# Chapter 18: The Optimal Path

### Typical vs. Optimal Path&#x20;

Problems exist, as I have stated, when not all the **PAEI** roles are fully developed. As we solve problems, we develop the missing roles, one at a time, starting with **E**. Failure to develop a missing role means that we can't go forward until the role develops. That one-by- one approach to Prime is, of course, the typical path.

Is there a faster path to Prime? Is there a path that bypasses all-or even most-of the problems on the typical path? Is there a "road less traveled" for organizations too?&#x20;

There is, and I have tested that path in my work with start-ups. And it works.&#x20;

I am very much aware that the following optimal-path "lecture" makes me sound like a religious preacher on the pulpit, and that makes me somewhat uncomfortable. But I feel an obligation to show that there is, in fact, an optimal path, and companies miss it on account of ignorance or because they are prisoners of their culture and experience.&#x20;

What is the optimal path?&#x20;

Did your mother ever tell you not to go out on a windy night after you'd had a hot bath? "You will catch a cold," she hollered after you. Right?&#x20;

I have always wondered why I catch cold from the mere whiff of a wind, while, in Russia, I have read, people make holes in ice- covered rivers so they can go skinny dipping. And in Finland, the natives sit in hot saunas, sweat a lot, and then jump and roll in the snow. I have no doubt that if I ever tried that, I would die of pneumonia. What is their secret?&#x20;

What gives me influenza is not the wind or the snow. My body is weak. It's not capable of handling change. As a matter of fact, I start sniffling and get a sore throat just thinking about my next trip across time zones. The Russians have been doing this ice dipping forever. The Finnish do the sauna-snow ritual from the time they are babies. They have strengthened their physical condition so that those extreme changes invigorate rather than kill them. The changes make them stronger. Their health is a reflection of their bodies and proba- bly their minds having grown used to changes in temperature.&#x20;

How can you improve an organization's ability to handle change? Have everyone start jumping into ice water daily?&#x20;

Not long ago, medical researchers presented an interesting finding. People who have numerous close personal relationships are less likely to catch cold than people who are less social. In fact, diseases of all kinds are less likely to strike those who have a rich network of family and friends. How about that? How about the statistical finding that married people live longer-despite the bad publicity marriages get? What is going on?&#x20;

As I have pointed out, integration is a factor that retards aging. That's what's going on. The more integrated the body, the stronger it is. That integration is internal and reaches into the external world. Yogis remain healthy because they subject their bodies to painful contortions every day, and meditation keeps mind, body, and spirit together. Yogis teach their bodies to remain integrated while experiencing change despite the pain of change. It becomes easy for them to handle even changes they themselves have not induced. They are used to change. Incidentally, yoga means unity, total integration. We need something akin to organizational yoga: We need to subject organizations to continuous change and teach people how to relax and stay "together" in spite of their pain.&#x20;

If you want to have a full-grown tree in your yard, you may have trouble finding a house with the tree you want already in place. But even if you are willing to pay the price of an adult tree, you prob- ably know that most trees don't survive transplantation. I discovered a nursery that has developed a way to grow trees that do thrive even after they have been moved. How? Every year, the workers at the nursery carefully transplant the trees into new pots, and gradually, I guess, the trees get inured to the annual change. They do not devel- op deep roots. When one of those trees is sold full-grown, maybe it assumes that move is just one of those annual changes-not a big deal.&#x20;

Change should not be something unusual. It has to be expect- ed, anticipated, planned for, and continuously experienced.&#x20;

One organization I have observed entered the cow business at a time when owning cows was a tax shelter. Many people invested heavily in cows. It was a very big business until Congress changed the tax law. The company should have gone bankrupt. The large organi- zation, which had enjoyed an advantage under the old tax laws, faced serious trouble. Instead of going bankrupt, however, management introduced a series of incremental changes, gradually moving into the mining business. Do the businesses of raising cows and mining have anything in common? Yes! Quality of management. Good man- agement can always make effective changes in a controlled way. 4 The cow business died; the organization did not.&#x20;

If an organization can continuously change in a planned and controlled manner, keeping itself together in spite of change, it will never die. Its business will change, but the organization as such could live forever. Aging is not an unavoidable fact of life. It can and should be averted.&#x20;

It all depends on the organization's capability to integrate and remain integrated while initiating and experiencing change.&#x20;

We have seen that for an organization to be effective and efficient in the short and long run, it needs four roles: **P**, **A**, **E**, and **I**. In Chapter 11, using a square-dance metaphor, we demonstrat- ed how, on the typical path, those roles develop one-by-one, and, in a particular sequence, they get integrated. Once I understood the rationale and the dynamics of the lifecycle, I asked myself several questions:

1. Is there a faster way to Prime, or is the path I had observed-the typ- ical path-the only way to develop an organization?
2. If there is a faster and better way, why don't organizations follow that alternate route?
3. If there is an optimal path, do organizations following that path behave differently from those on the typical path?
4. To get on the optimal path, what should leaders do that is different from what they do on the typical path?&#x20;

### The Optimal Dance: The Faster Route&#x20;

Is there a faster and better route to Prime?&#x20;

You bet!&#x20;

Returning to the dance metaphor, the differences between the two paths start right at the beginning with the first dancer.&#x20;

Having E take the first step is what gets organizations on the typical path. My friend, the late Charles Christopher Mark, used to say, "The longest trip does not start with a single step. The Chinese are wrong. It starts with a first misstep. It takes longer!"&#x20;

Who should be first then?&#x20;

Let me direct your thinking back to the "rock" analogy introduced in Chapter 10. In this edition of this book, I claim that the group walking along the mountain path started to become an orga- nization even before they encountered the rock or decided to go for a walk. In other words, there is something going on before there is a task-whatever that might be. That is news, isn't it? It was news to me. In the first edition, I maintained that there was no organization and _no managerial process_ at all, until the group encountered the rock in the path: until it had a task, which was its purpose.&#x20;

How did I change my mind?&#x20;

For years I have been wondering how the group arrived on that path in the first place. Let's say the group is comprised of people who had been drinking beer together the night before, and someone had said, "Let's all go to the lake tomorrow!" Everyone agrees, and the next day, they find their path blocked by the rock. Was the organization born when they were drinking, when they decided to hike to the lake, or when they encountered the rock? Or could it have been formed even earlier? What made them get together for drinks in the first place?&#x20;

The long and the short of it is that whenever there is affinity among people, something is going on. Granted, there is no managerial process, no planning, no staffing, no motivating, and so forth. But there is something going on: There is a sense of affinity. It is what we feel in a foreign country when we meet someone who comes from our hometown and went to the same high school we did. Even though we have never met before, we are excited. There is no pur- pose to our excitement beyond the fact that we are conscious of our common background, experiences, and upbringing. We are glad to meet each other. And if you were stranded alone on an island for years, imagine your excitement at meeting any human being even if not your buddy from high school. Humans need to affiliate. Thus it is not strange that solitary confinement is a severe punishment.&#x20;

People need a sense of belonging. A gang of teenagers, standing idly at the street corner, hanging out, has no specific purpose or task in mind, but observers can sense the power those kids could unleash at any moment should a passing purpose draw their attention. When it has a purpose, the gang, a social entity, is charged. The purpose gives focus to all their raw energy. But there is no action until there is a task. A task makes that interdependency, affinity, and sense of belonging realizable.&#x20;

I am aware that because humans have a need to affiliate, affinity could be interpreted to be a purposeful activity, but I ask you to consider my definitions:&#x20;

I define purpose as a result or a process one wants to achieve over time. A task is a result one achieves or a process one performs in the short run in order to achieve a longer-range purpose.&#x20;

A constant and ongoing need is neither a purpose nor a task. We did not go traveling with the intention of looking for a fellow alumnus from our hometown. We were not wandering the streets, trying to find someone with whom we might affiliate. We did not have that as a purpose. Having met, however, we might plan to con- tinue our travels together, and at that point, we have an emergent phenomenon-a purpose that was not originally there. That purpose is the result of our affinity that always exists.&#x20;

As you can see, this sense of affinity, of belonging, this aware- ness of the other, precedes purpose. Affinity is a constant, and pur- poses emerge as a result of its existence.&#x20;

Humans and, come to think of it, all living things in nature seek to relate to others? Innate things, like rocks, although they are affected by the sun, cold wind, and rain, are not aware of the forces that affect them. That lack of awareness is why they are not alive.

Awareness of each other-where we are and what we are in relation to everything else, even the stones upon which we step- needs no purpose. That awareness is without a why, a how, or even a what. It simply is. All living things in nature are aware of the envi- ronment in which they live. For some, like rats, the awareness reaches a radius of a few yards. For a spiritual person, the awareness encompasses the universe and beyond.&#x20;

Where does it take us? That sense of affinity, which is always there, is a precondition for the emergence of common purpose. The common purpose in turn, and by definition, creates a new consciousness of interdependency. If each person could, alone, accomplish his or her purpose, no new-found purpose would emerge from the sense of affinity.&#x20;

The consciousness of interdependence gives rise to meaning. Animals, although they are alive, aware of their environment, and have an emergent purpose-say, hunting for food-don't attach meaning to that awareness or purpose. They have no symbols, for instance. Have you ever seen a dog or a fish build a shrine to worship anything? What differentiates humans from all other animals is consciousness, which is not just awareness. To my mind, the differ- ence between awareness and consciousness is that consciousness has meaning. We are driven not only by awareness. We struggle to com- prehend the meaning of our awareness.&#x20;

We go to war for a meaning. Animals do not attach meaning to their awareness. What makes us human is that we attach meaning to our consciousness. We want to understand and to relate to this huge, vast interdependence we observe in the universe. This, for me, is where God comes in.

&#x20;How about the agnostics? My definition still works. Their disbelief is their religion, and they attach themselves to it. It gives a meaning to their lives. Even people who seclude themselves in caves are trying to get closer to something else-God, who, again, gives meaning to their lives. And those deep in meditation are trying to get together, with themselves, seeking Integration of the body, mind, and spirit. And that, for them, has a purpose with meaning. It is their life.&#x20;

We are alive by virtue of our consciousness and how we exercise our interdependence to achieve purpose that gives meaning to our lives. The more conscious we are and the more aware we are of our interdependence with what is going on around us, the more meaning we give to our lives. What's more, that "around us" can reach thousands of miles to atrocities in far-away countries. The more conscious we are, the more we recognize our interdependence, the more we realize that-in our existence-we share a common purpose. The more integrated we are with our environment, the more we feel as one, the fuller our lives will be. Living means serving and being served, being consciously interdependent, and being part of a totality. The bigger that totality is, the "bigger" we are.&#x20;

Now that we have a common purpose, we are conscious of our interdependence and a meaning for that interdependence emerges. Something else emerges: the need for Integration. The more Integrated we are, the more efficient is our ability to achieve our common purpose.&#x20;

I perceive the need for Integration develops in the following sequence:&#x20;

DIAGRAMA

The sense of affinity can give birth to different purposes. One time the purpose is to get together for a few beers; another time it is to go to the lake; and the next time it's to lift a rock. But for anything to happen, there must be the constant need to affiliate, an awareness of the potential for interdependence. Unless we feel each other and for each other, how can we ever identify a common purpose? Autism can never produce a purpose that requires teamwork.&#x20;

Lack of awareness is emotional autism. And emotional autism is not life as we define it. It precludes learning, gaining, serving, and being served. It is only existence. Like a vegetable plucked from the earth, it sits on the shelf, dying.&#x20;

Does anything precede that awareness or consciousness? Is there small awareness? Small consciousness? Yes, and that is preceded by a smaller awareness, which is preceded by even smaller awareness, and so forth, until there is just a kernel, the smallest seed of awareness or consciousness. Tell me the magnitude of the awareness and I will tell you the magnitude of the emergent purpose. Small people have small emergent joint purpose. For example, they share gossip. People with large consciousness develop a meaning that compels them to join forces to change the face of the earth.&#x20;

How big is your consciousness?&#x20;

The good news is that consciousness can grow. Mine, I believe, has grown since the publication of my original edition of this book.&#x20;

Now let us translate the above analogy into the **PAEI** code and the optimal dance.&#x20;

Awareness, consciousness of real or potential interdependence, affinity, sense of interdependence, and integration are all different degrees of I. I admit that the above is sloppy, but it is the best I can do for now. And now, I hasten to tell you, does not mean tonight. That definition is the best my mind has been able to put together in the last 10 years. Full understanding of the I role has eluded me all these years, and I am aware that I am far from true comprehension. I console myself, however, by remembering that every book is, at best, a progress report. Right?&#x20;

My conclusion is that I is not created. It always exists as a constant. Purpose, the **E**, emerges from **I**, and the stronger the **I**, the bigger the **E** that emerges. Deciding to go to the lake-the purpose- is the emergent phenomenon, the **E**. True, each individual from the group could walk to the lake alone, but, in this case, they wanted to go together. That purpose emerged from their affinity. Lifting the rock, which is blocking their path, is **P**. That is the task they need to accomplish in order to realize their purpose, **E**, getting to the lake. Being efficient about meeting for a few beers, going to the lake, and lifting the rock is **A**.&#x20;

Note that **E** can change. Say, instead of going to the lake, the members of the group decided to have a picnic, and, then, instead of a picnic, they decided to play softball. **P** changes depending on **E**. If the people change their minds, and instead of going to the lake, they have a picnic instead, there is no reason for them to lift the rock. For a picnic, they need to gather wood, and if they want to play softball, they need to mark the base lines. And as **E** and **P** change, **A** also has to change. **I**, however, is always there. If a person doesn't affiliate with this group, he or she will affiliate with another, or, if not with a group of people, with a living pet or a pet rock.&#x20;

What if the members of the group were people who had never before met? Say, the individuals had been hiking alone, to different destinations, and each now finds it impossible to continue with the rock blocking the way. Moving the rock out of the path is still P if each of them, unable to lift the rock alone, needs to pass through to get to his or her own destination. Each has his or her individual and independent **E**, but nobody will be able to lift the rock until everyone is aware of each other and everyone's need for one another. If that awareness does not exist, each one will try to lift the rock alone, interfering with everyone else. A sense of awareness has to exist. The purpose will emerge, followed by the recognition of interdependence, and finally the need for integration.

And what happens if, for whatever reason, the awareness declines? Can you imagine the decline in the energy levels of the people trying to lift the rock? If that happens, the need to get to the lake will disappear. You are, I hope, getting my message. What starts a company is not **E**ntrepreneurial energy. A company begins with mutual awareness. And it ages, not when the product line gets outdated, not when innovation, creativity, and risk-taking decline. Aging starts when awareness goes down. Old people can freeze to death without having realized that their environment had grown too cold for them.&#x20;

What is this sense of affinity, consciousness, awareness of interdependency? I am describing the conditions and degrees of Integration, and I have defined Integration as the process of changing organizational consciousness from mechanistic to organic. Organic consciousness implies an internal sense of interdependency: Each part is aware that it exists to serve other parts of the whole for a common purpose, a common function.

Consciousness of potential Interdependency, the sense of affinity, **I**, precedes the purpose, **E**, which precedes the task, **P**, and any processes and procedures, **A**.&#x20;

When is an organization born? In my first edition, I suggested the following model: An entrepreneur, walking down a busy street on a hot summer's afternoon, gets an urge for ice cream. When he's unable to find a store that sells ice cream, it occurs to him that here is an opportunity for him to open an ice cream store. The organization is conceived when he gets the idea, and is born when he signs a lease and has to pay rent-when he assumes risk.&#x20;

That's what I thought then. Ten years later, the answer doesn't seem nearly so simple as it used to.

&#x20;Before the entrepreneur gets his idea-before conception- there had to have been conditions that allowed the concept to form in his mind: He was interrelating, conscious, aware, interdependent, and integrated with the environment. He was conscious of where he was and how he felt. He was aware that he felt warm. He was aware of his taste buds asking for a treat. He was aware that that treat had to be ice cream, and he was aware that there were no ice cream stores in the neighborhood. Furthermore, he had enough empathy to imagine that others would also want ice cream on a hot summer's day. If he were autistic, detached, and disintegrated within himself and with his surroundings, he would have never come to the idea that there was a need for ice cream or any other cream, for that matter.&#x20;

Thus, **I** precedes **E** and is the precondition for its existence. I is first! Whoa! How many pages has it taken me to convince you? This reminds me of a story. A teacher complains about her students. "Imagine," she says. "I explained it to them once, and they did not understand. I explained it to them a second time, and still they did not understand. I explained it to them the third time, when even I finally understood ... "&#x20;

Let's proceed. On the optimal path, **I** is first to dance, and he can dance any of the dances. He just makes the rounds letting everyone know he is there and available to interrelate. **I** creates the awareness of interdependency: There is a dance for them to dance together. The emergent purpose for them to dance together is a natural progression that need not be assigned or orchestrated. As I explained in Chapter 10, each and every system aims to be effective and efficient in the short and long run. That is given. You can call it a law of organizational transformation.&#x20;

Now, the second law comes into play: the law of conservation of energy. Energy is fixed and has to be used in the most efficient way. I does not need much energy because there is nothing for **I** to learn. Being is **I**'s purpose. It need not try anything. It is simply itself. The limited energy does not go to develop **I**'s dance. The energy is expended in unfreezing the other dancers, getting them ready and willing to dance together. That takes energy for a while.&#x20;

So what is the difference between the typical path and the optimal path? According to what we have discussed so far, even on the typical path there is **I**, consciousness of surroundings and needs. If there weren't, the entrepreneur would not have given birth to the idea for an ice cream store. So, what is the difference?

On the typical path, **I** was both there and not there. I was in his corner, noticeable but quiet. The dominant dancer is **E**. It is for this reason that on the typical path, it's important to monitor **E** closely; **E** is the vital sign that tells us whether a company is growing, aging, or dead.&#x20;

The optimal path uses a different "dance card." The vital sign is **I**. If there is little **I**, the company may still be conceived and born. It will even grow, but the growth will not be easy. Lots of energy will be wasted on internal marketing, internecine struggles, and politics. The company can make profits, but without **I**, it will be suboptimizing somehow. The company will adopt a what's-good-for-General-Motors-is-good-for-America point of view, and we already know that profit maximization can lead to unsustainable growth that is detrimental to the greater social good.&#x20;

**I** introduces spirituality. There is a sense that the organization's goals encompass more than just profits. The organization is there to serve its customers, labor, management, and community. Take The Body Shop, for instance. That company tried to change the world. The Body Shop's goal was not only to sell cosmetics it developed without animal testing and sold without advertising promises of incredible beauty from a bottle. Each and every Body Shop store was an outlet for social values. Each outlet had pamphlets and other materials about the human rights of indigenous peoples. Instead of donating money to those poor and endangered people, Anita Roddick, the founder of The Body Shop, created "Trade not Aid." Under that rubric, The Body Shop bought Brazil nuts from the newly discovered tribes in the Amazon still living in the Stone Age.&#x20;

The Brazil nuts were expensive, and the company lost money on that venture, but it was not an issue. The Body Shop saw itself involved in endeavors that extended beyond making money on soap and shampoo. Management was also deeply concerned about nuclear testing in the Pacific. The Body Shop delivered many hundreds of thousands of signatures to the French government. The sig- natures opposing the tests were collected in a worldwide campaign that included each and every Body Shop store.&#x20;

And, unlike companies that reward their successful franchisees with Caribbean vacations, The Body Shop sponsored people who would go to Rumania to work in the orphanages. What does the cosmetics business have to do with orphanages in Rumania? There is no market in Rumania. And who in America-or anywhere else in the world-buys more shampoo from The Body Shop on account of its helping Rumanian orphans?&#x20;

As should be obvious, The Body Shop did not engage in such activities for the sake of profit. The company funds such initiatives out of its consciousness of what should be done simply because we are human. The cries of a baby in Rumania, Albania, or Bosnia should be as painful to us as the cries of our own babies at home. They all need soothing.&#x20;

That is **I**.&#x20;

**I** is being spiritual. With love, we-humans and companies- live longer.

What I am saying, I hope, loud and clear, is that spiritually motivated business is good business. It is good for the company, for its owners, for workers, for everyone. Take Ben & Jerry's Homemade, a socially responsible company, which grew nearly 100 percent annually despite efforts to stay small. Although management paid itself and the workers less than the market rate, everyone worked longer hours than the competition. The company followed a growth curve very different from many companies on the typical path.&#x20;

On the typical path, many companies try to grow, yet they remain small. And frequently, management pays itself tremendous salaries, insists on keeping control, and fights to get the maximum amount of work from employees while keeping payroll as low as possible. Yet these controls result in worse results than the socially responsible business. What is going on? When people believe in what they do, they work harder. Productivity during times of war goes sky high. Like The Body Shop, at Ben & Jerry's, people believed in what they were doing. They were not laying bricks. They were building a temple where they could worship the Lord. And their Lord was saving the world from destroying itself.

&#x20;In 1988, Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. created a document called the Statement of Mission. I quote it here in its entirety:&#x20;

_Ben & Jerry's is dedicated to the creation and demonstration of a new corporate concept of linked prosperity. Our mission consists of three interrelated parts:_&#x20;

_Product Mission: To make, distribute, and sell the finest quality, all-natural ice cream and related products in a wide variety of innovative flavors made from Vermont dairy products._

_Social Mission: To operate the company in a way that actively recognizes the central role that business plays in the structure of society by initiating innovative ways to improve the quality of life of a broad community-local, national, and international._&#x20;

_Economic Mission: To operate the company on a sound financial basis of profitable growth, increasing value for our shareholders, and creating career opportunities and financial rewards for our employees._&#x20;

_Underlying the mission of Ben & Jerry's is the determination to seek new and creative ways of addressing all three parts while holding a deep respect for the individuals, inside and outside the company, and for the communities of which they are a part._&#x20;

_The company works to employ its Mission Statement in as many day to day business decisions as possible so that the company is profitable and the community can profit by the way Ben & Jerry's does business._&#x20;

_Ben & Jerry's gives away 7.5 percent of its pre-tax earnings in three ways: the Ben & Jerry's Foundation; employee Community Action Teams at the company's five Vermont sites; and through corporate grants. The company supports projects which are models for social change-projects which exhibit creative problem solving and hopefulness. The Foundation is managed by a nine-member employee board and considers proposals relating to children and families, disadvantaged groups, and the environment._&#x20;

Notice the **I**ntegration of goals and the awareness that is not just Vermont-wide but international in scope. Notice that the company's goal is to increase the financial reward not only of its investors but of its employees as well. The company is dedicated to having a work place where people can experience joy-not just work, work, work. The company addresses the complete human being, community, and the world in which we live.&#x20;

Are The Body Shop and Ben & Jerry's in Prime? Not at all. I believe each of them is caught in a founder's trap, and both companies have been struggling to find replacement leaders who, while sharing their values, can lead their companies forward. In my opinion, each of them has monopolized the **E** and downgraded the importance of **A**.&#x20;

They downgraded the importance of **A** because of the importance they attributed to I. That should not be surprising. **A** and I substitute for one another. One is a mechanistic "organizational glue" and the other is "organic glue." Those who rely on A use less of **I**, and those who worship the I are scared to death of **A**.

But if **A** does not provide minimal infrastructure, decisions that should be standard operating procedures need to be reinvented each and every time, introducing confusion, frustration, and demoralization. I eventually-and necessarily so-will go down. And without **A**, it is difficult or impossible to install a new leader. Nevertheless, those two companies, and many others from Social Venture Network, demonstrate an alternate way of doing business successfully. Companies that institute not only **EI**, like they did, but true **PAEI**, will have even bigger success, both financially and politically. If there are enough such companies, they might change the world.&#x20;

_**Being spiritual is not a luxury. It is not something only for idealists. It is most realistic.**_&#x20;

It expedites a company's progress to Prime faster, keeping problems to a minimum. The company grows even if the founder is not looking for growth. It makes money, not despite its spirituality, but because of it. A company does not have to be spiritual to have a spirit. Take Southwest Airlines. B I don't think it aims to change the world or save it.&#x20;

Management wants everyone to have fun at work, and everyone does work with gusto. You have experienced the companywide spirit if you have ever flown Southwest. Its spirit is like a religion, providing a unifying culture.&#x20;

What other companies have such spirit? I immediately think of two hospitality chains: Four Seasons Hotels and the Ritz Carlton Hotels. Their spirit derives neither from wanting to save the world nor from wanting to have fun. Their spirit comes from their sense of pride. Once, I happened to be inside a kitchen of one of those hotels. I noticed that on the door the waiters pass through on their way out to the tables, there was a sign, cautioning them, "If you are not proud of it, don't serve it."&#x20;

If you have ever had the good fortune to observe a pride of lions in nature, you can't help but notice how the lions walk. Each lion manifests the pride's pride. Just so, the employees of each hotel in those two chains-no matter where in the world, no matter what time of day-all exhibit that pride. How do they maintain that uni- versal spirit? Sure it takes training. Sure it takes hiring the right people. But that is not enough. They have created a culture, starting from the top, that is truly dedicated to excellence, to professionalism. Every employee knows that nothing less than the best-flowers in the entrance, chocolate on your pillow, or morning wake-up call- will do.&#x20;

The emergent purpose can range from saving the world and serving the community, to having a better place to work and having pride in what you do. The common denominator is a sense of pur- pose that exceeds profit motivation.&#x20;

_**The focus should be not on what you do but on what you are.**_

&#x20;And you are what you stand for. What you stand for has a meaning. We must ask ourselves, what is the meaning of what we stand for and spend our lives on?&#x20;

And when you expand, never expand so fast that you lose what you stand for. Never outpace your culture.&#x20;

On the optimal path, before you start thinking about the market and its needs for your gadget, ask yourself what do you stand for. How will your vision make a difference for the human race? How will it help our children and grandchildren? Get a real sense of value. Any company has the potential to make a difference.&#x20;

The Body Shop has a message painted on its delivery trucks and printed on T-shirts: "Don't say: I am small and insignificant. Have you ever tried sleeping with a mosquito?" No one is insignifi- cant. What you do and who you are make a difference. Your spirit, like your smile, can be contagious. It can ignite something. Consider oil refineries. Because of current laws, regulations, and tremendous penalties, refineries don't pollute the air. At least they don't pollute so much as they used to or so much as they would if the laws did not exist. Now let's assume a refinery does its best not to pollute, within whatever the technology allows. Is that enough? No. It's acting only for A reasons-to comply with the law. If it had I, it would do something from the heart, something not required by law, something which makes it part of the human race. For example, instead of painting its refinery with the typical rust-resistant paint, management might hire an artist like a Yaacov Agam or Christo to paint it, making it a sculpture to beautify the world. Or it might hold a competition among local artists. It takes only consciousness.&#x20;

Everyone, every company can do something to improve this world. Put pictures of lost kids on your milk cartons; donate time and food to food pantries that feed the hungry; bring the disadvantaged kids to see your business, and show them how, with study and some effort, they could improve their lives. Find a life's purpose that reaches beyond laying bricks. Build a temple to worship the goodness of your heart.&#x20;

That is I, and that is where you should start if you want to be on the optimal path. But what about profits and return on investment? Can business afford such a big heart?&#x20;

I don't mean to suggest that you should be so altruistic that you bankrupt your company. Just as you should establish at least mini- mal working conditions, you should clearly state the minimal prof- itability your company must achieve. Optimize your goals, and once you reach those goals, raise the optimum to higher and higher levels. Don't let yourself get stuck on a single track. Organizations have multiple stakeholders, including the universe, and your task is to optimize and integrate-not suboptimize and disintegrate.&#x20;

Now that you understand and aim for values, let's think about vision.&#x20;

Who should dance next? **E**. With a sense of affinity and interdependence, purpose emerges that can utilize this awareness.

Now **E** and I dance together in an **EI** dance. How different is that from the typical dance? The typical dance was **paEi**. The optimal dance is **paEI**. I am describing differences of degree, but cumulatively, small differences make a major difference. This is a paradigm shift from my thinking of ten years ago.&#x20;

The **paEI** dance is one of integrating vision. That is not a vision of one individual that others watch, perhaps even admiring it. It's a vision which everyone shares and to which everyone is dedicated. If the initiator should die, the vision would continue. People go to war for such visions, prepared to kill or to die. The American Civil War was about states' rights, the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights. That was an **A** issue of great significance for the South, but few from the North would die for it. By making the issue of slavery the focus of the war, the North had an issue for which its people were willing to die. Were people willing to die in Vietnam for any business interests? No way. Those who went there believed they were fighting to protect democracy.&#x20;

Who dances next? Surprise! **A** is next. Plan your systems, budget, business plan, cost controls, forms, and manuals before you open your store. When you open for business, you are ready to go. With all those preparations, you can open your store and start selling and providing **P**. That readiness is borne out by the incredible, mushrooming success of the franchising movement. What a franchiser gives is: **E**-the idea, direction, concept; and **A**-the systems, all the way to the smallest detail. The newcomer has no need to experiment. If a franchiser is any good, like The Body Shop, it also gives values and a message worth working for-**I**. All that remains for the franchisee is **P**: to go and do it.&#x20;

Referring to the dance again, let's see how to implement this optimal sequence and overcome the incompatibility of the roles:&#x20;

**P A E I**

First, I is there, already dancing. He's not in the corner waiting to be invited. He doesn't create his own dance because I has no purpose other than being there to serve others; he willingly dances with anyone. His dance is generic and works with any other dance. He even mimics all the other dancers in the square as he turns around and around. In this way, he lets all of them know that, yes, they are welcome, and there is room for each and every one of them. This dance creates a welcoming climate-an atmosphere of cooperation and good will-that makes the integration of the future dance much easier.&#x20;

Does I have to retire when **E** gets up to dance? Certainly not. I can adapt easily and can dance with anyone. So **E** and I dance the long-term effectiveness-and-efficiency dance. During this dance, we see the emergence of the environment within which the organization will operate: The **EI** dance develops vision and values to provide the direction for the organization, and the boundaries within which it will operate.&#x20;

Notice that for the optimal dance, spirituality-a sense of values and vision- is a necessary condition. That integration can be human, but, unfortunately, it also can be animalistic like the Nazi movement, which did have powerful vision and values. The optimal path does not mean that you must believe in God-one way or another-or you get downgraded to the slower, second-rate, typical path. You are on the optimal path if you and your people believe in anything and have any values-even criminal values like those of the Mafia, or the Nazis. In this case you are on your own optimal path although it disintegrates society at large and puts society on a less than optimal path. Only those movements that integrate rather than disintegrate put both the organization and the society on the optimal path.&#x20;

It's now **A**'s turn to join. **A** should not dance by himself, developing his own dance without E and I. That would be form for form's sake; it wouldn't serve the **E** and **P** functions that **A** needs to serve. **A**, therefore, must develop its dance in conjunction with another role. Should any of the **EI** dancers retire? Let's see. **I** can dance with anyone. Therefore, **A** has to learn to dance only with **E**, who is already dancing. But isn't that the most difficult combination? On the typical path, that combination caused the most problems. The difference, you may already have guessed, is the existence of **I**. On the typical path, **I** was either nonexistent or small. The smaller the **I** was, the more troublesome was the struggle between **E** and **A**. l's presence is like having oil-lubrication-to smooth over the difficulties. So, the pAEI dance can take place now.&#x20;

It has taken only two steps to develop a **pAEI** dance. Not bad; we are already a step ahead of those who take the typical path.&#x20;

Now **P** should join. True, one should teach him the dance while the other two watch, but with the involvement of **I**, the **AEI** dance works like a dance of two, not three. **P** is really joining only **A** and **E**. If form and function are already dancing together and doing well, it shouldn't be too difficult for **P** to join. At first, when **P** joins in, **E** will take a temporary rest, allowing short-term effectiveness to substitute for long-term effectiveness. That's the **PAel** dance. For a short time, there should be no new ideas, and attention should be directed to getting the existing ideas working. Once that is accomplished, it's again time to look for new ideas. **E** comes back refreshed, ready to spin off new markets and/or new products. Again, the situation resembles the typical path, but with I as an active, leading dancer, **E**'s return is not too difficult (assuming that **A** was taken care of!). We have arrived, and we can stay in Prime. It is **PAEI** time.

On the optimal path, the transitions are easier. With the development of long-run **EI**, the systems of short-run **A** reflect the long- run purpose and the true interdependency. With values, vision, and systems, by the time **P** joins, everything is ready. **P** does not have to wonder why, what, or how to do. It's all given. Just go and do it. **A**s I indicated above, it's easier to open a franchise fast-food restaurant than an independent, stand-alone, sit-down restaurant. The franchiser gets everything ready for the franchisee. It's all given. Just go and do it.&#x20;

### The Typical Path: A Comparison&#x20;

Why, then, doesn't the typical path start with **I**? It does. Without it there would have been no creation. The difference is not in absolute terms but in the degree and intensity of the phenomenon. On the typical path the founder is aware and conscious of his own self and of the item that he is creating. And that is where awareness ends. On the optimal path, the **I** is much, much larger, and the larger it is, the more efficient and effective is the path. On the optimal path the organization is politically conscious, with a worldly orientation and consciousness. The organization worries not only about selling cosmetics but about the fate of the Ogoni people in Nigeria. It is concerned with the pain animals suffer if we use them to test lotions that make people perceive themselves as more sexually attractive. Tell me what you worry about and **I** will tell you how "big" you are. For a company to be on the optimal path, it must be really "BIG."&#x20;

But why is **I** usually small? Why do companies follow the typical path rather than the optimal path? Is it because we are westerners? Is it because the western world is preoccupied with **P**? Is it for that reason that the typical path starts with **E**? &#x20;

Does an organization really start with the **E** role? It is conceived with **E** and born with **P**, but for conception to occur, **I** is necessary. Nobody can explain why some women who have been unable to conceive become pregnant soon after they adopt a child. Might it be a question of **I**?&#x20;

I have observed that all innovators are somehow integrated with their innovations. A creative-design engineer will tell you that his new machine lacks a specific part. How does he know? "I feel it," he says. The more creative he is, the more he identifies with his cretion. He almost feels it in his body. He is not inventing it; he is releasing a creation from his gut. This is where intuition comes into play. And what is intuition if it is not feeling, sensing, and knowing, on a very primitive level, what the market or the client wants. An innovator is like an artist who knows, simply knows, that without a red dot in the middle of her painting, it is incomplete. How does she know that? It is as if she is the painting. She identifies with it.&#x20;

When does an artist lose his creativity? When he loses his touch for his art, when he gets disassociated, disintegrated. Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn said, "A poet who is not with his people, even the dogs do not follow."&#x20;

Why is a Go-Go organization in trouble when the leader starts acting like a seagull? When the leader is gone, there is no one else to integrate. And **E** without **A** and **I** is, as the Old Testament says, "all clouds and wind but no rain."&#x20;

What causes the founder's trap? First, the founder finds it difficult to transfer the I role, and then, he wants to monopolize **E**, introducing the one-and-only syndrome. As a matter of experience, I note that in Go-Go, founders sow disintegration rather than integration. They tell John what is wrong with Bill, complain to Bill about what is wrong with Susan, and confide to Susan how frustrated they are with both Bill and John. With such disintegration, team **E**, which is necessary to institutionalize **E**, cannot evolve.&#x20;

After several years of painful experience, I have found that to transfer **E** from a single individual to several individuals and then to the structure-to institutionalize **E**-requires team cohesion. It's necessary to have group interdependency so the members can create and implement their creations. They need to cooperate. If there is no **I**, by default, the creative process retreats to a single individual. Team **E** requires team **I**. You cannot plant **E** unless I is already there. **E**ntrepreneurship is based on consciousness-awareness of what is within us and outside us. That consciousness must develop before we can set **E**ntrepreneurial spirit in motion.&#x20;

How I build this **I**-this consciousness-before I decentralize **E** is a subject for another book, and I admit that as a novice, I am probably not very good at it. When I watch spiritual leaders, I am in awe. They have what organizations need, and I have recommended to many of my clients that they would do well to appoint spiritual leaders to their boards of directors.

Maybe your next human resources manager should be someone trained not in industrial psychology. Should you consider looking for somebody with a background in religion and philosophy? A social worker? What about assigning your sales or production manager responsibility for developing this consciousness in your organization? Why not make the role of human resources manager a rotating responsibility?&#x20;

**E** is where conception occurs. If it is individualized, it can start a company, but there will be organizational difficulties later on, in Adolescence. If the lifecycle starts with team **El**, it nourishes the organization throughout the growing stages, and Adolescence will be easier. The companies that, from the earliest stages, grow with **EI**, are like children who have been raised in loving and supportive families. Their parents won't be forced to impose strong discipline in order to rescue them from troubled Adolescence.&#x20;

Where does all that leave us?&#x20;

This is the sequence of the optimallifecycle:&#x20;

Figure 18-1: The Optimal Path&#x20;

The choice is ours: typical or optimal path? And optimal for whom? Just us personally, just for our organization, or is it for society at large? And then, which society? Just our immediate community, religion, race, or creed? Is it just our country or are we talking about society worldwide? Or are we concerned about planet Earth beyond people to include flowers, birds, fish, and even moss? Does Love have boundaries? Should it?&#x20;

Lift your eyes and see!&#x20;

Take a deep breath and fill your heart. Awaken your spirit and nourish your love for all. For ALL. Because ALL is all there is to it.&#x20;
