Being human

My last post got me thinking. I haven't changed my mind: I still think we're more than capable of not only suppressing ourselves, but of holding ourselves back and getting ourselves into situations and circumstances that we'd much rather avoid. What is more, we're species that seems to delight more in fixing the blame than fixing the problem, and that gives me pause for thought as well.

Putting aside whatever beliefs that might comfort us and merely looking at the facts as they present themselves, it would appear that our circumstances are strange enough. One day, without knowing really how or why we find ourselves, well, really just kind of thrown into the think of things, just kind of thrown into life. (For you philosophers, this is what Heidegger calls Geworfenheit, and it's a big part of his whole mode of thinking.) We're just here, and by all appearances for no apparent reason at all. It's just a matter of happenstance. One day we simply wake up and here we are. Yippee!

We're not given any kind of operator's manual or book of instructions. It takes us years to develop even the crudest of theories as to why we might possibly be here. And through a lot of trial and error (whereby I personally think I had more of the latter than the former), we sort of figure out how things work, and try to get through the best we can. At least I'm ready to give everyone, at this point, the benefit of the doubt. How strange is that? What? The benefit of the doubt? No, that we simply try to get through life the best we can. There's not much more than that.

We find out quickly that there are some things we absolutely need (food, clothing, shelter, attention, help), there other things we want (recognition, something meaningful to do, security, friends), and there are some things we would just like to have (oh, shiny or pretty things, extra things, maybe things others don't have). What is more, if we take a moment and look around, no matter where we are in the world, if we think about others in these terms, we just as quickly realize that we all pretty much have this much in common.

Stripped to its essential core, every single human being on this planet is really confronted with the same requirements (needs, wants, and desires) and the same point of departure (not knowing why we're really here or how we got here in the first place). Yes, every single one of us, without exception. Every single one. This is what we share. This is -- in simplest terms -- what we are as human beings.

But, there is something else that all of share as well, namely the nagging suspicion that there must be more to it all than this.

Regardless of what we think that "more" can or should be, we would do well to simply recall to mind that when you get right down to it, we have more in common with our fellow human beings that traits that make us different. It is really worth keeping in mind.

We're all in this together

It is the universality of the story, it's long-entrenched position in our Western culture that gives the story its poignancy. The digital notion of equality and the analog notion of freedom are constantly working with and against each other to shape and direct our lives. We are continually at the center of the interaction of these two forces.

The universality of the story also lies in the fact that it describes each and every one of us, as we are, here and now. Equality tells us that everyone is more or less entitled to the same kinds of things (and I'm not talking about possessions here ... that's a completely different issue that we may get to later), ideals, hopes, dreams, feelings of safety, security, health and more. Freedom tells us that it's not an all or nothing game, there are degrees of freedom: children are not as free as their parents, nor should they be, but they should be raised to be able to deal with freedom. In some situations, like the movie theater referred to earlier, we must limit our freedom ourselves. One way to think of it is that your own freedom stops where the next person's freedom starts. Equality reminds us that we're not naturally deserving of any more of it than anyone else. To put it another way: we're all in the same boat together.

As such, it is necessary that we find a way (or ways) to accommodate one another. We need to work with each other, not against each other to achieve common goals. In our boat metaphor, what benefits one of us (be she look out in the front or the guy holding the rudder in the back), benefits all of us.

What is particularly tricky (and intriguing) about the situation is that at different times for different reasons, individuals may have different needs, and this is part of the equation as well. Being in it all together does not mean that there are no reasonable or worthy differences that shouldn't be accommodated, for there are, and there should be.

The question that springs to my mind is, however, who decides and how?

Business 101b

Turning one's thinking around isn't really as difficult as most would make it out to be. You simply need to take a step back, move slightly to the side, and then take a new look at the old idea. Failing that, sometimes a gentle nudge from without can help. Let's see:

Peter Drucker, the grandfather of American business theory, maintained that the purpose of a business (organization) is to satisfy needs in markets. I know that last word is a red flag for some, but let's keep it simple: by market I mean any "place" (real or virtual) where value is exchanged. This can be a swap meet, a flea market, an online bartering site or a commercial or industrial trade sector, or more.

In a world as complex as ours is today, this definition of purpose easily accommodates both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. If there is a need for, say, computers and you have a business than makes them, then you are satisfying that need. If there is a need for charitable assistance for homeless people, then if you organize to do that, you are satisfying that need. If there is a need for government oversight in some area of the economy, then that agency, by performing its function, satisfies a need. Now that everyone is accounted for, we can move on to more meaningful topics like strategy, operational efficiency, environmental effectiveness or anything else that might help us get more out of what we do ... and by "more", I certainly don't mean just money.

Profit is money, so if the primary purpose of business is profit maximization, then you are trying to maximize your money. It follows, however, that if this is your first purpose, any other purpose you have can be, at best, second or lower. And it is here that too many businesses become disingenuous and start losing credibility in many people's eyes ... and rightfully so. You can claim that "product quality" or "customer satisfaction" or "the health of the patient" is paramount, but if you believe the mantra, you are not telling the truth. Profit maximization means nothing less than money first, and everything else comes after that. The order in which they come is really not all that important, for what's important is money. Naturally this does not and cannot work for not-for-profit organizations, but over the long-term it's not good for for-profit businesses either. At some point the customer starts asking him or herself what their getting for their money. Theirs is less; the businesses is more.

I would be the last person to maintain that money isn't important. Just because it isn't the absolute top priority doesn't mean it has no priority at all or that we shouldn't care about it. Quite the contrary. It is essential for businesses to strive for sustainability, to ensure their long-term existence, not just for their owners, but for the employees, their families, the community and any other stakeholder in the business. In order to do this, it is absolutely necessary to take in more than you spend. This is just commonsense housekeeping. Making profit the measure of success, though, defeats this purpose because the needs that should be satsified by organizations become relegated to second-class status, then ignored, then forgotten.

We need a new measure of success, but we won't be able to find one till we are ready to give up on ideas that have proved themselves wrong. Profit-maximization is one of them. It's time to give another idea a chance.