In his recent book, The Enlightened Capitalists, James O'Toole explores the challenges faced by two centuries of business pioneers who tried to do well by doing good. While many of their firms were financially successful, few of their progressive business practices turned out to be enduring. In light of this mixed historical record, this article explores the future of enlightened business leadership. It critically evaluates six trends that will greatly determine the extent to which corporate executives will introduce virtuous practices in the coming decade, including a new generation of enlightened capitalists, several consortia of socially progressive business leaders, the growth of social entrepreneurship, the emergence of benefit corporations, and changes in investor attitudes.

In recent years, the idea of conscious capitalism has emerged as an important alternative approach to the problems confronting American capitalism. Embraced by a number of corporations and prominent business leaders, it represents a new strategy for reconciling business, social, and environmental objectives. While this movement is an inspiring one and worthy of admiration, we believe the assumptions that underlie it suffer from a number of important limitations that make it unlikely for the movement to achieve the ambitious promises of its proponents. In fact, it is often difficult to do well by doing good, and few firms have been able to sustain superior social performance over the long run. Moreover, reconciling the interests of all the firm's stakeholders is often hard to achieve in practice. Most important, the adherents of conscious capitalism overlook the critical role that governments must play in reconciling corporate interests with broader public objectives.

If there's one thing that the past decade's business disasters should teach us, it's that we need to stop evaluating corporate leaders simply on the basis of how much wealth they create for investors. A healthier yardstick would be this: the extent to which leaders create firms that are economically, ethically, and socially sustainable. The first step toward accomplishing that task is to create a culture of candor. Companies can't innovate, respond to stakeholder needs, or run efficiently unless the people inside them have access to timely, relevant information, point out professors O'Toole, of the University of Denver's Daniels College of Business, and Bennis, of the University of Southern California. Increasing transparency can be an uphill battle against human nature, however. The obstacles are numerous: macho executives who don't listen to their subordinates or punish them for bringing bad news; leaders who believe that information is power and hoard it; groupthink among team members who don't know how to disagree; boards that fail to question charismatic CEOs. Nevertheless, leaders can take steps to nurture transparency. By being open and candid, admitting their errors, encouraging employees to speak truth to power, and rewarding contrarians, executives can model the kind of conduct they want to see. Training employees to handle unpleasant conversations with grace also will break down barriers to honest communication. To avoid being blinded by biases, leaders can diversify their sources of information - an obvious measure that's rarely taken. Perhaps the biggest lever for cultural change is the executive selection process - choosing leaders for their transparent behavior, not just their ability to compete. And a few companies have even gone so far as to share all relevant information with every employee.

Business schools are facing intense criticism for failing to impart useful skills, prepare leaders, instill norms of ethical behavior, and even lead graduates to good corporate jobs. These criticisms come not just from students, employers, and the media but also from deans of some of America's most prestigious B schools. The root cause of today's crisis in management education, assert Warren G. Bennis and James O'Toole, is that business schools have adopted an inappropriate--and ultimately self-defeating--model of academic excellence. Instead of measuring themselves in terms of the competence of their graduates, or by how well their faculty members understand important drivers of business performance, they assess themselves almost solely by the rigor of their scientific research. This scientific model is predicated on the faulty assumption that business is an academic discipline like chemistry or geology when, in fact, business is a profession and business schools are professional schools--or should be. Business school deans may claim that their schools remain focused on practice, but they nevertheless hire and promote research-oriented professors who haven't spent time working in companies and are more comfortable teaching methodology than messy, multidisciplinary issues--the very stuff of management. To regain relevancy, the authors say, business schools must rediscover the practice of business and find a way to balance the dual mission of educating practitioners and creating knowledge through research.

In both the business press and academic journals, corporate leadership typically is portrayed as a solo activity, the responsibility of one person at the top of an organizational hierarchy. However, evidence shows that shared leadership is not only common in the corporate world, it is often more effective than the storied "one-man shows." Ongoing research at the University of Southern California's Center for Effective Organizations pinpoints several factors needed to make joint leadership a success. Where two--or more--individuals share leadership, it turns out that making the arrangement work is more complicated than simply "divvying up the tasks." For example, sharing the limelight seems harder than sharing responsibility.

A disturbing trend is going on in corporate America--CEO churning. Top executives are rapidly coming and going, keeping their jobs for increasingly shorter periods of time. The reason? Most boards are so unclear about the definition of leadership, they are picking the wrong people. CEO churning needn't be, say leadership experts Warren Bennis and James O'Toole. Boards can reverse the trend by following several guidelines. First, boards must come to a shared, accurate definition of leadership. Simply put, leaders must be able to move human hearts--to challenge people and make them want to scale steep peaks. Second, boards should strengthen the CEO selection process by resolving strategic and political conflicts amongst themselves. An agreed-upon strategic direction will make choosing the CEO with the right vision for the company that much easier and can clarify the job for the new CEO. Third, the board needs to measure every CEO candidate's soft qualities. Economic measures are important, but integrity, the ability to provide meaning, and the talent for creating other leaders are critical. Fourth, boards should beware of candidates who act like CEOs. Charisma and glossy pitches can be enticing, but they're rarely the stuff of true leadership. Fifth, boards should accept that real leaders will more than likely overturn the status quo. Sixth, boards need to know that insider heirs usually aren't apparent, and finally, boards should always avoid making a hasty decision. Hiring the right CEO is a slow process at best. Ultimately, the surest way for boards to pick the right CEO is to cultivate and nurture talent in the making.