Ben W. Heineman, Jr.

Como diretor jurídico da GE por quase 20 anos, fiz parte do grupo de gestão sênior que buscava unir alto desempenho com alta integridade. Ninguém foi mais exigente em atingir metas financeiras do que Jack Welch ou seu sucessor, Jeff Immelt. Mas ambos sabiam que funcionários de alto e baixo escalão enfrentam a tentação de calcular os números falsificando as contas, cortando custos ou algo pior. Sem restrições, essas pressões internas — tornadas mais intensas pela corrupção nos mercados emergentes, clientes exigentes e concorrentes inescrupulosos — podem levar ao capitalismo corrupto.

F/ccJHcPJ1zL5N4ew/7Q92iLhDoVReQn6o/hjQth0HYZ2HBqj8TfX5NFxWtuALUWjClEx0sIchs+AzLw9k1mNKA0aQCnHC+JqywEWC8Jw+dTshE0jnUkBF53L88gjcNW

Reprint: R0704G
How does a large multinational keep thousands of employees, operating in hundreds of countries, honest in a high-pressure business environment? As the chief legal officer at General Electric for nearly 20 years, Ben Heineman was part of the senior management group that sought to do just that&#8212;to make sure its executives and employees are moved to do the right thing as strongly as they are motivated to make their numbers.
Heineman describes a set of systems that combine the communication of clear expectations with oversight, deterrence, and incentives. Nowhere are the expectations higher&#8212;and the sanctions more powerful&#8212;than for top executives. Heineman recounts example after example of senior leaders terminated for ethical lapses even when the business consequences of doing so were painful&#8212;and even when they had no direct knowledge of the violations occurring on their watch.
To make expectations clear throughout the company, GE has systematically sought to set uniform standards that stay well ahead of current legal developments and stakeholders&#8217; changing attitudes about corporate accountability. Responsibility for implementing those standards, which are embedded in GE&#8217;s operating practices, rests with the business leaders in the field.
Oversight is both methodical and multifaceted. A host of auditing and assessment systems enables GE to compare the performance of its various business units against one another and against industry benchmarks. Perhaps the most powerful is the company&#8217;s ombudsman system, which doesn&#8217;t just allow but requires employees to lodge concerns. Failures to report into the system or up the line, or retaliation in any form, are firing offenses.
The current intense focus on board-level governance has missed the point, Heineman argues. It is time to shift the debate from board oversight of the CEO to how top company leaders can most effectively infuse integrity at all levels of the corporation.

Avoiding Integrity Land Mines

Reimpressão: R0704G Como uma grande multinacional mantém milhares de funcionários, operando em centenas de países, honestos em um ambiente de negócios de alta pressão? Como diretor jurídico da General Electric por quase 20 anos, Ben Heineman fez parte do grupo de gestão sênior que buscava fazer exatamente isso: garantir que seus executivos e funcionários fossem motivados a fazer a coisa certa com a mesma força que estivessem motivados a fazer seus números. Heineman descreve um conjunto de sistemas que combinam a comunicação de expectativas claras com supervisão, dissuasão e incentivos. Em nenhum lugar as expectativas são maiores — e as sanções são mais poderosas — do que para altos executivos. Heineman relata exemplo após exemplo de líderes seniores demitidos por lapsos éticos, mesmo quando as consequências comerciais de fazer isso foram dolorosas — e mesmo quando não tinham conhecimento direto das violações ocorridas sob sua supervisão. Para deixar claras as expectativas em toda a empresa, a GE tem buscado sistematicamente estabelecer padrões uniformes que estejam bem à frente dos desenvolvimentos legais atuais e das mudanças de atitudes das partes interessadas em relação à responsabilidade corporativa. A responsabilidade pela implementação desses padrões, que estão incorporados nas práticas operacionais da GE, cabe aos líderes de negócios da área. A supervisão é metódica e multifacetada. Uma série de sistemas de auditoria e avaliação permite que a GE compare o desempenho de suas várias unidades de negócios entre si e com os benchmarks do setor. Talvez o mais poderoso seja o sistema de ouvidoria da empresa, que não apenas permite, mas requer funcionários para apresentar preocupações. Falhas em reportar ao sistema ou à fila, ou retaliação de qualquer forma, são crimes de demissão. O atual foco intenso na governança em nível de diretoria não entendeu o objetivo, argumenta Heineman. É hora de mudar o debate da supervisão do conselho do CEO para a forma como os principais líderes da empresa podem infundir integridade de forma mais eficaz em todos os níveis da corporação.

Evitando minas terrestres de integridade

Reprint: R0704G How does a large multinational keep thousands of employees, operating in hundreds of countries, honest in a high-pressure business environment? As the chief legal officer at General Electric for nearly 20 years, Ben Heineman was part of the senior management group that sought to do just that—to make sure its executives and employees are moved to do the right thing as strongly as they are motivated to make their numbers. Heineman describes a set of systems that combine the communication of clear expectations with oversight, deterrence, and incentives. Nowhere are the expectations higher—and the sanctions more powerful—than for top executives. Heineman recounts example after example of senior leaders terminated for ethical lapses even when the business consequences of doing so were painful—and even when they had no direct knowledge of the violations occurring on their watch. To make expectations clear throughout the company, GE has systematically sought to set uniform standards that stay well ahead of current legal developments and stakeholders’ changing attitudes about corporate accountability. Responsibility for implementing those standards, which are embedded in GE’s operating practices, rests with the business leaders in the field. Oversight is both methodical and multifaceted. A host of auditing and assessment systems enables GE to compare the performance of its various business units against one another and against industry benchmarks. Perhaps the most powerful is the company’s ombudsman system, which doesn’t just allow but requires employees to lodge concerns. Failures to report into the system or up the line, or retaliation in any form, are firing offenses. The current intense focus on board-level governance has missed the point, Heineman argues. It is time to shift the debate from board oversight of the CEO to how top company leaders can most effectively infuse integrity at all levels of the corporation.

Evitando minas terrestres de integridade

Resumo.

Partner Center