Interesting topic. The "greater good" -- isn't this the "values" we were taught as kids. Just the other day, my nephew didn't want to share his toy with my niece -- he was punished and told to stand in the corner for 2-minutes. We "adults" teach our kids and grandkids this but we don't live by it. So why even teach such "good behavior" skills if we don't take control of the actions ourselves. We are hypocrits! Do as we say and not as we do! Sadly, as I have gotten older, I'm finding that morals and values don't count. Why? Because morals and values require us to do what is difficult -- to do the right thing! To go beyond the dollar and show that your "soul" cannot be purchased. Sadly the corporate world is made up of individuals that believe in the "me world" and not in the "we world". The wrong people are in charge because of "trickle-down" management policy of promoting those that are so called "loyalist" -- don't think -- just do as I say! A padded pocket seems to do the trick the majority of the time. Corporate America doesn't want an intelligent person -- they want a follower -- it is easier on the mind and offers management to hit the golf course earlier. A policy of "C-Y-A" -- which basically means, "you can trust me if you throw money at me!" Where does this lead? Instant rewards for short term goals but what about long term goals? No one cares. If long term goals mattered then we would have Social Security funded and have a greater savings than spending policy. I'm not looking for a Utopia -- just to avoid the dangerous direction corporate America is traveling. We need grown-ups running companies -- not children!

I'd say that "Conscientious" is neither reasonable, nor realistic.

Reasonable because:

He says "I'm motivated by the group goal--shouldn't everybody be?"

He makes not even a blink to the fact that most people are part of multiple groups, such as immediate family, extended family, religious group, social peers, professional association, work group, employer. And, of course, there is no guarantee that the goals of all these groups will not be in conflict with each other, much less all in sync.

He seems to totally deny any validity to motivations of one's self interest. I don't buy it. While ethical behavior demands that we don't put our own interests at the top of every list, denying the validity of self interest altogether is also a problem. In addition, it also negates the concept of personal responsibility, which is not a terribly good for society as a whole. (Another group I didn't mention earlier.) After all, it's totally unreasonable to expect people to take responsibility for their actions, much less for their well being at any level, if it is never legitimate be motivated by self-interest.

He seems to assume that the group goal is always valid, reasonable and ethical. Not true.

He is unrealistic because:

He can't accept the fact that many people are self interested, some to the point of total lack of ethics.

It doesn't seem to occur to him that "the reasonable thing" and "the greater good" can be defined in many different ways.

He doesn't allow for the possibility that groups that SHOULD be in sync, might not (eg work group and employer).

He assumes that even the people who put group commitment over personal motivation will choose the same group that he will. Of course, this could just be a function of not recognizing the existence of the different groups.

I agree with Chip - but I'm one of the conscientious types also. I tell management that a server is going to fail, soon. In a previous job and instance, I was ignored, and it failed, and they lost two days of billing. THEN I was able to buy servers so I could fail over. What we conscientious types have to learn to do is to describe the 'greater good' in such a way that it's also a good for the dominators - save them grief, embarassment, lost bonuses, etc.

Watch out for ALTRUISTS (people who are out for your best interests). If you ever meet one, grab your wallet and get out.

If you're really as conscientious as you say, you owe it to everyone in your organization to effectively promote that perception, and protect yourself.

There's no way to not play politics. People who try just play badly.

You can wise up without selling out.

If you're clever you'll find ways to more effectively promote your message/point of view, without offending your sensibilities or ethics.

Jeez, Chip, I'm thinking you're mixing your environments. In a society and a family and a bowling team we don't want everyone looking out for number one, although in the least disfunctional of those entities, what is best for the group IS best, overall, for the individual.
But business isn't like that. You can't easily leave your family or society (and just try switching bowling teams in the middle of the season!) but you CAN change your job. The assumption is that you are at the job because it is best for you. You didn't take the job because you wanted to further the goals of Mega Corporation, you took the job because you wanted to eat and make your house payment.
So, sure, there are different behaviors that are expected depending on the environment. There are even different behaviors expected depending on the corporate environment.
But we still want your nephew to learn that it is important to share. If he doesn't learn that he becomes what we call a sociopath.

Bob - I agree with your observations, but IMHO, your response did not provide Conscientious with a strategy to function in the "Dominator" environment. The culture of each company is unique, and it seems that Conscientious is working in a company which does not reward or encourage behaviors such as cooperation and sacrifice for the "greater good". Can one person change the company culture? Not drastically, but here are some things that Conscientious could do which might promote "greater good" thinking in his company:
1. Verify you know and understand the company's mission statement, goals & objectives which are the official definition of "greater good".
2. Set an example for others and work for the greater good even if your co-workers do not.
3. If co-workers are not working for the greater good, ask how their actions relate to the company's mission statement, goals & objectives.
4. When dealing with employees in other departments, act as if you expect them to cooperate and work towards the greater good. If necessary, remind them that you have a "mission" that requires assistance from others to accomplish.
5. When you have an opportunity to talk with management, bring up instances where company policies or actions have been counter-productive to the greater good, using words from the mission statement, goals & objectives where you can. Encourage them to reward cooperation and shared goals.

Conscientious may not be able to change the company culture, but certain actions might help make a little progress towards a cooperative environment.

I tend toward conscientious too. The way I look at it, I have to live with myself 24/7, and I will make choices that don't bother my conscience, irrespective of what everyone else is doing. (I work for local government though, not a large corporation.)

Well said, Chip. The "greater good" has been pushed to the back of the top shelf of the closet and largely forgotten. The short-term "what can I get RIGHT NOW" attitude has overpowered the more conservative "plan for the future" attitude. It's almost like a remnant of the 60's "live for today, don't worry about tomorrow" chant.

It's the "me first" attitude that causes CEOs to make millions (regardless of the health of the company) while they lay off those in the trenches who make a tiny fraction of that because "we need to tighten **our** belts".

It causes union workers to hold companies hostage for more money "right now" while ignoring the long-term "spiral" effect this causes (their company now has to charge more for their products or services, causing other consumers to need more money, causing more strikes, causing those companies to charge more for their products or services, etc. ad infinitum).

It causes many of the problems we have in Congress. Too many politicians are more interested in saving their party than serving their country. The current election has a higher priority than the country's outlook a few years down the road.

It causes good people to be trashed by bad managers. I once worked for a company where the managers were coated with Teflon. There was one who was miserable, both up and down the ladder. The exec board went so far as to hire an executive coach for this turkey, while allowing him to completely decimate the IT department. The incredible lack of logic that allows a company to spend thousands of dollars to coach a manager who is letting good people go simply because he doesn't like them is unfathomable. Fortunately, I was immune because of my seniority, and so survived the rampage. Had they been looking at the "greater good" instead of protecting management at all costs, things would have been better all around - and it wouldn't have taken two years to re-build the IT department after he left. This company was supposedly a great proponent of W. Edwards Deming - too bad they didn't practice what they preached.

Eventually, this short-sightedness comes back to haunt us. Unfortunately, it usually ends up haunting those who follow rather than those who lead. Members of a productive society should evaluate everything they contemplate doing against the possible effect of this action on the rest of society. This applies to both corporations and individuals...and it isn't communism, it's common sense.

I think the idea that we can always, or even often, know the greater good is presumptuous. It assumes that we can know all the consequences of our actions, and that we know the "good" of everyone affected. Ideal conflict resolution comes from everyone being honest about his or her own good and finding some compromise (win-wins do occur, but not all that often) that all can live with.

If everyone is concerned with the "common good," then you get the results of that old training film, where a group of people wind up in Abilene only to discover that no one wanted to go there; everyone thought that was where the others wanted to go.

Unfortunately, at least in my experience, Bob is right about the real world. Unless there are one or two dominant individuals (say, a Henry Ford, or a Steve Jobs, or Gates and Ballmer), organizations have a group of people who want to dominate, and generally behave like a pack of lying weasels (politicians), and a much larger group of people who find a good-enough niche and let the dominators fight it out.

It has been my opinion for a number of years that many of the problems in the U.S. economy come from the 'loyal follower' approach. Instead of ideas competing within the company (something that would drive success), it is the 'keep your head down' approach that seems to foster success. As a result, most upper managers (in my experience) have never actually MADE a decision in their career. Their management skills are limited to back-stabbing and me-too. So great innovative ideas are snatched up by foreign investors and sold at a premium back to the U.S.

I agree with Bob's advice to Conscientious: "Figure out your own goals, analyze everyone else's moves, and figure out your best course of action."

My problem with Bob's analysis is that it is not just business - non-profits, 'fun' sports teams, neighborhood bridge clubs, summer camps, and the true politburo all contain the same selfish behavior. So it's human nature, not capitalism. What's that Bob - tongue in cheek? Oh.

Should we instill "greater good" values in our kids, or fight for them in our own institutions? You bet. It aint black or white - you can't have a vibrant market economy without giving people certain inalienable rights, and you can't do that right without paying attention to the greater good. Sub-prime mortgages are a recent example of a failure in balancing greed and altruism that hurt all of us - directly, or in our investments, or in the social fallout.

Having said that, I have left more than one job in frustration over the nasty political game required to survive. I am happier and therefore wealthier for it. There is an interesting book called "The No Asshole Rule" that talks about organizations that actively police and eject bad players. Nice idea, I'm sure they are out there, and I'd love to work for one before I retire.

This isn't a capitalism/communism issue. It also isn't an altruism/self-interest issue. It's a systems issue.

Human systems depend to a greater or lesser degree on good-faith participation. Good-faith participation means more than working to rule because myriad tacit understandings effectively, creatively, and economically substitute for exhaustive specifications.

People who believe "self-interest" lies in the sub-optimizing subversion of the systems they depend on are simply too stupid to recognize the fact of social interdependence.

Self-interest is a legitimate motivation, but let us be clear that for human beings, self-interest largely resides in developing and participating in effective group behaviors. These behaviors may evoke conflicting judgments and emotions, but in any case they accomplish things that solitary individuals cannot. Read your history. And while you are at it, pay attention to characteristics of systems that demonstrate persistence.

We instinctively despise the bad faith of double-crossing parasites, and should double our contempt when they rationalize their thieveries and duplicities by a specious appeal to the same sense of self-interest that stabilizes the systems they are looting.

The real heroes are the people who understand what it takes to make a sustainable system work and then do that to the best of their ability. I believe their numbers are increasing.

Bob - While I find most of your responses well reasoned once in a while I wonder if you aren't just looking to provoke a reaction.

Didn't you in a previous column say that people in upper level positions got there for a reason? Isn't the fundamental driver for the success of business people the success of their businesses? If this is the case doesn't it make sense to work for the greater good of the company? It is the height of arrogance to think that because you think something is for the greater good and someone else doesn't, that the person who doesn't is self-centered, selfish, and only looking out for personal gain.

Of course there are idiots out there. They aren't limited to managers. Of course there is politics. It starts for each of us when we are born. We would be stupid to ignore those facts. But ultimately people who make bad decisions get washed out of the system. Or their companies fall to competition.

The more fundamental choice, at least for me, is how do I want to be in that system. I want to know, that when I go home at the end of the day, that I did my best, made good decisions, treated my co-workers and customers with respect, and moved the bar a little bit forward. If I can't do that then I should be looking for another job.

Personality test show little difference between executives and sociopaths.
If you want your nephew to do well in business, teach him to tourture the cat.

"But we still want your nephew to learn that it is important to share. If he doesn't learn that he becomes what we call a sociopath."

"everyone is supposed to look out for themselves first. Anyone who doesn't is a commie."

Come on, Bob. Isn't that a little over the top?

Is everyone who lets a vehicle change lanes in front of them in traffic a communist?

How about if you're broken down by the side of the road in a remote area. Is someone who stops to help a communist?

If you're on vacation and you could leave trash on the grass without anyone noticing but instead you take it to a trash can are you a communist?

Or what about someone who donates to a charity that pays for surgeries for children born with deformities in poor countries. Are they a communist?

Isn't it pretty harsh to label as a communist anyone who helps someone else without receiving anything in return? It reminds me of the response I heard to the charge that Christianity and communism share the same philosophy (usually based on Acts 4:32-35). Communism says, "What's yours is mine and I'm going to take it." Christianity says, "What's mine is yours and I'm going to give it." (And I acknowledge that there are many who call themselves Christians today and show no evidence of this philosophy in their lives.)

Kevin,

Your analogies are incomplete. Communism, as you defined it (i.e "what's yours is mine and I'm going to take it) is NOT the theme of communism. Communism is, at least in theory, a means of more equitably distributing wealth. Capitalism (a/k/a free market economy) is based on the notion that greater good (define THAT) comes from entrepreneurship which is spurred on by self-interest (in some circles, this could be equated with selfishness).

Like any socioeconomic/political model, there is a risk of market failure or government failure or, in severe situations, both. In practice, the U.S. economic "model" is no more or less "perfect" than any other model in practice. As a point of clarification, by the way, the U.S. Model is NOT purely capitalist but has leaned more that way over about the past 30 years. We have a mixed model with a tendency toward freer market forces than regulatory forces.

What we see now is, IMO, a trend toward market failure with an expectation of bailout by the government (witness Wall Street's reaction to the Fed's "meager" rate cuts) and the banking industry's cries for bailout -- not to mention the speculators and hedge funds who banked on this bubble. Yet, there seems to be little regard for the people caught in the cross-hairs of this looming credit crunch, cash flow problem, wage pressures, and so on. Indeed, the market "players" proclaim these consumers "should have known better." Can't the same be said for the corporations who overextended and overplayed their hands and now find themselves in need of "help?" In a true market economy, should the government even be helping??

This is the point where conscience comes in and I would hope that those with great influence begin to realize just how MUCH conscience matters. Self-interest is NOT at odds with conscience and vice-versa. They are interdependent and it's time we acknowledged this reality and started playing our hands with that in mind.

The corporate mission should, of necessity, include the public (greater) good, since the public is the consumer of the product or service provided and, if the market fails, there is no longer a customer.