Corporate Terms of Endearment

One of modern man’s greatest creation has been the Corporate. Being invisible, it is natural to have misgivings about it. I wish to discuss two.

Purpose: Great businesses are not about money. Simon Sinek explains “Money is like fuel. Cars need fuel, but the purpose of the car is not to buy more fuel. Business is the same. The purpose of business is not to make money, it is to advance a greater purpose.”  Charles Lindblom (in The Science of Muddling Through) reiterates ‘The process in which well-defined and prioritized objectives are broken into actions whose progress can be monitored and measured is not the reality of how people find fulfillment in their lives, create art, establish great societies or build great businesses.’ 

It is highly likely these virtual entities are inspired from natural biological systems.  In Obliquity, John Kay asks ‘What is a tiger for? They are not a product of purposive design. One can design such an animal only if one is more knowledgeable and skilled at what tigers do. A tiger has become a ‘tiger’ by getting better at what it ‘does’ to ‘survive’.’ There is no defined purpose for an entity beyond what it does - as its evolved function – defined as the teleological purpose of biological organism. Paradoxically, this sharpening of purpose come through contrasting traits. A tiger perfects both (1) an ability to lie motionless for hours waiting out a prey and (2) a split-second-spring into an effortless lightning motion – both opposing abilities, aligned to achieve the higher motive - hunt to perfection. As in systems theory approach, contrasting components (e.g. sales and delivery) resulting in ‘emergent properties’ that increases chances of survival and success.

The challenge before a successful business house is to carve out an identity and existence by balancing the dichotomy in (1) Purpose (considered noble) and (2) Value (a.ka. money, considered not-so noble). Great businesses not only get very good at doing what they have designed themselves to do, but also scale through value creation to fuel themselves further without contradiction. This yin-yang balance is universally true. Nietzsche explores another in The Birth of Tragedy – he finds creativity to ultimately spring from a conflict of opposing sources, rationality and imagination. One cannot stand the other, yet cannot do without the other. In fact, they accomplish their greatest feats questioning and complimenting each other.

Great entities have evolved to hunt business most effectively by balancing purpose with value creation. However, success and valuation are measured in tangibles assets such as hard cash that leads everyone to misconstrue the original purpose (and founder’s mentality) as profit making.

Or was Milton Friedman right to conclude “The business of business is business.”

Loyalty: Zizek, once humorously pointed out that “in the communist system, it was impossible to be simultaneously honest, to genuinely support communism and, at the same time, to be intelligent”.  In other words, Honesty, Loyalty and Intelligence cannot co-exist. Now, if we assume intelligence to be a given (for most of us), this reduces to a moral dilemma - can one be loyal and honest at the same time, to a collective identity?

Because being abstract and formless, it needs to desperately create an identity and a differentiation (through a vision, logos, functions, rules and culture) to carve out a bounding membrane for itself. This focus on differentiation makes the entity ‘limiting’ in nature.

If you examine closely, honesty’s essential nature is impartiality and a freedom (from affiliation to anything) while the expectation from loyalty is quite the opposite. Loyalty demands at least a willing bias if not blind obedience that essentially curtails freedom of choice. The two contradicts and cannot co-exist. Hence, Zizek’s challenge to the intelligent follower’s conscience is relevant. The follower is slowly forced to switch off (a willful suspension of intelligence) and feign total allegiance to be ordained.

However, why this preference on loyalty over honestly and intelligence? 

Zizek exposes the ugly truth. The corporate being virtual has no physical person to be decisive on its selfish behalf. So it has evolved to shamelessly demand (from its followers) loyalty first, then intelligence and lastly honesty, for its own survival. A moral suicide.

However, great entities have endured, thanks to great leaders who have had the conviction to cherish all the three (honesty, loyalty and intelligence).

Alfred Sloan was one. “Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here. Then, I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until the next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement, and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”