One of the things that has frustrated me about organizations I have worked for is their deep commitment to self-preservation.<\/p>\n
That might sound surprising. What’s wrong with seeking\u00a0financial success, stability, and job security? The problem comes when\u00a0these goals become the unspoken basis for decision-making.\u00a0Actions or ideas\u00a0that could pose a risk to self-preservation are rarely, if ever, taken. And as a result, organizations can\u00a0only serve their purpose and their customers in a suboptimal way because it\u00a0must fit\u00a0within the confines of the self-preservation agenda.<\/p>\n
This is true even in many\u00a0of the most mission-driven companies you can think of. For example, a\u00a0company where I used to work\u00a0had\u00a0a great web page where they pointed out\u00a0that most companies\u00a0have an unwritten primary goal\u00a0to make money (i.e. “the bottom line”). In contrast, this company felt that making high-quality software was truly the top priority, and making money was demoted to priority #2 \u2014 “so that we can continue to make high-quality software.” What I found is that while the team was\u00a0truly dedicated to writing high-quality software \u2014 even at the expense of profitability when necessary \u2014 there remained an unwritten, even higher priority of keeping the business going. This was based on a scarcity assumption, that having to work\u00a0anywhere else would necessarily be worse.\u00a0The resulting commitment to self-preservation created\u00a0a surprisingly risk-averse and slow-moving culture which I believe is significantly limiting the impact that their high-quality software could have\u00a0in the world.<\/p>\n