Leadership: The Practical Power of Philosophy

I began my first entrepreneurial venture in the early 1980’s after having served many others as an employee and the experience I accumulated along the path served more as a guideline to what I would NOT do, than as a guide to what I should do, if I hoped to succeed as an entrepreneur and to create the life I dreamed about.

My initial capital investment in my business was only a few hundred dollars, a phone, a purchase order pad, a sales order pad, a few boxes of assorted industrial safety products, and most importantly, an investment in time beforehand - time to arrive at a well considered Philosophy. Why a Philosophy, you might ask, and not the 5 year business plan that everyone recommends? What is the practical relevancy of Philosophy when it comes to creating a successful business?

Simple observation led me to my conclusion. I had witnessed countless opportunities presented, while in the employ of others, that were often over-looked or disregarded owing to a narrow focus on “keeping with the plan”. Simply stated, most plans lacked flexibility and adaptability; they are concerned with mapping the active dynamic but typically fall short in the arena of effective and appropriate responsiveness. Why? A plan involves a time-line of static concepts that are to be applied within a context (business/economic) that is recognized by all to be at least fluid, and occasionally, even volatile.

The prevailing “locked in to the plan” approach to business ventures made small sense to me (then and now) and so it was that I was determined to pioneer another path that better suited the context and needs of an ever-changing economic and technological “playing field”. I chose the path that considers the fundamentals of human thoughts and actions - Philosophy. I wanted to understand what motivates us to think or to do anything beyond our basic survival needs, and particularly, what motivates us to think about or to do those things that we don't really enjoy?

Although I have said that plans have their flaws,that is not to say I had no plan. I had a relatively clear vision of where I wanted to go and several ideas of how I might get there – specific tasks I could perform that might facilitate “building a business from the ground up” that I had gathered from a variety of books as well as my direct experience from years spent in Management. It was, in fact, my experiences in Management, and particularly WITH Management, that compelled me to strike out my own. I was absolutely certain there were better ways to make fundamental choices and decisions that governed business operations than the statistical analysis many business owners had come to rely on, and to the exclusion of all else. While charts, graphs, and spreadsheets, have their place in business, the weight assigned to numbers had tipped the scales to such an extent that, even though they enjoyed material success, few owners I knew seemed truly happy and their employees seemed even less so. These businesses were soul-less; their employees, more robotic than apparently human.

Why such unhappiness in the workplace when we spend the majority of our lives engaged in earning our livelihoods? Most people, if asked to list the subjects that are of most practical significance to their careers might name computer courses, business science, economics, accounting, and so on. But most people, and particularly business people, tend to overlook that Philosophy is a subject of tremendous Practical Power. It is philosophy that studies the fundamentals of human thoughts and actions and it is human thoughts and actions that will contribute to either the success, or to the demise, of any entrepreneurial venture. I made the decision to focus my planning efforts for my business on the fundamentals of human thoughts and actions and how I might optimize the quality of those thoughts and actions to realize a greater potential, not only for myself, but for everyone involved. (Please note the word I used is quality, not quantity or speed.)

Every aspect of our life and every aspect of our culture are shaped by our philosophic ideas so I focused my Business Plan on outlining a Philosophy of “doing” Business more so than outlining any particular strategic plan. I began by listing the basic grievances I had shared with millions of others as a consumer and I also listed the grievances I shared with those who “served” someone else as an employee and resolved to try some opposite approaches – a turn-around of 180 degrees. Radical? Maybe.

I called this upside down view “backwards thinking” and applied it to many of the business premises that had been handed down to me and that I had accepted as having some factual basis. I had a strong and compelling need to know what was actually True and what was merely “conditioned” belief. Just as importantly, I needed to know if an alternate (or even opposite) approach to my experience could succeed or whether I was simply just another dreamer who was wandering this earth with impractical visions?

What are some of the ideas I experimented with and turned around in shaping a business philosophy? The first idea was that a business should be managed by the numbers (strictly business, nothing personal). I tried the opposite and I managed the business by Managing the people of the business. This too, I approached backwards. I managed the people by viewing myself as in their service rather than operating from the premise that they were there to serve mine (or that of an inanimate entity – the business itself.).

What were the results of this backwards approach? Tremendous and rapid success for everyone involved! The numbers for the business grew by leaps and bounds but not because we focused on the numbers. We focused on People – our customers and each other - and our numbers simply told the story of how well we did that.

What is really true is that Business decisions are not made by the numbers but are made by people (albeit people influenced by the numbers, many of whom have lost touch with their own humanity in the pursuit of material gains). What is also true is that the numbers in our business don’t cause or create our story, they merely reflect the results (or the symptoms) of our thoughts and our actions over time.

All things considered, isn’t it time we rethink our thinking and, at the very least, question some of the basic premises that businesses operate on today? Whether asking an employer or an employee, there are few within any organization who have been able to articulate their company's basic philosophy as well as they can recite last month's sales figures or next month's budget allocations. My own experience shows that we have all been misled by those "at the top"; that the way to sustainable success lies not in charts and numbers but through the embrace of humankind and humanity, itself. Isn't it time we explore the Practical Power of Philosophy?

21st Century Leadership - Rethinking Our Thinking

There is always an extreme element in society that leans towards greed and selfishness.  There is also always an extreme element in society that leans towards generosity and selflessness.  Most of us fluctuate back and forth between the two, much closer to the middle.  The extremist viewpoint is unbalanced, whether leaning right or left.  Why is this unbalanced? The greedy have small interest in generosity while the selfless seek to eliminate selfishness.  We deny the world as it is - containing both.  Two sides of the same coin.

The idea that we must choose between one or the other of any two opposing sides can only arise from the idea that the back side  is somehow separate from the front side.  Speaking about two sides of a coin is merely a mental conception - the physical (what we consider real) front side cannot exist without the physical backside. The "reality" of a coin is that it cannot be separated, irrespective of what words we choose to describe it's appearance.  We are constantly fooled and deceived by our own descriptions - our conceptualizations of reality appear to take on greater reality than that which we are describing. 

It is time we rethink our thinking.  The near financial collapse is a clear indicator that we have made some choices and decisions that are based on flawed premises regarding our viewpoints .  Rather than adding more and more information to our knowledge bases, it is time that we return to the basics and examine the foundations of our mental constructions in order to correct our misguided flaws and to adjust for our errors.  The heat is on for solutions but if we continue to build upon a flawed foundation and the branches of particular schools of thought without examining the basic premises upon which they were founded, we are doomed to repeat our very recent history.

Do the distinctions we imagine or conceive exist or are they simply ideological?  Can liberal or conservative politicians fulfill their responsibilities as public servants so long as they continue to debate every difference between them?  Would the people they serve be better served if these public servants focused their attention more on what they have in common and rebuild, restructure, and reform our government  from the premise of a common good?

Can employers succeed in their objectives without the contributions and the labor of their employees?  Each depends on the other but do we recognize, acknowledge, and strategize according to the common good of all or are actions centered around that of a  (typically top-heavy) business entity's profit margin ?  Why are people and profits thought to be mutually exclusive?  Common sense and observation would seem to say that personally caring for the good of all people is also caring for the company's profits while the more mechanistic and impersonal caring for the company's (non-living) profits seems to ignore the people and the common good.

Can any institutional or organizational leader advance a cause without the support and cooperation of followers?  To paraphrase an often heard saying from the 1960's - Could our leaders wage war if nobody showed up? Can our businesses run if all employees are on strike?  Can our cause sustain if our donors cease to fund us?

The answer to the questions above is that the foundations that fail to acknowledge the inherent interdependence of All things will produce mixed results.  Why mixed results?  Because the basic premise from which all  the other premises arise is flawed.  The extremist pendulum cannot swing and be held in only one direction but must swing right AND left. 
 
Most of us are caught in the middle between extremist points of view.  We find ourselves fluctuating between two considered opposites, swayed by emotional rhetoric, conflicted and confused about why things appear to us as other than what they are and what we know them to be.  The description of the appearance of a coin as two-sided has given rise to the subsequent idea that the two sides are separate and that a coin is divisible.  We have taken this simple concept and expanded it to everything that exists in the "real" world - separating one thing from another, ad infinitum.

Individual greed is now merely disguised, impersonally renamed as profit and revenue.  Selfishness is similarly hidden, cloaked behind the "actions" of a non-living entity. Behind the windfall profits and beyond the corporate decisions, are people - people with extremist views.  Neither side of an extreme view can sustain in the "real" world because neither is real beyond our conceptions.  No matter how hard we try to separate the selfish from the selfless, the greedy from the generous, the world will always contain both. Our attempts to choose and to force one side over another can only give rise to more volatile fluctuations.

We shall never fulfill the common good so long as those of us in the middle remain conflicted and confused by the rhetoric of the extremists.  Between ourselves, it is time we rethink our thinking.  The two sides of a coin are only useful in the description of a coin but we must always remember that it is the whole coin that we use.

People Centered Management

I read the news and it's hard not to become depressed about the state of human affairs.   While our technology has advanced, it is unclear whether the same could be said of human psychology.   Do we consider ourselves to be independent of each other or  are we interdependent?  How does our view influence our experience? The Persian poet, Rumi, is quoted as saying, " This two-way way, duality, feels like a fight.  This Oneness path feels more like a banquet."

The conceptualization of all things broken down into smaller and smaller components is only useful to an extent.  When individual parts are considered more important than the whole, we have created a distortion in perception that results in an enterprise that fails to consider the people that comprise the enterprise.  The same distortion in perception occurs whether we are describing religious, political, or educational institutions.  We cannot turn to today's leaders of these institutions to improve the state of human affairs as they profit from the  prevailing school of  thought that relies only on  numbers and discounts the human.  Isn't this backward thinking?  When should any "thing" be considered more important than a living, breathing being?  What results might another approach yield? What if we switched our focus of attention from a philosophy and practice of Strictly Business, Nothing Personal to a philosophy and practice of People Centered Management?


I borrowed today's topic of People Centered Management from another blogger, Gregory Gull, who writes a blog entitled For Progress Not Growth.  The  objective of FPNG is written as "facilitating critical thinking about the business of business".  These are not the words I would  have chosen in conjunction with the subject of People Centered Management and yet that was the title of a recent post.  Much to my surprise, I found many of the thoughts I have surrounding Business and Business Leadership woven throughout the contents on every page.  Rather than say what that is in this One Coin blog, please visit For Progress, Not Growth and read the words for yourself.

Also worth exploring on the topic of People Centered Management are the words of William Edwards Deming, author of  "The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education" .    A video from 1984 shows  Dr.Deming as a "Prophet Unheard" who foresaw our current economic crises as well as the cure.  Borrowing again from an Amazon reviewer, "Describing prevailing management style as a prison, Deming shows how a style based on cooperation rather than competition can help people develop joy in work and learning at the same time that it brings about long-term success in the market."

People Centered Management.  Not a new idea. But one that works.  I tried it myself over 20 years ago, long before I knew there was a name for it.  My philosophy arose from the simple daily practice of The Golden Rule, also known as The Rule of Reciprocity.  What is wise is always wise or it isn't wise at all.  People Centered Management - A  key to success in the 21st century.

Business Philosophy: Wanted AND Unwanted Results

We have, as individuals, the potential to be our own greatest work of art, our greatest creation.  Following the path that is outlined by another rarely mirrors the results for it's followers as it produced for the Leader, the original pioneer of an idea. 

Too few of us can remember our original self in order to have a truly "original thought". Much to our dismay, most of what we think was something we heard or read.  The same thoughts go round and round within our minds (and some of us have a large collection to draw on) but, wounded egos aside, we seldom think something that has not already been thought by someone, somewhere, sometime. It has also been suggested that "There is nothing new under the Sun."

I've done a lot of web surfing this week, reading Leadership blogs and articles primarily.  There is a tremendous amount of duplication in content and much of what I read can be found through searches in at least a dozen places or more. There is very little original thought, little original thinking, although there's a vast abundance of recycled words and ideas. I remember as a child, my dad would often say, "Don't believe everything you read.  Simply because it appears in print, doesn't make it so."

We can't fault authors for their regurgitation of ideas.  Unless you are writing as an independent blogger, most established blog sites have pre-determined criteria and guidelines for subject content. The words written for existing blogs afford small ability to "customize, alter, modify or adjust" how the material is presented or what material is presented. Our words are poured onto paper and then sent in for review. The subject matter is generally confined to what is considered "safe", restricted to what is "non-controversial". A number of additional sources must be cited that support our propositions and assertions of "The Way" we recommend (i.e - there must be a wide consensus of opinions).

The sheer volume of information we are required to know in order to stay "competitive" in today's market is astounding.  The amount of time we devote to the endeavor of absorbing that information and then applying what we've learned, has left little or no time to reflect on the truth of what we apply. More to the point, we have little time to truly examine our results.

We look for the wanted measurements (typically an increase in profits) but we seldom take time to look at what arose with them - the unwanted "side effects".  The pace today is prohibitive to real reflection so the clock just keeps ticking, time just keeps marching, and business keeps rolling  along.  

Real results are considered found in the "tangibles" - what can be measured or quantified. This is, however, only half of the picture.  It's time we all learn to think for ourselves when it comes to the other half, the "other side" of the proverbial coin.  It is highly unlikely that you will find much material that speaks to the "intangibles" - the real and hidden human costs we pay for the acceptance and implementation of many of these ideas. 

Examples of widespread ideas with under-examined results must include the phrase, "Strictly Business, Nothing Personal". Please note that this is NOT a new idea or an original thought, it is merely the hatcheting of an old one.  Web Definitions defines Business as "a commercial or industrial enterprise and the People that comprise it". In the Strictly Business paradigm, What happened to the other half, the AND of ....and the People?


According to the Web Definition, would it seem more accurate to say that Business Leaders and the Captains of Industry simply chose to dispense with  thinking of People as vital to their business? Has the Business entity taken on greater importance than the living entities that comprise it? Since "the people" are inherent within the definition of Business itself, does it seem likely that the decision might have been made simply because People are problematic to their goals and to their bottom line thinking? 

I sincerely doubt, if polled, that the majority of People comprising a Business want to spend the bulk of their waking hours in an Impersonal environment - devoid of personality, devoid of human characteristics and traits.


I need to ask again, Does the repetition of an untruth (or partial truth) make the assertion true?
 
Where has the Strictly Business view led us?  What are some of the side effects or unwanted results? Business environments have become largely "soul-less"  while the phrase itself has become little more than self-justification for cold-hearted action.Do we really believe there is no better way?

This self-justification seems particularly true for many self-described "performance-driven" companies who wear the words like a badge of honor, some "thing" they can be proud of.  Interestingly enough, many of these companies that ascribe to the belief that Business can be "Strictly Business, Nothing Personal" are the same companies that claim to follow a Relational Management Philosophy.  I submit that it is unlikely that they truly understand what it is that they say. 

The "Strictly Business" philosophy disregards the human element and the idea of "Relational Management" is still viewed within that partial and narrowed context.  The sphere of consideration has expanded slightly although it is often taken to mean, and is therefore limited to, the inclusion of those who are thought to have a direct "relationship" to the Strictly Business bottom line. The "Nothing Personal" view of Business treats the The People of Business  as Impersonal objects (devoid of personality); all "others" are still seen as merely the means to their ends.

Eliminating the human factor from human endeavors can only lead to soul-less results.  Success arrived at by these means can only bring us short-term pleasure, the long-term result is that our success feels empty and hollow of meaning.


The next time someone points to the benefits of following a particular Business philosophy, I would suggest you experiment before you implement the idea.  Measure your quantifiable results but use common sense and also take a good, long look at the other side of the coin to see what “unwanted” results that philosophy yielded, too.

Ancient Wisdom & Life Success

Some of you are probably wondering why it is that I sometimes quote  from Ancient Wisdom and  how it's relevant to 21st century success? There is a distinction between knowledge and wisdom and it has been my life's burden that I feel compelled to acquire both, as if I could actually own either.  I operate under the pretense, much like everybody else, because it's what we do.

So, what is the relevance of Ancient Teachings to a life of success?  We all know many knowledgeable people and their  knowledge is thought to be a thing.  Is wisdom also a thing that someone has or someone doesn't?  Can wisdom be bought, taught, or acquired somehow, where-ever it is thought lacking?

It is said that knowledge is more temporary and more transient than Wisdom. Wisdom sustains through centuries while knowledge changes with the times.  What we know  of the world today and what was known in 1490 are very different things.  Could we say that what has endured, is what many think of as wise?

What we need to know has changed.  The ways we come to know it have changed too.

Most of what we think we know, we're taught.  We learn. 
The amount of information we now think we need seems staggering compared to those of us who can remember what was needed just 20 years ago.
We have vast wealth - perhaps an over-abundance of conventional knowledge. 
But are we living wisely?

How happy are we?  How joyful, how peaceful, how loving, how caring?
If what we know brings us nothing of these, then where is this knowing's  real value?


Or , looked at another way - Just what is "it", then, we value?

The path to life success is found in the teachings that also teach us to live wisely.
The teachings that bring more joy, that bring more peace, that bring more love, into our everyday experience.
More accurately, they teach us to be open to these experiences.

Most of us intuit as children that what we are being taught is only true in a relative sense.
Were it not for external pressure, much teaching would quickly be abandoned as garbage in and garbage out.
(I think of all the machines I learned to operate over the years that no longer exist and how that knowledge was only useful for a time.)

The wisdom of Ancient Teachings is as relevant to a life of success today as when they were first spoken if we truly value what it is we claim we value.

Leadership :Simple or Complicated?

I am always amazed at how we complicate everything in our minds.  I belong to a number of Business Groups and Networks and am a voracious reader of books, blogs, forums, and websites. There is a staggering amount of conflicting information available today on any given subject.

Discussions that center on Leadership inevitably give rise to a collection of associative words that are woven throughout their pages. Organization, structure, management, performance, efficiency, productivity, culture, name but a few of those typically found.

Recently I was pointed towards the book "Managing Leadership" and so I looked it up and began with the table of contents.  Leadership has been dissected into 8 or 9 chapters and at least 30 or 40 subheadings.  I admit to feeling slightly overwhelmed at the prospect of wading through another collection of ideas with so many words to talk about one thing.

Nonetheless,  I read these books to see and understand what others are thinking, asserting, advocating, and promoting as "The Way".   What I generally find is that more imaginary divisions are created between this thing and that thing, with each thing further subdivided into smaller and smaller compartments.  How easy it becomes to lose sight of the bigger picture when we dive into the details and engage in what Native Americans refer to as "mouse vision"!

Please don't get me wrong - mouse vision has some usefulness.  Limited usefulness, I should add.  But have we gone overboard whereby everything we see and do need be broken into smaller and smaller components or are we simply pretending to know and understand more than we really do?

Leadership is a concept, and in that sense, has no reality of it's own.  There are some who say they are self-led although I prefer to think of the words as relational, describing the relationship between Leaders and Followers.  One defines the other.  If self-led, then I must also self-follow, and this diminishes the usefulness of both words in the communication of the "concept".

Although books abound on Leadership - Managing Leadership, Leadership Principles, Leadership and Self-Deception - the concept could be made far more simple and easy to grasp.  I simplify it as meaning this: Enlightened  Leadership involves seeing those you lead as people rather than objects, no different than yourself, and in treating them as you would wish to be treated if  you traded positions and walked the proverbial "mile in their shoes".

Life Success - Living the Dream

I began my first entrepreneurial venture in the early 1980's with my husband of 10 years and our 2 small daughters, just 4 and 5 years old then. Three years later, we were selling over $5 million in product annually - a good return for the times and for a new venture.  And yet, the greater our success, the more I found it to be hollow and lacking in meaning.  I often wondered if there was more to life than this?  There had to be more than the setting of goals and their achievement followed by the setting of more goals and more achievements.  We lived a pampered life.  What was enough or would we forever be  chasing bigger and better brass rings; bigger houses, cars, and titles?  When did the goal-setting end and the living of life begin?

To my dismay, I realized that my life had been lived all along but where was I in all of that doing and what really mattered to me?  Was what mattered, in fact, the accumulation of wealth, or the prestige of success, the pleasure of accomplishment, or the power and authority I could exert over others?  The  question  I wanted answered was this: What gives meaning to life?  I could tell you what did not, according to my experience, but I could not say what would. 

My interest in success as a goal unto itself began to wane considerably over the next few years.  I found it ever more difficult to live a life of excess while driving my Mercedes by a homeless family that was living on the sidewalk.   I had to stop pretending not to see all the people in this Land of Opportunity that were hungry, thirsty, broken,  and poor.  The more I opened my eyes to those around me, the less I came to enjoy our abundant success.

Success in any endeavor is much like a dual-edged sword. Whatever is gained, we stand to lose.  Amassing the fruits of success, we have that much more to protect and to safeguard and soon, what we own, owns us. Where is the wisdom in that?

Is it really success that we're after? All  the riches in the world won't help us feel successful until we discover for ourselves what it is that holds real meaning.  It may not be what  you think.

LINK+IMAGE