Suppose a crime boss builds his reputation on brutality. With his reputation built on brutality, he attracts the sorts of men who feed off brutality, off the sorts of men who respect brutality.
If the crime boss does not ramp up his brutality over time, if he does not overreact to mistakes with brutality, if every little push against him does not induce overreaction of brutality, over time he loses respect, his gang begins to think ‘he’s beginning to lose it’, that he is beginning to get ‘soft’.
With his reputation built on brutality, for staying in control, the crime boss produces more and more of brutality over time. But brutality is the sort of thing that inherently has limits, a principle which cannot be pursued ‘ad infinitum’ (forever), for pursued ad infinitum even the closest aides begin to fear for their lives, as such are prone to become turncoats, a reaction that induces more of brutality.
So then, the crime boss gets trapped in the ugliness of brutality, such that barring abandonment of his kingdom, he no longer is able to arrive at reasoned choices, always is reacting, never really responding, all of this because he chose brutality as path to success.
The crime boss becomes trapped in the ugliness of brutality.
The following is an important truth of life, to wit, ‘exactly how you secure success is how it is maintained’. If you secure success by demonstrating ability, the success is maintained with ability. If you secure success with brutality, that is exactly how the success is maintained.
Typically, how you attain to success is how it is maintained.
But is it not possible for people to change? Well, if you think change is necessary, and choose to change, clearly it implies an attempt at recharacterization of your self, an attempt at redefining of your self.
In the process of redefining of your self, clearly some of your old buddies no longer will be impressed, with outcome you lose some buddies, end up having to make new buddies. But if such a change brings you over from success built on brutality to success built on principles that are moral, the costs always are well worth it. And then, there are all of the unanticipated benefits of the decision to do the right things.
There was a guy once known for extracting every dime of profit from his companies primarily via cost cutting. If he was installed as CEO of a company, everyone knew layoffs were coming.
Well, what happens to a company in which everyone is jittery about job security? Morale flounders, no one is really focused on innovation because ‘what exactly is the point of creating a new innovation for a company that may give you the boot at just about any point in time?’ So then cost cutting eventually is necessary exactly because everyone is in paralysis.
After the first round of cost cutting, employees remain skittish, and morale does not improve, necessitating yet another round of cost cutting. So then profits improve, not so much because the company is better able to serve customers, but because there are fewer jittery people doing work previously done by a lot more jittery people.
Did it produce profits for a while? Absolutely.
But it never worked in the long run.
Suppose, however, that a CEO is known for spurring innovation, for producing more of profits via stimulation of an innovative mindset and agenda within a corporation.
The company produces more and more of profits, hires more and more people, maintains morale of employees. Employees feel valued, feel like they are partners with management and owners, as opposed to flunkies who can be jettisoned on whims and caprices of top management.
Employees go home happy, and are more relaxed while at home, resulting in a reduction to anxiety and stress indices for marriages and/or parents. With employees happy and relaxed, they are less interested in politicians who fight all the time, vote out the fighters, bring in the guys who are able to disagree, yet simultaneously are able to arrive at some common ground for benefit of all of society.
But if CEOs who spur innovation create so much ambience around themselves, how is it that cost cutting CEOs also are able to thrive?
Well, first, CEOs who know how to spur innovation, who have the pure spiritual energy, knowledge, expertise, and people management skills necessary for spurring of innovation typically are in short supply.
As the old adage goes, if it was easy, everyone would do it.
Second, sometimes employees do not appreciate good management and ownership, this to the point where ownership feels they need to be taught a lesson in appreciation of good management. So then they bring in a cost cutter who generates profits for owners at expense of jobs and employee morale.
The Lesson for Employees?
Never take good management and ownership for granted, else you can get trapped in the ugliness of a jittery workplace.
If you do not want to get trapped in the ugliness, it is what you do today, and the very next day, and the day after that, and the day that comes right after that, which makes it all possible.
Yesterday is gone already.
Today, tomorrow, and the day after that are prime for new beginnings.