The third level of judgment is not one particular voice but a set of collective voices. Fashion establishes hemlines, nationality establishes food and beverage patterns, social class establishes decorative taste, etiquette establishes which fork to use. These invisible voices also operate in your life as a source of judgment; you are likely to conform to their dictates blindly or feel guilty if you don’t.

Your defense is not necessarily to ignore or disobey these voices. Many such “rules” offer handy guidance and eliminate constant fussing. But it is necessary to recognize each collective voice for exactly what it is: an external standard of behavior. It is also necessary to know that a collective voice is only a pretender to power. You still have the freedom to govern your own behavior.

For example, as we expand our animation staff at Pixar, which has the positive impact of allowing us to do more quality work, there is also a negative impact that we must deal with: Meetings have become larger and less intimate, with each participant having a proportionally smaller ownership in the final film (which can mean feeling less valued). In response, we created smaller subgroups in which departments and individuals are encouraged to feel they have a voice. In order to make corrections like this - to reestablish balance - managers must be diligent about paying attention.

The decision to disrupt businesses that are fundamentally working but whose future is in question—intentionally taking on short-term losses in the hope of generating long-term growth—requires no small amount of courage. Routines and priorities get disrupted, jobs change, responsibility is reallocated. People can easily become unsettled as their traditional way of doing business begins to erode and a new model emerges. It’s a lot to manage, from a personnel perspective, and the need to be present for your people—which is a vital leadership quality under any circumstances—is heightened even more. It’s easy for leaders to send a signal that their schedules are too full, their time too valuable, to be dealing with individual problems and concerns. But being present for your people—and making sure they know that you’re available to them—is so important for the morale and effectiveness of a company.

The relationships with others essential to activities such as parenthood, education and research are valued for themselves, not just for their consequences. Most humans are good at detecting instrumentality – the false bonhomie of the used car salesman, the cynical hypocrisy of the vote-seeking politician – and are repelled by it. There is a difference between the firm that promotes the welfare of its employees because its executives care, and the firm that promotes the welfare of its employees because its finance department has calculated the net present value of reduced staff turnover. And employees can usually tell which is which.

I believe it is appropriate – indeed necessary – to view the business organisation in the same way. The proper goal of corporate activity is the flourishing of the multiple stakeholders of the corporation: employees, investors, suppliers and customers, the communities in which it operates and the corporation itself. For the corporation to flourish, it must contribute to the flourishing of the society in which it operates. And ‘the doctrine of the mean’ is as relevant to the business organisation as it is to the individual. The directors and executives of a flourishing company operate within a mediating hierarchy, which meets the needs of all its stakeholders, gives them an opportunity for voice and protects the business from the adverse consequences of stakeholder exit.