Great Leaders Who Make the Mix WorkArtwork Janet Echelm.docx

Great Leaders Who
Make the Mix Work
Artwork Janet Echelman, Target Swooping Down...Bullseye!
2001, hand-knotted nylon lace net, 140' x 140' x 90'
Madrid, Spain
Spotlight
68 Harvard Business Review September 2013
Spotlight on WoMen in LeadeRSHip
Boris Groysberg is a
professor of business
administration in the
organizational behavior unit
at Harvard Business School
and the coauthor, with
Michael Slind, of Talk, Inc.
(Harvard Business Review
Press, 2012).
Katherine Connolly
works in the organizational
behavior unit at HBS.
Twenty-four CEOs on creating diverse
and inclusive organizations
by Boris Groysberg and Katherine Connolly

B
Business leaders send a powerful message when
they demonstrate a commitment to diversity and
inclusion that goes beyond rhetoric. But how does
diversity make its way to the top of a CEO’s agenda?
To find out, we interviewed 24 CEOs from around
the globe who ran companies and corporate divi-
sions that had earned reputations for embracing peo-
ple from all kinds of backgrounds. These executives
represented a wide range of industries and regions,
as well as different stages on the journey to creating
an inclusive culture. Our goal was to understand not
only why they had made diversity a strategic priority
but also how they executed on their goals and what
that meant to the organization and its practices. PH
o
to
g
R
a
PH
y:
c
o
u
Rt
eS
y

o
f
en
R
iq
u
e
D
ia
z
HBR.oRg
september 2013 Harvard Business Review 69
The CEOs we spoke with did not see diversity as
a once-and-done initiative, nor did they hand off the
responsibility for it to others. Rather, each of the 24,
in his or her own way, approached inclusivity as a
personal mission. When we asked these executives
why advancing diversity in their organizations was
so important to them, the aggregate answer was
twofold: They believed it was a business impera-
tive because their companies needed it to stay com-
petitive, and they believed it was a moral imperative
because of their personal experiences and values.
As Mikael Ohlsson of the Swedish home-products
company IKEA put it, “My leadership on diversity
is vision-driven from a business point of view and

value-driven at the foundation.”
These CEOs spoke forcefully about diversity as
an advantage. Paul Block of the U.S. sweetener man-
ufacturer Merisant pointed out, “People with differ-
ent lifestyles and different backgrounds challenge
each other more. Diversity creates dissent, and you
need that. Without it, you’re not going to get any
deep inquiry or breakthroughs.” Or, as Jonathan
Broomberg of the South African insurer Discovery
Health put it, diversity is “a source of creativity and
innovation.”
A diverse workforce also prevents an organiza-
tion from becoming too insular and out of touch
with its increasingly heterogeneous customer base.
Many of the CEOs asserted that it is crucial for a
company’s employees to reflect the people they
serve. Brian Moynihan of Bank of America saw an
important link to customer satisfaction: “When in-
ternal diversity and inclusion scores are strong, and
employees feel valued, they will serve our custom-
ers better, and we’ll be better off as an organization.”
The Role of Personal Experience
A CEO’s commitment often arises from his or her own
understanding of what it means to be an outsider.
Take Andrea Jung of the personal-care- products
firm Avon. (Note that Jung, like a number of other
CEOs we talked with, has stepped down since our
interview with her.) Describing her career, she said:
“I was often the only woman or Asian sitting around
a table of senior executives. I experienced plenty of
meetings outside my organization with large groups
of executives where people assumed that I couldn’t

be the boss, even though I was.” Master Card’s CEO,
Ajay Banga—a Sikh from India who was hassled in
the United States after 9/11—shared something simi-
lar: “My passion for diversity comes from the fact
that I myself am diverse. There have been a hundred
times when I have felt different from other people
in the room or in the business. I have a turban and
a full beard, and I run a global company—that’s not
common.”
Carlos Ghosn of Nissan Motor Company told us
how bias had affected his own family. “My mother
was one of eight children,” he said. “She used to be
a very brilliant student, and when the time came to
go to college, she wanted to become a doctor. Unfor-
tunately, her mother had to explain to her that there
was not enough money in the family, and that the
money for college was going to the boys and the girls
would instead have to marry. When I was a kid and
my mother was telling me this story—without any
bitterness, by the way, just matter-of-fact—I was
outraged because it was my mother. After hearing
that story, I said I would never do anything to hurt
someone based on segregation.”
To Ghosn, gender bias is a personal affront.
“When I see that women do not have the same oppor-
tunities as men, it touches me in a personal way,” he
said. “I think it’s some kind of refusal related to my
sisters or to my daughters.”
Even white male CEOs had stories to share. Ken-
tucky native Jim Rogers of the electric-utility hold-
ing company Duke Energy felt like an outsider at the
start of his career. “When I went to Washington to
be a lawyer, I felt like I had to work harder, be bet-

ter, and prove myself because I had a southern ac-
cent and came from a rural state,” he said. The self-
awareness, insight, and empathy that Rogers and
other chief executives acquired from personal ex-
perience have clearly shaped their attitudes toward
diversity and inclusion and informed their priorities
as leaders. Ill
u
st
r
at
Io
n
: u
ll
a
P
u
g
g
a
a
r
d
70 Harvard Business review September 2013

SPoTlighT on Women In leadersHIP
AjAy bAngA CEO OF MAstErCArd
my passion for diversity comes from the
fact that I myself am diverse. there have
been a hundred times when I have felt different
from other people in the room or in the business.
I have a turban and a full beard, and I run a
global company—that’s not common.
Persistent Institutional Barriers
The CEOs were generally disappointed with the
lack of progress on diversity in the C-suite. While
several women have risen through the ranks to
become leaders of multibillion-dollar corporations,
the statistics are grim overall. Only 4% of companies
on the 2013 Fortune 500 list are led by female CEOs.
As Banga acknowledged, “That’s more than what it
used to be 20 years ago, but it’s nowhere near where
it should be.” The disparity also persists in other
senior leadership positions and on boards. Ken Fra-
zier of Merck offered a harsher assessment: “I think
that the progress of women in the last two decades
has been so limited, so slow, so inadequate, that it
would defy even the most skeptical people from 20
years ago.”
We asked the CEOs what they perceived to be the
greatest obstacles to women’s advancement in their
own companies and industries. Although there’s no
one truth about what holds women back, the leaders
we spoke with offered candid views based on years
of observation.

If there’s a single barrier that affects all women,
it’s exclusion from networks and conversations that
open doors to further development and promotion,
according to seven of the CEOs. Woods Staton of
Arcos Dorados, the largest operator of McDonald’s
restaurants in Latin America, defined the offend-
ing mechanism as “social cliquishness,” a pattern of
interaction in which men seek out the company of
other men and ignore women. “The men come out
of a meeting, hang out with each other, and then go
out at night for drinks,” Staton explained. “It’s sub-
tle discrimination, and it’s difficult to work around.”
Barry Salzberg of the professional services firm De-
loitte described this pattern as a tangible, negative
consequence of “the old boys’ network.”
Frazier went so far as to say, “I’m an African-
American, and I’ve worked in the business world
all my life, and I believe very strongly that whatever
barriers race presents in the workforce, they pale in
comparison to the barriers that women face when
creating the close mentoring relationships that are
necessary to be promoted.” We find that this kind
of discrimination is often unintended, unconscious,
and embedded in a company’s culture.
The CEOs also reported that the contributions
of women are often underappreciated. As an ex-
ample, Jim Turley of Ernst & Young described an
incident when he himself was called out: “I like to
facilitate our board discussions by getting right into
the more contentious points, and we were having a
discussion around a particular topic. Three women
on the board made individual comments that were

similar in direction, which I didn’t respond to. Not
long after they spoke, a fourth person, who hap-
pened to be a man, made a comment in line with
what the women had been saying, and I picked up
Idea in Brief
The Challenge
CEOs readily admit that diversity is a
moral and business imperative. But how
do they create truly inclusive cultures?
The ReseaRCh
The authors interviewed 24 CEOs who
ran organizations that are recognized
for diversity. Each of them approached
diversity as a personal mission, not an
initiative that could be delegated. As
a group they were highly attuned to
the obstacles and biases that impede
women’s progress and were committed
to breaking them down.
WhaT TO DO
Noting that diversity concerns the mix of
people you have, and inclusivity focuses
on making that mix work, the CEOs
pointed to eight practices that lead to
improvements on both fronts.
AndreA Jung former Ceo of Avon
I was often the only woman or Asian
sitting around a table of senior executives.
I experienced plenty of meetings outside my
organization with large groups of executives,
where people assumed that I couldn’t be the

boss, even though I was.
hbr.org
September 2013 harvard business review 71
Great LeaderS Who make the mIx Work
on his comment. I said, ‘I think Jeff’s got it right,’ not
even aware of what I had just done. To their great
credit, the women didn’t embarrass me publicly.
They pulled me to the side, and they said, ‘Jim, we
know you didn’t mean for this to be the way it was
received, but this is what happened.’ They played it
back to me, and they said that that’s what happens
to women throughout their careers. It was a learning
moment for me.”
Clearly, even leaders passionate about building
inclusive cultures can inadvertently allow uncon-
scious biases to shape their behavior.
Five of the CEOs asserted that unexamined as-
sumptions also constrained women’s chances to
progress. As Frazier explained, “If a job requires
a woman to travel a lot, sometimes people decide
preemptively that she’s got a young child at home—
this won’t be something she’s interested in.” Double
standards can also trip up women in line for promo-
tions, as when characteristics prized in male leaders
are viewed as negative qualities in women. “When
men come into the environment and they’re tough,
they’re perceived as strong business leaders,” said
Block. “When women come in and they’re tough, it’s

not always as valued.”
Geographic immobility due to family constraints
was another problem, mentioned by three of the
CEOs. “People often require geographic mobility
to get the appropriate amount of exposure to the
various aspects of the business that they need to
understand,” Randall Stephenson of AT&T noted.
“As managers mature, we observe that some female
managers get to a place where they want to begin
families or their spouse also works, which makes
them less inclined to move and physically relocate
their families.” Jung concurred: “In my experience,
where part of career development and part of tal-
ent management was getting a ‘global passport’
stamped, one of the barriers for women could have
been mobility. I saw that beyond the opportunity
for the individual, we also had to try to create all of
the opportunities necessary to make sure the whole
family could in fact move.”
Another three CEOs cited insufficient support
for women who were rejoining the workforce after
taking time off to raise children. Any organization
that hopes to encourage women to succeed needs to
address that, noted Rogers. “If a woman is pregnant
and leaves, you have to have the flexibility to allow
her to do that but not lose her place or her momen-
tum,” he said.
Unsurprisingly, five CEOs brought up barriers
related to childbearing and child rearing, and six
mentioned a lack of flexible work hours. They ob-
served that the push-and-pull between work and
family, though increasingly an issue for men too, re-

mains predominantly a barrier for women. George
Chavel of Sodexo North America drove home that
point, asking, “Why should women have to be super-
human, have these reputations of ‘They can do it all,’
and make these major sacrifices, and men don’t have
those kinds of expectations placed on them?”
Do Women Lead Differently?
Eight of the CEOs perceived a distinction between
male and female leadership styles. Though social
scientists may not agree with their take on things,
the CEOs said that women were less political, less
likely to define themselves by their careers, more
collaborative, better listeners, more relationship-
oriented, and more empathetic and reasonable. We
also heard that women were more likely to focus on
completing the job at hand and to neglect to position
themselves for recognition or promotion, while men
were more apt to seek attention.
This tendency not to assert themselves could
hold women back. George Halvorson of the Cali-
fornia-based managed-care consortium Kaiser Per-
manente explained the problem this way: “There
are cultural barriers, in that leaders who are looking
for the next generation of leaders, for the people to
SpotLight on Women in LeadeRsHip
Carlos Ghosn
CEo of nissan Motor CoMpany
my mother was one of eight children.
she used to be a very brilliant student,

and when the time came to go to college, she
wanted to become a doctor. Unfortunately, her
mother had to explain to her that there was not
enough money in the family, and that the money
for college was going to the boys and the girls
would instead have to marry. after hearing that
story, i said i would never do anything to hurt
someone based on segregation.
promote, are less likely to see and understand the ca-
pable women that they have in their shop, probably
because the male style tends to focus more on being
in the spotlight, and the female style tends to focus
more on bringing people together to get things done.
The very thing that makes the best female leaders
very successful also makes them less visible, and
that’s an incredibly important distinction. A good
leader knows to look for things that have gone really
well and then drills down to find the person who
really did it, as opposed to just looking for whoever
has a lot of accolades and did the dance.”
But some differences in leadership style can work
to women’s advantage, said several CEOs. “When
you’ve got a complex project involving multiple
layers, you need a leader who is collaborative, and
more often than not I have found that leader to be a
woman,” said Halvorson.
What Is an Inclusive Culture?
Resoundingly, the CEOs agreed on what an inclusive
culture meant for their organizations. They defined
it as one in which employees can contribute to the

success of the company as their authentic selves,
while the organization respects and leverages their
talents and gives them a sense of connectedness. “In
an inclusive culture employees know that, irrespec-
tive of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, and
physical ability, you can fulfill your personal objec-
tives by aligning them with the company’s, have a
rich career, and be valued as an individual. You are
valued for how you contribute to the business,” said
David Thodey of Telstra, the Australian telecom-
munications firm. Brad Wilson of Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of North Carolina described an inclusive
workplace as “one where all who come with the
professional skills sufficient to perform the require-
ments of the job feel welcome, supported, and re-
warded, and are inspired to succeed based on their
ability.” That’s similar to the point that John Rowe of
Exelon, a U.S. energy producer and distributor, made
when he noted that a culture of mutual respect helps
his company address the complexities of its business.
“A big organization needs only a few generals and a
lot of sergeants,” he said. “The sergeants deserve re-
spect too.”
Some CEOs observed that the proof is not only
in how individual employees feel about opportuni-
ties for growth but also in how teams operate and
decisions are made. “In an inclusive culture, we cre-
ate and support heterogeneous teams,” said Chavel.
“They may take longer to make decisions than ho-
mogeneous teams, but it’s worth the investment
because their decisions will be better informed.” To
these CEOs, inclusiveness is not merely a matter of
the composition of the organization or of particular

teams (though such metrics can be helpful); it also
has to do with how people relate to one another.
“Broad diversity is necessary, but if you just walk
away after you have it, you may not get the out-
comes you want,” said Steve Voigt of King Arthur
Flour, a company where women account for three
of eight board members and three of six senior ex-
ecutives. “You really have to manage it, grow it, and
educate around it.”
Practices That Make the Difference
Turley drew an important distinction: “Diversity
itself is about the mix of people you have, and cre-
ating an inclusive culture is about making that mix
work.” We asked the CEOs which of their organiza-
tions’ practices had been most effective at harness-
ing diversity. Here’s what they told us:
1. Measure diversity and inclusion. The CEOs
agreed that metrics are key because, as we know,
what gets measured gets done. Bank of America,
for example, puts questions about diversity and
inclusiveness into its biannual employee engage-
ment survey and compares the results for any team
that gets at least seven responses against those of a
normative group of companies. “We’ve also built a
diversity-and-inclusion index that tells us if people
here feel they are treated fairly and to help us ensure
that people of diverse backgrounds can succeed at
Bank of America,” said Moynihan. “With this data,
each team can have a dialogue to determine what
hbr.org
September 2013 harvard business review 73

GreaT LeaDerS Who Make The MIx Work
Ken Frazier CeO OF MerCK
I believe very strongly that whatever
barriers race presents in the workforce,
they pale in comparison to the barriers that
women face when creating the close mentoring
relationships that are necessary to be promoted.
we’re doing well and what we can improve to make
Bank of America a better place to work.”
2. Hold managers accountable. Merck, Nis-
san, General Mills, Telstra, and ABB North America
are among the many organizations that make di-
versity and inclusion goals part of their managers’
performance objectives. “Each of my direct reports
has things that they’re going to do personally to help
promote diversity, not things that they can assign
to their team,” explained Moynihan. “I say, ‘What
are you going to do to get involved?’ For example,
they can mentor somebody individually or sponsor
diversity events.” AT&T takes a different approach.
“We benchmark diversity objectives at the senior lev-
els of management, and we have regular meetings
around my table about how we’re advancing,” said
Stephenson. “A portion of our officers’ compensa-
tion is based on achieving those objectives.” Many
CEOs also reported that managers who embraced
diversity were more likely to be considered for pro-
motion at their companies.

In some organizations a favorable attitude to-
ward diversity even determines whether an em-
ployee is viewed as a good fit for the organization.
“We really have challenges when the leadership
group is not diverse and they don’t get it. And so
you have to educate them—and if they still don’t get
it, I let them go,” said Tim Solso of the engine manu-
facturer Cummins. He elaborated: “We hit a serious
downturn in the second half of 2000 through the
first half of 2003. I mean, we were on the brink as
a company, but I didn’t back off on diversity. One of
the senior officers basically said to another officer,
‘Why doesn’t Solso get off this diversity stuff ? We
need to save the company.’ I fired him. It was well
known why he was fired. After that, people either
got it or didn’t talk that way anymore.”
3. Support flexible work arrangements.
Many of the CEOs reported that their organizations
offered benefits that helped employees balance their
professional and personal commitments—such as
flexible hours, on-site child care, and onboarding
support after a leave of absence. Ken Powell of the
U.S. food processor General Mills explained his com-
pany’s efforts this way: “I’ve had officers at General
Mills say to me, ‘I realize that I’m one of several peo-
ple who could be the brand manager for Cheerios,
but I’m the only person who can be the mother to
my children.’ While some of those women make the
decision to leave the company—sometimes perma-
nently—we’ve learned that we can retain many of
them by providing greater flexibility during those

hectic childbearing years.”
At Sodexo North America, Chavel and his leader-
ship team have made work/life balance a personal
matter. “Although the job is 24/7, I try to send the
message that I’m open and receptive to any kind of
flexible arrangement,” Chavel said. “For example,
I will end a meeting early to get to one of my sons’
athletic events or travel somewhere for a family
commitment.”
4. Recruit and promote from diverse pools
of candidates. Workforce diversity begins with the
search for talent. At General Mills, Powell’s leader-
ship team tracks metrics during and after the hiring
process. “From the beginning, we’re looking at the
composition of the pool of candidates that we inter-
view on campus, because that’s an important early
indicator,” Powell told us. “Then we look at the com-
position of the group of people we hire in any given
year. We track the retention rate for different groups,
such as women or African-Americans. Even interns.
At what rate are they leaving? At what rate are they
getting promoted? What percentage advances to
each level in the company? Our metrics help us diag-
nose and understand what’s going on—enabling us
to develop action plans to address any issues we see.
It’s important, and that’s why I review those metrics
myself on a quarterly basis.”
Ghosn has taken a different approach at Nissan
in Japan, where women are strikingly underrepre-
sented in management ranks. “We’ve implemented

Spotlight on Women in LeadeRsHip
Jim Turley CeO OF ernsT & yOung
Three women on the board made individual
comments that were similar in direction,
which i didn’t respond to. not long after they spoke,
a fourth person, who happened to be a man, made
a comment in line with what the women had been
saying, and i said, ‘i think Jeff’s got it right,’ not
even aware of what i had just done. To their great
credit, the women didn’t embarrass me publicly.
They pulled me to the side and played it back to
me. it was a learning moment for me.
quotas in hiring, particularly in the populations
where there are fewer women—like engineering—
and we make sure that in the succession plans of
the company we always have a specific number
of female candidates,” he explained. “This forces
management to identify women in their own ranks
or to hire more women. So when it comes time for
promotions, we have a diverse group of candidates
from which we can choose. I believe quotas are a
great way of advancing diversity, particularly when
you have a long way to go and you don’t want to wait
forever. After a company attains a certain level of
diversity, I think quotas lose their effectiveness. But
when you’re moving from 1% female managers to 5%,
if you don’t enforce a quota, it’s going to take forever
to reach that number.”
Owing in part to this strategy, the representation
of women in Nissan’s management has increased

three times as fast as the average rate in Japan over
the past decade.
5. Provide leadership education. Another
key practice is providing leadership development
opportunities for women at the lower levels of
the organization, which tend to be more diverse.
Broomberg described Discovery Health’s CEO Pro-
gram like this: “It’s a brilliant two-year program
which involves candidates in intensive internal and
external training, significant exposure to senior
executives, and travel to the U.S. to do a course at
Duke. It includes external candidates and young
candidates from previously disadvantaged back-
grounds already in the company. It’s a big financial
investment for us, but we’ve been able to add quite
a lot of muscle to our recruitment capacity and also
invest significantly in the more rapid advancement
of existing internal candidates.”
And Johnson & Johnson’s Bill Weldon noted that
diversity training cannot be hived off from the rest
of the operation. It has to be woven into the culture.
“About 10 years ago one of the women’s leadership
initiative programs was being held across the street,
and I asked the people running it if I could go to the
program,” he recalled. “They said no. I asked why
not, and they said I couldn’t go because I was a man.
My response was that that may be the problem—you
have to broaden it beyond women. We evolve and
learn and grow to make sure we’re capturing not
just the people involved but the views of the whole
community.”
Needless to say, companies should also offer their

high-potential employees opportunities for external
education and development. But according to Har-
vard Business School, only 23% of participants in ex-
ecutive education programs on the Boston campus
in 2012 were women. Companies also need to invest
in women-only leadership development programs
and in educating both men and women about subtle
gender biases and how they manifest themselves
in firms.
6. Sponsor employee resource groups and
mentoring programs. Several of the CEOs’ com-
panies offered less structured professional devel-
opment opportunities to various subgroups of em-
ployees. One approach is employee resource groups,
or networks of employees who share an affiliation
(such as women, ethnic minorities, or young profes-
sionals). Angela Braly of the U.S. managed-care firm
WellPoint underlined the importance of leveraging
such groups in substantive ways. “I visit each group
twice a year and give them real assignments,” she
said. “I am very clear about my expectation that
they will have a real impact on the business.”
Companies must also invest in these groups,
according to Banga. “Here at MasterCard we have
many business resource groups, or BRGs,” he said.
“We have women’s leadership networks, a YoPro
group for young professionals, a group for em-
ployees of African descent, a pride community, a
Latino community, and an ‘East’ community for
Asian employees. Each BRG has a business sponsor,
who’s normally a direct report of mine. We do a ton

September 2013 Harvard Business Review 75
HBR.oRgGreat LeaderS Who make the mix Work
To find leaders who were at the
forefront of the diversity movement,
we first identified companies with
reputations for successfully leverag-
ing diversity. We then assessed
their progress at creating inclu-
sive cultures by examining, where
available, employment statistics,
leadership attitudes, and third-
party recognition. (Information
pertaining to employment statistics
and third-party recognition was
collected using public sources.
Leadership attitudes were assessed
on the basis of public sources, pub-
lished interviews, and involvement
in diversity initiatives.) We also took
cultural differences into account.
For example, 6% of the Japanese
automaker Nissan’s management is
female, a ratio that sounds dismal
from a U.S. citizen’s vantage point.
But the Japanese national average
for female representation in man-
agement is 2%; Nissan is actually
significantly ahead of the curve.
After identifying these compa-
nies, we selected CEOs to par-
ticipate in interviews as part of an
exploratory study. We wanted them

to represent different industries and
regions, as well as different stages
of inclusivity. For example, some of
the companies had well-established
practices for leveraging diversity,
while others were initially develop-
ing practices. We also asked CEOs
whom among their peers they ad-
mired for creating inclusive cultures
and used this information as leads
to other companies and other CEOs.
How We Chose the CEos
of things with them, from employee-networking
events to multicultural summits to a women’s fo-
rum for which we get outside speakers as well as
panels comprised of me and members of my board.”
7. Offer quality role models. It’s no surprise
that diversity at the top promotes diversity through-
out an organization. A varied array of leaders signals
an organizational commitment to diversity and
also provides emerging leaders with role models
they can identify with. Several of the CEOs, includ-
ing those from Kaiser Permanente, Sodexo North
America, King Arthur Flour, Duke Energy, and Cum-
mins, said that putting women in leadership roles
was key to attracting, retaining, and developing
other female talent. Rogers described how Duke did
this: “This historically has been a man’s industry. So,
early on, we worked to move a woman into a plant
manager position. That set an example. You have
to be intentional and make sure you populate your

organization with leaders who represent diversity.
That creates an environment that allows those with
diverse backgrounds to say, ‘If they can, I can.’ That
is a very important feeling that needs to be embed-
ded in the people in the company.”
As for individualized employee development,
many CEOs cited the importance of mentorship
and sponsorship opportunities. Ohlsson explained
IKEA’s unique approach to mentorship this way: “We
have a grandfathering/grandmothering principle at
IKEA—that is to say that a hiring boss has to have
another manager say yes to a candidate before that
person can be hired. Two people then share the re-
sponsibility for the development of that individual.”
Such double sponsorship increases the likelihood
that talented employees of any background will feel
supported and stay with the company.
But Halvorson warned against tokenism—the
practice of putting people into jobs because of their
classification, not their ability. “If you put someone
in place who fits a certain category but doesn’t have
the skill set needed to do the job, then you basically
set the whole agenda back significantly,” he said.
“My sense is to hire stars, and the constellation is far
more effective if it’s a diverse constellation.”
8. Make the chief diversity officer position
count. As this relatively new role proliferates across
industries, CEOs must decide how to maximize its
effectiveness. At the time of his interview, Enrique
Santacana of ABB North America had just received
approval from the firm’s North America Executive

Committee to create a chief diversity and inclusion
officer position, reporting directly to him. “We want
to make sure that people understand that it has full
support from the top, and it’s not just a communi-
cations message that goes out there with no follow-
up,” he explained. “It institutionalizes the process
and the intent, and it establishes a formal means by
which we will develop programs as well as metrics,
so that we can track our progress.”
Lead by Example
Once the vision of an inclusive culture has been ar-
ticulated and best practices have been put in place,
what is the CEO’s daily contribution to seeing that
the vision becomes a reality? Nearly half the CEOs
said their most important role was to set the tone for
the organization’s culture by demonstrating a com-
mitment to inclusion.
Perhaps the most meaningful way to do that is
by dedicating time to work personally on diversity
and inclusion initiatives. A quarter of the CEOs we
interviewed mentioned direct involvement with
diversity programs, such as meeting regularly with
employee resource groups and diversity councils.
Banga, Moynihan, and Thodey even chair diversity
and inclusion councils themselves. By pointing the
way, CEOs will help their organizations attract and
develop the best, most diverse talent, giving them
the edge they need to succeed.
HBR Reprint R1309D
“Although our quarterly earnings dropped by 25%, I feel
compelled
to point out that our Facebook likes have doubled.”

C
A
Rt
o
o
n
: C
Ro
w
D
en
S
At
z
SpotLigHt on women In LeADeRSHIp HBR.oRg
Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009
Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing
Newsletter content on
EBSCOhost is licensed for the private individual use of
authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not
intended for use as assigned course material in academic
institutions nor as corporate learning

or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may not
use this content in electronic
reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi
or by any other means of
incorporating the content into course resources. Business
licensees may not host this content
on learning management systems or use persistent linking or
other means to incorporate the
content into learning management systems. Harvard Business
Publishing will be pleased to
grant permission to make this content available through such
means. For rates and permission,
contact [email protected]
Things to Know for Quiz
Quiz 4: Ch. 4
· Being-in-itself; Being-for-itself
· Existential Dualism
· The three “moods/feelings” that accompany Existential
freedom
· Freedom of “intention”
· Sartre’s three arguments that a person’s choice is free. . . .
· Radical Freedom: key points will be presented in class
· Situated Freedom: key points will be presented in class
Existentialism: From Sartre
In our text, Sartre, in effect, provides three ways to understand
Existentialism:
“Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the
consequences of a coherent atheistic position.”
· Atheism is Sartre’s starting point.
“There is no human nature. . . . Man is nothing else but what he
makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism.”
Again, Sartre says about this claim, that it is a “given that . . .
there is no human nature for me to depend on.”

· Atheism generates the claims that no human nature exists.
“Existential philosophy is above all a philosophy that asserts
that existence precedes essence.”
· This third claims is probably the most well-known, and the
most fundamental to Existentialism. Thus, let’s add a few
points:
For Sartre, both “essence” and “existence” mean what they have
always meant in philosophy: by essence, Sartre refers to the
qualities that enable one to “define” a given X: “the ensemble
of . . . the properties which enable it [the given X] to be
defined.” By “existence” Sartre means that which is actually
present in the world: existence is “presence . . . in front of me.”
So, what is so unique about Sartre’s formula: the uniqueness
derives from Sartre’s way of relating these two traditional
concepts: traditionally the formula was: “Essence precedes
existence.” Hence, this formula radically converts the
traditional formula, the result of which, transforms the
traditional, philosophic view of the world.
To explicate his claim, Sartre introduces the manufacturing of a
paper cutter: the maker of the tool knows in advance what he or
she plans to make; he or she is aware of “what” a paper cutter
is; he or she knows the “essence” of a paper cutter, thus, the
“essence” of the paper cutter precedes its “existence.” Hence,
the one who designs the object is the one who knows best the
essence or nature of the thing being made.
Now, let’s relate this to the first two formulas above: the
traditional religious view of the world posits God as the
designer of the human being and, because there is a designer,
the thing being designed must possess an “essence,” one that
precedes its “existence.” Thus, note the following three points:
· “What is meant here by saying that existence precedes
essence? It means that, first, man exists and only afterwards,
defines himself.”
· “Man . . . is indefinable.” Thus, the definition of the person
“remains forever open.”

· “There is no human nature.” Hence, the claim that no human
nature exists follows from the rejection of God’s existence:
“There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive
it.”
So, let’s now ask: What, then, is the human being? Sartre: “At
first, he is nothing.” And, later? Later, the person is “nothing
else but what he makes himself.” Hence, human beings invent
themselves without the benefit of any pre-given design. And,
here, we encounter a key notion in Sartre: freedom. Yet, this
freedom is not the sort associated with liberal politics, but is,
instead, a freedom “from” any sort of pre-determined essence,
hence, Sartre’s freedom opens an abyss of nothingness out of
which emerge the experiences of:
· Forlornness: “We are alone, with no excuses.” And
“forlornness implies that we ourselves choose our being.”
· Anguish: “Forlornness and anguish go together.”
· Despair: “The term has a very simple meaning. It means that
we shall confine ourselves to reckoning only with what depends
on our will.” And, “to say that we invent values means nothing
else but this: life has no meaning a priori.”
Now, with all of this in place, let’s step back and note a few
additional points:
· The rejection of God is akin to a rejection of any sort of
philosophical system. Why? Because philosophical systems are
abstract, while existence is concrete. The horse I ride is the
only real, existing horse, not the abstract, universal horse.
· Abstraction does not, as a rule, correspond to reality –
abstraction “resides” in the other world. Yet, only in the
abstract do concepts exist and philosophical systems are
constituted by concepts which leads to the claim that
Existentialism is tragic; it can’t make arguments; it must both
be abstract and concrete. We reason with concepts, but concepts
do not exist in reality.
· Philosophical systems, as a rule, generate truth in advance of
the system. Hence, the choice of concepts utilized by a given
system are not generated from an argument; they are chosen in

advance: reasoning, then, serves only to justify a previous
choice.
Three Fundamental Characteristics
· Self-Consciousness
· Self-Interpretation
· World-Interpretation
Chapter 1: Value Orientation
What is a value?
A value might also be called an “ideal.” An ideal or value is
that which gives one’s life its model of success. It, therefore,
provides the activities of a life with purpose, unity, truth, and
hence meaning.
PUT in Triad
· As noted by our author, Aristotle long ago declared that the
ordinary person considered the good life to consist of physical
pleasure, wealth, or honor.
· Later, Spinoza reaffirmed Aristotle’s claim except he used the
word “fame” in place of honor.
Many philosophers endorse this description of the ordinary
person’s values. Yet, many have denounced these values and
have sought to substitute for them a mode of life that overcomes
the frustrations that tend to accompany the pursuit of such
values.
· The Existentialists, generally, endorse the above. Yet, they
tend to focus their attention upon certain values that both the
ordinary person and the traditional philosophers overlook.
Traditional Philosophy
Within the framework of traditional, Western philosophy, the
pursuit of the values of the ordinary person have been
condemned in three ways:
· First is the claim that the values pursued: wealth, honor, fame
depend too much on external circumstances beyond the reach of
the individual’s will. These external circumstances might
interfere at any moment with the individual’s pursuit of his or
her ideals.
· Second is the claim that even if the individual does obtain

these ideals, he or she can’t be secure that these values will
remain.
· Third is the claim that even if the individual did obtain these
values he or she would soon be dissatisfied and would then
revert to a life of painful striving. The values of the ordinary
person are values that bring brief satisfaction.
Within the framework of traditional, Western philosophy, the
means to free oneself from the ordinary person’s values consists
of the Stoics, the Enlightenment, the Eternal.
The Stoics
· The Stoics advocated, somewhat like Buddhists, a renunciation
of the desires that move the ordinary person to pursue the
values of wealth, honor, and fame.
Epictetus: “Seek not that the things which happen should
happen as you wish; but wish the things which happen to be as
they are, and you will have a tranquil flow of life” (p. 4).
· The Stoics were pessimistic about what a person could achieve
in the world, but they were optimistic about what a person could
achieve within himself or herself. Their aim was a radical mode
of independence through the self-discipline of the will.
The Enlightenment
· The Enlightenment thinkers may have agreed with the Stoics
that the individual can’t achieve and secure the ideals of wealth,
honor, and fame. They, however, disagreed that the solution was
then to renounce those desires.
· The Enlightenment thinkers, instead, advocated for a rational
and concerted effort to reshape the very world that prohibits the
ordinary person from fulfilling his or her desires. Hence, the
aim should be to act to modify the world instead of acting to
modify human desires. Read second paragraph on p. 6.
The Eternal
Many philosophers have taken this path: Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Thomas, Spinoza, and Hegel.
· If, as noted above, the values pursued by the ordinary person
are fleeting, then why not pursue a value that is not fleeting,

that is, in fact eternal?
· Let’s abridge a great deal from this category: most of the
philosophers in this category, following Plato, divided the
“world” or “reality” into two categories: Being and becoming.
In the realm of becoming things come and go; in the realm of
Being belong those things that are immutable, self-sufficient,
and eternal.
· Hence, for Plato the Ideas were the objects of greatest value;
for Thomas it is God; for Spinoza it is “nature;” for Hegel it is
“Absolute Spirit.”
Now, it is precisely the presumed failure of these “highest
values” of the philosophers that led Nietzsche to announce the
“death of god.” And it out of the “death of god” that the
Existentialists generate their unique form of philosophy.
Existentialist Values
Now that we know the ordinary person’s values, the critique of
those values, and the means to overcome those values, we can
shift our attention to the values on which the Existentialists’
focus.
· The Existentialists consider life to be tragic. The ordinary
person can’t refrain from pursuing the world’s values and can
neither achieve the detachment advocated by the Stoics.
“Frustration, insecurity, and painful striving are the inescapable
lot of humankind, and the only life worth living is one in which
this fact is squarely faced” (p. 14).
· Now, if this is true, then this claim itself is one that generates
its own values and hence these values are values that one might
actualize.
Read second paragraph: p. 14
· The Existentialists’ critique of both the ordinary person and
the traditional Philosopher is grounded in the Existentialists’
claim that both groups misunderstand the fundamental nature of
reality: both groups desire some state of happiness or well-
being that the world itself can’t deliver; if it could, it would

reduce human beings to unconscious brutes.
· It is important to add: for the Existentialists, generally, it is
not political circumstances, technology, nor lack of wisdom that
prevents humankind from achieving its highest good: it is
simply the human condition and the reality in which it is found
that prevents the human being from achieving the happiness it
seeks.
The happiness against which the Existentialists argue is the sort
that the ordinary person pursues. This sort of happiness is the
sort that recommends a state of being desirable for humankind.
This sort of happiness emphasizes a sort of harmony, a sort of
contentment.
Thus, the Existentialists embrace both anguish and suffering;
and along with this an emphasis is placed on personal love,
creative activity, freedom of choice, and individual dignity.
These values lead the Existentialists to assert three claims:
· An acceptance of anguish and suffering is the condition within
which the above values are experienced.
· For the ordinary person and the traditional Philosopher who
reject or fail to take up the inevitability of anguish and
suffering, this very anguish will still manifest itself in apathy,
fear, and boredom.
· Existentialists, thus, value “intense consciousness,” aroused
passions, and actions that will stimulate and engage a person’s
total energy.
Hence, as noted on p. 18: The Existentialists value a common
source: the inherent tragedy inherent in the human condition; a
common function: the liberation of the tedium, fears and
frustrations of daily life; and a common characteristic:
intensity.
Defense of Existentialist Values
Note: Recommend the reading of the first paragraph p. 19.
Now that we know the values of the Existentialists, we need to
consider the justification for these values. The justifications
take two distinct forms:
· The argument that claims that both the values of the ordinary

person and the traditional philosophers are impossible to
realize.
· The argument that claims that even if the values of the
ordinary person and the traditional philosophers were
achievable, their realization would be at the expense of superior
values.
Our author claims that the second argument is the more
important because the Existentialists spend more time on it, and
because if it is sound, it basically negates the first.
· The inability to achieve happiness is the key to the
Existentialists’ tragic view of life and is the key reason for the
claim that the supreme value in life is “intensity” without the
promise of happiness.
· It is the Existentialists’ emphasis on this tragic condition that
generates their elevation of individual freedom to its lofty
status. Moreover, it is precisely this notion of freedom that
reinforces their objection to the Enlightenment hope of
remaking the world: read Dostoevsky quote on p. 21.
The Dostoevsky quote states well one of the key tenets of
Existentialism: that if human beings are free, then their free
choices will thwart the Reformers plans, and if freedom of
choice is one of the highest human values, then its sacrifice
would be unjustified, even if its sacrifice would lead to
universal well-being.
Chapter Two: Human Condition
The concept and experience of anguish is central to
Existentialism. The Existentialists’ approach to anguish begins
with intuition: the claim is that the experience of anguish is
direct and intuitive. Moreover, the experience is complex: it
consists both of terror and exhilaration, resulting in an intense
experience.
The Anguish of Being

Being = Existence.
The anguish generally associated to Being is the anguish of
knowing that Being is contingent. That is, Being did not have to
come into Existence; Nothingness could have prevailed. In fact,
Nothingness might still prevail.
Moreover, this anguish is the result of the fact that you, me, and
everyone else could have just as easily not have existed; and/or,
that you, me, and everyone else just might go out of existence.
Read Unamuno quote: p. 31
The key here is the relation between “contingent” and
“necessary.”
The human quest for the ground of reality has always been a
search for some necessary mode of being. Here, necessary refers
to a mode of being that is stable, enduring, beyond change, and
unalterable. This sort of being, it has been claimed, is the only
sort that is able to generate the stability of meaning desired by
human beings.
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God
remains forever.”
“The heavens will vanish like smoke; the earth will wear out
like a garment. . .but my salvation shall last forever, and my
justice have no end.”
“There was something formless and perfect before the universe
was born. It is serene. Empty. Solitary. Unchanging.”
On the other hand, human beings exist in contingency. They do
not have the power to create themselves, nor the power to
assure their existence. Human beings participate in a temporal
order whose law is that of coming-to-be and passing-away.
The Existentialists hold that a significant aspect of human
beings’ response to the reality of “necessity” and “contingency”
is anxiety or anguish: human beings are compelled to diminish
the fragility of life, to seek a connection to a “necessary” mode
of being, to gain a surer foothold in being.
Hence, it is this very problem that philosophers have sought to
overcome. The Existentialists, however, hold that no solution to
the conflict exists. Hence, they designate the existence of

human beings as “radically contingent,” not just “contingent.”
Read paragraphs on p. 37.
Anguish Before the Here and Now
Our author argues that human beings have attempted to escape
the “here and now” by two means: a special sort of knowledge
and an identification with humankind (p. 46).
Knowledge as a Means of Escape
· Read Pascal quote: p. 41 (characterizes the anguish before the
here and now)
We know that Plato and those who follow him have sought
escape by redirecting themselves from the world of “becoming”
to the world of “Being,” that is, to the world of eternal being
known through the mind or intellect.
The Existential attack on this mode of escape: read quote: p. 43.
Our author claims that this quote generates a couple of
arguments:
· First against Spinoza, Hegel, and Marx. The key to the
argument against these thinkers is the notion of the “observer
and the observed.”
· That is, this argument focuses on the fact that the observer,
that is the person, is part of the observed, that is, nature, world,
history. Thus, the observer is never able to extricate himself or
herself from the observed, and this extrication is precisely
required to obtain the view of eternity.
“The existentialists, on the contrary, say that the duality of man
the viewer and man the observed cannot be overcome and that
consequently man can never rise to a vision of things sub specie
aeternitatis” (p. 44).
· The second argument that derives from Kierkegaard’s quote is
based on the Ancient dictum that “only like could know like”
(p. 44). This means, basically, that only an item like another
item is able to know that item.
· For example: if Plato’s Ideas are eternal and therefore
necessary, then the faculty by which the human being knows
them must also be eternal and therefore necessary. From this
assumption the human being was then defined as “a rational

animal” and that the aspect that is “rational” is, like the Ideas,
eternal, immaterial, and thus immortal.
· The existentialists attack this argument by pointing out that
the human being nature includes not only his or her mind, but
his or her body and passions.
Read Unamuno quote: p. 45
Read last paragraph: p. 45
· The third argument asserted by the Existentialists to show that
the human being can’t escape its historical limitations is based
on the idea of “free choice.”
· The Existentialists argue that if the human being possesses
“free choice” then the future itself is undetermined. Thus, if this
is so, then the human being can never rise to the level of
“eternal vision” since the future would not be part of that vision
because the future has yet to be determined.
Identification with Humanity as a Means of Escape
The second mode by which human beings have sought to escape
their historical limitations has been to identify “with a race of
mankind or a large social unit such as a nation” (p. 46).
· Examples: humanism and theoretical communism = humanity
at large
· Examples: fascism and virulent patriotism = larger social units
Humanism has its roots in Aristotle. This is based on his
conception of “matter and form.” Form is universal; hence, the
form of the individual is that which defines the “essence” of
every human being.
Yet, at a certain point, and for several reasons, this notion was
rejected. In its place, thinkers argued that the identification of
the human being with humanity took place by means of empathy
and imagination. The singular being, in this context, is urged to
suppress his or her own personal interests for the sake of
humankind as such.
The Existentialists attack on this argument takes a couple of
forms:
· If, as noted above, the human being is a being tied to his or
her time and place, then he or she simply can’t identify with

humankind at large. This notion generates a basic mistake
called: Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.
· If the human being is free to choose, then the future, as noted
above, is unknown, and hence, because one can’t identify with
the unknown, one can’t identify with future generations.
· Both love and respect are generated within and out of specific
relations. Human beings love individual beings; human beings
respect individual beings.
· Nietzsche’s assertion regarding respect: p. 50
· Marcel/Jaspers assertions regarding love: p. 50
The Anguish of Freedom
Begin with the “in-itself” “for-itself” distinction: Sartre tells us
that two sorts of Being exist:
· Being-in-itself, that is, the being of things. These things only
point to themselves; they do not point to any value.
· Being-for-itself, that is, the being of things such as human
beings. That is, being with consciousness, which always points
to purpose.
Being-in-itself is the being of that which lacks consciousness:
all non-human animals; lamps; cups; bottles; roaches and bees.
A human being may exhibit the characteristic of being in itself:
“He is as he is.” That is, he or she is fixed, reified, or at least
his or her essential property is fixed.
Hence, for Sartre, the “in-itself” is “what it is;” the “for-itself”
is what it is not and is not what it is” (p. 55).
Freedom, in this context, refers to the necessity that one must
choose. The anguish of freedom refers to the anguish that
accompanies this realization. This realization claims that the
meaning of being is meaning that comes through individuals: a
dying body is, from one perspective, a dying body; from another
perspective, it is the dying body of one’s mother; a profound
dying of a significant part of one’s world.
It is this realization of the necessity of freedom that brings to
light “being-in-itself.” That is, one realizes that the world is, at
its core, “being-in-itself.” At the same time, one realizes one’s
own being is empty until one is choosing, that is, choosing

value.
Hence, choosing is always choosing from within a given
situation: choosing implies the recognition of a state of affairs
in relation to what one perceives as a better state of affairs.
These two components are always parts of choosing, and, hence
always parts of one’s freedom.
So, the “in-itself” and “for-itself” plays a fundamental role in
the Existentialists’ understanding of life. The human being is
fated: it is both its “matter of fact” and its “ideals and values”:
“it is man’s fate to be simultaneously both types of being” (p.
56).
Therefore, “man is both in-itself and for-itself, but the two
dimensions of his being are radically different. There is a deep
rent in his being, and it will never be closed” (p. 57).
We, then, have one aspect of the human being. A second aspect
argues that the human being desires, as a value, the “in-itself.”
This is another way of saying that the human being desires to
annihilate the inherent conflict within itself, that is, to
transcend the “rent in his being.”
And, this transcendence, then aims at “in-itself-for-itself
without duality.” That is, the human being desires, above all, to
be a “fact-sive-value.” She wants consciousness, but without
risk; he desires the properties of God or Being: serenity,
eternity, immutability (p. 58). The human being, then, wants to
be Christ: the perfect synthesis of both God and Human being.
Read: p. 59: top. . . .
Sartre’s Salvation
pp. 60-61: The human being’s aim to be God is a necessary and
universal aspect of her being, and hence, her highest motive.
Yet, Sartre argues that it is not the exclusive aspect of her
being; she is also capable of saying “no;” of defying her desire
to be God. Here, Sartre says the internal being of a person
might experience a “radical conversion.”
This radical conversion leads to the embrace of one’s dualism
“and for them coincidence with self or fullness of being consists
in joyfully accepting or assuming one’s finitude” (p. 63).

Ch. 3
Introduction
Chapter 3 shifts gears from a macro, world analysis to a more
limited concept, the concept of “reason.” As noted, the
Existentialists have been accused of lacking reason, first by
liberals and then by Marxists. Both these “isms” based their
judgment, to a degree, of the Existentialists’ general rejection
of the behavioral sciences and of the idea of historical progress.
Our chapter will approach the question of reason by looking at
three distinct philosophic schools: rationalism, empiricism, and
existentialism. His approach is governed by three questions,
each of which emerges from an aspect of philosophy:
1. The question of ontology: how much is it reasonable to claim
that a human being can know?
2. The question of epistemology: what methods are necessary to
acquire whatever knowledge is available?
3. The question of value: how valuable is this knowledge to the
aim of living a good life?
The difference between rationalism and empiricism concerns the
extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience to gain
knowledge. Rationalists claim that significant ways exist by
which concepts and knowledge are gained independently of
sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the
ultimate source of all concepts and knowledge.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First,
they argue that cases exist that show that the content of our
concepts or knowledge goes beyond the information that sense
experience provides. Second, they construct accounts of how
reason in some form or other provides that additional
information.
Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they
develop accounts of how experience provides the information
that rationalists cite. Second, empiricists attack the rationalists’
accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.
Rationalism
Our author begins by providing brief answers to the above three
questions:
1. The eternal: that which is necessary, immutable and
universal.
2. Through the intellect.
3. Two-fold response: knowledge, for its own sake, is valuable;
knowledge is essential to living a good life in the world of
becoming.
Now, I’m going to deviate a bit from our text. To be a
rationalist, one will hold to something like:
The Intuition/Deduction Thesis: Some propositions in a
particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition
alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited
propositions.
Intuition is a form of rational insight. Intellectually grasping a
proposition, we just “see” it to be true in such a way as to form
a true, warranted belief. Deduction is a process in which we
derive conclusions from intuited premises through valid
arguments, ones in which the conclusion must be true if the
premises are true. We intuit, for example, that the number three
is prime and that it is greater than two. We then deduce from
this knowledge that there is a prime number greater than two.
Intuition and deduction thus provide us with knowledge a priori,
which is to say knowledge gained independently of sense

experience.
We can generate different versions of the Intuition/Deduction
thesis by substituting different subject areas for the variable
‘S’. Some rationalists take mathematics to be knowable by
intuition and deduction. Some place ethical truths in this
category. Some include metaphysical claims, such as that God
exists, we have free will, and our mind and body are distinct
substances.
Thus, and here we return to our text (p. 68), the concepts
grasped intuitively are located where? First, in the realm of
Being which transcends becoming. Second, in the mind of God
or in some universal consciousness. Third, in nature: not the
nature that one’s grasps with one’s senses, but nature in the
sense of Being, the realm that is accessible only by the intellect.
Now, to complete this section, our author offers a second
argument employed by rationalists. It is the argument that is
often called “the one and the many.” Our author employs words:
consider a word, say, fruit. Then consider all the unique items
that one places within this one term. Or, to be more
provocative: consider “love” and all the varieties of actions that
are placed beneath this singular concept.
For the rationalists, to achieve knowledge is to grasp the
meaning of the singular concept, which is immutable, singular,
and necessary. To only experience the myriad of items that are
placed within the concept is called opinion (p. 71). Knowledge,
or at least most of it, is “a priori” and opinion, or at least most
of it, is “a posteriori” (p. 71).
Empiricism
Our author answers the above three questions this way:
1. Particular beings and the relationships that obtain between
them.
2. Through the physical senses.
3. For the sake of power/control especially of both nature and

society.
Our author refers to three of the key aspects of Empiricism, all
generated from Hume:
a. Outside of mathematics and logic, no “a priori” knowledge
exists. All knowledge is knowledge of particular things and the
relationships between and amongst them.
b. Hume argued that all purported knowledge of fact is based on
“induction” which is the observation of a repeated relationships
between two or more entities.
c. Hume argued that all general knowledge is probable. No
matter the number of times one observes a phenomenon to work
in a particular way, one can never be certain it will work that
way the next time.
Hence, Empiricists’ claim:
The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S
or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience.
Now, regarding the Rationalists’ claim about mathematical and
logical truths, the Empiricists claim that the Rationalists have
misinterpreted the ground of those claims. The Empiricists’
argue that the “a priori” truths pointed out by the Rationalists,
are truths, but not truths grounded in some suprasensory source;
they are simply a result of a series of decisions to use terms in
specific ways. That is, human beings are responsible for these
truths, not God or Nature.
For the Empiricists, knowledge is valuable, primarily, because
it equals power. This notion of power translates into two
concrete claims: first, the power derived from knowledge
facilitates greater acquisition of material goods; second, it
facilitates “progress.”
The Existentialist Alternative
Our author answers the above three questions this way:

1. One can know the human condition.
2. Through intuitive insight.
3. To experience Existential values, the only values available to
human beings.
Because Existentialism is a theory of value, many of its
critiques of both Rationalism and Empiricism argue that their
claims are insignificant. For example, the Rationalists claim
that one can the eternal, but the Existentialists claim that even
if one could know the eternal, that knowledge would have little
if any significance. For, in the end, the Existentialists will
claim that one still must choose one’s values and that this
choice is one’s full responsibility.
The Existentialists make the same basic claim against
knowledge of the laws of nature and against the claims of
behavioral science. Knowledge of the laws of nature have not
made human beings more responsible; happier; less anxious.
Knowledge derived from the behavioral sciences has not
brought a peace of mind to people; it has not increased one’s
knowledge of the human condition.
The one and only thing one ought to know, and can know, is the
human condition. And, knowledge of the human condition is
knowledge of certain traits of human existence that are found in
all cultures:
· Human contingency
· Human particularity
· Human freedom
· Human beings’ fundamental aspirations
· Basic modes of human relating to the world and to other
human beings
These aspects are sometimes called “ontological necessities.”
These “necessities” must be distinguished from “biological
necessities.” The human being, for the Existentialists, is moved
not by “biological necessities” but by his or her choices,
choices that seek meaning.

More on Rationalism, Empiricism, and Existentialism
· The Existentialist is irrational but is one who attempts to
describe everyday experiences closely.
· Yet, the Existentialist is not a rationalist. A rationalist,
generally, holds that the intellect is inherently designed to
apprehend certain sorts of truth about the world.
· Yet, the Existentialist is not an empiricist. An empiricist,
generally, holds that knowledge is a product of experience.
· The Existentialists reject both schools of thought because both
are based on the same assumption: the assumption, which the
Existentialists, claim is false is that the mind and world are
logically independent of one another, like a spectator observing
the world before him or her.
For the Existentialists human beings are beings-in-a-world: this
means that “being-in” is what it means to be a human being.
Moreover, “world” here means the place where we live, the
meaningful setting of our lives.
Thus, both Sartre and Heidegger generate new concepts to refer
to human beings. For Sartre, as we have noted, human beings
are referred to as “Being-for-itself,” for Heidegger, human
beings are called “Da-Sein.”
Here, we might be helped by a return to the notion that
“existence comes before essence.” Both the rationalists and the
empiricists suppose “thick” elements of human being. We are,
in essence, rational or sense-based beings. For the
Existentialists we are “beings-in-the-world,” hence we lack a
fixed character or nature.
Ortega: “the stone is given its existence: it need not fight for
what it is. . . . Man has to make his own existence at every
single moment.” Hence, I am neither rational nor empirical, but
a constellation of the free choices I have made.

Ch. 4: Freedom
Let’s consider “freedom of choice/will” this way:
Suppose at time A, person X is faced with a moral choice: to
commit murder or walk away. At this moment, assume person X
is aware of the reason for deciding one way or the other and is
mentally competent.
Ten seconds later, at time B, person X pulls the trigger and kills
his victim. Assume that nothing interferes with his or her
mental decision-making process between times A and B. The
concern here is with person X’s “being” and the choice he or
she makes.
If the sum of the contributions to person X’s decision at time A
is sufficient to determine, at time B, that he or she commits
murder, then “freedom of choice” does not exist. He or she
can’t be blamed for his or her act. Why? Because the factors
present at time A, determined his or her act at time B.
On the other hand, if the sum of the contributions to his or her
choice at time A are not sufficient to explain his or her choice
at time B, then it is possible, but not entirely certain, that he or
she acted freely and is responsible for his or her choice.
So, this is how the problem of freedom of choice is being
conceived. The only comment I need to add here pertains to
“sum of the contributions” to a person’s choice. As a rule, most
thinkers will note the one variable they are testing. For
example, in place of “sum of the contributions,” they will insert
“neurobiological interactions” to test whether or not that single

variable might account for one’s actions. In our case, you can
substitute any single variable, or simply think of many: one’s
neurobiology, one’s society, one’s economic circumstances, etc.
Let us now turn to the notion of freedom in Existentialism:
We are told that two sorts of Being exist:
· Being-in-itself, that is, the being of things.
· Being-for-itself, that is, the being of things such as human
beings.
Being-in-itself is the being of that which lacks consciousness:
all non-human animals; lamps; cups; bottles; roaches and bees.
A human being may exhibit the characteristic of being in itself:
“He is as he is.” That is, he or she is fixed, reified, or at least
his or her essential property is fixed.
Being for itself is, oddly, nothingness, formed in two parts
which enable it to be conscious of itself as a being:
· The human being is, because of its body, a thing.
· The human being is a thing because he or she is a fact: one has
one’s past, etc.
· The human being is a thing by his or her situation, which
limits his or her freedom. The human being is always in a
situation.
The human being is, thus, conceived as dual: his or her situation
and the nothingness out of which his or her freedom emerges.
More on Freedom
What man wants is simply independent choice. . . . And choice
of course, the devil only knows what choice. Dostoevsky
The most tremendous thing which has been granted to man is
choice and freedom. Kierkegaard
At heart what existentialism shows is the connection between
the absolute character of freedom, by virtue of which every man
realizes himself. Sartre
At its core, this notion of freedom argues that human beings
create their essence through our ongoing projects and choices.
Our of one’s choices, one emerges: a student, a parent, a caring
friend. And, these elements of one’s identity, are never secure;
one must continue to choose.

Existentialist freedom consists of the following characteristics:
1. It rejects the psychological notion of freedom which
associates freedom to a type of inner entity called “free will.”
This notion of freedom assumes that the human being has
transparent access to its own mind or will.
The Existentialist’s view of freedom does claim that a great
deal of action is pre-reflective; that is, a great deal of human
action is a result of “involuntary instincts” and “habits.”
2. Existential freedom is not the sort of freedom “to obtain what
one has wished.” The notion that one can do whatever one wants
to do is not freedom, but the lack of freedom: one would then be
subservient to one’s desires; one would simply be responding to
one’s wants, the strongest want governing one’s actions.
For Existentialists, freedom is best understood as freedom of
“intention.” This derives from one’s capacity to “self-interpret”
both one’s self and one’s world. That is, it derives from one’s
ability to imbue one’s self and world with value.
Hence, freedom is an ontological condition of being human:
even one decides to “go with the flow of my immediate desires,
I am still making a choice by envisioning a certain kind of life,
assigning meaning to a particular identity and making myself
who I am.” (Sartre)
3. The Existential notion of freedom is not related to any sort of
universal moral entity. It is, as noted above, a structure of being
human: freedom cannot be preserved, diminished, or increased:
it can only be accepted and faced as a given of the human
condition.
No moral ideal or ethical measure, is responsible for one’s
choices: “I continue to believe that this world has no higher
meaning, but I know that the something in it has meaning and
this is man; for he is the one being to insist on having a
meaning.” (Camus)
Yet, this freedom is not the sort associated with liberal politics,
but is, instead, a freedom “from” any sort of pre-determined
essence, hence, Sartre’s freedom opens an abyss of nothingness
out of which emerge the experiences of:

· Forlornness: “We are alone, with no excuses.” And
“forlornness implies that we ourselves choose our being.”
· Anguish: “Forlornness and anguish go together.”
· Despair: “The term has a very simple meaning. It means that
we shall confine ourselves to reckoning only with what depends
on our will.” And, “to say that we invent values means nothing
else but this: life has no meaning a priori.”
Non-Existentialist Theories of Freedom
In the first section of our text, two theories of freedom are
introduced: “freedom of self-realization” and “freedom of
indeterminism.” Each is briefly explained and then critiqued
from the perspective of Existentialism:
1. Self-Realization: read paragraph on p. 101; belongs to
Platonism; Eternal: p. 107
2. Indeterminism: read paragraphs on p. 103: We will not deal
with the critique
The Existentialist responds to these two theories:
The key claim of the Existentialist is that the obtaining of
particular goals is not particularly significant. And, this claim is
based on three additional premises:
1. The human being is already the being who projects herself
beyond the present. Existence is just this: the projection of
goals; one fulfills one and then must generate another. Hence,
Sartre defines reality: “That the human reality is lack, the
existence of desire as a human fact could suffice as proof.”
Thus, as we noted in an earlier chapter, the ordinary person
defines freedom on the mistaken notion that a complete state of
happiness is possible; yet, if existence is lack, then no such
state exists.
2. As we have already noted, even if one is able to fulfill one’s
desire, one would not enter a state of happiness.
3. As we have already noted, even if one is able to satisfy one’s
desires, one would not be happy for one would have to forgo the
intensity of the Existentialist values.
Hence, the Existentialist critique of “self-realization” is based
on both its understanding of the human condition and the nature

of the world: the human being lacks an essence which is to be
realized.
Objections to the Standard Theory
The standard theory of human freedom consists of two
components: the objective situation in which one finds oneself
and the subjective motive of the one in the objective situation.
Here, Sartre objects, claiming that the objective situation
motives acts only to the degree that one apprehends it; the
subjective aspect only moves one to act in a secondary way
based on the way one chooses to relate to the feelings.
For the Existentialist, the true motive of behavior is an
“original project” freely chosen as the individual separates
herself from the in-itself to the for-itself: “’Heredity, education,
environment, physiological constitution are the great
explanatory idols of our time’ but they explain very little. The
only genuine cause of human behavior is the individual’s
fundamental project of being (p. 119).
This fundamental project of being is a result of “nonreflective
consciousness.” It is here that the person, not through
deliberation, makes the fundamental choice out of which all
deliberation emerges. Deliberation takes place on the
“reflective” level: once deliberation begins one has already
begun the move away from one’s original choice.
Three Further Objections
· p. 121 “overarching value”
· p. 121: “conversion”
· p. 122: “two-fold feeling”
Radical Freedom
To gain some understanding of Existential freedom, one needs
to begin with intention:
· Human consciousness is intentional: this means that HC is
always of something.

· HC, thus, is relational: it is a process, an activity.
· HC is always pointing beyond itself; HC is, thus,
intentionality.
Next, one needs to understand the nature of the action of
consciousness:
· HC is a meaning-giving-activity. Acts of consciousness are
not passive; they are not simply representations of things in the
world. They, instead, are the acts that endow objects with the
meaning and significance that they have.
· HC “sees” things as “this” and “not that.” Hence, acts of HC
inject a “not” or “nothingness” into the world. Hence, acts of
consciousness make things meaningful.
· I see the tree as a source of shade, not a source of firewood.
Hence, acts of consciousness carve up and order reality “for-
us”.
· Thus, the “I” shapes the world around itself through its
meaning-giving activities; “I” then am responsible for what
matters to me and how things matter to me.
Finally, one needs to understand the relation of “facticity” and
“transcendence”:
· Facticity refers to one’s situation; transcendence refers to
one’s going beyond one’s facticity.
· One’s constraints, that is, one’s facticity is subject to an
interpretation, one that could lead one to interpret it in a way
that moves one to overcome it.
· Thus, a gap exists between one’s “in-itself” and one’s “for-
itself.”
Situated Freedom
A few existentialists thinkers have modified the radical nature
of freedom. They have done so by emphasizing that the
meanings with which one endows things is meaning that is
historically situated.
· To make a choice one must first be familiar with one’s
historical situation.
· One’s historical situation is the location of the meanings from
which one might choose. These meanings exist prior to any

person’s choice.
· Ortega: “man lives in view of the past. Man, in a world, has no
nature; what he has is history. Expressed differently: what
nature is to things, history is to man.”
· Hence, one is both self-making and self-made. One makes
oneself, yes, but out of the historical situation in which one
finds oneself.
Ch. 5
The term “authentic” derives from a Greek word that means
“original” or “genuine.” The notion, then, of an “authentic self”
is one that is “one’s own” and not simply a reflection of the
values and mores that govern one’s social situation.
The “authentic self” is one that comes to know itself not from
abstract theorizing about something called the “self” but
through moods and/or intense experiences that have real affects
on one’s finite existence.
As we have seen, for most Existentialists, this confrontation
emerges in the experience of “anxiety,” “dread,” “anguish.” For
Nietzsche, this sort of experience affects us when both language
and reason fail and our world reveals itself as finite, disordered,
and unreliable. For Karl Jaspers, these experiences are called
“limit” or “boundary” situations “when everything that is said
to be valuable and true collapse before [one’s] eyes.”
It is important, before turning to our text, to head-off a common
mistake. When the Existentialists talk about “authenticity” as
“original,” they are not talking about notions such as “being
true to one’s self” or “getting in touch with one’s feelings.”
These popular claims suggest that somewhere within oneself
lurks one’s “true self.” This true self is the essence of human
nature, and, generally, it is assumed that this nature is good.
For the Existentialists, no “true self” exists. And, certainly, no
“true self” that is essentially good. The Existentialists do not
deny that humans express emotions such as love and
compassion; unlike most modern claims, however, the
Existentialists claim that human beings equally express such
emotions as hatred, and as a result, derive profound pleasure

from cruelty and terror.
One penetrating thinker here is Dostoevsky. Throughout his
novels he depicts scenes of extreme violence and cruelty. He
does so because he is intent on revealing the myriad “forces”
that constitute the human being.
“There is, of course, a beast hidden in every man, a beast of
rage, a beast of sensual inflammability at the cries of tormented
victim, an unrestrained beast let off the chain.”
Thus, for the Existentialists, to be “original” is to experience
and interact with both the tenderness and cruelty that percolate
within us.
I V . F r e e d o m
N o n - e x i s t e n t i a l i s t T h e o r i e s
To judge by the use to which the word “freedom” is most
often put in ordinary discourse, a man is free in the measure
that he can achieve chosen goals with a minimum of effort.
Conversely, in the measure that he discovers obstacles in his
way he is not free. If one has chosen to become a doctor, then
one is free to do so on condition that one has been accepted
by a medical school, has the money to pay the tuition,
possesses the native endowment required to pass the courses,
and so on. If, however, one does not have the mental
equipment to pass the courses, cannot pay the tuition, or
cannot find a medical school that will accept one, then one is
not free to become a doctor.
In political discussion this sense of the term “freedom” is also
the one which most often comes to the fore. If a man has
freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, this means that if

he chooses to speak or to assemble with others for political
purposes he will encounter no legal obstacles. He will not be
clubbed by the police or thrown in jail. When the socialist
criticizes capitalistic societies by declaring that in these
societies the rich man is as free as the poor man since both
could starve to death in a public park if they so chose, he is at
one and the same time implying that the laws of capitalistic
societies place no obstacles in the way of the person who
chooses to starve to death and that in a truly free society no
153Olson, Robert G.. An Introduction to Existentialism, Dover
Publications, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lmu/detail.action?docID=1
889281.
Created from lmu on 2020-01-24 10:22:51.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er
P

ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
one would ever encounter serious obstacles in the effort to
acquire a decent subsistence.
Despite the fact that the most common meaning of freedom
both in ordinary discourse and in political discussion is ability
to achieve chosen goals, traditional philosophers rarely used
the term that way. The most common meanings of the term in
traditional philosophizing are known technically as “freedom
of self-realization” and “freedom of indeterminism” or
“freedom of the will.” The common source of both of these
concepts of freedom is Christian doctrine. And although they

are apparently antithetical it is not uncommon to find them
linked together in a single philosophical system. It would not
be wholly correct to say that ancient philosophers knew no
problem of freedom, but the problem of freedom which most
Western philosophers claim to have discovered among the
ancients is undoubtedly their own.
One arrived at the notion of freedom of self-realization in
roughly the following way. Since God is both omniscient and
omnipotent, God both foreknew and foreordained that
whatever happens would happen. What a man does may thus
have as its immediate cause the man’s own individual choice,
but its ultimate and only true cause is the will of God. It is as
if a man’s individual history were originally an idea in God’s
mind, to which God gave physical reality by an act of
creation. Man, of course, cannot and ought not attempt to
tinker with God’s handiwork. Freedom, therefore, cannot in
fact and ought not by right consist in an active effort to
achieve individually chosen goals. This is impossible and
impious. True freedom can only exist for the man who
humbly acknowledges the individual history or nature which
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht

God gave him and who observes with wholehearted approval
the temporal realization of God’s eternal idea of him.
The theory of freedom of self-realization has many different
versions, some of them secular. The existentialists would
probably argue that the secular versions, most of which were
developed in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, are
merely hangovers from an earlier day, a result of the fact that
after God’s death men tried to go on living as if nothing had
happened. Be that as it may, only one specific version of the
theory need be considered here. It is that of Leibniz.
First, however, it should be noted that when with the birth of
the Christian God Platonic Ideas and Aristotelian essences
were absorbed in the divine intellect, the concept of essence
was gradually enlarged. For the ancient world essences were
always and only of universals; individuals could not be
known in the strict sense of the term precisely because there
were no individual essences. Christian philosophers, however,
were bit by bit led to the concept of individual essences. The
Christian God is after all a personal god who supposedly sees
into each individual’s mind and heart.
Let us then assume that at the moment of creation God has
present to mind a complete catalogue of all possible
individual essences, and let us further assume that of the
many possible individual essences only certain combinations
can logically coexist. Which of these combinations will God
allow to pass into concrete existence? Obviously the best of
all possible combinations! This, in brief, is Leibniz’s doctrine
that the physically existing world is the “best of all possible
worlds.” But of interest in connection with the problem of
freedom is the fact that the individual essences which God
chose for physical incarnation must have that history and only

rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
that history which God foresaw for them. If after creation
individuals decided to alter the course of their divinely
appointed history, they would completely upset God’s
calculations. God has to know down to the last detail what
each of these individuals will do in order to be sure that they
are logically “compossible” and also to be sure that he has
chosen the best possible combination of compossibles. God
knew in advance, to use two of Leibniz’s own examples, that
Adam would eat the apple and that Caesar would cross the
Rubicon. He even knew the exact moment at which these
events would occur.
It follows that the serf who complains he is unfree because he
cannot realize his personally chosen goal of enjoying
privileges reserved by his master is simply attempting to
upset God’s plan. It is for him to accept his status by
recognizing that there is no other logically possible role for
him than that of a serf and that he is a part of the best of all
possible worlds. His individual history, harsh though it may
be, is merely a temporal unfolding or historical realization of
his very own individual essence. To wish that his life had a

different pattern would be like wishing for the logically
impossible. It would be as if Adam wanted to be Eve without
ceasing to be Adam.
Some philosophers have argued that if God had to choose for
creation from a limited set of uncreated individual essences
and that if furthermore God was limited to choosing one or
another set of compossibles from within the larger set, he
would not be omnipotent. The answer was in part that a
limitation upon any being’s power is by definition an external
obstacle and that since uncreated essences are ideas in God’s
own mind he cannot be limited by them. The other part of the
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov

er
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
answer is that so-called logical limitations are not genuine
limitations. Who, for instance, would lament the impossibility
of believing that the product of one plus one is three or feel
that his power had thereby been diminished? God’s power is
no more limited by the fact that he must observe the
principles of logic than by the fact that he cannot through an
arbitrary act of will make virtues out of wanton murder and
incest. If God’s will were not subordinate to his intellect, he

would not be God. He would be a monster.
One arrived at the notion of freedom of indeterminism or
freedom of the will by arguing from the premise that if God
foreordained that we would sin then we are not responsible
for our sin and that if we are not responsible for our sin, then
it is unjust of God to punish us eternally in hell. God,
however, does punish many of us with eternal torment in hell,
and God is not unjust. Our sin cannot, therefore, have been
foreordained. Our sin must be the result of individual volition.
It is we as individuals who by our own undetermined choices
sin.
The problem for Christian defenders of the freedom of
indeterminism was to explain how free will is compatible
with God’s omniscience or foreknowledge. The answer is
owed to St. Augustine, who declared that God does not
literally foreknow. God is outside time; for him there is only
one ever-present moment. He sees all things—past, present,
and future—non-discursively and sub specie aeternitatis in a
single glance. To foreknow he need not therefore foreordain.
That St. Augustine should have argued in this way is
somewhat surprising, since he is the most famous of all
defenders of the dogma of predestination, which seems to
imply complete foreordination. But as remarked at the outset,
889281.
C
op

ed
.
it is not unusual for a philosopher to hold both to a doctrine of
freedom through self-realization and a doctrine of free will.
Christian philosophers like St. Augustine who wish
simultaneously to uphold the omnipotence of God through the
doctrine of predestination and to uphold the justice of God by
regarding man as the true cause of his sin are almost
compelled to adopt some version of both theories of freedom.
Despite the enormous importance which they attribute to
human freedom, Sartre alone among the existentialists has
elaborated a systematic and detailed theory of freedom.
Fortunately, the brilliance and originality of his theory
compensates for the relative neglect of the problem by others.
There is some question as to whether other existentialists
would accept Sartre’s views on freedom. This much,
however, can be said with certainty. There is little in Sartre’s
theory which contradicts anything said on the subject by other
existentialists, and there is nothing in it incompatible with the
major premises of existentialist thinking. Moreover, as with
all existentialists, Sartre’s position is closer to that upheld by
defenders of freedom of indeterminism than to either the
common-sense position or the position of those who uphold
freedom of self-realization, and it is doubtful whether any
contemporary philosopher who took the pains to develop a
detailed theory of freedom based on the idea of undetermined
choice could come up with anything better.
The term “freedom” is as ambiguous as the term “happiness”
and the term “rationality.” It does not, however, have a single
generic meaning from which the others have been derived,
even though the several specific meanings of the term are

loosely associated. Nor have the existentialists decided to
abandon the word because of its popular and historical
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns

. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
connotations. All of them use it, and all of them use it to refer
to something which they consider to be a genuinely existing
and valuable feature of the human condition. In this respect
the existentialists are like the rest of us, who consciously or
unconsciously select from the several meanings of the term
the one which we believe to stand for a reality of great human
importance. If we believe that one of the established
meanings of the term either does not stand for a reality or
does not stand for a reality of great value, we reject that
meaning as improper. The best introduction to the
existentialist theory will, therefore, be a consideration of the
reasons which induced the existentialists to reject
non-existentialist concepts of freedom.
The existentialists do not deny that man has the power to
achieve chosen goals by his own efforts. Underprivileged
workers do sometimes achieve better working conditions,
prisoners do sometimes escape from prison, would-be doctors

do sometimes become doctors, and so on. What Sartre calls
“the coefficient of adversity,” i.e., the resistance presented by
the external environment, is not always insuperable. What
leads the existentialists to reject or ignore the common-sense
conception of freedom is their belief that the power to achieve
particular goals is not itself a great value. And that belief rests
upon three others.
First, man is a being who exists only by projecting himself
beyond the present into the future. To exist is to posit goals
and to pursue them. There is no escape from our condition as
flight or pursuit toward projected values. This means that if
one empirical desire is fulfilled, we will and must replace that
desire with another. A state of complete desire fulfillment
would be equivalent to death. A part of the tragedy of the
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.

D
ov
er
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
human condition is that man is a desiring being and that
desire is a state of lack or incompletion. “That the human
reality is lack,” says Sartre, “the existence of desire as a
human fact could suffice as proof.”1;2 This argument derives,
of course, from traditional Platonic and Aristotelian

metaphysics. The gods, it will be recalled, cannot desire,
because desire is lack, and the gods lack nothing. A state of
lack is incompatible with a state of perfection. According to
the existentialists the common man has defined freedom on
the basis of a mistaken notion that there is a state of
happiness, satisfied desire, or absence of frustration which
can be achieved by fulfilling empirical desires. But in so far
as human consciousness is always characterized by lack, there
can be no suspension of the unhappy consciousness. Man
must desire in order to exist, and in the act of desiring he
constitutes himself as incomplete and unfulfilled.
Moreover, this incompleteness or unfulfillment is necessary if
man is to be free even in the sense of being able to overcome
obstacles. This point was made effectively by Nietzsche, who
asked: “How is freedom measured?—By the resistance which
has to be overcome, by the effort it takes to maintain oneself
on top.” Sartre expresses the same point in his own language.
Freedom, he says, “itself creates the obstacles from which we
suffer.” An insignificant public official in Mont-de-Marsan
without means may not have the opportunity to go to New
York if that be his ambition. But the obstacles which stand in
his way would not exist as obstacles were it not for his free
choice of values: in this case, his desire to go to New York. It
is freedom itself
889281.
C
op

ed
.
which in posing its ends—in choosing them as
inaccessible or difficult of access—causes our
location to appear as a . . . restriction upon our
projects. . . . It is therefore of no avail to say that I
am not free to go to New York because of the fact
that I am an unimportant functionary in
Mont-de-Marsan. It is on the contrary with respect
to my project to go to New York that I situate
myself at Mont-de-Marsan.2
Sartre makes the same point in still another way:
In order for the act to be able to allow a realization,
the simple projection of a possible end must be
distinguished a priori from the realization of this
end. If conceiving is enough for realizing, then I am
plunged in a world like that of a dream in which the
possible is no longer in any way distinguished from
the real. . . . If the object appears as soon as it is
simply conceived, it will no longer be chosen or
even wished for. Once the distinction between the
simple wish, the representation which I choose, and
the choice is abolished, freedom disappears too.3
Second, even if man could succeed in fulfilling all his
particular, empirical desires, he would still not achieve
happiness; for the desire of particular, empirical objects in the
world is always suspended from and merely a specification of
an overarching desire for the impossible. This point was

Great Leaders Who Make the Mix WorkArtwork Janet Echelm.docx

Great Leaders Who Make the Mix WorkArtwork Janet Echelm.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Great Leaders Who Make the Mix WorkArtwork Janet Echelm.docx

Similar to Great Leaders Who Make the Mix WorkArtwork Janet Echelm.docx (16)

More from shericehewat

More from shericehewat (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Great Leaders Who Make the Mix WorkArtwork Janet Echelm.docx