The Similarities between Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and the Corporate Outliers

Ayn Rand was a controversial author who spoke extensively about objectivism. There are many critiques of her ideas, and we find extreme views on her writing. As an avid reader, I first came across her ideas through a YouTube video and started reading the Atlas Shrugged.

Midway somewhere, I found myself wondering…not “Who is John Galt?” but mainly, isn’t some part of the book where the successful movers and shakers of the society go on a strike similar to various people-related scenarios we see in the day-to-day corporate? I speak about the widely spoken about quiet quitting and also, to a large extent, the outliers - the over-performers we see in the industry quitting to start their own companies or find other jobs. When I arrived at the point in the story where it started becoming clear that the successful people of the society were going on a strike, it started these thoughts in my mind.

Imagine this scenario where we have an organization that is flourishing and has been around for a few years. Any organization, for that matter, will have employees working with it. Everywhere - we observe that a handful of team members are committed, are aligned to the vision and mission of the organization, and are working to bring growth to the organization. And then there are a handful who are the mischief mongers - who always hate everything the organization does but will stay with it. They won’t leave, and they won’t participate. In fact, they would be happy creating scenarios of difficulty for the organization in some way. Mind well - in both scenarios, the number of these people is mostly significantly low, but their impact is high. Now, the majority of the employees are the ones who come to work; perform, and go home. Their performance ratings are average, they have fun in the office and their work is mostly a part of their life; not theirs. They have their priorities; work is just “one” of them. These people lie in the center of the bell curve—the “normal” range. And the earlier ones were the “outliers”.?

The outliers are the ones who don’t conform. They question. The -sigma and +sigma is mostly similar, but the outcomes are different as their intent is different. A negative outlier questions everything just for the sake of it. In contrast, a positive outlier knows what to question, and how questioning the status quo can bring positive growth to the organization. At first thought, every organization would love to have a positive outlier because they are the ones who would not stop at a problem but churn up solutions to problems and almost always find a way.?

The downside of this, though, is that the outliers get tired eventually. Then they realize that if they put similar efforts into their own business, they would make a lot of money for themselves and have the autonomy to run the business on their terms and principles. The point here is that the outliers never want to come under the average curve but are eternally in search of their “normal,” and to find their “normal,” they come together in the form of some startups, organizations, or even social groups where they finally find their vibe. But just like what happens in Atlas Shrugged; the quitting of these essential people brings down the nation and stops critical development of the country; positive outliers quitting also impacts the business adversely. Positive outliers in the organization might be the ones who burn out faster and leave faster, too, and ultimately, the people under the curve who are consistently performing; drop by drop shall fill up the ocean.?

Does it mean we should concentrate only on the people in the normal curve? Or should we put more energy into getting the best out of the positive outliers before their potential runs out? Or should we put in efforts in bringing the negative outliers towards the right of the curve, which is essentially under the curve, to get a consistent performance? Assuming that the organization functions in a normal curve (in terms of people), would it not seem imperative to concentrate on the “consistent performers” at first?

Here is my take on it. Any social unit combines various behavioral traits, skill sets, personalities, preferences, and other parameters. If we were to expect a singular behavior in the social unit, we would not have the privilege of diverse inputs, perspectives, and creativity that this diversity brings. Furthermore, with the millennials joining the workforce, the workplace dynamics have changed drastically. As People professionals, our job today is not only drafting letters or policies or enforcing discipline. The job is to allow people to color out of the lines and bring equity in the workplace. Rather than look at the organization as a “family,” look at it for what it is - a social unit where people come together to achieve a common goal. Looking at the organization as a social unit helps us remove the biases and judgments within families or extended families. Understanding that the people are professionals who bring a basket of knowledge and talent along with their diverse personalities and needs as a human. And we, as people professionals, need to understand these very needs to bring equity. So, our focus has to be creating an environment that brings the freedom for each individual to be what they are and lead them - subtly - towards the collective goal of growth.