Dan Erwin

Quotation of the Week: George Will

I've been waiting months for some intelligent person to comment that being President of the US and being a business CEO are two different animals. But I must confess my surprise to read Republican George Will's column this morning and finding the insight for all to read. And with some clarity.

Today’s Republican contest has become a binary choice between two similarly miscast candidates. Mitt Romney cannot convince voters that he understands the difference between business and politics, between being a CEO and the president. To bring economic rationality to an underperforming economic entity requires understanding a market segment. To bring confidence to a discouraged nation requires celebrating its history and sketching an inspiring destiny this history has presaged. 

Will assumes a lot in his statement. Namely that voters understand the difference between business and politics. Voter credibility is a big leap for me when I'm unconvinced that most journalists understand the distinction, much less the public.

I'm the last person anyone could label a Luddite, but the removal of civics courses from most school systems has left much of the population unaware of political processes. The distinction between president and CEO is a strategic case in point. The differences and demands are made clear by the processes the founding fathers built into the body politic. I'm quite certain that some sort of schooling would be of value to the populace, even in this technological age. Otherwise, politics and government will be demagogued by the media and the irresponsible forever.

How Leaders Kill the Joy of Work

Senior executives routinely undermine creativity, productivity, and commitment by damaging the inner work lives of their employees,” say Harvard’s Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer. Amabile and her associates have successfully studied the inner work life of employees. And often, the picture is not very pretty.

These aren’t union leaders. This is management. The sample isn’t from the factory floor or your local public school. No. These are business professionals. The objective of the research was to better understand the role of upper-level management. To get at that objective, Amabile and Kramer dug back into 12,000 electronic diaries from dozens of professionals working on important innovation projects at seven North American companies. They selected only entries from diarists who mentioned bosses—868 narratives in all.

Progress: Key to meaningful work
As the researchers remind us, understanding the traps should help execs determine whether they risk falling into some of the traps themselves—unknowingly. And dragging their organization into the abyss with them.

In their book, The Progress Principle, Amabile and Kramer argue that managers routinely—and unwittingly—undermine the meaningfulness of work for their subordinates through “everyday words and actions.” They found “that of all the events that can deeply engage people in their jobs, the single most important is making progress in meaningful work.” So, they wanted to see whether meaningful progress is on the radar screen. In survey research of 669 managers at all level from dozens of companies and industries around the world, they sought to rank five employee motivators: incentives, recognition, clear goals, interpersonal support, and progress in the work.

Their conclusion, reported in the McKinsey Journal, reveals that most managers and execs don’t act as though progress matters to their direct reports. Only 8 percent of senior executives ranked progress as the most important motivator. Had they chosen randomly, 20 percent would have done so. In short, our survey showed that most executives don’t understand the power of progress in meaningful work. And the traps revealed by the diaries suggest that most executives don’t act as though progress matters.

But back to the first research. The study revealed four traps that leaders fall into—often inadvertently.

• Mediocrity signals. The diaries that the researchers studied were full of references to innovation. Yet, those senior managers were so focused on cost savings that they repeatedly negated their teams’ autonomy dictating cost reduction goals that were primary. By the end of the diary reports, employees were “completely disengaged.” Mediocrity was also signaled by top managers’ risk aversion.
• Strategic ‘attention deficit disorder.’ A second trap, far too familiar for those of us who’ve done much consulting, was starting and then abandoning initiatives, making for an attention deficit disorder. What workers call “the fad of the day.” Of course, if execs don’t have their act together on where the organization is heading, the troops will quickly lose the joy of work.
• Corporate Keystone Kops. You remember those Keystone Kops from the silent films—fictional policemen, running around in circles and bashing each other on the head. Some execs contribute to the “comedy” by failing to hold support organizations accountable, overly complex reporting structures and last minute changes. A chronic indecisiveness.
• Misbegotten ‘big, hairy, audacious goals.’ It’s important for organizations to give strategic direction, audacious, relevant goals, articulated in a way connects with peoples’ values and emotions. (Google’s stated mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” In contrast, the researchers found that goals are stated in ways that seem unattainable and vague, even empty.

What to do?
Although Amabile and Kramer don’t address it head on, this is a masterful study of the creation of strong motivation. Think about that subtext: leaders must create forward momentum in meaningful work. Leaders who can provide meaningful work for their employees are on the road to success.

FYI: As I’ve worked through these recommendations, thought over their implications and seen their immense relevance, four issues kept cropping up in my ever-busy gray matter:

1. The notion of meaningful work has a long history, dating from the Reformation. Martin Luther and John Calvin both spoke to the importance of meaningful work in ways that haven’t been on our 20^th and 21st century radar screen. But some workers are caught in meaningless work. Flipping burgers is little more than a few bucks in the pocket of a teen-ager or poorly-educated adult.
2. Amabile and Kramer’s conclusion are spot-on. They couldn’t be more accurate. On those occasions where they’ve been implemented, the productivity rates skyrocket.
3. Most leaders don’t think in terms of the subjective or of soft power. Yet when they do, success is often inevitable.
4. When someone asks me why, at my age, I haven’t retired, I have one answer. “I’m having too much fun. My contributions have been exceedingly meaningful for me as well as for others. Why would I want to retire?” Duhhhhhh.

Want to motivate your employees? Make sure their work is meaningful.

Photo from Flickr: Intermayer

What the Hell Is Water?

Two young fish are swimming downstream. On the way down, they meet a wise old fish. “Morning boys,” he says. “How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and asks, “What the hell is water?” The point of David Foster Wallace’s little fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.  Indeed, in the day to day trenches of business existence, the most important issues to deal with are often missed. 

For example, the single best test for assessing development needs is either completely unknown or beyond the skill set of a single manager. The fact of the matter is a huge majority of managers and execs initially question the validity of this test, which is neither a paper test nor a 360 feedback test. 

Malicious behavior?
If the behavior of an individual consistently (3 or 4 times) fails to achieve the expected level of performance there are three possible reasons. In 1% of the time, the person is malicious and is essentially attempting to screw somebody or sabotage the organization. Malicious behavior becomes obvious fairly soon, but it’s rarely seen today because of the need for job security. In 2 – 3% of the time, the person is thoughtless or careless. 

But in 95 – 96% of the time the failure is because the person simply lacks the tools in his or her toolkit to carry it off. The test is quite simple: can a person deliver what she’s promised or committed to? If she has failed to deliver on her practice or performance three or more times, she lacks the necessary tools. And 95 – 96% of the time you’re staring at an obvious developmental need. That’s as a good a developmental assessment you’re ever going to get. 

A surprisingly large number of people have difficulty believing this statistic. Execs, especially, can’t believe that someone lacks the tools to do such and such. . . . However, since today’s manufacturing employee may well need to know calculus to operate a machine on the factory floor, or the ability to manipulate and interpret sophisticated data monstrosities at corporate headquarters, you’re going to see a lot more failures in the future. These obvious failures may be the inability to resolve a recurring work breakdown, to calm passengers while turning a plane around in a storm, to complete a client’s website on time and with little to no errors, or to devise algorithms to make sense out of regular incoming data. 

I’ve gone through the following conversation with managers on this issue an infinite number of times. “You’re telling me he lacks the tools?” Yeah, if he’s consistently failed to achieve that objective. “I can’t believe that. He’s been around the barn.” OK. What makes you think that his experience means that he has the tools? “Well, he should have the tools.” Shoulda, woulda, coulda. But what actual data do you have backing up your conclusion? (silence) “I have no real data.” No data, no performance. That should always be your test. Period.  

And then there’s typically a two to three week time-lag in which the manager wants to think about the conclusion I’m forcing on her. “I’ve been thinking about your test. I think it’s accurate. . . but I don’t like it.” I understand. But don’t forget it! 

 FYI: It’ll take three more observed failures of other people before the manager or exec actually believes the rule and puts it to work. And some never get there. You can count on that, too. 

Weird reasoning
For some reason people don’t get this rule immediately or easily. The reason people don’t immediately get this rule is the belief that if someone can talk about something she can also do that something. This is false reasoning, though understandable. I can talk about how to play the oboe, the fingering, the breathing, how to place my mouth on the mouthpiece and read the music. But I sure as hell can’t play the oboe. And you wouldn’t want to be around if I tried. It’s what Pfeffer and Sutton call the “knowing-doing gap:” the inability to turn knowledge into action.   

This is not a moral issue. The worker doesn’t intend to lie. She’s often plainly unaware. Most people actually think that if they can talk about something, they can do it. Don’t waste your time drawing negative conclusions about that person. We all get caught in the problem. The lack of tools and people’s disbelief that that’s impossible happens at the lowest levels and it happens also at the highest levels—all the way up to the CEO. 

BTW: I know that we all have difficulty holding two ideas in our head at the same time. But I have also found that we can apply the rule to the assessment of our own personal developmental needs. 

What to do?
If you’re a manager, coach, coach and coach the person some more. And put the person in a work setting where they’ll get the opportunity to learn the behavior. Of course you may ask whether you want to invest that much in a person. I can’t answer that question for you. You may coach him, bring in a mentor or consultant, move the person around, put him in another job or terminate him. Execs really, really hate to terminate someone for performance issues. That means that those failures may hang around for awhile, until the exec finally decides to let the person go. And that could be six months to a year or longer, sometimes years. Unless there’s a major recession cutback, a significant reorganization, or, well . . . bankruptcy. 

In the meantime, eat your peas, don’t gripe, and circumvent as much as you can without getting in trouble. And don’t forget that that’s the only foolproof, developmental assessment test.

A Tour de Force: "Obama Explained," by James Fallows

Just how much power does the presidency really offer? Any president, not just Obama, but Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Reagan? The March issue of the Atlantic’s article on the political, social and economic powers of the presidency is the finest piece of analysis we’ll see in a long time. It continues to amaze me that so many of the expectations about a president, any president, are bogus. Can a president actually create jobs in the short-term? Six months to a year-and-a- half? That’s a completely counterfeit notion from the get-go. Can the president create jobs on a long term basis through policy decisions? You bet your sweet bippy he can.

James Fallows sets about to answer that big set of presidential questions--and does an absolutely masterful job. His article is a superb case of reality deflowering stupid ideals and politics-as-usual. This is as close to civic accuracy as you’re going to see in a long time.

Sobering realities
Take for example, Fallows statement, well into the article, regarding the “sobering realities of the modern White House.”

The sobering realities of the modern White House are: All presidents are unsuited to office, and therefore all presidents fail in certain crucial aspects of the job. All betray their supporters and provoke bitter criticism from their own side at some point in their term. And all are mis-assessed while in office, for reasons that typically depend more on luck and historical accident than on factors within their control.

Maybe that shouldn’t be, or maybe you don’t like that, but them’s the facts, buddy.

Big Surprises
What are the biggest surprises any new president faces? Here’s what one person with extensive nation-level experience said: The biggest surprise for any new president is the strain placed upon the “decision-making muscle,” since the choices that come upon him every day are precisely those the rest of the government has not been able to resolve. The question for someone whose only real executive training has been the management of his campaign is “how quickly that muscle will develop and improve”; as it is developing, the instincts and institutional memory of those around him inevitably have great effect. Obama frequently emphasizes how many troubles he faced as soon as he took office. The real problem, for an inexperienced president, is that he had to make so many big decisions so fast. How tough to get on Wall Street; how hard to push for extra stimulus; how much time to give Congress to mull health-care plans; how much to trust the Republicans to cooperate; how long to delay on energy and environmental plans—these are just some of the choices Obama had to make about domestic affairs.

Faced with tough opposition
What’s the role of the opposition? Fallows goes back to a letter that James H. Rowe, a Harvard –trained lawyer who had been Oliver Wendell Holmes’s last law clerk, and after World War II was a young official at the Bureau of the Budget, wrote to President Harry Truman soon after the midterm elections of 1946. In that election, Republicans gained 55 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, to take control of Congress. The “simple fact” about most deals with a congressional opposition is that they “just won’t work under the American two-party system.”

How does Fallows read this letter?

And so Rowe offers his recommendation. With legislative ambitions blocked, with many appointments left to languish, with rear-guard battles under way to uphold vetoes and fend off investigation, a president should resort to the only tool that is uniquely his: the ability to speak to all of the public. He should prepare the ground by sounding reasonable and conciliatory, in light of an unquenchable if unrealistic belief that parties should be able to get along. (“Public demand for bipartisan cooperation will probably continue. The realpolitik of the situation requires that there be some gestures toward cooperation.”) Then, with his bona fides established, the president can move into the next election, making a clear case for his side.

Imbibing this article and its spirit is an exceedingly worthwhile experience. You can download the entire Atlantic article here: Obama Explained. It’ll provide a backdrop for the rest of this year—and hopefully, the coming four years of the Obama presidency.

The Most Frustrating, Confusing, Dangerous, Single Word in Business and Journalism

It’s amazing how a single, coordinating conjunction can impact our behavior and thinking. To a surprising degree, the majority of people don’t realize the power of this single word. Once that conjunction is pronounced or written, they become putty in the hands of the user. Indeed, a single word can be used to persuade us, even against our interests, through what Edward Bernays, the founder of public relations, called the “engineering of consent.”

How does a single word gain such power over us? Simple. Our memories are faulty. Our perceptions are partial or biased. Our interpretations of the same events differ. And we draw differing conclusions from experiences. Because of these limitations, we are vulnerable and open to the word of another. A single word exploits our faulty memories, our limited perceptions, our prejudices, inferences and predictions. Understanding how this term can slip up on you will help you avoid work fears, show you how to turn a conversation around, give balance to your understanding of important financial or political matters and think more critically about what’s going on. 

I’m not referring to that overly familiar, favorite four letter “f . . . “ expletive that displays the limits of dumb, movie-action characters’ gray matter.  Instead, I’m referring to that single, damnable, three-letter conjunction, “but.”

Think I’m making too much out of a conjunction? Here’s an exercise for you. Finish each sentence after the conjunction but with your own experiences or ideas and then analyze your emotions from that test.

You did a good job, but. . .

I’d like to go out with you, but. . .

The President’s new health care policy is a start, but. . .

It’s a possible strategy, but. . .

Newt Gingrich is very intelligent, but. . .

Jean can usually be counted on to support you, but. . .

Some meanings    

The conjunction has a storied background, coming out of the Old English, the Old High German and even the Old Norse. As language has evolved, the word takes on two related meanings. First, it’s a quick way to say that something is true (or not true), except for the fact. . . “You did a good job on this project, but it really lacks pizzaz.”  

The conjunction also is used in opposition to a first statement. “Your broker acts as though he’s really very smart, but his results don’t support that.” “The defendant is innocent, but pleads guilty to avoid the risk of greater punishment.” Both definitions show how the conjunction creates a conflict, qualifying and reframing the previous statement by placing limitations upon the initial sentence substance.   

Persuasion strategy

As I’ve described the approach to using the conjunction, the persuasion process is a form of what we call sequential persuasion. When applied to sales, it’s a sneaky way of getting your foot into the doorway. Some salespeople mention your neighbors by name, some ask for a glass of water, or some promise they’re not going to try to sell you anything.

When the sequential model is applied to our conjunction situation, it’s compressed into a single sentence. It begins with a statement that you may agree or disagree with, disrupts that statement and then reframes the issue. Journalists, of course, can’t focus on the individual. So they make a widely recognized statement, disrupt it with the conjunction, and then reframe the issue.

A page of Jeff Pfeffer’s book, Power, happened to be open as I was writing. He summarizes his first chapter with a blatant use of the power of disruption by conjunction and reframing. He argues that power and influence entail doing a good job and making certain those in power notice you, “but performance by itself is seldom sufficient, and in some instances, may not even be necessary.”  

Extensive research supports this process. In a series of studies, Davis and Knowles (1999) researched different methods for the sale of Christmas cards sold by a charitable organization. Sometimes the experimenter would include a subtle error, such as “the price is 300 pennies. . .  I mean 3 dollars.” Informing the participants the cards are a bargain increased the likelihood of purchases, but only if the statement followed the reference to 300 pennies. In fact, this slip virtually doubled sales in some situations.

Ferris, Das and Pruyn (2004) also verified the worthwhileness of this technique. Furthermore, they found that technique often amplified its benefits. In study after study, confusion techniques have been shown to distract attention from the earlier statement. Additional research dating from as late as 2007 found that disruption techniques are exceptionally successful in changing attitudes. The disrupt/reframe approach cultivates a more candid, trusting relationship. In general, people like to demonstrate they are consistent over time and, therefore, like to acquiesce to subsequent information or demands. In short, the disrupt-then-reframe tactic diverts people from resisting the new idea or request.

More than awareness

It’s obviously important to learn about persuasion because it enhances your own knowledge and awareness of the various processes. Knowledge is power, as they say.

More significantly, learning how the conjunction but and the disruption/reframe techniques work serves a defensive function. I say this with full awareness that people tend to underestimate the influence of persuasion on themselves and overestimate its effects on others, a process known as the third-person effect. Thus, you may be more defenseless than you realize.

When the strategy is being used on you, put your brain in gear. One strategy is to go back to the first clause of the sentence and deal with it before you get suckered by the disrupt/reframe technique.

Take one of the sentences from above where your boss tells you, “You did a good job on this project, but I need more timeliness in the future.” Thank your boss for the feedback, and go back to the first clause. “I recognize the project was late, but what, specifically, was especially effective on this project?” You’re after more information, but you’re also disrupting your boss’s agenda. Get him to discuss your fine work, perhaps even explaining why the work took more time than anticipated or the number of priorities you’re dealing with. And then go back to the subject of timeliness, apologizing, and checking with him and his priorities procedures, all of which involve the timeliness issue. (Notice that I used disruption/reframing to deal with another’s disruption/reframing.)

When I encounter the technique in the statements of journalists or pundits regarding a subject of interest to me, the bells go off. My thinking goes to the entire subject, not merely the reframing. That approach to critical thinking is highly informative, enabling me to be more accurate in both my thinking and decision making.

The conjunction is frustrating because it often catches you off guard. Confusing, because you have to handle multiple ideas simultaneously. And dangerous, because it’s a persuasive strategy designed to lead you astray.

The conjunction but belongs to the same category of language as the well understood by the way (BTW). They’re both signals that we need to watch very carefully.

Photo: Flickr.com, Canadian

Facebook's Values as the New Normal

As part of the IPO filing for Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg laid out a set of company values. They are illuminating, especially when compared to the values of older, more mature firms: the Facebook values serve as a 21^st century heads-up for firms focused on technology and Generation Y. They are a pointer for the “new normal.”

I emphasize the notion of “pointer” because although corporate values put the public face on a company, they also reinforce the employee values that they intend to reward. It’s noteworthy that  Zuckerberg’s values are readily considered to be, as Michael Wolff of The Guardian wrote, “naïve or other-planetary.” But Wolff is the real naif because ultimately value statements can be exceptionally useful—something that few journalists or companies seem to understand.  And that’s no more true in organizations than in the smallest public organization, the family. (Why is it so many older, more experienced journalists and execs often seem to have a difficult time with youthful success?)

Values statements create a rhetorical world, give order and direction to behaviors, and reduce the internal corporate chaos that is inevitable in today’s highly diverse, rapidly changing corporations. Values are cultural fictions, designed to heighten the understanding of “who we are,” foster behavioral sensibilities and impact not only the bottom line, but also define the boundaries of ethical and social responsibility. (Think Fiddler on the Roof’s Tevye and his “traditions.”) Cultural fictions are usually elastic concepts capable of reinterpretation—and that, as anyone who’s seen The Social Network knows, is true of these values. Still, the simple-minded jerk who thinks that there’s talk and then there’s action is out of touch with reality. Language is action. The belief that there is a distinction between talk and action is false. Sure, some talk is a waste of time. But a lot of work is also a waste of time. In short the real business of business is talk and that’s the subtext of Zuckerberg’s statement—in many different ways.  

Zuckerberg explained Facebook’s philosophy in terms of five core values.

1. Focus on impact. Recognizing the crises of the data explosion, with this value Zuckerberg emphasizes the importance of priority issues. As he emphasizes, a lot of companies and people waste time on issues that may need resolution but fail to resolve the really serious problems.
2. Move fast. Clearly the firm worries about the fear of mistakes. Thus, their proverb, “move fast and break things,” and “better done than perfect,” a riff on Voltaire’s popular statement that perfect is the enemy of the good.”
3. Be bold. In short, this is what he thinks about risk in a world that is changing so quickly. Again, a proverb: “The riskiest thing is to take no risks.”
4. Be open. The strategy of openness is key to their competitive success. It is viewed as an absolute need if the company is to continue to make effective decisions and have the greatest impact.
5. Build social value. Zuckerberg ignores the potential regulatory issues of making the world more open and connected. Instead, he goes for social responsibility and its transforming power. It’s amusing to notice that journalists (see the NYTimes or Wall Street Journal, etc.) continually chide him for overstepping the bounds between social value and corporate value. I suspect that he’s been coached to stay out of that black pit. After all, silence goes a long way toward silencing potential detractors.  

 FYI:  Zuckerberg’s statements about social value are an accurate representation of his earlier comments that the public and especially journalists don’t understand that his interests and business are not primarily about money. That’s an exceptionally wise truism, supported by overwhelming research. It finds, for example, that Goldman Sachs executives are more interested in power than money. Indeed, when the rubber hits the road, executives are a lot more interested in their power than in the survival of their company. Plenty of execs deny both those ideas. I usually roll my eyes and suggest they think a bit deeper.

Kissinger is famous for declaring that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. But Kissinger’s comment refers to people power, the kind of magisterial power that was typical of his generation. In contrast, Generation-Y, reflecting Zuckerberg’s “hacker philosophy,” is strongly oriented to intellectual power. The rewards come from intellectual smarts far more than people power. When the game is tied to intellectual power rather than people power, hierarchies get flattened. That makes collaboration far more possible—and inevitable. Those distinctive generational differences bode well for the continued superiority of US business innovation. 

Values, proverbs and organizational behavior

Although Zuckerberg’s letter did not reveal a proverb for every value, my assumption is that they’re floating in the Facebook ether. Proverbs--and company stories--are key to understanding a firm and even predicting a firm’s success or failure. Proverbs do not come into existence quickly, nor by executive fiat, and certainly not by slap-dash thinking. As anyone with a theological or rhetorical understanding recognizes, proverbs are the accumulated wisdom of a people or an organization—in short, pithy form. They are the result of a lot of experience, reflection, and conversations--a lot of talk. They’ve been tried on by employees and managers, revised, rephrased, and finally institutionalized.  Proverbs are inevitably created after the fact. In other words, they only surface after conflicted experiences which force an organization to give thought to where it’s been, what it’s learned, how to succeed, and who it is. Proverbs make demands of people. Although I’ve worked all over America, none of our major firms have inculcated their culture with much in the way of proverbs. Thus, Zuckerberg’s proverbs, growing out of his core values, are highly indicative of the actual behavior of his organization.

How do 21^st century values differ from the past?

Facebook’s values differ significantly from older, more mature firms. In a comparison with GM, Fidelity Investors and 3M, a cursory study revealed a number of significant value distinctions—and not merely those tied to their specific industries.

All three firms emphasize the importance of integrity, respect and honesty in the workplace and with customers. GM builds its entire values statement around personal integrity, referring to the Global Sullivan Principles created as a means for dealing with apartheid. Amazing that they were adopted as late as 1999. By that time, it was well known that the Sullivan Principles had little impact. They are essentially protective of the firm rather than behaviorally assertive for its employees. They emphasize staying within the law and function, in my mind, as a CYA, public relations instrument. Surprisingly, 3M’s sound little different than GM, emphasizing legal and ethical business conduct. The CEO positions the values as a means of enhancing the firm’s reputation. Fidelity is similar to GM and 3M, however, its values statement begins by stressing long-term relations (they are a financial planning firm, not a brokerage) and a “hunger for innovation.”

These 20^th century statements all give advice in such abstract form that it is difficult to take action, yet they are written as though that is not the case. Ultimately, rather than provide insight into how, specifically, to behave, they are written at a level of inference that is not operational. They make possible a lot of defensive routines, fancy footwork and malaise. In short, they are not a tool of governance. I’m not certain what they are, but they ain’t governance.

In profound contrast, Facebook’s values are a basic tool of governance. The level of abstraction is limited, and the proverbs focus on daily behavior. They are lacking in gobbledygook and as straightforward as rhetorically possible. They reinforce specific, concrete behaviors. An employee knows what he/she should doing. And significantly, they open the door to risk, creativity and innovation, something that the last century’s values will not impact.

They are as simple-minded as a parent saying to her high-schooler, “get your homework done, pick up your room, practice your flute, fill the dishwasher or take out the trash, and the rest of the evening is yours--except be in bed by 10:30.” That kind of family governance creates the boundaries for social, academic and career success. Similarly, Facebook’s values, “focus on impact, move fast, take risks,” etc., create specific boundaries for personal success. The parent and the organization that enforces definitive values will inevitably gain far better results than the organization or the parent that says “be good, be nice and don’t get into trouble.” It’s not a stretch to say that the focus of GM, 3M and Fidelity’s values are fundamentally, “don’t get into trouble.” They are a wasted tool. 

So, Mr. Wolff, Zuckerberg’s values are other-planetary? Nahhh. They’re a different animal than anything else you’ve ever seen. They won’t protect Facebook from regulatory issues, but unlike old-fashioned value statements of the 20^th century, they’re not meant to. They’re brilliant and they obviously get the important jobs done. 

Photo from Flickr: Girisimicinin Galaksi Rehben