What Guides Your Company?
By Rob Wright, Chief Editor, Life Science Leader
Follow Me On Twitter @RfwrightLSL
If you have ever seen an employee of Johnson and Johnson speak, you probably recall that at some point during their presentation they probably made reference to “Our Credo” — a J&J document that describes the values used to guide employee decision making. “Put simply, Our Credo challenges us to put the needs and well-being of the people we serve first.” Written in 1943 by Robert Wood Johnson, former chairman and a member of the company’s founding family, it remains one of the earliest statements of corporate social responsibility. While some have called the J&J credo a model for corporate America, others have suggested that current CEO Alex Gorsky consider taking a sledgehammer to the credo that is “emblazoned on an imposing stone structure at the entrance to its headquarters.” But before anyone considers destroying it, I think everyone should take the time to read and compare it to the philosophy being used to shepherd your organization.
The Best Corporate Guidance Never Adopted
Prior to sitting down to write this blog, I couldn’t recall having previously read J&J’s Credo. (This might not be saying much when I have been known to open the refrigerator only to realize what I was really looking for wasn’t a snack but a hammer). That being said, what prompted me to take a close look at the Credo was coming across a corporate guidance document that was developed but never been adopted. The person who sent me the document, titled “Cascade Of Commitments,” says it was adapted from the works of Richard “Dick” McCullom, a former executive coach. Consisting of 525 words, it was written in an attempt to help a group of direct reports understand the importance of being in alignment and in support of their boss while not competing with one another. While this document was never formally adopted, there are executives who admit to having used it with significant impact. Now you may be thinking, if this philosophy is so great, why was it never formally adopted? Supposedly, there wasn’t complete buy-in by the team that this was something they wanted to do. However, it is also likely that the executive being coached did not have the necessary support at levels above their own.
There are two very important leadership lessons to be learned. First, corporate guidance and philosophies need to cascade down. For example, I am sure there are those who might argue that the only reason J&J execs reference the credo is because it is mandated they do so. From my perspective, J&J’s credo serves as a great example of commitments being successfully cascaded down from the very highest levels. Though J&J has had its challenges, this company and its employees, thanks to the credo, are extremely well aligned. The second lesson learned should be that if your company is going to invest in hiring coaches to help mentor executives, the money and time is wasted if you don’t also empower and support these executives at the absolute highest levels.
The Cascade Of Commitments
Though the Cascade Of Commitments may be in need of a formal rewrite, I have avoided the temptation to do so, with the exception being the removal of the company name from where the document originated. To get the full meaning you may need to read it repeatedly. If you are like me, it is likely that with each pass something else new will jump out at you.
“When a leader at any level is functioning appropriately, they are always inviting/enrolling others to stand in and share a particular set of commitments which leads to particular committed actions.”
“A commitment, as a distinction, is a promise, an action in language that represents an intention in action and is based on one's word. The collateral for this promise is one's word. It might be useful to picture that [company X] has only one employee: the CEO. And, he has accepted and participated in creating a set of commitments for which he is accountable. He has promised others that he will deliver. Obviously, the job is more than he can accomplish, either on a discursive level or a performative level. He, therefore, invites others to stand in and share his commitments for [company X]. To do this is not to promise loyalty to the CEO, but to the commitments that we share and declare, and always consistent with the commitments of the CEO. These commitments cascade to all levels.”
“The senior leadership team at [company X] must stand inside the commitments of the CEO. Their commitments must be consistent with the CEO's. Again, this is not about loyalty to the person, but integrity of the commitments they both share. Standing inside those commitments, one may push back, disagree, create or abolish so long as it is consistent with the commitments on behalf of the enterprise.”
“So, the CEO of [company X] must enroll others in his commitments and they stand with him in those commitments. Always, the commitments are on behalf of the enterprise, and not loyalty to the individual. When one performs in a committed way, one's personal excellence is implicit, but only on behalf of the enterprise, not the benefit of "looking good" or demonstrating one's future employability.”
“Each member of the senior leadership team must enroll others to stand in the shared commitments they all have. Management/leadership presence is simplified to be consonant with the cascade of commitments from the CEO of [company X] to the Senior Management Team, and those whom they enroll. But, it is also complicated: pure spoken acquiescence to the stated commitments will never suffice. Commitment is always performative. The minimum condition of satisfaction for the cascade of commitments is a committed cascading vision delivering concrete results into reality. The words take on form and substance.”
“The Senior Leadership Team of [company X] is called to be a committed body standing in the cascade of commitments and operating in and being at stake for committed actions on behalf of the enterprise. The invitation to participate is a request for one's personal atstakeness and creativity to be totally in the service of the cascade of commitments. The presence of teamwork is a function of the common commitments in common actions. If one is at odd with the cascade and wants a more personal mode of performance, one must leave.”
“If one is to significantly demonstrate one's excellence, then one must commit to something that exceeds their own personal boundaries, something far larger than themselves of their own personal aspirations. Only in this domain can one really achieve, and it has always been so, throughout history.”
If you take the time to explore the websites of great companies, it is likely you will find vision and mission statements, lists of core values, as well as corporate philosophies. But it will be rare for you to find something as concise and articulate as J&J’s Credo — a successful cascade of commitments and a best business practice.