Comments

This is a brilliant piece which echoes that which I have so often presented to teams I had the pleasure of leading over the years.

Well done, concisely stated and inspirational!

P.S. It reminds me as well, of the story about the boy on the beach:

http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=269

Posted by Tom O'Leary at April 4, 2007 5:29 PM

This is a brilliant piece which echoes that which I have so often presented to teams I had the pleasure of leading over the years.

Well done, concisely stated and inspirational!

It reminds me as well, of the story about the boy on the beach: http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=269

Posted by Tom O'Leary at April 4, 2007 5:30 PM

Great post, Chris. Two things that struck me...

I agree that most big companies are too far gone and that the real juice (for me at least) comes in working with smaller, often more closely held, companies that are “doing it better.” If you look at business as an art form in itself, there are no better words to hear from a CEO than “we could grow bigger and faster, but that would compromise our ability to run company in a way that meets our vision and principles - and who wants to work at a place like that?”

Second, you mentioned at least twice that you wouldn’t be able to bear it if people close to you went to work for a big corporation. You recognize the suffering (even with the corner office and the new beemer) inherent in doing that and you, as someone who has seen the light, want to help others avoid it. Buddhists have a word for this sort of worldview called “bodhicitta,” which I guess makes you a sort of modern day Bodhisattva.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by Adam Brucker at April 4, 2007 5:32 PM

Chris and Tom, thanks for the thoughts. As the owner of a smallish graphic design and communications firm that recently moved to a four-day workweek, I've been giving 'purpose' and 'values' a lot of thought. Here's my most recent version of a purpose/values statement. My company's name is Element:

Sense of purpose...
Element exists to make a positive change in the world. We directly fund meaningful non-profit work, we provide work for free or reduced charge for a small group of clients who share common goals, and we seek clients who share our values.

We’re also committed to providing the best possible work environment for our own people. Competitive compensation, a casual work environment and four-day work weeks contribute to the happiness of our staff, which, in turn, contributes to the quality of our work.

Sense of place...
We don’t want to be a New York design firm. We don’t want to live in LA. We love Columbus. We’re a responsible, involved member of the local business community. We believe in local businesses, and are committed to helping them succeed.

Sense of humor...
We’re serious about what we do, but we don’t take ourselves too seriously. We’re committed to having fun, and to making the process as much fun as possible for our clients and vendors.

Sense of hospitality...
Element isn’t just a ‘company,’ it’s a venue, a place for our friends, family members, clients, vendors and colleagues to chat, to grab a cup of coffee, and to be both inspired and inspiring. As the owner and principal, I see myself more as ‘host’ than ‘CEO,’ and will continue to invest myself in that role as Element grows.

Posted by John McCollum at April 4, 2007 8:04 PM

This post is a little disappointing. All big companies are bad? Everyone that works for a large company is a slug with no motivation?

You wrote, "Large corporations are ideally structured to insulate the individual from any sense of anxiety about the market in which they operate." I almost fell of my chair. You're kidding, right? Everyone is sales, manufacturing, services, etc. all have targets with extreme pressure to deliver quarterly results often measured week-to-week. You say you worked in a large company; it must have been a real winner!

You miss the point that everyone doesn't have the same motivaions or enjoy the same types of rewards. There are large companies that allow you to do amazing things that you can only do with the resources available at that scale.

There are small companies that offer wonderful environments as well.

If you need to be led by the nose, there is no large or small company that will be rewarding. If you are motivated, you can have a rewarding experience in either. It isn't the size of the company but the size of your heart that matters.

Posted by Jeff at April 5, 2007 4:57 AM

Right on Jeff. C'mon, the rest of you, pull your heads out. It's up to YOU, not someone else. Three choices in a bad situation (big company or small): cry about it--easiest; run away and blame everyone and everything else for your failure--easy; change the situation from within--hard but most rewarding.

And seriously, the last thing the world needs are more "companies" run by corporate failures "designing" and "marketing" non value-added junk on their laptops while sitting in Starbucks all day.

OK, I put the target square on my forehead, so go ahead and beat me up!

I got work to do,

Red

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at April 5, 2007 6:19 AM

Red, Jeff, you both make good points. Generalizations lend themselves to scrutiny, and inevitably they will fail (Google is pretty big, and they're consistently rated as one of the best places to work - great environment). However, I feel that the real theme of this post rings true.

Regardless of the size of the company, one needs a reason to show up to work. Money is a great motivator, and enough for some. However, individuals with some other motivating factor are more inclined to put something else of themselves into their work ("work that matters" anyone?). I agree with Red that changing something from within is incredibly difficult (and rewarding), but why would anyone bother with the effort required without some strong motivation? Someone sitting in a cubicle at ReallyBigCorp might realize that the ROI on their effort is simply not worth it. However, with some "purpose beyond profit," that individual might contribute a little more elbow grease.

On one hand, building a personal Brand You! portfolio could be sufficient for some, but leadership can make all the difference in the rest of the workforce. If a leader has a vision of their purpose that they can convincingly share with others, then individuals may be more inclined to exert the extra effort to see that vision through. The knock on (most) big companies is really an observation of their seeming inability (unwillingness?) to drive towards a goal other than profit.

Posted by Nick Adams at April 5, 2007 7:51 AM

Jeff,
I take your point, but I think you missed mine ... Why would I struggle for those quarterly targets? Why would I give the extra 10% effort that is the differentiator for my business? I did earn a lot of money in my ex-large corporation, but it was not enough. My point is that most developed western societies are beyond the bottom three rungs on Maslows hierarchy and we are looking for more than material reward for a lifetimes effort. We all know too many unhappy "comfortably welll off" people.

Actually, you have illustrated my point well in that you, as many business managers do, appear to be confusing quarterly targets and the like with meaningful sense of purpose.

Posted by Chris Nel at April 5, 2007 8:10 AM

One of the important points here is that most small businesses are run by the owners of that business. They have a different motivation for running their business than most of the big guys.....

Someone made a point about Google being a great place to work. The company is being run by the founders of that company and it still has their pesonality stamped on it. My bet is that Google will become much less fun after the founders step out and "professional managers" step in. In my experience that's when big companies become less fun.

I find that it is not so much the size of the company, but is the founder or owners still running the company. If that is true, you often have at least a double if not triple bottom line. If the founder or owners (and by owners I mean controlling owners) don't run the company, then these companies have a tendency to become a single bottom line company. And, that is where they become less fun.

Posted by Josh Patrick at April 5, 2007 8:35 AM

Chris, I completely agree that it is most often NOT about money. You wrote, "Actually, you have illustrated my point well in that you, as many business managers do, appear to be confusing quarterly targets and the like with meaningful sense of purpose."

I didn't confuse quarterly targets with a meaningful sense of purpose. I was responding to your comment that people working at large companies are "insulated from any sense of anxiety about the market in which they operate." Not the case at all. These sales, manufacturing and services people live in the market and must deliver results, not sit around in some ivory tower (not that those don't exist!).

People work for many reasons (i.e. what will provide them with a sense of purpose?). You can find that in a large company or a small one. You are assuming everyone on earth has the same criteria as yours. It is simply not true.

Can you imagine how cool it would be to have worked at Bell Labs with all the tools, capabilities and investment funds that only a large company can provide?

If marketing/advertising tickles your fancy, can you imagine working with a $100M budget on a global campaign? Not often a small company opportunity.

If working on society's ills turns you on, the government competes with anyone on providing you with a place to really make a difference. As frustrating as the bureauracy might be, there are some things only governments can do. How about working on solving cancer or AIDS at the US National Institutes of Health.

Is the desire to meet people from other cultures something that would enrich your life? Try working for a large firm that operates around the globe with today's collaborative technologies allowing you to get to know people in India, China, Brazil,and Australia (Obviously for a US worker. I think the Aussies already know themselves).

I could go on forever. It's not the size of company but the opportunity you make for yourself. Some folks prefer to work in a small environment where you know everyone and there is little bureaucracy. That's terrific! But it doesn't float everone's boat.

Posted by Jeff at April 5, 2007 8:47 AM

Excellent point Josh. When the owner is leading the company, their vision is driving them. If they are a good leader, that vision is shared by others, who in turn want to work hard to accomplish it. In the absence of that additional motivation, the only driving factor becomes the money. When the "professional managers" step in, the original vision and motivation can all too easily be lost. I think that that makes a very strong case for the necessity of leadership development and a succession plan. When the owner hands over the reins, wouldn't it be great if it was to someone that shared the same values/vision/motivation that were originally so important?

Posted by Nick Adams at April 5, 2007 8:47 AM

This is an excellent post. We highlited it today in my Mid-Week Review of the Business Blogs at
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2007/04/05/4507-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx

There are two important points. One is that people like to have a purpose beyond profit and that the purpose can be the driver.

Second, is that the purpose needs to be clear to people in the group. Obviously, the bigger the group, the harder it is to do.

Posted by Wally Bock at April 5, 2007 10:11 AM

Still, however good small business may be, which is not my experience, is it not the case that large organizations, especially government organizations, from the Army to the DOJ, inevitably will exist, and must work with some degree of effectiveness and efficiency, including how they treat their employees?

Posted by wmmbb at April 5, 2007 10:30 AM

Chris - I think your point about purpose is broadly correct. However, I'm not so sure that it needs to be some kind of altruistic, "we're improving mankind" purpose. Also, I think you're being very naïve and idealistic when you say, "...everyone comes to work wanting to do a good job…" Leaving aside that some people really are lazy, malcontented or even disruptive the point here is that there are many people who, at best, want to come to work, put in 8 hours and then get away as quickly as possible without doing too much.

There's a theme running through some recent postings which goes, "Get out of the low-value work and focus on value-added, creative, cutting edge stuff." Fine, I've no argument against this - to an extent. Because wherever you live, someone's still got to stack the shelves in your local supermarket and someone's got to drive the delivery truck and someone's got to sweep the streets and someone's got to empty the bins and someone's got to process your credit card application etc etc etc. A lot of these folk simply won't accept that sweeping the road etc is all about, "...make(ing) positive changes to our world…" but they'd probably accept that if they're treated with some basic decency and given targets that are applicable to their own jobs and they're shielded from the corporate waffle then they'll have a bit of pride in doing a good job and providing the sort of service they'd expect from others.

A purpose beyond profit? Yes: for many people it's simply about doing a decent job, being treated decently and being paid decently. It's about dignity.

Posted by Mark JF at April 5, 2007 10:42 AM

I think that motivation and purpose is fueled internally for the most part. There is no denying though, that the processes that Big Cos require often cause lethargy and fatigue in their employees. Our individual motivation in process-controlled environments might very well wither over time; and many who entered service with aplomb often become monotonous cogs over time as they themselves become entwined in the process. The lifer with GM begins to accept business as usual after 15 years, often as a result of the bureaucratic processes implanted to make large organizations as efficient as possible.

This is changing now I think. Perhaps because of the love that new technologists have for the technology that they have a hand it creating (i.e. Google). Assembly line work has its place in the history books, although there are still some big cos that still incorporate assembly line leadership methods.

I know that for many of my colleagues in the USAF between 1992-1999, flying below the radar was a game often played; and it was easy to hide your slacking in such a large organization. But was it the Big Co. that sucked the motivation out of these people or was it their individual ethic nurtured over time within themselves? Can Big Cos or Small Cos for that matter fulfill an individuals basic needs, required, as Maslow says, before reaching self actualization? You can bring a horse to water...

In my international experience, I often witnessed that organizations which live by regulations often die by them.

I see both sides. But I tend to conclude that it is more difficult for Big Cos to foster a purpose-driven environment. Then, it might just have to do with the inherent difficulty of effectively communicating a vision and purpose to the masses. Our country is divided as a result of this difficulty. Consensus is more difficult to achieve in large groups.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at April 5, 2007 12:26 PM

Interesting post and thread. I tend to agree with most of what Jeff has said here. Generalization are dangerous. Enterprises whether they are large or small, commercial or nonprofit, church or state, can be good or bad.

Strong Leaders in any type or size of organization will create and communicate the vision that makes people want to be part of the enterprise and contribute to its success. Passion for a shared vision and a common purpose whether making widgets, teaching children or curing cancer is the effective driver. It's obviously tougher in a larger organization but this is Leadership.

Back in January Tom posted an audioblog entitled Excellence in Motion wherein he marvelled at the artistry exhibited by a Ralph Supermarket delivery man. http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=009523.php
"Excellence" can be found at all levels of an enterprise and in any type of job. The "purpose" the we are talking about here is sometimes as simple as being driven by personal pride and a desire to perform professionally as we assume Tom's deliveryman was doing.

I also agree with Mark JF, it's about dignity.

Thanks all for the interesting thread!

Posted by Peter A. Mello at April 5, 2007 10:29 PM

I agree Peter. Good leaders can effectively communicate a vision and even inspire a purpose-driven environment in both big and small companies. The larger the company, though, the higher number of ears upon which that message falls flat. Just human nature and the nature of mass communication and inference. The larger the crowd, the more opposing views, critical voices, personality conflicts, etc.

Leaders in large public corporations with shareholder voices in the background will have their shareholder purposes to consider as well, and for most shareholders, that purpose has to do with the bottom line. Not saying that good leaders can't balance both, but there is no denying that a 'true value' purpose is more difficult to achieve or communicate properly with shareholder noise in the background.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at April 6, 2007 12:39 PM

Tom - picking up your point, I'm convinced that a significant reason for the failure of large-company communication is that the stated purpose is often too vague or too removed from everyday life. "Generate world class returns" or "Provide shareholder value" might mean something to the C-suite and corporate execs (even if "world class" and "value" isn't defined!) but it's hardly an inspiring rallying call to the helpdesk or the warehouse that's 2,000 miles away or even on a different continent / culture.

More often than not, success boils down to local management providing an environment in which local staff feel a sense of purpose and which allows them and the company to flourish. Trying to find a value that everyone can unite around becomes more difficult the larger and more disparate an organisation becomes but picking a value that is focused on serving your customers strikes me as usually the best. If it means leaving out all the usual corporate bull about returns, value etc etc - good. A CEO needs to decide if he wants to send a message to umpteen thousands of people he's never going to meet or to a group of Directors and shareholders he will get regular opportunities to talk with. Let everyone realise that you've got to get happy, paying customers on board before all that other stuff kicks in sets the right tone for me.

Posted by Mark JF at April 6, 2007 4:01 PM

The story I'm reminded of is another old motivational chestnut: The bishop goes to the site of his new cathedral to see how work is progressing. He asks a bored-looking mason what he's doing, and the man says "Laying bricks." He asks a grumpy construction foreman what he's doing, and he replies "Trying to get these lazy @#$%s to do their jobs." After dozens of such conversations, he spots a kid who's hauling mortar; he's dirty, ragged, and doing a back-breaking job, but he has a big smile on his face. The bishop asks what he's doing, and he replies "Building a cathedral!"

I want to work for that kid's manager.

Posted by Paula at April 6, 2007 4:44 PM

Nice one Paula. Such attitudes are more than likely not fostered by some self-prescribed "good" leader, but by an internal positive outlook on life that was nurtured over years of gracious living and being appreciative for what life has to offer. That sort of outlook doesn't occur as a result of an in-house training seminar. If only we could bottle it!

Amen!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at April 6, 2007 6:59 PM

This is the CORE..I am working alot on purpose now.

Posted by Raimo van der KLein at April 13, 2007 5:42 PM