Aiming for Centre (Part 3)

To live from the ego is to care more about being righteously justified with our actions or having our myopic beliefs validated than being a conduit for truth, or doing good deeds that in their impact reverberate beyond the self-serving concerns of our tribe/s (how often have you heard the claim made that you need to think a certain type of way about an event in order to be on the ‘right side of history’). This is problematic on a number of fronts, not least because that attachment to being right will blind us to any errors in our worldview. What are commonly defined as ‘alternative facts’ that we can push to make the case for our ideological positioning have their roots in this denial, as the ego can’t tolerate having to face a reality that is different from the story it tells itself, and us, which we will uncritically digest to have our preferred identitarian constructions affirmed. Here, I am reminded of a Costanza-ism from one of my favourite sitcoms Seinfeld, where one of the main characters George puts forward that “it is not a lie if you believe it”.

But how grounding or mutually life enhancing is this perspective? If anyone reading this has ever seen that show, they will quickly come to realise what a dysfunctional cretin George’s character actually is, and taken outside of the realm of fictional comedy, the real-world effects of such a crooked ethic can have truly devastating consequences for vulnerable groups of people who are cast as sub-human by a dominant group that is intent on eliminating them or using them for instrumental purposes. History is replete with examples of this occurring to justify an appalling range of behaviours. For slave traders and owners to treat the people they ‘owned’ as chattel, they first had to conceive of those slaves as a lesser form of being. The same can be said of the Nazis who routinely dehumanised Jews by labelling them as ‘vermin’, ‘rats’ and ‘parasites’, or the Hutu militias, who in the Rwandan genocide commonly referred to the Tutsis as ‘cockroaches’.

Often it is the case that those who preach tolerance are the very people who are least capable of practicing it. Lying at the root of their hypocrisy is a fractured state of being that in its external manifestation will only serve to provoke opposition or exacerbate conflict. How often have you been in a discussion with someone and then the conversation goes off the rails when either they or you say something that is blatantly hypocritical? That dissonance may also involve behaviour that does not accord with one’s stated beliefs (the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ phenomena). I know in my own disagreements with other people that what will often trigger my anger away from any legitimate points they are making is when they perform mental gymnastics to claim something that benefits their argument while denying the contradiction or undermining of their previously stated position. When this occurs, what I find triggering is not that they might think differently than I do, but that they are willing to distort the truth to achieve an outcome that is favourable to them. I don’t think it would be too extreme to say that it is reprehensible for someone (including ourselves) to be willing to sacrifice the ‘capital T’ Truth that underpins reality in order to preserve the ‘small t’ subjective truth that is represented by their ideological worldview.

To have any hope of salvaging such an interaction, I would have to refrain from invoking my ego in kind and probe beyond their inconsistent logic to get at the heart of what is actually going on. While this remains challenging to accomplish as one remains a participant to a debate, an independent arbiter can fill that role and adjudicate on what the parties are putting forward. Here, we see another benefit of the centrist who by not having a proverbial dog in the fight can serve as an ally in brokering peace, or at least a common understanding between the parties that can form the basis of mutually beneficial action moving forward. As they occupy this neutral territory, they can also act as a conduit of what is fair and just between the parties. While serving in this role may command a certain level of respect because the centrist isn’t seen to have as much to gain from their involvement as the parties to the conflict, the drawback of their presence in the process is that they will inevitably draw the ire of one or both of the sides, who because of the determination made may feel a sense of diminishment or defeat. In professional sporting contests, the most abused person on the field is often the umpire, and in our working lives that same disgruntlement is often reserved for middle-managers who must serve as a go-between and reconcile the interests of the executive members of an organisation and the workers on the ground who report to them.

Interlude: Woke Capitalism is not Conscious/Stakeholder Capitalism (Part 2)

When these conscious businesses authentically put purpose on par with profit, the evidence suggests that consumers in the market will respond well to what these businesses are attempting to do in furthering their social mission. Having their own innate desire to do good in the world, these consumers will tend to orient their purchasing decisions towards those firms who do work to further the particular causes that matter the most to them. In terms of the increased market value that accrues to firms which have this conscious orientation, shareholders more than ever are lining up to invest in these firms that produce higher returns for investors than do their non-conscious counterparts. In his book, Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose, Raj Sisodia outlines how publically traded companies that ascribe to the notions of conscious business have outperformed the S&P 500 by 14 times over a period of 15 years.

While some of these investors will no doubt just have dollar signs in their eyes, and align their money with the firms that are leading this movement, there are sure to be many others who see these investment opportunities as a way they can leverage the positive impact that they hope to make on society. As individuals, there is only so much that we can do to effect change in the areas that matter to us, but businesses have the advantage of being able to pool human and capital resources and apply them to produce more impactful outcomes for these causes. This is often something that those who are quick to criticise capitalism seem to forget, and even those firms who don’t yet subscribe to a conscious way of operating are able to effect great social change through the application of their collective effort. The difference between the change that these firms are able to create and the future that conscious firms are able to lead us towards concerns evolution, that is, making the world not only more prosperous for its inhabitants but also more harmonious and integrated in its functioning. Being the primary end of conscious capitalism, those firms who genuinely partake in it, don’t seek to use it as a means of becoming more profitable or bolstering their reputation/brand by virtue signalling on the popular political or cultural issues of the day.

Such is the purview of firms engaged in woke capitalism that seek to co-opt the fundamental virtues of the spirit that animates conscious capitalism for their own self-serving purposes. Lacking in the fundamental quality of integrity that gives legitimacy to an animating purpose (and not just a stated cause), these firms become hollow vessels for an ideology that favours the placating of aggrieved members of identity groups, or those who shout loudest on issues such as climate change over social media or during protests in the cities where their operations are located. This they do reactively out of fear of being cancelled and having millions of dollars wiped from their share price for any public backlash to result from their perceived indifference to causes such as Black Lives Matter, gender inequality or LGBTQIA+ rights.

Don’t get me wrong, climate change is happening, black lives do matter, and the fundamental rights of women and members of the LGBTQIA+ community should be respected, but nothing of lasting impact to the members of these groups or society in general, is accomplished by performatively posting a perfunctory message of solidarity on Twitter, throwing a sum of money at opportunistic non-profits like BLM (the organisation – which has some serious questions associated with its operations), or implementing a tokenistic Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program that undermines the dignity of those who are given positions for reasons other than their competence to do the work inherent in their nominated role. The insincerity associated with this pandering to wokeness is smelt a mile off by consumers who are turned off by the hypocritical moralizing that many of the firms engage in. Companies like Disney, Victoria’s Secret and Unilever have attracted attention recently for their incongruous ‘do as I say, not as I do’ mode of operating in this space.

What woke capitalism firms talk about, conscious capitalism firms are about. Because they are genuinely virtuous in their character and crystal clear on their reason for existing in society, they don’t need to virtue signal to the world to prove that they are good. Because they value people at the core of who they are (regardless of race, gender, religious or political persuasion, for example), and treat them with the dignity and fairness they deserve, they don’t have to involve themselves in identity politics or movements that are perverted by ideology and ulterior motives. Realizing the key role that the environment plays in their individual and our collective existence, they go beyond the façade of greenwashing to make their contribution to preserving and even enhancing the biosphere that surrounds them.

While no firm is perfect in its functioning, the virtuous purpose and service that guides the activity of conscious capitalism firms marks them out from woke capitalism firms, and makes them worthy of our emulation and support. As we evolve in consciousness at the spiritual level, we will come to see this more clearly and play our part, not only in procuring from these firms, but by intricately partaking in the rich network of social value that they create for the economic and communal stakeholders of the world.

My Little Riff on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

I am for each of these principles, in their truest sense, not in the faddish ‘woke’ sense which seems to have become the status quo at the moment.

Diversity – I support diversity in the sense that each of us has a unique lived experience that can add a different perspective to how challenges should be dealt with, for example. Similarly, we each have unique gifts that complement others shortcomings, so in this sense we are interdependent on each other to create a more prosperous society. But there must be an overriding purpose (say in an organisational context) which determines what that entity needs in terms of contributions or service. Diversity in the meeting of this objective should be the prevailing factor in determining who is hired, not what colour, gender, sexual orientation they are, or disability they have.

Equity – I am all for people being given what they need to succeed relative to the particular disadvantages that they experience in their life. This however should be determined at the individual level taking into account fundamental human considerations that extend beyond the markers of identity politics or sought restitution for past injustices.

Inclusion – Fundamentally, the inherent dignity of each human being entitles them to participate in the making of a better society, however, practically, there are other considerations that go towards whether you include an individual in an organisational setting or have them contribute for a specific purpose i.e. are they the right fit based on need, suitably qualified, of good character, able to add unique insights or perspectives that extend beyond the conventional ideology of the time?

Unfortunately, many of our modern organisations don’t practice D, E & I in the above sense, but engage in a bastardised/pseudo form of it that is performative, reactionary, tokenistic and counterproductive. This is why people are currently so cynical of these initiatives which work cross-wise with the objectives of fairness and merit based advancement because they give rise to forced and unnatural outcomes that erode effective organisational performance. Also, appointing someone purely because of the colour of their skin, or because they are a woman, for instance, undermines their human dignity as they and others know that these individuals have been given something that they haven’t earned, in order to meet a KPI or diversity quota across a professional group (which paradoxically fosters resentment to serve an exclusionary function within the teams that they are assigned to).

Therefore, striving for equality of outcome in the workplace is a bad idea because it erodes cohesiveness and the motivation to put forward one’s best efforts towards a larger goal. I cannot however overstate the importance of every person (regardless of their individual identity markers) being given the tools and opportunities that they need to grow into the fullest version of themselves (equality of opportunity) that will not only enrich the quality of their life, but also contribute to the betterment of the wider world around them. Equality of opportunity also doesn’t deprive any individual of the growth journey that is so fundamental to the building of character and achievement of a meaningful life of contribution.