Corporate Values That Work

The New York Times has recently stirred the pot on issues of corporate culture and working conditions in America. Some philosophical issues are being talked about anew that I think are crucial for any business. 

In 1997, my book If Aristotle Ran General Motors: The New Soul of Business was published. It was all about what it takes to create a great company culture - whether it's a big company like GM or a small mom and pop business or anything in between. I came to realize that the principles and values that make for great workplaces apply just as well to any friendship or marriage. We're people wherever we are. And we have certain deep needs that will govern what we're able to accomplish in any situation. What then does it take for people to feel great together and do great things in their interactions, in their relationships? Aristotle and the other practical philosophers had some amazing insight for this.

When that book of mine was first out and I was flying coast-to-coast to be on radio and television shows promoting it, the one person interviewing me who had read it the most carefully and thoughtfully was Matt Lauer, on the NBC Today Show. We had nearly nine minutes of conversation about it on the show, which is forever in morning TV time. He told me that, in his opinion, the book captured everything he believed about ethics, and he even asked if it was Ok if he quoted from the book in some talks he was going to be giving about ethics in journalism. But he also challenged me that day by asking me whether American corporations were really ready to become great places to work, focusing attention on such things as Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Unity - the intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual values that my book was built around. There was even a chapter on "Business and the Meaning of Life." Matt wondered whether any big company could really pay attention to such an issue. Is there time? Is it business-efficient to care about such things? Would a necessary concern on the bottom line allow it? 

My answer was simple: Yes. People can't do their best over the long run unless they feel their best about what they're doing. Aristotle understood the deep role that our unconscious quest for happiness, or wellbeing, plays in any of our lives. And he knew that this is the most deeply motivating factor for anything we do. When we aren't happy in our work, when it doesn't contribute to our sense of deep fulfillment in our lives, we can't attain and sustain the highest, most creative excellence. Ultimately, meaning and mastery go together.

In a big front page essay called "Rethinking Work" in the New York Times Sunday Review this week, psychologist Barry Schwartz argues that companies had better pay attention to such issues. And Schwartz has evidently touched a nerve, because 24 hours later, it's the most emailed article in this week's paper. I commend it to your attention. And if it resonates with you, take a look at If Aristotle Ran General Motors and tell me what you think. In light of the recent controversies surrounding Amazon and corporate culture in America these days, I think we need to return to some of these issues. I'll likely write more about them this week.

Meanwhile, may you experience Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Unity in what you do and where you do it. Aristotle would want it that way.

Leaders: Cultivate Your People!

I had lunch with a younger friend today. He runs an office for a major insurance company. In his first year, out of 800 agents in the state, he went from being unranked to being 29th to 52nd to 7th and then all the way up to Number 3, at the top of the mountain. He was a hero. He was made to feel important, celebrated, and held up to others as an example. Then he felt a calling to write a book and speak to groups of people, to share the wisdom about life that he had been learning. So, while continuing to work hard at insurance, he also had to devote time to the writing and speaking. A great book resulted. And his speaking is taking off. Meanwhile, though, his statewide ranking fell to 84th.

The insurance executives over him in the corporate ranks made it clear that they were not pleased. "You're a top 20 guy, not a top 80 guy." He then continued to operate in the top ten percent, even when also busy writing and speaking. But that was now considered a failure - for him. He got chiding and angry phone calls, and unpleasant, pressure filled visits. He was pressed heavily to forget the writing and speaking, and just do his job and produce his numbers, back in the stratosphere of achievement where he was clearly able to function.

One day, an executive visited his office while he was out with a client, and sat at his desk. A coworker thought it was his manager and came into the room saying his name. The executive corrected him and said he was just visiting, but while in the room, thought he might write a book. And this was apparently said with great sarcasm.

This says a lot to me about monumentally stupid business practices. When you have a superbly talented person running an office, and he discovers a side of himself that he wants to develop, then a great leader should encourage that development, while counseling the individual on how he might integrate it into his ongoing business life. But too many corporate executives shoot for predictability rather than true greatness among their people. Great people do great business. Whole people who feel appreciated, respected, and nurtured can work with a loyalty and edge that no one else can duplicate.

My friend should have been encouraged and supported in what he was doing. He should have been applauded even if his new interest were music or sculpture, or long distance running. But it was writing and speaking on topics that can help other people to be great - including people in his own company. So it's not like this development is in any way irrelevant to his business and the corporation, nationally - in fact, quite the opposite. His bosses could have cultivated a talent that would be able to benefit them all in numerous ways, but chose to deal with him instead with harshness, pressure, criticism, and even sarcasm. Do they really think this is the best way to get him to take his work with them to the next level? I was astonished to hear about it. It was, to me, inconceivable to me that people in executive positions could be so dumb. My exceptional friend told me all this with a calm and accepting demeanor, but intimated that he couldn't see continuing on under such conditions, over the long term. Who could?

Too many leaders are really idiots about talent. They view everything with tunnel vision. They want, in my friend's words, "just racehorses who will continue to improve their times." Their vision for what they're doing is far too narrow, and their treatment of others is self defeating.

So, please let me make an appeal to those who are in leadership positions. We want whole people, flourishing people to work with us, not just one-dimensional obsessives. Granted, a few one-dimentional obsessives can be quite productive. But you should never try to fill your organization full of them. 

Whole people can chart new territory, and do new things, and bring us a sort of greatness we never could have predicted, but only if we encourage and support them. If my friend had been encouraged and supported, I have no doubt that, after this initially demanding period of launching his new activities, he could have been back to his top spot in the state, or higher, and with a belief in the company that would have been contagious. He could have told their story with gusto, far and wide. They could have become a "Most Admired Place" to work. 

The executives in question lost a rare and precious opportunity to make something spectacular happen, for their mutual good.