95
5
Who Are We?
In 1956, William Whyte published The Organization Man.
This was one of the last century’s most important studies
of business, and its ideas still shape—and distort—much
of what we still think about organizations. The book was a
harsh account of what happened to the human beings, mostly
men, who spent their lives working in the large companies
that dominated the American economy. They became,
Whyte argued, tiny cogs in giant machines. As a result, their
lives were squeezed down, hollowed out, and impoverished.
1
Whyte’s book is a compelling account of the hazards of
organizational life, but only a partial picture. The reality is
that we are surrounded, almost all the time, by organizations.
We begin life in families, perhaps the oldest organization of
Chapter_05.indd 95 10/06/16 11:25 PM
Managing in the Gray
96
all. We work, play, worship, and shop in organizations. Hence,
we are all, inescapably and pervasively, “organization men.”
This reality is captured in an old African adage. It says,
“I am because we are.” This statement has a broad sweep. It
encompasses Whyte’s point that organizations and commu-
nities do things to us—they limit, impair, and restrict us. The
saying also reminds us of the many things that organizations
and communities do for us—providing basic needs, meet-
ing wants and desires, and opening up opportunities. But
the adage says even more. It captures an elemental feature of
the human condition, one with direct relevance to managers
facing gray area decisions.
2
It tells us that organizations and
communities define who we are and shape what we do in
profound and decisive ways.
The fourth humanist question asks managers facing diffi-
cult decisions to see themselves as creatures whose identities
are woven into the fabric of their surrounding communities.
It then encourages them to seek options that will reflect,
express, and give reality to the norms and values of the com-
munities to which they belong.
The Mystic Chords of Memory
To understand what the fourth question is asking us, we need
to shift our mind-sets. Each of the previous humanist questions
assumes a world of autonomous individuals. From this per-
spective, each of us is an independent agent, a self-contained
unit, a separate monad. The first three questions all made this
assumption: what individuals do has consequences, each of us
has duties, and we all pursue our own self-interest, banging
Chapter_05.indd 96 10/06/16 11:25 PM
Who Are We?
97
against each other like billiard balls. And this is, of course,
a perfectly natural way to think. All of us know our own
minds, we have the direct experience of making decisions,
and we act as autonomous physical creatures.
In contrast, the fourth question puts individuality and
autonomy to the side. It says we are deeply social creatures.
Our relationships immerse us in webs of expectations, com-
mitments, routine practices, taboos, and aspirations. Put suc-
cinctly, it is relationships, values, and norms that make us who
we are. That is, of course, a broad and abstract statement. To
see what it means in concrete terms, we will turn to a vivid,
dramatic situation. It is a variant of a classic dilemma, popu-
larized by William Godwin, a seventeenth-century novelist,
journalist, and political philosopher, probably best known as
the father of Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein.
3
Suppose you are walking down a street, relaxing and
enjoying the fine weather. But you smell something odd and,
when you turn a corner, you see a building on fire. In the
next moment, you see three children inside the building. You
believe you can save them, without risking your life, and you
start running into the building. But then you notice another
child in the building, standing alone, and this child is yours.
The fire is raging, and you can go into the building just once
before it collapses. What do you do? Do you save the three
children or save your child?
The three questions in the previous chapters all seem to
suggest the same answer. In terms of consequences, three
lives outweigh one. In terms of duties, all the children have
an equal right to live, so you may have a stronger duty to save
the three. In terms of what will work in the world as it is,
Chapter_05.indd 97 10/06/16 11:25 PM
Managing in the Gray
98
both options—saving three children or saving your child—
seem feasible. So the three first three questions seem to say
you should save the three children and let your child perish.
But something seems wrong with this logic.
For one thing, it can spiral into paralyzing philosophi-
cal disputation, with rationality endlessly chasing its own
tail. Maybe, in the long run, the net, net consequences for
everyone are best served if people put their own families first.
Maybe there is an argument that our duties to family mem-
bers supersede duties to others. Maybe you have no duty to
save any children, so you are free to save your child. In all
likelihood, other arguments could be laboriously constructed
in order to justify doing what most parents would want to
do, instinctively and urgently: run into the building and save
their own child. The analytical twists and turns seem like
unnecessary and hyperrational efforts to justify a simple truth
that parents know and feel.
In fact, there seems to be something wrong with individ-
uals who need elaborate reasons to take care of people close
to them. The men and women who support their families,
remain faithful to their partners, and sacrifice for the peo-
ple in their lives don’t typically do these things because it is
their duty or because this behavior maximizes the net, net
consequences for society. These highly analytical, rational
approaches to problems can reduce human beings to stick
figures. Our true humanity is not what we are, stripped of
our important relationships and viewed as thinking machines
tallying consequences or prioritizing duties. For most people,
taking care of one’s children isn’t just something parents do.
It is a large part of who they are.
Chapter_05.indd 98 10/06/16 11:25 PM
Who Are We?
99
Why do relationships matter so much? The answer is
partly that relationships create norms and values that guide
our decisions. But relationships do much more. They shape
us. They define our identities. They give meaning, purpose,
and structure to our lives. They are constitutive: they make
us who we are.
4
In other words, we are deeply, intrinsically,
and inescapably relational beings.
Constitutive relationships have roots in a shared past, in
what Abraham Lincoln called “the mystic chords of memory.”
5
They also involve shared aspirations for the future, a sense that
everyone in a group or community is bound together on a com-
mon journey.
6
Constitutive relationships cannot be reduced to
precise analytical terms, but that doesn’t make these obliga-
tions less important or less compelling. It simply puts them in
the category of truths that Blaise Pascal described when he
wrote, “The heart has its reasons that reason does not know.”
7
An earlier chapter criticized Aaron Feuerstein for his
decisions after the disaster at Malden Mills, but many peo-
ple found something deeply admirable about him. After the
fire, a nationally televised interview showed Feuerstein and
the head of the Malden Mills union teasing each other in a
good-natured way. The two men clearly respected and liked
each other. Interviews with several employees revealed the
same thing. In fact, Feuerstein’s nickname was “the mensch
of Malden Mills.” The Yiddish word refers to someone of
high integrity or, in everyday terms, “a stand-up guy.” For
Feuerstein, like his father before him, Malden Mills, its
workers, and their communities were inextricably bound up
with his daily work, his life, his ideals, and his sense of who
he was. His relationships defined him.
Chapter_05.indd 99 10/06/16 11:25 PM
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.