Can and should you run countries like businesses?

There are lots of answers with a variety of arguments. My answer is “yes and no.” As others have noted, businesses and governments operate with different foundations and contexts. And governments do compete against other governments like private sector companies. For me the core issue has to do with integrity and efficiency.

There are honest people in both sectors and there are efficient people in both sectors AND there are crooks and spendthrifts in both sectors. For me it comes down to VABEs. I had a client once whose top management was discussing whether or not “truth telling” was a viable strategy. The debate got so heated that one VP stood up on his chair and was shouting at his colleagues across the room. The argument was on one side “if you tell the truth, people will take advantage of you” and the counter-argument was “if you don’t tell the truth, people won’t trust you.” I favor the transparency, truth-telling side of the argument. (Thank you Rich Teerlink former CEO of Harley-Davidson).

Then there’s the issue of compartmentalized integrity. During the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, I was having dinner with a CEO in another country. I noted that Steve Covey my instructor in business school had taught that if a man would cheat on his wife, he’d cheat in business. My host declared, “Well, that’s not true. I know all the CEOs in (city name) and they all have mistresses and I’d trust them in a business deal any day.” Wow. VABE abrasion! Again, I personally favor the integrity in all facets of life. If you want a mistress, and your wife approves, then okay. Again, VABEs.

Another issue for me stems from my concept of a “charter.” A charter has six components: clarity of purpose, clarity of vision, clarity of VABEs, clarity of strategies to reach the visions, short-term measures to track progress, and SOMEONE who will make those decisions. If no one does, the people in the organization work in confusion and often at cross-purposes. See examples on my website at Level Three Leadership . For one, British Aerospace US had a mission statement that was concise, powerful and inspiring: “We protect those who protect us.” ANYONE in that organization could relate to and be inspired by that very clear mission statement.

What is the purpose of a nation? I think if the president/premiers of a nation as much as the CEO of any company who cannot declare a simple one sentence mission statement is negligent. IMO the purpose for example of the USA is “to model a vibrant democracy.” The Founding Fathers knew this was a new system. What is the purpose of France? Russia? North Korea?

Which brings to me my last point here: there are net extractors and net contributors in the world. Many people in both sectors are net extractors—they are out to take as much from the system/society as they can. They have little care for the Commons (air, water, soil, flora, fauna, and the underprivileged) and make decisions to take as much as they can from the world around them. Some call this capitalism. I say that VABEs, “to make as much money as I/we can” is a perversion of capitalism and democracy. Sustainable profits would be those that protected not abused the Commons. Many politicians are net extractors. They suck their countries dry.

Some politicians and business people are net contributors. They give more than they take. One businessman in the Midwest sold his freeway construction company for $200mm. Then he gave each of his 100 employees $1 million EACH! When asked why in the world he would do that, he noted that a) they did all the work and b) he still had $100 million, what did he need with more? He’s a net contributor and very successful and an enlightened capitalist.

SO, I believe (my VABE) that managers/executives/authoritors in both sectors should a) have clear Charters, b) behave a personal and professional models of complete honesty and resource efficiency (no waste), and c) be net contributors to the world around them and not net extractors. Leave you campsite cleaner than you found it—something I learned in the Boy Scouts.  

Are you "for" or "against" the use of Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard versus a strictly financial measure of corporate success?

 Very much for. AND for adding “sustainable” to the common central VABE of most businesses to “maximize profits.” By “sustainable” I mean to protect not abuse the Commons—the air, water, soil, flora, fauna and underprivileged that we ALL share responsibility for. Every citizen in every country, IMO has a responsibility to protect the Commons. Don’t litter or foul the Commons.

So, the “financial measure” of maximizing profits leads to and HAS led to gross Commons abuse over the centuries. While we’ve made progress on air and water abuse, there is still much to do. Oceanic fish are appearing with micro-plastics in their bodies. Air abuse is contributing to climate change and global warming. Capitalists left to their own judgment have felt free to abuse the Commons until unions and governments imposed constraints and regulations.

Kaplan & Norton argue for a balanced concern for broad stakeholder--including customer and employee satisfaction-- and measures of efficiency. In a broader sense, IMO every citizen and organization should be held responsible for their impact on the Commons.

I had a student from Uganda who claimed his country was becoming the “junk yard of the world.” Japan has, he explained, a ban on autos over ten years old. Good for Japanese automakers. BUT, those 100k cars are loaded onto ships and sold in central Africa where they are admired for their dependability but when they finally die, the cars are just left on the roadside, junk, and no one has the capital to recycle them. In a sustainable world, the auto makers—and any company— would be responsible for collecting and recycling their products at the end of their use.

So, K&N is a start yet IMO the core issue is the commonly (still) taught VABE in business schools that the goal of a company is to maximize profits. That is a defunct and immoral VABE. Rather, we should be teaching and practicing “maximizing sustainable profits” that don’t abuse but rather protect those things we all share, the Commons. 

What "project" are you most proud of?

 Hmmm. This wasn’t a team project in the usual sense, however, the thing I’m most proud of is something I did after I retired. I read Larry Sabato’s book, 23 Ways to Improve the U S Constitution and was amazed at his chutzpah suggesting revisions for the book most Americans put on the shelf next to the Bible. I agreed with 22 of his suggestions and reflected on my experience with being deeply involved in religion for 35 years and then stepping away (major mid-life near-death crisis). I concluded after reading widely including all the major religious scriptures that organized religion consisted of mountains of mythological rubbish. Answers people imagined to phenomena they didn’t understand.

SO, impressed by Sabato’s courage, I determined to write, and did, a Science-Based Alternative to the World’s Scriptures. I collected data for 20 years, reading widely from history to particle physics to cultures to history of religion and much more. I thought it would take 5 years to write—ended up being 8 months full time. I published A Song of Humanity: A Science-Based Alternative to the World’s Scriptures in 2016. I realize that not many will read it, especially people of “faith.” Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for highlighting the idea that people make decisions based on their VABEs rather than on evidence. And I note the Bible wasn’t compiled until 321 AD amidst a group of some 600 diverse “scholars” of their age. ASOH has over 900 references and 20 pages of single-spaced source references. Go here A Song of Humanity for Table of Contents and sample chapter.

AND I feel complete having at least provided an easy-to-read alternative to the various mythology based scriptures out there. It was a big undertaking, challenging millennia of accumulated mythology. That people still believe that stuff, amazes me. Further, all those major scriptures are regionally based and focused. ASOH includes global stories and data that “supersedes” regional perspectives. If someone is reading it in 300 years, I’ll be long gone, but am happy now imagining that a few people might find it more real.

I think our American (and global) motto should be “In Truth We Trust.” Yet most people worldwide trust their VABEs over evidence and data. The trend today discounting science is very disturbing. Read Terry Nichol’s The Death of Expertise as one example.

Very big, ambitious “project” and one I’m proud of. Despite it’s relative obscurity.