I mplicit in the decision process of corporate leaders is a central question: what and who is this business here for? Many subscribe to the belief that the primary goal of leadership is to maximize shareholder value; their decisions determine whether shareholder value will be enhanced in the short term, the long term, or some combination of the two.But the shareholder-first approach that originated and prevails in the Anglo/US world has received heavy criticism from a number of well-regarded management researchers.[1] Almost two decades ago, French economist Michel Albert wrote that in its extreme form, the sole pursuit of profit is a threat to neoliberal capitalism itself because the focus on short-term profits discourages long-term thinking, investing, and planning.[2] Charles Handy reminds us that the purpose of a business goes beyond making a profit to something better, a higher level purpose: ''Owners know this. Investors don't care.''[3] A few years ago in Strategy & Leadership, Michael Raynor[4] debunked the premises on which the shareholder-first model rests, and a few months ago Michael Porter[5] criticized the current belief that looking beyond the business is bad for business. In the January/February Harvard Business Review he argues that companies should be considering other stakeholders, and so generate economic value by creating societal value.These respected thinkers offer another answer to the question about the purpose of a business: the firm should see itself as an interdependent part of a community that consists of multiple stakeholders whose interests are integral to business success. In this view, an enterprise can be seen as a system of long-term cooperative relationships between affected parties. These include the firm's managers and employees, customers and clients, investors, suppliers, the towns, states and nations where the firm is located or sells goods and services and even future generations of stakeholders.[6] In such a system, stakeholder influence generates pressure for the organization to behave in ethical and environmentally and socially responsible ways, and in turn, this interdependency helps the firm be sustainable and resilient. [7] This alternative approach to leadership is variously referred to as ''sustainable,'' ''Rhineland'' or ''honeybee'' leadership. By sustainable we don't just mean a firm is being green and socially responsible. Research and observations in over 50 firms around the world, including in many listed corporations, suggest that sustainable leadership requires taking a long-term perspective in making decisions; fostering systemic innovation aimed at increasing customer value; developing a skilled, loyal and highly engaged workforce; and offering quality products, services and solutions.[8] What senior executive would reject these as legitimate goals for an enterprise seeking to both thrive and endure?To some cynics, sustainable leadership -a management approach aimed at delivering better and more sustainable returns, reducing unwanted employee turnover a...

I n a fast-changing world, the question for many senior managers is: ''What leadership strategy is needed for my organization to stay competitive and to thrive?'' To many academics and consultants, visionary leadership or leadership with vision as a core component is the answer. Although scholars, corporate trainers, and management consultants often emphasize the importance of espousing a vision and even suggest characteristics of an effective vision, no one really knows what such a vision looks like (Avery, 2004). In today's corporate world, we can observe that vision statements appear with a wide variety of characteristics, as these examples demonstrate: Year after year, Westin and its people will be regarded as the best and most sought after hotel and resort management group in North America (Westin Hotels & Resorts). FirstEnergy will be a leading regional energy provider, recognized for operational excellence, customer service and its commitment to safety; the choice for long-term growth, investment value and financial strength; and a company driven by the leadership, skills, diversity and character of its employees (FirstEnergy). Macy's, Inc. is a premier national retailer with brands that reflect the spirit of America. The timeless values that made our nation strong are the same values that make our company strong: B A belief in the promise of the future with the energy and determination to get us there. B A belief that our heritage mirrors the optimism, inclusion and integrity that provide for both stability and growth. B A belief that taking advantage of the right opportunities will continue to lead us to success in all that we do (Macy's, Inc.). Adding to the confusion is when practitioners and consultants have great difficulty in differentiating vision from other related terms of mission, values, beliefs, principles and strategy. This is illustrated in Sage Software's ''Corporate Vision and Strategy'' as follows:

Three experiments were designed to determine the basis of the horizontalvertical (HV) illusion using an L figure. Experiment I showed that there were no differences in the size of the effect in darkness, semidarkness, and in the light, a result contrary to the visual field explanation. In Exp. II the figure was viewed in the dark with 5s upright and recumbent, and in Exp. Ill the L figure was oriented between 0° (vertical) and 90° (horizontal) in 15° steps. Data from Exp. II and III showed that apparent length is a function of the retinal meridians with which the lines correspond irrespective of their physical or apparent orientation to an external reference.

No abstract

Many managers and researchers alike are asking: What does an enterprise need to do to generate a proper balance between economic, social, and ecological objectives while gaining superior corporate financial performance, resilience, and sustainability? Several leadership concepts for enhancing organizational sustainability have emerged in recent years, but none provides an integrative approach, with the exception of Sustainable Leadership (SL). However, empirical research examining the effects of various SL practices on financial performance and other business outcomes is lacking. This article addresses this gap by empirically investigating the relationships between 23 SL practices and financial performance. Using a cross-sectional survey, data stem from 439 managers in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Thailand. Of the 23 SL practices in SL, 16 were significantly associated with corporate financial performance. Four SL practices, in particular-amicable labor relations, valuing employees, social responsibility, plus strong and shared vision-were significant drivers, and positive predictors, of enhanced long-term firm performance. Lastly, implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.