The article was presented at Higher School Of Economics, Moscow, Russia. Based on empirical study of the conflict of loyalties the Author claims that awareness and acceptance of the paradox nature of CEO's commitments makes it possible for the CEO to use fine tuning achieving balance and developing Authorship of one's own life in the corporate setting.

1. Balancing Loyalties
(Can A CEO Be An Author Of His Life In The Corporate Setting?)
Mikhail klarin, PhD
Russian Academy Of Education; Russian Institute Of Corporate Directors, Russia, Moscow.
Corporate life is a game. Rules of the game are there in any organization. The rules
are set before and regardless of someone's coming to take the glorious role of CEO.
In the culture of post-industrial society there is a common request for high level of
'personal output' and committment of CEO, especially in emergencies. At the same
time they expect full loyalty to corporate rules of the game.
Here comes a paradox. Either a CEO sticks to the rules which is now often effective
in non-standard situations, or CEO is looking for their own unique solutions which
may lead beyond the course of corporate rules. Taken to the extreme, the dilemma is:
effective, but unloyal vs. loyal, but ineffective. Let us condsider real cases.
Case One. A huge undustrial site which is a center of the region. Director general is a
person of explosive energy, talent, and… a fragile sense of dignity. His personality
does show in his relationship with his business environment, in perticular, in a
conflict with one of the regional State Authoriy which makes both him, and the
business extremely vulnerable. His task is a paradox. On the one hand, he should
remain the way he is (he cannot do otherwise), and manage the production site in the
region. On the orher hand, he should stop the conflict, and play the game according to
the rules set by major stakeholders. This combination is impossible.
Case Two. Mr.Y was appointed CEO of huge multinational company in Russia after
he managed to raise the business in a 'hopeless' country. He perceives himself as a
cleaner of Augean Stables. His task is a paradox. On the one hand, he should increase
the sales, which he can do only using his 'native' miscromanagement style. On the
other hand, he is expected to keep the company in stability, change his 'explosive'
management style, and adopt regular management. This combination is impossible.

2. I suggest looking at this paradox as Paradox of Committment/loyalty to self vs.
Commitment/loyalty to the rules. Here are some typical features of situations when
the paradox was resolved positively.
• Management decisions are both professionally, and personally meaningful, and
important.
• Decisions are made only by the CEO alone (coaching support typically used by
CEOs is of non-directive nature).
• Decisions are non-algorythmic, have the individual 'authorship' of the person.
• The paradox is resolved typically in the short-term, the balance is never longlasting.
• The balance of 'My Game' and the 'Rules of the Game' has the nature of dynamic
equilibrium.
• There is fine balancing of commitments: to the tasks of the corporate system, its
rule, and to one's own Self (i.e. own management style, decision-making, etc.)
Typical success factors are: a. Committment to the Company goals, b. Freedom to
Manuever, which is high when a person is ready to sacrifice staying in the Company.
Thus, CEO's success is related both to commitment to the Company goals, and
committment to self, and at the same time with readiness to drop committment to
rules which generates the risk of leaving the Organization.
Awareness and acceptance of the paradox nature of CEO's commitments makes it
possible for the CEO to use fine tuning achieving balance and developing Authorship
of one's own life in the corporate setting.