Here's a list of 5 business values that I think I learned via Earlham College:

1. You can do good and still do well. While it hasn't been as black and white as Mark and I may have thought it would be when we started Summersault, we have found that it is generally possible to make ethical decisions and still make money.  When you do make ethical decisions and still make money as a result, it tends to feel better than other approaches.
   
2. It's okay to fail. Traditional business culture sometimes tells us that failure is to be avoided at all costs (see: AIG bailout).  I've learned that experiencing failure - even deep, gut-wrenching, not-sure-I-can-do-this-anymore failure - is an important part of learning how to succeed, and while it may be difficult and even embarrassing to fail, it doesn't have to be shameful.
3. Honesty and integrity is always the best policy, and isn't to be taken for granted. I know it's a bit cliche, but we're still surprised at how often we encounter forms of dishonesty in the business world - through outright lies, subtle omissions, or other tactics - and so I try not to take it for granted when we meet someone - a client, potential employee, or vendor - who is honest through and through.  By the same token, no matter how difficult or awkward a business situation is, I've found that being brutally honest and taking responsibility for my part is the only way to get through it with integrity and relationships intact.
4. You don't have to detach yourself from the humanity of doing business. Businesses are just groups of people sharing in some common activity or mission.  Those people have emotions, flaws, difficulties, struggles, nuanced joys and irrational, complex driving forces in their lives.  You can't run a business and expect to ignore or detach yourself from these considerations, and in fact you may have a much better experience if you embrace them.
5. The universe will have its way. Some people think that good business is all about controlling every last detail of every process involved.  Believe me, I've tried that, and it doesn't work - the universe will throw things at you that you cannot control, sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes you don't know.  The alternative to trying to control everything that seems to work is to do really good planning, and then be ready to adapt and change (sometimes dramatically in a short period of time) and try not to take it personally.

Not all of these things were taught directly by Earlham (the panel today is in part to help convince students that it's OK to make money - only at a small liberal arts college ), and maybe I've even figured some of them out in spite of my time there (I majored in Computer Science, not Management).  I'll also note that I'm not by any means claiming to be perfect at living out these values all the time!  But I'm confident that had I not had that educational context and transformative four years, I would be a much different kind of businessperson today.

I'm grateful for the fact that, on the whole, I really enjoy the things that I do for my "work life," and in many cases, would choose to do them even if I weren't being compensated. Sure, they might take a slightly different form than they do in my role at Summersault (and in Summersault's role as a for-profit company acting within and benefitting from the global economy), but I generally get to apply the skills and expertise that I posses to challenges, projects and organizations that I think are having some sort of positive impact on the world I live in. More importantly, I feel privileged to know that my "work life" and "personal life" are intertwined in ways that don't usually feel uncomfortable, and are often very complementary. The relationships I have with the people I work with, the missions of the organizations I'm involved with, the projects I take on, the values I try to live out, the larger goals I have for my life...all of these things are improved or furthered by the larger notion of "How I Spend My Time," and with every passing year, I see fewer distinctions between what I consider "work" and what I consider "personal".

I suppose this is a manifestation of an ideal that I have for the world at large - that we can work toward a version of humanity that does not require people to spend time doing things they would not otherwise choose to do, just so they can have access to groceries, housing and other basics (and often at the expense of other great experiences like strong community, strong families, playfulness, seeing the world around them, laughing out loud on a regular basis, etc). I hope we can instead follow a vocation, which as Frederick Buechner beautifully put it, is "where your deep gladness meets the world's deep need." I think that when we have to save up all of those things we'd like to do, and the possibility for living out our deep gladness, for a planned vacation, we may not be living our lives to the fullest, responding to our true calling in the world.

There are plenty of cautionary statements to go along with this ideal. For example, I'm a privileged middle-class white male who can say these things on my quaint little blog that's hosted for free at a company I started with resources acquired and derived from the struggles of many others before me, while plenty of others fight for basic survival - food, water, shelter - every day. For there to be any chance of an equity amongst humans where balance and interdependent communities of people living out their true vocation can thrive, we must first find peace with justice, a culture that doesn't thrive on destruction, and an economy that doesn't depend on exploitation and oppression.

But no matter the hurdles to getting there, I think there's a version of humanity that does not require us to carve out a work life for ourselves that is separate from our personal life, that doesn't necessitate as many vacations from our vocations. In fact, humans lived this way for quite some time before our modern culture came along and said we needed to make enough money so we can buy an iPhone or two. In that time, we knew what it was like to live, work, and play all in the same context of a community of people who were literally making a living together, no daily commute necessary. If they heard stories of what we call "making a living" these days, even in the cases where we start our own companies that provide exceptional opportunities for a harmonious life, they'd still probably say, "Ha - suckers!"

What kinds of vacations do you take? What's your vocation? Where do they meet?

"Mr Tudorache, a deeply religious grandfather who lost his arm in an accident, was one of those who feels most humiliated. For one scene, a rubber sex toy in the shape of a fist was attached to the stump of his missing arm - but he had no idea what it was.

Only when The Mail on Sunday visited him did he find out. He said he was ashamed, confessing that he only agreed to be filmed because he hoped to top up his £70-a-month salary - although in the end he was paid just £3.

He invited us into his humble home and brought out the best food and drink his family had. Visibly disturbed, he said shakily: 'Someone from the council said these Americans need a man with no arm for some scenes. I said yes but I never imagined the whole country, or even the whole world, will see me in the cinemas ridiculed in this way. This is disgusting.'"

The media seem to be getting a kick out of pretending to debate the question "is this groundbreaking cinema or just over-the-top offensive profiteering?" To me, at least, it's clearly the latter, and I have no reason to spend money on it.

1. There must be a really good reason: "force may be used only to correct a grave public evil...a massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations"
2. The injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other
3. Only the proper authorities may wage war
4. Force must only be used in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose - correcting a suffered wrong is okay, but doing it for money or material possessions is not.
5. You have to have a good chance of succeeding - you can't go to war if it's futile
6. The force used must be proportional to the good trying to be achieved. (I remember my pastors metaphor here made it into my own speech: you shouldn't kill a fly with a sledgehammer!)
7. War must only be waged as a last resort

Who wouldn't be convinced by these? If all of those criteria are met, how can war not be justified, inevitable if abhorrent?

Perhaps as we leave the eighth grade and move on to more nuanced views of the world, we know that it may not be that simple. I have certainly come to learn that just war theory is presented within a particular moral framework that isn't really my moral framework. But I certainly appreciated at the time that it was consistent within the framework it lived in, true to itself, and it was something you could hold onto when the horrors of what it means to be at war did have such a fogging effect on any thinking about the matter. I appreciated that if you're going to go kill someone, or ask someone else to kill someone, you damn better well have thought it through at that level and gotten yourself crystal clear on what your reasoning and values say about why you would be a part of that act.

This is partly why it is so scary to me that U.S. troops in the Middle East are now receiving values training three years into this particular war. When requests like "don't desecrate the dead" and "don't cause unnecessary suffering" need to be put up in a Powerpoint presentation and read aloud to make sure everyone's "got it," I feel ill.

Of course, on one hand, it makes perfect sense, given that the war in Iraq, and perhaps any war waged, requires contemplation of what are probably unresolvable conflicts in moral and emotional principles. Of course there will be stories of troops killing innocent civilians. Of course there will be torture in prisons. Of course there will be horrible acts brought on by asking men and women to figure those questions out in the heat of the moment. How can we ask someone to reconcile the inherent mission of our troops - apply the use of deadly force to coerce people into behaving a certain way - with the conflicting values that are ostensibly behind that mission - respect for life, pursuit of freedom and democracy, instilling peace and justice, creating a better world for all?

I don't think the U.S. military wants its soldiers pondering those questions in the field. I don't think it can afford to have each person contemplating those moral judgments along the way. I don't think it can afford to have real values training, because this is where war - from my perspective, anyway - ceases to have any integrity or consistency within its own moral framework. The justifications for war at a high level may work just fine, but when you drill down to what's happening out in the field - human beings hurting and killing each other because they're told to - there is no integrity, there is no moral code that one can follow to justify it. As Albert Einstein said, "A country cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

For what it's worth, I don't make a judgment on those who are compelled to exhibit that lack of integrity in a war setting. I believe they are responsible to themselves for their own actions, and maybe they can be acting with integrity and morality within their understanding of their own worldview, even if they aren't in mine. But if they've gotten that far down the path of war, they're already working within a moral and cultural framework that doesn't offer them any good options, at least in the context of creating peace, justice and a sustainable human existence.

Or, as I wish I could go back and say to my eighth grade class, there are plenty of ways to justify modern warfare, and a lot of them sound pretty good, but I don't think any of them work for humanity.

"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." --Ernest Hemingway

Note: This is a topic that I'm fairly certain the few folks who do read this blog may have some opinions about, and I'd really like to hear them. Please post your thoughts, even if anonymously; I'm done with the eighth grade, but I'm sure I still have more to learn and other points of view to consider.

That tends to scale up pretty far: it's not really useful to me when someone tells me what will and won't work for the entire population of planet Earth. There's biology and educated guessing and mathematics, and then there's fortune telling and speculation. I think one of the great wonders of life on this planet is that none of us can know, none of us can grasp the seemingly infinite variables that contribute to what happens from this moment forward.

I don't think we should be blind to data and trends and evidence and probable outcomes, and that we should not incorporate our observations about the world into our decision making. But, I also don't think the human brain was designed to cogitate on the lives and futures of the other 6.5 billion people on the earth, or the other millions of square miles that we don't inhabit. It's a fun exercise and a worthwhile one, but it perplexes me when people insist that they can discern the right way for all of us to live based on what might or might not come out of the billions of interactions happening every second. The magic of the universe seems well beyond the grasp of any one person.

Another good that comes from this is that we couldn't have asked for a more starkly painted contrast of the whole "commercial interests" versus "preservation and green space" theme. Even the Pal-Item's editorial cartoon today shows the simple image of a tree (labeled "nature") cut down by a chain-saw (labeled "commerce").

At some level, we all know that it isn't the big bad businesses that have come in and cut down our trees because they felt like it - instead, it's the profit motive driving them, and that profit motive is based solely on the pretty safe bet that we as a community of consumers will pay them for their efforts. In the end, it's our culture, our purchasing choices, and our relative complacency in these matters that brought those trees down and that will retroactively justify and support the choices of the "decision makers" involved. And so while we have purchased it at a great cost, we now have before us a very visceral manifestation of the impact and importance of our choices as consumers and members of an interdependent community - locally, regionally, globally. The good we can take away from this is to weigh those choices more carefully the next time around, with the forthcoming Richmond Village as an ever-present reminder to do so.

The bitterness will no doubt continue, and the strong opinions will no doubt lead to more tension and narrow-mindedness on all sides of the issue. But making Richmond a better place to live depends on our ability to learn from the experience, use that knowledge intentionally and wisely as we move forward, and ceasing to take for granted the reality that, above all else, it is our choices as individuals and as a community that shape the landscape - physical and metaphorical - of Richmond's future.

As the Palladium-Item notes, the burden of making these important choices should not fall on the folks who have mouths to feed, bills to pay, and very real short-term concerns to address. The responsibility instead falls on those who have the luxury of looking at the long term - the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Corporation, the City and County governments, and the myriad private and public organizations and individuals who participate in the conversation about "what's best for our community." These entities should not be scared into pursuing just any opportunity for bringing jobs to town, because this approach will only reinforce the slow and steady erosion of Richmond's diversity, heritage, and values, even if it does sprinkle some new jobs into the mix for now. Instead, they should discern a larger vision for how they can shape and mold Richmond's future economic growth to benefit not only the current citizens, but also the generations to come. This means breaking away from our historical approach of "precedent equals justification" and "bottom line jobs created", and taking some risks in the name of preserving and building on what Richmond was, is, and can be.

This driving vision should not only be reflected in the mission statements of these economic development entities, but also codified in the laws and policies that guide our economic choices as a community. Most of the existing zoning laws and ordinances are focused on specifying what activities are prohibited - chemicals you can't use, the way properties/buildings can't look, the land uses that aren't acceptable, and so on; it would seem that a community intent on providing a better future for its citizens would also specify the activities and business decisions that are desirable, that will be supported and encouraged by the city planners.

To that end, I propose that we should at least carefully consider these kinds of questions about a given opportunity, if not adopt something like them as a formal standard for how we allocate resources and making decisions:

1. Will the new business contribute positively to Richmond's image and character as a place where you'd want to grow up, live, raise your children, retire, etc.?
2. Will the new business compete with existing businesses in a way that will limit their continued growth and success (especially if the existing business is locally owned and operated and the new one is not)?
3. Will the new business contribute to strong local business districts and the identity of Richmond's neighborhoods?
4. Will the new business minimize its impact on the harm to physical resources of Richmond's landscape - re-using existing structures where possible, avoiding environmental degradation, etc?
5. Will the new businesses proactively consider quality of life issues in Richmond, not only of its employees, but also of the neighboring businesses and residents affected by its presence? Will it treat these people with concern and respect for their wants and needs?

Again, those are just rough examples; a more thorough approach like Richmond's current work to develop a new comprehensive plan would be required to create a complete list of the questions our community needs to ask of potential new members, and how we should measure the responses. One of the hardest parts, of course, will be the public fall-out when we do come to the point of saying "there may be some immediate jobs down that path, but there's long-term security in this other direction" or even, to a particular potential new employer, "we really don't want you here." Those looking for work may cringe and complain that they are being let down, and the politicians whose popularity and re-electability are tied up in public perception of economic choices may question any such approach. For a true positive driving vision to take root, then, a shift in thinking (and the accompanying personal sacrifices and compromises) for all involved will be required.

As I've said before, we have the ability, not to mention the duty, to take these important choices seriously. I'm glad the Palladium-Item is at least partly acknowledging that duty and the complexities of taking it on; I hope that the community leaders involved in these efforts -- and all of us, really -- will stand back and consider the big picture of their role in shaping Richmond's future, not just the immediate economic impact.

And in general I find that most entities welcome this feedback and respond positively. In the average case, I get a generic "thanks for your time, we'll note your observations accordingly" and a few gift certificates for use at their establishment. In some cases I get no response. In some cases they take the time to defend their poor practices and diplomatically ridicule me for bothering to write. And in some cases I see actual changes in their practices as a result of my comments. So it's a reasonable balance of the outcomes you might expect.

But what I find fairly unintuitive is why more people don't take the time to provide similar feedback of their own experiences. Especially in a small town like Richmond, the population tends to develop a collective opinion of places they shop at. "That restaurant has good rolls, but their service sucks." "That place never gets my order right the first time, but I get such good service." And so on. At a larger scale - regional, national, international, etc. - there are certainly practices of certain businesses that everyone encounters and that everyone wishes were different. But in most cases, there's no action taken. We come to accept these qualities as normal, reasonable, the status quo we can't do anything about. But maybe those places don't even know about those problems!

In reality, as much as they may hate to admit it, most companies still live and die at the hand of public opinion about their products and services. They *must* read and respond to the feedback they get. They must pay attention to public perception and the expectations of the communities they do business in. This is why places that sell even the most obscure parts for even obscurer products still (for now) invest the resources to have a 24-hour 1-800 consumer service hotline. They know that to ignore their customers` opinions is to risk extinction.

But as consumers, we so often give up on our end of that bargain. We fail to hold these companies - big and small - responsible for their actions. We assume that someone else will report it, that it was just that one time, that no one will listen to what we think anyway. But in doing so, we let them get away not only with treating us unfairly the first time, but also with not taking any responsibility for it. Worse, the companies who actually do care about quality and customer service miss out on an opportunity to improve.

So, all that goes to say that if you have the inclination and means, I say "it's worth it" to write a letter, drop an e-mail, call a hotline about the experiences you have at the places you shop - positive and negative both. You may be surprised at the impact you can have. More importantly, you're putting your "purchasing power" to use to make your own life better.

Wow. If I understand their position correctly as derived from their various published statements, the only kind of disagreement that is proper or fair is no real disagreement at all. It's sad and scary that a local institution that is theoretically so much a part of facilitating free speech and dialogue about the community - even when it involves acts of protest - seems to so manifestly misunderstand those opportunities, and the vehicles available for engaging in them.