The Pursuit of Truth

When asked what I most valued from my years in college, my answer has always been clear: "the pursuit of truth". Pursue it no matter where it leads. Pursue it whether you like the outcome or not. Pursue it because you are charged with nothing less. After the Navy, I planned to attend Harvard Law School. I took interviews at a few companies for a one-year job, but when I came to Procter & Gamble, something struck me. Here was a business where the same principle applied: truth mattered. The truth about what consumers really wanted. The truth about how to treat employees. The truth about building lasting relationships with communities. Within months, I knew I had found my place. Law school could wait—and ultimately, it never came. I spent 40 years at Procter & Gamble. We didn’t always get it right. At times, we were blinded by assumptions, or carried projects too far. But I never doubted the company’s core value: to pursue the truth. And that, in the end, has been a guiding principle of my life.

Everyone Counts

Everyone Counts When I look back over my life, I often ask myself: where did I first come to believe the truth that everyone counts? I know it wasn’t in college. It was in the Navy. As head of the communications department, I quickly discovered that no amount of my own effort could make us the best in the fleet. That goal depended entirely on the capability and commitment of every sailor on the team. At the same time, I could see the captain’s reliance on each officer to carry out his duty so that the ship, as a whole, could excel. It was in those moments that I began to understand: excellence is never the work of one person. It is always the achievement of many. That conviction only grew stronger when I joined Procter & Gamble. At first, the culture seemed to reward individual ambition — do well, move up. But then I attended a company-wide meeting filled with people from manufacturing, engineering, and so many other parts of the business. Sitting there, I felt something unmistakable: everyone in that room mattered to P&G. A year later, on sales training, the lesson came again. I was chasing the recognition of being number one in tie displays, but I soon realized something larger. Our district would only be celebrated for excellence if every person pulled his or her weight. The strength of the whole rested on the dedication of each. Over the years, this belief has become more than a lesson. It has become a mantra: everyone counts. It shapes how I see people, how I lead, how I live. And in many ways, it sums up everything I’ve learned about human relationships. Great things are never built by a few at the top — they are made possible by the countless efforts of many, each one indispensable. That truth is both humbling and inspiring. It reminds me to value each person, to listen, to respect, and to encourage. Because when we live as though everyone counts — we create the possibility of greatness together.

"Grapes of Wrath" Personal Reflections for Today

Grapes of Wrath" byJohn Steinbeck—Personal Reflections on Its Meaning for Today September 20, 2020 This novel takes its place among the five finest novels I have ever read: the others being Crossing to Safety by Wallace Stegner, Tolstoy's War and Peace, Gilead by Marilynne Robinson and Towles’ A Gentleman in Moscow. Of all these novels, however, "Grapes of Wrath" has most deeply penetrated my life. For many reasons, above all because I came to know and feel the characters more intimately and viscerally and emotionally than in any other book I have ever read. I understand what Norman Mailer meant in writing of "Steinbeck's marvelous and ironic sense of compassion…daring all the time to go up to the very abyss of offering more feeling than the reader can accept." Again and again, that is how I felt, hanging on every word and phrase, wondering, worrying about what comes next. It did not happen by accident. Steinbeck records this in the midst of writing the book: "Yesterday it seemed to me that the people were coming to life. I hope so. These people must be intensely alive the whole time". The whole time. Exactly. No false notes. Through detailed depiction of the environment, layer upon layer, in cinema-like detail, through the development of the looks, gestures and clothes of every character and through dialogue, authentic and colloquial, matched to the individual, I am PRESENT. I am THERE. Steinbeck greatly respects his theme, the magnitude of the undertaking: "I went over the whole of the book in my head—fixed on the last scene, huge and symbolic (and I would add brave and unexpected), toward which the whole story moves. And that was a good thing, for it was a re-understanding of the dignity of the effort and mightiness of the theme. I feel very small and inadequate and incapable but I grew again to love the story which is so much greater than I am. To love and admire the people who are so much stronger and purer and braver than I am." Such humility combined with reverence and ambition and incredibly hard work—the sources of greatness. Like many, I resonate to this story today because it presents vividly what immigrants fleeing violence and life-threatening poverty face today. And the homeless too. It dramatizes how many will take advantage of them, some will castigate them as being dirty and threatening and dangerous, and a few generous souls will step forward as Good Saviors to try to help them on their journey. For me, this story cries out for individual and collective action today. We need the equivalent of "Grapes of Wrath" today to reveal viscerally and authentically the challenge that hundreds of thousands of threatened women, men and children face today as they seek safety and freedom for their families. In the broadest sense, this novel presents the urgent need for social justice, understanding and compassion so needed in our world today. As one commentator observed, it is also at once an elegy and a challenge to live in harmony with the earth. Hope and valor present themselves repeatedly in this magnificent novel, but never, ever at the expense of recognizing the raw often brutal challenge of life. The ex-preacher Casy captures this combination of challenge and hope as he describes how a friend looks back on being violently jailed by vigilantes because he had tried to setup a union among exploited workers. "Anyways, you do what you can. The only thing you got to look at is that every time there is a little step forward, she may slip back a little, but she never slips clear back. You can prove that and that makes the whole thing right. And that means there wasn't no waste even it seemed like there was." No matter what, we must continue on. Recalling one of my favorite texts the Talmud: "You are not required to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it." Steinbeck honors the uniqueness and complexity of every individual's life but also the strength to be drawn in being part of something bigger than oneself, ones family above all and the whole of humanity beyond. It is a noble calling. One worthy of our best effort. Posted by John Pepper Email This BlogThis! Share to X Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest No comments: Post a Comment Newer PostOlder PostHome Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Blog Archive ► 2025 (29) ► 2024 (38) ► 2023 (45) ► 2022 (41) ► 2021 (25) ▼ 2020 (36) ► December (1) ► November (1) ► October (4) ▼ September (5) "Grapes of Wrath" byJohn Steinbeck—Personal Reflec... James Baldwin's Mind-Opening, Mind-Challenging "Th... The Fragility of Racial Equality: What It Demands ... Words Which Describe Why Donald Trump Must Be Repl... Trust—The Magic Potion of Every Great Team Effort ► August (3) ► July (1) ► June (2) ► May (3) ► April (4) ► March (3) ► February (4) ► January (5) ► 2019 (51) ► 2018 (44) ► 2017 (29) ► 2016 (39) ► 2015 (40) ► 2014 (16) ► 2013 (13) ► 2012 (9) Social Media Facebook Twitter Labels Living Our Values (168) Politics (104) Business Leadership (37) Education (23) Doug Pepper's Blog Pepperspectives by Doug Pepper About Me About Me Hello, I'm John Pepper. I spent a 39-year career at Procter & Gamble where I served in various roles as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman from 1986-2003. I served as Chairman of the Board of the Walt Disney Company from January 2007 to March 2012. More About Me...

We Must Bite The Bullet. Face Reality..Do What Is Right

We have to stop allowing Netanyahu and Putin to string us along. We have to stop waving our finger and pick up an unyielding and strong club in the cost of justice and humanity. Presidents Netanyahu and Putin have been stringing us along, not for days or months but for years. They say they want “peace,” just like Hitler said he wanted peace when he took over the Sudetenland. All they want is “peace” on their terms and that includes taking territory that they legally had no right to and taking over the lives of people who, in the great majority, don’t want to be with them. I’ve been all of the mind to seek a compromise that would preserve the independent rights of Palestinians and Ukrainians. But I’m afraid I’ve been on a fool’s errand. Neither Netanyahu nor Putin are prepared to accept the rightful independence of the counterparts I’ve mentioned. Putin doesn’t even admit Ukraine is a nation. Netanyahu truly has no interest in or even a glimmer of an opening to allow an independent Palestine to exist. They want land and they want control. What does this unyielding and uncompromising stick for justice and humanity mean? In the case of Russia, it means that we show unyielding intent iand applying power that expresses that intent to demonstrate Russia will not win. We need to go beyond economic sanctions to apply far more military force. I think that probably should involve boots on the ground by European nations in small measure to begin and greater ones if it doesn’t achieve its objective aided by U.S. support for those ground troops in every way needed, e.g., intelligence, air cover, etc. Does this risk a larger war? Perhaps. But so be it. The risk of larger war will loom large until there is resolution of the fundamental issue, which means… Russia must acknowledge the independent entity of Ukraine and stop any further attack on its existence. We need to have an ironclad, NATO-supported treaty in place that would defend Ukraine if Russia attacks as if they are attacking NATO countries. We should under no circumstances agree to Russia acquiring sovereignty of the Donbas region. We may well agree to a ceasefire along battle lines, but we should not confer sovereignty under any conditions. We should, of course, not allow Russia to be part of the security agreement with Ukraine which they are now saying they need to do. As to Israel, we should stop any further aid other than humanitarian aid to Israel, military or other until they stop the indiscriminate bombing and annihilation of Gaza and stop the extended settlement of people on the West Bank. They are taking land illegally given under international law to Palestine. This has to stop. We are past the point of drawing a line in the sand. Trump has tried cajoling, doing anything to get a treaty, in no small measure to get a Nobel Peace Prize for himself. It is borderline absurd. A mind-opening column in The New York Times today by M. Gessen to declaimed the stupidity of terms we are using. We talk about “swapping land” with one of the swappers (Russia) illegally holding that land. In any event, at this point Russia is laying claim to more land than they have claimed. This is outright bribery. Seeking a peace that is peace only in the name of compromise that will not resolve the fundamental issue.

Renouncing the Illegal Use of Force

Reading the essay in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, titled Might Unmakes Right; The Catastrophic Collapse of Norms Against the Use of Force, by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro. Oona, a professor of law at Yale Law School; Scott, a professor of law at Yale Law School and a professor of philosophy, cast a light on the reality we now face. We are seeing a “catastrophic collapse of norms against the use of force” which threatens the future of the world. The essay reminded me that there have been steps to outlaw war as an instrument of policy. Prior to World War I, it was commonly recognized, even international law, that war was a legitimate means to settle grievances. It was not “outlawed.” The horror of World War I led to the creation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Kellogg was the American Secretary of State, Briand the Prime Minister of France. The pact was formally called “The General Treaty for Annunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy.” It acquired 58 signatories, including the United States. It established the principle that aggressive war was illegal, the parties agreed to “condemn recourse of war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in the relations with one another.” They pledged to settle any disputes between them “by civic means.” This pact has been widely mocked as naïve and ineffective because it did not stop World War II. But in truth, as this essay points out, “It set in motion a process that gave rise to the modern international legal order. The authors of the pact, for all their ambition, failed to appreciate the scale of what they had done.” When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, it took U.S. Secretary of State Henry Stimson, a year to draft a response consistent with the pact’s principles. Stimson decided the United States would refuse to recognize Japan’s right to the land it had illegally seized, and the members of the League of Nations soon followed suit. What became known as the Stimson Doctrine became a turning point: Conquest, once lawful, could no longer be recognized. Even if Japan could force China to sign a treaty to give the Japanese the illegally seized land, it would not be recognized as lawful. “Gunboat diplomacy would no longer give rise to valid treaty obligations.” Although Germany and Japan were both parties to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, they flouted it by launching World War II, and they eventually faced its consequences, losing all the territory they conquered by force, and their leaders stood trial at war crime tribunals. The UN Charter extended what the Kellogg-Briand Pact had set in motion, “prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political interventions of any state. During the next eight decades after the charter entered into force, the kind of interstate wars and territorial conquests that had shaped and reshaped national borders for centuries became rare. Great powers had not openly fought a war against one another since 1945, and no U.N.-member state has permanently ceased to exist as a result of conflict. Conflict, of course, has not disappeared, but it has become far less prevalent. The century that preceded World War II saw over 150 successful territorial conquests; and the decades afterward, there have been fewer than 10. A lot of factors have underpinned this result. Certainly, nuclear deterrence and globalization, but this commitment to rule out the use of power cannot be discounted. This is being unraveled by the Trump administration. Threats to take over Greenland and Panama for willy-nilly reasons. And, of course, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have stood up to that invasion and so has the West, so far. We do not recognize it. However, Russia today is asking us to recognize it. Ukraine has not. We are going to have to recommit ourselves to a revamped, renewed international system of renouncing force as a means of achieving political ends; reinforce the integrity of every state, and to provide the enforcing mechanism which will have to depend on much more than just the United States to do it. This was the task faced by leaders coming out of World War I and World War II. This is the task leaders will face going forward tomorrow post the insidious impact of the Trump administration and its policies, which amount to “might makes right.”

What Albert Einstein Has to Teach Us--Or At Least Me--Today

Wisdom from Albert Einstein, drawn from his book of essays, Out of My Later Years I’m going to draw here on extracts from several of Einstein’s essays which contain nuggets of truth which are too good not to write down. In his essay, On Education, written in 1936 he writes modestly, “What source shall I, in the realm of pedagogy, drive courage to expound opinions with no foundations except personal experience and personal conviction.” But that doesn’t give him pause fortunately. “The school has always been the most important means of transferring the wealth of tradition from one generation to the next. This applies today in an even greater degree than in former times through modern development of economic life, the family is bearer of tradition and education has been weakened. The continuance and health of human society is therefore in a still higher degree dependent on the school than formerly.” If true as he asserts then in 1936, how much truer it is today. Einstein goes on to say that it is wrong to think of the school simply as “the instrument for transferring a certain maximum quantity of knowledge to the growing generation.” Rather, it must acknowledge that knowledge is dead and that the school “serves the living.” It should develop in the young individuals “those qualities and capabilities which are of value for the welfare of the commonwealth.” He goes on to make it clear that that doesn’t mean that individuality should be destroyed. On the contrary, he writes, “The aim must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, see in the service of the community their highest life problem.” You don’t only view this by moralizing; Einstein writes; no, you do it by stimulating critical thinking. Today, we see all kinds of things happening that work against this. The State bill being advanced in Ohio that will limit the ability of teachers to teach. Texts in schools that are legitimate to stimulate broad thinking and critical thinking are being banned. “The development of general ability for independent thinking and judgment should always be placed foremost, not the acquisition of special knowledge", Einstein asserts. The realization of this is what made my four years at Yale University so meaningful to me and my contact with the professors at that university and my reading ever since so continually meaningful. ***** There is this painful message from Einstein in his essay, A Message to Intellectuals, written in 1946. He laments the tragedy that, “While mankind has produced many scholars so extremely successful in the field of science and technology, we have been for a long time so inefficient in finding adequate solutions to the many political conflicts and economic tensions which beset us. Man has not succeeded in developing political and economic forms of organization which would guarantee the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the world. He has not succeeded in building the kind of system which would eliminate the positivity of war and banish forever the murderous instruments of mass destruction.” Einstein celebrates that in “the smaller entities of community life, man has made some progress to breaking down the antisocial sovereignties. This is true, for examples, of life within cities and, to a certain degree, even a society with individual states. But in relation to separate states (nations), complete anarchy still prevails. I do not believe that we have made any genuine advance in this area during the last few thousand years.” Written about 80 years ago, Einstein’s verdict would remain the same. There have been a few examples of progress, the European Common Market being the chief one, in my view, but our overall progress has been abysmal. Can we ever overcome the acquisitive, selfish elements of our human nature, the competitive elements that will lead usform the structures and way of working together and mindset that will allow us to live in peace in the centuries to come? It has only been crisis that has brought nations together. We have a crisis today, but we don’t recognize it as such. Is it possible that somehow, against all contrary evidence, we will have the wise and courageous leadership to prevail? Einstein previewed these sentiments on an essay he wrote 13 years earlier, in 1933: Science and Civilization. In this he lamented: “The questions which concern us are: How can we save mankind and spiritual acquisitions of which we are the heirs? How can one save Europe from a new disaster?" He closed on the hopeful thought: “Only through perils and upheavals can nations be brought to further developments. May the present upheavals lead to a better world. Above and beyond this valuation of our time we have this further duty, to care for what is eternal and highest among our possessions, that which gives life its import and which we wish to hand on to our children fewer and richer than we received it from our forbearers.” We’ve had periods of peace since then, triggered importantly by the specter of destruction wreaked by World War II, but those periods have not lasted, they have not been sustained with a new mindset and government structures which would flow from it and which we and this world we live in need to not only thrive but survive.

DEI Should Be A "No Brainer"

I want to explain why I think “DEI” is a no-brainer and I will do that by breaking it down and consider what it’s about, concretely. Why do I say a “no-brainer?” Consider this: What organization would disagree with the belief that in order to have the strongest possible orgaization today, one representative of the consumers it serves, it is important to attract, have and provide support for a diversity of employees? Diverse in race, gender, ethnicity, and also in thinking styles and in leadership styles. What organization would disagree with the fact that there is no value in having diversity if people don’t feel “included?” If they don’t feel able to express their genuine point of view-- that they can express themselves without walking on egg shells? If they don’t feel that they can risk themselves in the organization; if they don't feel it is “home" for them? What organizational leader would disagree that it’s important to give every group a fair chance to be included in the organization. Or would disagree it was important to recognize obvious gaps in the organization whether it be of race or gender or functional expertise or thinking style. Consider this: When we go out to add new board members (not only employees), we think about, “What do we need that we don’t have enough of now?” This is what equity is about. What’s clear to me is that when you break down what we’re talking about in diversity, equity and inclusion, almost nobody would disagree. It is only as this concept has been weaponized by the acronym “DEI” and when, in some cases, we have gone overboard in the application of DEI, both in the way it’s taught and organizational structure, that we get in trouble. My simple point is that going back 50 years, I have come to appreciate the importance of diversity in contributing to sustained business success and, over these years , I have become more and more aware of how important it is for people to feel included. And, yes, over time, how important it is to be crystal-clear on where we have gaps in the make-up of our organization and are not achieving equity in the way we should and hence are failing to achieve all the organizational strength and business results we are capable of. I am not alone in having this experience. Countless leaders in every type of organization have shared that they have had the same experience in building and sustaining success.