Ninety-one-year-old Mark Felt's disclosure that he is the Watergate era's Deep Throat - and the events surrounding his disclosure - give everyone pause to consider motives in leadership. Here are four thoughts for consideration:

1. Did Felt use his high-ranking leadership position in the FBI appropriately - over 30 years ago - to report abuse in government? What were his motives then (e.g., patriotism, honesty, duty)?
2. What about Felt's motives today - is it just about the money?
3. How should we think about those who question Felt's motives? It is indisputable that there was abuse in government. Are those who condemn Felt today revisionists?
4. Journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein built careers, in part, on their coverage of Watergate. What can we learn about their motives in not betraying their confidence to Felt over so many years?

Few face career issues on the magnitude of Watergate. Yet, everyday in contemporary organizations, many wonder about the motives of others. We're quick to assess whether behaviors are driven by noble pursuits or acts of self-interest. Negative assessments of motive are routine in these examples from everyday language: backstabber, do-gooder, glad-handler, and corporate climber.

Motives differ on a continuum of ideals. The transformation of motive into motivation rests on ranges of aspiration, drive, and goal-orientation. We confront motives through both abuse and neglect. Healthy degrees of self-interest are expected in leaders and the events that cause consideration of another's motives may be hidden or overt. The motivation to lead, ultimately, can not be transparent of motive.

What causes you to consider another's motives? For some, success leads to speculation about motives. For others, failure creates the opportunity to consider motives. Regardless of the motive-consideration prompting behavior, there's often too little discussion on motive. If the recent news events related to Watergate contribute to a new discussion of motive and leadership, we owe thanks to Mark Felt.

The implications of enacted motives often are not apparent until months, or even decades, after an event. When values or motives are neglected -- and action is emphasized above all else -- leadership opportunities are discounted. When the discount occurs at the expense of noble organizations and people, a personal or leadership crisis is inevitable. What values and motives guide you, or other leaders in your organization, today?

What behaviors truly get to you? Are you offended if a co-worker rips-off a ream of paper from the office supply room? What if a colleague takes credit for your ideas - or the ideas of others? Our intent this month is not to have you judge these incidents nor is it for us to serve as a moral arbiter. Rather, the intent is to consider the effects on relationships when dishonesty is confronted. At times, some adults readily admit their dishonesty when confronted. Others, however, may pretend not to hear you; the lack of hearing in this instance is the close relative of deception and denial.

When confronting dishonesty in others, values enter the realm of discussion. Organizational issues often are complex - representing a chromatic palette that is often shades of a single color. Rarely is there conclusive evidence of dishonesty. Choosing to confront dishonesty opens a range of behaviors: counseling, sanction, or dismissal. When you call into question another's honesty, the impact often extends beyond the interpersonal relationship. Team members, colleagues, and family members feel the consequences. It's important for leaders to understand the patterned responses to confronting dishonesty as these patterns provide insight into organizational culture and the seeds for change.

Behaviors in confronting dishonesty go beyond an organization's ethics guidelines. While few begin the confrontation with ethics guidelines in-hand, we have more to learn as the courts of law and of public opinion consider the actions of whistleblowers. The legal profession contributes to our developing understanding in confronting wrongdoing. Think of the many financial transaction settlements that settle actions without the acknowledgement of wrong-doing. A recent case in point is Wachovia, which apologized for predecessor institutions that owned slaves. Confronting the past contributes positively to an institution's relationship with existing and potential stakeholders.

Below the organizational level, when you confront dishonesty, one-on-one, what occurs to the quality of your relationship with the other person? Does avoidance become the norm or is some level of polite formality maintained? Skillful leaders acknowledge honesty and confront difficult issues as they arise based on the knowledge that relationship value accelerates in productive and meaningful relationships. The quality of our relationships provides inspiration to others who wish to lead.

GM recently launched an advertising campaign, GM Employee Discount for Everyone Event. The GM website reads, "For the first time in history, everyone in America gets the GM Employee Discount." Now, if you're in the market for a GM automobile, this may be a very good deal. Ultimately, it may also be a good deal for employees if the promotion helps to boost GM's revenues and profitability. However, it makes me wonder about the effects on pride at GM: do employees at GM make any difference to the organization?

This might poke some fun at GM but the implications merit consideration. Consider these scenarios:

• If you were an employee at Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia during the bitter trial days of celebrity Martha Stewart, how would you feel about announcing yourself as a representative of the company?
• As the Tyco jury begins deliberations, what would cross your mind about the organization?
• Given the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning the conviction of Arthur Andersen for obstruction of justice, would you feel vindication as an employee of the former company?

Many often say that we are judged by the company that we keep. Negative press about an organization affects employees. We need to know more about the phenomenon of guilt by association. Knowledge in this area provides insight into developing leaders in times of crisis. Our June teleconference considers the issue of leadership in these circumstances.

Not too long ago, I listened to a senior executive in an embattled global giant trying to inspire his members. His words -- that he was just waiting for the day when he could return to work holding his head high -- struck me as hollow. Perhaps it wasn't the intent behind the message; it was the tone and lack of outrage regarding the actions of others in the organization. I'm not sure that the speech did anything for anyone, except to make some feel even sadder about the current state of affairs in the organization.

Leaders have choices to develop employees. A significant portion of the development rests in the investment of making others to feel special about the vision and mission of the organization. If an employee is just another face in the crowd - or another link in a long chain of production - a potential leader misses on developing employee contribution. Leaders think about what they can do to make others feel that their organization is a great place to work. Actions in this arena help to foster and to restore pride.

Trust provides the cohesion for authentic behaviors in organizations. When trust is declining or absent in relationships or in organizations, roadblocks to progress are both inevitable and frequent. The rise of global terrorism is likely to affect the next generation of employees in terms of trust and safety. As building blocks of society, organizations have a responsibility to build trust; the erosion of trust can not be entirely blamed on the new world economy.

To contribute to the development of social trust, organizational leaders consider actions that build trust at individual and team levels. The consideration creates a compelling rationale for trustworthy behavior in organizational life. Additionally, leaders who initiate trusting behaviors effectively contribute to trust-building. Now, it might be that we will never trust everyone about everything in organizational life but we need to consider approaches and processes that foster more, rather than less, trust. Practices that support the development of productive and meaningful relationships require leadership support.

Trust development requires leaders who tell the truth - and who are willing to challenge the status quo. In telling the truth, leaders are open to the possibilities of differing views. Too often, we're quick to consider differences but often slow to focus on common ground. Trust can not be left to chance; leadership skills are required. Skills require development and practice.

If we want to open trust, we need to be comfortable - with ourselves and with others. In today's time-crunched world, skill portability is essential to hit the ground running. Leaders, and leadership developers, have a unique stake creating the future and to sustaining long-term trust in life's organizations.