
How Creating Value For Others Has Become The Key To Business Success
Figure 1: Logos of firms creating value faster. in the U.S. Europe and China
Creating value for others has long been a staple of morality, Who has not heard, 'Love your neighbor as yourself"? Today, paradoxically, creating value for others has become the key to business success.
The Mirage Of Scientific Management
This is quite recent. For more than a century, businesses often lost sight of the importance of creating value for others. Many firms pursued the idea of scientific management, i.e. imposing a system of inert processes, methods, structure, and systems on staff in order to make money. Scientific management took off with Frederick Taylor's book, The Principles of Scientific Management, who predicted: 'In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first.'
In the 1950s, the Carnegie Foundation insisted on scientific management in its funding of business schools. In the 1970s and beyond, the Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman and his colleagues persuaded businesses to pursue maximizing shareholder value (MSV) as the sole goal of business. In 1997, the Business Round Table endorsed MSV the valid goal for all businesses. As recently as 2023, management guru Gary Hamel defined management as 'simply the tools, the methods, process and structures that we use as human beings to do together what we couldn't do alone.'
This concept of management led to great gains in the 20th century, even as staff engagement was steadily lower and business returns gradually declined. Eventually, in 2019, the Business Round Table realized that business based totally on the self-interest of short-term profits was untenable and officially renounced it.
The New Goal Of Business Management Emerges
Meanwhile, over the last quarter century, firms had already begun implementing the converse of Taylor's dictum. As they found ways to have human concerns modify and drive the processes, practices, and methods, they were able to grow much faster and generate exponentially more value. They began with the customer and worked backwards, while also giving thought to all the stakeholders. In so doing, they began to live a new destiny for business management: creating value for others.
Illustrations of firms that are mostly pursuing this goal and the results they have obtained in terms of long term returns and workplace satisfaction are included below in Figure 1. They include firms of all sizes and in all sectors in the U.S., Europe and Asia.
In one sense, this is like discovering the wheel. For millennia, the human race has known that when we create value for others, the true spirit of living is alive in us. Whatever our kind of work, whether it is a business, a team, a family, a community, a political movement, or even a religion, when we embody the spirit of creating value for others, we become inventive, searching, daring, and self-expressing. We become interesting to other people. We may disturb and upset, but we do so to enlighten and open the way for better understanding.
We have long known that some people are doing the opposite. They are trying to extract value for themselves, or to harm us, or to dominate us, or impose their process or system on us. In so doing, they can become mean, selfish, unpleasant, even inhuman.
What led to the change? It wasn't a sudden moral epiphany on the part of business leaders. It was a recognition by businesses that the world itself had changed. This in turn necessitated change. The internet (and now AI) had given first, to firms, new possibilities for innovation, and then to customers, more choices, and finally to firms again, the potential of new business models that built on extraordinary network effects. The old way of managing couldn't keep up. Managers had to try something different.
The terminology used by the firms varied. Apple talked of a different 'culture'. Microsoft talked about 'mindset', 'empathy' and 'values.' Amazon talked about 'leadership; principles.' Some firms talked of 'mental models' and 'narratives.' The Agile Manifesto spoke of valuing 'individuals and interactions' more than 'processes and tools.' At LVMH, CEO Bernard Arnault talked of giving designers 'freedom without limits'.
Whatever the vocabulary, this new breed of firm used subjective concepts to drive their business processes. Their mental models, goals, mindsets, values, narratives, and purposes were the very things that scientific management had dismissed in principle. The result was an upheaval in every aspect of business practices It might be called a paradigm shift in management, although probably no more than 20% of public firms have yet made the transition.
Instead of trying to fix individual issues by adding patches to a framework of scientific management, the fastest growing firms transformed almost every aspect of management.
Figure 2: Hierarchy of authority vs Network of competence
Each of the firms in the transition is unique. Some concentrate more on one dimension than another, depending on the particular needs of their context. Each of them has flaws, including some that are serious. In effect, none of them is a model that can or should be copied directly. But the principles of management that they have discovered require attention.
What we are seeing here is not a fad. This is not something that was cooked up last night and will evaporate in a flash. It's not just a theory. It's based on hard financial and social facts. It's been gathering momentum for several decades. And it has roots in countries around the world. In fact, there's now a lot of solid knowledge about how and why this new kind of management works.
What the other 80% of firms have to do is to unlearn most of what they know about management and, in the process, get to know the organization of the future. They can learn from the practices of the leading firms and understand how they achieved their success. They should not set out to copy their practices exactly. Those practices were right for those firms in their settings. In transitioning to the new, firms have to develop principles and practices that are right for their own setting.
They also need to learn why change is inevitable. To be master of their fates, they will have to embrace new ways of thinking and communicating and acting. Their organization will need to become, in effect, a new organizational life-form. Almost everything will be different. But it will also exciting. Suddenly, the firm will be in sync with its context. Management will for once have pizzazz.
And read also:
The Management Paradigm Driving The World's Fastest Growing Firms
Understanding Why Networks Of Competence Crush Hierarchies Of Authority
FIGURE 1 5-YEAR TOTAL RETURNS OF FAST GROWING FIRMS IN US, EUROPE AND CHINA 250419
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fast Company
7 hours ago
- Fast Company
Why AI Is Making 1:1 Meetings Irrelevant
For decades, the one-on-one meeting has been a sacred ritual of managerial life. It's the office equivalent of a treadmill session: repetitive, well-intentioned, and mostly endured out of guilt. Conventional wisdom says every manager should have regular 1:1s with their direct reports to build trust, boost engagement, and drive performance. However, as work evolves—with a faster pace, flatter structures, hybrid and asynchronous communication, AI tools that manage tasks more efficiently than most humans ever will—it's worth asking: Do we still need all these 1:1s? A Brief History In the early 20th century, Frederick Taylor's influential Scientific Management (1911) introduced the idea of optimizing work through detailed observation and individual instruction. While strictly not '1:1 meetings' in a modern sense, this era laid the groundwork for formal manager-employee check-ins, focused almost exclusively on productivity and control. Similarly, military hierarchies institutionalized briefings and debriefings —structured one-on-one conversations that inspired corporate management systems, especially during and after WWII. Think of it as command-and-control performance reviews, with little space for career development or psychological safety. After WWII, workplace psychology gained prominence. The famous Hawthorne Studies showed that individual attention improved morale and productivity. This era birthed the 'manager as coach' concept, which has recently reemerged in the form of Herminia Ibarra's leader as coach. In 1960, Douglas McGregor's Theory Y reframed employees as intrinsically motivated individuals rather than passive workers. In this context, 1:1 meetings began to evolve into opportunities for feedback, mentorship, and development, especially in management training programs pioneered by companies like GE, IBM, and Procter & Gamble. With the decline of manufacturing and the rise of the knowledge economy, especially in tech and consulting, the nature of work—and therefore management—changed. As workers were paid more for thinking than doing, interpersonal communication became a management imperative. By the early 1980s, books like Andy Grove's High Output Management popularized 1:1s as tools for alignment, coaching, and decision-making. Grove, the legendary Intel CEO, explicitly advocated for weekly 1:1s as a way to catch small issues before they became large ones, and to ensure both parties shared the same context. His model influenced Silicon Valley and remains widely cited in tech. Meetings Without Meaning Steven G. Rogelberg, an organizational psychologist and author of Glad We Met: The Art and Science of 1:1 Meetings, compellingly illustrates that while 1:1s can be powerful tools for enhancing employee engagement and satisfaction, they often become counterproductive and misused. Rogelberg identifies several common pitfalls that can render 1:1 meetings ineffective: Manager-Dominated Conversations: When managers monopolize the discussion, speaking more than they listen, or focus solely on task lists, it undermines the meeting's purpose. Rogelberg notes that such practices serve the manager's needs rather than supporting the employee's development. Lack of Personal Engagement: Effective 1:1s should address both tactical and personal aspects of an employee's role. Neglecting the personal dimension can lead to missed opportunities for deeper connection and support. Over-Frequency Leading to Micromanagement: Holding these meetings too often can make employees feel micromanaged. Rogelberg suggests a biweekly cadence of 25 to 50 minutes to balance oversight with autonomy Productivity Tax Too often, 1:1s are where status updates are mumbled, calendars are synced, and passive-aggressive comments are politely ignored. They are, in short, a productivity tax, one which alas is often not properly quantified or accounted for. Harvard Business School's Ashley Whillans reckons the typical knowledge worker spends over 20 hours a week on meetings. The problem is not the 1:1 itself. It's how, why, and how often it's done. Managers cling to weekly 1:1s out of habit or guilt, not strategy. In some orgs, these meetings are confused with therapy; in others, with micromanagement. And worse still, many managers show up to 1:1s with no agenda, no questions, and no curiosity—a surefire way to destroy psychological safety. As a matter of fact, most 1:1s are ineffective. Recent research suggests that 70% of meetings hinder employees from completing their tasks, leading to decreased productivity. Despite a 20% reduction in average meeting length during the pandemic, the number of meetings attended by workers increased by 13.5%, exacerbating the issue. To be sure, not all 1:1s are created equal. In fact, one of the biggest mistakes leaders make is treating all 1:1s the same. Effective managers treat 1:1s like tools in a leadership tool kit—used with intention, tailored to the task. Importantly, good management is not about treating everyone the same, but as they deserve and would like be treated. In that sense, it would be foolish to assume that everyone is equally interested in 1:1 meetings, or benefits from the same kind or type of meetings. Why AI Makes 1:1s Redundant In an age where Slack pings, shared docs, performance dashboards, and real-time feedback tools bombard us with continuous signals, the weekly or biweekly 1:1 starts to feel like a nostalgic ritual—less 'essential leadership practice,' more 'management cosplay.' The workplace has become asynchronous, distributed, and data-rich. Managers can monitor performance in real-time through productivity analytics. Employee sentiment can be gauged with pulse surveys and engagement tools. Peer feedback, 360 reviews, personality assessments, and even mood indicators from collaboration software give you more insight than a 30-minute Zoom ever could. And unlike human memory, these systems don't forget, distort, or sugarcoat. Even the emotional dimension of 1:1s—the human check-in—is being digitized. AI tools like Microsoft Copilot or can summarize conversations, flag coaching opportunities, and recommend follow-ups before you've even had your morning coffee. Platforms can infer burnout risk from calendar density or written tone. Want to know who feels neglected or disengaged? Ask the algorithm, not your gut. The very technologies designed to 'enhance' 1:1s are replacing the need for them. Just as calculators made mental math optional, AI makes manual managerial check-ins look like horse-drawn meetings in an era of hyperloops. Less ritual, more relevance That doesn't mean we don't need feedback, coaching, or empathy. But it does mean the format of the traditional 1:1—calendarized, synchronous, performative—may be overdue for rethinking. In a world of always-on data and generative simulations, the manager who insists on a standing weekly check-in may look less diligent and more . . . analog. So, what replaces them? Perhaps a mosaic of micro-interactions, data-driven nudges, and intentional (not habitual) human moments. In other words, less ritual, more relevance. As generative AI matures and avatars become indistinguishable from their human counterparts, we may not need to show up to 1:1s at all. Instead, we'll delegate them to our digital twins—hyperrealistic, fine-tuned, emotion-simulating versions of ourselves, trained on our past performance reviews, Slack tone, and leadership competencies. Imagine logging into Zoom and seeing your boss's AI twin nodding empathetically at your AI twin, while both exchange perfectly polite updates and preapproved feedback. The meeting ends, the logs are summarized, and the human versions skim the transcripts over lunch, ideally while doing something more useful—like actual work. This isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. Companies like Synthesia and Soul Machines are already building digital avatars that can hold unscripted conversations. Microsoft and Meta are investing in 'personal AI agents' that will schedule, negotiate, and even attend meetings on your behalf. In a world of 60% scheduling excess and skyrocketing manager-to-report ratios, letting your digital clone handle routine 1:1s might feel less dystopian and more like time management. The only question is: when both participants are AI, will the meeting be more productive—or just faster at getting nowhere? Requiem for the 1:1 The one-on-one meeting, once a cornerstone of modern management, now teeters on the edge of obsolescence—a charming relic from an analog era, repurposed but rarely rethought. What began as a well-intended vehicle for alignment, coaching, and connection has too often devolved into a managerial placebo: comforting, habitual, and questionably effective. The demands of today's workplace—faster, flatter, and far more fluid—simply don't align with the lumbering cadence of standing check-ins. In a world where performance is visible in real-time, where emotional states are algorithmically inferred, and where digital twins can carry out conversations better than most middle managers, the weekly 1:1 risks becoming the corporate equivalent of sending a fax—quaint, unnecessary, and performed mostly by those resistant to better alternatives. This doesn't mean we should abandon human connection or stop developing talent. It means rethinking how and when it's best delivered. Great managers will still check in—but with intention, not obligation. They'll coach, not calendar. And the smartest ones will know when to step aside and let technology take the busywork out of empathy. The future of leadership may still (hopefully) be personal—but it won't always be synchronous, sentimental, or stuck in a recurring Zoom slot.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Don't know what DC club to join? Ask Groucho.
These are tough times in Washington. Federal employees don't know from one day to the next whether they'll still have a job. Reporters fear their editors won't back them up if they're too hard on reporting the truth about President Trump. Lobbyists scan their client list to make sure none can be blackballed as 'DEI.' Republican politicians worry about being primaried. Democrats worry about being dismissed as irrelevant. All that angst! But, according to a recent survey in the New York Times, that stress is minor compared to the biggest existential crisis facing younger, political and socially-ambitious Washingtonians today: What private club shall I join to further my career and, maybe, have fun along the way? Let's be honest. The choices are not great, starting with what is probably still Washington's most prestigious private club, the Metropolitan Club, nestled in a drab high rise near the White House. It has a roster of famous Washington establishment names — I once chatted up Vice President Dick Cheney there — but if you're looking for signs of life, you'd be better off at Congressional Cemetery. Next up, the Cosmos Club, located in a beautiful Beaux-Arts mansion on Massachusetts Avenue, near Dupont Circle. Like San Francisco's Bohemian Club, the Cosmos Club is home to artists, writers and intellectuals. Its walls are covered with photos of members who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer Prize. But, again, it's atmosphere is quiet, if not moribund. But now there are two alternatives. Ned's Club, which opened in late January, across from the Treasury Department, with a $5,000 initiation fee plus an annual $5,000 membership fee. Aiming to attract younger professionals from both parties, Ned's has already signed up 1,500 major players in the current and past administrations, as well as several big-name journalists. If that's your idea of a good time, 'half the lobbyists in town are always there,' one unnamed member told the Times. The Executive Branch, opening this month, is Washington's most exclusive private club, created by a group of investors led by Donald Trump Jr. in an subterranean cavern under a Georgetown shopping mall. With a membership fee of $500,000, the Executive Branch is clearly a place where MAGA moguls and government officials — and maybe even POTUS himself — can hoist a drink without fear of rubbing elbows with someone not wearing a MAGA hat. If you're not sure what club to join, here's the obvious answer: Don't join any of them. To make it in Washington, you don't really have to. There are plenty of power pits in DC you can get into for just the price of a meal. No place speaks Washington politics and power like The Palm restaurant, where caricatures of past and present big shots stare down at you from the walls. Legendary lobbyists like Tommy Boggs and Chuck Manatt had their own tables here. At Friday lunch, chances are you'll see former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) holding court. Joe's Seafood, Prime Steak and Stone Crab, in a renovated bank at the corner of 15th and H, NW, a block from Lafayette Park, is another favorite for Republican and Democratic operatives. Dinner at the Capitol Grill, near the Capitol, is like dinner in the House GOP Caucus: swap stories with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). Or join Trump insiders led by frequent diner Steve Bannon at Butterworth's, on Capitol Hill. Trattorio Alberto, on Barracks Row, once former House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) hideaway, nightly hosts Congress members and staffers from both sides of the aisle. The Tune Inn remains Washington's classic, no-frills, grungy bar. And there's still no better place to see and be seen by the politically powerful than Georgetown's Café Milano. The point is: With so many free alternatives, there's no need to join a private club to help you climb the political, professional and social ladder. In fact, when it comes to joining clubs, the leading authority is the great Groucho Marx. He once applied for membership in the Los Angeles chapter of the Friars Club. But, once accepted, he declined the invitation, citing a busy schedule. Club managers objected, insisting there must be something else. 'I do have another reason,' Groucho wrote back promptly. 'I didn't want to tell you, but since you've forced the issue: I just don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.' That Groucho philosophy of not joining any club has enabled me to survive and thrive in the highly-competitive worlds of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington. I highly recommend it. Bill Press is host of 'The Bill Press Pod.' He is the author of 'From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Don't know what DC club to join? Ask Groucho.
These are tough times in Washington. Federal employees don't know from one day to the next whether they'll still have a job. Reporters fear their editors won't back them up if they're too hard on reporting the truth about President Trump. Lobbyists scan their client list to make sure none can be blackballed as 'DEI.' Republican politicians worry about being primaried. Democrats worry about being dismissed as irrelevant. All that angst! But, according to a recent survey in the New York Times, that stress is minor compared to the biggest existential crisis facing younger, political and socially-ambitious Washingtonians today: What private club shall I join to further my career and, maybe, have fun along the way? Let's be honest. The choices are not great, starting with what is probably still Washington's most prestigious private club, the Metropolitan Club, nestled in a drab high rise near the White House. It has a roster of famous Washington establishment names — I once chatted up Vice President Dick Cheney there — but if you're looking for signs of life, you'd be better off at Congressional Cemetery. Next up, the Cosmos Club, located in a beautiful Beaux-Arts mansion on Massachusetts Avenue, near Dupont Circle. Like San Francisco's Bohemian Club, the Cosmos Club is home to artists, writers and intellectuals. Its walls are covered with photos of members who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer Prize. But, again, it's atmosphere is quiet, if not moribund. But now there are two alternatives. Ned's Club, which opened in late January, across from the Treasury Department, with a $5,000 initiation fee plus an annual $5,000 membership fee. Aiming to attract younger professionals from both parties, Ned's has already signed up 1,500 major players in the current and past administrations, as well as several big-name journalists. If that's your idea of a good time, 'half the lobbyists in town are always there,' one unnamed member told the Times. The Executive Branch, opening this month, is Washington's most exclusive private club, created by a group of investors led by Donald Trump Jr. in an subterranean cavern under a Georgetown shopping mall. With a membership fee of $500,000, the Executive Branch is clearly a place where MAGA moguls and government officials — and maybe even POTUS himself — can hoist a drink without fear of rubbing elbows with someone not wearing a MAGA hat. If you're not sure what club to join, here's the obvious answer: Don't join any of them. To make it in Washington, you don't really have to. There are plenty of power pits in DC you can get into for just the price of a meal. No place speaks Washington politics and power like The Palm restaurant, where caricatures of past and present big shots stare down at you from the walls. Legendary lobbyists like Tommy Boggs and Chuck Manatt had their own tables here. At Friday lunch, chances are you'll see former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) holding court. Joe's Seafood, Prime Steak and Stone Crab, in a renovated bank at the corner of 15th and H, NW, a block from Lafayette Park, is another favorite for Republican and Democratic operatives. Dinner at the Capitol Grill, near the Capitol, is like dinner in the House GOP Caucus: swap stories with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). Or join Trump insiders led by frequent diner Steve Bannon at Butterworth's, on Capitol Hill. Trattorio Alberto, on Barracks Row, once former House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) hideaway, nightly hosts Congress members and staffers from both sides of the aisle. The Tune Inn remains Washington's classic, no-frills, grungy bar. And there's still no better place to see and be seen by the politically powerful than Georgetown's Café Milano. The point is: With so many free alternatives, there's no need to join a private club to help you climb the political, professional and social ladder. In fact, when it comes to joining clubs, the leading authority is the great Groucho Marx. He once applied for membership in the Los Angeles chapter of the Friars Club. But, once accepted, he declined the invitation, citing a busy schedule. Club managers objected, insisting there must be something else. 'I do have another reason,' Groucho wrote back promptly. 'I didn't want to tell you, but since you've forced the issue: I just don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.' That Groucho philosophy of not joining any club has enabled me to survive and thrive in the highly-competitive worlds of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington. I highly recommend it. Bill Press is host of 'The Bill Press Pod.' He is the author of 'From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.'