I recently sat amongst a group of directors at an off-site talking about what it was that set their company apart. “We love our people and we love our clients”. The response was a mixture of affirmation, amusement and probably a degree of cynicism deep down in some of the corporate souls present.

No doubt some reading this would have a similar response. “What a load of soft, woolly, vacuous, tree-hugging, HR psycho-babble clap trap!”, may be amongst the responses heard. However I’d like to suggest that it may not be just the limits of our compassion that would illicit such a response but also the limits of our language.

I work with a Greek Cypriot, who informed me today of the limited scope of the English language when it comes to the topic of love. We may recoil at the above statement because it is such a loaded term that carries so much baggage and weight. For the Greeks, there was no such challenge.

They have ‘Agape’ love – that reserved for describing deep, sacrificial love for loved ones, dear friends, comrades, often within faith communities. It provides the root word for the English word ‘charity’ and ‘cherish’ – a truly giving love. Then there is ‘Philia’, this is the bond of love between friends. It encompasses commitment, common purpose, shared values and a willingness/desire to serve one another.

For the family there is ‘Storge’, a love really only expressed between parents and children and other close relatives. Finally there is ‘Eros’, most commonly understood in terms of sexual attraction.

It is unlikely that ‘Storge’ would be deemed appropriate for the corporate space, and the less we say about 'Eros', the less likely we are to be sued! However, as we consider the context of many of our working environments, both ‘Agape’ and ‘Philia’ would not just be deemed appropriate but also highly desirable.

Anyone who has held a substantial leadership position will know that the extent to which leaders ‘go to the wire’ for their people, sacrificing time, energy, effort and even reputation, is a mirror of the level of commitment they can draw from their people. I heard a story of a manager who made a bad strategic error in the delivery of her targets. They were made in good faith but it was obvious the failure was down to the wrong choices she had made. In some trepidation she informed her line manager, who had asked for an update to put before the executive team the following day. He listened, coached her through the lessons learnt, then dismissed her with a challenge to try and make up the numbers next time round. She waited for the phone call, the moment of discipline that she felt would be meted out from above after the board meeting. Yet it never came.

In the coming weeks the story eventually leaked that the line manager had taken full responsibility for the mistake, he had not mentioned the error of his direct report and, it was rumoured, would take a hit on his bonus because of it. Now that is Agape and Philia at work, at work! To say that the woman who avoided the consequences of her mistake was committed to this leader is an understatement. Her commitment to making up those numbers was unrelenting.

We are informed by the occupational psychologists of the world that on average workers use around 50-60% of their effort and capacity to fulfil their role. That means that there is still 40-50% ‘discretionary effort’ available for the task.

There are many factors involved as to whether or not such effort is brought into the work place. It wouldn’t be outrageous to suggest that the quality of ‘love’ they encounter may be key. It is not difficult to work hard when you know you are ‘cherished’.

Phil Wall
CEO