, but were then tamed by a series of anti-monopoly laws which restored law and order to the market place. Under the order issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in June, companies and their officers are liable to penalties by federal agencies.

Gretchen’s point was that CEOs are amassing wealth while shareholders are left holding worthless stock. She explains this as the love of the stock option that is now the root of all evil. Executives use DIALOG to get stock price to soar, then exercise their stock options to cash out. This is causing a crisis in investor confidence and employee confidence in executives.

The problem with the Stock Option is that it is tied to performance of the company. This sounds like a great idea, but becomes a powerful incentive to cook the books. Executives use dialog to “shade the truth,” to overstate earnings, to inflate cash flow, and pad earnings with contract swaps, and to form off-shore partnerships and stock options so as to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

THE INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED

These are mega scandals that are embedded in the bedrock of American institutions: financial, education, political and industry. It is more endemic than in previous megaspectacles. Wake up business is not a democracy; executives are bagging away stock options and leaving investors and employees in the dirt.

Wall Street has come under inquiry - Investment banks Merrill Lynch and CSFB have each been fined $100 million for bad practice; analysts were pumping up stocks to suit the requirements of the firm's investment bankers, while privately describing their recommendations to investors as "crap" (or worse). Citigroup's star telecom analyst, Jack Grubman, got so close to Global Crossing, a telecom stock he was touting, that he masterminded two of its acquisitions and became personal finance adviser to its boss.Gruman was chief cheerleader for WoldCom. Wall Street did not question the new of-the-balance sheet partnerships. They did not question the stock option accounting methods. The International Accounting Board is trying to get better stock option reporting standards; to report it as an expense instead of an obscure footnote. Standard and Poors is doing this now in its ratings (the first to do so). The Journal of Finance is recommending that executives be forced to hold their stocks for several years, to give them incentives for the long term, instead of cashing out and running.

The Press - Journalist played a role in issuing dialog about executive and corporate performance, without using critical thinking. They are says Gretchen the un-indicted co-conspirators. They were not acting as skeptics; they were part of the club. Reporters were put on special advisory boards and paid fat fees. Reporters were

15

gulled into believing in the New Economy. Financial journalists reported only what was told to them by the corporate PR staff.

 

Boards of Directors – The boards are not governing. They are irresponsible to the mx. They are not meeting their fiduciary responsibility to investors. They are not being skeptical about the CEO dialog they hear. They are lulled to sleep. Are they incompetent or just lazy? Gretchen recommends peppering executives with tougher questions. Not to just buy into the rhetoric that an Andrew Fastow hands out and suspend the corporate code of ethics so he can run off-the-balance-sheet partnerships and be the Chief Financial Officer at Enron (conflict of interest).

401 K – Pension plans shifted from sold investments to the risk of 401 (K). The problem is the new pension plans are tied to corporate stock prices. Fine as long as the price is up.

IS THIS ANY WORSE THAN HISTORICALLY? Great Crash of 1929 resulted in a new financial framework in the 1930s, including Wall Street's very own "cop on the corner", the SEC.   They said things like "greed is good" (Ivan Boesky) and "Only the little people pay taxes" (Leona Helmsley);

 

Webster's dictionary defines greed this way: "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." After 9-11, greedy corporations and executives developed lots of new option grants, because their stock prices were temporarily lower.

 

The good news is after this wave of corporate leader crime, there is no more wide-eyed acceptance of executive statements. In the leadership class we learn critical thinking, we learn to be skeptical about dialog.

 

 

In the last two decades, we have put CEOs, such as Jack Welsh and Chainsaw Daggut on a pedestal. Now we see on TV the weekly perp walk. It began with a couple of WorldCom executives taking the perp walk after no Enron executives did.

CBS poll conducted last month, 67 percent of those surveyed said most executives are not honest. Only 27 percent disagreed.

Gretchen put it this way, “CEOs are held in lower esteem than used car salesmen.”

SEC rule, new legislation, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, gave this requirement greater force.

Over the coming months, the top executives of all 14,000-plus publicly traded companies in the United States will be required to certify the accuracy of their quarterly and annual reports filed with the SEC.

16

Under Sarbanes-Oxley, the penalties are more specific than the SEC's still-undetermined penalties. The law provides that CEOs who falsify their companies' financial reports can face a $5 million fine and up to 20 years in prison.

Bottom line, populist capitalism, its spectacle needs an ethical tradition. We need an ethics course in the Business College.

Do you want a system of capitalism where shareholder wealth is diluted so that only a few executive shareholders amass the lion’s share?

Gretchen Morgenson did not mention that there are still some ethical executives:

Business Week (Sept 23, 2002) lists

“In fact, they have led their companies an average of 18 years and worked in them for an average of 26 years. James D. Sinegal, of Costco Wholesale Corp., co-founded his company 19 years ago, while James C. Morgan has been in charge at Applied Materials Inc. for 25 years” (BW Sept 23). Here are some counter examples to the Enron, WorldCom, GlobalCrossing, Tyco, etc. leaders”

        James Sinegal, Costco

        Reuben Mark, Colgate-Palmolive

        James Morgan, Applied Materials

        James Keyes, Johnson Controls

        Harold Messmer, Robert Half International

        Joseph Neubauer, Aramark

RESOURCES:

17

For more on ENRON METASCRIPT - see Boje, D. M. (2002b) Enron Metatheatre: A Critical Dramaturgy Analysis of Enron’s Quasi-Objects. Paper presented at the Networks, Quasi-Objects, and Identity: Reintegrating Humans, Technology, and Nature session of Denver Academy of Management Meetings. Tuesday August 13, 2002.  http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/enron_theatre_LJM.htm

Mintzberg web site and referencesMintzberg, H. 1975. The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review 53: 49-61.Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.

ADVANCED SECTION – FOR GRAD STUDENTS ONLY

Barry and Elmes (1997) look at monophonic and polyphonic aspects of leadership strategy.  See Boje (2000c) for more on the multiple voices of leadership.

1. Polyphonic Dialogism – several people each with vastly different logics or worldviews (ideologies), may or may not be present in the same time/space of a dialog. In the four voices model, the more interesting polyphonic form of participation is way beyond the face-to-face meeting of people in a conference room, or on a conference call. Rather, in the 3rd and 4th voice, there is dialogic participation with ethical (transcendental, even spiritual) and aesthetic (voiceless) voices.

2. Stylistic Dialogism – The aesthetic (4th) voice, can be a dialogicality among different styles: everyday speech used by advertisers (called skaz) such as “Just Do It” (Nike) or “I’m Lovin It” (McDonald’s) or “Digital DNA” (Motorola) can be juxtaposed with official speeches of the CEO to shareholders, with science-imitative speech like the income and loss statements, and with photos of minorities to make an annual report appear to be participative, as well as other stylistics. Stylistic dialogism is defined as the orchestration of widely different styles of speech. This orchestration may be the lie of 1st voice autocracy pretending to be participative when it is not. It can be 2nd voice double narrative, where some skaz ripped off from the Other is appropriated to by a corporation to make it seem like there is participation (e.g. “Just do it” was ripped off from the inner city speech act “Just F_CK it!)! In 3rd and 4th

voice the multi-stylistics move toward dialogic participation.

3. Chronotopic Dialogism – A chronotope is how one narrates or stories temporality and spatiality (or time/space). Do people story the future as the land of progress, or revere the past in sacred tomes, or put their faith in being in the moment in the here-and-now. Bakhtin was inspired by Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, where space becomes the fourth dimension of space. Chronotopic dialogism occurs when there are multiple conceptions of time and space, and these begin to interact, to participate in one another. Imagine the Navajo who meets the Astronaut; their conceptions of time and space will be vastly different.

4. Architectonic Dialogism – Your family story is nested in your societal story. My grandmother Wilda’s brother Gerard married Stella LaClair, a native American woman, and had a child named Georgia (or Georgie, as some called her). It was still the age of genocide. Wilda’s second husband (Percy Brown, or Brownie as we called him) was abandoned by his mother to be raised on the Yakima Indian Reservation. On my dad’s side, my grandfather’s brother Edward Boje married a native American woman from the Pulalup tribe in Washington state. The Boje family wrote Edward’s name out of the family bible, it was forbidden to ever speak Edward Boje’s name, or his wife’s name, or the names of their children, forevermore. I only learned of this silence, this shunning, this 4th voice of the voiceless when I was over 50 years old. Architectonics dialogism is a dialogic interanimation of cognitive, ethic, and aesthetic

18

discourses. In my story of Wilda, Stella, Gerard, Georgie, and Brownie – the voices of my ancestors are nested in the societal discourse (voice of society), and resonate with my internalized (2nd voice of the Others, the dead ancestors), and 3rd voice of ethical conscience, and 4th voice (the aesthetics of how my family, & my country tells their narratives of Natives who were to be voiceless in the genocide, in the appropriation of land by the settlers). What is brave about Wilda, Edward, Brownie, Gerard, Stella, Georgie is they participated with the people different than themselves, and defied the edict of shunning, and appropriation. In architectonic dialogism, the ethical voice resonates with the cognitive reasoning of a society bent upon destruction, and the aesthetics of poetic storytelling where I let the voices silenced speak to me in utter defiance of societal hegemony.

If you want to read more about Wilda, see - Boje, D. M. 2005g. Wilda. Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion. Vol 2, Issue 3, 2005. Wilda essay and commentaries by Eduardo Berrera, Heather Hopfl, Hans Hansen, David Barry, Gerald Bibberman, & Robin Matthews.4

References

Bakhtin, M. 1973. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (C. Emerson, Ed. & Trans.). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. 1990. Art and Answerability. Editied by Michael Holquist & Vadim Liapunov. Translation and Notes by Vadim Liapunov; supplement translated by Kenneth Brostrom. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.  From Bakhtin’s first published article and his early 1920s notebooks

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin (ed. Holquist, M.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Boje, D. M. 2005g. Wilda. Journal of Management Sprituality & Religion.Vol 2, Issue 3, 2005. Wilda essay and commentaries by Eduardo Berrera, Heather Hopfl, Hans Hansen, David Barry, Gerald Bibberman, & Robin Matthews). Click Here

Boje, David M. & Rosile, G. A. 2002. Enron Whodunit? Ephemera. Vol 2(4), pp. 315-327 Available on line at http://www.ephemeraweb.org/journal/2-4/2-4bojeandrosile.pdf

Boje, David M. & Grace Ann Rosile. 2003. Life Imitates Art: Enrons Epic and Tragic Narration. Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 17 (1): 85-125.  Pre-publication version at http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/theatrics/7/EpicTragicTheatre.pdf

Boje, David M., Rosile, G.A., Durant, R.A. & Luhman, J.T. 2004. Enron Spectacles   : A Critical Dramaturgical Analysis. Special Issue on Theatre and Organizations edited by Georg Schreyögg and Heather Höpfl, Organization Studies, 25(5), pp 1-24. http://business.nmsu.edu/mgt/jpub/boje/enron.pdf

Boje, D. M.; Gardner, Carolyn L. & Smith, William L. 2005. (Mis)Using Numbers in the Enron Story. Accepted for publication in Ethnostatistics Special Issue (Bob Gephart, ed.), in Organizational Research Methodologies Journal 2005. ORM Journal is one of the top 20 rated tier-one ranked journals in

4 For my story of Grandma Wilda and the mingling of native and other spiritual paths, see http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/690/papers/Wilda Aug 19 05 JMSR Boje and COMMENTARIES.pdf

19

management. Pre-publication draft at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/690/papers/Enron_Ethnostatisics_2005.pdf

Derrida, Jacques. 2000. Of Hospitality. With Anne Dufourmantelle; translated by Rachel Bowlby; Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hartley, Robert F. 1993. Business Ethics: Violations of the Public Trust. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Jones, Cambell; Parker, Martin & Ten Bos, René. 2005. For Business Ethics. London/NY: Routledge.

Kant, Immanuel. 1785/1993. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: On a Supposed right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns. Trans by James w. Ellington. 3rd edition, Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. Original is 1795, English 2nd edition 1981, 3rd edition 1993. # refers to sections, as is custom in citing Kant.

Kirkeby, Ole Fogh. 2000. Management Philosophy: A Radical-Normative Perspective. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag publishing group. German version 1998; English 2000.

Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations; other copies

Smith, Adam. 1759. The Theory of Moral Sentiments ; Alternate copy. 1759

Smith, W. I; Gardner, C; & Boje, D. M. 2004. Using the Ethnostatistics Methodology to reconcile rhetoric and reality: An examination of the management release of Enron's year end 2000 results. Qualitative Research In Accounting & Management. vol 1 (2): 1-16. http://business.nmsu.edu/mgt/jpub/boje/ethnoenron-qram2004.pdf

Next chapter examines the four voices of leader participation in more detail, as it relates to dialog.

20