A Failing Narrative

Meet Elisabeth, my neighbor. Elisabeth did all she was told to succeed in life.Footnote ¹³ After earning an MBA at a reputable school, she chose to work for a hospital. She wanted to stay true to her desire to serve others and thought the healthcare industry would allow her to do so. One afternoon, we run into each other as she is walking her dog. I ask her how she likes her work and she confesses, “Oh my god, it is so stressful…I never really wanted to be in this competitive, businessy type of environment but it seems the hospital is just as corporate and mean-spirited as anything else…”

Meet John, formerly a successful Wall Street banker. He joined the world of banking because he admired its service orientation, but quit the industry in what he later described as a midlife crisis. The more he thought about the type of work his bank was doing and the people with whom it was working, the more depressed he had become. He had an especially hard time reconciling what he heard in church on Sunday with the values of the financial industry. The culture of banking and service that he admired had turned into something he could not be a part of. So he decided to get out.

Meet Natalia, a popular bartender, who tells me she is about to quit her job because of the toxic work culture. Competition for tips has become cutthroat, the waiting staff are highly mistrusting, and the apparent favorites among the owners are those that bring in the money yet hurt their peers by cheating them out of their wages, tips, and clients. Drinks recipes get remastered to be cheaper, quality is becoming less important, and no honorable waiter wants to serve “shitty drinks.” As a result, the atmosphere at the bar becomes hostile and customers that came for the homey atmosphere now go elsewhere. As the downward spiral continues, more “good people” quit, the bar has to invest more in advertising and marketing to capture new clients, which increases their costs and requires new cost-cutting efforts elsewhere, such as hiring wait staff for 5.25 USD/hour on emergency terms, all of which creates high levels of turnaround. As a result, the atmosphere is becoming ever more transactional and the bar can only compete on price, which attracts ever fickler clientele. When Natalia shares her observations, the owners justify their decisions with “that is how business is done around here.”

Elisabeth, John, and Natalia are not poor and have the luxury of many choices. In many ways, they are privileged. These real-life stories highlight a shared unhappiness that exists despite privilege. While one could easily wave aside such unhappiness as a minority view, research shows that, despite unprecedented levels of material wealth, people are increasingly alienated at work and are looking to redefine the meaning of success. On the flipside, an increasing number of people wish to engage in more meaningful activities at work and beyond, and sense an urgency to be part of the solution to the many problems humanity is facing (climate change, terrorism, social inequality, and poverty).Footnote ¹⁴

Mainstream thinking about the business world has become associated with the fictional character of Gordon Gekko and his motto: “Greed is good.” Money and power are portrayed as the ultimate motives of human ambition and to think otherwise is portrayed as naïve. The narrative of people as greedy, money-hungry maximizers, or homo economicus, is dominant.Footnote ¹⁵

Yet, there seems to be something wrong with the larger cultural narrative about what human beings value first and foremost. As the economist Richard Layard has said, there is something wrong when we have unprecedented material wealth and economic growth but stagnating levels of human well-being.Footnote ¹⁶ As Bob Chapman, the CEO of multi-billion-dollar manufacturing conglomerate Barry-Wehmiller, puts it, leaders are the problem not the solution to the current problems. The dominant narrative of business and success is failing. The cracks in our system are too obvious to ignore and require us to look at the foundations.

The experiences of Elisabeth, John, and Natalia showcase a reality and a background narrative that we label “economistic.” The economistic narrative is based on axiomatic notions of who we are as people. It is not based on scientific insights but on assumptions that are exemplified by such fictional characters as Ebenezer Scrooge, Gordon Gekko, the Wolf of Wall Street, and in real life by such villains as Bernie Madoff. The narrative holds that people are fundamentally self-serving, looking for material wealth as an indicator of success. It is amoral in the sense that any behavior is acceptable as long as it helps to make more money. Other people are treated as a means to personal gain, and trickster behavior is considered sly, smart, and legitimate. The assumptions are simple and therefore very powerful.

At the core of the three life stories lies a narrative about business that is hostile to the “good life,” as many people perceive it.Footnote ¹⁷ Changing the narrative is at the heart of a concerted effort to rethink how people have come to understand life and their role within the economic system. I argue that a change toward a humanistic paradigm will allow us to lead better lives, create business organizations that serve societal flourishing, and support a life-conducive economic system.

Signals of Crisis – Three Challenges to the Current System

In 2001, Kofi Annan, the late Secretary General of the United Nations, wisely predicted

Years later, we know that his dire prediction came true. The so-called neoliberal consensus under which markets are the ultimate rationale of what is valuable has failed. According to scientific historian Thomas Kuhn, we are experiencing a paradigmatic crisis.Footnote ¹⁹

Conclusion

The current system is built on increases in consumption that lead to economic growth, yet it makes many people less happy with their lives. The advertising industry, for example, exists to create artificial material wants and is considered successful the more people try to feed their wants with more consumption, which drives up raw material use and creates all other kinds of related environmental and social problems. For societies that pride themselves on freedom of choice and democratic values, such unreflective practices undermine their very essence.

The REM Model

The most prominent articulation of human nature according to the economistic paradigm is that set forth by Michael Jensen and William Meckling, two of the most prominent and oft-cited management scholars. Whereas many researchers have memetically and unreflectedly adopted an economistic perspective, these scholars have specified their understanding of human nature.

In their 1994 paper titled “The Nature of Man,” they postulate that understanding human behavior is fundamental to understanding how organizations function, whether they are profit-making firms, nonprofit enterprises, or government agencies.Footnote ⁵³ They argue that their model, REMM – the Resourceful, Evaluative, Maximizing Model – is superior. Jensen and Meckling state that:

In turn, agency theory was hailed as a grand theory in the social sciences, influencing economics, management, sociology, and political science. As such, REMM held sway over a much larger part of social science than its design intended. The famed economist Harold Demsetz argued that economistic theoretical models are used to study human behavior in the marketplace.Footnote ⁵⁵ They are therefore useful to help us understand the possibility of spontaneous order in this marketplace, but should not be seen as prescriptive tools with regard to other institutions, such as organizations or societies.Footnote ⁵⁶

Yet, this model, unbeknownst to most people, has become the water we swim in.Footnote ⁵⁷ Jensen and Meckling’s theorizing not only had an enormous impact on management theory but also on management practice. Based on their research on the theory of the firm, corporate governance was redesigned, motivational schemes were developed, and stock options were created. Harvard University’s Rakesh Khurana describes an event in the early 1980s in which corporate raiders linked to T. Boone Pickens provided regulators with copies of Jensen and Meckling’s papers when they needed to convince them that his proposed takeovers would be the best way to deliver shareholder value maximization.Footnote ⁵⁸ Much as Gordon Gekko later described.

REMM Revisited

In this light, it is helpful to examine REMM and its intellectual arguments more closely. While we don’t have much space to go into detail here, I have done so in prior writing.Footnote ⁵⁹ In short, Jensen and Meckling suggested that REMM was the product of over 200 years of research and debate in economics, the other social sciences, and philosophy. They provided a number of postulates that served as a “bare bones summary of the concept.”

The first postulate suggests that people continually evaluate and that we are willing to make tradeoffs constantly.Footnote ⁶⁰ The biggest empirical problem is the assumption that human beings do not know commitments or that, in the end, we all behave opportunistically at all times.Footnote ⁶¹ This assumption does not allow for commitments such as marriage vows, relationships, or friendships, whose nature is not subject to barter or quid pro quo; while healthy community life, in which people support each other without taking potential payback into account (e.g., care for children, the elderly, and even dead ancestors), is unimaginable. This assumption contradicts evidence from evolutionary biology and anthropology, which claims that human survival depended on honoring social contracts and commitments through loyalty to the family and tribe.Footnote ⁶²

In a further postulate, Jensen and Meckling argue that there are no human needs as such, which cannot be exchanged, but only wants which can be exchanged.

Henry Mintzberg paraphrases their postulate derisively by saying that accordingly we are “whores,” selling anything and everything and honoring nothing.Footnote ⁶⁴ This is factually inaccurate, even though it may be correct in certain situations.Footnote ⁶⁵

Research increasingly finds that moral judgments and value-based commitments are intrinsic elements of human sociality.Footnote ⁶⁶ While the Jensen and Meckling’s postulate postulate is certainly provocative and entertaining, the mere claim that humans have no needs does not make it so. From an evolutionary perspective, humans have developed basic needs that they cannot trade off if they are to survive.Footnote ⁶⁷ Needs exist to the degree that they must be fulfilled, like eating or drinking, because without these survival is impossible. According to REMM assumptions, small babies will trade off their need for food to gain fame, for example. While eating is a need, fame is a want, and it is hard to credit that babies would prefer fame over food. While there are clearly extreme situations, for example, when people trade off their personal integrity for personal survival by prostituting themselves, those situations do not represent normal human behavior.Footnote ⁶⁸

Jensen and Meckling, however, build on this notion of wants in Postulate II:

In this postulate, REMM shows its deep connection with the homo economicus model. REMM must have unlimited wants, otherwise the maximization of utility cannot make sense. While Jensen and Meckling attempt to broaden the realm of “goods” from the purely material to the ideal, REMM is simply homo economicus reborn and attempting to maximize.

Research in psychology and neuroscience challenges the belief that the human urge to satisfy wants is unlimited.Footnote ⁷⁰ Increasing evidence shows that wanting less can be healthy,Footnote ⁷¹ and that an increasing number of young people reject the notion that more is better. Pursuing unlimited wants may be burdening and troublesome.Footnote ⁷² “Affluenza,” the description of the consistent pursuit of more, is considered a modern disease.Footnote ⁷³ According to REMM, affluenza should not exist; given that humans inherently want more, there can be no satiation. Not only does recent psychological evidence contradict this assumption, but also the global religious traditions have long suggested that wisdom starts with the recognition that there is such a thing as “enough.”Footnote ⁷⁴

Similarly, psychology finds that people are happiest if they commit to a limited amount of choices.Footnote ⁷⁵ For example, people with one spouse and who are able to grow in that relationship are happier than those who are promiscuous.Footnote ⁷⁶ Evolutionary biology, which finds that most humans desire to have a nuclear family, supports this finding.Footnote ⁷⁷ While not always practically possible, a stable relationship increases the survival chances of healthy offspring.Footnote ⁷⁸ If people acted according to REMM, they would desire an unlimited number of partners.

Jensen and Meckling build on the notion of unlimited wants with Postulate III and IV where they add that we are not static maximizers but creative and resourceful in how we maximize. While I go into more detail in my prior book,Footnote ⁷⁹ for now I will conclude my assessment of their model of human nature with the following comparison.

To take their perspective to its logical conclusion, let’s consider the example of Elisabeth. Elisabeth is a mother of two kids, married to a husband who has to travel for his work very often. She works in hospital administration and also needs to take care of her mother who lives in the area. Her wish to be successful at her job, have a good relationship with her spouse, provide a good education for her kids, and take care of her mother’s needs defines her opportunity set. The REMM-type Elisabeth could use her ingenuity to create a life situation in which she decides to maximize all of these ambitions. Wanting to be successful at her job, she would need to spend more time and energy at the hospital. Because she hardly sees her husband, she decides (knowing no commitments and willing to substitute anything) to divorce her husband and marry her boss. At the hospital, they can spend more time together, while increasing her income. The additional income could be used to pay a tutor for her kids, allowing her to outsource their education. As she spends so much time at work, she ingeniously suggests to her mother that she should (pretend to) become ill, which will mean that she too can be at the hospital. While such behavior may be ingenious and creative, it is also rather absurd. It is far more likely that Elisabeth will simply decide to spend just enough time at the hospital to ensure she does not lose her job, spend quality time with her current husband and not get divorced, take care of her kids when she can in order to personally provide educational experiences, and to look after her mother in her home when she is able to. In the latter case, Elisabeth is balancing creatively rather than ingeniously maximizing options within her opportunity set.

It is important to note that Jensen and Meckling never strive for an accurate model, but simply for a better model than that of homo economicus. Many of their assumptions are partially true, and they expend much energy in demonstrating their postulations’ validity in and beyond economics and management literature. The philosopher Karl Popper would, however, call many of these efforts “verificationism,” which he describes as the tendency to explain reality with the set of assumptions we create.Footnote ⁸⁰ Consequently, when studying human organizing practices, researchers tend to make reality fit their assumptions, rather than the inverse.

Evolutionary Biology to the Rescue

It turns out that we as a human species have survived because we are fundamentally able to balance several key drives – not maximize any of them (more on this later).Footnote ⁸¹ Also, our hominoid ancestors from 1.8 million years ago became fundamentally social as a key strategy to collaborate and survive.Footnote ⁸² This may sound perplexing, but consider how important families are to our species’ survival, and how, despite all the problems, we seem to follow basic rules of respect and give and take. In fact, we have a term for people that do not have families (adoptive/foster or natural) or other social support systems (such as orphanages). EXTINCT…

Paul Lawrence of Harvard collected the evidence provided by evolutionary biology and reread the original Darwin (Descent of Man) and suggested that we have survived because we have four independent drives that constitute homo sapiens: The drive to acquire what we need to survive, the drive to defend that which we need to survive, the drive to bond with other human beings, and the drive to comprehend the world around us.Footnote ⁸³

We will look at the evidence for the drive to bond and drive to comprehend later. For now, the argument is that we need to balance those four drives. Every time we have tried to maximize one of them, our species has created deadly conflict and undermined its survival (see Section 5).

Conclusion

The economistic worldview has a stranglehold over our culture and informs our view of management. REMM is supporting business education and legitimizes asocial behavior. If we want to manage better, we need a better understanding of who we are as people. Sounds simple and is challenging. Luckily, scientific progress can help us.

Sociality

Referring to biology and evolutionary theory, Wilson argues that inherited regularities in the mental development common to our species define human nature.Footnote ⁸⁸ Nevertheless, he suggests that our “epigenetic rules,” which have evolved through the interaction of individual and group selection mechanisms, define us. Homo sapiens is therefore a result of an interplay between a genetic and a cultural evolution that occurred over a long period and started in deep prehistory. Wilson specifies that the hardwired epigenetic rules are the core of human nature. These epigenetic rules create the resulting behaviors common to homo sapiens. That means that the behaviors are “prepared” and ready to be developed, but need to be learned. That is why education and socialization are critical for human survival.

Supporting this proposition, George Murdock (1945) combed through human behaviors shared by many hundreds of societies, as studied by anthropologists in the past.Footnote ⁸⁹ Murdock attempted to highlight cultural practices that are almost universal. A selection of these practices featuring human nature’s eusocial character includes community organization, cooperative labor, courtship, dancing, decorative art, division of labor, education, ethics, faith healing, family feasting, food taboos, funeral rites, games, gift giving, government, hospitality, incest taboos, inheritance rules, joking, kin groups, kin nomenclature, marriage, mealtimes, postnatal care, property rights, religious ritual, sexual restriction, soul concepts, status differentiation, and the list goes on.

Other phenomena also bear witness to our eusocial nature. Why would inventions like the internet, cell phones, or Facebook make any sense, or have any commercial value, if we were not fundamentally social? The fundamental need – Paul Lawrence calls it the “drive to bond” – is hardwired; it serves an evolutionary purpose, which is the survival of the species rather than individual utility maximization.Footnote ⁹⁰

Morality

If we are fundamentally social, this may mean that we are also fundamentally moral. Joshua Greene, a noted scholar whose work bridges various disciplines in a true humanist fashion, writes: “Under ordinary circumstances, we shudder at the thought of behaving violently toward innocent people, even total strangers, and this most likely is a crucial feature of our moral brains.”Footnote ⁹¹ Greene says that, in sum, we are a caring species, albeit in a limited way, and we probably inherited at least some of our caring capacity from our primate ancestors, if not our more distant ancestors. We care most of all about our relatives and friends, but we also care about acquaintances and strangers.

Robert Wright argues in the same vein and suggests humans are moral animals.Footnote ⁹² Both Wright and Greene suggest we have a moral machinery in our brain originating from our hypersocial nature. Joshua Greene writes: “From simple cells to supersocial animals like us, the story of life on Earth is the story of increasingly complex cooperation. Cooperation is why we are here, and yet at the same time, maintaining cooperation is our greatest challenge.”Footnote ⁹³ Morality is the human brain’s answer to this challenge. Such morality is derived from emotional baseline responses, and Greene argues that for each cooperative strategy, our moral brains have a corresponding set of emotional dispositions that execute this strategy. Such strategies include concern for others, direct and indirect reciprocity, commitment to threats and promises, and reputation.

All of this psychological machinery is perfectly designed to promote cooperation among otherwise selfish individuals, implementing strategies that can be formalized in abstract mathematical terms. The additional insight that Greene and his collaborators present is that human morality and, as a result, cooperation are typically intuitive, not calculated or rational. Greene and his colleagues conducted experiments in which responses that required moral decision-making and cooperation choices were timed. Their results demonstrated that cooperative choices were made so fast that they had to be intuitive.

E. O. Wilson writes that morality, conformity, religious fervor, and fighting ability, combined with imagination and memory, produced homo sapiens as a winner in terms of survival.Footnote ⁹⁴

Empathy and Emotionality

Frans de Waal, a leading primatologist, writes that empathy is hardwired and that the emotional basis of empathy is critical for our sociality.Footnote ⁹⁵ We cannot live peacefully in families, communities, and tribes without having the tools to do so. Contrary to the Hobbesian, Spencerian, and Randian notion of human nature, homo sapiens is alive today because we care. De Waal and others find that empathy is, in many ways, a key lever to collaboration and can turn self-interest into mutual interest. In fact, Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer state that, through empathy, humans experience “true self-interest as mutual interest.”Footnote ⁹⁶

De Waal and others argue that humans are not even that special in terms of empathetic abilities, but that animals of all kinds are capable of empathy and collaboration. Charles Darwin early on suggested that hardwired emotions representing the core of human nature drive such empathy. In The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Darwin suggests that empathetic instincts must have evolved from natural selection. E. O. Wilson argues that humans are fundamentally emotional beings because these emotions aided survival and reproduction. David Matsumoto writes that:

Joshua Greene and others suggest that empathy and our collaborative tendencies are instinctive and emotion-based. Frans de Waal calls it the “feeling brain,” arguing that the basis of our emotional sensors is hard-coded in our brains. Emotions are a feature, not a bug. Emotions help us deal with the complexity of our eusocial life.

Basic emotions that can be witnessed across different cultures, and thus hint at their universality, include anger, contempt, disgust, fear, enjoyment, sadness, and surprise. These emotions are called basic because they are shared across a number of species, including our primate ancestors. This fundamental emotionality challenges the uniquely rational focus of Jensen and Meckling’s REMM propositions. Emotions also call into question theories of human behavior that are purely based on rationality, such as rational choice and decision-making.

Altruism

Eusociality and its derivatives – morality and baseline empathy supported by emotions – lead to human behavior that further questions REMM’s basic assumptions regarding the maximization of self-interest. Altruism can be understood as an individual’s behavior that benefits other individuals, even though these actions may negatively impact the individual’s chances of survival. A well-known example is that of individuals who watch out for a predator and signal danger to the group, thus potentially drawing the predator’s attention to themselves. The role of fairness and the development of altruistic punishment to uphold the tribe’s moral rules have been documented in various studies. Altruism has been actively studied in fields as varied as biology, economics, sociology, and game theory. It differs from cooperation, as altruism requires no direct benefit or reciprocity. Studies show that without the emergence of altruism, populations go extinct. Emerging research suggests that altruism is a behavior common to the human species because group selection favored those groups with altruists over those without.

David Sloan Wilson summarizes the research as: “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.”Footnote ⁹⁸ Selfish behavior is found to undermine communities and leads to trouble for the group. For communities that survive, E. O. Wilson argues, the countervailing forces of altruism evolve through group selection, not just through individual selection.Footnote ⁹⁹ It appears that a group-based selection mechanism screens for altruism. As such, altruism is now viewed as a key feature of functioning human groups.

Taken together, the findings from the natural sciences concerning human nature provide a clearer perspective on who we are as human beings. A number of elements long considered bugs in our system have now been identified as features, including sociality, morality, emotionality, and altruism. These insights challenge REMM’s claims about the nature of man that underlie a larger, dominant theoretical framework in management sciences.

Toward a Consilience of Knowledge on Human Nature

Many of the insights that now have increasing scientific backing were developed over time in the humanities. As early as Aristotle, philosophers suggested that human beings are social animals endowed with reason. In The Human Condition, Hanna Arendt writes that, basically, we are Aristotelian, political, social animals who crave meaning, and that this craving is often channeled into work and action as manifestations of our existence.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ The sociality of human beings has rarely been called into question, even though the special role of human freedom and individual uniqueness has become more pronounced in modern Western thought. During the Enlightenment, philosophers established a convincing argument that although tribal, human nature requires special respect. The notion of human rights was born with the Kantian notion of the unconditional dignity of human nature. These human rights, based on the unconditional notion of human dignity, are sometimes viewed as commitments that are not negotiable. As such, they should escape the economistic exchange logic (at least in theory and as an aspiration). The economistic argument that they do not should thus be viewed with skepticism in light of the much longer philosophical tradition.

In line with Darwin’s observation that morality must have developed as a survival mechanism for humanity, scholars of religion and ethics have identified the principles of such shared morality, or ethics, in order to develop a global, universal ethos that can help build bridges between religions and secular people. The noted psychologist Steven Pinker suggests:

The Swiss theologian Hans Kueng and his collaborators studied the leading global religious and secular groups’ narratives and suggested that we can find insights into our shared, universal human nature in the respective sacred texts’ aspirational statements.Footnote ¹⁰² Many religions have clear guiding principles in terms of how human beings should behave. Some sort of universalist ultima ratio, which holds against all human instincts of self-preservation, supports these principles. Many anthropologists make the case that religion and creation narratives, which include rules for altruistic acts, are crucial for building a functioning society. An example of this is the narrative of Jesus Christ. While such narratives may be dismissed, they seem to have spoken to humans throughout the ages. As such, they may give a glimpse into true and persisting human needs and human nature.

Hans Kueng and his team suggest that secular and religious narratives have many elements in common. First, in the face of self-interest, they all assume that anyone who truly believes [in God, reincarnation, etc.] should in “practice consistently be concerned with human well-being.” Kueng mentions the “twofold Jewish commandment to love God and one’s neighbor and its further development in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount along with the incessant demand of the Qu’ran for justice, truth and good works; […] the Buddhist doctrine of overcoming human suffering, the Hindu striving to fulfill ‘dharma’ and Confucius’ requirement to preserve cosmic order and thus the humanum” to highlight the religious depth of human dignity as a basic principle and to indicate human well-being as the goal of human ethics.Footnote ¹⁰³

Furthermore, Kueng argues that despite their particularisms, all the great religions call for particular “non-negotiable standards, basic ethical norms and maxims to ensure basic humanity.”

Kueng presents five universally shared commands across all the great world religions:

1. 1. Do not kill

2. 2. Do not lie

3. 3. Do not steal

4. 4. Do not practice immorality

5. 5. Respect parents and love children.

He argues that such norms were possibly conceived as protection against unprincipled libertinism, which prioritizes personal advantage in the short run. In this sense, it could be argued that the great religions share principles that protect humanity from REMM-style behavior fixated on wants that can be exchanged at liberty.

On the other hand, Kueng makes the argument that, ultimately, in order to promote human well-being, the great world religions straddle the extremes of libertinism and legalism, offering individuals a middle way (the Commandments are guides for human behavior, not binding laws). In this sense, the Golden Rule emerges as a guide for humans to live a “good life.” Kueng provides evidence that long before Kant specified his categorical imperative, Confucius (551–489 BCE) had written: “What you yourself do not want, do not do to another person”; Rabbi Hillel (60 BCE–10 CE) similarly states: “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you”; while the Christian Bible specifies: “Whatever you want people to do to you do also to them” (Matthew 7.12; Luke 6.31).

Such moral motivations and guidelines are presented in the context of the lives of real people, be they prophets, saints, or spiritual leaders such as the Buddha, Confucius, Lao-tze, Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, and not in the abstract. The religious stories that are told are cultural narratives that provide practical guidance and, above all, meaning. In his book Antifragile, Nassim Taleb suggests that religious institutions are pretty stable.Footnote ¹⁰⁴ This means they can tell us what has mattered to human beings throughout their existence. The shared principles of the global religions could therefore provide significant insights into human nature over time. These insights are a substantial challenge to REMM.

Human Nature: A View from the Social Sciences

The various domains of the social sciences have seen a number of developments rooted in a more humanistic, all-encompassing understanding of human nature. For example, Amartya Sen and his philosopher colleague Martha Nussbaum have provided a framework for a humanistic interpretation of economics.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ Their capability approach is based on the assumptions of human dignity as unconditional and the presupposition that economic affairs ought to be managed to expand freedom and the capabilities of individuals to achieve a higher level of well-being. Other noted economists have defied economistic orthodoxy and expanded our view of human nature. Daniel Kahneman earned his Nobel Prize in economics by debunking the foundations of homo economicus. He calls the assumptions of economic theory a “non-starter.”Footnote ¹⁰⁶ Elinor Ostrom received her Nobel Prize for defying homo economicus assumptions of pure self-interest. Ostrom is known to have not worked from theory, but from studying practice, which suggests that what works for practice should work for theory.

Ostrom’s eight design principles of stable, local, common-pool resource management suggest that communities can manage the commons effectively and sustainably to advance the common good by means of:

1. 1. Clearly defined boundaries (a clear definition of the contents of the common-pool resource and effective exclusion of external unentitled parties);

2. 2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources adapted to local conditions;

3. 3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;

4. 4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of, or accountable to, the appropriators;

5. 5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;

6. 6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms that are cheap and easy to access;

7. 7. Higher-level authorities who acknowledge the community’s self-determination; and

8. 8. Organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level, in the case of larger common-pool resources.Footnote ¹⁰⁷

A group of researchers associated with David Sloan Wilson studied the work of anthropologists to suggest that almost all hunter-gatherer societies that still exist, or which anthropologists described prior to their assimilation into larger societies, exhibit teamwork enforced by the suppression of disruptive self-serving behaviors. Bullying is not tolerated. The group as a whole has the power to thwart those who try to impose their will by creating counter-dominant coalitions. Status must be earned, and reputation is based on how much one contributes to the group. Decision-making is typically done by means of consensus or by other processes that the group recognizes as fair. It is easy to monitor agreed-upon behaviors, because people are almost always in the presence of others. Mild sanctions, such as gossip, are usually sufficient to keep people in solid citizen mode, but these are backed up by harsher sanctions, such as exclusion and execution. Conflicts of interest are usually managed in a way that all the parties recognize as fair.

In a similar way, Wilson and colleagues studied the emergence and resilience of 1,400 business corporations. They found that the same principles hold. Human beings in these organizations constantly defy REMM’s basic assumptions, leading the researchers to conclude:

Referring to the vast literature in sociology, Wilson et al. conclude that our species is genetically adapted to implement the core design principles in small groups, confirming the thoughts of nineteenth-century French social theorist Alexis de Tocqueville: “The village or township is the only association which is so perfectly natural that, wherever a number of men are collected, it seems to constitute itself.”Footnote ¹⁰⁹

In psychology, a number of scholars have explored the elements of human dignity and the notion of human flourishing. Primarily based on the work of Carl Rogers, humanist psychologists such as Frederick Herzberg and Abraham Maslow built on an expanded notion of human nature, inspiring what is currently labeled “Positive Psychology.” This branch of psychology, which has recently spun off positive organizational behavior and positive organizational scholarship as correlates to the Organizational Sciences, also challenges REMM’s baseline assumptions. Jonathan Haidt, for example, has even suggested that psychologists should reject pervasive methodological individualism and study what he calls “Hive Psychology.”Footnote ¹¹⁰ As such, the social sciences as a whole could benefit from a more accurate perspective that reflects the eusocial nature of human beings.

Insights from psychology are also important for an understanding of the darker side of human nature. Clearly, as E. O. Wilson suggests, the epigenetic makeup of human nature balances the outcomes of individual and group selection.Footnote ¹¹¹ In many functioning groups, disruptive self-serving behaviors and their underlying psychological impulses are only suppressed, not eliminated, and are ready to surface whenever opportunities allow. David Sloan Wilson likens humans to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, combined in a single person.Footnote ¹¹² To some extent, REMM exists in all humans, but culture, civilization, and education are designed to counter REMM-style characteristics and produce the eusocial part that allowed the survival of the species. Only the economistic model’s recent ascendency has elevated mankind’s antisocial tendencies to a virtue.

Conclusion

While this is a very selective set of findings, and many more disciplines could be drawn on to present a fuller picture of human nature, the main point is to highlight the consilience of scientific insights that now exists and the extent to which it contradicts the prevalently held view of human nature. Human beings have survived because they are truly social beings, for better or worse. As such, they have developed a way to keep their basic emotions in check by developing their brain (i.e., prefrontal cortex) and developed morality as a set of guidelines for general survival in communities and societies. These moral guidelines require commitments beyond libertine pleasure-seeking in the moment. They allow human beings to foresee conflicts and build lasting relationships. To build environments where human beings can flourish, a dignity threshold (meeting basic needs) needs to be established. When humans can build capabilities to develop themselves and their communities to achieve higher levels of well-being, they create the conditions for flourishing.

These various insights allow us to recalibrate claims made by economists, which have been widely adopted in management science. The currently dominant narrative of homo economicus, or its successor REMM, overlooks important qualities of human nature that need to be revisited in a number of ways to enhance theorizing.

• First, humans are fundamentally social (eusocial),

• Second, they are fundamentally emotionally driven, which enhances survival,

• Third, reason and rationality act as a guide, but are not exclusively in charge of decision-making,

• Fourth, morality and ethical standards/commitments are crucial for eusocial beings,

• Fifth, altruistic behavior makes sense in the context of group survival norms that interplay with individual survival norms, and

• Sixth, commitments such as unconditional respect for human dignity and the aspiration to promote human well-being are critical for good communities (eusocial beings).

Humans have needs – emotional needs, social needs, and individual needs – in order to live a life in dignity. We also have needs and, quite clearly, wants which allow us to flourish. Moral and ethical commitments are critical for survival and are not just part of a trade/exchange. These insights allow us to present a solid theoretical alternative to REMM, which will be described in the following section.

Basic Considerations

Before detailing the model, it is important to take a step back to situate the emergence of this novel humanistic perspective. Whereas economistic and humanistic conceptions have been presented as competing, it is critical to understand that they share a common origin. The German philosopher and former German Minister for Culture, Julian Nida-Ruemelin, argues that humanistic and economistic perspectives build on the assumption of human freedom and take the human individual as its starting point. Both perspectives are therefore equally hostile to any form of tribalism or collectivism as is now emerging on the global stage. Similarly, both traditions emphasize the human capacity for reasoning. As a result, homo economicus and REMM models can be helpful when examining market behavior based on individual reasoning.

The humanistic model builds on the old model, but expands it significantly by integrating insights from evolutionary science and the humanities. In contrast to economism, humanism, for example, assumes that human nature is not entirely a given, that it can be refined through education and learning. Universities and public schools were established under the auspices of the humanist tradition to form citizens. Similarly, Nida-Ruemelin suggests that another distinctive feature of humanism is the normative, ethical component that attributes unalienable rights to everybody, independent of ethnicity, nationality, social status, or gender. This view is echoed by other scholars, who propose the notion of human dignity as a baseline concept of humanistic thought. A dignity threshold is thus a universal baseline for the accordance of human rights for everyone.

Evolutionary biology increasingly supports the traditional humanistic perspective on human nature as a zoon politikon, a relational human being. According to the humanistic perspective, people materialize their freedom through value-based social interactions. When they engage well with people, they do so by protecting and enhancing their respective humanity and dignity; guided by the Golden Rule, they treat each other not only as a means but also as an end in themselves. This is not an idealistic vision of people as do-gooders, but is the reason that homo sapiens survived. Moral behavior allows people to build better and longer-lasting relationships that enhance mutual trust and well-being. When they thrive, they are intrinsically motivated to self-actualize and serve others through what they do. Humans do not predictably follow maximization strategies, nor do they have fixed, preconceived utility functions, but their interests, needs, and wants take shape through discourse and a continuous exchange with the outside world. To thrive and be happy, such human beings balance their interests and, in accordance with general moral principles, align them with the interests of others (partners) and their community. Respect for dignity and overall moral behavior are viewed as pathways to well-being and a higher common good.

To summarize, both views of human nature are based on some understanding of human agency and freedom. The economistic perspective highlights wants as the foundation of human agency and argues that the maximization of wants is a fundamental human motivation. According to the economistic perspective, fixed utility functions, or opportunity sets centered on their individual benefit above all else, guide humans. The notion of human dignity as a moral cornerstone is absent, and humans are fundamentally considered amoral (not immoral). The highest aspiration for humans is therefore to achieve wealth, power, status, and reputation (see Table 1).

Table 1Comparative views on human nature

In the humanistic perspective, evolutionary drives are the foundational motivation, and achieving a balance is the goal. In the humanistic perspective, humans operate according to routines, yet learn and adapt constantly. According to the humanistic perspective, the key reason for the survival of humans is their relational nature, for which dignity and morality are crucial. Their highest aspiration is to achieve a level of well-being and to flourish.

The Baseline Model

Evolutionary biology points to four independent drives of human nature, which are critical for the survival of the species. Darwin suggests we share an evolutionary background with many animals, while insights from neuroscience point to deeply rooted neural mechanisms that reward us when we acquire and defend what we deem necessary for survival. Lawrence and Nohria (2002) label two basic drives that we share with all animals as (a) the drive to acquire (dA) and (b) the drive to defend (dD).

A Humanistic Extension

Simplified, these two drives (drive to acquire and drive to defend) can explain the economistic perspective on human nature. Within this perspective, all other drives and interests are subordinate to the ambition to maximize the drive to acquire. Spencer’s account of Darwin’s findings reduced human behavior largely to a two-drive model, which subordinated all other human concerns to the impetus of acquiring and defending.Footnote ¹¹⁹

The novelty of recent evolutionary findings and their importance lie in the addition of two important and independent drives, or what Lawrence and Nohria label (1) the drive to bond (dB) and (2) the drive to comprehend (dC).Footnote ¹²⁰ Based on these findings, Paul Lawrence developed a renewed Darwinian theory (RD theory), which rehabilitates Darwin’s groundbreaking insights into human behavior, which are often overlooked or misunderstood.Footnote ¹²¹ In essence, RD theory explains how the human brain has developed via natural selection, as well as through sex and group selection mechanisms, to make complex decisions about all aspects of life (personal, communal, and societal). This theory posits that the two additional drives are independent of the other drives and represent critical ultimate motives that underlie all human decisions: the drive to bond (dB) enables long-term, mutually caring relationships with other humans; and the drive to comprehend (dC) allows us to make sense of the world around us in terms of its multifaceted relations with ourselves. In Darwin’s own words:

In the following section, the evidence for the existence of these two independent drives is presented in more detail. It is important to note that these arguments are still developing, as new evidence is constantly being generated, but the theoretical basis of a four-drive model of human behavior provides propositions that can be tested.

Development Toward Independence of Drives

Why is the earlier argument about two different, independent drives relevant? After all, bonding and comprehension could simply be used to acquire and defend better, thus supporting the Spencerian, economistic narrative. According to anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists, the independence of the drives to bond and comprehend from the basic drives is key to understanding human evolution. In fact, evolutionary scholars argue that humans have evolved a brain that can continually adapt to its contemporary environment, rather than relying on its adaptation to an ancestral environment. Accordingly, our brain was an adaptation to a period of extreme and comparatively rapid climatic shifts, the first occurring about two million years ago and the second occurring around 150,000 years ago. These two major shifts explain the development of independent drives to bond and to comprehend; the drive to bond emerged when human ancestors transitioned from homo habilis to homo erectus. The drive to comprehend emerged during the shift from homo erectus to homo sapiens.

The Emergence of Bonding

The first evolutionary shift occurred about two million years ago and established the human drive to bond in our neural blueprint. It arguably occurred because pair-bonding proved essential to the survival of the hominid line. Adam Kuper, a South African anthropologist, argues that homo erectus proved fitter for survival than its hominid predecessor, homo habilis, mainly because its brain supported a nuclear family structure.Footnote ¹³⁴ Such a structure proved superior because with increasing brain sizes and slower maturation, offspring needed increased protection. The family bond became a survival mechanism and was probably strengthened by the discovery of fire. Once controlled, fire supported small communities and changed their feeding patterns. Physical anthropologist Richard Wrangham and his colleagues have pointed out that cooking increased the food supply by making it possible to consume plants, such as many roots, that were otherwise toxic or too tough to chew.Footnote ¹³⁵ In addition, cooking helped conserve food and allowed edibles to be stored. The downside of storage was that food would be much more vulnerable to theft, particularly by larger males. According to Wrangham and colleagues, females, who most probably gathered the vegetables, therefore looked for help with guarding the food.Footnote ¹³⁶ Hence, there was a clear evolutionary advantage in mating with a reliable man willing to bond with a particular woman.

There is mounting evidence that the drive to bond is manifested as an independent drive in our brain. The independent status means that the satiation of the drive to bond occurs independently of the satiation of other drives. Nevertheless, research suggests that the brain and the human nervous system reward satiation of the drive to bond in a very similar manner as the drive to acquire and the drive to defend. For example, researchers at the National Institutes of Health scanned the brains of volunteers who had been asked to think about either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves.Footnote ¹³⁷ When the volunteers thought about donating the money, a section of the limbic area of their brain lit up. This, surprisingly, was the nucleus accumbens, which usually lights up in response to food or sex. Similar evidence suggests that bonding through, for example, donating money increases human well-being much more than acquiring, such as keeping the money for oneself. Other research suggests that altruism is not necessarily a superior moral faculty for suppressing an egoistic nature, but a hardwired element which leads to pleasure. As such, Lawrence argues that the drive to bond is a full-fledged drive in its own right and is hardwired into the brain.Footnote ¹³⁸

Comprehension Matters

The shift from homo erectus to homo sapiens finally introduced the drive to comprehend as an independent drive in our neural structure. This shift is known as the Upper Paleolithic Transition (UPT), which is believed to have occurred about 150,000 years ago. According to many evolutionary scholars, homo erectus, who probably only developed very simple tools made of stone and wood, evolved into modern homo sapiens. With this transition, the human species developed language, sophisticated technologies, complex tribal institutions, and civilization as we know it today. Steven Pinker described the dramatic transition in these terms:

Pinker’s observation that “ingenuity itself was the invention” suggests the emergence of what Lawrence and Nohria call an “independent drive to comprehend” in homo sapiens; increasing empirical evidence points to its independent physical existence in the brain as well.

Neuroscientists Irving Biederman and Edward Vessel found that a part of the brain which helps recognize what we see seems to be equipped with its own reward system of opiate receptors, which give a pleasurable “high” when stimulated by a new image.Footnote ¹⁴⁰ This pleasurable high can also be experienced when getting a right answer in a trivia quiz or solving a Sudoku. In history, such emotional reactions to “getting it” have also been described as the “Eureka” effect. Increasing evidence demonstrates that humans yearn for novelty, creativity, and understanding because our brain rewards us for it. At the same time, the human brain does not reward routine and monotony, which typically lead to boredom. Biederman and Vessel found that a pleasurable response is diminished when the same image was recognized repeatedly. According to Biederman and Vessel, these opiate receptors get bored by repetition and need new stimulation, which leads us to curiosity. According to Lawrence, humans are directly rewarded with pleasure when learning something new.Footnote ¹⁴¹ The human brain, time and time again, rewards comprehending independently. Throughout evolution, the hardwired reward for learning has had a positive side effect, in that species that learned became more adaptive than species that did not keep learning.

Developing a Humanistic Synthesis – Dignity Matters

In summary, the new humanistic model of human nature builds on insights from the evolutionary sciences. At the base, it posits four basic drives, ultimate motives that underlie all human decisions. There are two ancient drives that all animals with some capacity to sense and evaluate their surroundings share; the drive to acquire (dA) life-sustaining resources, and the drive to defend (dD) against all life-threatening entities. In addition, there are the two newer drives, which evolved to an independent status only in humans: the drive to bond (dB) in order to form long-term mutually caring relationships with other humans, and the drive to comprehend (dC) in order to make sense of the world around us with regard to our own existence.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the economistic model can potentially accommodate these four drives. In contrast, the humanistic view suggests that we have four independent underlying natural drives that need to be continually balanced. The humanistic model presupposes that none of the drives can be maximized, but that they need to be in balance to provide a sense of dignity and well-being. In the humanistic model, the independent status of the drives to bond and comprehend means that they are treated as ends in themselves and are rewarded by the brain and nervous system in the same manner as dA or dD. The independence of the four drives thereby renders the model of human nature more complex.

Figure 1

The economistic versus the humanistic model

Emerging research in the field of neuroscience finds supportive evidence for the complexity of human drives and suggests that the prefrontal cortex of the brain has been uniquely designed to handle this complexity.Footnote ¹⁴²

In the humanistic model, the drives to acquire and to defend still remain viable and important factors in determining human behavior, yet the drive to bond with fellow humans and the drive to comprehend are strong, independent, competitive forces. As a result, the four independent drives are frequently in conflict with each other. In everyday life, humans struggle to decide how to behave and how to adaptively respond to the immediate circumstances; for example, whether to treat someone with respect or to disregard this person, whether to spend time with children rather than work, or follow the news on Twitter. Lawrence suggests that this condition of drive-conflict brings the prefrontal cortex into action.Footnote ¹⁴³ Its main task is to create a suitable balance when faced with drive-conflict. Neuroscience suggests that the prefrontal cortex has the capacity to call on all the resources of the rest of the cortex (long-term memory, skills, etc.) to search for a response that satisfies all four drives.

Conclusion

Taking the four-drive model as its basis, the leadership and managerial task every human naturally undertakes is to balance rather than maximize any of the four drives. If we try to maximize any of the drives – at the individual, group, or societal level – we risk distress, conflict, and ultimately extinction, as we will see in the next section.

Balancing the Four Drives: Key to Survival, Longevity, and Happiness

As managers and leaders, and simply as those who wish to survive and thrive, we are able to balance the four drives. Not only Goldilocks but also Aristotle and the Dalai Lama remind us that such an act of mindfulness is the key to a good life. This balancing act is also evident in those who are considered the happiest people.

In a much-cited and criticized study on blue zones, places in the world that have many more centenarians than others, author Daniel Buettner discovered a balance of the four drives.Footnote ¹⁶⁰ Buettner started by asking himself why life expectancy and happiness have been declining in the most prosperous nation in history, the United States. He started to study the question: if prosperity isn’t improving our well-being, what else could?

In a well-known documentary, he outlined the results of his twenty-year-long research into the lifestyle habits of the world’s healthiest, longest-lived individuals.Footnote ¹⁶¹ Among other things, these include:

• Move naturally: rather than engaging in intense exercise, long-lived individuals live in environments that naturally encourage movement, such as gardening and performing manual tasks without relying on machines.

• 80% rule: following the Okinawan mantra “hara hachi bu,” they stop eating when 80% full, leading to better weight management.

• Plant slant: their diets emphasize beans and limit meat consumption to around five times per month, with small portion sizes.

• Wine @ 5: Moderate alcohol consumption, preferably wine, is common among long-lived individuals and is enjoyed in moderation with meals and friends.

Hence, to fulfil the drive to acquire, people in the blue zones move naturally, eat moderately, and even drink some wine.

In a way, these resultsFootnote ¹⁶² confirm the evidence from evolutionary biology and suggest that a long life can be had by balancing the four drives, not by maximizing one of them.

To fulfil the drive to bond, the communities strongly emphasize love and belonging:

• Belong: being part of a faith-based community is common among centenarians and is associated with increased life expectancy.

• Loved ones first: prioritizing family, keeping aging relatives nearby, and investing time and love in relationships contribute to longevity.

• Right tribe: long-lived individuals surround themselves with supportive social circles that encourage healthy behaviors.

To address the drive to comprehend, they nurture a sense of purpose that goes beyond belonging or acquisition.

• Purpose: having a sense of purpose, referred to as “Ikigai” in Okinawa and “plan de vida” in Nicoya, can add up to seven years to life expectancy.

To address the drive to defend, they manage stress and create safe spaces for themselves:

• Downshift: long-lived individuals have routines to manage stress, such as reflecting on ancestors, praying, taking naps, or socializing.

While researchers have questioned the original data that predicted longevity in blue zones, studies have found that applying the principles can nevertheless improve longevity and well-being.Footnote ¹⁶³ Adopting such practices in places outside the original blue zones, researchers found that putting in place routines that support the balance of the four drives can increase life expectancy and quality of life in a rather predictable manner.Footnote ¹⁶⁴ Buettner and his critics argue that, while genetics play a role in longevity, adopting a blue zones lifestyle can significantly increase life expectancy and improve overall health.Footnote ¹⁶⁵ The current research on longevity and happiness concurs that a balance of the four drives is at the source of better living.Footnote ¹⁶⁶

When More Kills

When we talk about leadership and management, in many cases people fall into the trap of maximization. In recent times, it has become popular to talk about purpose maximization, or the maximization of psychological safety, or maximizing trust. All of these are maximization strategies that ultimately hurt us. The impacts of our maximization strategies are hidden in plain sight. In the following section, I provide some occasionally brutal evidence of our species’ attempts to minimize or maximize any of the four drives, which ultimately lead to death and extinction.

Overdosing on the Drive to Comprehend

In a similarly horrific fashion, the maximization of the drive to comprehend kills. We have all heard about jihadists or crusaders, people willing to die for their convictions and purpose. In many cases they are celebrated by their peer group and are often revered over the years as martyrs for the cause.Footnote ¹⁷⁴

Take the example of Dita Oepriarto and Puji Kuswanti, who took their children and blew themselves up, killing twelve people and injuring more than forty others severely.Footnote ¹⁷⁵

According to the news reports Dita Oepriarto, the father, drove a van to the Indonesian Christian Church and dropped off his wife Puji Kuswat and their 9- and 12-year-old daughters. According to the news reports the wife and daughters went inside and detonated a bomb. The father then drove the van to the Pentecost Central Church, where, from inside the vehicle, he detonated another bomb in front of the church. At the same time, Oepriarto’s sons drove motorcycles to Santa Maria Catholic Church, where they, too, detonated bombs. According to CCTV footage, the bomb at that church went off at 7:08 a.m. Forensic evidence indicates the bombs were attached to the attackers’ bodies.Footnote ¹⁷⁶

Dita and Puji were devoted parents and more devoted to their version of faith that encouraged them to kill people of other faiths and becoming martyrs. Friends from earlier in their lives said: I wasn’t actually too surprised when he finally blew himself up with his family as the culmination of his ‘jihad,’ because the seeds of extremism have been planted since 30 years ago.Footnote ¹⁷⁷

When notified of the killings, Pope Francis prayed for the victims of the attacks during his weekly Sunday address. The pope, a peaceful man, is successor to many other faith-inspired massacres such as the crusades. To remind some of the atrocities committed by faith maximizers, here an account (Figure 2):

In July 1099, European armies, fresh from the siege of Antioch, converged on Jerusalem (then ruled by the Muslim Fatimid Dynasty) and attacked the walled city from two sides. On the north, the crusaders would eventually breach the walls and perpetrate a slaughter that still echoes across the centuries. But on the south, a deep, wide ditch just outside the city’s wall kept the siege towers from approaching to disgorge their cargoes of armed men. A priest traveling with the army of Raymond de Saint Gilles, the Count of Toulouse, described the ditch and the crusaders’ efforts to advance. Toulouse reportedly offered his troops an extra payment of gold dinars to venture close to the guarded walls under cover of darkness and fill in part of the ditch. The Frenchmen succeeded; their siege tower got through, slamming against the stone wall of Jerusalem to bring them face to face with an enemy who had traded arrow volleys with them for the last five weeks.

Despite that small victory, the southern assault on Jerusalem failed. Even with a few siege towers in place, the southern wall was too well-defended to breach. Although Jerusalem’s southern defenses held, the invaders ultimately overran the city. And when they did, there was nothing noble or holy in their conquest.

“The chroniclers talk about ‘rivers of blood’ running in the streets of the city, and it may not be an exaggeration,” said Shimon Gibson, a historian at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Amid looting, burning, and worse, crusaders slaughtered Muslims, Jews, and even local Christians, whom they considered heretics. “They turned Jerusalem into a ghost town,” said Gibson.Footnote ¹⁷⁸

Figure 2

Maximizing the drive to comprehend has often been a cause for war

Poverty (of Dignity) Kills

Tom Friedman, the renowned New York Times columnist, suggests that there is a poverty of dignity rather than a poverty of money. This poverty of dignity is arguably fueling massive global conflicts. It also is the source of widening political divides and a drift toward extremes. Through the lens of the four-drive theory, we can see what that may mean when basic human drives remain under-fulfilled.

Balancing, Not Maximizing, Any of the Four Drives

Aristotle described human beings as social animals endowed with reason. In my conversations with Paul Lawrence, he said that all evolutionary evidence points to the same conclusion. Social represents the drive to bond, animals highlights the basic drives to acquire and defend we share with all living beings, and endowed with reason corresponds with the drive to comprehend that sets us apart as homo sapiens. Aristotle was also the inspiration for many scholars of human happiness and human well-being. It is not a surprise, then, that much of the evidence gathered has come to similar conclusions regarding human happiness. The happiest human beings apparently are able to balance the satisfaction of their four basic and independent drives.

One of the leading figures in the study of human well-being, Martin Seligman, created a model that confirms the independence of connected components of human well-being that consists of positivity, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishments (PERMA). Relationships arguably fit the drive to bond, meaning refers to the drive to comprehend and accomplishments the drive to acquire. Positivity and engagement are only possible when safety is present.

Conclusion

As such, Goldilocks had it right. If we as humans want to survive, thrive, and live a long life, we should avoid maximization strategies. We clearly have fundamental dignity requirements to feel alive as well and those are often considered our social minima or basic human needs. These basic needs do include financial and material wealth but are not fulfilled by them. In many ways, merely wealthy people are not able to find their humanity until they feel safe, cared for, and serve a higher purpose. While this insight might strike some as trivial and obvious, the balancing objective has deep-rooted and radical consequences for our lives and those of others.

Unilever

A first example of a European company with humanistic management elements is Unilever. Unilever is a British multinational corporation specializing in consumer packaged goods. It is headquartered in London and has a historical lineage dating back to 1929, when Lever Brothers, a British soap manufacturer, merged with the Dutch margarine producer, Margarine Unie.Footnote ¹⁹³ Since then, Unilever has expanded globally, now employing approximately 127,000 individuals across 190 countries with a diverse portfolio of over 400 brands.Footnote ¹⁹⁴ These brands are grouped into five core categories: Beauty & Wellbeing, Personal Care, Home Care, Nutrition, and Ice Cream. Despite the variety across these brand families, they are unified by a single guiding mission: to make sustainable living commonplace.Footnote ¹⁹⁵

Throughout its history it shifted between humanistic and economistic approaches to management. Unilever’s dedication to sustainability and purpose-driven business arguably dates back to its founding. William Lever, one of the founders, established Sunlight Soap as one of the first brands with a social purpose, aimed at improving health and hygiene through accessible products.Footnote ¹⁹⁶ Over a century later, this commitment to purposeful business practices became central once more to Unilever’s operations. Under the leadership of Paul Polman, Unilever reconnected to its roots. Unilever actively leverages its global reach to promote responsible, transparent, and sustainable practices, positioning itself as a business that prioritizes long-term social impact alongside profitability.Footnote ¹⁹⁷

Unilever’s approach under Polman, described as a “purpose-led, future-fit business model,” is designed to generate both social value and business growth. According to recent data, Unilever’s Sustainable Living Brands – which emphasize social and environmental responsibility – are growing 69 percent faster than the rest of the company’s portfolio and contribute 75 percent of its growth.Footnote ¹⁹⁸ Notably, seven of Unilever’s ten top-performing brands, including Dove, Knorr, Persil, and Hellmann’s, are part of the Sustainable Living Brand lineup, each brand addressing distinct social or environmental issues aligned with the company’s broader sustainability objectives.Footnote ¹⁹⁹

The measurable impact of Unilever’s Sustainable Living Brands highlights their humanistic focus. Dove, for example, has reached over 35 million youths globally through its self-esteem initiatives, while Lifebuoy’s hand-washing campaigns have educated over one billion people on hygiene practices. Vaseline’s skin healing programs support vulnerable populations, and Ben & Jerry’s actively campaigns for social justice and environmental sustainability. Additionally, Rin’s Career Academy in India empowers rural women by providing mentorship and career resources.Footnote ²⁰⁰

Former Unilever CEO Alan Jope emphasized the importance of purpose in contemporary consumer behavior, citing data that 66 percent of consumers select brands based on social stances, with over 90 percent of millennials willing to switch to purpose-driven brands.Footnote ²⁰¹ Jope argued that purpose enhances brand relevance, promotes consumer engagement, and reduces price sensitivity, underscoring Unilever’s ambition for all its brands to embody a clear social purpose.Footnote ²⁰²

Internally, Unilever’s humanistic management philosophy is reflected in its approach to employee welfare. In surveys, 84 percent of office employees agreed that Unilever genuinely cares about their well-being.Footnote ²⁰³ The company’s Employee Assistance Program offers comprehensive support, including 24/7 counseling, stress management courses, life coaching, financial planning, and resilience training.Footnote ²⁰⁴ This holistic approach to employee well-being aligns with the principles of humanistic management, which prioritize respect, care, and personal growth for all employees.Footnote ²⁰⁵ Under pressure from economistic Wall Street observers and investors, Unilever since had to shift back to economistic approaches which led to layoffs and caused many internal quarrels and top talent to leave. This seemed to happen at some of the competition, such as Danone as well. So, while a humanistic approach is often very successful, traditional economistically trained players (i.e., MBAs on Wall Street) force many publicly listed organizations back to short-term profit maximization and cost cutting.

Natura

Another example of a globally active company that has managed humanistically pretty much throughout its existence is Natura. Natura is an international cosmetics company headquartered in Brazil, stands out as the world’s first and, as of 2023, the largest certified B Corporation.Footnote ²⁰⁶ Since its inception in 1969, Natura has grown significantly, employing over 35,000 individuals across more than 100 countries, with revenues reaching $7.9 billion in 2021.Footnote ²⁰⁷ The company’s mission, “to nurture beauty and relationships for a better way of living and doing business,” aligns with its vision of innovating to create positive economic, social, and environmental impacts.

Andrea Álvares, Natura’s Chief Brand, Innovation, International, and Sustainability Officer, has articulated the company’s purpose-driven philosophy. Álvares highlighted that the company aims to “become the best beauty company or group FOR the world.” She emphasized the interconnectedness of their brands, which include AVON, The Body Shop, and other brands, noting: “There is a business reason why these companies were chosen, but there is also a purpose that joined us together.”Footnote ²⁰⁸

Natura’s approach to management and sustainability reflects a deep understanding of interdependence. Álvares explained that the company recognizes its responsibility for its global impact, incorporating this awareness into a business model that measures success across financial, social, and environmental dimensions. By adopting a “triple bottom line” approach, Natura tracks indicators of value generation beyond profit, fostering a holistic evaluation of its contributions.Footnote ²⁰⁹ This philosophy distinguishes Natura’s humanistic management practices from conventional economistic models, which often externalize social and environmental costs.

A cornerstone of Natura’s humanistic ethos is its focus on well-being. It has a long-standing commitment to promoting harmonious relationships with oneself, others, and nature through cosmetics and related rituals. These practices emphasize natural products, sustainable materials, and equitable value chains. Álvares framed this as a shift from wealth creation to well-being creation, underscoring the integration of humanistic principles into Natura’s core operations.Footnote ²¹⁰

Natura’s dedication to social impact extends to its treatment of employees, particularly its network of eight million consultants, most of whom are women. To measure its social impact, Natura introduced the Human Development Index (HDI) for its consultants in 2014, modeled after the United Nations Development Program’s methodology. Between 2017 and 2019, the HDI of Natura consultants increased by 3.1 percent, attributed to initiatives like digital inclusion and financial education. The assessment also revealed a 1.8-percent annual HDI improvement for new consultants, reflecting the company’s commitment to human dignity and well-being. This innovative use of the HDI serves as a model for measuring corporate social responsibility in the future.Footnote 211

Trust is another pivotal element of Natura’s strategy. Leaders are coached to “be genuine” and avoid opportunism or greenwashing. There are focused efforts to embed sustainability and ethical practices into the heart of business operations, such as regenerative practices, circularity, respect for human rights, fair wages, and reduced emissions. Leadership of Natura is aware that only these authentic practices build trust with consumers and society at large, contributing to long-term success.Footnote ²¹²

Natura exemplifies how corporations can empower people, promote dignity, and minimize environmental impact while achieving global success. By prioritizing purpose over profit and embracing humanistic management, the company has established itself as a force for positive change worldwide. Unfortunately, again, as a publicly listed company, economistically oriented forces pushed Natura to cut costs and sell off some of their global partner organizations. While Natura and others showcase the power of the humanistic management and leadership model, it always has to swim upstream against the tide of short-term, economistic actors.

Barry-Wehmiller

In contrast to the previous example, Barry-Wehmiller is not a publicly listed company. Barry-Wehmiller is a rather unusual example of humanistic management, as it is a very traditional manufacturing firm. Barry-Wehmiller shows that humanistic management is key to enduring viability, even in markets that are seen as challenging, such as manufacturing in the American Midwest. While the majority of manufacturing companies have relocated to China or have closed, Barry-Wehmiller has found a way to stay commercially viable through “Truly Human Leadership.”

Barry-Wehmiller is a global engineering and manufacturing solutions company based in St. Louis, Missouri. It was founded in 1885 and has since evolved into a diversified organization with a focus on capital equipment and engineering consulting across various industries such as packaging, paper converting, sheeting, and corrugating. Barry-Wehmiller is widely regarded as a humanistic company, primarily due to its commitment to fostering a culture of care, compassion, and ethical leadership within the workplace. This approach is encapsulated in the company’s philosophy that emphasizes the importance of people and relationships in driving business success. Barry-Wehmiller’s leadership, particularly under CEO Bob Chapman, has been instrumental in promoting a vision of business as a “powerful force for good,” which aligns closely with humanistic principles that prioritize human dignity and flourishing.Footnote ²¹³

One of the core tenets of Barry-Wehmiller’s humanistic approach is its focus on the well-being of employees. The company actively cultivates a culture of “companionate love,” which is characterized by mutual respect, empathy, and support among team members.Footnote ²¹⁴ This culture not only enhances employee morale and engagement but also contributes to improved organizational performance. Research indicates that organizations that prioritize emotional connections and supportive relationships tend to experience higher levels of employee satisfaction and productivity.Footnote ²¹⁵ Barry-Wehmiller’s commitment to creating a “Circle of Safety” for its employees further exemplifies this humanistic approach, as it fosters an environment where individuals feel secure and valued.Footnote ²¹⁶

In addition to its internal culture, Barry-Wehmiller’s humanistic philosophy extends to its broader impact on society. The company engages in various community-oriented initiatives and emphasizes the importance of social responsibility in its business practices.Footnote ²¹⁷ By prioritizing ethical decision-making and community engagement, Barry-Wehmiller demonstrates a commitment to not only achieving financial success but also contributing positively to the communities in which it operates. This aligns with the notion that businesses have a moral obligation to act in ways that promote the well-being of society at large.Footnote ²¹⁸

In his public speeches, CEO Bob Chapman lamented the low rates of employee engagement nationally. “We have over a hundred and thirty million people in our workforce who go home every day feeling they work for a company that doesn’t care about them. That is seven out of eight people in the workforce.” He argued that we have the power to fix this issue today. “We just need to engage our heads and our hearts in a leadership process that validates the worth of every individual.” This is in line with the focus on dignity, or intrinsic value, which humanistic management mandates. He describes an environment “where people can discover their gifts, develop their gifts, share their gifts, and – extremely important – be recognized and appreciated for doing so, which creates an opportunity for them to go home … and have a more meaningful life of purpose.” What he mentioned about developing and sharing gifts aligns with the four-drive model that underlies humanistic management theory. Speaking further on the importance of recognition, Chapman recalls an interaction with an employee. Speaking about a traditional work environment, which does not focus on recognition, the employee said that when he goes home “from that environment, you don’t feel very good about yourself. And when you don’t feel very good about yourself, you’re not very nice to your wife.” He said that

Chapman had a realization in that moment: the biggest measurable he would look for is a reduction in the divorce rate of his employees. This is interesting to explore, as many question how to measure or quantify well-being. He had recently learned from a family counselor that the most important thing in raising good kids is a good marriage. So, if children grow up seeing loving relationships, he argues, “many of the issues we face in this country will dissipate because we will have organizations that truly care about the impact they make.”Footnote ²¹⁹

By focusing on value creation and “Truly Human Leadership,” Barry-Wehmiller has delivered value to all of its stakeholders. That includes its almost 12,000 global team members and their families, their customers, shareholders, vendors and suppliers, and the communities in which they operate.Footnote ²²⁰ At the same time, the company has grown its financial value from USD 20 million to more than USD 3 billion. According to Bob Chapman, the company has outperformed even Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway in terms of financial returns in the past decades.Footnote ²²¹ It goes to show that human-centered management is not only beneficial for employees and communities, but it is more profitable for the company as well. As such, Barry Wehmiller’s example may suggest that a humanistic model needs to be protected from the economistic actors in the public markets. It also may suggest that the short-term oriented analysts business schools prepare in their MBA programs are not a good fit for such long-term oriented organizations. Barry Wehmiller rarely hires MBAs and has opted to create its internal university to develop its people, not leaving it to traditional business schools. This should make business educators think again.

Narayana Health

To showcase the power and relevance of humanistic management and leadership, Narayana Health is an interesting example of a publicly listed healthcare organization based in India. Founded as Narayana Hrudayalaya Heart Hospital, Narayana Health is headquartered in Bangalore, India. Narayana Health is a leading healthcare institution renowned for its pioneering work in cardiac care. Founded by Dr. Devi Shetty in 2001, the hospital has grown to become one of the largest cardiac care facilities globally, providing highest-quality, affordable healthcare services. Narayana Health distinguishes itself not only through medical excellence but also through its commitment to humanistic principles in healthcare delivery. The hospital has adopted innovative and inclusive strategies to ensure that quality healthcare is accessible to a broad spectrum of the population.

Cardiac surgeon Dr. Devi Shetty has contained costs “by tweaking processes, driving hard bargains and negotiating creative partnership deals.”Footnote ²²² The hospital then passes these savings to its customers in order to fulfill their mission of affordable healthcare. Patients at Narayana Health get cardiac care at the lowest cost in the country and at a fraction of what it costs in the rest of the world, a feat accomplished through what Shetty refers to as “process innovation.” Shetty was formerly personal physician to Mother Teresa, and he notes that his interactions with her “not only offered the opportunity to closely observe the famed humanitarian’s charitable work but also caused the doctor to begin thinking about how quality health care could be made widely accessible and affordable.”Footnote ²²³ To Shetty, this highlighted the need for process innovation, rather than product innovation, in the healthcare industry.

A process innovation which centers on human dignity is Narayana Health’s partnerships with insurance companies. “We charge only $1,200 to $1,400 for heart operations; 80% of the country’s population cannot even afford that to save their lives. How do you make it affordable to them? Eleven years ago, we launched a new microhealth-insurance scheme called Yeshasvini Microhealth Insurance,” Shetty said. There are 1.7 million farmers paying 11 cents per month for the insurance, which connects 400 hospitals. The farmers can go to any of these hospitals and get any operation free of cost, besides the 11 cents per month. This radical collaboration allowed millions of people to gain access to lifesaving healthcare.

While some think it is charity, it is important to note that one of the biggest predictors of quality in healthcare is the amount of procedures a doctor has performed – a learning curve effect. With increased amounts of procedures, the quality of each procedure is increased and can therefore command higher prices from wealthier clientele. Such clientele prefers to receive the best care, and the funds received can be used to pay for the other procedures which reinforces a virtuous cycle of increased performance.

Another innovation is that the hospital doubles as an academic institution which trains heart surgeons, cardiologists, perfusionists, and nurses. This helps the hospital cut costs. “We conduct 79 training programs on campus, so half of the workforce here is not paid by us. They are students undergoing a training program,” said Shetty.Footnote ²²⁴ This not only reduces costs but also elevates the learning of the personnel and adds quality to the service.

Lastly, Narayana Health actively reaches out to underserved communities and offers charitable medical services. This commitment to social responsibility aligns with the hospital’s broader mission of making a positive societal impact beyond its immediate healthcare services.

In conclusion, Narayana Health exemplifies a humanistic approach to healthcare by combining medical excellence with a commitment to affordability, accessibility, and patient-centered care. Through its innovative models, inclusive initiatives, and dedication to social responsibility, the hospital not only heals patients but also contributes to the well-being of the communities it serves. It will be interesting to observe how Narayana Health can deal with the pressures of public markets, and so far it seems to have weathered the economistic storms.

SEKEM

As a different organization entirely operating in Northern Africa, the SEKEM initiative is a humanistic conglomerate built to serve Egypt and the well-being of its people. SEKEM was founded in 1977 by Dr. Ibrahim Abouleish and has become a renowned sustainable development initiative. The SEKEM initiative was founded with the mission to promote sustainable human development. It began as a small-scale agricultural project and has since evolved to encompass several businesses in agriculture, education, healthcare, as well as cultural initiatives. SEKEM, which means vitality from the sun, is widely recognized for its commitment to holistic human development, combining economic success with social responsibility and environmental stewardship. The company’s humanistic principles are deeply rooted in its founder’s vision of fostering human dignity, community building, and sustainable practices.

In 1997, troubled by the social problems and poverty he saw while visiting his home country, Dr. Abouleish moved his family to Egypt from their comfortable life in Austria. In 2003, he was the first entrepreneur to receive the “Right Livelihood Award,” also widely known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize.” From the 2003 press release:

Abouleish bought some untouched desert land hoping to reclaim the land to produce natural medicines and food. Despite initial pushback, Abouleish’s team constructed wells and planted 120,000 trees to provide shade and shelter for plants and animals. The team promoted soil fertility through the use of organic compost, which was produced on-site from animal waste. They built electricity and water systems, roads, and houses. All of these measures would eventually help SEKEM to become profitable, but the primary intention and result was to create value out of land that had been considered worthless. The regeneration of the environment and the construction of infrastructure generated both environmental and social benefit.

SEKEM initially faced a series of setbacks from the Egyptian army and government. Abouleish had to defend himself to the government on multiple fronts, but was eventually allowed to continue with supervision from the administration. This collaboration actually proved beneficial to SEKEM in the long term, as it increased the company’s credibility and allowed it to expand its reach through government partnership. For example, SEKEM’s development of biodynamic cultivation methods for cotton in 1992 was revolutionary for the entire country. The trial results convinced the government to stop dispensing 35,000 tons of pesticides per year, which previously were sprayed from the air to the detriment of the health of farmers and communities. Not only has the innovation improved living conditions, but the cotton yields were higher and the cotton was of better quality. Approximately 850 farms are now members of the Egyptian Biodynamic Association, which advises and instructs farmers and promotes biodynamic agriculture in Egypt on a scientific basis. This commitment to sharing knowledge aligns with and promotes the human drive to comprehend.

Today, SEKEM is a group of nine successful companies that export organic food, spices, tea, medicine, and cotton. All farms use the biodynamic method, which employs natural processes and refrains from chemical usage. The pharmaceutical division of SEKEM also applies high standards to its materials, helping the body to activate its natural functions without side effects. The clothing division applies environmentally friendly treatments to its organically grown cotton to produce fine and breathable garments. SEKEM employees start their work day by meeting in a circle, which represents equality and the unity of their shared vision. SEKEM believes that “like any living organism, the vital network of the SEKEM community needs well-functioning organs – social institutions which secure rights and claim responsibility – organizations which set rules to guarantee equality and social and judicial structures in which the individual is able to recognize his own dignity and therefore is encouraged to help himself.”Footnote ²²⁶ The co-operative of SEKEM employees, described as an independent judicial organ, is central to the organization’s social structure. The cooperative informs team members about their rights and responsibilities, promotes living standards, establishes social funds, coordinates training programs, and promotes cooperation between SEKEM and the government. These efforts demonstrate SEKEM’s commitment to the comprehensive development of the individual, society, and environment.Footnote ²²⁷ SEKEM is not publicly listed and integrates many different services and products under its name. Yet, the overarching philosophy is humanistically oriented, and while small, it keeps inspiring leaders globally about what is possible.

Conclusion

The reality proves feasibility. The businesses and leaders previously mentioned represent a globally representative but small sliver of what exists and what is possible. Many more examples of humanistic businesses exist, including Mondragon, Gore, Patagonia, or DM, just to name a few. These organizations prove that humanity can do better, as many of us want to do better. Many argue that a change in consciousness is needed to change the quality of leadership, the quality of organizations, and the quality of our society. Others suggest that we need to increase our awareness of what it means to be human. The humanistic model of human nature is an opportunity for management researchers and practitioners to increase such awareness and share the power of what is possible when our business practices become more human.

Humanistic Leadership: Of Sandwiches and Bagels

In my teaching, I describe our current mindsets as best represented by a triangular American-style Bologna sandwich, standing on its side, sloping upward. It represents the dominant idea that all we want is MORE – growth, unlimited growth, and good leadership provides that (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Economistic model: Responsibility for maximization

(own graphic)

Kate Raworth, however, has proposed that we change the imagery of our economic system to resemble a donut.Footnote ²²⁹ The core of the donut – the “munchkin” – represents what I call the dignity core, the basic needs of all humans to live as humans. The outer boundary of the donut represents the planetary boundaries that humanity is violating – at our peril (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Humanistic model

(own depiction based on Raworth (2017))

When I bring donuts for my students, inevitably half of them do not want to eat them because they are unhealthy. So much so that Dunkin’ Donuts, one of the largest chains in the United States, decided to drop the name “Donuts” because millennials and others do not like it. I have since resorted to bringing along more wholesome bagels.

I agree with Kate Raworth that metaphors shape the way we think, see, and act in the world. I am suggesting that bagel management is a better idea for how we should understand the task of managers and leaders.

Using the bagel as a metaphor better suited to my students, I now argue that the most important task of managers is to:

• move humanity above the dignity threshold (the inner core), and

• reduce the impact of human activity on the planetary boundaries, to

• enable flourishing of all life on earth.

Kate Raworth suggests we call the zone we need to be moving to the “safe and just operating zone for humanity.”Footnote ²³⁰ I call the process we need to get there “humanistic leadership”: the protection of dignity and the promotion of well-being.

Creating a New Normal

As the Ellen Goodman quote at the start of this section indicates, our current understanding of normal is bizarre. There are plenty of ways to live a better and more fulfilling life. Yet, in our educational efforts we seem to endorse the hustle and bustle approach to creating wealth as a signifier of human value. Our societal leaders at large personify such economistic values. Therefore, if we want more people to embrace more fulfilling lives and address the issues of our times, we need to go deeper and address personal development and formation.

To develop ourselves and support others in the development of humanistic leaders, a group of scholars has created the Humanistic Leadership Academy.Footnote ²³¹ In that context, we aim to present an integral approach to personal development around knowing, doing, and being a humanistic leader.Footnote ²³² In this way, we uncover some of the intellectual foundations on which the current system is built and create alternative options. Such alternatives allow for choice, and mostly when they have a choice people opt for the more life-conducive option. After all, we are a product of nature and nature regenerates life.

The baseline for the humanistic personal development process is a new realism about who we are as people. Many of us have unknowingly bought into one or another form of veneer theory – the idea that we are fundamentally bad, asocial, amoral, and seek to disguise that to allow for egotistic social purposes.Footnote ²³³

Critics of veneer theory, like primatologist Frans de Waal, argue that morality is more deeply rooted in our evolutionary history, arising from the social nature of primates, including humans.Footnote ²³⁴ De Waal and others propose that traits such as empathy, cooperation, and fairness evolved as beneficial adaptations that helped early human societies survive and thrive.Footnote ²³⁵ Charles Darwin’s views on morality, particularly in The Descent of Man, suggest that morality evolved as part of human nature, shaped by social instincts that promote cooperation and empathy. Darwin argued that the roots of morality lie in the social behaviors seen in other animals, particularly in primates, which exhibit compassion, care for the young, and cooperation within groups.Footnote ²³⁶ Much current research confirms that rather than being a mere cover, morality is seen as an integral part of human nature, shaped by both biology and culture.Footnote ²³⁷ As Rutger Bregman writes in his book Humankind, most people are decent, and if our perspectives on human nature shift, it will create many new possibilities for collaboration.Footnote ²³⁸ As we embrace this “new normal,” we can lead our own lives and interact with others, opening up new possibilities.

A big challenge to humanistic leadership is that it requires consistent personal development. Bob Kegan’s Constructive Developmental Theory and Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory provide valuable frameworks for understanding humanistic management and personal development.Footnote ^239, Footnote ²⁴⁰ Both theories emphasize the importance of ongoing development throughout adulthood, integrating cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions of human experience.

Not Everyone Is Equal

While it is fashionable to posit equality, it is important to note that there are hierarchies in personal development. Some people are more willing to engage in it and develop along so-called growth hierarchies. Such growth hierarchies are distinct from more traditional dominator hierarchies.

Growth hierarchies refer to systems where hierarchy exists to support development, empowerment, and growth for all individuals involved. These hierarchies are not about power or control, but about nurturing potential and ensuring the well-being of the collective. The primary goal is to facilitate learning, collaboration, and mutual upliftment. Leaders, or those higher up in the hierarchy, use their positions to guide and help others grow, providing opportunities for development.

Unfortunately, most business education is about developing dominator hierarchies in which the focus is the gaining and maintaining of power, often at the expense of others. As a result, in many well-intentioned conversations the conflation of growth and domination-oriented hierarchies leaves humanistic leadership powerless. The solution to this is seen as trying to avoid dominator hierarchies, focusing on “everyone is equal,” and abolishing hierarchies. This is important to note, as it has massive implications for business education and corporate development. In a humanistic context, the only journey to leadership is the “journey within.”

Conclusion

When we start to embrace the “new normal” according to humanistic principles and understand that we are responsible for our own “inner journey,” we automatically honor our own dignity. Then, and only then, will we start to flourish. Once we are in this mindset, we can develop ourselves as humanistic leaders, embracing others and collaborating authentically to create a world that works for all of us. Humanistic leaders are on a journey. On that journey, they typically find that many people around them yearn to make an authentic contribution to the common good. But many of them do not yet have the skills, knowledge, or experience to see how. That is the big opportunity for humanistic leaders to step in and up. I invite you all to continue this journey.