A recurring theme from the corner office will be an argument that the foundation for all successful enterprises over the long haul is integrity. Integrity is a concept impossible to understand if you don’t have it and unnecessary to understand if you do. The cornerstones of integrity are respect, commitment, consistency and loyalty. Each will be dealt with in time; this post is about loyalty.

It is too easily taken as a given that loyalty can no longer be found in business, that it goes as far as the nearest turn of corner and downturn of market. There is no real loyalty between companies and their employees, nor between suppliers and customers. When the slightest push comes to the merest shove, goes conventional – or, more precisely, convenient – wisdom, people will switch on a dime for a dime.

Three decades of experience tells me that this is simply not true. Of course, nothing is so simple, but I would most strenuously make the case that loyalty is alive and doing rather well under difficult circumstances. It takes a great deal of push to topple the walls that most employees build around themselves to maintain the security of their jobs. It takes a most egregious shove to overcome a buyer’s resistance to change.

The case could well be made that employees care more about their jobs than they do about the companies that provide them, that their loyalty travels only so far as their pay cheques will carry it. I would posit that people will almost always try to do their best for their employers and that given the opportunity and appropriate tools, most would succeed. They, equally, want their companies to do well, understanding full well who butters their bread. Despite all the griping around the water cooler and over Kokanee beer, most would be more than happy to wear the company colors and wave the corporate flag. Because now, as always, job security trumps job satisfaction.

Does this loyalty go both ways? Most companies – at least the good ones – know that you can never get enough good people. Most managers – at least the good ones – know that their success depends as much on the support of those below them as on that of those above. It is the sheep, after all, that make the shepherd.

Corporate buyers look for value as much as price. Even those charged with the purchase of commodities know that a secure and consistent supply chain is invaluable. Price will get an order, but relationships will get – and barring catastrophic screw-ups – keep the business. Incumbents will get the first call and the last look. They will be given the benefit of the doubt because buyers have no doubt about the short- and long-term benefits of doing so.

Suppliers will seldom chase business – even potentially more lucrative business – that would jeopardize their relationships with existing customers. Those that do will find out soon enough that what goes around comes around, that loyalty – or lack thereof – cuts both ways. They will come to realize that there is a lifetime value to customers that, while not easy to calculate, is impossible to ignore. Mostly, they will learn that shareholders are not interested so much in profit as in sustainable growth. Sustainable growth comes with protecting the base and growing with key customers.

Everyone will have a tale to the contrary – and nothing upsets the equilibrium of loyalty faster and with more finality than a changing of the guard – but it is precisely these exceptions that define the rule. And so, in general and on principle, I am in agreement with American writer, publisher and philosopher Elbert Hubbard who said, “An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness”. At a minimum.

Woman’s place is in the wrong. (James Thurber)

The Marketing Department bulletin board of my old company was – and appears to still be – the place for things weird and wonderful. Last week, while visiting, I found this piece from Savvy & Sage prominently posted.

Savvy & Sage is a bimonthly magazine for seniors, with topics running from Alzheimers to annuities. In its September / October 2007 issue, S&S published an excerpt from a 1943 issue of Transportation magazine. A Guide to Hiring Women, it was “written for male supervisors of women in the work force during World War II”. Among the 11 tips:

- Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters and they’re less likely to be flirtatious.

- When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy.

- Husky girls are more even-tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

- Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination – one covering female conditions. This would reveal whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her unfit for the job.

- You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

- Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can’t shrug off harsh words the way men do.

In the early ‘70s, I worked for a large engineering company. My boss was loathe to hire women on the basis that they were unreliable, constantly missing work to take care of domestic problems. Worse, they would almost certainly go off on maternity leave just as soon as they started to become useful. (I can only imagine now what he considered ‘useful’.) In a case of misplaced paternalism or, perhaps, simple misogyny, the women in that firm had to ask their male supervisors for the key to the ladies’ washroom. The attitude was both a cause and an effect of the demographics of professional engineering at the time: only one percent of registered engineers were women. Of course, ignorance may have also had a little something to do with it.

Times have changed, right? Fast forward, if you will, to 2007. Only 13 FORTUNE 500 companies were run by women, only one in the top 50 (Angela Braly, President and CEO of health insurance provider WellPoint). The baker’s dozen is a record, up from just 10 in 2006.

In the past few years, there have been countless articles profiling women in power, analyzing what motivates and deters women from seeking leadership roles, trying to ferret out those particular-to-women personality traits that make them perfect or imperfect candidates for the corner office.

I have worked with many women executives over the years and those with promising careers whose climb ended just short of the top rung. Most brought high levels of integrity to their jobs. Most often, the principle driver to succeed was what often became the biggest stumbling block: respect from others. Know what? These things are hardly peculiar to women.