James Burke, Johnson & Johnson CEO, demonstrated a unique kind of leadership by allowing his top managers to debate on the company's credo without interfering. Burke proposed the destruction of 'Our Credo,' an internal document that showed the company's commitment to its clients. Burke felt that the top management was so used to this document that they disregarded the moral duties captured by the document. This kind of discussion allowed the managers to reflect on their ethical and corporate obligations to their clients. This approach is a deviation from many corporations where CEOs and top management make all the decisions without consulting with other stakeholders, which are then forced on the employees. Jerry Useem's article establishes that James Burke could be viewed as one of the most effective leaders who value employee engagement and open communication.
Why the Meeting was Effective
The meeting was quite effective as it was a way of challenging the top managers to rethink about their ethical obligations towards their clients. 'Our Credo' was an internal document that reminded the employees of the need to manufacture and distribute quality products. However, over time, the document lost its significance, with managers viewing it as another historical document. Burke was keen on ensuring that the document served as a decision-making tool that would encourage employees to remain committed to their moral obligations to their clients. The CEO invited the top managers to his office and forced a debate after suggesting that they should get rid of the document. This suggestion forced the managers to rethink their commitment to their clients, and after debating, they agreed to redesign the credo's message. This decision points to the fact that the meeting was productive as it paved the way for these employees to own the credo.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Why Burke Chose this Type of Channel
James Burke adopted a different approach to leadership by allowing the managers to engage in a debate without interfering with giving guidelines. The CEO challenged the managers by indicating that they could just destroy the credo, which was just another historical document on the company's wall. Burke had realized that the employees were no longer committed to their customers who used their products, and for this reason, they no longer required the credo (Useem, 2016). Having challenged the managers, Burke had set a debate in motion, paving the way for the managers to conclude the discussion. The managers were allowed to speak to each other, but they could not talk directly to him, which made the debate to be centered around the managers.
This channel is considered effective as it allows for the expression of diverse thoughts or views without fear of reprisal or intimidation. The managers are equals meaning that they were at liberty to air out their opinions and deliberate on the issue at hand. The CEO acted as a facilitator by creating the right environment for the top managers to engage in the debate. By calling the managers into the office, the CEO established that the debate was very crucial as it touched on a sensitive and essential aspect of corporate responsibility and mission. The fact that he did not contribute to the discussion meant that he was not exerting any authority on the managers allowing them to engage until they come to an acceptable conclusion. This environment empowered the managers to reflect on their ethical obligations.
This type of communication channel where managers talked to each other without talking to the CEO allowed the managers to connect more and enhance trust. The debate created a platform that enabled the managers to come together to find a solution to a corporate problem. The managers engaged and, in the process, learned more about each other than they had previously. In this process, the managers encountered diverse thoughts and opinions and had to negotiate and collaborate to come up with solutions. This kind of engagement allowed the managers to consider the issue at hand without interference from the CEO. Northouse (2016) establishes that this kind of leadership where the leader allows group members to deliberate on issues and come up with solutions is referred to as laissez-faire. In the end, they decided to revitalize the message of the credo, which pointed to the fact that they own the credo. The credo is no longer a historical document but rather a reflection of their commitment to their clients.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016 ). Leadership theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Useem, J. (2016). What was Volkswagen thinking? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/what-was-volkswagen-thinking/419127/
