Caring Leadership

A plea for benevolent leadership

Down with human resources and the transactional model!

Words are not innocent. The very act of regarding employees as resources has philosophical and practical implications that are far from negligible.

Among the characteristics of resources, and indeed of assets, is notably the possibility of disposing of them or replacing them with others. This is true of machines, money, raw materials, spare parts, and so on. Because resources have no emotions, we feel no qualms about them. Besides, a resource is almost always fungible, meaning it can be replaced by another that achieves the same result. Thus, describing employees as resources implicitly turns them into objects, and therefore dehumanises them(1). Tagging these resources with the qualifier “human” changes nothing about that reality. It merely distinguishes this “resource” from the others.

It should come as no surprise that, under such conditions, employees perceived as resources show a lack of loyalty and commitment towards their paymaster-employer. To get around this lack of commitment, there are training courses that teach managers how to mobilise their teams. Their aim is to teach techniques that enable the manager to get employees to do what is expected of them, so that the manager can in turn achieve his or her own objectives. These techniques include certain delegation methods, management by objectives, performance bonuses, and so on.

The trouble is that when such techniques are used above all to support the manager’s own career, they become manipulative: employees are then, in this textbook case, at the manager’s service, and these techniques are intended to channel their energy in the desired direction. This caricatured description is unfortunately far more common than right-thinking people might suspect. My empirical observation leads me to conclude that, in varying degrees, it concerns a majority of managers, especially those who are “managers”.

The function of the manager is precisely to optimise the use of the resources (financial, “human”, equipment, materials, etc.) allocated to him or her in order to achieve as effectively as possible the objectives that have been set(2). As the name suggests, the manager is ultimately a resource manager. This perspective obviously leaves little room for the human dimension, since the underlying logic invites managers to use employees as resources in order to attain the company’s objectives or their own. This form of management fits perfectly well with the concept of human resources described above, insofar as the employee is seen as an instrument in the service of the cause.

It therefore appears that the expression human resources clearly contributes to the dehumanisation of employees, which is itself sustained by managers solely concerned with optimising the resources entrusted to them, human resources included.

It is not unreasonable to think that those involved in this process subscribe, consciously or unconsciously, to an exchange relationship in which the employee, as a resource or service provider, delivers muscular and/or mental effort in exchange for pay(3). Since this transaction is of the same order as putting a coin into a machine to wash laundry (the service), it induces no emotional involvement, either on the part of the provider or the payer. In this exchange relationship, the provider is not inspired by the person paying him or her. He or she performs, without qualms, what is expected in exchange for remuneration, in line with a mercantile conception of working life. Even when the quality of the relationship and the search for meaning are highlighted as essential factors in mobilising energy, this is often done with a view to obtaining the output desired by the manager.

This model, which I describe as “transactional”, is fortunately not the only one conceivable. There are true leaders: those who inspire and mobilise outside the exchange relationship referred to above. Those whose employees answer yes to the question, “Would you want me as your boss?” What distinguishes these leaders from managers is that the former show benevolence: they care not only about their own interests and those of their company, but also about the interests of their employees. Because of this balanced arbitration, we may speak here of “benevolent leadership”(4), as opposed to leadership that privileges the interests of the manager and/or the company.

This consideration of employees’ interests includes, in particular, taking practical care of their wellbeing, being attentive to their emotions, but above all taking a sincere interest in them as human beings and not merely as resources or labour power.

A form of leadership that generates benefits

Why go to all this trouble? There are many reasons why greater space should be given to the human dimension within organisations. Without claiming to be exhaustive, I shall review here some of those that seem important to me:

- Expectations regarding work have changed considerably. Apart from jobs that are purely for subsistence, work is no longer just a means of earning a living, but also an opportunity for self-realisation, developing one’s skills, or cultivating human relationships. Many studies show that pay, when it is perceived as fair/equitable, plays a rather minor role in motivation. - The absence of benevolence, particularly in the transactional model, gives employees the feeling that they are selling their labour power but do not exist in the eyes of their leaders as human beings. - One cannot hope for a high level of commitment from people who do not feel recognised as individuals, because in the eyes of their bosses they exist only in terms of their productive capacity. - Generation Y is highly reluctant to submit, not to say allergic, to authority deriving from hierarchical position and/or transactionalism. These “millennials” want above all to be inspired, trusted, and to feel that their work has meaning. Such expectations obviously fit rather badly with a model based on submission to authority or a transactional relationship. - A 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers study showed that committed employees increase organisations’ productivity and profits by up to 35%. It is obvious that the level of commitment is influenced by the benevolence of leaders.

Ultimately, the benevolent leader generates benefits because his or her virtues create a sense of security and trust conducive to increased performance. Those who doubt the benefits of benevolent leadership, or simply want to experiment with it, need only attend a half-day workshop led by the choir conductor, trainer and coach Tanguy Lunven(5) to see its impact on participants. Few observers fail to be won over by his benevolence-centred approach.

Demanding to implement, and not without risk

At first sight, benevolent leadership may seem highly appealing, even the only way forward for the future. In practice, things are less obvious. By way of example, here are a few implications and principles drawn from my seminars on benevolent leadership, showing how demanding it is to move from idea to action.

- The benevolent leader must always put the collective interest, including that of his or her employees, before his or her own. - The benevolent leader must protect employees and stand up for them. This means accepting personal risk. The employee who knows his or her boss has taken personal risks to defend him or her will feel secure. The counter-example, showing just how important this protective dimension is, is the captain of the Costa Concordia: he was far more widely blamed for abandoning ship than for having… sunk it! - The benevolent leader must put in place a governance mechanism that makes employees feel secure. He or she must of course submit to it, just like every member of the team, of which he or she is clearly part. By accepting submission to the same rules as employees, the benevolent leader not only limits his or her own discretionary power, but also demonstrates his or her level of commitment to collective success. - The benevolent leader must ensure that governance principles are respected, which requires the courage to sanction, because when governance rules are breached, it is the group that is attacked. - The benevolent leader must lead by example. It is obviously inconceivable to expect to inspire one’s employees while oneself behaving in a way that is not exemplary and not aligned with the governance framework. This mimetic effect even makes generosity (and its absence!) contagious(6). - The benevolent leader must show fairness in arbitrating between the interests of the various stakeholders. If he or she unfairly privileges one stakeholder, leaders included, credibility is immediately lost. - The benevolent leader must trust his or her troops and also show tolerance towards failure. This amounts to giving them permission to try and… to make mistakes(7).

The list is obviously longer, but these few examples show that practising benevolent leadership is not within everyone’s reach. This form of leadership rests in particular on one fundamental and unavoidable pillar: justice. This itself takes the form of distributive justice (that is, fair pay and promotion, it being understood that fair does not mean equal), informational justice (the quantity and quality of available information), interactional justice (ways of working together and resolving conflicts), and procedural justice (fairness in the way things are done and conflicts are resolved)(8).

It is all in the manner and the intention

Another essential characteristic of benevolent leadership is that the way of doing things matters more than what one does. It is possible to dismiss someone while remaining benevolent (see box on page 92), and to promote someone without making them feel valued. Paradoxically, the benevolent dismissal will be well perceived, whereas this will not be the case for the promotion, though the latter is supposed to express a form of recognition. Employees are in fact extremely sensitive both to the intention and to the purpose of what is done to them. What matters most to them is that, even if a decision or action does not please them, it obeys two rules of benevolence:

- fair arbitration between the interests at stake, which must include consideration of their interest (this is obviously linked to the question of justice mentioned above); - respect for the person as a human being.

The leader should therefore systematically ask whether what he or she says and does is perceived as genuinely benevolent. Not easy, but unavoidable. Since it is often difficult to have the lucidity and distance required to assess one’s own behaviour, especially when one is skilled in the art of post hoc justification, it may be wise to invite employees to express their perception. One need only ask them, in a constructive spirit, to point out any behaviours or ways of doing things that might cast doubt on benevolence. Such feedback is useful, because it would be a pity to think one is being benevolent when this is not what the people most concerned actually perceive…

As in cooking, where a good dish does not necessarily require more time or effort than a bad dish, leading in a benevolent way requires neither more time nor more effort. It is know-how and intention that make the difference.

Authenticity, lucidity and generosity required

To drive the point home, I would add that I am convinced benevolent leadership can only be implemented sustainably by people who are authentic, empathetic, lucid, and capable of altruism and generosity(9). Needless to say, these five qualities are not part of every human being’s standard genetic make-up, managers included. Intellectual brilliance and technocratic genius cannot hide a lack of authenticity and are not enough to compensate for a lack of generosity and altruism.

In other words, and because employees are highly perceptive, only leaders who possess these intrinsic qualities can contemplate benevolent leadership. The others should be content to remain resource managers, however brilliant, without aspiring to inspire anyone.

I would add, however, that benevolence should not be confused with angelism. Benevolent leadership may in certain circumstances become quite directive or authoritarian. This may be appropriate, for example, in a crisis situation. What makes the difference is the purpose: always with collective success in mind, the benevolent leader nevertheless keeps the interests of his or her employees in view. Depending on the circumstances, he or she may be tough or kind. Likewise, the benevolent leader will necessarily have to fight to deal with adversity: the markets, shareholders’ decisions, frequent strategy changes, competing colleagues, competition, and so on. To be benevolent, one must be prepared to fight.

Things become even more complicated because benevolent leadership requires authenticity, since employees are never fooled. Even if they are not consciously aware of it, they sense the difference between what is genuine and what is artificial. One cannot cheat. It thus becomes obvious that benevolent leadership is not within everyone’s reach. It is reserved for those who are capable of it.

Can benevolent leadership be taught?

At this point, the obvious question arises as to whether benevolent leadership can be learned or whether one has to have been born with it. On the basis of my experience as a trainer, I observe that a manager’s ability to evolve towards this type of leadership depends essentially on three parameters: his or her baseline level of altruism and generosity, receptiveness to considering behaviours different from those he or she has experienced or suffered, and finally the beliefs he or she holds about relationships between people. It seems difficult to envisage adopting a benevolent stance if these three character traits or operating modes are not at least somewhat rooted in the manager’s personality.

Certain mistaken beliefs may prevent any open-mindedness (for example, “any benevolence will be interpreted as a sign of weakness”, or “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”, or again “employees are paid to do what they’re told”). Other beliefs may, on the contrary, support it: for example, “I trust my employees’ intelligence” or “dialogue between employees and employers helps solve most problems better”. These beliefs stem from a certain view of the world, itself shaped by each person’s experience. Here again, we are not all born equal…

In the end, training seminars devoted to benevolent leadership lead, depending on participants’ characteristics, to:

- giving practical tools for implementing benevolent leadership to those for whom the approach resonates positively or who, having already applied some of these tools spontaneously in the past, are pleased to be able to complete their toolkit; - prompting awareness among those who have never had an opportunity to reflect on these issues but are open-minded enough to question their own practice; quite a number of them take the bait, sometimes even enthusiastically, insofar as the model offers an appealing alternative to situations that were troubling them; - frustrating those whose beliefs prevent them from envisaging types of relationship other than power struggles or exchange relationships.

Benevolent leadership is not a miracle recipe and, as noted above, it suits only those who are receptive to it. Ultimately, it is reserved for those who possess the qualities described in Sun Tzu’s maxim, whose insight is beyond question and who says: “By authority, I mean the qualities of wisdom, fairness, humanity, courage and strictness in the general.” The fact that the word humanity appears in the middle of this list is perhaps not merely the result of chance. I see it as an imperative to put humanity back at the centre, because humanity implies benevolence.

Benevolence in practice

A true story: in an organisation employing several thousand people, a middle manager is informed by his superior on Wednesday morning that his post is being abolished and that he must hand over all current files to a colleague that same day, so as to leave his post for good on Wednesday evening.

The lack of prior information, the very short time allowed to clear out, and the additional workload imposed on colleagues inheriting the files, also without warning, leave no doubt as to the superior’s lack of benevolence. He clearly shows no consideration for the feelings of the person being dismissed, nor, worse still, for those who remain. This absence of empathy is a blatant sign that this leader is a manager for whom employees are a resource to be disposed of like a Kleenex.

Leaving aside the psychological shock experienced by the person concerned, what was the reaction of the other employees? Inevitably: astonishment, indignation, anger and a sense of injustice. The absence of information even led them to convince themselves that such treatment would be offset by compensation above and beyond the legal requirements, which was then perceived as wasteful when at the same time the pay of those remaining was frozen.

The few minutes required to announce things were enough for the superior to lose his credibility and give the impression that, in the end, he was not benevolent. Since all the employees immediately thought that they themselves might one day be treated in the same way, their sense of security evaporated. So did their motivation, as well as their respect for the boss.

Things would have been entirely different if this superior had:

- taken the trouble to reassure the dismissed employee that his behaviour was not the sole cause of the dismissal; - accepted a share of responsibility for the post being abolished (as in a divorce, responsibility for a dismissal is almost always shared); - explored with the dismissed employee how he might help him find another position; - discussed with the employees inheriting the responsibilities how to limit the additional workload, by redefining task priorities for example; - explained to the other employees not only the reasons for the dismissal but also the way in which it was being handled; - shown propriety and respect.

The pillars of governance, foundations of benevolent leadership

Who would care to remain a member of a football team where four out of eleven players do not know where their own goal is? My only desire would be to change teams.

This apparently imaginary situation actually corresponds to the state of a large number of companies, according to the survey conducted by Stephen Covey among 23,000 employees worldwide*. In such conditions, retaining employees becomes a real challenge.

This lack of understanding of the company’s objectives and strategy is due in particular to the fact that many leaders live under the illusion that the mission they have conscientiously drafted can only have a mobilising effect on their employees. Reality is more prosaic: most employees do not identify with the master plan concocted by their bosses. There is no point hoping they will be motivated and committed.

The reason is notably that the company’s mission/vision adopted by top management generally remains disconnected from employees’ daily reality, whereas employees identify only with a mission that carries meaning for… themselves, and is therefore connected to their own reality. As long as the mission/vision does not carry meaning for them, they will jump at the first opportunity that appears more attractive.

The future belongs to missionaries who bring meaning.

This observation leads to the conclusion that, in addition to the company mission, which is generally very conceptual, it is imperative to make explicit the concrete mission of each unit. The problem is that, in concrete terms, this merely expresses what the unit does: the “what”, sometimes with a dose of “how”.

For employees to be motivated, the mission must answer another question: “why”. Only a mission that makes explicit a purpose of which they are proud and that is aligned with their personal values is likely to mobilise them.

To achieve this, the mission must not be parachuted in by their leaders but formulated by the employees themselves. A mission has meaning only for those who wrote it and for those who, when recruited, are ready to subscribe to it.

It is rare for the members of a team to have a convergent view of their unit’s mission. But once the debate is under way and a common mission adopted, the team focuses on shared objectives. Based on my experience, it is preferable for someone external to the team to act as facilitator because, when it is the boss who leads the discussion, participants do not express themselves with the same freedom and may feel manipulated. The neutrality of an outsider makes it possible to go deeper, especially when, as is often the case, the ground is mined.

Measuring in order to make things concrete

Once the mission has been adopted, a second debate must begin: that of the indicators the team should use to verify that the defined mission is actually being realised. Without measurement, the mission remains theoretical. This debate leads the team to confront the mission with operational reality and often to specify the scope of the mission.

Employees can thus assess the impact of their efforts. Not only is this assessment a source of pride, it also gives leaders a tool with which to recognise objectively the work accomplished.

Mission and indicators are obviously two very useful pillars for mobilising employees, but they are not enough. They must be complemented by three other pillars that ensure the coherence of the approach.

The myth of corporate values

The third pillar of governance concerns the definition of values. When these are defined by management and parachuted on to employees, the approach is ineffective.

What are the capital sins of leaders who proclaim values? The first is failing to put in place an independent mechanism to ensure they are respected throughout the company. The second is tolerating breaches of those values. The third is using one’s hierarchical position to exempt oneself from them (“do as I say, not as I do”).

The result is that what is preached is not practised and there is no appeal route except through the hierarchy. Since the hierarchy is party to the breach of values, it is awkward to call on it to put things right. This creates a sense of inequity, and it should come as no surprise that loyalty is then lacking.

Apart from these three capital sins, one must avoid the trap of confusing values with expected behaviours. For example, flexibility, innovation, or again “the customer at the centre” are not values but expected behaviours. Justice and fairness, by contrast, are real values. Raising expected behaviours to the rank of values amounts to distorting values and weakening them.

Aligning behaviours

Once that distinction has been made, it is still necessary to catalogue the expected behaviours that convey a unit’s specific culture. In the most recent seminars I have run, the number of such behaviours expressed by employees came to more than forty.

For values and expected behaviours to be respected, they too must be adopted by the team after discussion. This considerably reduces the risk of transgression because group pressure very significantly increases conformity.

Governance as guarantor of fairness

The discussion of values and expected behaviours must inevitably lead to reflection on the governance rules needed to ensure they are respected. Agreement must be reached on how to call to order those who break them. The fifth pillar is therefore made up of the governance rules the team adopts, thereby giving legitimacy to the sanctions to be applied in the event of transgression or failure to display the expected behaviours, and making the leader’s task easier.

Governance rules also make explicit certain operating principles, such as zero tolerance for “arseholes”** or the fact that promotions do not reward work well done or seniority but the ability to assume the responsibilities of a higher post.

To avoid misunderstandings, which are a source of demotivation, nothing is more effective than clarifying implicit matters, which are often poorly understood.

Leaders obviously cannot exempt themselves from these governance rules, nor from compliance with the values and expected behaviours. Without exemplarity, there is no credibility.

Five pillars for solid foundations

These five pillars of governance provide a very solid foundation for benevolent leadership, which leads to employee mobilisation and loyalty. With mission and indicators, everyone knows where to go and how to measure progress. With values, expected behaviours and governance rules, everyone knows the framework. This makes the environment in which employees operate more predictable and also more secure.

Clarifying these parameters during recruitment also makes it possible to ensure alignment among newcomers. The absence or weakness of one of the pillars, by contrast, weakens the team and has consequences for productivity and staff loyalty.

\ S. R. Covey, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, Free Press, 2005. \ R. Sutton, The No Asshole Rule*, Warner Business Books, 2007.

The benevolent leader according to Sun Tzu

Recommending the reading of The Art of War, Sun Tzu’s famous work, often triggers negative reactions, sometimes accompanied by a tirade demonising ruthless capitalism. That is a pity, because applying some of Sun Tzu’s maxims could radically improve the quality of life of many employees.

There is one maxim in particular that I place at the centre of all my courses devoted to benevolent leadership: “By authority, I mean the qualities of wisdom, fairness, humanity, courage and strictness in the general.” In business, one must of course replace the word “authority” with leadership and “general” with leader, boss or chief.

Some of these qualities are obvious, but others deserve explanation. Tu Mu, a scholarly commentator of the ninth century, explains that “if the leader is endowed with wisdom, he is able to recognise changing circumstances and act promptly”. No comment needed. He adds: “If he is fair, his men will be assured of reward and punishment.” Reward must here be understood as the predictable recognition of work done, while punishment corresponds to sanctioning idlers, the incompetent, the mediocre, the petty-minded, the “arseholes”, to use the terminology of Robert Sutton’s bestseller. Failing to sanction such people or, worse still, promoting them is one of the best ways of discrediting oneself in the eyes of one’s employees. How can one respect a boss who does not see reality as it is when it is obvious to the rest of the pyramid?

The management of recognition, and the way in which one rewards, promotes or sanctions, are in practice indicators of the leader’s lucidity and fairness. He or she never escapes the scrutinising gaze of employees, who are waiting to catch him or her out. Why is this so important? Quite simply because employees aspire to their own security: if the boss is fair and predictable, they will feel safe. If he or she appears unfair towards anyone at all, even occasionally, then no one is safe. Since a single failing is enough to destroy credibility, showing fairness is for leaders a battle that must be fought every day.

But to do that, one needs, as Sun Tzu points out, courage. The courage to decide, even if it is painful in the short term. For example, getting rid of an “arsehole” is costly, because such people are usually high performers, but failing to get rid of them is interpreted as a lack of courage. Another commentator, Shen Pao Hsu, confirms this: “If a general is not courageous, he will be unable to overcome hesitation and make great plans.” The message is clear!

Courage is also needed to sanction those who transgress rules or values. Unfortunately, many organisations seem to tolerate transgression.

The third quality invoked by Sun Tzu is humanity. Tu Mu specifies, speaking of the leader: “If he is humane, he loves others, shares their feelings and appreciates their labour and toil.” No less than that! Without lapsing into angelism, one must recognise that humanity is what is most lacking in organisations.

Indeed, the two greatest frustrations mentioned by adults who attend leadership courses are the lack of recognition and the feeling of being badly treated by their leaders. It is attitudes and behaviours that do the damage and cause real stress, much more than workload does. To show humanity is sincerely to care about employees’ interests rather than focusing on the best way to exploit them. Yet the vast majority of leaders persist in treating employees as fungible resources.

Humanising working relationships in practice, and not merely in words, would bring about a real improvement in quality of life within organisations.

Adapted from an article published in L’Agefi, 20 May 2011.

(1) As Philippe Gabillet points out, “human beings have resources, use resources and produce resources (by creating value)”. It is hard to imagine a (human) resource itself being able to have resources and use them… (2) When a resource (the manager) itself has objectives consisting in optimising the resources entrusted to it, the notion of resource becomes rather complicated to grasp… :-) (3) This is so-called “transactional” management, according to which the employee exchanges his or her labour power for important things that go beyond salary alone: recognition, training, career development, etc. (4) See in particular Juliette Tournand, La Stratégie de la bienveillance ou L’Intelligence de la coopération, InterEditions-Dunod, 2010. (5) www.tanguylunven.com (6) James H. Fowler and Nicholas A. Christakis, “Cooperative Behavior Cascades in Human Social Networks”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 12, March 2010, http://www.pnas.org/content/107/12/5334 (7) See the rule of the 5 Ps in Raphaël H. Cohen, Winning Opportunities, Proven Tools for Converting your Projects into Success (Without a Business Plan), Management Boosters, 2011. The book can be downloaded free of charge from www.winning-opportunities.org. (8) For more detail on justice in business, see Raphaël H. Cohen, “Justice, the Achilles heel of organisations”, L’Expansion Management Review, no. 138, September 2010. (9) The Larousse defines altruism as “selfless concern for the wellbeing of others” and generosity as the “inclination to give liberally”.