Dear Mr CEO
You said your job is to develop a vision and create an organisation
with the right values that will make that vision a reality, so I thought I
would drop this note in your lap for consideration. It is my contention that
what goes for ‘strategy’ and ‘best practice’ in the modern corporate boardroom
is a terminal degree of “me too-ism”. I think you have bought into a narrative
that is promulgated by people who have a gnostic view of the world and specific
agendas that appeal to the pseudo-thinkers of the world, but are in reality
going to lead your organisation to its premature demise.
OTHER PEOPLE’S
MONEY
Over the years business organisations have been eaten away
slowly from the inside by social justice warriors (SJWs). How this happened, requires
us to go back a few years and in the evolution of the business organisation.
Once you understand that, you will see how it has infested your organisation.
Business organisations used to have a simple, clear
objective: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. To do this, they
innovated, developed products and served the needs of the people in a market
place where those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. The business
wins and the consumer wins.
Your initial reaction may be to think that business has
changed and that things are a lot more complex. You would be right in thinking
that; but wrong in thinking the complexity or the change should be addressed the way companies are being led to respond.
(My view is premised on the idea that a CEO should be the
kind of leader who would like to focus on the business fundamentals rather than
chase social approval by a few so-called progressives who posture so well and
make so much noise one is led to think they are bigger than they really are.)
The thin edge of the wedge has been sustainability,
introduced some two decades ago, by the proponents of sustainability who
proffered a solution to a problem that did not exist. They suggested that
organisations should broaden their focus to include an emphasis on environment
and on community.
There is nothing wrong with sustainability per se – I will
explain soon – but it has been a Trojan Horse for a pernicious social agenda.
Broadening the focus automatically and explicitly also equates
to a dilution
of focus – that stands to reason. And your organisation is paying the price.
That is the guaranteed least impact, and that alone
should make the hair on the neck of any self-respecting CEO stand up. Adding
‘sustainability’ as a filter though which the organisation will flow decisions,
is not additive, it is dilutive to all resources at an organisations disposal,
including management attention. Actually, that is not quite correct; it is
additive in the overhead department.
The reason for the success of the message despite the
obvious cost (loss of focus and additional overhead) is that it seems
‘obvious’ that businesses need a healthy environments and healthy community
to thrive and destroying the environment is tantamount to destroying your
future.
So the social justice warriors (SJWs) would have you
believe. And if you don’t think too deeply you will start believing it.
The SJWs succeed with their message because they have
successfully recast the organisational narrative to cast the business as a
‘citizen’ with a ‘responsibility’. At
first blush it seems reasonable, and as soon as that mindset gained traction
amongst a cadre of unthinking executives, the battle was over.
In effect, the SJWs have succeeded in levying a tax on
business corporations that they are just too happy to pay, since they don’t
realise they are paying it. In practice
a few individuals have succeeded in getting the corporation to fund their own
personal ideologies under the guise of corporate social responsibility.
Isn’t that just super? I get the shareholder to pay for my
warm and fuzzy feelings. That is, a few individuals are outsourcing their
individual responsibilities to the
company.
It doesn’t mean that the cause is not worthy of support. I
am not suggesting that communities don’t need to be healthy, that charities
don’t need money and that the dolphins don’t need saving. The questions I am
raising are:
·
What is the
role of the business corporation in supporting these initiatives?
·
Who should be funding these initiatives?
·
Do executives really understand the slippery
slope they have embarked upon by embracing these causes?
Let’s consider just one aspect of ‘sustainability’ and that
is ‘community’. The idea of healthy communities has become a crack in the
corporate focus that allowed a whole bunch of other socially progressive, typically
post-modern causes to enter the boardroom and then the work place:
·
gender diversity
·
aboriginal affirmative action
·
anti-racism and so forth
Again, on face value, the causes seem worthy, reasonable and
‘just’. Who could argue with that, right? And I repeat – please pay attention –
these causes may well be in and of themselves BE worthy, but that is not the
point.
But, adopting these social causes does come with baggage:
·
One, it further adds to the dilution of business
focus (as mentioned earlier)
·
Two, it perpetuates the practice of individuals
looting the corporate coffer to fund their personal ideology
·
Three, it smuggles multiple assumptions into the
organisation that seriously contaminates the culture of the organisation in ways
that are not immediately obvious. This point is particularly important. The
multiple assumptions smuggled in are for instance:
o
The belief that these programs and initiatives
actually work and are worthy of support – when they rarely work.
o
The impact of these causes is exclusively
beneficial, when it is not.
o
That it is a corporate and not individual
responsibility to propagate these causes
o
That because these causes are (currently) popular and topical, they are also
important.
o
That the impact of supporting the cause is
limited to supporting the cause, when in reality it also impacts culture, moral
ecology and even business productivity.
Let’s unpack some of these assumptions to consider how they
impact the functioning of the business. Consider affirmative action for
instance, and consider the various ways in which the good intentions actually
have the opposite, detrimental impact.
By accentuating ‘race’
in making decisions about promotions, you actually emphasise that this group is
inferior and need special considerations to level the playing field. It
perpetuates a culture of victimhood, which highlights the inequality without
alleviating it. In fact, by promoting someone beyond their level of competence,
you are accelerating their inevitable failure, making it harder to promote the
next person and making it extremely hard for anyone else to believe in the
fairness of the ‘program’. The intention may be noble (to right a wrong) but
the unintended consequences become the reality.
The impact is extended to all employees who feel aggrieved
at losing out on a role, not based on performance or fit for the role, but
because of the colour of their skin. This has an immediate and lasting impact
on motivation and productivity. The reverse also applies of course – if an
Aboriginal person is overlooked for a role despite obvious competence and fit, they
would feel aggrieved and rightfully so. The only
relatively objective course of action is to base it on a clear set of
performance criteria. Affirmative Action is a shortcut. Shortcuts don’t work,
but those pushing the agenda are not the ones paying the price of the failures,
the shareholders are.
Many people want to view history as a series of unpunished
crimes, and feel compelled to right these wrongs. The truth is that the past
cannot be changed. And if the crime of
the past WAS to judge people on the colour of their skin, then it cannot be
remedied by judging people on the
colour of the skin again today. That would simply be perpetuating the
crime, and it is completely illogical to think otherwise.
Once you start factoring in skin colour and sexual organs as
a criteria for advancement, then it opens the door to other non-performance
related criteria. Is their equal representation on the Board (or senior
management) of: Women? Of Black people? Of blind people? Of immigrants? Of
blondes? Can you see how ridiculous it gets very quickly?
As I write this, there is a rally for ‘rangers’ in
Melbourne. (The Ginger Pride rally.)
It is a marketing stunt, but there is no logical reason why it can’t or indeed
shouldn’t be a serious matter. So, here is the million dollar question: HOW are
you going to defend the accusation that you don’t have a proportional
representation of red-haired people on your Board? Because I bet you don’t. And
I bet you can’t prove that you don’t discriminate. Red-haired people ARE being discriminated
against and research
has proven this.
We could also be saying that women need consideration ahead
of the disabled? Or immigrants? On what basis
do you make that decision? These are the decisions that one must attempt when
standing on that slippery slope. Once you depart from an impartial/objective
criterion like performance as the basis for making a decision, you are going
down a path of never-ending compromise, sub-optimal decisions and unproductive
activity. (Performance may not be objective in the true sense of the word, but
it is the most relevant measure that can be impartially evaluated by most
people.)
Consider the facts if I described them neutrally:
There is demand that you support a cause that is prejudiced against majority
of the corporation’s employees, will impact the productivity materially and
gain no commercial advantage but the personal satisfaction of the individual at
the expense of the shareholders.
Will you, spend the money on that ‘cause’? Would you
encourage your managers to do so? Are they all entitled to pick their favourite
cause or are you going to pick the ones you personally feel the strongest about
to spend the shareholders money on?
I am sure this will be misread by many. This is not a racist
or misogynistic position. I am not promoting that we all take an uncharitable
view of the world and not care about community or environment or red-haired
people. I am not specifically making a
case against helping people of colour succeed. I am using that as an example to demonstrate how
these causes have a counter-productive outcome; despite our best intentions.
I am saying that we as individuals
have a collective responsibility to make the world a better place.
But it is for each one of us to decide how we do that and
how we resource it. It is devious, and defeats the point of the exercise when
the only ‘good’ that we do is by forcing other
people (shareholders) into funding our pet projects.
The same applies to those who interpret sustainability as being environmentally conscious. If an operational decision is made that is supposedly good for the environment, but also adds cost to the business then it is not a 'sustainable' outcome. In fact, you are now less competitive and may well go broke. Sustainability means embracing environmentally sensitive actions that ALSO save you money. In that case it is justified on the commerce alone anyway, so you don't need to hang your hat on sustainability for a few corporate cudos and peer recognition.
My message to employees of the corporation would be:
DO YOUR JOB. Do what the shareholders pay you to do. Keep your eye on the main game and add value to the business. Stop making the company a playground for your social theories.
If you really want to make a
difference AND really believed in it, do it on your own time and with your own money.
If everyone in an organisation makes a contribution to their communities that
are authentic with the serious personal investment of their own time and money,
then the individual is securing the environment the corporation needs to thrive
in – healthy communities and healthy environments. It is the individual who
needs to make a difference – in that way actually secures their own futures.
If any person wants alleviate
poverty, they should go do the CEO sleep-out on their own time and donate their
own money. The shareholders may want to save the whales instead. The same goes
for every other ‘cause’:
If you want to promote gender
diversity, then choose to not spend your money in businesses where they
discriminate and force the change you want to see with your personal sacrifice
of not buying something you may have otherwise wanted.
If you want to promote Aboriginal
workplace participation, give up your Saturdays to teach them at the local
community college for free, because I may want to spend my money eradicating
domestic violence.
If you don’t like how
corporations are treating women, divest your shares or stop buying their
product.
Organisations need to seriously rethink their approach to
these SJW causes. It is a slippery slope that will eventually make the
organisation vulnerable to attacks from anyone with an axe to grind who can
demonstrate that their cause does not get the airtime it deserves.
Can you realistically support every cause? And more
importantly, can you really justify why you are supporting those you do and not
any others?
And importantly Mr CEO, what are you going to say to me when
I come to you and suggest that all people who work for our little outfit should
be Anti-Abortion because we can’t have the company endorse people who wilfully
murder the innocent. How are you going to say NO to me (which I guess you will
want to) when I approach you to support such a just cause?
Are you going to say 'no' because it doesn't 'feel' right?
Organisations, are over-run by Social Justice Warriors, and
on the surface their arguments make sense. It has reached the point where these
causes dictate behaviour (code of conduct) and it is only a matter of time
before they dictate strategy.
This same disease manifests itself in other ways too: People
are becoming increasingly litigious because they have divested themselves of
any personal responsibility for falling on an escalator or diving into a
sandbank on the beach. It must surely be someone else’s fault? People increasingly
look to the State to bail themselves out when in a bind. Whether there was bushfire
or a flood, or just a loss of a job; people turn to the State for compensation. That mythical 'someone' must take responsibility for my situation.
People abrogate personal responsibility; that is
self-evident.
People like to support worthy causes and it so much easier
with other people’s money; that too, is obvious.
And if CEOs are not brave enough to call this out, will make
the corporation and its shareholders suffer the dire consequences.
If CEOs choose to embark on a form of social engineering
they are ill-qualified to execute, they will invariably base their decisions on
fickle public opinion of the ‘Cause du Jour’ – a sure recipe for failure.
These SJWs hide in ‘Service’ departments like HR Departments
and Comms departments typically, hardly ever where the business actually gets
done. Those people out there making stuff and selling stuff don’t have the time
to investment in distractions. I have seen it repeatedly in organisations that
the only way these SJWs can justify their existence is to elevate these externalities to internal imperatives.
CEOs are taken along for the ride on the promise that they
are ‘showing leadership’ and will gain the admiration of their peers. Appeal to
vanity has always been powerful and few have been able to resist. Can you resist? (That is a billion dollar
question, actually, and I mean it.)
But if you are really brave, you will break the mould and re-claim
the following:
1.
Any social cause is something that individuals should take responsibility for
and it cannot be outsourced to a corporation. Your corporation can be known for
enabling people (employees) to make a difference in the way that they individually
believe and where it personally matters.
2.
You will stand up for the shareholder and be
honest: no more spending their
money on your causes. You will respect them enough to allow them to
spend their money the way they see fit.
3.
No more artificial decision-making criteria:
people will be judged on their ability and their competence in contributing to
the commercial purpose of the organisation. You respect differences in race and
gender (and any other physical difference) enough to claim that it truly does
not matter. The ultimate sign of respecting the individual is to treat them
equally. No special programs. No mandates. No quotas. Nothing but merit.
4.
The business exists for the purpose of delivering
a return for their shareholders. Many stakeholders benefit from an organisation
that is successful in achieving that, and each stakeholder is respected equally
and they are equally capable of deciding how they want to invest or spend their
returns. No more Big Brother; we trust people to choose wisely in their own
right.
5.
A responsible organisation is not the one that gives the most money
to charitable causes or subscribes to the latest pop-culture cause. It is the
organisation that recognises individual merit, enables the stakeholders to do
good things according to their personal judgment and does not compromise
ethical standards.
6.
There will be a return to the fundamentals of
business: to make a commercial return to their shareholders. That is, to innovate,
develop products and serve the needs of the people in a market place where
those solutions are traded for cash – at a profit. It is a return to focus on
the true reason for being.
Now you can choose to create a new set of values, but they
won’t exist in 5 years’ time either when the next CEO rolls along. And the
reason for it is that the REAL value agenda is being driven by the SJWs. It is built
into the rewards system; it is built into HR policies it is built into
what gets communicated. (See why I say the source of SJW power is usually
HR/Comms?)
Anyway, if you want to articulate a set of values (same or
different) and you want to be successful in shaping the organisation
accordingly, here is the recipe, if I may be so bold:
1.
Make sure you strip the power from the SJWs,
make them (to the extent that you keep them) write the policies that actually
support the values you want to embed.
2.
Differentiate clearly between ‘accountable’ and ‘responsible’:
the people who are supposed to get stuff done are constantly in reporting
meetings justifying decisions instead of dealing with the issues.
3.
I’d probably pick one word; say ‘productive’,
and then focus on that. It is word that can be used to guide day-to-day
decision making. The actual focus world does not matter, as long as it is a
functional word that can’t be hi-jacked for anything. People just need focus – a real, believable vision. Imagine the
transformation that could happen when if we asked about every ‘plan’ and every
‘meeting’ and every ‘process’ if that is the most productive way of doing
business?
I know I make it look and sound simple, but it would be very
hard to pull it off. You would certainly be going against the stream of
‘me-too’ CEOs who are being led down the garden path, and that would be
an achievement in itself.
The ‘values’ that we want and don’t have are outcomes. What
you have to sort out is the inputs and the process. If you want to make better
cake, you change the ingredients and the process of making it. The outcome is
what it is.
If you want to do
that, you need to be in control. So long as the SJWs are running the agenda,
you are not in control.
I hope you have the courage to rid your organisation of this
baggage, intellectual, physical and human. If you do that, then your
organisation may again become our organisation.
Thanks for reading,
A sincere and hopeful employee
Comments