- Welcome to the fourth
in the UW-Green Bay Last Lecture Series,
built on the premise of asking
our distinguished faculty members,
"What would you say if you were giving your last lecture?"
William Wordsworth said, in a way that I believe describes
what is a faculty and that I believe is especially relevant
to this series and to this presentation,
"What we [have] love[d], others will love,
"and we will show them how."
"What we love, others will love, and we will show them how."
So it's my sincere honor to introduce
tonight's presentation.
Lucy Alice Arendt is wife to John Arendt
and mom to John, Michael, and David.
She's mom-in-law to Dana Arendt
and Grandma Lucy to Miss Rayelle and Miss Amelia.
She's the natural daughter of David Camberg and Audrey Rowan
and the stepdaughter of Patricia Camberg and Phil Rowan.
She's the eldest sister of Frank, Steve,
Audra, Lisa, Kathy, and Julie.
She's Aunt Lucy to a long list of nieces and nephews,
including her goddaughter, Terra, and her godson, Jake.
And after her husband John, she's staff member number two
to the family cats: Boots, Gary, and Stella.
Shout out.
(audience laughs)
She's named for her Great-Aunt Lucy
and her Grandma Alice, both of whom were strong,
intelligent women of great integrity.
Lucy began her college career at UW-Stevens Point in 1983.
She later transferred to UW-Green Bay,
where she earned her Bachelor of Science degree
in Business Administration and Spanish
in 1987, and her Master of Science
in Administrative Science in 1990.
Lucy began working as an academic staff member
at UW-Green Bay in 1990.
She earned her PhD in Management Science
from UW-Milwaukee in 2006, and began working full-time
as a tenure-track faculty member in that same year.
She was promoted to Associate Professor in 2010,
and last year, was promoted to Professor,
a recognition of her leadership
and the impact she's had on her scholarly field.
Lucy's research expertise is in decision-making,
especially decision-making by individuals, organizations,
and communities in the wake of disasters.
She has published in peer-review journals
and has co-authored three scholarly books.
She has presented in-state, nationally, and internationally,
and performed service at the institution,
in the community, and for her profession.
Teaching, educating students, is clearly Lucy's passion,
as evidenced by the students that she has
that are here in the audience tonight.
She teaches upper-level and graduate classes
in Organizational Behavior, Leadership,
and Sustainable Organizations.
She leads an annual travel-abroad course to Mexico.
Her favorite way to spend time at the University
is with her students.
For fun, Lucy prefers to hang out
with her family doing whatever.
She also enjoys reading, traveling,
and enjoying adult beverages and laughs with friends.
(audience laughs)
(laughs) I've had the opportunity to work closely
with Lucy for the past five years.
Her intelligence, wise judgment, and common-sense approach
to decision-making and problem-solving
has earned her well-deserved respect
across the entire University and in the community.
I know, truly, that every action she takes
in her work is with the goal of serving students
and advocating for equity.
I can say without reservation
that much of my success is because of her.
And it's nearly impossible for me to think
of imagine not working with her.
Please join me in welcoming tonight's presentation,
Dr. Lucy Arendt.
(applause)
- Well, after that, we can just wrap it up.
Are there more cookies? (audience laughs)
We'll just move to the conclusion.
No? All right. Okay.
Well, let's just roll into this, theoretically.
So, I just returned from Nepal, and the standard way
of greeting people in Nepal is "Namaste,"
which, as it says here,
"The divine in me honors the divine in you,"
or, "I bow to the divine in you."
Thank you so much for coming.
I want to start with some thank-yous, because I think
they are the most important part of the presentation.
Starting with my loving and, I would
also describe them as, demanding family.
My motivating mentors, especially John Harris,
Daniel Alesch, and Tim Sewall.
My hardworking and inquisitive students,
both past and present.
Sue Mattison, Mary Baranek, Ashley Folcik,
the very best Dean's crew ever.
Tracy Heaser from Advancement and the Academics Subcommittee
of the 50th Anniversary Planning Committee.
My inspiring "Last Lecture" faculty colleagues.
My many extraordinary faculty and staff colleagues.
And everyone who's ever talked to me
about their organization and their boss,
(audience laughs) because as I tell people,
I interview everybody about,
"How do you like working here?
"Tell me about your boss.
What's the best part of your day?"
And I've learned a lot through those informal interviews.
My goals for this evening are, I think,
pretty straightforward and hopefully they align with yours.
I want to share a way of thinking about modern organizations
that has intrigued me for about 25 years.
I hope to stimulate reflection on the role
of modern organizations in our lives;
to provoke some questioning of what is and what could be;
to grapple with what it means to be an engaged human being;
and also to expose the damage that I think is caused
to individuals and society by the modern organization.
So, an overview, the agenda, if you will.
I'm going to talk about the issue, and then something
called the "organizational imperative," followed by
something else called the "individual imperative,"
and then, finally, a way forward.
So we start with the issue.
As it says here, "The central problem
"in contemporary America is the replacement
"of the Founding Values by the values
of the modern organization."
Now, to be clear, when I'm talking
about the modern organization, I mean all kinds:
for-profit, non-profit, governmental,
educational, the entire gamut.
According to Scott and Hart,
two very influential authors to me,
successful organizational leaders "preside
"over organizations that are, bluntly, tyrannical,
"with hierarchical power structures and nary a sign
"of democracy in internal operations.
"If employees object, they are told to ship out:
"freedom apparently means only the right to leave.
"No one seems particularly concerned with the huge gap
"between the professions of allegiance
"to the Founding Values and the standard
"operating procedures of our organizations.
"Apparently those values are only
"relevant in the off-hours."
So just to make sure that we're all on the same page
in terms of some of the Founding Values
that Scott and Hart are talking about
and that I'm talking about, I want to quote
from our Declaration of Independence.
It says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident,
"that all men are created equal,
"that they are endowed by their Creator
"with certain unalienable rights, that among these
"are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
"Unalienable," just to make sure, again,
that we're all understanding the words the same way,
is the state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
I think it's important that we keep that definition in mind.
Now, "liberty." I want to focus specifically on liberty.
A lot of words here, right? A lot of words.
"Natural liberty is the right which nature gives
"to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property
"after the manner they may judge most consonant
"to their happiness, on condition of their acting
"within the limits of the law of nature,
"and so as to not interfere with an equal exercise
"of the same rights by others."
Dictionary.com describes liberty as "freedom
from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
Freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction,
hampering conditions, etc.; the power or right of doing,
thinking, speaking, according to choice.
Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint."
And finally, "permission granted to a sailor," (my son),
"especially in the Navy, to go ashore."
For those of you who don't know, my oldest son, John,
is here on liberty, on leave, from the Navy.
He serves on Whidbey Island in Washington,
and he came, he said, for this, but I think
it was mostly really to see his wife and two daughters.
But regardless, it's awesome that you're here.
So, a little bit of satire.
For those of you who might not be familiar
with the publication "The Onion", "The Onion" is intended
to be a satirical piece, but as we know from studying humor,
satire holds truth.
And this wonderful piece:
"Employee Wishes He Had Enough
"Job Security To Voice Opinion."
Let me read the quick story.
Ostensibly out of Philadelphia, "Saying he would
"never jeopardize what little standing he has
"within the company by making any waves,
"Crystalpoint Systems junior sales associate Josh Morris
"told reporters Wednesday that he doesn't have enough
"job security to actually voice his opinion at work.
"'I'm still pretty low on the totem pole here,
"'so there's no way I'd put my job at risk
"'by sharing what I actually think during meetings
"'or conversations with coworkers,' said Morris, who,
"as one of his firm's younger and least essential employees,
"goes into the office each day fearing the repercussions
"of uttering a single honest opinion or constructive idea.
"'The last thing I want is to open my mouth
"'and irritate the wrong person.
"'Maybe if I get that promotion I might feel okay
"'at least hinting about some of the improvements I think
"'could really help the department or offering my take
"'on the new database software they've been trying out.
"'But for now, I'm just going to nod a lot
"'to suggest agreement.'"
So it's funny, right?
But if I hadn't told you that it was from "The Onion,"
if I'd have said this is what somebody told me
during an interview, or one of my casual conversations
that I like to have with people,
could you have found it believable?
How many people think yes?
My questions for you--
I have a lot of questions,
but some that come to mind immediately: Who wins?
Who wins when people are afraid
to share their thoughts at work?
Who wins when people are compelled to engage
in emotional and physical labor that may be unrelated
to positive individual and organizational outcomes?
Who wins when people are seen as replaceable means to an end
rather than as having value in and of themselves?
This latter bullet, my students know, is something
that's very important to me in particular.
While not all modern organizations are invested
in this organizational imperative,
that's what I'm describing here, enough are.
So many, in fact, that most of us no longer question
the 24/7, 365 impact of these organizations on our lives.
And yet we're unhappy, damned unhappy, incredibly unhappy!
In fact, more than 50% in the United States
report a lack of job satisfaction.
According to Scott and Hart, we've "allowed
"the modern organization to reshape
"the qualitative expectations we have for our lives
"and to reorder our moral priorities."
"The pluralistic forces that early shaped
"our national character have largely disappeared,
"as individualism has been diverted
"into service to modern organization.
"In contemporary America, the demands of modern organization
"overwhelm all other considerations, whether of family,
"religion, art, science, law, or the individual."
Think of, or imagine, the number of times you
or you've heard someone say, "I'm sorry,
"I can't make it to that family get-together.
"I have to work."
Or something like that: "I have to work."
Not "I want to work"; "I have to work."
"And I'm giving up this other pleasurable activity."
So what is this thing
that I'm calling the "organizational imperative"?
Are we okay so far?
Yes? We're okay?
Are there more cookies? We need more cookies, right?
For this? Okay?
What is it?
Well, there are a couple of propositions
and rules that I'll share with you.
So the first proposition:
Whatever is good for the individual
can only come from the modern organization.
The only way to achieve anything of significance
is through the modern organization.
Examples: pay, benefits, advancement,
I'll throw in there status, security, and then,
this last one that I think is really important, identity.
So when Dean Mattison read
my bio sketch tonight, I think maybe
it sounded a little bit different than
what some people are used to hearing
in a bio sketch, especially for an academic.
But often, we start out by saying where we work,
give our title, right? Lucy is a professor
at the University of Wisconsin in Green Bay.
So, wrapping my identity into the organization
for which I work, rather than
my true identity, which is,
first and foremost, partner to my husband,
mother to my sons, daughter to my parents, etcetera.
You heard the long list.
I could've listed all of my cousins,
but we've got places to go.
We've got things to do, right?
All the things that really make me who I am.
Yes, this organization is part of my identity,
but I would not argue that it's the most important,
or the most significant, and so, why list it first?
Why even list it early?
And yet, this is what many of us do, right?
The trade-off, at least theoretically, is material comforts
in exchange for our liberty, in exchange for our freedom.
You hear people say things like this:
"Well, I guess I'm lucky to have a job."
"I'm lucky to have a job."
As opposed to, "They're lucky to have me."
With everything I know, and all of my talent, and all of my
willingness to work hard, and all of my connections.
I'm not referring solely to me right now, please.
I want you to be thinking about yourself, right?
But we talk about, "Wow, thank goodness
"they took pity on me," basically.
The second proposition: Therefore, all behavior
must enhance the health of such organizations.
So, we work overtime.
We bring work home.
You might be thinking, "But maybe you get paid overtime."
I'm salaried.
I don't get paid overtime when I exceed
the regular number of hours in a workweek.
We bring work home; we're available 24/7, 365,
especially thanks to technology, right?
My e-mail, if I don't consciously think about it,
it might be the last thing I look at before I go to sleep
and the first thing I look at when I wake up in the morning.
"Do I have any work e-mail?"
We put work before our family and friends.
When I take students to Mexico, one of the things
that often astonishes my students, and there are many here
who've been on that trip with me who can vouch for this,
is the focus on family
that distinguishes that culture.
Let me give you an example.
For many in Mexico, if there's a family event,
and when I say family, I mean family , extended family.
Those cousins I didn't list for you...
They're part of the family.
If one of them, a young woman, a 15-year-old,
is having her 15th birthday celebration,
you don't go to work when that's scheduled.
Even if, "Well, we would pay you overtime."
No, no.
Because family can't be replaced.
I can get another job.
Family first.
And the students are often, just sort of reeling
when they hear the first example of that: "What?"
Because in Northeast Wisconsin in the Midwest, we generally
would describe ourselves as family-oriented, right?
It's a big deal to us, and yet, how many of you have
ever missed any sort of family gathering to go to work?
You don't need to raise your hand.
I already know the number is pretty high.
We do more work for less pay,
and we're happy to have that opportunity.
We do more work for fewer benefits.
This last one I think is really critical:
We put up with abusive and incompetent bosses.
Just yesterday, in two sections of a class
that I teach Organizational Behavior, I was talking
to my students about situations in which
they've experienced what's called "cognitive dissonance."
They have expectations and then there's reality.
And talking to them about, "Have you ever worked
"for a boss that you thought was incompetent
"or you didn't like or you had some issues with?"
"Yeah." Plenty of them, lots of hands.
A shocking number of hands considering that
the majority of my students, thare under the age of 30,
probably 80% of them under the age of 25.
So they've had to work for someone that
they considered incompetent, not very good.
"Well, how long did you work for them?"
"Up to two years."
"How long did it take you before you
"figured out that they weren't your cup of tea?"
One, I think, was first day.
(audience laughs) Right? Right?
Another one, maybe, two weeks, two months.
So then I said what I think is a natural follow-up question:
"But you kept working for this person?"
"Yeah."
"Why? Why?"
"Again, curious, not judging, just curious."
"Well, you know, the money, whatever."
We tolerate this.
Some of the rules that go along with this imperative:
Number one: To be obedient
to the decisions of superior managers.
Now, this is very interesting, this notion of obedience
and following through on what we're asked to do.
"In the traditional American conception of legitimacy,
"the flow of approval was upward:
"from the rank and file to the governors.
"The assumption underlying the effective functioning
"of all democratic societies is that those who hold power
"must be held directly accountable
"to the governed individuals who relinquish that power."
In other words, you and I are at the front line,
and we relinquish our power to those who lead us.
And then the expectation is that
they will be accountable to us.
"But the organizational imperative reverses the flow
"of accountability, devaluing the abilities of the rank
"and file to assess the performance of those in authority,
"while requiring from them obedience
"to directives from above."
"This reversal of the traditional pattern
"of legitimacy means that the managerial elite is,"
seemingly, "beyond criticism by those below it."
The second rule is to promote efficiency
over relationships, over community,
over the things that make us human.
The third is to be good stewards.
The fourth is to be rational and expedient,
focused on the short-term, the present.
Once again, related to these rules, from Scott and Hart,
"In organizational America, it is extraordinarily difficult
"to get at high-level managers, public or private,
"to make them accountable for the legality,
"much less, the morality, of their decisions.
"One of the most effective shields protecting
"managerial performance is the reification
"of the organization in familiar phrases."
In quotes, "'The company feels,'
"organizations 'do' this or 'decide' that,
"organizations 'behave responsibly' or 'irresponsibly.'
"This is consummate nonsense and we all know it.
"Yet we continue to write and speak about organizations
"as if they were" people,
as if some thing was making these decisions,
when it's actually people,
top managers.
- [Man] Right on.
(audience laughs) - Oh! Okay.
Amen. Yes. (audience laughs)
"To suggest that organizations 'do' anything
"masks these individuals from view
"and depersonalizes both the value and moral issues
"implicit in their conduct, thus relieving them
"of individual responsibility and public accountability."
Now, to further contrast, I've been talking
about the organizational imperative, and I will be talking
about this individual imperative, there are some pairs
that I'm going to fairly quickly review
that I think will illuminate further the differences
between these two perspectives.
Starting with Individuality versus Obedience.
The left column is the Individual perspective.
The right column is the organizational perspective.
Individuality is about liberty.
It suggests that you and I know
what is best for ourselves.
Not somebody else.
You know what's best for you.
I know what's best for me.
This compels us to engage in personal action,
which enables our satisfaction.
Now, when I say "individuality"
and I say "individualism," there's a caveat here.
I'm saying "coupled with altruism."
So this isn't simply self-interest.
That's not what we're talking about here.
We're saying "individuality and thinking
about how we fit into the larger community."
Obedience, according to some, leads
to personal satisfaction, that when people just are able
to follow directions, as opposed to thinking
for themselves, that that will make them happy.
It's all about complying with authority, and to advance,
you have to internalize the organization's values.
I have a personal story that fits with this,
where I was told at one point that if I wanted
to move up, then I needed
to behave in certain ways,
ways that apparently, from what I was able
to read between the lines, didn't
align with how I had been behaving
up to that point.
I found that fascinating, first of all,
that someone would directly say that.
That was sort of impressive, right?
But to say, "You're going to need to, sort of,
"toe the party line if you want to move up."
Well, easy choice:
No, thanks anyway.
Say Scott and Hart, "Americans are conformists,
"but that is of less concern than the fact
"that we have become an obedient people.
"We have accepted the supposed realities
"of organizational life and now look
"to the managerial elite for direction."
The second pairing is
Indispensability versus Dispensability.
And again, the individual imperative is on the left.
The organizational imperative is on the right.
Under Indispensability, each person offers
a unique perspective and has a unique set of talents.
There isn't anybody who's just like you.
Anywhere.
You are the only person on this planet
with your particular set of experiences, your knowledge,
your set of skills, that combination, your network.
You are the only person like that.
As people acquire experience,
they gain irreplaceable knowledge.
There are people who study this,
the fact that the stuff that's in here,
the context that you and I have,
if it doesn't get written down, and most of it won't,
it doesn't get passed on when we leave.
No one can completely replace anyone else.
So, this past year, one of our faculty members
in the School of Business retired, Don McCartney.
Don had been with UW-Green Bay since 1984.
Don was like a legend
in his own time.
And the joke, but not the joke, was, "I'm not really sure
"how many people we would need to replace Don."
And not just because Don was
a hard-worker, which of course he was.
I mean, this is the guy who came in super-early,
I think just to get the best parking spot in Wood Hall,
but there may have been other motives.
He came in on Saturdays.
If someone, that was the only time they could meet with,
"Okay, I'll meet with you on Saturday; that's fine.
"Sunday? Okay, that's fine.
"I'll meet with you on Sunday. Okay."
"Don, you know, we were talking
"about this thing that we want to start."
"Okay, yeah, I can help with that."
"Don, we were thinking about," I mean, name it.
"Okay, yeah, I can do that.
"Right on it." Always, always.
Again, it's not just about the amount of work he did,
but all the people he knew, all the ways that he knew
how to get things done; there is no replacing him.
He's on Facebook with me, and pretty much weekly,
I just want to send him a note saying, "You suck.
"I hate that you left, because there is no replacing you.
"The place will never be the same."
But I think that's not the message that most of us get.
Instead, the message we get is that we're replaceable.
"It's okay when you leave; we'll hire somebody else."
"There's somebody else to teach those classes."
"We'll get somebody else to bus those tables."
"We'll get somebody else to work that machine."
"Not a problem."
It's frankly easier to dispose of things,
including people, resources,
perhaps, than to reuse them.
Some people believe, in this imperative anyway,
that one person with a given set of qualifications,
whatever your degree is, for example, is as good
as another person with the same set of qualifications,
that a set of qualifications is what makes someone
a good fit for a job,
as opposed to everything about that person,
not just whether they have this degree or that degree.
Did they get these grades or those grades?
And then this quote from a comments section
of a video that I'm going to show you in a little while:
"If anyone can do the job that you do,
"then just that is what is going to happen:
"they will get anyone to do it."
(audience quietly laughs)
You know how to finish that joke, right?
Next, Community versus Specialization.
Under the Community perspective,
real, interpersonal relationships matter.
Individuals are prized for their personal qualities
contributing something unique to the continuity,
warmth, and support found in that community.
Versus Specialization: Loyalty
must be to your specialized function.
A person's worth is measured quantitatively,
whenever possible, by the level of one's
specialized performance relative
to the achievement of organizational goals.
It's all about efficiency.
Scott and Hart, "There's no room for community
"within modern organizations," no room
for community, "since it requires individuals
"to become indispensable to one another."
The next pairing looks at Spontaneity versus Planning.
With Spontaneity, we're saying,
again, this is the individual imperative,
serious problems require spontaneous, creative action;
serendipity; interdependent, complex relationships that we
might not be able to tease apart, that whole community idea.
Whereas Planning is focused on systematic,
informed projections; trying to eliminate guesswork;
prediction and, critically, control.
The last pairing talks about
Voluntarism versus Paternalism.
Voluntarism: combining voluntarily you and I,
everybody, into interest groups
to engage in collective action,
when I can't do something by myself.
It represents the compromise between
individualism and collectivism.
Paternalism is the benevolent concern of management
for the welfare of their employee "children,"
making decisions and doing what is "best"
for the employees without giving them rights.
In exchange, for being taken care of,
employees owe their loyalty.
That's also supposed to be funny.
(audience laughs)
"The organizational imperative that has displaced
"the Founding Values is now the central part
"of a new well-entrenched system of American values.
"Obedience is essential to organizational discipline,
"dispensability is necessary for organizational change,
"specialization is required for organizational efficiency,
"planning is needed to reduce organizational uncertainty,
"and paternalism is the psychological justification
"for management's dominion over the workforce.
"People must be indoctrinated from their earliest days
"through their retirement to understand and accept
"the insignificance of their individual lives
"in relation to the more exalted collective goals
"of the modern organization."
"At least some managers," maybe a lot,
"firmly believe that only managers have the arcane knowledge
"and intuitive understanding to integrate all of the diverse
"efforts within an organization into a harmonious whole.
"They believe that only managers can guide people
"through the mazes of technology
"and intricate organizational interdependencies.
"The managerial claim upon elite status
"has a definite messianic ring."
So, All Aboard the Belief Train
that goes with this imperative,
we have to believe in the decency of managerial intention.
"Where the decent intentions of managers are lost
"is in the glorification of means over ends
"and the failure of managers to think
"about the moral consequences of their actions."
Second, to believe in the job over all else,
people need to "understand the seriousness
"of their jobs in relation to the other
"non-job influences in their lives.
"The job must come first."
If "people will put their jobs first," think some,
"the world will be a better place.
"Surely that justifies subordinating
"our personal and family desires to it."
And then the last is, we believe in,
and this word is going to throw me off, vocationalization,
oh, that rolled off pretty smoothly,
of education.
Here's a quote from Scott and Hart:
"The days of wine and roses came to an end in the 1970s,
"when university administrators and faculties
"had to make hard choices about priorities."
This, by the way, could've been written last year.
"The costs of operation soared, citizens complained
"about paying for non-vocational frills, and funding bodies
"looked at educational budgets to achieve economies.
"The effects of these educational policies
"on the character of universities has been profound.
"One immediate consequence is that programs
"and departments with declining enrollments
"are being eliminated or sizably reduced.
"The public demand for economies in education is being met
"at the expense of liberal and fine arts programs.
"The resources thus freed are being reallocated
"to those departments emphasizing practical
"and vocational programs, which are
"of the greatest utility to modern organizations."
Let me repeat the last part of that sentence:
"which are of the greatest utility to modern organizations."
"In simple terms, the vocationalization of education
"means the none-too-subtle transfer of funds
"away from fields that have no direct application
"to the modern organization into those fields that do."
So let me switch gears and talk about the Individual Imperative.
Defined as the corrective, it is an ethical
individualism, based upon the Founding Values.
Its first proposition: All individuals have
the natural right to actualize the potentials
of their unique selves throughout the stages of their lives.
Let me tell you a story,
one that's been told may times by others.
The story is titled "The Cleaning Lady."
"During my second month of college,
"our professor gave us a pop quiz.
"I was a conscientious student and had breezed
"through the questions until I read the last one:
"What is the first name of the woman who cleans the school?
"Surely this was some kind of joke.
"I had seen the cleaning woman several times.
"She was tall, dark-haired, in her 50s,
"but how would I know her name?
"I handed in my paper, leaving the last question blank.
"Just before class ended, one student asked
"if the last question would count toward our quiz grade.
"'Absolutely,' said the professor.
"'In your careers, you will meet many people.
"'All are significant; they deserve your attention
"'and care, even if all you do is smile and say hello.'
"I've never forgotten that lesson.
"I also learned that her name was Dorothy."
The second proposition: The primary justification
of any organization is the extent to which it promotes
the actualization of those individual potentials.
As it says here, "There is a sanctity
"to each individual's life."
Some of the rules that go along with this imperative:
All individuals have the civic obligation
to realize their full potentials, because otherwise,
they diminish themselves, and when that's diminished,
the life of every individual in the community
is, correspondingly, diminished.
Secondly, all individuals have the civic obligation
to promote human diversity, since pluralism,
which permits the peaceful coexistence
of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles,
is an essential precondition of self-actualization.
All individuals have the civic obligation to reject
all forms of human instrumentalism
because individuals are ends in themselves.
They have value in and of themselves.
They are not instruments for obtaining other goals.
And finally, all individuals have the civic obligation
to dissent when any individual, institution,
or organization abridges the Founding Values.
So what does this organization look like?
Well, it has four characteristics, minimally.
In terms of organizational size, smaller,
because smaller social units are more conducive for
the enhancement of people and the development of community.
There are organizations that exist that limit the size
of their divisions to no more than 100 people
because it's very difficult
to get to know well more than 100 people.
Social enclaves.
The explanation: "Moral obligation intensifies
"when free people associate in formal
"organizations and social enclaves."
People in enclaves trust each other.
They appreciate and support the diversity
of individual members, and they exercise tough love,
if an occasion warrants that.
Governance and justice.
"America," this is Scott and Hart speaking,
"has been described as a sea of freedom
"filled with islands of despotism.
"This implies a disparity between the rights and liberties
"enjoyed by Americans as citizens versus
"those denied them as employees of organizations."
My words: The free opportunity to use one's voice is key
to individual self-actualization and community development.
And then, moral discourse.
This must be engaged in by honorable people who seek
to know, to believe in, and to act upon moral truth.
Such reasoning must be an integral part of the curriculum.
I'm a Business professor.
Students must be persuaded to understand that every
major decision requires significant moral consideration.
It is not just about figuring out the numbers.
The numbers are a step in the process,
and then there's the ethics.
There's no such thing as, "It's just a business decision."
Do such organizations exist? Yes.
We don't have time for me to talk about all of them.
They absolutely exist.
The good ones exist, those that are focused
on helping individuals achieve their potentials.
These are some examples.
They're not perfect.
They're not perfect
because they're run by people,
and we're all flawed, right?
We all make mistakes.
So certainly, one could find some policy,
something that would suggest that
they're not what I've said they should be,
but by and large, these are exemplars.
Herman Miller. This is a major American manufacturer
of office furniture, equipment, home furnishings.
It's based in Zeeland, Michigan.
One of its founders was Max De Pree.
W. L. Gore & Associates is an American manufacturing company
specializing in products developed from fluoropolymers.
Think Gore-Tex.
They're headquartered in Newark, Delaware.
And then Virgin Group.
Virgin is a British multinational
branded venture capital conglomerate.
How's that for a mouthful?
Founded by entrepreneurs Richard Branson and Nik Powell.
It's based in London.
Look any one of these up.
Explore how they talk about what they do.
Go out to Glassdoor and other places
where employees are invited to give
the real scoop about their company.
And you'll discover there are organizations that get it,
that understand the Individual Imperative.
So now I'd like to talk a little bit about a way forward,
thinking about us, this university.
So what is the University's role
in reminding society about our unalienable rights
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
both when we're 'on' and when we're 'off' the clock?
Should we be active practitioner?
Role model?
Showing other organizations how to do?
Should we be educating, talking to all of our students--
this isn't limited to business students--
all of our students about the Individual Imperative?
My oldest son, as I mentioned, he's in the Navy.
My second son is a student. He's an artist.
My youngest son, working.
They need to know about all of this
as anyone does.
Turning once again to Scott and Hart,
"We have the institutions that would allow
"individuals to realize their full potential.
"Our magnificent, albeit flawed, institutions of government,
"commerce, education, law, and religion can provide us
"with security, employment, consumer goods,
"learning, justice, liberty, and spiritual relief.
"We are the beneficiaries of the original
"American Revolution, which established
"the 'unalienable' rights of the individual
"over those of any despotic system of power,"
not just government, "any despotic system of power.
"In short, all the necessary elements are present
"to enable us to achieve the dreams
"of the founders of the Republic.
"With all of our exalted ideals, our successful
"institutions, and our promising opportunities,
"what has gone wrong?
"It is a moral failure.
"The successes of our organization have led us
"to concentrate on the problems of their maintenance
"and wealth, growing them, with a corresponding neglect
"of the moral character of the individual."
A Way Forward, questions for you to think about.
Is there value in returning to our shared governance roots
as they were understood and exercised in the past?
If we believe that the collective brain power
of all our stakeholders has value, how do we make sure
that all voices are at the decision-making table?
I've talked to my students about this.
You're adults. You have voices.
They should be heard.
This experience, this educational experience,
depends largely on your inputs.
Your voices have a right to be heard
in the decision-making that occurs
for this "organization."
How do we balance growth and alternative delivery methods,
online, etc., with creating community
and enabling individual realization of potential?
And then how do we ensure that the liberal arts, and a focus
on moral truths, are infused
in all programs of study?
All of them.
This is the moment where you actually get to laugh.
(audience laughs) That's me.
You can marvel at how sexy I am.
(audience laughs) Just go ahead, take a minute.
Take a minute. Ooh.
I should've double-checked with Deb.
Deb Anderson in Archives found this for me today.
Do you know why?
Because in a place where you get to know people well,
and you don't have to worry about the formal
organizational channels, you just, like, call people.
And say, "Deb, okay, I know there was this picture
"taken of me, and it was in the "Fourth Estate"
"in one of these years, but I don't remember which one.
"And it looks kind of like this.
"Is there any chance in hell
"that somebody could possibly find it?"
"Absolutely."
"Awesome!" (audience laughs)
So you can't tell, but this is 1980s.
And in the 1980s, it was all about matchy-matchy,
so I'm wearing white boots.
Are those by themselves? Sorry, for the laser--
Those are awful, right? Okay?
But they match my white-- (man speaks indistinctly)
What's that? - [Man] You're rockin' 'em.
- Of course I'm rockin'--
That's not the point. (audience laughs)
I'm just saying they themselves are not that attractive,
but I am amazing, right? Okay?
(audience laughs) White boots matching my white,
some kind of pants, matching my white popped polo
underneath my red long T-shirt that said UWGB on it,
and I'm sure my earrings were probably red,
and so were my socks. Oh! God! (audience laughs)
Okay, this is a picture of me.
The reason it was taken is that they were doing a profile
of me for the "Fourth Estate" for student government.
I was in student government.
And I want to share with you a statute that,
when I started in student government, was painted
on the wall in the student government main office.
This whole thing was painted on the wall.
This is exactly how it was.
Basically, this is the state statute that gives students
a voice in the decision-making of the UW institutions.
Notice how I've highlighted--
you can't hardly miss it, right?--
"active participants in the immediate governance of
"and policy development for such institutions."
Keep in mind those words.
This statute has been changed,
so that now, student voice is "primary responsibility
"for advising the Chancellor" about those things.
Your voice.
Your advice.
They're not the same thing.
Don't worry, students; it's not just you.
Here's the faculty version of that statute.
I pulled this up.
The beauty of the Internet, the Google-verse:
It's all out there (laughs),
the original statute as it was passed.
Faculty, again, "vested with responsibility for the immediate
"governance of such institution and shall actively
"participate in institutional policy development."
Participate: we're working together, right?
Here's what it looks like now.
(audience quietly laughs)
They're not the same thing, are they?
The voice.
A Way Forward.
First, I would suggest that we recognize the organizational
imperative for what it is and what it does.
That we use our collective voices to rebel against
and resist the organizational imperative,
to focus on the individuals who make up,
who comprise, our community.
That we support initiatives and organizations
that align with the Individual Imperative.
They exist. They exist.
They should get our money.
They should get our attention.
Because people matter.
Namaste.
(audience applause)