I recently read two books that caused me to reconsider the value of ‘individualism’ in the workplace. The books are “Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times” by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and “The Second Mountain: The Quest for a Moral Life” by New York Times columnist David Brooks. Each is referenced by the other and read well as a pair. Neither book is specifically about business or the marketplace. Each is about morality at the societal or community level. They are deep-think, beautifully written books.
Although not specifically about the workplace, both of these books caused me to think about prior articles I wrote regarding what I believe best serves the workplace’s objectives. In previous articles, I reflected on my personal experience in running companies. This experience caused me to think that business culture at the edge of chaos[1], and anchored by effectively communicated core values and a linking to higher purpose[2], is optimal. Further influencing this belief was my reading of several books and articles. These included works from Patrick Lencioni, Danah Zohar, and Gareth Jones. I believe that a business has to allow employees to ‘be themselves’ within the organization to be in this optimal place. This individuality occurs by limiting rules to necessary prohibitions, while anchoring the organization to values and higher purpose. A culture as such encourages individuality, and in doing so, allows an organization to be authentic.[3]
The authenticity derived from employees having the freedom to ‘be themselves’ is essential to engagement, productivity, and retention. When doing so, anchoring to core values and linking to higher purpose becomes necessary to check against individualism. The stronger the embedding of core values and linking to a higher purpose, the closer the organization can get to the edge of chaos without going over the precipice. This edge of chaos is the place where there is the most individuality, creativity, and engagement.
Rabbi Sacks and David Brooks convincingly argue that “individualism” – or as Mr. Brooks states, “hyper-individualism” is at the root of moral decline. That there is a moral imperative for moving from the “I”-ness of individualism to the “we”-ness of relationalism[4]. This notion gave me pause, as I had written of the importance of individualism in the workplace. At the same time, we cannot separate the workplace from society’s larger moral construct. The obligations and tenets of morality apply to the workplace as they do to a community, in general.
Concluding these readings, it struck me that there is an essential distinction that I failed to make, between “individualism” and “individuality.” I thought about which I was really advocating for in the workplace. In individualism, we see ourselves as separate from the group, whereas with individuality, we are merely expressing what is uniquely ours – in essence, being ourselves. Unlike individuality, individualism is exclusionary and sometimes adversarial. It is a willful separation from the group or the team.
I wrote that the anchoring to core values and the linking to higher purpose is essential to keep an authentic, self-organizing group from descending into chaos. From these most recent readings, I believe that this occurs by the same values and purpose that prevent individuality from morphing into individualism. In understanding the difference between individuality and individualism, there is an understanding that the morphing of individuality into individualism for employees is the mechanism by which authenticity descends into chaos for organizations.
The ability for team members to work well together is at the heart of organizational health. Separating from the group or team, as indicated by individualism, is highly problematic. Conversely, individuality, or allowing people to be themselves in the workplace, is beneficial. Individuality within a group is what makes a group dynamic and effective.
In prior articles, I alluded to a cultural continuum in an organization, from rules and instruction – to authenticity – to chaos. In “The Second Mountain,” David Brooks writes of a similar continuum at the community or societal level, from collectivism – to relationalism – to individualism. As Mr. Brooks describes, the moral quest is for relationalism. In the organization, collectivism denies our individuality and suppresses creativity and productivity. In doing so, it diminishes self-esteem. At the other end, individualism quashes common values, goals, and linking to a core or higher purpose. Most important, it is disruptive to the development of empathy, which is essential for moral instinct. It defies our nature as social beings. Conversely, relationalism obligates us to each other and sets the stage for community and teamwork.
Without the encouragement of individuality within groups or on teams, we are at risk of collectivism instead of relationalism. Without shared values and linking to a higher purpose, we are at risk of individualism instead of relationalism. An inability to find a common purpose and to share values in an organization contributes to individualism. Individualism then further facilitates their preclusion. Collectivism in organizations results in the absence of creativity and engagement – a dearth of original thought. Both collectivism and individualism are problematic for the organization. A dissuading of collectivism and individualism and the encouragement of relationalism sets the conditions for organizational health. While collectivism and individualism preclude relationalism, individuality is essential to it.
The idea of ‘collectivism, relationalism, and individualism’ existing on a continuum, with relationalism being the moral imperative for a society, is parallel to a continuum of ‘rules, individuality, and chaos’ within the organization. Rabbi Sacks states that “morality places a limit on individualism.” In the organization, values place a limit on chaos. Morality checks individualism; values check chaos.
The workplace’s objectives are not necessarily the same as the community’s objectives, as described by Messrs. Sacks and Brooks. In a society or community, there is a requirement for moral transcendence. In the workplace, the need is for moral integration. This difference makes the societal ideal a centering on relationalism. By comparison, the workplace ideal skews toward the edge of chaos. The distinction is because dynamism is essential within an organization, but less so for a community. The community does not benefit from allowing relationalism to skew toward individualism – but the organization benefits greatly from allowing authenticity to skew toward chaos (provided an anchoring to values and linking to a higher purpose prevents chaos from being realized).
The authentic organization self-organizes through individuality anchored to shared values and linked to a higher purpose. This dynamic, creative, and engaged organization lives at the edge of chaos – where it thrives. The edge of chaos is at the junction between individuality and individualism. A culture of individualism is akin the falling off the precipice of chaos. In the same way that morality checks against individualism in a society, values and linking to a higher purpose check against chaos in an organization.
[1] Danah Zohar, The Quantum Leader
[2] Patrick Lencioni, The Advantage
[3] Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones, Why should anyone work here?
[4] David Brooks, The Second Mountain
