Balancing Loyalties

(Can A CEO Be An Author Of His Life In The Corporate Setting?)

Mikhail klarin, PhD Russian Academy Of Education; Russian Institute Of Corporate Directors, Russia, Moscow.

Corporate life is a game. Rules of the game are there in any organization. The rules

are set before and regardless of someone's coming to take the glorious role of CEO.

In the culture of post-industrial society there is a common request for high level of

'personal output' and committment of CEO, especially in emergencies. At the same

time they expect full loyalty to corporate rules of the game.

Here comes a paradox. Either a CEO sticks to the rules which is now often effective

in non-standard situations, or CEO is looking for their own unique solutions which

may lead beyond the course of corporate rules. Taken to the extreme, the dilemma is:

effective, but unloyal vs. loyal, but ineffective. Let us condsider real cases.

Case One. A huge undustrial site which is a center of the region. Director general is a

person of explosive energy, talent, and… a fragile sense of dignity. His personality

does show in his relationship with his business environment, in perticular, in a

conflict with one of the regional State Authoriy which makes both him, and the

business extremely vulnerable. His task is a paradox. On the one hand, he should

remain the way he is (he cannot do otherwise), and manage the production site in the

region. On the orher hand, he should stop the conflict, and play the game according to

the rules set by major stakeholders. This combination is impossible.

Case Two. Mr.Y was appointed CEO of huge multinational company in Russia after

he managed to raise the business in a 'hopeless' country. He perceives himself as a

cleaner of Augean Stables. His task is a paradox. On the one hand, he should increase

the sales, which he can do only using his 'native' miscromanagement style. On the

other hand, he is expected to keep the company in stability, change his 'explosive'

management style, and adopt regular management. This combination is impossible.

I suggest looking at this paradox as Paradox of Committment/loyalty to self vs.

Commitment/loyalty to the rules. Here are some typical features of situations when

the paradox was resolved positively.

• Management decisions are both professionally, and personally meaningful, and

important.

• Decisions are made only by the CEO alone (coaching support typically used by

CEOs is of non-directive nature).

• Decisions are non-algorythmic, have the individual 'authorship' of the person.

• The paradox is resolved typically in the short-term, the balance is never long-

lasting.

• The balance of 'My Game' and the 'Rules of the Game' has the nature of dynamic

equilibrium.

• There is fine balancing of commitments: to the tasks of the corporate system, its

rule, and to one's own Self (i.e. own management style, decision-making, etc.)

Typical success factors are: a. Committment to the Company goals, b. Freedom to

Manuever, which is high when a person is ready to sacrifice staying in the Company.

Thus, CEO's success is related both to commitment to the Company goals, and

committment to self, and at the same time with readiness to drop committment to

rules which generates the risk of leaving the Organization.

Awareness and acceptance of the paradox nature of CEO's commitments makes it

possible for the CEO to use fine tuning achieving balance and developing Authorship

of one's own life in the corporate setting.