The truth is, we can only control efforts, not outcomes. Sometimes things aren't your fault, you are the victim and while believing its your fault may shield you from feeling bad about it, it ultimately sets you up for failure. When you believe everything is within your control you're in for a rude awakening because a lot of bad random shit will end up happening. Once enough bad things pile up and you're still thinking its your fault, those feelings you're trying avoid by pretending you're all powerful will begin to bubble up and then you think "not only is everything my fault, but no matter how much I learn I just can't get most things right. So now I'm in control and suck at it".
This is classic avoidance. A defense mechanism. A more healthy attitude would be to identify what is in your control as well as realize and admit the things that are out of your control and cope with them as they come. By all means, take responsibility and he in control of your life because lord know most people aren't but also remember that there's no shame in admitting some bullshit happened that was out of your control and subsequently feeling bad about it.
What happens if there's a natural disaster? It's your fault you didn't predict it and lived or worked in a certain place? What about a key figure in your business dying suddenly? Are you at fault for not keeping good enough watch? The example of someone being rude right in the article is a great one! Of course it isn't your fault if someone is rude (at least not always)! Sometimes people have shitty days or attitudes and it has nothing to do with you! Besides being a defense mechanism you could argue that this attitude may stem from egomania.
That's the literal view of Derek's post, and it's completely naive one.
The opposite view is just as unhealthy - seeing yourself as the constant victim; it will equally get you nowhere. Civers is not a dumb enough guy to advocate either of these extremes.
It's about creating a mindset that enables you take to take more action in dealing with your own problems. Expanding your own view of your sphere of influence to its maximum potential.
TL;DR - the view isn't solely about anyone's fault, or some strategy of how to dole out blame; it's about maximising your own ability to make a difference.
"It's one of those base rules like “people mean well” that's more fun to believe, and have a few exceptions, than to not believe at all."
That part makes it seem alright but the way he talks about power and choosing this over forgiveness and the emphasis he places on having power as well as the importance he places on thinking of a situation in such a way that it avoids the realities of disappointment make it seem like its coming from an unhealthy place.
It's almost as if he's saying "I've found a way to avoid feeling bad about any negative thing that's out of my control" rather than what you're saying he means which would be something like "if you think of everything as being in your control then you'll find you actually do have more power over certain things than you think".
You can take either from this piece and I don't think it's naive at all to find an unhealthy attitude in this. It is very likely that he meant it in the way you say and that part I quoted backs that up. However, besides that one line, his tone and everything else he says in this piece comes off to me as someone training themselves to be avoidant in such a way that it can be construed as a virtue.
I've had my mother get mugged on her way to home (no money stolen, but some psychological trauma). Was there anything she could have done? Learn to defend herself? I doubt it. Sometimes things are still beyond our control.
I still agree with the blog post and loved it to bits. Simply because blaming others seems to be a default position for many (I know it often is for me), and it truly is a trap. Seeing it from another perspective is refreshing and vital. And it is always, always true (that it's our fault) when it comes to our inner state, to how we feel and think about what happens, and, last but never least, of how we treat others. Of that we are truly the masters -- but even there you could mention deception, (involuntary intake of) drugs or brain defects. So, it's not that simple.
Life can also be cruel and random and there is fuck all you can do about it other than suffer and/or die. Accepting that and still saying yes to life is kind of a superpower, too.
Traffic accidents are the sort of thing that, as a society, there is plenty that can be done to improve our chances that we're not doing yet. There are also a lot of things you can do as an individual to improve your changes (driving fast in fog is obviously a bad idea even though people do it all the time). But of course you can't control what other people do.
Consider too that natural disasters are not central to any number of locations. They can happen anywhere, any time, and come in any number of forms. You're not safe anywhere from them. That's why it's a perfect example. Because its something all people are prone to and that no amount of preparation can guarantee you safety from.
But I think they're a good example of things that we can't always prepare for as individuals - it requires a group effort and that involves politics. There is a lot of resistance against, for example, attempts to stop rebuilding in known flood zones.
I would say that plane crashes are a good example. We can talk about the odds of being in a plane crash but they're not really random - there are always reasons. Also, there is a reason why commercial flights are considerably safer than driving. It's not because flying is inherently safer, but because as a society we put a lot of effort into making them that way.
There aren't ANY guarantees in life (except maybe this one), but I think the point of the article is to try to show the benefits of an internal locus of control. There will probably be things in everyone's life that they have little power over, but that does not mean they are completely helpless. Rare is a situation where any action on someone's part has a 0% chance of changing the outcome.
Furthermore, this trivializes the situation of those that feel burdened by failure.
step 1 - Here is a problem. [goto 2]
step 2 - Do we need to assign blame at this moment? If yes [goto 3]. If no [goto 4]
step 3 - Assign blame [goto 4]
step 4 - Is this a problem I should be involved in solving? If yes [goto 5]. If no [goto 6]
step 5 - Help solve problem [goto 6]
step 6 - Problem does not exist. Do we need to assign blame at this moment? Go right ahead.
All of this should go without saying, since this is the essence of the engineering and hacker ethos, and we can therefore make the assumption that at a website called "Hacker News", everyone understands this intuitively. But if you look downthread, you will see that some people legitimately don't think like problem solvers yet.
FTFY>>>Step 3(assign blame) is unnecessary if and only if assigning blame doesn't help solve the problem. A pragmatic will realize this, and skip step 3 when it is unnecessary to assign blame at that point in the process- you get to the solution on step 5 faster.
Upon careful reading of your comment, I imagine that this is what you meant, but some people will read your version and imagine that you are saying that "assigning blame generally doesn't help solve the problem". It's the problem of [logical AND &&] vs the English construction [ , and ] which can mean the start of a new semi-related clause. Note that I did try to hint at this in my description of (step 2) - Do we need to assign blame "at this moment"?
Completely agree with your second sentence.
One specific edge case for small teams or for individuals - the process of assigning blame can reveal toxic team members (one of which could be you). Getting rid of a bad team member has the potential to speed things up radically.
In large organizations, assigning blame can often be done in parallel with fixing the problem. I would imagine that the benefit of the fix would generally outweigh the benefit of the blame. However there can be good reasons for management to demand that you offer up the scapegoat(as opposed to a sacrificial lamb) before your team gets permission to fix a problem. One of them is the small team edge case that I mentioned.
Example: George Orwell's "5 Rules For Effective Writers".
Did Orwell "come up with this" or was there "inspiration" from Hemingway's 5 tips for writers?
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.
Another example, is Apple a design company? http://i.imgur.com/whMW7.jpg I bet you that Braun designers would happily take the credit for those very "inspired" Apple products. But I would also bet that the Braun people had some "inspiration" of their own, perhaps from a certain group of Greek folks... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
The title of the original article is link-baity and it worked; but the whole idea of locus-of-control is that it give people a perception that they have control over their lives and it has them take actions that are consistent with that, which generally gives better outcomes.
Like Buddhism, it's about balance. Too much of focusing on blaming either side is neither constructive and may not reflect actual reality which is what we're trying to understand. I find the trick to deal with this is to recognise that we can sometimes feel guilty/blame someone and get so engrossed into exploring the scenario we forget the big picture.
This normally yields useful insight, understanding, and actionable ideas. Blaming others or the situation normally does not.
At it's core, this is about accepting and embracing agency - you have the power to effect changes. I think that so many people in the modern world suffer from learned helplessness, where they think that the situation leaves them with no ability to impact events. This is false. Something went wrong? Try something else!
 Important Note: This is about things that I do, not things that I am. If you blame yourself innately, that's bad and leads to low self-confidence. It's not yourself, it's your actions - and actions are changeable.
This is a useful attitude. As news goes up the corporate ladder, it inevitably is colored in the most positive possible light. (http://www.davar.net/HUMOR/JOKES/SHIT.HTM is a funny, but true, take on this phenomena.) You need a constant vigilance for problems at the top to counteract it. And the common willingness to rest on your laurels and deflect blame elsewhere is not going to lead to that willingness.
Step back from your solipsistic convictions for five minutes and realize that your rationalizations here only serve the purpose of avoiding forgiveness. You have decided that not only are you not a victim but in fact you and you alone are responsible for everything and therefore you don't ever need to forgive anyone. Moreover you have now implicitly made the rest of the world victims. Hm...
On the other hand, I read this part and realized the OP had jumped the shark:
Someone was rude to me today? My fault. I could have lightened their mood beforehand.
It's your fault if you aren't psychic? It's your fault if others can't have common decency? No, at that point, you are looking for a way to say that you control the entire world. I completely agree with my parent's choice of wording: solipsism.
Spend time meditating and introspecting. Talk with objective third parties. It is important for you to learn when you screwed up and how to not screw up in the future.
But don't forget that people are agents unto themselves. Sometimes they do stupid, mean, and ignorant things. If you don't learn to forgive those actions, you will either carry a lot of guilt (How could I let my friend be mugged because I didn't catch an earlier flight home? It's my fault!) or a lot of anger (All muggers must die!). There is a peaceful middle ground that enables you to work on solving the systemic problems without idealizing away the smaller percentage of outright bad actors.
So, no, it's not your fault.
But that's not what he means, and not really what he's writing about. The way I read this, he's proposing a shift in world view. People are difficult and unpredictable creatures, but, if I were smart enough, I would understand how they work. I could have been smart enough or empathetic enough to realize this stranger had a bad day, and say something nice to him to cheer him up. I could have been smart enough to get a better security system for my house. If I really cared about global warming, I could try to become a U.S. senator (or some other powerful politician) and try to change it.
By saying, "It's my fault", what the OP means is, "If I really cared about this, and was smart/strong/etc enough, I could have worked to fix/prevent this". This isn't about "[controlling] the entire world". It's about believing that you have control over your life, and about realizing that blaming others (whether in an angry or forgiving sense) is entirely useless in terms of practicality. If you blame others for anything, you're saying that there's nothing you could've done, and letting others determine your life.
I understand that in some regards, this is a bit silly. It's not my fault that someone had a bad day, and it's not my fault that I don't know them well enough to make them feel better. It's not my fault they were rude to me. But I'd rather pretend it's my fault and think about ways that I could handle the situation better in the future than just blame it on external forces and allow myself to repeat the same mistakes.
What I've started noticing, though, is that after doing this for a couple of years, when it's become automatic, it gets difficult to differentiate between "for the sake of learning, let's assume this is my fault" and "this is actually my fault". And at that point, it's hard not to get depressed in the face of adversity... after all, it's all your fault.
I've started blaming other people more – mind you, from a baseline of never doing so – and it has done wonders for my well-being and self-esteem.
So, yeah, it's a good trick, but do your very best to keep in mind it's only a trick.
Also, it's interesting to compare Sivers' heuristic with that of Martin Seligman ("Learned Optimism") who recommends that while you shouldn't necessarily avoid taking blame, you should try to compartmentalize it as much as possible and never assume your failings are due to some fundamental flaw in your character.
I ask myself, in a non-judging way, "what could I have done differently?" Sometimes the answer is "nothing" - you just caught someone on a bad day. But sometimes there are some things I can change about my behavior. If so, I try to incorporate that and go forward.
Whatever happened has already happened. You can't go back and change it, so there's no point in ruminating on it. But you can change how you behave in the future, and that's what a lesson is for.
I get that OP isn't being completely literal or universal. But there is a whole class of neurotic self-blamers out there that could stand to learn the opposite lesson: some things are not your fault.
However, the "rude to me" example put it over the edge. At that point, it really doesn't read as "really introspect and figure out what I did wrong". Instead, it reads as "literally everything is my fault". And nothing in the article softened that view.
Derek commented elsewhere he agrees with you, so I'm not here second-guessing how he feels. I do think, however, that somebody coming in and taking this as advice for how to live could wind up in a world of hurt.
I buy "A whole lot of the crap that happens to me is my fault (much more than I give credit to)", but "It's all my fault" is wrong and dangerous.
Sun Tzu figured out the sphere of influence over 2,000 years ago - you don't control the weather, but you can take an umbrella.
Interestingly enough, the things OP cites are indeed things he had at least a degree of control over before they came to the results he mentions.
I found the post refreshingly insightful.
Let's get the $9000 example. If you were cheated out of $9000, you can stop at "this guy was a con artist" and just feel bad. Or you can say "I have to do these and these checks next time somebody asks me for $9000" - and then next con artist maybe won't get that lucky with you. Because you can't change how next guy behaves, but you can change how you behave.
But it's not about the initial worldview (i.e the title of the post), but how it enables you to view things, and act on them, in consequence.
Striving to take more action on the things you care about is practically never a bad things, and that's what Derek is wanting to achieve, not single-handedly shoulder the entire world's problems by claiming himself the sole contributor of all of its events.
It doesn't mean you can put everyone on yourself. However, it's the difference between saying you don't have a job because of the government, and you don't have a job because you spent no time improving your situation.
> You have decided that not only are you not a victim but in fact you and you alone are responsible for everything and therefore you don't ever need to forgive anyone.
The reality is, you are misrepresenting what is being said. Maybe it's just ignorance. But the lesson is simple: you can either blame other people on your problems (which will never be productive), or you can work and see what you can do to solve these problems (which will always be productive). If this means forgiving someone for a failure, that's what you do.
That is much different than blaming someone.
The point is that even if the other party acted a lot more 'wrong' than I did, it is still surprisingly often true that I could have completely prevented it. Furthermore, I am significantly more responsible for avoiding damage to me than someone else is. Once you realize that, an attitude of 'everything is my fault' naturally follows, and I applaud it.
EDIT: slightly shortened
There are of course extremes though - it may be the case that you are not responsible for everything that goes on, but the CEO of a company is responsible for the culture, politics and other things the author mentions.
I figure my current experiences are not very valuable to others. It's only valuable once I've learned something sharable from it, and that usually only happens in hindsight.
But it won't. These people have some great advice and knowledge to share and I, like the rest of us, are more than willing to take it in and implement it but an article like this is dangerous and not good advice. But it's hard to recognize that when it comes from someone prominent because if they're so successful and they think like that then logic dictates that if we do it too we'll have an advantage, right? Not always. Each of us perceives the world differently and we gt by in our own unique way. I guarantee that if any one of us normals became prominent figured and successful in startup culture then there'd be stories and legends of some obscure thing we do that made us successful. I'd also be willing to bet we write about some of those things and people would cling to every word, applaud it, and think to themselves "I've gotta try that!" whether it was a good idea or not. It's not that anyone is trying to give bad advice, it's just that we don't know it.
Forgiving people implies that said person has done something to wrong you. Thus, you're still placing the blame on other people. Research has shown that blaming others is ineffective at best, and harmful at worst.
The best approach: forgive yourself. Accept that you've done something wrong (even if you didn't realize it at the time), figure out what you could have done to prevent it, and then get over it. Life's too short to play the blame game, even with yourself.
You don't control the weather, the people in the streets, the companies sending you checks, the currency exchange rates, etc.
You can effectively control the weather you get by moving to another city/country. The companies sending you checks are 100% in your control - it's your career choice.
Not sure why you'd want to control the people in the streets - sounds a wee bit tyrannical :-)
I'm reading Quality Software Management Volume 1 Systems Thinking by Gerald M. Weinberg. Page 111' 7.3 It's not the event that counts, it's your reaction to the event... Whenever there is a [i]human decision point[/i] in the system, it's not the event that determines the next event, but someone's reaction to the event.
No need to get carried away though...
Having said that, and realizing this is a motivational piece "It's my fault" is a complex statement (combining loaded notions of Self & Fault), and some interpretations allows (you or others) to sweep real issues under the carpet.
When sh*t happens the real thing to do is to admit that there was a failure instead of denying it and have a frank conversation about it with the parties involved instead of blaming others. (Note: sometimes the same person may take both parts of this conversation.) Sometimes it helps to separate Responsibility from Accountability, and assessing "fault" usually is counter-productive in this regard. In contrast, the Truth and Reconciliation movement in South Africa is a prominent example of coming to peace without placing blame. There, they separate concerns which gives room to people to more easily admit their mistakes.
Lots of good stuff here, but I never found the reason I would most hope for: No one gives a shit.
In business, we all see it every day: who did this, who did that, who said what, who was right, who was wrong, who is hurt, who is angry, blah, blah, blah. The gossip part of our brain wants to hear more, but the business side doesn't; it just sounds like a whole bunch of played out drama.
Better to just shut and move on. Glad you did. Just not sure I'm glad why you did it.
This quote from his essay makes it clear that he isn't a dogmatic adherent to this principle. Instead, it's a productive default way of approaching a situation.
He's not saying to let everyone out of jail. But you knew that.
For a woman assaulted while they were wearing sexy clothes, well, is there much evidence that you're actually in more danger when you do that? Even if a woman makes herself some iota safer by dressing down, wouldn't that make things an iota worse for every other woman out there who might want to decide differently.
Just because you can prevent a failure by making different choices doesn't necessarily mean that you should. I might be able to protect myself from betrayal by never trusting anyone, from hear-break by never loving, but that doesn't make either of those the right decision.
That's NOT forgiving. That's playing the victim, them being wrong and charitably pardoning their horrible deeds mumbojumbo. "And then they bitterly stabbed each other again..."
Forgiving means deciding to let go of what has happened; letting go as in not letting what has happened influence your future life and decisions, and forgiving starts from yourself. The act of forgiveness is to free yourself from the past events. It goes like first realizing that past is past, you can't change it and nobody else can change it either, and that ultimately the suffering seeps not from what had happened but from the way how you still take it, and eventually realizing that generally you're just so much better off not thinking about it anymore, regardless of if you win or lose the corresponding power struggle inside of your head.
When you've already removed yourself from any emotional entanglements it's basically a no-op to forgive someone else because at that point you no longer care about what s/he has done. It's good to forgive others to encourage them to let it go but it's not necessarily for your own recovery.
From the description of Battered Person Syndrome :
- The abused thinks that the violence was his or her fault.
- The abused has an inability to place the responsibility
for the violence elsewhere.
At least when I read this, the message I got is that it's easy to blame yourself when overthinking failures, but in reality it takes two to tango.
Your girlfriend dumped you out of the blue? Where was her communication? That guy that stole $9,000? He's still a thief. Those are things out of your control.
>The guy that stole $9000 from me? My fault. I should have verified his claims.
which could also take the form of:
>My domestic partner abuses me physically? My fault. I shouldn't have entered a relationship with this abusive person, and should have removed myself from the relationship before it escalated to physical violence.
In this manner, you would acknowledge the role that the abusive partner played in the violence, but also acknowledge the steps that you could have taken to prevent being the target of violence.
There is a name for this, which is "martyr complex": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr_complex
I personally have a lot of guilt and beat myself quite a bit, but I also realize constantly being the martyr and assuming I have control means my ego is as big as it is when I always blame others.
While blame can be placed and responsibility can be taken, that is a trap. It happens to be a trap that most of the country is in. It is Bush's fault. It is Obama's fault. Sound familiar? Instead we should be saying "How can we work together to make things better?" Sometimes feelings run too deep to switch into a Kanban philosophy where life is a constant process of potential and realized amelioration. We don't have to be liberals, conservatives, or martyrs to do that.
That said, Derek, I think realizing the leader should take responsibility is a great lesson for all. It is a step towards enlightenment.
'What could I have done to make the situation better?'
Almost all situations are influenceable.
In general, this seems like something that should be done in moderation. A willingness to accept responsibility for some things and be proud that you aren't blaming someone for an outcome you created is healthy. At the same time, feeling as if you have the power to affect everything is not healthy. Some things are just outside of your control.
If you have a propensity to blame life and everything else in it for your woes then this is a great mindset.
A lot more of your life is under your control than you think. This attitude of "Its my fault" will let you discover a lot of those things.
It's not that everything is my fault, it's that how my life goes is my responsibility. Born poor? That sucks, but what are you going to do about it? Even if you could find someone to blame for it, what good would it do? What possible effect could it have to find someone to point a finger at? If the answer is "no effect what so ever" then you're better off just taking responsibility for your situation and trying to do something about it.
In contrast, I have friends/family members who, no matter what experience based advice I might offer, have someone or something to blame for why they won't be able to take it and why they'll have to just remain miserable. And their situation doesn't change (maybe changing it really is outside of their power, but if so they certainly don't articulate this well). So I just don't see an advantage of their strategy.
No, it's not my fault if e.g. my country suddenly slaps a ridiculous tax on new businesses making my venture a negative value proposition over night. But I can still have some response other than just pointing my finger.
Though I think it is a tad unfortunate that some remarks here are taking it too literally when it was clearly intended as lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek.
I respect Derek Sivers a lot, for a lot of things. But I honestly think, this one lacks the punch of some of his other (earlier) writings. For example, he was at his insightful best in 'ideas are just a multiplier of execution'. When I read that, I was blown away, "what clarity!" I thought. And it seemed like a genuine outpouring of a Doer.
But this one is ambivalence at its peak. Sort of Chicken-soupish. It lacks the balance, and is a bit extremist. Any very unlike the writings of a stoical mind (And please-please, I am not pulling any punches at all. I hold Derek Sivers, in high esteem. But even gurus, need some candid feedback at times), which I am sure he is, most of the times.
Looking at my own behavior, it is almost always possible to find something I could have done differently that would have avoided an undesirable outcome. Over time this has improved my intuition of whether certain actions are better avoided, even if doing them is theoretically something that should be just fine.
Concrete example: you could complain about getting hit by a car yesterday, or you might re-examine what was so important that you decided that driving two hours a day was a good idea.
To accept the obvious truth is really liberating. It takes away all bad feelings you had for people involved on situations where you've felt the victim. And it also makes you see that if you're responsible for your mistakes, you're also responsible for your success. There's no luck, it's your responsability to make things right.
Choose the moments to accept the blame carefully, like when no one else will accept it. In my experience, the consequences have never been bad and most people kind-of know you're taking one for the team and respect it. It defuses issues quickly and everyone can get on with fixing the problem.
I think this is what some Americans might refer to as being a stand-up guy. The only thing that surprises me is that this is news to anyone.
Of course a complete apology feels good, it provides absolution. It will feel even better if forgiveness is tendered by the employees. But to reiterate the real challenge is not getting into situations like this in the future.
I used to think the way you did, and then I discovered sociopathy was real. There are people who quite like hurting others, and there's no point in appealing to their empathy because they don't have any.
The best that can be done with these people is to give them incentives to cooperate.
If one accidentally ends up with one of these as an employee or a boss, one could fairly blame them... unless one also takes responsibility for sociopathy-detection.
And I don't like manipulating people. Yes, it's a lot easier. yes, leaders do that non-stop. But personally I can't get around to doing that.
Also, if everyone was doing it, we'd probably play a much higher level of "manipulation game" and feel fake about everything we do.
The truth is that is everybody's fault when a bad thing happens. A more in depth view can be found at http://lucianmarin.com/archive/everybody-fault — I don't want write it twice, so sorry for the link.
Take a look at the happiest couple you know. They aren't happy because they are perfect for each other and always have the same opinion, but rather because they are forgiving of each other's faults.
A short amount of therapy has taught me that I was always searching myself to blame for everything. This is inherent to very insecure people.
I felt very much happier when I realized that some things really are not my fault.
As with almost everything, you have to find a right balance for this.
You had terrible, awful expectations. You expected your employees to be dedicated to the benefit of your clients rather than themselves? This is capitalism. People have jobs because those jobs provide THEM a benefit. Especially today, where you as an employer make ABSURD margins of profit off of everything your employees do (as worker productivity is astronomically high thanks to computers and such - just ask yourself how productive your company would be if you banned any technology produced after 1980. Couldn't survive, could you? Yet, companies did. And they paid their employees the same average wages you are paying now. You're just getting far more benefit.)
Pick up a book on capitalism. It's likely not what you think it is. It is not workers making as little as possible sacrificing everything for corporate praying that one day they'll win the lottery and become CEO. That's not capitalism. Capitalism is based on free exchange to mutual benefit of both parties. Your clients use your business because it benefits them. You tend to your clients because it benefits you. Win-win. Your employees work for you exclusively and only because it provides them substantial benefit, and you provide them that benefit because you make profit off of them. Win-win.
Expecting a worker to be dedicated to your company above their own interests is disgusting. You would not in a thousand years consider cutting your projected profits in order to improve their salaries, so there is no reason whatever for them to display any loyalty to you. Workers do not exist to work. They are human beings who exist to seek their own enjoyment, and if you as an employer fail to provide adequate pay/benefits/etc they will leave you to fail on your own. That is how it should be.
There is an escape. If you really do want to build an organization with invested, loyal coworkers, you can. The first step is to read a book on capitalism. Understand what a persons compensation is supposed to be based upon. It is not supposed to be based upon market average rates. It is supposed to be based upon the value of the work being done. If one employee earns a million dollars for the organization, that employee deserves most of it. If you want people to be invested, you have to actually make it in their best interests to do so. Right now, it is explicitly AGAINST their interests to be productive for you. It can't help them, and can only cost them. You'll cap them out at what they can make based on 'market rates'. And the chance of them rising to senior management is an invitation to self destruction with no payoff.
Employees are not going to be dedicated to the poisonous cesspit modern business has become. Just not going to happen. It's not your fault, and it's not theirs. And you cannot fix it while maintaining the kind of absurd growth figures and profit margins that modern businesses are taught to expect.