How - Dov Seidman [51]
All organizations of people need a way to govern (companies, societies, and even families are alike in this way), and most governance systems benefit from the inclusion of at least some rules. In our workgroup-as-stadium metaphor, we might agree, for instance, that everyone needs a ticket to get in, people will sit in their own seats, and the game will start at 9 A.M. Without some rules, anarchy rules; fans rush the gates and sit where they please, and people come to work when they feel like it with little regard for the work schedules of others. The game is never played. Most groups articulate their system of governance as a code of conduct. Some of these codes read like the tax code, a set of rules designed to anticipate, prescribe, and proscribe certain behaviors. “Clean your cubicle at the end of every day.” “Always wear blue pants.” They, like all aggregations of rules, seem at first blush to be an efficient way to codify and communicate the floors of human conduct throughout the hierarchy of the company. Other codes of conduct read more like constitutions, filled with the values and principles that propel the company’s efforts. Clothing maker Levi Strauss’s code of conduct states, “We are honest and trustworthy. We do what we say we are going to do. Integrity includes a willingness to do the right thing for our employees, brands, the company, and society as a whole, even when personal, professional, and social risks or economic pressures confront us.”19 These general statements of principle can, at first blush, seem vague and not immediately or easily applicable to the various day-to-day decisions a worker must face. The nature of the language a group chooses, however, exerts a remarkable and powerful influence on the conduct that follows from it.
The language of laws and rules is the language of can and can’t, right versus wrong. It’s a binary language with little room for nuance or shades of meaning. That is why it is inadequate to describe the full richness of human behavior. We are, as people, so much more than right or wrong. When you get stuck in the language of permissibility and prohibition (can versus can’t ) you get stuck thinking in relation to rules rather than in the realm of true human potential. You can discuss a lawsuit in terms of utility—“Can we fight this effectively in court?”—but it is quite another thing to discuss it in terms of your values—“Given what we believe, should we fight this in court?” The first approach prompts thinking in relation to rules and codes; the second opens up thinking in relation to what is most important to an organization’s or individual’s core values and long-term success. In that difference—the difference between can and should—lies an extraordinarily important step toward thriving in a world of HOW: True freedom lies not in the absence of constraint; true freedom lies in the transcendence of rules-based thinking.
Thinking in the language of can versus can’t predisposes you to perceive challenges in a certain way and respond within narrow avenues. Thinking in and speaking the language of values—the language of should and shouldn’t instead of the language of can and can’t—opens up a wide spectrum of possible thought, a spectrum that encompasses the full colors of human behavior as opposed to the black-and-white responses of rules. This spectrum can lead to truly creative and innovative solutions to challenges.
UNLOCKING SHOULD
I offer the legal challenges faced by Jenapharm and UMHS here because they paint a fairly black-and-white picture of the difference between thinking in can and thinking in should. Being presented with a lawsuit is usually far more serious than our daily confrontations with rules and regulations; however, our responses are in many ways identical in nature. We go through each day avoiding or complying with as much nimble grace as we can. The boss compliments you for a task you know was done by a junior associate on your team. Do you stop her and give the credit