Strategic Leadership and Organizational Greatness: Business, Policy and Philosophy

January 8, 2008
Nikos Mourkogiannis, senior partner at Panthea, a consulting firm that provides advice to top executives, speaking on the modern-day application of Greek classicism to diplomacy.

Nikos Mourkogiannis' book Purpose, the Starting Point of Great Companies, has been translated into more than a half a dozen languages and the author notes that a reader strapped for time should concentrate on the 50 key points in the appendix. During this event, he presents a business model that helps executives and business leaders categorize their larger purpose into one of four categories – discovery, heroism, altruism and excellence. He puts a special emphasis on the Aristotelian connection with excellence.

Mourkogiannis argues that philosophy is useful in everyday life; it is not to be kept only on the bookshelf. Aristotle coined the term thelos - purpose. Aristotle's message is that purpose is a destination; but at the same time it is a means to an end. It is this oxymoron that is the most interesting for policy, in Aristotle's times and today.

Nietzsche, he continued, stated more than a century ago that those who can answer the question "why?" can make people follow, because people will find by themselves the answer to "how?" We spend a good portion of our lives on what and how to do things, but "why" we do something should be more important. A movement of change takes place when "why" becomes more important than the other questions. If we ask why Woodrow Wilson was doing what he was doing, the answer is that he knew that World War I would repeat itself, because the old world was wrong. By creating the League of Nations, he wanted to create a new world, a completely radical one. But, this brave idea died in the hands of the American electorate. Only the new world, Wilson thought, was worth pursuing. Why? He was encouraging the world to change. Reagan had a different approach to change – he advocated only doing the best. An inspirational leader, he wanted to redefine what was possible for America. The same can be said about Obama today. The moment we focus on the question of "why" we make the people who listen to us, follow.

Klasovich, the author continued, was the modern father of strategy. As a general, he said that physical factors never win wars. It is the moral factors that win wars. You have to win the hearts and minds of people to answer the "why" question satisfactorily. If you move to the institutional level, an institution that can answer the "why" question has an advantage. It is an adaptable, flexible institution that has a vision and knows what to do and what not to do.

Purpose is about motivation which is essential to innovation. Innovation is against human nature, Mourkogiannis continued, it is unlikely to happen therefore, but is a source of great advantage. For relationships, you need trust. Purpose is important for both innovation and relationships.

What is good and what is a purpose? The Wilsonian answer is that discovering a world is a purpose. Excellence and the setting of standards (what Reagan did) can provide a purpose. Altruism is another purpose. Being heroic is another purpose.

What is the distinction between innovation and excellence in the institutional context? He went on to define his categories- discovery, heroism, altruism and excellence. Sony is the example of an organization that focuses on discovery. Warren Buffet, an Aristotelian, invests his time and money with people and with close friends. His focus is on relationships. Bill Gates and Henry Ford were very effective at changing the world. Apple does not initiate technologies, but is a shopper of excellence – primarily, they are not into research, but into development. Given the size of that company, it is normal to have a hard time at being a discovering company. Wilson was the president who wanted original solutions; he was an innovator, a very authentic figure. Gremlin Bank – the small loans bank that got the Nobel Prize in Bangladesh is a good example of discovery and altruism. It is a purpose-driven bank.

Mourkogiannis advises small companies not to play in the excellence field and large companies not to play in the discovery field. Not that they cannot do it, he argues, but each should specialize in their own fields. If you have purpose and alignment, you will be rewarded by the stock market. Yet, you have to align around your purpose.

There is no difference in business and public administration, the author continued. Historically, a corporation was born out of the necessity to hire an entity to do things for the king of England in India that the British army could not do, then known as the West Indies Companies. All companies started as chartered agents of the state and developed to what the modern concept of corporation today.

Mourkogiannis' categories can work in almost any situation, as he tackled the idea of armies and what their purpose is, he brought out questions such as, is a heroic army the same as a thinking army? Is an army devoted to altruism the same as one devoted to excellence? As for the US Army, no matter what happens in Iraq, the focus will be on what kind of army we will want to have in the future. If we want to build nations with armies, we need other kinds of people and values. The Navy is about excellence. Their challenge is by definition offensive, not defensive. This makes the argument that the Army should not be about excellence, though, but about something else.

Mourkogianis' believes that qualifying purpose is very important. If you redefine your purpose, you get transformed. Sometimes this can be beneficial, he explained, as many mergers fail because the top team cannot get a unity of purpose between the merging companies. No where in the world, he went on, do we see as much transformation as in Washington DC. The Naturalization Service at one time was about helping relatives of European-Americans get here US and become naturalized – it was about service and altruism. Now, with the war on terror it has a different purpose. Transformation had to take place and the agency changed. That is not to say that an entity should never re-evaluate their purpose. In situations where reputation problems become evident you have to reassess what you stand for.

Mourkogianis' focused the ending of his discussion on Aristotle and his contributions. Aristotle's biggest contribution to civilization, he posits, was that he developed definitions: zoology is this, geography is that. Not having definitions, Mourkogiannis stated, leads to confusion and anarchy. Aristotle thought that the best should rule and the rest should follow. His purpose was to educate the kings and the principles – Reagan's trickle-down economics emulated that.

Another Aristotle contribution is the notion of alignment. Mourkogiannis reflected what the difference between good and great was and focused the debate on the question of "what is good." This is the difference between the Greek and the Judaic approaches to life – the Jews are concerned with what is right, what is just, and this was inherited by Christianity. Alexander the Great was great because he walked the talk. He had a theory and he practiced it. Leonida was only good. Reagan was great too, because he had a unity of purpose between rhetoric and action. But greatness is not always what succeeds. Khomeini is not great because morality also plays an important role in the whole debate. In the absence of morality, you can have no good, let alone greatness and you cannot have transformation.