I grew up singing Monty Python’s Philosopher’s Drinking song (YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9SqQNgDrgg) so of course, I read most great philosophers. The song was funnier, but the ideas of Kant, Nietzsche, Plato, and Aristotle have been more useful for understanding change and how people react. All of this leads me to point out that I finally get to quote Kant.
“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.”
Enlightenment is the state in which a person can use their mind without another’s guidance. A leader with a specific vision can be enlightened using Kant’s definition. Most people interpret the idea of an enlightened leader as one that does good to do well. The combination of vision and enlightenment can provide a basis for change within an organization — for at least a while. Jame O’Toole’s The Enlightened Capitalists (don’t want to read the book? Check out the article, The short life of enlightened leadership (and how to extend it)) sorts through the lasting power of the changes an enlightened leader brings to the table. O’Toole suggests that enlightenment is a short-lived phenomenon. Arguably, closer to home, the changes that most change initiatives – whether supported by an enlightened leader or not – are also ethereal in the long term.
Recently, my wife and I discovered a leak in our roof. The discovery occurred during a heavy rain event lasting nearly 12 hours. We are now sorting through the boxes in the attic and are throwing away stuff that we should have tossed years ago. In this process, I found one box of material that included several quality programs that I implemented or was part of implementing in the 1990s. The quality movement of the 90s was a form of enlightenment whose wave broke when we recovered from the 1990s recession and Y2K became the thing. There was no real enlightenment, leaders acted with rational self-interest as I would expect most humans to act.
Is the idea of enlightened self-interest useful for helping to drive change? Yes, I think the concept is useful, just as reading philosophy and religion are useful. The concepts help leaders understand people and organizations. Adopting agile techniques requires understanding how individuals and groups will react, having a solid philosophical basis for change is never a bad idea.
Toole points out about enlightened leaders who have re-written organizations that, “To an unusual degree, those leaders consistently practiced what they espoused throughout their careers.” Can a leader with an idea they deeply believe in change an organization? Of course, change requires more than a voice from on high. Behavior change begins with structural changes to how people are organized and how they are paid/incentivized. Structural changes precede behavioral changes. Does the adoption of agile or lean concepts require enlightenment? While it wouldn’t hurt I would rather start by making sure everyone has the right structure and are paid to do the right thing so their rational selfishness kicks in.
