Corporate Culture, Conformity and Leadership

Back in the late Fifties, a best-selling book was called “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit.” It is about a man caught in the need to conform to corporate culture, the unofficial uniform of which was the gray flannel suit. Conforming was really big in those days.

In the early Sixties, before the Aquarian revolution hit, my girlfriend Martha took a course in psychology called “The Psychology of Adjustment,” the central thesis of which was that people, to be healthy psychologically, have to adjust to social and personal conditions, including the expectations of others. In the general populace, this ethos was more likely to be expressed by a concern with “what people will think” about a particular action, thought, or belief. Psychologically, I believe, this ethos amounts to an emphasis on what is called the persona”-- the polished image that a person presents to the public, as opposed to the person’s self-image, including flaws, and shadow, the parts of the personality unacknowledged consciously by the person.

The military and business tend to define a person by what he or she does and by the image/persona the persona presents in public. A person can be profoundly unhappy inside but present a polished, positive persona and do good work, and that’s all business or the military cares about. The two cultures are similar because they are both warrior cultures, in which action and discipline are all that matter.

None of this is usually stated overtly in business, but everyone communicates “the rules” in subtle ways. (In the military, leaders overtly state the rules in formulations like, “I don’t give sh** how you feel or what you want, just do it!”) Corporate culture likes to pretend it has a caring side because it is part of the general culture, but, usually, this “caring” is part of the business strategy--in other words, part of the corporate persona or public image. Corporation may say genuinely, “We care about our employees,” but you can be sure they think the caring is good business.

I believe businesses and the military should be the way they are--dedicated to winning--either profits or wars. I believe that it is good to care for people and that people appreciate it when they are cared for and are loyal to those who do. Therefore, “taking care of the troops” is the first law of leadership in the military and in business.

The complete law is “Take care of the troops, and they will take care of you.” Sometimes taking care of the troops in the long term involves asking them to make sacrifices in the short term--for example, a soldier or worker may be depressed and not feel like working today. Both organizations will demand that he or she work anyway, particularly, if today happens to be a critical event for the company or military unit.

“Gee, Sarge, I don’t feel like storming Omaha Beach today!” I can’t imagine this approach working for the military, any more than I can imagine, “Gee, Boss, I know this presentation today is critical to our getting this national account, but I really don’t feel like doing it.” If the company or military unit doesn’t demand the sacrifice, the overall interest of all the members of the unit or organization will be compromised.

However, before and after the battle or critical business event, leaders had better look to the needs of the followers. Leaders must avoid a constant crisis mode, and give followers time for family and other personal needs, see to the professional growth of the follower, and give recognition for the sacrifices and achievements of the follower. David Orr