Umair Haque argues in a blog post today "The Case for Being Disruptively Good." Haque poses the question: how is it in the self-interest of a business to act in ways that are socially responsible? It's an interesting argument, although I think his reference to Wall Street in support of his theory actually dismantles it. But it is intriguing to contemplate whether hyper-connectivity and its resulting transparency challenge the ethical models of corporations. I'm not so optimistic. Haque notes: "Yesterday, the global economy was built on debtors' prisons, usury, expropriation, colonialism, and slavery. Today, it isn't. " I'm reading Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation right now. I can't see the case for progress quite so clearly.
I think most people, whether they work in entry-level jobs or the corner executive suite, want their work to mean something. A person fully employed spends more waking time at work than doing those things that bring emotional enrichment to their lives. We really don't want just a paycheck in return for our individual production. We want to make a contribution, and to make a positive difference in the lives of customers and co-workers.
And yet, people at all levels of any company routinely make decisions that harm customers and co-workers. I don't think most people are evil. I think we can all be unmindful of the power we have in our relationships to harm others, and are too uninterested to understand the context before making a decision. When Wal-Mart's HR policies are criticized in the press for being socially irresponsible, I tend to think that the people who set those policies weren't so much evil as disconnected from the employees who were affected negatively by the policies and perhaps too connected (exclusively) to the people in the boardroom. When a customer relates an incident where she felt wronged by an employee's comments or behaviors, I likewise tend to see the failing as a result of disconnect rather than personal morality. But the employees harmed by their employer or the customer harmed by an employee could both, rightfully, judge those actions evil.
I think most people, whether they work in entry-level jobs or the corner executive suite, want their work to mean something. A person fully employed spends more waking time at work than doing those things that bring emotional enrichment to their lives. We really don't want just a paycheck in return for our individual production. We want to make a contribution, and to make a positive difference in the lives of customers and co-workers.
And yet, people at all levels of any company routinely make decisions that harm customers and co-workers. I don't think most people are evil. I think we can all be unmindful of the power we have in our relationships to harm others, and are too uninterested to understand the context before making a decision. When Wal-Mart's HR policies are criticized in the press for being socially irresponsible, I tend to think that the people who set those policies weren't so much evil as disconnected from the employees who were affected negatively by the policies and perhaps too connected (exclusively) to the people in the boardroom. When a customer relates an incident where she felt wronged by an employee's comments or behaviors, I likewise tend to see the failing as a result of disconnect rather than personal morality. But the employees harmed by their employer or the customer harmed by an employee could both, rightfully, judge those actions evil.
Whether intentional or not, the actions were wrongful because of the power the decision-maker held over the other party. In a traditional corporation and in a typical retail environment, the corporation has the power in the relationship. If the power an executive held derived from his or her employees, not shareholders or other executives, the executive would be much more mindful of the context within which boardroom decisions affecting employees are made. If the retail store understands its power derives from its customers, not from the corporation that owns it, behaviors would be different.
It's true that people act differently when their actions are transparent. However, it matters who is observing. Fellow motorists will happily exceed speed limits well beyond acceptable tolerances, until a car with the authority to ticket them appears. Wall Street will continue practices that are self-serving, even if they are clearly not sustainable, until a body with the authority to hold them accountable makes it matter to them. I can't imagine how the financial products companies (I can't in good conscience call them banks anymore) who wrecked the economy would have learned anything from the last couple of years other than: "We have the power." What else could they have learned from the consequences of their actions?
But you don't have to be too big to fail to consider the impact you have -- for the good, or for evil -- on the relationships around you. That is the hyper-connectedness that I think is at the heart of substantive change for the good. First you must be aware, and then seek to understand your responsibility to that relationship.
I'm also reading now The Lemon Tree (Sandy Tolan). It narrates the history of the relationships between Israel and Palestine, on both state and human levels. It is a story of how truly evil people can be to each other (reminiscent of Caligula's line in I, Claudius, which John Hurt so deliciously rendered: "Aren't people awful?" was his comment in response to a litany of particularly sadistic and horrifying acts). But the people in Tolan's book aren't awful at all, in fact they have marvelous and sometimes heroic qualities... within the context of the relationships that matter to them.
We cannot be connected more than superficially to more than a small number of people, those that really matter. Beyond a couple degrees of separation, the relationship has a diminishing power to influence us. But in the workplace, our co-workers, employees and customers should be only one degree away, and they matter.
It's true that people act differently when their actions are transparent. However, it matters who is observing. Fellow motorists will happily exceed speed limits well beyond acceptable tolerances, until a car with the authority to ticket them appears. Wall Street will continue practices that are self-serving, even if they are clearly not sustainable, until a body with the authority to hold them accountable makes it matter to them. I can't imagine how the financial products companies (I can't in good conscience call them banks anymore) who wrecked the economy would have learned anything from the last couple of years other than: "We have the power." What else could they have learned from the consequences of their actions?
But you don't have to be too big to fail to consider the impact you have -- for the good, or for evil -- on the relationships around you. That is the hyper-connectedness that I think is at the heart of substantive change for the good. First you must be aware, and then seek to understand your responsibility to that relationship.
I'm also reading now The Lemon Tree (Sandy Tolan). It narrates the history of the relationships between Israel and Palestine, on both state and human levels. It is a story of how truly evil people can be to each other (reminiscent of Caligula's line in I, Claudius, which John Hurt so deliciously rendered: "Aren't people awful?" was his comment in response to a litany of particularly sadistic and horrifying acts). But the people in Tolan's book aren't awful at all, in fact they have marvelous and sometimes heroic qualities... within the context of the relationships that matter to them.
We cannot be connected more than superficially to more than a small number of people, those that really matter. Beyond a couple degrees of separation, the relationship has a diminishing power to influence us. But in the workplace, our co-workers, employees and customers should be only one degree away, and they matter.
Posts
1 comment:
Very insightful post. Thanks.
Post a Comment