Are we still in denial?

[kenneal - lagger]

you have to crap on other people and claw your way up.

Businesses which have this sort of ethos certainly get things done.

"Cuddly" businesses usually crash & burn.

Sad but true.

The Ecology Building Society is a wonderful ethical institution, full of very positive, helpful and sympathetic people. And it's forging ahead in its field, although from a very small base. But it is successful. The Co-op movement hasn't been mega successful, but it's been going for quite a while and seems to have had a resurgence recently. Triodos Bank?

Enron?

The CAT MSc parties certainly are brilliant, Caveman. Those of us who have finished the course have to wean ourselves off them gradually and I'm trying to get to the October one. (I've got my last essay to hand in!!)

[Vortex]

Do you have any evidence that comparable non-ethical businesses are more successful than their ethical counterparts?

Are "driven" or "tough" businesses non-ethical? I'll have to think about that ...

I've worked in a variety of (mainly techie) businesses over the years, including startups.

I've also worked with VC (Venture Capital) people too ... and I have been on both sides of "Dragons Den" style desks.

I've also been involved in a fair deal of staff recruitment.

I have observed that there is a consistent thread behind all of this:

Niceness doesn't cut it. To get things done you simply need people who make things happen. Such people are invariably NOT cuddly people. They are very capable, unreasonable, impolite, driven people. Successful businesses reflect the personalities of their senior staff, and so the businesses themselves are also aggressive.

Obviously there are exceptions - but I suspect that most successful businesses follow this model ... even if their public face is "genial".

[snow hope]

Niceness doesn't cut it. To get things done you simply need people who make things happen. Such people are invariably NOT cuddly people. They are very capable, unreasonable, impolite, driven people. Successful businesses reflect the personalities of their senior staff, and so the businesses themselves are also aggressive.

You might be right, but that doesn't make it acceptable. I don't like unreasonable people and as soon as I come across them I invariably take my business elsewhere. I don't like impolite people and as soon as I come across them I invariably take my business elsewhere. Driven people often (but not always) have their priorities all arse about face.

I don't doubt what you say Vortex, but this is all part of the problem with companies and corporations etc. and the way in which big business has played a large role in getting us to the place where we are now. People (in my opinion) are turning from these agressive attitudes which are a turn-off and want a different kind of world, where collaboration and working together for the good of all - customers, suppliers, partners and the business itself work in tandem. The nineties attitude of 'I'm alright Jack, I'll look after my stack" is old hat!

Make no mistake - I don't suffer fools easily and I am no softy, wooly businessman, but I don't (and won't) sell products that are no good and I don't sell products that companies don't need. Whatsmore I believe in making a fair profit and not stiffing the customer. And the profit my company makes directly affects my pocket, so I can't be accused of not putting my money where my mouth is.

[Adam1]

I think two ideas are being mixed up here: competence and ethics. The qualities described - being driven, forceful etc - are those many would ascribe to successful leaders in enterprising organisations. You could also add charisma, flexibility, emotional intelligence to the qualities of a successful leader.

Trying to behave in an ethical way within the commercial context doesn't contradict or negate any of this. If you sell manufacture and arms, you can do it effectively and competently or you can do make a hash of it. Either way, what you are doing is unethical.

[RenewableCandy]

There's some fascinating stuff in "The wisdom of crowds" about this (is it on yr booklist btw?..)

Long-distance business needs an awful lot of trust, in fact business in general does. Think of all those things people 'believe' as they go about their daily stuff:

The bank is NOT going to run off with my money
The geezer in the USA IS going to pay me for my Prius
The insurance i've paid into WILL cough up if my house falls down/ ship comes a cropper in a gale
My pension WILL happen...

how many people do you have to trust in order to lead a normal, commerce-based life and stay sane? Loads. Dozens. Thousands.

And that is why, so it says in The Wisdom Of Crowds, the first successful businesses of the sort we are familiar with today were run by...Quakers!

I would say that their influence has served us well for, ooh, 2 centuries, and it is only now that we're beginning to lose that influence, to the detriment of all. People like The Ecology and the Co-Op are trying to get back to that ethos which, imho, was one of the factors that made the start of modern commerce possible.

So I'd say yeah you have to be 'driven' etc and perhaps even abrasive and not-nice-to-live-with but underneath, to succeed in business for the long haul, you have to be reasonably honest at the very least.

[Andy Hunt]

Niceness doesn't cut it. To get things done you simply need people who make things happen. Such people are invariably NOT cuddly people. They are very capable, unreasonable, impolite, driven people. Successful businesses reflect the personalities of their senior staff, and so the businesses themselves are also aggressive.

Two recent examples of organisations fitting this description would be the Northern Rock bank and the Bush administration.

I can't say that I would consider either to be a roaring success.

On the other hand, look at the empires built by Richard Branson and Alan Sugar. Branson is certainly 'cuddly', Sugar not so but then he is not 'unreasonable' either, although he could be said to be impolite I suppose.

Just can't see how your generalisation works Vortex. Anita Roddick and Linda McCarthy couldn't be further from your description, yet both are amongst the biggest business successes ever.

Successful leaders get things done because they command respect. Unsuccessful leaders can 'make things happen' in the short-term through bullying tactics, but rarely last the course.

[Vortex]

Branson is certainly 'cuddly',

I read a biography on Branson - not written by him. What he seems isn't what you get.

Sugar not so but then he is not 'unreasonable' either, although he could be said to be impolite I suppose.

Again, see what the Apprentices say about him, especially when his is "off camera".

I suspect that these first two fit the profile I put forward.

ust can't see how your generalisation works Vortex. Anita Roddick and Linda McCarthy couldn't be further from your description, yet both are amongst the biggest business successes ever.

I don't know enough about those two - but I suspect they are exceptions. I don't think that many of the FTSE 100 bosses appear on "cuddly radars".

[Andy Hunt]

Bill Gates regularly gives away his fortune to charity. Does that not count as 'cuddly'?



I suppose it all depends what you count as 'reasonable'. I still maintain that the most successful leaders long-term command respect, which comes from an empathy with others, rather than purely fear, which can be instilled with simple brutality.

People like Branson, Sugar and Gates are successful because they have people who are trusted and loyal to them, not because their employees are scared witless of them.

[Vortex]

People like Branson, Sugar and Gates are successful because they have people who are trusted and loyal to them, not because their employees are scared witless of them.

From my experience the top 5%-10% or so of a company are indeed trusted & loyal to the boss ... but they are also made of the same stern stuff.

The other 90% are generally employees who don't really see much of the senior management.

[SunnyJim]

i just dont like the way the current system is biased against the little man and in favor of powerful elites and the fact if you want to be successful (whatever that means) you have to crap on other people and claw your way up.
Sorry, rant over.

I know. The system is awful. I watched this recently. Sums up how the whole banking industy works. You couldn't invent a worse system as far as sustainability goes. The way our financial system works actually precludes sustainability. Awful. Really awful. The whole system has individuals 'competing' against each other to reap their share of the money created by continual growth so that we can pay back the banks our slice of interest. If growth stops then by definition it is impossible for everyone to repay their interest to the banks and people will have their houses reposessed or goods taken. This encorages the 'F*ck you buddy' mentality, especially in hard times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78z ... ed&search=

However, it's what we've got. You have to accept and understand its existence before you can move on an get about changing it. Transition town initiatives and the Totnes pound are fantastic examples of positive action in the face of the all pervasive system. I look forward to seeing how they turn out.

[Vortex]

It will be interesting (!?) to see how A-type personalities react during energy descent.

You can still aim for a bigger portion even if the overall cake is getting smaller ... but the competition will be a LOT tougher ...

[Pippa]

I think Vortex is right. Competition for resources of all sorts is getting tougher and tougher. Cuddly days of enough for everyone have dissapeared.

Branson, Sugar and Gates know what they want; to be rich and successful. They also are savvy enough to realise that you need people working for and with you if you want to accumulate. Nice doesn't come into it, enjoy your work but get on with it and make a profit (for my corporation) is the reality.

Roddick was an ethical and driven business woman. In the end though, she sold out to a large corporation and pocketed the cash. You can afford to look generous when the largest portion of a huge pie is all mine, all mine .

[Erik]

I think Vortex is right. Competition for resources of all sorts is getting tougher and tougher. Cuddly days of enough for everyone have dissapeared.

I think Vortex is right too, in that in general aggressive companies tend to strive to be more competitive (which is not to say that agressiveness is the only quality which improves competitiveness), but like any generalizations there will always be a few exceptions. There are successful cuddly companies, just not many. On the other hand, the most aggressive company ever in the energy sector was probably Enron... and look where they ended up!

[Vortex]

I feel a helpful graph coming on ...

[stumuz]

Just to add a quick philosophical note to confuse the subject.
The discussion about A types coming to the surface and grabbing resources. This may not happen in a culturally changed country.
The first point is the simplest, energy on a small scale does not pay, and so, the big boys will not want to play. Take wood for example, if a large wood CHP plant opens up down the road the individual will always be able to outbid the big boys for small diffuse bits of wood.
The second point is A types are organisational Zeus in character, resource grabbing is a personal fight between two individuals, the strongest will get the wood, food and veg oil etc.
The last point about A types is the fact that they rely on organisation ( either state or corporation) to protect them and achieve their goals, without that protection the rules of the game change. An example would be feminist jurisprudence. To explain very simply feminist jurists believe the law is male, such as to succeed in a negligence claim you would have to prove that a reasonable MAN would or would not have done the act complained of, or, the law assumes we are individuals in a liberal democracy, the feminists would say individuality is a male concept as females have a caring and sharing concept so therefore the law is male.
Now, the last 30 years has seen a political belief which is taught at schools/university/workplace that we are all equal. There should be no discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, disability, transsexualality to name but a few. The one thing that these groups rely on is protection by the state and the power of the state to enforce their rights
Now for the big question, if the state is reduced after PO how many of these groups will be protected?
If resource grabbing is going to become commonplace should we align ourselves to the protection of a strong male with a good fiefdom?
The A types that I have met tend to be single minded single subject go getters. It would be interesting to see how much more bread they would get in a 1990?s Moscow food que???.

Stop raising such interesting questions some of us have to work!!