I’m a Work & Organisational Psychologist. I’m concerned with how people work, and how the workplace supports or thwarts people’s welfare. The material has particular context for me, given my 20+ years of self-employment, and it has helped me frame many of my personal experiences running a business. I’ve better understood the decisions I have made over the years, both good and bad. In many cases, if I had to do it all over again, I would most certainly be better equipped to make the decisions I faced. The enthusiasm of youth tends not to furnish us with the wherewithal necessary for creating favourable long-term outcomes. Ocasiuonally perhaps. But it seems that only through experience that we learn.

Within the field of work psychology, there is an intense effort to understand the individual and environmental conditions that lead to reduced worker well-being. Internal and external conditions such as stress, anxiety, burnout, depression, and, indeed, factors that lead to higher performance. Organisations invest heavily in the area, and one could assume, as a consequence, that well-being is a primary concern for business leaders. But I’ve always been cynical in this regard and less inclined to take that premise at face value. Besides, the best will and intent in the world often give way to the commercial demands of operating a business. People are often sacrificed in the noble and righteous pursuit of profit.

Sure, people care for people and the environment, but do corporations? I’m not so sure.

In his book The New Corporation, Joel Bakan writes of the case of BP under the leadership of Lord John Brown. Brown took over BP as CEO in 1995, growing the company from a two-pipeline concern to one of the world's largest oil and gas producers. However, that growth came at a cost. Several significant disasters occurred, including the 2005 Texas City refinery explosion, where one hundred and seventy people were injured and fifteen people died. The following year, the Thunder Horse rig in The Gulf of Mexico sank due to poor construction. A valve installed backwards had caused the rig to flood during a hurricane. Other problems, discovered later, included a shoddy welding job that left underwater pipelines brittle and full of cracks. “It could have been catastrophic,” said a senior engineering consultant on the project. In 2006, at Alaska’s North Slope, a poorly maintained pipeline resulted in a spill of over 5,000 barrels of crude, the largest ever in the region for which BP was fined over $25m. However, these events were only the warm-up to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion that destroyed the ecosystem in The Gulf of Mexico.

Bakan cites Nancy Leveson, an Industrial Safety Expert at MIT who advised the National Commission that investigated the Deepwater Horizon spill, who said,

“They (BP) were producing a lot of standards, but many were not very good, and many were irrelevant.”

Apparently, before the Deepwater Horizon accident, Leveson had told colleagues that BP was an accident waiting to happen. BP had focused on workers' personal safety but not process safety. Adequately formed and applied process safety procedures are likely to have prevented the disasters and loss of life at Texas City and Deepwater Horizon. But Bakan argues that these process safety measures were too expensive for BP to implement. Worker safety is easier and less expensive, but safety measures related to the maintenance of pipelines, drilling rigs, and wells were not.

Costs were cut in pursuit of market share and increased profit. For example, in Texas City, the plant’s process safety budget was cut twice: once in 1998 by 25 per cent and again in 2005 by another 25 per cent just before the explosion. Three more deaths occurred at the Texas City plant, adding further insult to the loss of life. The US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board report found that BP did not take effective steps to reduce the risk of a catastrophic event.

The bottom line is that John Brown, through his commitment and ambition, was blinkered to the practical measures required to maintain the safety of his employees and the environment. His role as CEO was to pursue shareholder profit while externalising as much of the cost of business as possible. He seemed to have done this very well but at an enormous cost to others. Would you believe that since leaving BP, Edmund John Phillip Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley, as it were, has become a champion of green energy. Perhaps his conscience got to him.

Joel Bakan sums up the BP story and suggests;

“People who manage and run large publically traded corporations, like Lord Brown, are not guided by their own lights. Whatever the personal values and ideas might be, when they go to work at their companies, they are bound to the rules of the game. Their decisions must always advance their companies’ financial interests and hence that of their shareholders. The corporate form is agnostic about how they do it. But they must do it.”

Leadership seems to be a different animal inside a corporation than outside it. Once inside it, as Lord Brown’s case with BP shows, the leader is bound by the rules of the game no matter what the impact on human life and the planet. I’m sure he felt remorse for the loss of life, I hope he did, but that offers nothing in the face of the imperative he is obliged to uphold: the pursuit of profit. No matter how remorseful leaders may seem to be at the loss of human life or damage to our environment, they must get over it to do their job. That is the limit placed on them if they are to function successfully in the corporate world. It’s a limit placed on everyone, no matter the role played.

Work demands us to forgo our humanity for the sake of profit, stock options or wages. Whatever the reward, you can’t take the job without adopting an altered state of being, a different self. A self that either chooses not to see the fire that blazes all around it or has to seal its humanity inside an impenetrable shell that protects it from the truth. I believe, however, that it’s only a matter of time before our compromise of personal values and ethics catches up with us. We live with an inherent conflict of interest. On the one hand, we have concern for other human beings and the planet upon which we live, and on the other, we cast those concerns aside for material gain.

It’s a game I believe is at the root of all stress, anxiety and ill-health in the workplace, and it cannot be sustained. We cannot continue to take living breath organisms, place them in a fake plastic environment that is the workplace and expect them to be healthy.

Something has to change.

We occupy a period in human history where little holds more importance to us than how we are perceived. It is the image we present through our words, physical appearance, and behaviour that tells the world who we are and reinforces our self-concept. In that sense, the world in all its beauty and depravity is a mirror of what we perceive ourselves to be. The centrality of the image is paramount and holds centre stage in all areas of life, including work, sport, religion, business, etc. Who and what you portray in large part dictates your success in the field.

Consider our western consumer culture, for example. Everywhere we look, advertisements are vying for our attention and our hard-earned cash. Corporations spend hundreds of billions each year creating images that capture our attention, and in doing so, they have successfully identified and commoditised our deepest desires and fears. They offer us the image of fulfilment and answers to our most burning questions, and we believe them. Our concept of work and who we should be in the workplace is heavily influenced by the images they portray. They say, if we are to succeed in the dog-eat-dog competitive marketplace, then we must embrace the culture of hustle.

Never waste an opportunity to put yourself out there, they say, because the competition will get ahead. Therefore, you must be bright, shiny, loud, and above all, noticed. And so, we fill every moment of our day in active pursuit of the ideal. Wear a red tie with your power suit, become an entrepreneur, set goals, be productive, make money, accumulate toys and measures of success. If you want something, as the explicit message goes, you must go out there and get it. However, these ideals, these images, are liabilities sold as assets, and we spend lifetimes in the mode of accumulation of what, in reality, are fake plastic representations of life and of the self.

In leadership, too, this imperative towards the centrality of the image is dominant. Many scholars insist that our addiction to the pursuit of the image is indicative of a broader social ill with detrimental consequences for human relations1. Just as Narcissus was drawn to his own image in the lake, human beings are increasingly oriented towards the image of success. In her work on the paradoxes of leadership, Slavica Kodish cites Psychoanalyst and anthropologist Michael McCoby, who says, for example, that the story of the contemporary business world is a story of narcissistic leaders on the hunt for power and glory2. For philosopher Michael Buber, it was a case of seeming rather than being, and the propensity towards the false image prevents genuine relationships3.

“All Sizzle And No Steak”

In many human relations, we find a gulf between what we say and what we do. We like to think we are altruistic and caring for the needs of others, for example. We paint that picture of ourselves. But I wonder if the motivations are placed elsewhere. I wonder if we are really just out for our own thinly veiled self-interest. In our everyday conversations, we are often prone to exaggeration and a certain casual representation of the facts making ourselves look better than we ordinarily would. In business, this is also true, and perhaps to an even greater extent. Is that not what marketing is–to present ourselves and the products or services we sell in the “best” possible light? Where is the line between authenticity and fantasy? As one of the dominant premises in sales departments everywhere goes, “sell the sizzle, not the steak.”

And so it is often more about impression management than truth, honesty, integrity and authenticity. A few weeks ago, I wrote about Collins’ Level 5 Model of leadership4, where five years of research into the top-performing corporations in the Fortune 500 only returned 11 that transitioned from good to great. The researchers found that most corporations examined had sporadic periods of superior performance, whereas the 11 identified sustained their success over the long term. According to Collins, this success was largely influenced by an authentic leadership style in those companies. It seems that grand visions and purpose statements positively influence innovation, achievement, and healthy organisational culture only if the accompanying action and behaviour are congruent5.

The centrality of the entrepreneurial image, that of the larger than life, red tie-wearing, rock star CEO, has dominated business management literature. Entrepreneurial rhetoric is full of sparkle and glamour and is hard to ignore. It encourages young executives and MBA graduates to pursue the ideal, and the ideal becomes ever more desirable. The complexity of personal attributes and the dynamic interaction between the self and its environment are reduced to an overly simplistic either-or scenario. Data, coupled with short term self-oriented thinking, becomes the overwhelming metric upon which CEOs make decisions. The premise is, “will this move make money, and how good will I look in the process.” However, there is a trade-off that is often discounted or not considered at all in this pursuit.

The Authentic Leader

The rock star entrepreneurial image is very attractive, but are the board room, joe public, and aspiring entrepreneurs investing too much in the centrality of this image to be healthy? Consider 2017 research by Quigley et al. that examined shareholder perception of CEO significance6. Their research found that investors believe CEOs have a substantial degree of influence on share price. You might suggest, this is to be expected, what’s the problem? Well, perhaps it shouldn’t. If a larger than life CEO garners unsubstantiated trust from shareholders based on his or her personality, this can create a significant weak point. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather a modest but effective CEO driving moderate share growth over a long period than a superstar personality risking it all for a big win. Quigley and his research team agree. They suggest that because CEOs are increasingly incentivised to go big or go home but are not fully penalised when they miss, executives are more likely to take unmitigated risks.

Over the past twenty years, research has been building in support of an alternative; authentic leadership7. Researchers suggest that in a business environment that promotes style over substance, the need for individuals to remain true to their true self has never been greater. The results of inauthentic results-driven leadership, the authors say, have brought a slew of ethical meltdowns and corporate misconduct to our attention. Not only does it mean the in-a-heartbeat end of perhaps centuries-old organisations, but also a dramatic financial loss to ordinary joe soap investors and damage to the environment.

Here’s what former Chief Justice of Delaware Supreme Court, and Senior Fellow of Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School, Leo E. Strine Jr., had to say on the matter in 20128. [You should absolutely read this article].

Not only do corporations have incentives to disregard risks for the sake of profits, but there is a natural tendency to pay attention to short-term profits over long-term risks. In fact, most of us place a higher value on immediate satisfaction than on the long-term risks created by such satisfaction. If we can get all the benefits of the immediate satisfaction for ourselves, and know that the longer-term costs will be shared with a lot of others, we go for today over tomorrow even more. And, when an industry is among the leaders in having lobbyists precisely for the purpose of minimizing governmental regulation of its activity, trusting that industry to balance environmental concerns and worker safety responsibly against the prospect of immediate profit would seem even more naïve.

A Definition of Authentic Leadership

Despite the narcissistic, self-image oriented leaders that dominate not only business but many other areas of life, some stand out for the right reasons. Perhaps it’s better to say they stand out by not standing out. According to 2003 research by Fred Luthens and Bruce Avolio9, organisations and society at large turn to leaders for guidance and direction in volatile and uncertain times. Under rapidly changing conditions, the authors suggest, leaders must be transparent, genuine, reliable, trustworthy, and display congruence between their espoused values, actions, and behaviours.

The authors define Authentic Leadership a follows;

Specifically, we define authentic leadership in organisations as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviours on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates to be leaders. The authentic leader is true to him/herself and the exhibited behaviour positively transforms or develops associates into leaders themselves. The authentic leader does not try to coerce or even rationally persuade associates, but rather the leader’s authentic values, beliefs, and behaviours serve to model the development of associates.

How To Develop Authentic Leadership

Research shows that the key aspects in developing authentic leadership come from the individual’s personal history and key events in their past. Family life, role models, early life challenges, education, and work experience all contribute to the leader's forming. Both Gardner and Collins point towards the impact of dramatic life events in facilitating personal growth and development. Gardner suggests that these components serve as catalysts for heightened self-awareness and the ability to self-reflect.

In certain respects, it seems that the conditions required for authentic leadership cannot be manufactured at will. Instead, they seem to be the consequence of living a certain life. Authentic leadership doesn’t come in a packet on the supermarket shelf ready-made for use. The self-awareness required for authentic leadership comes from a willingness to address one’s shortcomings, reflect critically on our decisions, and test our own hypothesis of life and analyse our self-schema. The leadership skills required for successful operation in a dramatically changing environment come from learning who we are fundamentally and connecting to our intrinsic core self.

The centrality of the entrepreneurial image is born from the idea that we must prove ourselves to the world. It says, “look at me, I am important, I exist, I am real, take notice of me.” As it is when we stare in the mirror, the image must be reflected back to us; otherwise, we cease to exist. And so, everything the ego-based self does in the world is an effort to reinforce its vitality and value further. What it really reflects is a fundamental weakness in the self. For this to change, that thin image must be destroyed, leaving the space for the true self to emerge. This is what both Collins and Gardner suggest when referring to the impact of dramatic life events.

I am hopeful that things are changing for the better rather than changing to more of the same. That we can move towards a system of living and work that comes from a more authentic self rather than the inauthentic self that currently dominates. Given the destructive nature of the capitalist system and our ever heightening need for short-term gratification, failing to do so will surely mean the end of this version of the human race. Authentic leadership is an imperative not only for business success but for the survival of all life on the planet. I don’t think that is an exaggeration.

Thanks for taking the time to read this week’s issue of The Lead. If you enjoyed this essay, consider becoming a supporter.

Subscribe now

I was chatting to my Dad recently about work, and in particular, about his forty years of management experience in the construction industry. He was in his prime during the 70s and into the 80s, a period of distinct depression and poverty in Ireland. The country had only recently joined the EU (EEC as it was called at the time), infrastructure was non-existent, and unemployment was in the high teens. Prospects weren’t great for kids like me at that time, and my parents knew it, so many families emigrated to the US, Canada, or Australia. He and my mother strongly considered it, too, until an opportunity to manage a Middle Eastern project came his way in 1978. So they packed up the family, and we headed east.

My Dad had a great way with blokes, the workers, the men who put everything together. He spoke their language and could relate to their circumstances. He understood the on-the-ground experience that every manual worker endures, and he fought, albeit subtly, for their interests. I say endures because the construction game is, in effect, an assault on the person. This is true even taking into account today’s improved working conditions. The work is adversarial, and even though surface level optics attempt to convince you otherwise, if you’re in the game, you know to watch your back. Building sites are dirty, noisy, dangerous places where before the advent of health and safety standards, men would literally risk their lives daily to earn a crust. It was only with the arrival of multinational corporations to Ireland that standards were improved. I have little time for corporates, but that’s one good thing that they brought.

My father’s role was to manage projects and get them done on time and budget. But rather than taking a hard-line autocratic approach which was all too common at the time, he was a diplomat. He inherently knew the game, working with blokes, connecting with them, and forming a bond. But not in a disingenuous way; after all, he was one of them. As such, he garnered widespread respect despite being the one responsible for letting lads go as projects came to a close. He had a sharp edge, too, often telling workers as he fired them, “now, I’m not sacking you, you’re sacking yourself.” Afterwards, they’d buy him pints and thank him for the opportunity. To him, lads were not merely resources to get a job done; they were human beings like him. But not everyone saw it that way.

“Work is about a search for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying”

-Studds Terkel | Author & Broadcaster

He reminisced about the “good” old days and told me of the challenge he had navigating the complexity of labour meetings. “The language and rhetoric were poisonous,” he said. “They had no relationship with the men, and in many cases, didn’t even know them. Yet, they held very strong opinions on whether certain men should be kept on or sacked. It was often outright character assassination,” he said. “These were guys I worked with and who performed for me year-in, year-out, and management wanted to get rid of them. They simply didn’t understand how things worked on the ground.” When labour strikes hit in the 70s, he found himself on the side of the men. What senior management didn’t understand was that they needed to be on the workers’ side to have workers on their side. But like I said, the construction game was, and still is, adversarial.

Not only is it so in the construction industry, but in many workplaces, the relationship between managers and staff on the ground is antagonistic. It may be cooperative but only under threat of reprimand. Workers are often not allowed to think critically, and as much as we’d like to think leadership in organisations has changed for the better, I’d argue it has not. Even where the visuals have become more palatable, the underlying premises remain unchanged. Do what you’re told, and don’t question the status quo. Fulfil the role and follow the protocols to the letter; that’s how you get ahead.

The predominant system of leadership and management is not one that is actively challenged but one of momentum. Yes, I know HBR, McKinsey, and a host of business & management publications have extolled the virtues of Transformational Leadership for perhaps decades. Still, the fact is that F.W. Taylor’s Scientific Management remains dominant in the psyche of the workplace. It’s us versus them. Corporations want productivity–bottom line, and they are prepared to do what is necessary to get it. After all, if they fail to do so, they cease to be viable entities.

Monkey see monkey do, and generations of “doing” serves to train would-be managers how to perform for the company despite policy. You can employ all the leadership and management training you want. Still, if the core fundamentals driving the individual don’t shift from hierarchical to that of diversified yet complementary leadership concepts, culture doesn’t change.

The difference lies in the character and the fundamental ethics that are inherent in him or her. They are the moral principles that person has been constructing since they were born, and arguably even before that. People can change, I mean really change for the better. But there is something in all of us that is elemental, primary, constitutional, and if that character structure cannot adopt a humanitarian perspective, then nothing changes. Other human beings remain a means to an end. A certain orange-faced, red tie-wearing so-called Republican comes to mind. For him, loyalty and subordination are more important than measuring a situation and making decisions that can benefit more than them.

Change is happening; I’ll grant that. But there are many leaders and managers in corporations, small and large the world over, that still operate from a do-it-or-else state of mind. I know because I was one of those. The pressure to perform and uphold a particular self-concept can drive us to do things we wish we hadn’t. I’ll put my hand up to that. Had I known better, I may have made better decisions. Nevertheless, experience teaches. Words and theory don’t teach. So maybe we’ve got to be bad leaders before we become good ones.

On a final note, I believe that the workplace is invariably at odds with our humanity. The workplace requires us to subjugate ourselves to the ideal image and that has a detrimental effect on people–both managers and workers. It asks us not to follow what we feel, but to follow rules. These rules don’t serve us, they serve others further up the hierarchical chain. This is so blatantly obvious I can’t accept that everyone doesn't see it. I mean it’s so basic to how workplaces operate. So in that light, what is the leader’s role?

I’m not sure. Maybe we can address our leadership shortcomings in the modern workplace, or maybe it’s a square peg in a round hole scenario. I’m not certain it’s something that can be resolved given how society is currently structured.

Thanks for taking the time to read this week’s issue of The Lead. If you enjoyed this essay, consider becoming a supporter.

Subscribe now

Niccolò Machiavelli was a 16th-century Italian philosopher and political commentator best known for his 1513 work, The Prince. In this infamous work, he outlined guidance on suitable behaviour for royals and aristocrats, extending to the premise that “the ends justify the means”. In other words, rulers' immoral, cruel and criminal actions are justified if their glory and honour are preserved. Interestingly, some contemporary writers have referred to Machiavelli as the father of modern political philosophy and political science1.

Machiavelli considered the jostling for power of Italian political leaders of the time as “a matter of fact” to be acknowledged rather than a measure of one’s morality2. A such, his writings ran counter to the outward teachings of the Christian Church. Rather than resorting to idealistic "imagined republics and principalities", as he put it, Machiavelli seemed to base his philosophy on "effectual truth." That is to say, he encouraged 16th-century rulers to control their fortune “gloriously” and wield their power despite the upheaval and lawlessness that it may bring about.

Machiavelli justified his position by asserting that it was better to be feared than loved, to become the personification of immorality, than risk relinquishing one’s power and control. He said that a ruler who, in establishing a kingdom, commits atrocities should be excused when their intention is honourable and the results are beneficial.

Share

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” - Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

As noted by Robert Greene in his book The 48 Rules of Power3, Royal Courts of the time imagined themselves to be the epitome of cultural refinement, fairness, and morality. However, behind the curtain of religious idealism, members flirted with deception, treachery and criminal activity. Overt moves to power were frowned upon, so courtiers devised new elaborate and underhanded ways to satisfy their greed, envy, and lust. Greene writes that the successful courtier outwits his opponents through seduction, charm and deception. Life in the Royal Court was a battle of wills and cunning and required constant vigilance. It was a psychological warzone where losing the fight would usually bring about one’s downfall.

Greene says that today, our arrangements must have the same superficial appearance. In all our affairs, we must seem civilised, decent and fair, not to mention democratic. But if we play by the game's apparent rules, our opponents will take their advantage and leave us for fools. On the contrary, if we can master the art of deception and seduction, manipulate and carefully outmanoeuvre our contemporaries, we can bend others and circumstances to our will and attain the fruits of power. And in the process, if others fail to realise our true intention, then all the better. We’ve got what we wanted and offended no one.

Is this the true face of human nature? Is everyone out for their own personal gain at the expense of others, and are those who think differently merely setting themselves up like lambs for the slaughter?

Robert Greene says that for some, the notion of playing power games seems evil and runs counter to their ethical human values. He says that such people may choose to opt out of the game but warns that they are often the most adept players. They cleverly disguise their true intentions and display their weaknesses as a kind of moral virtue. But real weakness or powerlessness will never be openly on display, he suggests. And I can appreciate this view because if we feel less than adequate in any circumstance, then we are most likely to try to keep it hidden than be open about it.

Consider the current dominant narrative in the online world towards sensitivity, humility and vulnerability. Are we really to believe that the writers are sharing their experiences out of true moral virtue, or have they utilised a cunning strategy that garners sympathy for the sake of acknowledgement and personal advancement? Greene seems to think they have, and they take pleasure in the flaunting of their apparent piety and higher moral standing. Wolves in sheep’s clothing, perhaps.

The Pursuit of Wealth & Power

I want to think that human beings are inherently good, but the more I examine the nature of human behaviour, the more I come to realise that some of us are simply bad bastards, and that’s all there is to it. I want to think I am a decent human being too; after all, I’ve never killed anyone. But I could be accused of executing a dastardly deed or two in my time despite perhaps having a good reason. So am I good or bad? Where do we draw the line? Does a line even exist? What gives us the right to cast an opinion on anyone else? Should we play the game and fuck the consequences, or should we strive to attain the highest of human virtue? Are we playing even though we pretend we’re not?

Lots of questions to which I honestly don't have definitive answers. However, I know that I have boundaries to what I consider ethical business conduct. I also believe that certain personality types are drawn to the kinds of behaviour Greene speaks of. Some people who ordinarily hold themselves to high levels of personal integrity can, under certain difficult conditions, fall foul to these behaviours. Call it a kind of temporary pathology. Machiavellianism exists regardless.

In his book, Greene outlines the 48 laws of the power game, and it is a sobering read. But is this not the world of business in a nutshell? Personal experience tells me that it is. Others I have spoken to anecdotally regarding their business experience have offered a similar view to my own; it is cut-throat. If you’re not on your guard, if you are not a “cute hoor”, as they say where I’m from, then you will be eaten alive. This is how the business world operates, and although there are many clever and well-thought-out hypotheses regarding leadership and aspects of good business etiquette, the everyday reality is very different.

Business is dog-eat-dog, and it plays out as Richard Buckminster Fuller suggested in “the folly of the selfish and fearfully contrived wealth games humanity plays under a misinformed survival-of-the-fittest ideology.” Corporations are the new aristocracies, and their board members are the modern courtiers. They are at war with one another, and all that will stand in their way, yet on the surface, they play the role of the concerned and upstanding organisation. They play the game, which is, as Joel Bakan wrote in 2004, a pathological pursuit of profit and power4. Bakan points out that the modern corporation is a legal institution whose mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, its own self-interest regardless of the harmful consequences.

As such, Bakan suggested that the modern corporation is a pathological institution. And in his recent publication, The New Corporation, suggests that rather than the situation improving, it has become worse5. The JP Morgan led Business Roundtable comprising CEOs of some of the world’s largest and most influential corporations, Bakan says, have put in place a smokescreen, enacted a marketing exercise by which they may disguise the true extent of their pursuits. Central to his argument is that these same companies, despite their best efforts, are the major cause of the world’s social ills and not, as the Business Roundtable would suggest, a solution.

Share

Have Things Changed?

I believe in some quarters things have changed, but in large part, they have not. Despite any individual’s honest intent to never harm people or the planet, a business's competitive nature lends itself to deceit and mispractice. The purpose of a business is to make a profit, and if it doesn't, it must be would up–it ceases to be a viable entity. This is a big problem because that pursuit of more, of power and profit drives otherwise caring human beings to do nasty things. The old saying comes to mind, “you lay down with dogs, you’ll get fleas.”

What can I tell you? If you are in business for yourself or are a corporate executive, the imperative will always to be profitable, and often you will be asked to forgo your sense of rightness to make that happen. I have faced that question also, and I honestly can sympathise with others who find themselves in a similar situation. I can’t offer you a satisfactory answer other than always try not to put yourself in that situation. There are ways to make money and do well in life without being a bad bastard, or indeed, sacrificing your own sense of integrity. Life is too short and too precious for that.

Know your values, visit them daily, make them public and be held accountable for their upkeep. When you are concrete in your personal values and have set boundaries on your own behaviour, it’s harder to break them. As a leader, your job is to reinforce these values with your team and ensure everyone is on board. It is the foundation upon which you’ll build your house. Machiavellianism is alive and well in the 21st Century have no doubt about that, and when it has space to operate, then there will be casualties. I believe that Machiavelli and his ideas belong in the past, and that’s where we should leave them.

What do you think?

Thanks for taking the time to read this week’s issue of The Lead. If you enjoyed this essay, consider becoming a supporter.

Subscribe now

References

Good Easter Sunday morning to you!

Today is symbolic for Christians everywhere, for it was today, two thousand-odd years ago, that a bloke called Jesus resolved the most persistent dichotomy. That is, we cannot live until we die. Of course, what that entire story attempts to convey is the paradox in which we live. It seems that in all our striving for meaning and purpose, we believe we must be either one or the other. We certainly can’t be both, or can we?

The reality is that we are both, and in every execution of our daily work, we have an opportunity to bring both apparent ends of the spectrum together in our actions. In the closing of the circle, we resolve the paradox. As Jung said, “How can I be substantial if I do not cast a shadow? I must have a dark side also If I am to be whole.”

Now, I’m not here to preach, certainly not, but I do like sharing ideas that help us find answers, even if those answers are tentative. Life is tentative, is it not? Death is tentative too, and in between, we create. So, what will you create, and how long is your timeline? Is it limited to your own personal framework of existence, or does it extend beyond your sense of a subjective self to broader humanity and to generations that follow?

I believe that concepts such as the Level 5 Leadership Model proposed by Jim Collins help answer those questions. However, if our sense of self and reason for living fail to extend beyond our own skin, there is no hope for future generations. In this, Narcissus is the embodiment of all that is flawed with the human spirit–a tight circle that comprises only the separate self. A broader-reaching concept of self-taking in more than oneself is the aim of successful leadership.

Are you following me here?

The reason we exist needs to be greater than our own apparent importance. There must be a sense of self, but also a sense of the other. I’m not a religious man, but I can see plainly that this is one of all religions' fundamental teachings. There is a deeper reality that extends beyond the selfish needs and gratifications of any one individual.

And here we come to the crux of it.

The world of business is filled with people, with leaders possessing short term timelines encapsulated in self-interest. Buckminster Fuller wrote about this in Critical Path1, highlighting the folly of what he called “the selfish and fearfully contrived wealth games” that humanity plays under a misinformed survival-of-the-fittest ideology.

In today’s essay, we explore the nature of this short-term thinking and the personality of leadership that lies behind it. We will examine the apparent paradox of traits that exist in the most successful leaders as determined by Jim Collins’ Level-5 Leader and offer one of his examples of exemplary leadership in the world of business.

The Leadership Personality

Jim Collins, author of Good To Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't2, suggests that people lead the most exceptional performing companies over the long term with a certain paradoxical mix of personality traits. Rather than seeking the limelight, leaders of good to great companies possess extreme personal humility and an intense professional will to succeed.

In contrast, most of us associate successful leaders with certain outgoing personality traits and a larger-than-life ego. In social circles, the gregarious, larger-than-life characters always take over the room, which commands attention and entertains. The business world is dominated by such leaders driven by the prospect of power and personal glory. We assume that these narcissistic personality types can lead us to victory or if you, the shareholder, take you to profitability. But this idea is flawed, and Collins agrees.

In his study of the market performance of 1435 companies over a 15-year period, Collins and his team set out to discover if a good company could become a great company and, if so, how. Their initial sample found only 11 companies that outperformed the market and their contemporaries over an extended period of time. Perhaps the most interesting of the findings was that of leadership personality, which made it possible.

The Mild-Mannared CEO

Collins tells the story of the modest Darwin E. Smith3, chief executive of middle-of-the-road paper company Kimberly-Clark. In 1971, the stock market value fell 36% behind the market, and as the board’s recently appointed CEO, Smith was responsible for finding a new direction. He was an in-house lawyer lacking all the traditional bluster and egotism that is typical of many CEOs. Also, he had never even run a major division before and was filled with self-doubt. Some of his fellow directors had concerns too, and during subsequent major restructuring at the company, Wall Street and the media weren’t so kind either. Nevertheless, as Smith is said to put it himself, "I never stopped trying to become qualified for the job."

Despite his introverted style, Darwin Smith displayed strong resolve and determination to make big decisions, such as entering the consumer paper market. As a result of that move, Kimberly-Clark became the number one paper-based consumer products company globally, beating Procter & Gamble and other major rivals. The company generated cumulative stock returns four times greater than those of the general market, outperforming companies such as Hewlett-Packard, 3M, Coca-Cola, and General Electric.

Jim Collins cites Darwin Smith’s turnaround of Kimberly-Clark as one the best but least known examples of a leader taking a company from ordinary to exceptional4. However, in contrast to popular belief, Smith’s success came from staying in the background. He didn’t court fame and notoriety. He instead focused on the work and doing the best job he could. But the media don’t celebrate this; they need fireworks. We take notice of fireworks, and the media know it. The downside is that is we begin to believe in the firework display.

The Narcissist-Empath Dichotomy

The Level-5 Leadership Personality stands in stark contrast to that of the narcissistic leader. We’ll examine the Level-5 Leadership Personality further, but first, let’s explore the narcissistic leader; arguably the more dominant personality in the business world. The narcissist, according to Maccoby,5 reflects society’s collective image of what it takes to be a successful leader. In that view, perhaps our ideals are distorted.

The Narcissist

Narcissists love fireworks–they are the fireworks. The problems arise for companies (and the rest of us) when we become fooled by it all. The cult of celebrity CEO is real, and it is this fame and fortune to which narcissists are attracted. They are brazen and bold; they take over the room and force milder congregation members to either support them or shut up. They love the fight, and they can’t stand losing. Narcissistic leaders are all about the show. They are charismatic, manipulative, and controlling and possess unyielding determination, ruthlessness, and entrepreneurism. Therefore, as I said, we are often fooled by the fireworks display of their personality. However, we often ignore the fact that narcissistic leaders’ success is generally short-lived6.

Narcissistic leaders are often self-absorbed to such an extent that their business decisions are weighted by what’s good for them and their image rather than what’s good for the business. Also, they are less concerned with what happens to the company after they are gone than they are while they are in charge. Jim Collins says that narcissistic leaders typically have an “I don’t care what happens after me” attitude. Therefore, the narcissistic personality type has significant flaws.

In a 2004 research paper examining narcissism and risk,7 researchers reported that narcissistic leaders possess two major aspects of character;

1. A positive, inflated, and agentic self-concept.

2. A self-regulatory strategy designed to maintain and enhance this self-concept.

These self-absorbed leaders strive for fame and notoriety and express little concern or empathy for others. In fact, others serve as a means by which to obtain the status and reward they crave. They do not tolerate dissent or negative feedback, for this serves as an attack on their self-image. Therefore, compliance on the part of subordinates is more important to the narcissistic leader than knowledge or skill.

The Empathic Level-5 Leader

Collins’ Level-5 Leader is the antithesis of the narcissistic leader, epitomised by Darwin Smith at Kimberly-Clark in the 1970s. It is a classic example of a person in leadership who manages to blend extreme personal humility with an intense will to succeed. According to Collins’ five-year research study, business leaders who possess this paradoxical combination of personality traits are catalysts for what he calls a “statistically rare event” of transforming a company from good to great. Rather than going after a larger market share for the sake of profitability, using overstated rhetoric, and making promises they can't keep, the Level-5 Leader personifies the steady, reliable, and trustworthy aspects of a business. It’s not about the fireworks display; it’s about the quality of the product or service and the success of the company.

“Level-5" Hierarchy of capabilities.

Level 1 of the hierarchy relates to an individual’s technical capability, talent and knowledge contribution to the organisation.

Level 2 relates to their team skills and ability to work with other members toward a collective goal.

Level 3 of the hierarchy relates to an individual’s managerial competence and skills at organising people and resources.

Level 4 relates to the individual’s traditional leadership skills, ability to catalyse collective commitment and develop a clear and compelling vision.

Level 5 leaders possess the skills of levels 1 to 4 but have the extra dimension, an almost paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.

Level-5 leaders are largely introverted, shunning the limelight and never boastful. They are quiet and calm yet determined and hold themselves to impeccably high standards. Level-5 leaders possess a stoic resolve to do whatever it takes to make the company great and ensure that those who follow are set up for success. Collins insists that it’s not the case that Level 5 leaders have no self-interest. On the contrary, they are highly ambitious, but their ambition is channelled towards the institution's success, not towards themselves.

Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

"Level 5 leaders look out the window to assign credit—even undue credit. They look in the mirror to assign blame, never citing external factors."

Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

- Jim Collins

Can Level-5 Leadership Be Learned?

Collins believes that there are basically two types of people who enter leadership positions; those with the potential for Level-5 Leadership and those without. The latter could never in a million years subjugate their own needs for gratification to the needs of something broader reaching. Their entire self-concept is structured in such a way to make that impossible. The former possess the capability perhaps lying dormant within them, and under the right circumstances, the seed can begin to develop. Some of the Level 5 leaders, such as Darwin Smith, Collins says, had significant life experiences that may have been the catalyst for personal change. Smith’s cancer survival may have been significant for the development of attributes required for Level 5 Leadership. Other CEOs in his study had similar life-altering experiences.

Collins says that Level 5 is an empirical, powerful and satisfying concept. And for an individual to make the transition from good to great, it is an essential concept. But to provide “ten steps to Level 5 leadership” would too trivial. Success tends not to be that simple. Instead, Collins suggests, the perfect blend of attributes required for Level-5 Leadership is undefinable.

Most of the world is obsessed with instant gratification. Nothing warrants the time and effort necessary to create something great. In fact, our idea of greatness seems to be an off-shoot of the pursuit of instant gratification–it’s self-reinforcing. We lay praise and adornment at the doorstep of those who shine brightest in the misled belief that theirs is the way, only to be found wanting. As with the self-obsessed narcissistic leader, it seems our entire way of life reflects a personal pursuit of gratification that never lasts. As Abraham Maslow said8, “Man is a perpetually wanting animal.”

As we have seen from Collins’ Level-5 Leadership Model, successful leadership requires a worldview and a sense of reality that extends beyond the physical boundary of the self. That perspective may only come to the fore when the tight narcissistic self-concepts are torn down. As such, I believe that trying to become a Level-5 Leader is really a display of narcissistic tendencies we’re trying to overcome. Instead of thinking of the Level-5 Leadership concept as an ideal toward which we must strive, maybe it’s better to develop organically.

That’s really what Collins found. He examined it after the fact, therefore, to try to coax or coerce it into being the cart before the horse. Whatever it’s worth, my advice is to cease trying and focus on being as human as possible. But as Collins said, some are just not cut out for it.

Thanks for taking the time to read this week’s issue of Peak Performer. If you enjoyed this essay, consider becoming a supporter.

Subscribe now

References

Welcome to the launch issue of The Lead. First, I’d like to thank you for being a subscriber, and if you find value in these essays, please share with your friends and work colleagues. The Lead is free for all to read for a short period, but I’ll be closing the doors soon. So if you join now, you’ll get lifetime access to all future paid content for free. [Read more about subscription benefits.]

This week on The Lead, I’m examining a fundamental aspect of all human relations; the nature of leadership. Its essence is not so simple to capture, and perspectives are broad and varied. For example, there are the perspectives of gender, personality, social context, culture, and ethics, to mention a few. It may be, in fact, impossible to define concretely what leadership is; nevertheless, to explore the concept and endeavour to understand it is to understand oneself and, therefore, make better leadership decisions. Understanding oneself is perhaps the most crucial component in living a fulfilling life, let alone in leading others. And so this self-pursuit will form the core of many essays here on The Lead. Development is a lifelong project that is, perhaps, never complete. Therefore knowing oneself, lies at the seat of effective leadership.

Share

I have never considered myself a leader, per se. In fact, I back away from self-assigning the label. It’s too showy, too much out in the spotlight, too many red ties, power suits and rhetoric, and that’s not my bag. The greatest misconception any person graced with the honour of leadership can hold is that they are or should be front and centre. This misconception is perhaps the antithesis of true leadership. Funny then, is it not, that I choose to make my thoughts public. Well, I’ve got an opinion on the matter, and I’ve seen so many examples of bad leadership and demonstrated it enough times myself to warrant voicing that opinion. Besides, it’s easy sitting on my couch with nobody watching.

When it comes to work, I prefer to put the blinkers on, head down and get stuck in. This doesn’t mean I ignore the peripherals; that would be foolish. Things on the fringes often become or disrupt central components, so it pays to keep them on the radar. What I mean is, I’ve always sought to do my work to a high standard. Not for notoriety or praise, but because the work itself was worth the effort. Regardless of how it came about, I always seemed to end up in certain roles that demanded responsibility. That experience has taught me many things about good and bad leadership and myself over the years.

I had no formal leadership training; instead, I relied upon my instincts. My leadership skills usually meant adopting a “get it done or else” approach in the traditional masculine character. And that worked for a long time, but eventually, I had to come to terms with the fact that it was a less than optimal method. It’s adversarial and invariably splits the camp, and under crisis conditions, it can be like petrol on a fire.

Seth M. Spain suggests in Leadership, Work, & The Dark Side of Personality1 that we must understand human nature to understand leadership. Because, he says, leadership is one half of a relationship between at least two human beings. And the first step in this is to understand oneself. According to Spain, leadership may not solely be determined by individual character; however, it strongly reflects it. Reflecting on my time in business and accompanying leadership roles, I can now see this view's accuracy.

A Definition of Leadership

So, what is leadership? Is it forced upon an unsuspecting group by a dogmatic controlling person, or is it demanded of unwitting individuals by their group or community? Should followers follow, or should they insist that their chosen leader represent their interests? There is so much to this question and impossible to cover in one article; however, I’ll start by offering some interesting definitions.

Former US President Dwight Eisenhower famously defined leadership as;

“the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”

This view is centred on the idea that coercion of others is necessary. It implies the Machiavellian view that means justify ends, and maybe that’s required under certain conditions such as war. But business is not war, or at least doesn’t need to be, and other approaches can achieve better results for all concerned.

Eisenhower also is reported to have said, “you don’t lead by beating people over the head; that’s assault, not leadership.” So perhaps it is harsh to assume he was Machiavellian in his approach.

That said, most organisations, regardless of the domain in which they operate, rely primarily on a top-down hierarchical model of leadership2. Gary Yukl at the University of Albany, New York, offers us a more holistic and inclusive view of leadership3;

“Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives.”

Yukl suggests that the term leadership is taken from our everyday vocabulary and often used interchangeably with other terms such as power, authority, management, administration, control, and supervision. As such, our understanding of leadership behaviour can be tinted by ambiguity and misunderstanding. He cites Bennis from 1959, who wrote;

“Always, it seems, the concept of leadership eludes us or turns up in another form to taunt us again with its slipperiness and complexity. So we have invented an endless proliferation of terms to deal with it . . . and still the concept is not sufficiently defined.”

A leadership definition will usually follow a researcher’s theoretical angle or reflect the practitioner’s perspective, their on-the-ground experience. That means definitions are broad and diverse. And perhaps this is how it should be for leadership means different things to different people under the infinite expanse of human experience. Whether or not it is a viable theoretical construct is an entirely separate debate.

What’s true, perhaps, and what should be parallel with any discussion on leadership is the concept of followership.

The Leadership-Followership Dichotomy

As I mentioned above, leadership seems to be the apparent product of human relationship. I can only be a leader if some are willing to follow. But who creates who? I think this is an important consideration. Do people wait around for someone to present themselves as the leader, or do they demand it of someone? In a corporate setting, it seems clear. You know when you accept a job that you’ll have a boss to whom you’ll report. Everybody reports to somebody in a corporate setting. But what about in the broader social context? In the early 20th Century rise of Fascism in Europe, for example, did Hitler and Mussolini impose their will on the people, or did the people push these autocratic personalities to the front?

We know only too well the catastrophic impact their leadership styles had on society at the time, but antisemitism had been brewing for perhaps the previous eighty years or more. Hatred fuelled by the press and made acceptable by political rhetoric met social unrest and created a firestorm. Still, I would be of the view that these leaders were created and sustained not only by local demand but by the expression of a global structure. Who funded their movement? Who supplied them with raw materials, education and knowledge? Who provided them with the resources necessary for their execution of barbaric ideals? They were supported and fuelled not only by local popular opinion but by international vested interests.

I’m steering slightly off the main thrust of this article. Still, the above illustrates that leaders and followers are mutually causative, and there are often more aspects to their rise than what may seem apparent. Trump is a contemporary case-in-point. Vast waves of people in the United States felt the powers in Washington did not represent their views, and when they were presented with what they deemed a viable alternative, they backed him. Couple this with the need of the Republican Party to hold power, and we had the perfect recipe for placing a buffoon in arguably the most powerful seat of power in the western industrialised world.

Thankfully the American people resolved the situation, but for how long? 80 million people voted for Trump, whose policies, it should be said, were constructed to garner votes and not because they were an integrated part of a social agenda. I don’t think the scope of his intelligence reaches that far beyond the boundary of his own skull. People, even his own family and institutions of the United States, served to fulfil Trump’s narcissistic motivations. To Donald Trump, everything, not him is a potential means for personal gratification. He is the quintessential narcissistic, autocratic leader. Of course, that’s merely my personal opinion, but it’s backed up by thinkers who know much more than I do on these matters4. What’s interesting and perhaps scary about Trump is that the leadership-followership dichotomy can put dangerous people in powerful positions.

In Conclusion

Without followers, there would be no leaders. Although autocratic leadership styles have dominated the ranks of business and beyond for quite some time, there is clear evidence that this dogmatic trend is shifting5. The representative view of leadership taken from the political sphere, for example, suggests that the leader represents their followers. They consider their constituents' diversity of views and attempt to synthesise them towards a coherent vision for the organisation or society. In this way, both leader and follower are cooperative agents in the dynamic of change. Of course, this idea is somewhat idealistic insofar as politicians are seldom this straight. Often they become the lapdogs of corporate interests, but the principle has merit.

According to Seth M. Spain, the representative view is not necessarily at odds with traditional hierarchical models of leadership, given that business leaders must often consult with other members of the corporation. In this sense, successful leadership is an “Art,” as Eisenhower had suggested, and requires a sensitive balancing act between the leader's desire and that of their followers. Leadership is not linear and is certainly not a one-way street. Leadership is a product of the 360-degree relationship, of a personal and a social phenomenon. Therefore, to be an effective leader, we must understand ourselves, those with whom we interact, and the environment in which they find themselves.

The years have taught me that hierarchical leadership concepts are not advantageous to everyone equally. Instead, they create an exponential loss for those further down the pyramid and so are fundamentally flawed. True leadership, I have found, whether you are in business or otherwise, is about taking responsibility for cultivating a social environment that benefits everyone equally. It’s why I believe the traditional pursuits of capitalism and its contemporary neo-capitalism are not good for the human race. They are the product of short-term materialistic ideals. They identify, intensify and commoditise human craving for instant gratification and make no apologies for it. The petrol on fire analogy might be suitable again here.

Effective and sustainable leadership, in my opinion, requires a sense of humanity and a social imperative towards the welfare of a larger number of people. In contrast, the neo-capitalist model serves only a thin wedge of interests and ends justify means. I also believe that the majority are too easily cajoled and manipulated. Therefore, we must practice self-leadership. Often we are coconspirators in the deceit, discarding critical thinking in favour of cognitively fluent message. I’d love to believe the majority can change, that leaders can act with integrity for the benefit of more than themselves or a tight minority. But perhaps that’s too much to ask.

What’s your opinion? What do you think leadership is?

Thanks for taking the time to read this week’s issue of The Lead. If you enjoyed this essay, consider becoming a supporter.

Leave a comment

References

It never ceases to amaze me as I go about my day the extent to which businesses large and small go in their attempt to get one over on us. It seems to be a game of cutting as close to the bone of ethical practice as possible without getting caught. The competitive marketplace script appears to read; “let’s see how big we can grow this company, take advantage of those with less information than us, and make as much money we can while giving as little value as possible to the customer. And hey, if we get caught, we’ll just apologise and pony up. In the meantime, let’s make enough money so we can cover the legal costs, ok. If people are being hurt by what we do, it’s their own fault. After all, it’s just business.” The alternative seems to be a rare exception.

From cleverly packaged meat products that hide small portions under the label to high-margin lower quality goods placed at eye level to discounted aged fruit and veg that goes rotten within a couple of days. Every time we go shopping, it takes effort not to be conned. And it’s not only foodstuffs; appliances and personal technology have built-in obsolescence. Social and other technology apps mine us for our information without our knowledge or consent. Tradespeople take outrageous shortcuts. Although meeting the criteria required by legislation, financial products are created so that the providers don’t lose. FFS, you can even buy books that show you how to build products that manipulate and take advantage of people’s propensity toward addiction.

Everywhere you look in our wondrous capitalist model of society, people and organisations take unfair and unethical advantage. Corporations exist to make a profit, and that’s fine, but to what extent will you go in your business to achieve that profit? For many corporations, large or small, a sense of humanity and ethical behaviour take second place in the decision making process. Like it or not, and call me a cynic if you will, this is the state of play a “survival of the fittest” ideology encourages. At its worst, as we will see in our example, people become fodder for cannons. Sure, people care for people, but people under the command of an entity whose primary aim is profit are prone to making decisions that favour that entity. Some are even perverse and downright nefarious. Concern for their fellow human being is not a factor.

“From cleverly packaged meat products that hide small portions under the label, to high-margin lower quality goods placed at eye level, to discounted aged fruit and veg that goes rotten within a couple of days. Every time we go shopping it takes effort not to be conned. And it’s not only foodstuffs…”

The Ford Pinto Scandal

At the retail level, the literature is littered with examples from trivial right through to inhumane, where decision-makers have disregarded their sense of humanity and social obligation for the sake of duty to the corporation and bottom line. The story of the Ford Pinto is a case in point.

In 1968, executives at the Ford motor company put the low-cost Pinto into production. To have their new vehicle ready for the 1971 market, Ford decided to reduce their design-to-production time of three years down to two. This straight away perhaps compromised established protocols for safety. However, commercial pressure for a low-cost vehicle was significant. Before production, Ford crash-tested various Pinto prototypes to assess fire risk from road traffic collisions and meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards. The prototypes and the Pinto final design all failed the standard 20-mph test resulting in ruptured gas tanks and fuel leaks. The only Pintos to pass the test had been modified somehow, for example, with rubber bladders in the gas tank or additional reinforcement.

Ford executives knew that the Pinto design was flawed and represented a serious risk to human life in rear-end collisions, even at low-speed. However, they felt additional pressure from cheap Japanese imports and therefore faced a critical decision. Should they go to production with the existing design and risk consumer safety? Should they delay production, redesign the gas tank and concede defeat to foreign competition? Remarkably, Ford not only committed to the flawed design, but they stuck to it for the next six years. The decisions to proceed with the Pinto production without safety improvements led to more than 500 cases of fire-related deaths, fifty lawsuits, and many millions in compensation to families, not to mention the trauma inflicted on the victims' families.

Why would anyone do this?

Why, when you know your actions will likely lead to human suffering and even loss of life, would you proceed along the same lines? I believe that situations such as these account for human beings' propensity to subjugate themselves to the power system they occupy. In that setting, their sense of self is entirely dependent on the system, so to forgo the system's rules amounts to forgoing their sense of self — the entrepreneurial self. Internal dialogue insists that if one breaks the rules, then their very existence is threatened. Regardless of the psychological process at work, it seems clear that to make decisions in a fake plastic setting such as the world of business, we must leave our humanity at the door.

In the Ford Pinto case, evidence suggests that executives relied on cost-benefit reasoning to analyse the expected monetary costs and benefits. Apparently, Ford's estimated cost for making these safety improvements was only $5 to $8 per vehicle; however, the executives reasoned that this cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design. It seems the cost to life was not part of their decision-making model.

The Art of Self-deception and Disregard for Ethics in Business

Cognitive bias distorts decision making, and the “rational” approach in business circles, coupled with a host of complex psychological factors, fuel this distortion. For the Ford executives, the moral and ethical imperative didn’t even enter the equation. A phenomenon known as “ethical fading,” detailed by Ann Tenbrunsel and David Messick, has highlighted how self-deception is a central component in unethical decision making. In their 2004 paper1, the authors wrote;

“Self-deception allows one to behave self-interestedly while, at the same time, falsely believing that one’s moral principles were upheld. The end result of this internal con game is that the ethical aspects of the decision “fade” into the background, the moral implications obscured.”

Tenbrunsel and Messick suggest that self-deception is an unawareness of the internal processes that lead us to form opinions and judgments of ourselves and events in which we are involved. This self-deception involves avoiding the truth, lying to, and keeping secrets from ourselves. The practice is widespread, normal, and accepted in the lives of everyone we know. We create the lives we live through the stories we tell ourselves, and these stories allow us to do what we want and then serve to justify our actions. Over time, there exists what psychologists call an “ethical numbing”, where repeated exposure to an ethical dilemma numbs our sensitivity to our own unethical behaviour. Unless we are willing to monitor and question our own thoughts, assumptions and behaviour, we are in danger of cultivating unethical practices in our organisations.

What role did organisational culture at Ford play in these unethical decisions? Evidence suggests that the vice president at the time, Lee Iacocca, who was closely involved in the Pinto launch, did not encourage a safety culture. A mentality of “just get it done” filtered down from the top through the entire company. A 1977 magazine article2 quoting an engineer from Ford wrote that any employee who dared to slow progress would have been fired on the spot. The subject of safety wasn’t a popular conversation around Ford in those days, and with Iacocca, it was taboo. Apparently, whenever staff raised a concern that resulted in delay on the Pinto, Iacocca would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say, “Read the product objectives and get back to work.”

Is Unethical Behaviour Ok In Your Organisation?

Breach of the ethical imperative is not isolated to the case of the Ford Pinto and Lee Iacocca. At that time, lobbying by the motor industry against safety legislation was at its height. At Ford, they saw safety as meddling in free enterprise, with the motor industry insisting that accidents were not problems caused by cars but by people and road conditions. Yes, with the sobriety of fifty years; hence, we may see how crazy that idea is now. But it wasn’t necessarily crazy then — not to the industry. Consider how we do business today; how might our decision-making assumptions be flawed or unethical? Are we considering others' welfare in the products and services we create, or is that none of our business?

Consider the technology sector, for example — it’s the wild west as far as regulation goes. The creation of addictive digital applications that take advantage of sleepy people is widespread and accepted in the corporate world. For Christ’s sake, there are even books that show you how to do it. And what’s worse, their authors seem completely unapologetic in their promotion of these unethical practices. In fact, they even go so far as to suggest that it’s ok to deceive people — Oh, but only if it’s in their best interests3. Of course, the authors assume that they know what your best interests are. And yes, that usually means their own best interests, not yours.

“Over time there is what psychologists call a sort of “ethical numbing” where repeated exposure to an ethical dilemma numbs our sensitivity to our own unethical behaviour”

I was thinking of recording a video series titled; “Make Your Own Meth At Home” and posting it to YouTube. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Sure, it’s hardly my problem if kids follow my video series and kill themselves. I’m just looking to make a few quid from YouTube ads. Not my problem if people are adversely affected, right? Too extreme an example? Well, it illustrates my point. You know, it takes a special kind of psychology to compartmentalise one’s thought processes to the extent where it’s ok to manipulate, deceive, and knowingly contribute towards the misery of another human being while advocating for self-preservation in the face of the ubiquitousness of technology.

For me, it’s quite simple; if I know what I’m doing is hurting, or has the potential to hurt someone, then I stop. There are plenty of ways to make money and live a comfortable life without knowingly hurting other human beings in the process. But then again, if you’re mind has become consumed by self-deception in this regard, then the justification of unethical and nefarious behaviour is sure to follow. To think this way, to rationalise unethical behaviour, one has to disconnect from their humanity.

“The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works. No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it’s not an American problem — this is not about Russians ads. This is a global problem.” — Chamath Palihapitiya

How To Cultivate Ethics In Business

I can’t throw stones without taking ownership of my own flawed thinking and unethical behaviour in business. There have been times where my actions have been less than admirable. I’ve taken profit at the expense of quality, and I’ve turned a blind eye to less than satisfactory work carried out on my behalf. Pressure to perform, turn a profit, or even just break-even tends to make human beings act unethically. That’s the inherent problem with the neoliberal capitalist system. However, that said, I can say with a large degree of certainty that no one has suffered directly at my hands. The nature of my work never has been or will be about taking advantage of those in a weaker position than me. This is the case now, particularly considering my area of study and research. It seems learning to manage oneself is the key.

In a 2016 article for Harvard Business Review4, Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the University of California, wrote that powerful people are more likely to engage in unethical behaviour than those with less power. Keltner’s 20 years of research in human behaviour has shown that while people usually advance to authority positions through positive behaviours such as empathy, fairness and collaboration, these qualities tend to fade with time. A sense of privilege and selfishness seems to take over many business leaders. He suggests that iconic abuses of power, such as that at Enron and Lehman Brothers, are extreme examples of unethical behaviour and power abuses. All companies, large and small, are susceptible.

So what can we do about it? Keltner has some suggestions.

Make Time For Self-reflection

The first step, Keltner suggests, is developing a greater sense of self-awareness and appreciation that our thoughts and actions can have far-reaching consequences. Meta-cognitive studies in neuroscience5 have shown that thinking about our thoughts and reflecting on our feelings and emotions can give rise to greater control of our actions. For example, recognition of feelings of euphoria, joy, and confidence can engage parts of our brain that help us keep in check irrational behaviour based on those feelings. It also helps with negative feelings such as anger and aggression when things don’t work out.

Keltner suggests that we can build this self-awareness through daily meditation and mindfulness practices. Research shows that even just a few minutes each day spent in a quiet space focusing on repetitive breathing patterns, for example, can lead to greater focus, control, and calmness under pressure. We can practice this throughout our day too. For example, in between tasks, take time to close out that last task by pausing for a few minutes. Take a few deep breaths, think about the next task and how you would like it to go for you and others. Then proceed.

Practice Empathy, Gratitude, & Generosity

Working with corporate executives, Keltner emphasises the importance of human factors, empathy, gratitude, and generosity that he says have shown to sustain benevolent leadership. These attributes of leadership, when executed authentically, bring about a sense of unity in the team or organisation. They suggest that someone cares that we are a part of something important and good. Ruling with an iron fist might get things done but at what cost? Keltner suggests that expressing appreciation, showing tolerance and understanding, and simple generosity acts lead to higher employee engagement and productivity.

Keltner suggests that to cultivate empathy, gratitude and generosity, entrepreneurial leaders should;

1. Listen with your ears, eyes and body. Put the blinkers on, so to speak, convey genuine interest and engage.

2. When someone comes with a problem, try to empathise with the language of understanding. Take on board what’s being said and void knee-jerk reactions.

3. Recognise good work when you see it, no matter how small. Send them an email, or better still, say it face to face.

4. Publicly acknowledge the work someone has done.

5. Delegate high-level responsibilities.

6. Avoid taking the credit — be humble, and be inclined to give that credit to others.

Some Final Thoughts

I’m for working for oneself over being an employee. I believe there are few better means by which human beings can develop themselves professionally, technically, and personally. Working for oneself brings great fulfilment, even if it proves to be the greatest challenge you have ever undertaken. It affords us the freedom to be creative and innovative without the boundaries of organisational structure — we create our own boundaries. We direct our own energies and command our own work. Self-employment, entrepreneurship in its purest form, insists that we take responsibility for ourselves, but it also insists that we consider how our work impacts other people.

When the ends become so important as to justify the means, we know we lost our way. Money and profit should never be the reason to enter business IMO— if they are, it won’t last. Sustainable profit comes from an honourable starting point: the work itself, the service, and the product. The joy must be in the work itself and not the material ends — the applause, reward, status or power. When money becomes the aim, as we have seen in the example above, all kinds of insane justifications creep into our decision making processes. Self-deception takes over, and unethical practices are not far behind.

Why are do we go into business? What is it about the entrepreneurial notion that attracts us? Is it money, control, status, power? Is there something so absent in us that we are prepared to spoof, tell half-truths, and manipulate people towards our own ends? The term “unethical behaviour” seems sterile when we see the extents to which our lack of humanity can go. It just doesn’t seem to capture the tragic and painful reality that transpired for hundreds of people due to Ford’s cost-benefit analysis in the Pinto case. I believe it doesn’t need to be this way.

I would say, sure, go into business for yourself. Pursue your personal and business goals, but never lose sight of your humanity. The Ford Pinto case serves as testimony to the obscenities we bring about when we forget who and what we are.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” — John Dalberg Acton

Share