Don’t let loyalty to people stand in the way of truth and the well-being of the organization. In some companies, employees hide their employer’s mistakes, and employers do the same in return. This is unhealthy and stands in the way of improvement because it prevents people from bringing their mistakes and weaknesses to the surface, encourages deception, and eliminates subordinates’ right of appeal.
The same thing applies to the idea of personal loyalty. I have regularly seen people kept in jobs that they don’t deserve because of their personal relationship to the boss, and this leads to unscrupulous managers trading on personal loyalties to build fiefdoms for themselves. Judging one person by a different set of rules than another is an insidious form of corruption that undermines the meritocracy.
I believe in a healthier form of loyalty founded on openly exploring what is true. Explicit, principled thinking and radical transparency are the best antidotes for self-dealing. When everyone is held to the same principles and decision-making is done publicly, it is difficult for people to pursue their own interests at the expense of the organization’s. In such an environment, those who face their challenges have the most admirable character; when mistakes and weaknesses are hidden, unhealthy character is rewarded instead.
Create an environment in which everyone has the right to understand what makes sense and no one has the right to hold a critical opinion without speaking up.
Whether people have the independence and character to fight for the best answers will depend upon their nature, but you can encourage them by creating an atmosphere in which everyone’s first thought is to ask: “Is it true?”
Speak up, own it, or get out. In an idea-meritocracy, openness is a responsibility; you not only have the privilege to speak up and “fight for right” but are obliged to do so. This extends especially to principles. Just like everything else, principles need to be questioned and debated. What you’re not allowed to do is complain and criticize privately, either to others or in your own head. If you can’t fulfill this obligation, then you must go.
Of course open-mindedly exploring what’s true with others is not the same thing as stubbornly insisting that only you are right, even after the decision-making machine has settled an issue and moved on. There will inevitably be cases where you must abide by some policy or decision that you disagree with.
Be extremely open. Discuss your issues until you are in sync with each other or until you understand each other’s positions and can determine what should be done. As someone I worked with once explained, “It’s simple, just don’t filter.”
Don’t be naive about dishonesty. People lie more than most people imagine. I learned that by being in the position of being responsible for everyone in the company. While we have an exceptionally ethical group of people, in all organizations there are dishonest people who have to be dealt with in practical ways. For example, don’t believe most people who are caught being dishonest when they say that they’ve seen the light and will never do it again because chances are they will. Dishonest people are dangerous, so keeping them around isn’t smart.
At the same time, let’s be practical. If I tried to limit my relationships to people who never lied, I’d have nobody to work with. While I have extremely high standards when it comes to integrity, I don’t view it in a black-white, one-strike-and-you’re-out way. I look at the severity, the circumstances, and the patterns to try to understand whether I am dealing with a person who is a habitual liar and will lie to me again, or with a person who is fundamentally honest yet imperfect. I consider the significance of the dishonesty itself (Was the person stealing a piece of cake or were they committing a felony?) as well as the nature of our existing relationship (Is it my spouse telling the lie, a casual acquaintance, or an employee?). Treating such cases differently is appropriate because a basic law of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime.
Be radically transparent.