
How Creating Value For Others Has Become The Key To Business Success
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


Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
The Current Stupid CEO Flex: Everybody's Replaceable (Including Them)
caucasian senior businessman - spooky portrait The Wall Street Journal had an interesting recent article about a change in the way executives talk about workers. What they think of as artificial intelligence has given them the confidence to say that everyone is replaceable. Wholesale elimination of jobs has been developing for at least the last decade — much longer if you consider the broader development of automation. Will new AI technologies enable even more job destruction? Certainly, but it will come at a cost and likely spread further than prudent and intelligent business strategies would allow. Possibly including their own jobs. The Myth Of Profit Maximization Chief executives typically look to improve the fortunes of a company and returns to shareholders. Many take to heart the argument Milton Friedman made in a 1970 New York Times op-ed that the 'social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.' That has been further interpreted as meaning the responsibility to maximize return on investment to shareholders. This is both legally incorrect and strategically troubling and mistaken. Experts in corporate governance have, across many years, tried to find a legal basis for the prescription. It has yet to appear. In the 2014 Supreme Court decision in 'Burwell, Secretary of Health and Huma Services, et. al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores,' the Court addressed whether a for-profit corporation could give money to religious causes. 'While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court.' Corporate law and governance also recognize that a company's board and executives have duties to the company. They are charged with strategy and operations for the company's benefit, with the shareholder's benefit being an offshoot. In basic calculus, math students learn that you cannot maximize for more than one variable at a time. That doesn't necessarily mean one factor cannot benefit while another does as well, but maximization mathematically means something has to come first. Everything becomes subject to that desire. Confusing People And Machines There is a peculiar attitude among executives, which has been around for a long time, that people are infinitely extensible. The signs come up with every wave of layoffs, and if you've ever been one of the people who survived a round of staff cuts, you have likely experienced this. Those left are expected to pick up and complete the extra work with neither additional pay nor schedule adjustments. Everything is supposed to be compressible. Employees are expected to contort themselves, making operations look as though they were normal. Forbes contributor Bryan Robinson discussed a study last year that noted 88% of layoff survivors experience burnout, and 25% suffer from mental and physical exhaustion. A developing and increasing trend is the desire to replace people with actual machines. Bring in not only the robots to do everything physical, but software to do everything mental. Chief executives want to make shareholders happy, which drives up share prices and the CEO's own holdings. Replace people with mechanisms to drive labor costs down and profits up. Ten years ago, I wrote about how automation was already coming for white collar jobs, including professional ones. A study at the same time said 'highly creative' professionals would remain safe. That didn't last long. When all work becomes something to be done by mechanisms — robots, artificial intelligence, or people — human needs become unimportant. Ultimately, there is only the need to cut costs, to increase profits. Three Rising Risks The decisions may seem obvious to the MBA crowd, but they bring three risks to business. One is the loss of institutional knowledge. It is people who hold the understanding of how processes work, the things a company needs to know about its customers. Again, this has been known for many decades. Lose people and you lose understanding. In theory, a company could use technology to capture and store much of this, but they don't tend to. Next is the risk of mediocrity, which is particularly true of large language model software that works on complex statistical algorithms. These products don't think. Instead, they're trained on vast examples of how words connect and then respond accordingly. What seems like intelligence is clever repetition, in a way. This brings up average responses. Furthermore, increasingly repeating what others have done undercuts creativity and innovation. The third and biggest risk is the undermining of the jobs and incomes of a growing portion of the populace. What happens when fewer and fewer people can make a good living? Who's going to buy all the products and services that companies need to sell to make their growing profits?


Fast Company
3 days ago
- Fast Company
Urgency is a strategy
Across industries, caution is rising. CEOs are slowing down major strategies—from hiring to investment—as uncertainty grows. The Business Roundtable's CEO Outlook Index recently dropped to its lowest level since 2020, reflecting widespread hesitation amid global volatility. It's understandable. When the path ahead is unclear, the instinct is to pause. To wait. Companies, institutions, governments, and philanthropists alike are reassessing their strategies as volatility becomes the new norm. Most leaders are focused on the challenges closest to home—in their industries, portfolios, and internal priorities. But the reality is: We don't live or work in silos. We live in a global market. And across every corner of that market, the signals are clear: growing caution, slower decision making, and heightened risk awareness. At UNICEF USA, where I lead private sector fundraising, we are squarely in the middle of that tension. We're seeing these trends play out in real time—in boardrooms, in proposal reviews, in budget meetings. As we work to meet escalating needs for children around the world, there is a slowdown. But this is also a moment that demands urgency and trust. It also demands innovation. And like many of our partners, we're rethinking what it takes to deliver meaningful, sustained impact in a rapidly shifting landscape. Hesitation is understandable—but costly We hear it from donors and partners all the time: 'We're recalibrating.' The global environment is unpredictable. Economic headwinds and geopolitical unrest have created a pause in decision making across industries—and philanthropy is no exception. Even committed supporters are questioning whether now is the time to lean in or wait for more clarity. But here's the problem: While strategy resets may make sense at the institutional level, the needs on the ground aren't pausing. For a child living through conflict in Sudan, a mother navigating floods in Bangladesh, or a newborn in Guatemala in need of basic care, delays have consequences. The cost of hesitation is measured in lives, in futures, in lost momentum. At UNICEF, we can't stop in the face of uncertainty, and we don't. We double down. It's how we work. Because every delay risks compounding the damage. We need to be clear-eyed about what happens if global investment slows. Weakening humanitarian and development funding doesn't just affect the children we serve—it reverberates across markets and industries. Rising conflict, destabilized supply chains, currency volatility, and workforce readiness aren't distant risks. They're business realities. There is a moral imperative to act. But there is also a business imperative. If we want a more stable, equitable future—for everyone—we must invest in the systems that create it. Slowing our response now won't bring stability. It will deepen inequality and delay recovery. Collaborate to meet the moment One thing is clear: Delivering impact at scale requires collaboration. We've always worked across governments, corporations, civil society, and communities—but in today's environment, the strength of those partnerships matters more than ever. Trust and alignment aren't soft values; they are strategic necessities. We're seeing powerful examples of what this can look like. Corporations that are embracing flexibility. Donors who are willing to have hard, honest conversations. Foundation leaders moving toward sustained, trust-based relationships that prioritize long-term outcomes over short-term metrics. Through support of the Eli Lilly and Company Foundation (Lilly Foundation), we will be able to not only deliver results, but accelerate change. Its recent commitment to UNICEF USA is focused on delivering and strengthening maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries by expanding prevention and care of noncommunicable diseases. We work to build trust with regular progress updates that demonstrate tangible results on this shared objective. Innovation with real stakes Innovation means different things to different people. At UNICEF, it's not about novelty—it's about meeting the moment by improving how we work and how we deliver. In a world of rising complexity, innovation is how we adapt—operationally, strategically, and systemically. Whether it's working with OpenAI to use generative AI to improve education outcomes, to pilot financing models to increase climate resilience, or scaling health solutions across fragile systems, we're focused on innovations that improve delivery and drive measurable outcomes. Not pilot projects for their own sake, but solutions that meet urgent needs and adapt to changing realities. Progress is not theoretical—it's measurable. Since 1990, the number of children under five dying from preventable causes has dropped by more than 60%. That's proof that when the world acts with urgency and coordination, we can change the trajectory for an entire generation. Progress is not theoretical—it's also human. Imagine a five-year-old child you love. Maybe they're starting school, asking endless questions, or learning to swim. Now imagine that same child—feverish and weak from something easily treatable. You're holding them in your arms to comfort them. You know what they need. The medicine exists. The clean water exists. But you can't get it. That's the crushing reality facing millions of families every day. Not because we lack simple, affordable, and preventable solutions—like vaccines, treatments for diarrhea and pneumonia, or ready-to-use therapeutic food for severe acute malnutrition —but because access breaks down when systems are underfunded, fractured, or forgotten. What's at stake for all of us This is a moment to lead with urgency. To move with clarity, not caution.

Business Insider
20-07-2025
- Business Insider
The Trump-Powell feud keeps heating up. Meet the betting markets' top picks to replace the Fed chief.
Scott Bessent Who is he: Treasury Secretary Polymarket odds: 23% Market commentary: Bessent is the top pick to replace Powell, but he's in a tricky position as Trump's right-hand man for all things markets. Trump himself has flagged Bessent as a potential candidate for Fed chair, but the president said on Tuesday that he likes Bessent where he is now. When Bessent first assumed the role of Treasury Secretary, Wall Street believed he would promote policies that appeased markets. However, he's often come out on Trump's side when stocks have crumbled, stating that he and the president aren't concerned about a little volatility. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman wasn't particularly bullish on Bessent in a recent Substack post. "What Trump looks for in his personnel choices is, above all, groveling loyalty. So anyone he chooses will, more or less by definition, be a spineless toady. Even if the appointee looks qualified for the position, we can be sure that he or she will indulge and cheer on every Trump idea, no matter how bad," Krugman wrote. "I call this Bessent's Law because when Trump chose Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary a number of Wall Street people assured us that he was a good, competent choice." Key quote: Bessent's been tight-lipped about any Powell replacement details. "There's a formal process that's already starting. There are a lot of great candidates and we'll see how rapidly it progresses," Bessent told Bloomberg on Tuesday. Kevin Warsh Who is he: Former Federal Reserve Governor Polymarket odds: 20% Market commentary: Warsh is seriously pulling out all the stops for the chance to take Powell's job. In a twist, he was passed over for Fed Chair in 2017, when Trump picked Powell to replace Janet Yellen. Earlier in July, Warsh appeared on Fox Business, where he pushed for lower interest rates and argued that "tariffs are not inflationary." His current stance is an interesting reversal from his time as a hawkish Federal Reserve Governor from 2006 to 2011, when he expressed concern that aggressive rate cuts could lead to higher inflation. Neil Dutta, head of economics at Renaissance Macro, said he thinks Warsh is one of the worst picks for Fed Chair. Key quote: "I don't think we need continuity when the central bank doesn't have credibility," Warsh said on CNBC on Thursday, criticizing Powell's decision to make a jumbo 50 basis point rate cut last September. "We need regime change at the Fed." Kevin Hasset Who is he: National Economic Council Director Polymarket odds: 16% Market commentary: There's another Kevin in the running. As Trump's current economic advisor, Wall Street strategists think Hasset is likely to follow Trump's orders. When asked about Hasset during a press briefing, Trump said "Kevin is fantastic." Hasset has been critical of the Federal Reserve's renovation project budget and has voiced support toward the idea of firing Powell. But similar to Bessent, Hasset hasn't commented much on whether Trump has asked him to be the next Fed chair. However, he has backed Trump's call to cut interest rates by up to three points. "Kevin Hassett and Scott Bessent are blatant political picks, which may struggle to achieve Senate confirmation," Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone Group, wrote in a note late last month. Christopher Waller Who is he: Federal Reserve Governor Polymarket odds: 12% Market commentary: Waller is gaining momentum in the race as a dark horse candidate, receiving a 9% boost on Polymarket early Friday after giving a speech arguing for a July rate cut. Waller cited weak private payroll growth as one of the main reasons for the Fed to lower rates at this month's meeting. Out of all the options, Waller would probably be the one most palatable to investors, as his arguments for cutting are the least political, and he would represent a fairly establishment pick to run the central bank. "He is not talking about cost overruns on the Eccles building or lowering the cost of government finance or 'regime change,' but he is talking about the shifting balance of risks in the economy," Dutta wrote in a note on Thursday. "There is a huge distance from him — someone who has an intellectual consistent/defensible/sound position — and the sycophants (Hassett, Bowman, Warsh) who are extensions of DJT," Warren Pies, founder of 3Fourteen Research, wrote in an X post on Thursday. Key quote: "While the labor market looks fine on the surface, once we account for expected data revisions, private-sector payroll growth is near stall speed, and other data suggest that the downside risks to the labor market have increased. With inflation near target and the upside risks to inflation limited, we should not wait until the labor market deteriorates before we cut the policy rate," Waller said on Thursday.