Overall what does the annual performance appraisal do? It certainly doesn’t create and build trust! What it does is enact fear and creates mistrust. How could trust possibly be created through a process wherein people are judged, let alone for outcomes over which they haven’t full control?  How could trust be created by a process where people are given credit or blame for effects over which they know (at some level) they have little influence?

Interactions Not Actions

Organizations are social systems, human activity systems that function through relationships—cooperative and collaborative relationships—among people. As explained in a previous post, performance is an emergent property of a system; it is a function of the interaction of the many constituent components of the system as well as the components themselves.  Thus in an interdependent world the interaction among members either increases or diminishes the performance.

Yet some might argue that if “is a team player” (or something similar) is among the criteria in the appraisal then this would promote cooperation and teamwork.  We mustn’t forget that an individual’s performance can’t be known because it is the result of the interaction of many factors—the system itself, the materials provided, the management provided, the equipment provided etc. Adding a measure such as ‘is a team player’ doesn’t make the unknowable known and it doesn’t enable control of what is desired.  A reasonable person would agree that because organizations are human activity systems that depend on cooperation and collaboration among its members, performance is neither summative nor reductive—it is emergent.  Thus it is not the criteria of appraisal that affords synergy it is the organization’s design and system of management.

An organization’s performance is not the linear sum of each person’s performance. That is to say, performance of the organization emerges from the interaction of many factors—ideally realizing a degree of synergy—among people.  Hence for an organization to function effectively and efficiently trust is essential. In light of this, to advocate for the annual review of employees’ performance that leverages fear and creates mistrust is simply wrongheaded, if not foolish. If organizational performance depends on interactions (i.e. relationships), why then do we put so much attention on measuring individual action?

In far too many organizations people are managed as if independent of each other and everything else.  In far too many organizations control of others is sought through metrics coupled to the assumption that each is seeking to gain as much as he/she can.  In far too many organizations fear is the go-to-lever for management.  Why else would carrot-and-stick methods be so popular?  When one’s ranking in the annual review depends on how one compares to others, then helping others is incompatible with one getting ahead and realizing a higher ranking.

Rather than learning and improvement, what the annual performance appraisal promotes are efforts to do whatever you can to look good. The impact of one’s actions on others is of little concern since ‘me’ looking good is ‘my’ primary concern—that’s what’s measured. Results matter and what I do for ‘me’ to get those results is what matters—in the end it’s about ‘me’ winning.  The effect is the relationships among people are anything but helping and productive. Further what’s beneficial to the wholesomeness of the system is secondary at best. While it may appear those in management are controlling things through metrics, what they are really getting is mistrust dressed up in compliance.  And compliance is not an antecedent of creativity, so why promote it!

Moreover the annual performance appraisal fosters the reinforcing attitude that you are on your own, which is an easy attitude to embrace since the system of economics—the economic context within which we conduct business—advances a self-interest focus as well.

Meaning Not Ends

Furthermore the relationship people have with their work is central to how they perform their work. If the work is seen merely as a means to money then the work one does has no meaning apart from what one materially gains from the activity. Therefore work is stripped of inherent meaning since it is just a means to material gain.  Also when the value of work equates to the amount of material gain it brings or to an abstract measure—when ends supplant means—the quality of people’s work, and that of the organization, diminishes.

To manage an organization as if everything is linear and summative is synonymous to managing to make the organization dysfunctional and its performance suboptimal.  Obviously creating an environment wherein self-interested behavior is encouraged—wherein either/or thinking reigns supreme and both reductionism and individualism are embraced—is antithetical to realizing a quality producing wholesome system.  Managing in a way that turns interaction into transaction reflects a superficial understanding of what it means to lead.

So why is it so widely practiced? Where is it proven that superficiality builds trust, the essential context for productive relationships?  Why does management continue with practices that diminish the likelihood of realizing meaningful work and synergy among people? Why does management continue with a practice that reduces risk taking, limits learning and sub-optimizes organizational performance? Is it possible that those in authority fear that without this force-based tool they would lose (perception of) control and not be able to get anyone to do as they wish?

We are left only to wonder, have those in management the courage for leadership?

Accordingly a free (unregulated) market is the answer to everything, since it is the mechanism affording unfettered self-interested action that makes for the invisible hands to do their work.  What’s the solution to our economic crisis? Allow the self-interest of those with the most—the winners—to be enacted without constraint and in so doing it will help the rest of us be winners—ah the wonders of the invisible hand doing their trickle-down thing.  What’s the solution to our educational problems?  Enable profit-seeking organizations to provide an educational experience to society’s children.  What’s the solution to our healthcare system problem?  Put healthcare in the hands of profit maximizing insurance and pharmaceutical companies.  In general what’s the answer to how to provide society’s services (apart from national defense) to its citizens?  Privatize, because the business minded can solve it all!  That is except for the many recurring problems in business they themselves create and can’t quite resolve.

Only the foolish seriously expect to realize improvement by intensifying commitment and effort toward the very same thing that created or caused the current situation.  Doubling down on a losing hand is losing strategy—it is sure way to accelerate loss.  Or as the tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians asserts, “when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.” For example (staying with the Dakota Indian analogy) in business we get a stronger whip by raising standards, holding people accountable and exhorting others to get better results.  Since we are seeking to turn educating children into a business we employ the same but stronger whip—we double down.  We even go further and hire outside firms to ride the horse (we put education in the hands of profit-maximizing organizations).  Not surprisingly, with our market-based solutions to education we see no real lasting improved system of education.

It’s Heresy

Those who question capitalism—those who think critically about it and want to improve it—are heretics, heathens and worse socialists.  Unless you fall in line, you fall out of favor! If you can’t credibly argue the veracity of your belief—if you haven’t facts to support your argument—then the only recourse is to disparage those who bring it into question. Thus name-calling is clearly a reactive response in defense of an unsupportable position.

Who are the ones disparaging those who seek a better way?  Usually it is those who benefit (most) from the way things are.  So it is a good idea to challenge the real motive of those calling people who ask ‘what if questions’ heretics.

Be a Heretic

Yet because of the power of and propaganda from those benefiting from the way things are and not critically thinking about the why of things, our past continues to overtake our future. The habits of thought we’ve been following are no longer serving our collective interest—they are not serving society as a whole.  We must acknowledge that the fundamental set of beliefs and practices that we have embraced are no longer helpful toward guiding behavior and structuring life in society.   If we wish a better reality, then we need to enact a better belief system.

Where is it proven as an immutable fact that people are at base selfish?  If this was so, how do you explain people risking their life to save others—doesn’t this smack right up against self-interest? Where is it proven to be an immutable fact that markets require short-term profit maximization as the dominant motive? We can only change what is by changing how we think about ourselves. If we wish to experience a better reality, then we need to enact a better belief system.  Its time we change our errant ways.

Our economic system has no (explicit) concern for ‘we’ in its design, it is all about ‘me’ getting what I can for ‘myself’—it is best labeled an egoistic economic system.  The pursuit of material self-interest is the guiding principle for all action.

It promotes (and requires) a belief system about what being human means that is narrow and thus limiting.  That is, it rests upon people believing they are at base individualistic, selfish, materialistic and competitive.

As discussed in It’s the EconoMe, Stupid, society to the egoist is “nothing but the sum of the actions of each individual; it is nothing apart from what each individual separately contributes to it” and what one can extract from others.

Making Society In Service

While most acknowledge that democracy is of, for and by the people, it’s objective is also to afford individual freedom in life in the pursuit of liberty and happiness. Since democracy is about having a society of free individuals it is rather easy to mold it into a system in service to egoistic economics.  That is, given the focus on individual freedom and without a similar compelling vision of a collective ‘we’—everyone’s responsibility to each other, to community—democracy is easily hijacked by self-interest.  Everyone believing in self-interest is not the same as people having a shared common interest.

Happiness when viewed through the lens of egoistic economics becomes the egotistical ‘Me’ having ultimate freedom to maximize ‘My’ profit. The story is that if you do what is expected, if you work hard in striving to maximize your material self-interest then you too will realize happiness.  If you don’t realize happiness then it is your fault, after all as the story goes we are all independent individuals each seeking our own gain. You’re on your own and should be lovin it! (That is if you are among the few who can win.) While this is an alluring story, it is also a foolish story to believe.

Think Again, Critically

Just a little inquisitiveness and critical analysis with an open mind would reveal that no one ever got what they have without the cooperation and help of others.  Each individual would be lost without the support and help of  ‘We’.

Thus we understand that life in society is not simply a collection of independent individuals bumping into each other as each exercises their notion of individual liberty to have it all for ‘Me’. The fact is that we need each other for more than the satisfaction of our material desires. We are not simply instrumental to each other’s needs. While our economic system would have us believe this for the sake of maximizing our self-interested desire to consume we are not mere cogs in this machinery.

It is a fact that each is an individual whole person and just as factual each is part of the whole of human society. That is, while you and I are different individual ‘I’s’ we are not separate ‘Me’s’.  This ‘I’ that I am and the ‘I’ that you are are deeply connected. And by acknowledging and acting on this connection we can become a ‘We’.  In our society we can sustain the unity implied by us being in this particular society.

Accordingly, we each must recognize our I-We nature and the dual responsibility that this implies.  Forsaking either one we forsake our self.  We have a very deep interpenetrating responsibility to each other’s unfolding, and therefore each of us is incomplete without each other.  As noted by Amitai Etzioni “the I’s need We to be” (The Moral Dimension). To treat anything collective with contempt is to disdain human society itself; the same can be said about the individual.  Moreover, with morality and ethics requiring a concern for ‘we’ a society of individuals where ‘me and mine’ is what’s important would find it impossible to avoid becoming an unethical society.

To hear people speak disparagingly about ‘those people who rely on society’s assistance’—you know the poor who have not gotten ahead on their own—you would think that they themselves took no help from society whatsoever.  They seem unable to understand that if not for society—especially the government policies written to favor their interests—the current gains they enjoy would not exist.  They wouldn’t have so much to love about ‘your on your own economics’ if the politicians they paid for hadn’t helped them to make the vast majority of gains derived from society their gain.

The collusion among moneyed interests and government—private business and political parties—is tantamount to injecting steroids into self-interested behavior.  It is nothing short of pure greed.  But in the context of egoistic economic society greed is good; the 1987 movie character, Gordon Gekko, and his 21^st century real life incarnates on Wall Street tell us it is so.  It is because of greed that the drive for getting and having goes forever unsatisfied ensuring a consuming and acquisitive society.  This has transformed what could have been a society of equals in regards to political power into a system for maximizing gain for a select group.

With money equating to speech, those with the most money overwhelmingly have the most say; the converse being those with the least money have the least say.  When money matters the people with money matter more!

It Can Be Better

In a culture that’s all about me getting it all for me, it is a bit naive to believe that those who rigged the system to serve their material self-interest will actually change things for the benefit of everyone.  You see the system is not at all broken, it is working just fine doing what it is rigged to do.  It is not that those in authority don’t know what to do to right the ship: It is that they haven’t the will to do what is right for the benefit of all.  We mustn’t forget that universal care and compassion is anathema to the greedy.

What we are facing is a self-imposed crisis of will.  We participate in the creation of our reality by acting on what we believe about our selves.  Having the will to change enables our ability to change. Where there is a will there is (always) a way also implies where there is no will there is no way.

Preserving What Is

In a self-interest based culture most people’s concern is a narrow (self-interest) concern.  Appealing to the general narrowness of concern among the citizens political parties readily gain support from various self-interest groups by creating fear among the people that their interest is at risk.  Such a strategy tends to be divisive (it creates an ‘us versus them’ mentality) which is exactly what those seeking to control the thinking of their audience requires.  If I can get you to think other citizens are detrimental to your interest and that I am on your side then you will support me, which is in my interest—after all my interest is what I really care about.  Facts must not get in the way of ‘me’ getting ‘mine’.

Political campaigns have devolved into medicine shows where each seeking election is selling his/her brand of snake oil while at the same time casting opponents and their supporters as the enemy as they play upon the fears of the audience’s narrow self-interest.  So election after election, congressional session after congressional session nothing fundamentally really changes.   It is the same wine in a different bottle.

So the assumption of egoistic economics (which guides the functioning of American society) that if you attend first and foremost to your self-interest—in the extreme holding supreme your liberty to do as your self-interest desires—then eventually and unintentionally everyone will benefit is at best clearly false and at worst destructive to society.  If America is the United States, then what is it that they are united about?  What is it that unites them?

The Root of It All

So what’s the problem with American democracy?  Egoistic economics is the problem! Self-interest can’t possibly unite!  Having only concern for me and mine is not the way to a well functioning sustainable human society—it is more the making of an unruly unethical collection of divisive groups.  Each seeking self gain does not lead to a unified effort toward a future better than the present.

Organizations that are sustainable are not designed and managed this way, so why would anyone believe society without a unifying vision that binds people together would have a chance of sustaining itself?  A wise businessperson would not even try to design and manage an organization wherein everyone is out for him or herself and where no one has concern for and commitment to the collective known as the organization.

It should be quite clear that a functioning viable society must advocate equally for individual and community—for the ‘I’s’ and ‘We’—since they are complimentary (and necessary) components of a wholesome society.

Realizing joy in work comes largely from having the freedom to exercise one’s capabilities, which is an antecedent to learning. Why is this important?  The organization, especially in the post-industrial knowledge-based economy the capability of the organization rests no so much on capital and machine but on people (formerly known as labor).  If people aren’t the focus of development then eventually the business enterprise will run out of capability.

Moreover, we as human beings have an inherent desire and need to learn; it is what helps make our work interesting and joyful. In an organization the very process of work presents opportunities for learning, but many times management practice impinges upon learning.  As Ori claims “I believe that it is much more dangerous not to report mistakes than it is to make mistakes in the first place. It’s natural that we make mistakes.”  Unfortunately in many organizations people are punished for making mistakes, which tends to keep mistakes hidden.  The annual performance review—where accountability for results is formally exacted—is the usual mechanism for doling out punishment-rewards.  The opportunity to learn is denied.

Mistakes are not the only cause for learning; the work itself presents this opportunity.  This is not on-the-job training but rather through-the-work learning.  This learning is a result of the P-D-S-A cycle of continuous improvement.  Though mistakes present opportunities to learn, they are not the only impetus for learning.  This cycle, when made integral to the very process of work, makes reflective and critical thinking necessary skills for everyone.

Why is this important?  The organization, especially in the post-industrial knowledge-based economy the capability of the organization rests no so much on capital and machine but on people (formerly known as labor).  If people aren’t the focus of development then eventually the business enterprise will run out of capability.  For the traditional business minded investing in things one owns (e.g. equipment and facility) is not a problem, but investing is something not owned or that doesn’t return a profit in the next quarter such as the development of peoples’ potential is a real problem.

Ori believes “that you really need to ask yourself what you can get and what you can’t get from your employees, and then focus on what you can get from them. If you focus on what you can get, you can maximize their contribution. You can also encourage them to improve, but you need to know the limits and abilities of every one.”  There is a difference between challenging and supporting people to realize their potential and expecting people to do things they may not be capable of doing.  The former is inspiring and the latter de-spiriting.

The organization’s capability to do something emerges from the interplay of peoples’ abilities and the space/resources/support provided by the organization (a.k.a. the organization’s system). The space/resources/support include the organizing design, management practices and the supporting structures, which includes culture.  It is management’s responsibility to ensure the productive interplay of people and the system. But it is not simply a matter of those in management providing these they too must continually work toward improving the quality of the experience they themselves provide.

Those in authority must provide the system wherein people can exercise and synergize their capabilities in a meaningful way.  To this end, those in authority actively listening to what it means to others and their work is critical to developing an appreciation for the interdependent nature of everyone’s work.  It provides first hand knowledge of the organization as a system.  After all managing the system, ensuring the continual development of capability, is a defining measure of the quality of management (a.k.a. leadership)!

For more than 30 years there has been a downward trend in the household income of the vast majority of people (yes the 99%) while the income of the remaining 1% trended upward.  Fortunately for the remaining 1% benefiting from this widening income gap, the gradual decline (i.e. year-to-year incremental change) in real income among the majority of citizens went largely undetected—people didn’t realize how hot the water is getting.

Gradualism Abruptly Ended

However the greed among the 1% who created the mortgage-based casino game to feed their addiction to ever increasing monetary gain led to the disastrous 2008 financial collapse.  It punctuated what had been an insidious trend.  Accordingly what had been previously tolerated and/or unnoticed was now brought to the conscious awareness of a sizable portion of the 99%–all of a sudden it got a lot hotter.

Because of capitalism’s grounding in material self-interest maximization, this situation and situations like this are inevitable.  The insatiability of material gain—one can never have enough—and the auto-correlative nature of competition—winners are most likely to win next time—make for the perfect storm.  This is especially the case in a society wherein the wealthy has the greater voice.

Since the 1% really needs the cooperation of the 99% for their game playing to continue, it is now up to the frog.  Does the frog continue in the same body of water—continue cooperating in the same system—with only the promise from those—the 1% winners—in control of the temperature that they won’t do it again? Does the frog demand that those in control of the temperature be constrained in the changes that can be made to the temperature?  Does the frog demand that the control of the temperature be taken out of the hands of the 1%?  Does the frog demand that a different body of water—a different system—be provided that would ensure a livable environment for all to enjoy?

1. Big company bureaucracy—no one likes rules that make no sense
2. Failing to find a project for the ‘talent’ that ignites their passion—top talent isn’t driven by money and power, but by the opportunity to be part of something huge, that will change the world, and for which they are really passionate
3. Poor annual performance reviews—annual performance reviews are not long term focused and thus are not performed effectively
4. No discussion around career development—most bosses never engage with their employees about where they want to go in their careers—even the top talent
5. Shifting whims/strategic priorities—top talent hates to be jerked around
6. Lack of accountability and/or telling them how to do their jobs—top talent demands accountability from others and doesn’t mind being held accountable for their projects
7. Top talent likes other top talent—if you want to keep your best people, make sure they’re surrounded by other great people
8. The missing vision thing—what is the vision you want this talented person to fulfill
9. Lack of open-mindedness—the best people want to share their ideas and have them listened to

10. Who’s the boss—if a few people have recently quit at your company who report to the same boss, it’s likely not a coincidence

Clearly the above are among the many things within organizations that are annoying, frustrating and counterproductive.  But why is it assumed only top talented employees would find these as such?  It is highly likely that these would be just as annoying, frustrating and counterproductive to others in the organization—diminishing the organization’s performance.

Doesn’t it make you wonder, why the concern is only for the best talent? Don’t all employees contribute to the organization’s products/services? Wouldn’t making anyone’s work difficult or senseless cause him/her to checkout—physically or psychologically from his/her work? After all, both Herzberg’s and Maslow’s theories of motivation apply to all people not just those who someone in authority labels as top talent.

I imagine some would counter saying, hey some people are more talented than others and management has to pay attention to the future stars, they are the future of the organization! Does not the performance of the organization emerge from the system!  What is the responsibility of management: to further the careers of those they believe most talented (and ignore that of the others) or to develop and enhance the capability of the organization (i.e. facilitating the retention and improvement of all employees)?  Wouldn’t doing the latter have a greater impact on the organization’s viability than the former? Why hire people who aren’t valuable to the organization? Wouldn’t an organization wherein all employees are supported in meeting their potential outperform another in which only a chosen few are doing so?  What better way to surround the best with the best than by helping everyone realize his/her potential!

Relating to some employees as valuable people and to all others as interchangeable, disposable and replaceable skill sets will not afford the synergy required for the emergence of everyone’s potential, and in turn the organization’s competitive advantage and viability. It is not the way to effectively leading the bottom from the top.  Why?  Because the organization is comprised of relationships and it is the productivity of these relationships that pre-figures the emergence of synergy, capability and thus performance of the organization.

Managers have to stop thinking about the members of the organization in a dualistic way and cease managing in a mechanistic and reductionist way.  If the organization is to maximally perform then those in authority must learn to understand and manage the organization as a living system. Doing otherwise, those in authority do a great disservice not only to the people but also to the viability of the organization. By minimizing synergy—essentially sucking life out of the organization—the potential that lies within will not actualize.

Canalize Don’t Control

The one thing that has the potential to meaningfully touch everyone and that provides guidance for all decisions and actions is vision.  Hence the gravity of vision can’t be overstated.

But contrary to what many believe, vision is not a futuristic statement nor is it an advertising slogan for display in the company’s lobby or the strategic mission of the enterprise.  Vision flows from the system of beliefs and values held in our (collective) mind. Being an attractor, it canalizes human energy in a way that either supports or opposes the emergence of creativity and organizational viability.

That is, vision pre-figures the experiences of those working in and served by the organization.  A vivifying vision can provide guidance for and completeness to the organizing structure, affording a sense of order and meaning to the work of the enterprise.

Why is meaning so critical?  Meaning is the basis of (intrinsic) motivation that in turn leads each employee to maintain commitment to the organization’s work.  Simply, if you want to retain people provide them something meaningful to do!

Thus a vivifying vision awakens and affords the flow of meaning throughout the organization and provides the context for the self-reinforcing interplay and exchanges among people affording joy in work. Most find it a pure joy to do meaningful things—don’t you?  If employees realized joy through the organization’s work, then few would abhor being at work!

Lead by Facilitating

To hire a person is a decision about the future not the past! Leaders don’t hire people for what they’ve done but for what they have the potential to do. Therefore, the way of organizing and managing must enable potential.  Unfortunately, many organizations are limiting and thus limited, not in people’s potential, but in what those in authority cause to be probable. Leading effectively enables, it doesn’t disable, potential. Accordingly, organizing and managing guided by a vivifying vision can provide employees the physical and psychological space to actualize their potential.

Leaders who make potential probable are those who lead from their personhood not their position.  Yet most talk of leadership in the context of position or possession, which is mere euphemism for the boss, the one-in-charge.  Who among us really likes to be bossed around!

As Eric Jackson noted, “people want to share their ideas and have them listened to.”  That is to say people need to be listened to because it communicates that they matter to the one who is listening.  In other words, listening communicates that you care; and caring is necessary for facilitating quality. Caring about (and for) the development of others is the way to sustaining organizational viability.

Commit to Quality

A large part of keeping talented people in the organization rests on keeping people in the organization talented.  You cannot have quality people without caring about the people you have.  Caring precedes quality!

Quality is the expression of the human spirit that lies within each of us; as such it is the manifestation of human potential. Why else is the allure of quality universal! Quality captures our attention because it resonates within everyone; it is the expression of our potential as human beings. Unfortunately, the common and widespread annual performance review is merely a means of exercising control over and objectifying others: It is the antithesis of a process for improvement of (and the experience of) quality.

However it need not be this way!  If the performance review process was at base a process for coaching and learning—and not a process for rating, ranking, exacting accountability and justifying reward/punishment—then it could be a means of guiding the development of people’s potential toward enhancing organizational capability.  So to have talented employees, replace the process of rating, ranking and accountability for results with leadership.

This requires managers who care about the development of those working in the organization. It requires those in authority to add value through their very being—not solely through their position—and who value the potential that lies within everyone. While any one can deliver results by any means, it is only the courageous that will do so with a focus on quality and the betterment of every employee.

Clive Boddy (Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University) in an article in the Journal of Business Ethics defines the corporate psychopath as executives/business leaders “who have no conscience or empathy and who do not care for anyone other than themselves.”  As Boddy explains these type of people can be callous in their disregard for the needs of others in pursuit of their interests and their “own self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement.”

A Good Fit

How is it that such people can realize positions in the upper echelon of corporations? To answer this all we need to do is understand what the economic system and business culture find most important. In an economic system that advances the primacy of material self-interest and a results oriented culture, getting results irrespective of means is what counts!

Clearly the corporate world would be quite enticing to the socially friendly psychopath.  After all, it can be just as lucrative as the world of crime without offering a high probability of prosecution for crimes committed against humanity.  But not only is a world of self-interest with short-term thinking desirable to the psychopath, many of the traits of these people—calculating, charismatic, manipulative, materially driven, ruthless, unemotional—are embraced by a material self-interest oriented corporate world.

Thus charismatic people who unabashedly focus on driving for results will do very well in such a world—a world where nice guys finish last.  Accordingly, with the maximization of short-term profit being most important people who can drive and deliver results will be deemed ‘leader material’ and accordingly developed by their organization for positions of increasing responsibility.

A Matter of Degree

Seemingly what the above is describing are quite self-interested people and possibly greedy characters.  But is greed different than self-interest?  Well of course they are different, but they are also foundationally related.

Greed is essentially unfettered self-interested behavior; it is self-interest on steroids. With self-interested behavior you could have people seeking advantage over others for self-benefit and with greed you could have people causing harm to others for self-benefit.  That is to say, people acting out of self-interest can lead to unfairness and people acting out of greed will often lead to fraud.

Greed as a behavioral trait is sought and developed.  It is because of greed that the drive for getting and having goes forever unsatisfied ensuring a consuming and acquisitive society.  Adam Smith argued the importance of the pursuit of material self-interest to the industriousness of the labor class and in turn to the wealth of a nation.  As he assumed (in The Wealth of Nations) “every man…is much more deeply interested in whatever immediately concerns himself than in what concerns any other” thus implying that the propensity for satisfying one’s self-interest is most significant in influencing profit maximizing behavior.  In a recent paper appearing in The Academy of Management Annals, titled On Greed, authors Long Wang and J. Keith Murnighan claim “the basic logic of capitalism…suggests that organizations and their members should do what they can to maximize their economic interest.”

People have taken for granted, without questioning, the notion that we are at base selfish beings.  Accordingly our societal culture embraces the notion that people are at base driven to maximize their material self-interest—what’s in it for me is not just cliché it reflects a general attitude, the American zeitgeist.  This unquestioned belief has been forged by the widespread application of the self-interest precept of our economic system, infiltrating life in society in so many aspects—business, government and education.

Accordingly rigging the system in service to one’s self-interest is just the way we’ve designed things to work—special interest rules the day.   Why else are there so many elected officials who become millionaires during their term in office in what should be service to society?  Why else are there lobbyists (many of whom served on Capital Hill prior to becoming a lobbyist) working to establish quid pro quo relationships with government officials? Why is it that those who are able to offer sizable amounts of money to elected officials (our public servants) given far greater access, credibility and opportunity?  Seemingly every thing is an economic exchange through which each is seeking to better his/her position materially.

According to Smith “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from the regard to their own interest.”  Substitute senator, congressmen and president and it no doubt applies. It is therefore no surprise that special interests dictate the discourse and much of public policy.

Insatiability of Material Gain

Moreover according to Wang and Murnighan “neoclassical economics’ focus on self-interest almost seems to glorify greed” (p 287).  British philosopher David Hume, a close friend of Adam Smith, believed greed to be both vice and virtue.  In regard to the latter Hume claimed it motives people and thus can be a positive force in commerce.  Smith clearly agreed since his theory of economics (of societal wealth creation) rested upon each individual striving to maximize his/her material self-interest.

As Wang and Murnighan noted “the negative social consequences of greed focus primarily on its uneven distribution of resources” and the growing gap in income inequality in the U.S. is a case in point.  In the period between the 1950’s and 1960’s CEO compensation was about 25 times that of the average worker.  Today it is 340 times that of the average worker!  As a result of the income trend lines going in quite different directions, some argue that we have two economies.

It would appear that the seed of material self-interest has grown into sequoia-sized greed.  It seems clear that everything for me and nothing for others—though a popular path for those seeking greater personal wealth—is a recipe for destruction and the eventual depletion of societal wealth.  It surely is not the way to progress, if by progress we mean the likelihood is good that our future will be better than the present.

As Lester Thurow noted in his 1996 book The Future of Capitalism, in capitalism “there is simply no social must.”  Moreover, capitalism honors competition, and winning in a limited resource competitive environment is auto-correlated.  In other words the probability of winning is greater for those who have previously won—winning begets winning—and the probability of non-winners winning increasingly diminishes.   As the gap between winners and losers increases moving from losing to winning gets more and more difficult.  Correspondingly, since a self-interest seeking materialist can never have enough, trickle-down doesn’t happen—the evidence of this is quite strong.

How does material self-interest become greed?  The pursuit of material gain has no natural satiation point, thus unless the individual is morally awake the desire for having more is unfettered and thus escalates without bound.  Moreover with egoic self-interest bounded by one’s own skin, in pursuing more and more a concern for one’s impact on others is essentially nonexistent. The concern for ‘me’ and ‘mine’ is all consuming.  The 2008 financial crisis is a case in point of the consequences of greed. In fact, Clive Boddy claims corporate psychopaths theory as an explanation of the cause of the global financial crisis.

Smith believed that human beings weren’t capable of self-control and thus people require external forces to keep them within the boundaries of fair play in their economic endeavors.  Smith wasn’t advocating regulation but enforceable laws.

Unfortunately human behavior can’t be legislated, especially greedy behavior.  Unregulated material self-interested behavior transitions readily into fraudulent behavior.  What’s better for society, to reign in such behavior before the fact or to seek retribution for the behavior after the fact?  Is it better to prevent theft or to enforce the law (i.e. prosecute) against theft?  [It seems, at least thus far, we’ve done neither in regards to the actions of Wall Street.]

The issue is not whether greed is part of human nature, but whether greed is an unavoidable part.  We could say the same for morality.  Both are in our potential.  However we are not destined to be moral actors any more than we are destined to be greedy.  Just as a sense of morality must be developed, so too must greediness.   In regards to the latter, our current system of economics is doing this quite well.

As with most dimensions of human development, we are guided and facilitated in our development by the societal context—the zeitgeist—within which we are raised.  In the U.S. the societal context facilitates the belief that we each are self-interest maximizing beings—self-interested behavior is expected, it is our ethos.  It is no wonder that many of our corporate executives are far more calculating, far less empathetic and ruthlessly political/manipulative; there appears to be no concern or regard for the impact of their self-serving actions on others.  [We are even seeing this in our elected officials.]

Just because the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court concluded that corporations are people and thus it is legal for corporations to have an opaque and dominant voice in the election of our representatives doesn’t mean that corporate executives should act on this.  Those who are morally developed—whose sense of self doesn’t stop at their own skin—and who are not solely guided by the legality of an action understand that can doesn’t imply should.

What if we believed we are not just self-interest maximizing beings? What if we weren’t so consumed by (i.e. addicted to) having more and more as a way of being and establishing our personal identity? What if having a concern for ‘We’ is just as important as a concern for ‘me’? What if we are deeply connected?  [As noted by Amitai Etzioni “the I’s need We to be” (The Moral Dimension)]. What if our sense of self didn’t stop at our skin, but included all of humankind?

Acknowledging our ‘I-We’ nature puts us in touch with the individual and collective aspects of being human and in turn to the simultaneous responsibility we have to each other.  Accordingly life in society is not simply a collection of independent individuals seeking advantage over others as each strives to have it all for ‘Me’. We are not simply instrumental to each other’s wants.

If we wish those who lead—corporations and government—not to be so self-serving then we must change how we as a society not only choose but also shape them.  This requires us to change what we believe about ourselves, and in turn to change the system of economics, and correspondingly the conduct of business, that has infiltrated so much of life in society.  After all we do shape the reality we experience.

They are symptoms of an enacted belief by the majority of society, which has become institutionalized in society’s systems, that self-interest (which includes special interest) is paramount and correspondingly success in life is measured by the size of one’s material gain.  That is to say, they are symptoms of a wrongly purposed economic system becoming infused into every aspect of life in society, most notably government, education and of course the conduct of business.

In regards to the system of government, when wealth becomes so concentrated and elected officials become so money dependent then the conduct of government unavoidably moves increasingly in favor of the wealthy.  In effect, the very wealthy become the overlords of society.

Today we are clearly operating according to a set of beliefs that are antithetical to the advancement of democracy and the development of people.  The fact that we have elections—that we are allowed to vote—though necessary it is not sufficient to ensure democracy is operative and thus ensure freedom from oppression.  Voting when you have little choice does not equate to participation in choosing who will represent you.

Occupy Wall Street could provide the finger-snap that will awaken people in society from their hypnotic sleepwalk through life.

Oh you say people are awake, they aren’t sleepwalking.  Really!  As noted by Charles Blow, “most Americans now say that the fact that some people in the U.S. are rich and others are poor does not represent a problem but is an acceptable part of our economic system.” This is a manifestation of the unquestioned belief that material self-interest is paramount.

How often do people think the same thoughts in the same way they’ve always thought about them?  How often do they listen (without judgment) and seek to understand? How often have they actually explored perspectives that are not consistent with their view of how things are without filtering that of the other through the beliefs they hold so dear? Thinking is not merely a rearrangement of thoughts!

How often do you actually critically think about your thinking?  How often do you explore and challenge the beliefs and assumptions that are the foundation of your beliefs, thoughts and actions? How often have you actually improved the way you think and what you think about?

Those protesting the injustice and unfairness of the way things are in society are providing a wake-up call to everyone—just as the Vietnam and civil rights protesters did before them.  The Occupy Wall Street protest must keep the focus on changing the system and not follow the suggestion of what many pundits and news anchors offer, fixing on ‘a simple demand’ and/or forming or becoming aligned with a political party.  Either one of these would limit the scope, make for colonization of the message and turn the conversation more divisive.

The way things are is the result of a system of orientation that has ordered life in (our) industrialized society for quite sometime.  Thus its underlying assumptions and beliefs are hidden well below the surface of everyday experience. Since these have reached their extreme and have become massively destructive, they need to be brought to the surface for conscious exploration by an awakened critically thinking mind. To detach our self from our thoughts, which as Mahatma Gandhi said “is the prerequisite for effective involvement.”  Gandhi noted that attachment to our opinions often distorts our thinking—it keeps us from engaging the power of critical thinking.

This is not a left-right issue or a political party issue but a very human issue! We must break away from the habit of thinking in either/or terms—such thinking leads to fear and diminishes understanding.  It is time that we wake up to the fact that we are all the same: human beings seeking to live a fulfilling and meaningful human life.  It is not the time—and it is not clear when it ever is—to recoil against ideas intended to help everyone. We are so deeply connected that when others are unjustly treated we all suffer.  Yet because of an attachment to individualism as our guide we are unable to understand our interdependence and connectedness.  We must cease believing that it is all about me having mine so to hell with we.

What is a sure fire way to keep things as they are?  Continue to reinforce the primacy of the individual over the collective—keep people thinking in either/or terms.  Incite people to fear the bogyman by creating stories about those who aren’t members of their group. This keeps people fearful and reactive thus stopping them from thinking and actively listening (without distortion and judgment) to the ideas of others.  So the focus of attention turns toward demonizing others and most importantly away from collaborating with others toward fundamental system change.  Yes this is all part of keeping people from coming together to solve the problem thus ensuring things continue as they are.

It is time to let go of the thought that you are of this party or that and to embrace the fact that you are at base a human being and to acknowledge that each and every ‘I ‘ needs a vibrant ‘we’.

What we need is to develop as a society of people toward becoming a human-centered society—a viable society.  This requires a viable citizenry, which can’t be realized as long as the system fundamentally remains as it is.

Compounding the situation is the lack of journalists who will (immediately) bring to light falsehood—not correcting an inaccuracy is support of its accuracy.  The longer a falsehood goes unchallenged the more it is assumed to be true. If journalists are unwilling to uphold their responsibility to ensure that truth, decency and fairness prevail then they must step out of the ring.

Making false claims about a product/service in advertising is not tolerated—it is called truth in advertising, and we expect it.   Yet in political advertising, where it can destroy the very fabric of society, it is allowed.  According to the Federal Trade Commission to protect consumers advertising should be truthful, non-deceptive, fair and supported by credible evidence.  In political advertising are we not consumers of information?  Where is the FTC when you need them?

If a person will lie to get into office then he/she will do the same once in office—it is the way he/she rolls.  Accordingly, if a person can’t be trusted to tell the truth then how can a discerning public in good conscience elect him/her to the highest office in government to represent them in the world and to lead the nation?

Journalist failing to represent a free and independent press and people failing to demand credible support for claims and assertions reflects an unthinking, incurious and gullible citizenry.  It is a citizenry that is easily deceived by manipulative and deceptive people who play on peoples’ hopes and fears.   A citizenry that is sorely misinformed.

A recent case in point is the frequently communicated idea that the U.S. is over regulated and thus unfriendly (and an unwelcoming) place in which to do business.  The unfounded solution that is advanced is that to improve the economic climate in the U.S. we need to eliminate regulations and even agencies designed to ensure fairness and safety.  Unfortunately the facts don’t support this: Yet such facts don’t get in the way of falsehood becoming belief.

That people actually swallow the stories they are told is quite troubling!  Why?  Because a society of the people, for the people and by the people—our democracy—requires a discerning informed public who can effectively determine who is best qualified to lead.

Having an effective leader requires that that elected person actually embody the essence of leadership.  Leadership is not the expression of self-interest but of selflessness (the concern is always for the collective We of society) and the enactment of the highest of values–truthfulness and trustworthiness being noteworthy manifestations—in all one’s actions.

With the destructive combination of demagogues in pursuit of political office, the lack of both responsible journalists and a critical thinking citizenry, then a free and democratic society cannot possibly be sustained.  It is time that we the people demand more from both those seeking to inform and to lead us as well as from ourselves!

It seems that this debate is akin arguing whether the change in the measured distance between the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks is an effective approach for assessing the crew’s performance relative to keeping the ship afloat.  While this keeps people’s efforts on things we can readily measure—it surely keeps them busy for a while—it unfortunately turns the focus of attention away from understanding the underlying causes of the difficulty and toward the effects (things that have already happened).  Because we wish to have better results doesn’t mean we should focus on results.  For better results then the focus must be on the system of causes, the system itself!

Business Is Not the Model

Many working in business organizations, where incentives and accountability for results are normal practice argue they are measured by and accountable for results all the time.  If they don’t meet their numerical goal they are penalized or fired.  Since this is their reality the construction of the logical fallacy proceeds in concluding it then must become the teacher’s reality—if I (have to) live it so too should they.

Why is it that most people don’t like their jobs and/or really don’t like working for their boss?  Could it be that the practice of management is actually an obstacle to them actually enjoying their work?  Many business management practices are flat out wrong—they are detrimental to the human spirit.  Yet people continue to employ them widely, when it is the expression of the human spirit that is at the root of quality.

Because something is popular doesn’t necessarily mean it is the proper or correct thing to do.  It is misguided to assume popular business practices are best practices and that they are everywhere applicable.  The fact that business organizations rely on the carrot-and-stick approach to managing doesn’t make it the correct or best way to manage for a quality of the work environment and to facilitate the engagement of employees.  The reformative questions should be seeking answers to how to engage others not control others!

Ask A Different Question

Because we rely on learning more than any other animal, our need to learn is as natural to the human condition as is breathing. Taking in air to breathe and taking in knowledge for understanding are equally important to the development of a human being.   Why then are we asking questions of how best to incentivized learning?  Shouldn’t the question be what are we doing that quells the natural desire and need to learn?