A Personal Struggle with the Definition of Success Conversation with a successfu

Question

A Personal Struggle with the Definition of Success

Conversation with a successful investor/partner: In a private equity firm In my experience, conversations about ethics in business often ring false, especially in educational contexts. It’s difficult to get to a real level of honesty.

I see business leaders taking public stands on various values-based issues, like organizational diversity or the treatment of employees or transparency or the refusal to take bribes. But most people, especially early in their careers, are not in a position to drive organizational changes.

There is a big distinction between making the courageous and correct moral decision for oneself, and being in a position to implement something systemic throughout the organization. And even making the “right” moral decision for oneself can often feel like a career limiting move if the wider organization doesn’t seem to value that choice.

In order for the organization to change, someone at a senior level has to care about the issues. So people often think to themselves, I will make compromises early in my career in order to make it up the ladder, and then I will take action based on my values when I am in a powerful leadership position and can really make a difference. The problem with “waiting it out” in this way is that all those compromises can change you. Generally if you behaved a certain way to get to your position - whether actively inappropriate or passively looking the other way - that is who you are or who you have become (despite whatever personal narrative you have invented to justify your choices along the way).

When I have faced highly political behavior that conflicts with my own values, I have generally chosen not to play. Don’t misunderstand; I’m not an altar boy, and I have made my share of mistakes in treating peers and team members badly or being dishonest in deal negotiations. But my best decisions about organizational politics and mudslinging have not really felt like choices to me at all, because I’m just being who I am. It’s important to realize that these choices do not necessarily lead to “movie endings;” I have paid a price in career success and money (and honestly, the sacrifice hasn’t always felt “good” just because I did the “right” thing). But as I said, there are some things I just was not willing to do.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that, contrary to the aforementioned rationalization that “I will be freer to act on my values when I’m more senior in the organization,” the higher I’ve gone in my career, the more limited and pressured I often feel with regard to my values. The competition gets tougher (because the people remaining in the game are less likely to have the most pristine values or integrity) and we all get more sophisticated about how to play and survive. Most importantly, the stakes get higher and there seems to be more to lose – personally in terms of family responsibility and ego and financial success as well as professionally in terms of platform and position – all of which makes it harder to be courageous.

And I suspect people get better at marketing themselves the higher they go in an organization, so they can defend more types of behavior. Then when they finally rise high enough to run the show, they talk about values, but everyone knows the path they took, and they rarely make those values the cornerstone of success for the next generation of employees.

I guess it’s important to say that these generalizations may not be true in every company or industry and also that entrepreneurs may have more ability at an early age to make the right decision – but even these organizations or entrepreneurs have to answer to investors or markets who don’t really care about values or at least don’t make their investment decisions based on values.

An example: A number of years ago, I built a new area of investments that eventually became an over $1 billion portion of our $2 billion private equity fund. I was relatively young for the level of responsibility I held and I found one of my new peers within the firm to be a highly successful, older and, in my view, rather cynical partner. This partner’s approach to colleagues as well as competitors was hostile and manipulative, and I figured that he would eventually blow himself up because of the enemies he made. I tried to ignore him and stay out of his way, knowing that he probably saw me as a threat since I had made it to the same level at such a young age. I tried to help the guy when I could, thinking maybe I could generate good will by being a team player (or at least distinguish my behavior from his).

But I was wrong about everything. Over time, this guy did not blow himself up (He was a talented investor and a good manipulator, and his investment track record allowed him a free behavioral pass from his superiors.) and he found ways to push my buttons and to call attention to any possible mistakes I made. He made the environment intolerable for me. I found myself making angry speeches to the CEO in the shower in the mornings, calling for him to rein in this partner. But in the end, I knew that everyone already knew this guy was behaving badly and my complaints about him would not be news. People just accepted the partner’s bad behavior because he was talented. And the only way I could change the situation would be to fight at his level, using political tricks or slander to turn folks against him. I just didn’t want to go there.

It didn’t even feel like a moral or values-based decision; it was just not who I was or the way I wanted to lead my life. Eventually I left the firm and I lost a lot by doing so. Yes, my career has continued to be successful, but not as successful as his in the American definition of the term. I still look back at that experience with discomfort. If I had known what I know now, I would have left sooner because I was angry and miserable for a long time. I just couldn’t bring myself to believe that the situation couldn’t work out differently. I just found it hard to accept that talented but bad people can, in fact, “win” in such situations. Is that OK? I am still ambivalent about it. I don’t think I would have admitted it at the time, but my decision to leave once I knew the situation wouldn’t change was delayed somewhat by the high compensation – so I did allow myself to be bought up to a point.

So you may ask: why am I still uncomfortable? Clearly I have continued to be successful in my career. That partner didn’t ruin me and what’s more, he didn’t change me. I was true to myself, even if it took some time, and I didn’t hurt anybody else. So what’s the problem?

I’d like to say I feel better because I took the high moral ground but in reality, it didn’t feel like a choice. It would not have been “me.” So the question becomes, why doesn’t being the kind of person who behaves fairly and with civility ensure success, given the requisite talent and hard work and commitment? Or, on the other hand, why doesn’t bad behavior ensure failure?

I’d like to be able to embrace the classical definitions of success, accepting that true success is not necessarily about “winning” or financial success or always being recognized and rewarded. I’d like to be able to embrace the idea that true success is more an internal than external phenomenon. But these ideas often seem overwhelmed by real world evidence: they contradict the lessons we learn and the messages we digest every day in school, the media, our communities, about how society measures success. It’s difficult for your typical hard-charging, Type A individual to accept that it’s OK to make career-limiting decisions in order to maintain one’s values.

On the other hand, I look at students and young managers today and am inspired by their instinctive interest in social entrepreneurship, socially responsible investing, and their desire to live balanced lives. It feels kind of schizophrenic: there is clearly a yearning for change by so many individuals, but it is hard to create systemic change at a pace that will actually impact our own careers and lives.

For me, I have begun to think that the only way to deal with the frustration and ambivalence of these apparently contradictory messages is to put the idea of success and achievement into the larger context of meaning in one’s entire life. Work success is not enough; it’s just part of a person.

Still, it is important to be honest about my being able to make this choice. It is easier for someone who has made a lot of money – whether it is $5 or $10 million, or $100 million – to make these decisions to redefine success than it is when you don’t have the same level of security.

So I have begun to take the very challenges that concerned me in my own career and to work with colleagues who share my views, to take the very market system we have studied and mastered in our careers and to consider ways to use its strengths to support values-based organizations. The question I am working on now is: what kinds of changes may be necessary – at the systemic, organizational and personal levels – to support those who want to succeed in business and still be consistent with their values? And how can I play a leadership role in supporting those changes? How can we make the values-based choice a real, honest, viable ALTERNATIVE for the next generation of ambitious workers?

Answer ONE of these questions:

1) Why was it so difficult for the speaker to accept that someone can behave badly and still be rewarded within an organization?

2) What are the most important lessons that you personally can derive from the speaker’s reflections? How will you define success? (Alternatively, do you react to the speaker’s reflections by feeling positive and empowered? If so, how? Or do you react to his reflections by feeling a bit stymied in your efforts to voice and act on your values in the workplace? If so, what would it take for you to transform that response?)

3) The speaker explains that although he acted on his values, he does not want to pretend that there wasn’t a price he paid for doing so. Why do you think it is important for him to acknowledge that?

4) How do you think the speaker defines success? Do you think his definition of success has changed over the course of his career?

5) On the other hand, the speaker also describes how difficult it is for someone to be consistent with their values when they are not at the “top” of their organizations. Nevertheless, he then goes on to describe how he still managed to do so. What do you make of this seeming contradiction? And what do you think enabled him to make the choices he has?

6) What do you think of his view that “The higher I’ve gone in my career, the more limited and pressured I often feel with regard to my values.”? Do you agree? What are the implications of this perspective for you?

7) What do you think of this speaker’s view that “The problem with ‘waiting it out’ in this way is that all those compromises can change you.”? Do you agree? What are the implications of this perspective for you?

Explanation / Answer

The speaker has it in his mind that people who have good values and believe in fair play coupled with talent, hard work and commitment would succeed while those who are manipulative and cut corners would fail. When he saw his colleague acting in a cynical and manipulative manner, he naturally assumed that the colleague would not be successful for long. The speaker considers himself a person of good values to a certain extant, and he knew that he was not the kind of person who would go to the extent his colleague was going. He just did not have it in him to do the things his colleague did. But even as he waited for his colleague to fail, he found that his colleague stayed successful and ahead of him and the company accepted the bad behavior since he was brining in business. The speaker was upset that the company did not hold the values that he held and was only claiming to uphold good values, while turning a blind eye to the colleague as long as he was successful.

2)     What are the most important lessons that you personally can derive from the speaker’s reflections? How will you define success? (Alternatively, do you react to the speaker’s reflections by feeling positive and empowered? If so, how? Or do you react to his reflections by feeling a bit stymied in your efforts to voice and act on your values in the workplace? If so, what would it take for you to transform that response?)

The speaker has become a little cynical of the value system in companies and with his own experience states that having or upholding ethical values were only to a certain extant rewarding. The speaker gives the impression that the current state of affairs is not positive and that a lot of work need to be done to change the situation in companies generally. So the message that comes across from the speaker is that as of now, it is difficult to voice and act on our values in the company. However, I do feel that having commitment, putting in hard work and upholding our values is important even when it does not translate to corporate success. But we can measure success with personal job satisfaction which is internal.

When you pay a price for the values that you uphold, it actually would give you more internal satisfaction that it was a sacrifice for the right thing. Only if we have such experiences will we be more determined to succeed in future by upholding these values. It strengthens us more. So it is important that we understand and acknowledge the price that we have paid for acting on our values.

4)     How do you think the speaker defines success? Do you think his definition of success has changed over the course of his career?

In the beginning, the speaker also looked at success in terms of money, promotion etc. He was promoted at a young age which he used as a measure of his success. But when he saw his colleague succeed based on these definitions of success, with his unethical ways, the speaker was forced to change his measure of success. Though he was not fully willing to give up the earlier measure of success, he mentions that he would like to accept the classical definition of success, agreeing that true success is not about financial success or promotions or rewards or winning but that it is more internal. Towards the end, he says that he would like to put the idea of success and achievement into the larger context of one’s whole life and its meaning. That success in work is not enough, but being honest and being able to make a choice is important.

5)     On the other hand, the speaker also describes how difficult it is for someone to be consistent with their values when they are not at the “top” of their organizations. Nevertheless, he then goes on to describe how he still managed to do so. What do you make of this seeming contradiction? And what do you think enabled him to make the choices he has?

The speaker said that generally people who have reached the top can talk about ethics and values but for those on the way up, they need to compromise their values and hope to change it once they reach the top. But then he realized that it was difficult for people who have reached the top to change as they have become what they are on the way up and that is what is seen by everybody. So when you start talking about values at the top, you are not trusted as the path you took to reach the top is known to all. So, even though he had to pay a price for keeping his values, he decided it is better to start from the bottom and not wait to reach the top to have values. He also mentions that in hindsight, he should not have stayed in that company for that long, he should have quit earlier. This sows his realization of what true success was.

6)     What do you think of his view that “The higher I’ve gone in my career, the more limited and pressured I often feel with regard to my values.”? Do you agree? What are the implications of this perspective for you?

The speaker was of the opinion that the higher you go it would be easier to uphold values etc, but then realized that the competition grew tougher, as the people higher up fought their way up and basically that meant without values or integrity and knew the tricks of the game in order to survive. And the stakes were higher, and more to lose both personally, family security, ego, financial success, position etc and so winning became all the more important at any cost. Also, you become better at deceiving others or marketing yourself and your various actions. This is true. So the fight to the top would be extremely difficult for a person who upholds good or fair values. So, change of this perspective in society and companies generally is very important for the future generations.

7) What do you think of this speaker’s view that “The problem with ‘waiting it out’ in this way is that all those compromises can change you.”? Do you agree? What are the implications of this perspective for you?

I do agree, in most cases, when you think that you can change things when you are at the top, but make compromises on the way up, you become defined by these compromises and decisions. You get used to it and it becomes a way of life. And it gets more tougher to change as you go up the ladder. You end up making more and more compromises and changing it all suddenly is impossible. Others perception of you would have set in and their behavior to you also would be based on this. So it is better to stick to your values and be known for it and your rise to the top may be slower, but it is well worth it.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.