Friday Forward - Ends & Means (#463)
Leaders must constantly examine the balance between ends and means
"The ends justify the means."
While this philosophy is popular, I’ve never personally subscribed to it. I’ve often found it to be an excuse for causing harm, or a justification for abandoning core values in pursuit of an outcome.
Although I’ve always been goal-focused, I have historically placed more weight on means than ends. When I was building my company, Acceleration Partners, I focused intently on balancing exceptional company outcomes with a healthy organizational culture. I wanted to build a successful business, but I also wanted to create an environment where people, including myself, enjoyed coming to work each day and could enjoy the journey, rather than being singularly focused on the destination. When we look back on our lives and careers, we tend to remember the journeys more than the summits.
With that said, my viewpoint on ends and means has evolved in recent years. While it’s rarely worthwhile, in my mind, to achieve a goal by any means necessary, I have also found that good intentions and sound methods cannot continue to be justified or excused if they lead to poor outcomes.
We are often quick to criticize leaders who achieve desired results but use tactics considered harmful or ruthless. However, we are too slow to criticize the opposite archetype: leaders who treat people well and whose methods we admire, but who consistently fail to deliver meaningful outcomes. In organizations, these are managers who are well-liked but consistently miss key objectives, leaving their teams stuck in mediocrity. In politics, these are officials who enact well-intentioned policies that are eventually proven to do more harm than good.
The reality is that many initiatives launched with good intentions don’t work as expected or are riddled with unintended consequences, often leaving the very people they aim to help in worse conditions. This phenomenon is described in medicine as iatrogenesis, which is harm caused by a healthcare provider. For examples of iatrogenesis, think of a doctor who prescribes medication that alleviates symptoms in the short term but causes severe side effects later, or a surgeon who urges an unnecessary procedure that introduces more risks than benefits in the long-run.
A beloved manager isn’t doing his people any good if his team’s underperformance leads to a layoff, and a politician’s good intent doesn’t matter if her policy ends up hurting more people than it helps. These types of subpar results are probably part of why there is record levels of distrust in many of our institutions today. People care about intent in the moment, but outcomes matter most in the end.
Through this lens, I’ve come to better understand why many people prioritize outcomes over methods. When well-intentioned means lead to deeply disappointing ends, it’s logical to recalibrate with a stronger focus on achieving a good outcome, even if that includes compromising on the methods along the way.
Since this mindset shift, I’ve found myself pointing out this means-and-ends dynamic more often. Most often, it’s in relation to a well-intentioned policy that is causing harm, or in reference to a leader whose methods are considered thoughtful and inclusive, but who consistently fails to achieve desired results.
While there are few ends that can justify any means, there are arguably even fewer means that can justify a bad end. Neither ends nor means can stand alone as a measure of success.
I would encourage you to think about this dynamic in your own life and consider where your perspective might need to change. Are you so focused on being liked or upholding ideals that you’re failing to achieve meaningful results? Or are you so driven by outcomes that you’re forgetting the impact of your actions along the way?
In the long run, leaders must constantly examine the balance between ends and means, as successful leadership demands harmony between the two.
Quote of The Week
"Good intentions never change anything. They only become a deeper and deeper rut.” - Joyce Meyer
New For Premium
Thank you for providing this perspective. The ends only justify the means if those means are not mean. The journey is often more important than the destination, and how a team navigates a project or deals with a crisis will determine if that team can survive to work through other projects and crises. The leader of the team sets the tone and the tempo; encouraging or discouraging, uplifting or downtrodding, and leading or just simply managing. Even failed tasks can be successfully coached into growth and development when the means are considered by an organization as equally important a function as getting to the correct ends. In my experience, allowing the team to help me develop the plan as we went along, was often more successful than those times I was forced to put out a plan of my own that focused only on the end goal.
Integrity calls us to integrate Ends &Means to be well integrated ethically , morally and truthfully .