THE TYRANNY OF THE FOURS
Gary Young
1998, reviewed and posted April 30, 2024
We live in a world influenced by all sorts of institutions and sometimes we individuals have some influence on some institutions. The Tyranny title is because there is not much that indivduals can do to cope with those institutions that have a commanding hold on us except to hope that the institutions are well managed. What happens when institutions are not well managed and since by my measure, about 40% to 45% of the US population exhibit strong World View Four behaviors, there is a high likelihood of being trapped in an organization governed by a tyrannical World View Four.
The purpose of this chapter is to address the observation that institutions are managed by people who make executive decisions which often are rational only within the narrow context of their most fundamental beliefs that make up their worldviews. Academicians can only assume that executive decision makers are “universally rational” or risk the “so what does a professor really know--argument.” I, on the other hand, can defend my observations from a “been there, done that” basis. I have also become so aware and alarmed about my observations that I have spent a large part of the last few years trying to understand what is really going on. I believe that some worldview sets lead to better executive decision making then others, and worldview 4 is a threat to individual liberty and one of the weaker sets when dealing with uncertainty and rapid change. This doesn’t mean that I “understand all that I know about this stuff,” and the Graves model is still only a model that will sooner or later be replaced by better models. The reader is again reminded that it is also the rare individual that would exhibit behavior purely within any single worldview set. For the sake of building the tyranny argument, I will be elaborating on the effects of observed WV 4 behaviors
independent of executives that exhibited them only rarely or those that exhibited them consistently.
One of the companies I studied in getting my MBA was Penn Central, the giant railroad that failed during the 1960’s. Because I am a basic pack rat, I kept my research files on the company and dug them out about ten years ago to see if I could identify the basic worldviews of the Penn Central top managers with reference to the Graves model. This approach was certainly not very scientific or rigorous. This was because it relied solely on statements to the press before and after the company failure and data that I gathered primarily as an exercise in securities analysis. I do believe however, that there were strong enough indications to form the hypothesis that the failure was at least in part, the result of long term and progressive worldview 4 managerial decision making. The Penn Central failure happened so long ago that few remember that the company was once considered one of the “bluest” of the blue chip stocks and a stand-out example of a well managed company and that it had been a shinning example for about a century. It is my hypothesis that Penn Central was not unique and that it is very probable that the very attractive qualities of the WV 4’s, such as intelligence, loyalty, industry and others, start to work against the company as these people fill up the senior management positions. At some point, a “critical mass” of 4’s is reached where the “culture” of the company changes and questions for which the solutions are critical to the future of the company are no longer asked. In the case of Penn Central, it seems that no executive ever questioned the basic premise that they were just a railroad company. This was actually a generous assumption. It was not clear from my data if the issue of considering themselves being a “transportation company” was even in the top ten of considered strategic alternatives. This more expanded vision may have resulted in better decision making and the avoidance of bankruptcy.
So what does a business failure that happened over forty years ago have to do with events today? For openers, I see the same thing happening within many of our institutions and companies. Second, the fundamental nature of humans of which Graves models only a part, changes very slowly over centuries and then only if there is the political freedom to do so. In order for an institution to really thrive, there must be relative liberty for individuals to make decisions at their appropriate level. I believe that this sort of liberty goes away as the culture coalesces around a single worldview, particularly WV 4. Further observation leads me to conclude that as the single worldview begins to dominate, those people who don’t share the view either leave or spend progressively more unproductive time trying to figure out how to fit in. The long term result is that competing institutions with more internal liberty become relatively more efficient and successful while like Penn Central, the moribund institutions go bust.
The single best analogy to point out what I mean was stimulated some years ago when I visited Topeka Kansas for the exhibition “The Treasures of the Czars”. The Orthodox Church, as are all major religious organizations, was and is a world View Four institution. I am no theologian, but I understood from the exhibit that Orthodox Church members believed that since heaven was such a beautiful place, then their places of worship should be also. The long term result was that most of the wealth of Russia ended up in the Church. This annoyed the Czars. In turn, the Czars expropriated all the wealth of the Church, and that is how the Russian church and state were combined. Two other factors entered into the situation. The vast majority of the church going public also believed that the Czars were the living instrument of God and therefore it was right, just and normal to have a combined church and state. Second, most of the Czars and a vast majority of the royals were devoutly religious. This last point resulted in royalty constantly giving art, jewels, precious metals and other wealth to the church which combined with the continued giving by church members depleted virtually all the
working capital within Russia. The affect was the enormous concentration of wealth in the hands of the Czars that was both not touchable nor in a form usable for economic growth. The archipelago of gulags existed long before the Soviet state to take care of those with any notions of liberty or ideas for better applications of capital.
Contrast the outcomes still suffered in Russia with the outcomes in the United States that started with a notion of “liberty for all.” The analogy for business is that as management coalesces around the “true faith” of world View Four, liberty for other worldviews is replaced with a tyranny just as dark as that of Russia under the Czars.
TYRANTS:
The vast majorities of Fours are not and would never think of themselves as tyrants any more then did the clergy in the Russian churches. Indeed, the vast majority of every worldview grouping consist of “good” people, but every worldview group has “bad” people. However, in The Graves Model chapter, it was pointed out that “good” WV 6 individuals can produce very “bad” outcomes through their group actions. WV 8 may have the potential to eclipse all other world views in “badness.” In general, I think it is WV 3 followed by WV 5 that probably have the highest percentages of bad people. It is characteristic of 4’s to not be very tolerant of, and very judgmental about other WV groups. It has also been my observations that “good” 4’s cannot seem to recognize and therefore effectively deal with other 4’s who have serious character defects as long as the bad 4’s “play the game” by showing the respect and servitude expected by the good 4’s. It seems that the flawed 4’s have been literally and figuratively getting away with murder for centuries because they were operating within the political, religious, social or corporate moors of their time and their general behavior was consistent with and comfortable for other 4’s. For a contrasting example, one of my direct ancestors, Rebecca Nurse (Nourse), daughter of immigrants, William and Jane Blessing, Towne of Yarmouth, England, was born Feb. 16, 1621 and was hanged as a witch, “right, just and normally” on July 19, 1692. It would be a
safe assumption that she experienced tyranny in the “crucible” known as Salem Massachusetts. Fortunately for me, this was well after she gave birth to the next generation of my ancestors.
The hard core tyrants in the control of institutions are generally worldview 5’s, followed by many 4’s and a sprinkling of 3’s. There really are enough tyrants in business to give Hollywood writers and other anti-capitalists the stereotypical model of corporations and their executives as nasty, greedy, and an all together horrible place and group of people (as Hollywood rakes in millions of entertainment dollars while busily shafting each other). Again I want to emphasize that the vast majority of people with worldviews 3, 4 and 5 are “good” people and only a small percentage of institutions are headed by tyrants of any worldview. I may be naive about the issue, but I think it is far easier to understand and work with WV 3 or WV5 tyrants than with WV 4 tyrants simply because their motives and methods are more straight forward. There are already many books on how to survive encounters with stereotypical tyrants and that is why this chapter is focused on the tyranny of the fours. I believe Tyrant 4’s are unrecognized killers of many business enterprises simply because their apparent dedication to serve masks the unintended results of their actions that result in killing the very institutions to which they devoted themselves.
The following are discussions of the behaviors and their repercussions of the deepest held beliefs of those who are the Tyrant Fours:
THE ANOINTED:
Faith organizes and equips man’s sole for action. To be in possession of the one and only truth and never doubt one’s righteousness; to feel that one is backed by a mysterious power whether it be God, destiny, the law of history, or simply being promoted by your organization; to exult in self-denial and devotion to
duty are all admirable qualifications for resolute and ruthless action in any field. The development of an otherwise “good” WV Four into a tyrant is their growing conviction that they have been “anointed.”
In my view, the single biggest issue with WV Four tyrants is that they are trapped in circular reasoning concerning their worth to the institution. Most do not start out as tyrants unless they are also “Golden Bulls”, but many start becoming tyrants when they receive promotions. The process seems to be that when they are promoted, it is a clear message to them that they are the best or they would not have been selected. There is nothing wrong with that message, but it is the next step that starts to get worrisome. Promotion becomes proof that they are right and others were not promoted because they were wanting. Eventually the reasoning is that they are promoted because they are always right and since the firm promotes only the best and most worthy, therefore, the decisions they make must be right or they would not have been promoted. Successive promotions hardens the reasoning process to the point of faith that they now are “anointed.” The result is that all their decisions made are perfectly right and the proof is the high position that the organization has granted through the recognition of their righteousness. At the time of his excommunication in 1521, Martin Luther probably observed the same behavior in Emperor Charles V. It is also a fair analogy that Martin Luther was the champion of the “disruptive theological technology” of his time.
HYPOCRISY:
It has occurred to me that the WV Four tyrants probably own the franchise on hypocrisy. I’ve also noticed that “good” Fours seem to recognize or perhaps more accurately, be bothered by only a small fraction of the hypocrisy of their brethren. At the top of my list is Tyrant Four’s and particularly the Golden Bull variety are generally certain that if they can’t do something, than no one else is capable of
the achievement. Since my career has been in business, so is the following example. Not withstanding all the negative behaviors listed in this section, the very brightest and hardest working WV Fours seem to be able to create a long run compound annual growth rate in their part of the business about the lower of either ten percent, or the average in their industry. When a manager is able to motivate and inspire a larger portion of the workforce to excel and therefore obtain something like a 40% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR), the Tyrant Four senior managers are incapable of believing it. In part this is because there was not the “anointment” from on high for the achiever. In spite of all the rhetoric about it being results that count, the real measure for WV Fours is style. If you are not like them or not anointed, you are definitely marked for removal as a heretic and a threat to good order. A consistent 10% CAGR is not necessarily a bad thing, Wall Street loves it, but I and others have pulled off five year runs of 40% so I know it is possible. Just think how an occasional 40% five year run would affect the future of any firm. Oh by the way, it generally takes disruptive technology to reach the 40% level and since the technology is “disruptive to good order and discipline” that is in itself a reason why Tyrant Fours won’t risk supporting disruptive technology efforts and focus on getting rid of the practitioners.
POWER and INFORMATION:
Few institutions are run as democracies and WV Fours manage from the perspective of benevolent dictators with the emphasis on benevolent. Make no mistake when it comes to the issue of “who’s the boss around here” because WV Fours are very proud of their achievement in reaching their positions. In general, WV Fours use power as it equates to knowledge or information. Tyrants typically withhold some of the relevant and often the critical information subordinates need to be most effective. However, I have noticed that WV 4 managers will completely inform the Fours they mentor. Thus, the distribution of information and knowledge is used to clearly
define which subordinates are somewhat wanting, and often, to clearly indicate the choice of heir apparent.
What seems to count more than possession of power for the long term viability of the firm is faith in the future. It would seem reasonable to expect that the simple possession of power would automatically result in a strong positive attitude toward the world and a receptivity to change. I have found this to not be so. The powerful WV Fours can be very timid in applying their power because they want to fully and faithfully “serve their masters” further up the hierarchy. This lack of application is a disservice to the institution’s stake holders because their staying with the familiar nearly always wins over the argument for disruptive innovations. There is also the affect of bringing major decisions on new fields of interest and similar strategic initiatives to a virtual halt. Where power is not joined with faith in the future, it is used mainly to ward off the new and preserve the status quo.
Extravagant hope about future outcomes with, or even without power is likely to generate reckless daring. One scenario is that as the fortunes of the institution begin to ebb, WV Four managers get desperate and start funding all sorts of dumb things with the emphasis on doing the same old things harder which yields the same old results, but faster. Having a deliberate process for the continuous evaluation and adaptation of disruptive innovation opportunities would go a long ways to insure the firms continued success. Fours won’t risk it until too late and because they have long suppressed the required environment there are few or no people left that are capable of making disruptive innovation opportunities happen.
LIBERTY VS. CONTROL:
Equality without liberty creates a more stable employee social pattern than liberty without equality of which the latter is reflected in
pay for performance. This is a real management dilemma for WV Fours for two reasons. The number of individuals with WV Four nearly equal the total number of individuals with all the other worldviews. One of the defining characteristics of WV Four is that it is a group and not an individual view of the world. It is far easier to manage a large number of people with the same value set then it is to manage the same number of people who have a lot of wild, weird and wonderful ideas in part because they have other worldviews. Where equality is the real management objective, intellectual liberty is the passion of a small minority and it is very likely that the next big idea will come only from this small minority. For years I have heard the saying within Hewlett Packard that “it is the tall poplar that is cut down.” What I have observed, and so what the tall poplar saying means to me is that WV Four managers seem to get rid of the very people who represent the brightest future. In part, this is because the “worth” of management jobs is frequently determined by headcount so there is a strong bias in WV Four managers to make life easier by staffing with more of the same.
Liberty by definition is the lack of control over individuals. Control freaks generally come from WV Three and Five but Tyrant Fours take no prisoners either as they exert the control to create an “egalitarian work force.” Tyrant Fours have a different concept of egalitarian than you would think. It is more like “make no mistake, I am the boss and you are all expected to be equally servile.” I believe that for a business to have a very bright future, there has to be a balance of chaos and true egalitarianism simply so the small minority that crave liberty can have it and get on with inventing the future. Paradoxically, the toll on the Tyrant Fours is that they generally create an environment with so many rules that it greatly limit their own liberty both in the present and the future.
Politically, WV 4’s don’t consciously look for ways to trade away their liberty. Indeed, one underlying principal of the human
condition is the seeking of greater liberty for them selves. It is only when the present conditions become unbearable that WV 4’s will seek change, any change, and that is when those who promise to “set things right” gain appeal. All too often it is after these setters of things right take control, it becomes obvious that liberty was traded away.
CHANGE:
One mystery I have never been able to solve is why so many managers do not draw the distinction between change and progress. Of the many such change efforts in which I participated, very few started with a systems approach, nor an analysis if the proposal was really progress. One of my favorite HP examples was the drive from Corporate Personnel to contribute to the bottom line by placing all relevant documentation on the internal net and centralizing most of their service activities at the corporate offices. Why I believe that this was a bad idea is because it is exactly counter to the economic principal of selective specialization. The head count in personnel did drop, but the unintended consequence was that if and employee needed some personnel related information, they had to spend lots of time to wade through thousands of web pages instead of a quick trip or short call to the local expert. Further, the work load for department secretaries greatly expanded and I would not be surprised if the increase in head count for secretaries equaled or surpassed the decrease in the personnel head count. Of course, there is no accounting for the loss in productivity by the employees having to wade through the web. And, of course I was jumped for being against this change. Darn right I was against it, this change was not progress.
The well adjusted are not good at forecasting the future. Another defining characteristic of Fours is reverence to the past and mass institutions and, because Fours are so numerous, their definition of what constitutes “well adjusted,” prevails. Those who
view the present as but a step to a brighter future have an eye for the seeds of change and the potentialities of small beginnings. Those who have their eyes and hearts on future possibilities have a faculty for detecting the first glimmerings of future advantages, or, future danger. It is often the fanatics, and not always the well adjusted that are found grasping the right thread of the solutions required by the future. Since I have a “fatal attraction” to disruptive innovation and technology in particular, I and the wild and crazy engineers I collected over the years are clearly not well adjusted.
A pleasant existence blinds us to the possibilities of drastic change. We cling to what we call our common sense or our practical point of view which are actually only names for an all-absorbing familiarity with things as they are, or more precisely, what we deem as right, just and normal after passing through the filter of our worldviews. WV Fours can and frequently do indeed work very hard and at the same time, have strong motivation to make sure their existence does not become any less pleasant because of the added demands that come with change. That is why their change is really only more of the same but done harder and not true change which they would perceive as really unpleasant.
TIME CONSTRAINTS:
Imitation is often a shortcut to a solution. We copy when we lack the inclination, the ability or the time to work out an independent solution. People in a hurry will imitate more readily than people at leisure. Hustling thus tends to produce uniformity. Business executives are very busy people, particularly if they buy into the Business Week model of individual responsibility for doing everything. To work on possible future outcomes, executives need sufficient time for introspection and scenario planning. Thus, the greatest impediment to change and the propagation of the status quo is the executives’ busy schedule. While the forgoing applies to all worldviews, it is the Fours who use it to freeze true progress.
Fours seek first “to serve”, so time constraints are not the highest priority to them. They are very dedicated to giving “a days work for a days pay.” What is important is “working on The Cathedral,” not that it takes 3 years or 300 years. It has been my observation that the disruptive innovation project slip rate for directly correlates to the amount of “fourness” in and R&D group. By contrast, WV Four R&D managers who focus on sustaining innovation talk about their engineers and scientists as all being equal in utility and in terms of man-hours to be expended and projects grinding along at such and such a burn rate with no great expectation from the truly gifted. Sad. It is also this world view that is why WV Four managers are least capable of disruptive innovation.
PUNISHMENT:
Another defining character of WV Fours is that they have very clear black and white (Absolutist) set of standards and expect others to have their same standards. This view is what leads to being very judgmental on all things. In Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, the lead character was sentenced to many years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread. His starvation was no defense because after all, stealing is stealing. Absolutist judgments comes from WV Fours without what others with different world views would perceive as due process. WV Fours do not really have much utility in an appeals process. The view is more “certainly he must be guilty because he doth protest too much” or the “bind him to a rock and cast him into the river; if he survives than most certainly he is guilty.”
Currently, many institutions dominated by 4’s have a published code of ethics that almost always has a phrase to the effect “how would your actions appear to others. “ Notice that this is a very loose and open phrase subject to great abuse in interpretation. The phrase is used by tyrannical Fours to make judgment any way they please as
was applied to my ancestor, Rebecca Nourse, to wit, “yup, she looks like a witch to me.” A far better phrase would be” how would your actions appear to a reasonable and prudent board of your peers and/or managers not in the same organization?” This would have the affect of greatly tempering witch hunts that happened simply because someone does not, or chooses not to understand the true context.
If you are not a Four, never ever share your innermost feelings with a Tyrant Four. They will use this knowledge against you much the same way as a school yard bully. They will deny you the very things you shared with them and that you most desire. They have to make sure you know who is boss. This gives rise to the all too prophetic saying, “no good deed goes unpunished.” Another tip is to never assume that just because a Tyrant Four has a casual demeanor and dress you don’t need to grovel at their feet and otherwise show great respect for their high position. If you don’t, the result is that your judgment in all things will be questioned and all remarkable accomplishments minimized. When in front of their superiors, Fours seem to think that it is improper or a sign of weakness to defend a subordinate, so mere accusation is a conviction of guilt. If you defend a subordinate to a Tyrant Four, you are both guilty. In short, all subordinates are expendable and will be sacrificed for “the greater good.” It is the gifted or independent minded subordinates that are most likely to be fired. HP did not fire Steve Jobs but his managers sure wished him away.
The tyrannical and anointed Fours being subject to their circular reasoning, cannot accept that they are ever wrong. That is why any punishment awarded is far more severe then the alleged crime would warrant. The most effective way for a Four to silence their guilty conscience is to convince themselves and others that those who have sinned against them are indeed depraved creatures, deserving every punishment. They cannot pity those who have wronged them, nor can they be indifferent toward them. Fours must
hate and persecute them or leave the door open to their own selfcontempt. Therefore, the biggest crime is not being a Four like them. On the other hand, if an infraction is committed by one of the mentored, anointed, or otherwise “chosen” Fours, it is treated as a learning opportunity. See Hypocrisy.
One area where careful contemplation of the Graves model has significantly changed my view is the issue of Capital Punishment. I have a concern about the appropriateness of the death penalty. I do not disagree with the morality of the issue, but because World View Fours are apparently so willing to dispense with due process and have generally driven the issue. As stated elsewhere, the criminal legal system is a “lagging” function based on long precedent which means that it exists to protect the majority, which are primarily Fours, from the predators which were primarily bad Threes and some bad Fives. The use of DNA testing has shown a number of innocents that have been wrongfully convicted because the Four bias of “the accused must surly be guilty” which then displaces the legal process. Prosecutors, Police and poor defense lawyers are likely dominated by WV Four values and once they think they have their suspect, things like doubt, uncertainty and facts don’t seem to matter. I believe that if the suspect clearly does not have WV Four values, it is simply concluded that they are the perpetrator because “they are so different from us.”
The Innocence Project appears to be driven by “good Sixes” to use DNA as the definitive means to conclusively prove innocence AND guilt. There was a case about a Pennsylvania man who wrongly confessed to two rapes and it took SEVEN years to gain his release. Why, the DA would not release the evidence because he had the confession. Once compelled to release the evidence, which was tested by both a lab of his choosing and a lab chosen by the defense team where both exonerated the defendant, it still took years to get his release. The reasons were really all about the DA defending his
“justice system institution” because WV 4’s can’t conceive that their institutions ever make mistakes.
The US criminal legal system is a process which despite flaws is far better then others. I am definitely not a fan of Napoleonic processes and most certainly not a fan of systems without processes. The problem is that due process can take a lot of time and money. For capital cases, it can result in twenty years plus $200,000 to $1,000,000 in expenses. Once a capital case has gone that far and the findings of guilt have been affirmed ten to thirty times, I don’t have a problem with execution because due process was undertaken. The problem I have is fast executions before the cycle of due process has been completed. Perhaps more disturbing to me is non-capital punishment because the state is generally unwilling to spend money to prove itself wrong and those found guilty are generally too poor to afford the cost of due process.
TEAMWORK:
People of thought seldom work well together because they are independent minded. People of action such as solders and sailors, generally have an easy camaraderie. In the deliberate forming of individuals into a compact group such as teams, incessant action must play a major role. I believe that is why throughout history it has always been easier to fight wars then to first plan for their effectiveness. What is remarkable about the US military over the last fifteen to twenty years is the rise of the independent minded senior leadership and the effective employment of extensive planning. The result has been three wars, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq that have been very decisive, short, and sparing of American lives.
In many current institutions, WV Fours have a phony egalitarian view of teams and teamwork. It is phony because egalitarian group processes are a defining attribute for WV Six. What Fours really want is for you to “serve the one true cause” which results
in many of the smartest and independent minded people more or less mentally dropping out just when you need them most. Tyrant Fours tend to form teams that are merely an encompassing extension of themselves. In contrast, Tyrant Fives tend to form teams that are a remote extension of themselves. In nearly all cases, a flurry of action is generated which is helpful in masking the fact that the hearts and minds of the independent minded are not engaged. Since WV Four is a group oriented system optimized for single causes, it never seems to occur to Fours that there is an infinite number of ways to form real teams in order for each member to get their needs fulfilled while making the required contribution. It is this ineffective ability to find and focus on what works in engaging the hearts and minds of all the stakeholders that seems to place a fundamental limit on the growth or effectiveness of the organization. It is the classic “you play under our rules or you don’t play at all” which is a virtual guarantee that the organization will get far less than the best efforts by at least half the work force. It will be exceedingly hard to compete in the future if a good portion of the smartest people are thus disengaged.
INDEPENDENTMINDEDNESS:
I once heard a psychologist say the reason they so jealously guard their facts is because they have so few of them. I had often wondered what was it that caused some people to be able to figuratively step back and see problems in a totally different light. For example, these were the people who when faced with doing a task better, were apt to question the need to do the task at all. About fifteen years ago, Toni Miller, the wife of one of my engineers, gave me a copy of her thesis on “Independentmindedness.” Lo and behold, tons of data, lots of facts, footnotes and references galore supporting conclusions that I had long suspected. Independent minded people make by far the greater proportion, relative to their numbers, of the lasting contributions to their organizations. Further, their preferred environment is almost the exact antithesis of the working
environment created by the Tyrant Fours. My fascination with disruptive innovation and technologies seems to have worked like a magnet in attracting the independent minded so I have surmised that the independent minded are required to make good on the promise of disruptive technologies. Accordingly, an organization is not going to get much in the way of results in an environment that punishes independentmindness.
DIVERSITY:
My parents chose a long list of honorary godfathers and godmothers for their children. Two were the most successful business women in Wyoming and they did it in the then very male dominated business of oil leasing. Another was an architect, Ted Archuleta, and another was a really good western artist, Bill Harwood, which was not the name his parents gave him. Bill was very interesting, active and continued painting well passed his hundredth birthday. When he was about eight years old, he, his family and friends went camping along a small creek in Southern Montana. A couple of days later, his father, several uncles and over a thousand others had a rather decisive parley with George Armstrong Custer. The real point of all this is that diversity is something with which I grew up.
There were very few female professionals and an almost nonexistent population of professional African Americans and Hispanics when I came to HP. I was privileged to have in my group one of HP’s very first female professionals, Jane Stone. Jane had not been treated very well prior to joining our group and since she was a very good engineer, I wanted to understand why. You all know where I am going with this or it wouldn’t be here. Fours do not readily embrace change and the major portion of men then employed, had the firm conviction that the woman’s place was at home tending hearth and children. It took governmental and corporate edicts and other efforts to make Bill
and Dave’s principal of respect for the individual a clear diversity issue and that everyone in the organization had the responsibility and duty to practice inclusiveness.
Once diversity is a management objective, the Fours will comply, but it takes years and they are not good at the subtleties involved. The subtleties however, carry more consequences then you would think. For example, when a woman or some of the other diversity employees “pushes back” on their male Tyrant Four manager, it is now respected because the manager is trying to honor the company’s diversity program and respecting their point of view. If a white Anglo-Saxon male tried the same “push back” on the same manager, it would be considered insubordination. There is a good news bad news component in this. The good news is that diversity employees with different Grave’s worldviews can and are making contributions and progressing. The bad news is that the Tyrant Fours will still be much more comfortable with the Fours among the diversity employees and it is just a matter of time before the diversity employees that have other worldviews will suffer the same discriminations as those with different world views.
AMBITION:
Ambition is one of the defining behaviors for WV Five. Over the years, various consultants have worked with several thousand HP employees that in part included identification of their Graves worldviews. It is my understanding that HP seems to have a far smaller population of Fives than would be expected. I am not surprised because I have participated in various hiring process for many years and am quite sure all versions have been effective in screening out both good and bad Fives. I don’t have a problem with screening out bad Fives but I do have a problem with screening out the ambitious. Ambition brings energy for progress. It is the ambitious who will carry through on the promise of disruptive
technology. It is the ambitious who have one of the best endowments to provide the firm with a future. In a Four dominated corporate culture, ambition is a strong negative. Fours believe that rewards should be delayed, that you have to pay your dues. I have observed that even if you paid dues in six different organization before you came to the current Tyrant Four’s, it doesn’t matter because they didn’t see it. You have to pay dues all over again. It is not that Fours don’t have ambition, most certainly the Golden Bulls and Tyrant Fours do, but they submerge it in servitude. This is because it is through servitude that Fours prove their worthiness and get their ambition rewarded through promotion.
A WV Four is typically very satisfied with their position. They feel that they are in their rightful place. If there is change in their world at work, the effect is to change their whole life, which can trigger a lot of resistance to the initiating change. I have personally heard many instances of this passive aggressiveness (amiable behavior) within Four groups such as: “Let’s agree we just won’t talk to them” in the context of customers and the show of similar disdainful respect for new processes and new ideas. I think this view is also why entitlement runs so deep. The Four likes to visualize an image of stages of personal goals which may be attained through duty and servitude. They enjoy moving through the ranks in small increments making sure it is safe and OK with the group and that they have indeed proved their worth to their superiors. Their goal is usually a very meaningful rank with the appropriate title. If some other worldview and outwardly ambitious outsider comes into the organization, they will have to “get into line” soon or they will be “cut down to size.”
It is probably one of those “I think I understand more than I know” issues, but It seems to me that the ambitious are also screened out when it comes to internal transfers into WV Four dominated organizations. Fives love to build systems that create wealth provided
they can share in the wealth. While there are organizations where ambition counts, the process of finding those places are simply hard to do or take to long. Then again if openings are found, the rewards are typically not present and the ambitious leave the organization.
FUN:
You must be joking! The Tyrant Fours have a Calvinistic view of work. If you are having fun, it is to them a sign that you are not contributing. About twenty five years ago, I stumbled upon what I consider my purpose in life. I feel that the 80,000 to 100,000 hours we work in a lifetime should be as satisfying as possible. I want to look back on my life and know that it was rewarding and engaging and otherwise “fun.” Also, the greatest reward for me was to create and maintain an environment where everyone else in the organization would have the same opportunity for satisfaction. One of the major reasons I joined Hewlett Packard Co was the host of real characters in the company who were both effective and great fun to be around. The characters are now gone without replacement because in the Calvinistic view of Fours, having fun isn’t a professional behavior. Of course, they are wrong. Appropriate humor and having fun can be very professional.
I have observed that Tyrant Fours tend to retire early, frequently for health problems. I am sure that they have a great deal of stress in their lives by considering work as drudgery and not fun. The good news is that Tyrant Fours leave early, what is annoying for the rest of us is that the supply is clearly inexhaustible.
ENTITLEMENT:
After many years of refusing to believe my observations, I now am convinced that Tyrant Fours absolutely need entitled people in their organizations to satisfy the Tyrant’s craving to be recognized for having achieved their exalted position. The entitled grovel splendidly
at the feet of the Tyrant Fours in return for the privilege of being taken care of! I have witnessed many examples where, having had agreement with my local Tyrant to reduce the entitlement habit in my organization, he actually strengthened the habit by repeatedly undercutting my efforts.
Of course, entitlement is a splendid two way street for WV4’s because they create an inexhaustible supply of the entitled by their institutions and political philosophies and the thus entitled grandly support the needs of the leaders who created them.
THE INTREPRENEUR’S TEN COMMANDMENTS:
I had these commandments posted by my office for about twelve years. I use “intrepreneur” in the sense of an entrepreneur except that they exist within a larger organization. I will leave it to you the reader to identify which of these “commandments” really don’t sit well with Tyrant Fours. The first hint is start with the word “commandments.”
1. Come to work each day willing to be fired.
2. Circumvent any orders aimed at stopping your dream.
3. Do any job needed to make your project work, regardless of your job description.
4. Find people who can and will help you.
5. Follow your intuition about the people you choose: Only the BEST.
6. Work underground as long as you can – publicity triggers the Corporate Immune System.
7. Never bet on a race unless you are in it.
8. Remember it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission
9. Be true to your goals, but be realistic about ways to achieve them.
10. Honor your sponsors, ……
CONCLUSIONS:
I purposely painted a very bleak picture of business life under pure Tyrant Fours. In reality, most people in real life exhibit a unique composite of multiple levels. The worst Tyrant I ever worked for exhibited about 85% of the negative examples given and the next two exhibited about 70%. I don’t know at which point the behaviors become a real threat to the firm but I would guess it is in the 20% to 30% range. Based on their worldviews, employees probably have a band of intolerance from 0% to 100%. Tyrant Fours executives have a very high tolerance for WV Four behaviors in their subordinates and those they mentor. “Wall Street” however, has a tolerance right at 100% because they have no concept of the wonderful ideas and super business opportunities that never happened because of the behaviors of the Tyrant Fours. It is this 100% tolerance that is part of the process that perpetuates the system.
In another book I make a case that academia can not make; specifically that business decision makers are NOT rational in the pure sense. They are only rational in the context of their dominate worldview, and often, not even then because they are functionally blinded by their deepest beliefs. I also set out to expand on Clayton Christensen’s observation that big businesses just don’t seem to be able to make the decisions to exploit disruptive innovation. One conclusion is that executive decisions are based on the executive’s worldview and while the decisions may be consistent with that view, it may be very sub-optimal for the firm. The conclusion of most personal concern is where I spent the majority of my career. The part of Hewlett Packard with which I am most familiar has undergone the transition to a WV Four style of management which is dominated by Tyrants. It is unhealthy for the future because the behaviors are down right hostile to any concept of disruptive innovation technology and to those who would seek it exploit it. HP is in a death spiral and I see no relief under Carly Fiorina.
I now believe that the WV Four style of management is a real turn-off for prospective new employees. For years my wife and I sponsored young cadets at the Air Force Academy, kept in touch with various swim team members from northern Colorado, and kept up with our children’s friends and the children of our friends. I have also spent a lot of recent time on college campuses just talking with students. I have convinced myself that Generation X and post Gen X people are much more likely to be WV Sixes and Sevens then WV Fours. I therefore think that if institutions and Hewlett Packard Co. in particular continue their back slide into WV Four management practices they will not have a future. They may only continue as a rich source for Dilbert cartoons, but will wither as other companies that have respect for all worldviews flourish and pass them by.
The greater conclusion is that why the US has come to dominate so many institutions and businesses are that our population has enjoyed an unprecedented degree of liberty. This liberty has given rise to large numbers of people with different world views which has in turn driven the entrepreneurial and intrepreneurial urges of countless people to excel and really accomplish wonderful things. The biggest threat to long established institutions and companies is “hardening of the corporate arteries” by promoting those who possess WV four. These people initially appear to be ideal employees through their dedication, apparent hard work and ease in being managed. Successive promotion of these people results in freezing the ability of the firm to take real initiatives to insure there future survival and certainly aggressive future growth is simply not possible.
THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION IS THAT TYRANT FOURS SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE LEADERSHIP OF ANY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY INSTITUTIONS.