The Corporate Ideal: A Manifesto for Positive Change

-CTF Editorial: July 21, 2001

Amidst the conflicts taking place during the so-called "Summer of Resistance", and the recent tragic death of a protester in Genoa during the G8 Summit, the discussions have revolved around what is wrong with the current state of corporate affairs. However, I feel it would be extremely helpful to define what an ideal corporation would look like, and focus on a positive goal of what a corporation should be, rather than what it isn't, or hasn't been in the past. To define our expectations, and as such, increase their chances of being manifested in the real world.

So what defines an ideal corporation?

Primarily, respect, and a knowledge that such respect must flow in both directions. Not just up the chain of command, but down as well. There must be a basic understanding that the heights to which a CEO can reach are entirely dependant upon how high his workers lift him, and if he has no appreciation of that effort, frankly, he or she can expect to be dropped. And that respect must extend outside of the corporation as well. Customer's rights, health, and happiness must also be accommodated. A corporation should be conscientious of the fact that they must do more than merely sell their product. They must consider the impact their operations have on the life and health of the consumer they hope to sell to, as well as the community they wish to create their products in. Ultimately, profit and such due consideration are inseparably intertwined. You cannot sell to employees who are laid off, or consumers who are made sick by your corporate waste. If you ignore this, you are in effect, killing your own market.

Second, a company must adhere to the ideals of democracy as much as a government should. I've heard an executive actually say, "Democracy is out there [outside of the company]. In here, it's a dictatorship." This is precisely the wrong direction to go in. That kind of demagoguery is no more productive in a company than it is in a government. In the end, like all dictatorships, it is self-defeating. There are many ways to lead a more productive and healthy corporate life.

One example of this in action, is the concept of managerial review, not by those above, but by those below. In one northwest corporation this process is as follows: in addition to employees receiving their standard performance review from their managers, the managers themselves are given a yearly review by the employees. Questionnaires are distributed to the various divisions, and employees anonymously submit their evaluations of their manager's performance. If he or she is not living up to expectations of mutual respect, kindness, honor, and productivity, he or she faces disciplinary action as any other employee would. This fosters an understanding that both employee and manager are in service to each other, and this spirit of equality is much healthier than a dogmatic "I'm on top, and I can crack the whip any way I like," kind of attitude. It also fosters a sense of personal responsibility and accountability, for everyone is held to the same standards.

Another example is what one CEO calls, "I-Power". At all weekly meetings within the company, employees are invited to bring two suggestions or more with them, and present them at the meeting. The suggestion can relate to any facet of corporate operations, and if it is agreed to by a vote of all assembled that this is a good idea, it is implemented immediately. This way an employee feels the personal power of participation in the overall direction of the corporation in a very real and direct way. A record of these implemented suggestions is kept. Each time a suggestion is used, the employee who came up with the idea is rewarded on the spot with some sort of small gift like movie passes, a couple of tickets to a baseball game, a $20 bonus on their check, etc. At the end of the year, the employee with the most implemented suggestions is awarded a trip for two to someplace nice for a week. This way, not only does the employee contribute to the improvement of the company, but they are properly rewarded for the extra value they bring to their employer. This particular company that utilizes this system, it should be mentioned, is five times as productive as any of its nearest competitors within that industry.

A company should also respect the humanity of it's workers. What do I mean by this? I mean that a corporation must recognize that it employs humans, not robots. A respect for the simple need of rest must be accommodated. In this country, and many others who are seeking to emulate us, we are literally killing ourselves for our work. There was a most interesting article in the Atlantic Monthly recently. A work of fiction, it bore a frightening resemblance to reality. A worker, new on the job, is progressing through his first day in his new position. The middle of the workday arrives, and he waits to see when the other workers take their lunch. He waits, and waits, his stomach growling, but no one appears to be taking their lunch. Unsure of what to do, he goes to the supervisor and asks, "I was wondering when I should take my lunch?" To which the supervisor replies, "I don't believe in the 'lunch myth'". Knowing he would be unable to function for the rest of the day without food, the worker quickly makes up an excuse that he's hypoglycemic just so he can be allowed a break. This fictional account is an extreme example, but to a certain extent the American workplace itself has begun to treat the natural human need for rest as a myth. Most individuals only get the legally required minimum of a half hour break during the 8-hour workday. On average, it takes at least 10 minutes to acquire a meal in a fast food "rest"aurant, 10 minutes to eat it, and 10 minutes to get back to work. You increase your rest time if you bring your own lunch, but not by much. Most people's actually rest time is a mere 10 minutes. Contrast this with the lunch breaks in countries like France or Italy where two hours are taken, a relaxing multi-course meal is enjoyed, and then work is resumed. Instead of working 9 to 5, these men and women work 9 to 6. Their workday is somewhat longer, but they are ultimately less stressed, have few costly health problems as a result, and ultimately are more productive during the later half of the day in which American productivity suffers immeasurably because men are treated like machines.

This principle should extend to vacation time as well, as a useful means of improving quality of life. In Germany, by law, employers are yearly required to afford their workers one month off, with pay, if they request it. So-called "health leave", where Germans take time off and visit a spa, are quite common. These rules apply to all workers, be they a CEO or a waitress. And Germany's position as an economic powerhouse certainly hasn't suffered for this requirement. Yet, in America, most people consider themselves lucky if they are given two weeks off after 5 years of service with the company. This is frankly absurd. It helps neither the worker, who ends up stressed out and frazzled, nor the company, who will later have to pay for the time lost in the health expenses and the burnout this relentless drive will cost. In Japan, these problems are even more extreme, where men actually work themselves to death, or commit suicide from the stress.

Sometimes, old wisdom possesses the most basic truths, and as my mother always used to say, "In music, the rests are as important as the notes. The silence, as meaningful as the sound."

Another factor present in modern business trends, is an increasing lack of respect for the personal privacy of individual worker. Monitoring is at an all-time high. In a scenario that mimics Orwell's Big Brother in government, the corporation has adopted that same ever-present oversight role with dire consequences for personal freedom. An employee can generally be assured that he is being watched at some point in the day, but the extent to which this is happening constitutes a real threat to justice. All forms of personal communication in scrutinized. Emails are not only filtered, but in some cases, all content is read, and the corporation decides what is "appropriate" for the individual to talk about. Websites are blocked or personal access history is monitored and recorded. Phone communications are often tapped into. And then there are the cameras. They are everywhere, and in most cases the employee is never even given the courtesy of being informed that such monitoring is taking place. In one case, a company planted a camera in the employee locker room and for months recorded men and women dressing and undressing for work without their knowledge. When the camera was discovered, lawsuits immediately followed, ultimately costing the company far more money in legal fees than it ever could hope to gain by recording some imagined potential crime. Furthermore, in all these hours of privacy invasion, not one "crime" was recorded.

In truth, this atmosphere of suspicion saps productivity. Everyone is so busy watching their backs, that no one is paying attention to the road ahead. Companies now have fund additional expenses for monitoring systems, and the people to monitor them, and monitors to monitor the monitors. It's an endless and vicious cycle. It pits employers against their employees and instead of creating a feeling of partnership, it creates an environment of suspicion and accusation, where all employees are essentially assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, and the company seeks to entrap its employees with the intent of punishing them for perceived "criminal nature". This is entirely antithetical to the American ideal, where you are innocent until proven guilty, and your personhood is respected. It simply cannot be allowed to continue in a free society, or ultimately ALL of our freedoms are endangered.

We must also thoughtfully examine our own impulse towards greed. It's never going to go away, so it must be faced honestly, if we ever hope to keep it's adverse effects in check.

What has happened of late, is that it is not enough for a company to be profitable, it must have ever-increasing profits in order to satisfy it's investor's greed. In truth, we have sacrificed sustainability for short-term profitability, and we are already seeing the adverse effects of this in our most recent economic decline. And I'm not simply referring to the internet based companies. In some cases companies which have stood for over a century have folded under this pressure despite being in the black, simply because their first quarter earnings didn't exceed the ones from the previous year. It's utterly ridiculous. Companies lay off their workers in a bizarre attempt to prove they are "serious about profitability" and gain a stock point or two. However, in doing so, they are sacrificing the very thing that made them profitable in the first place, the workers. And the net effect of all this nonsense is that the company itself is less able to produce quality products and has fewer people able to afford those products, thereby cutting into the very profit margin they were seeking to increase. And when the next quarter's profits continue to decline, the stock falls again, and they fail to examine this cycle, but instead blindly continue trying in vain to impress their investors with what is laughably called "fiscal responsibility". Ultimately, the company becomes so weak, and it's stock so low, that the company fails outright. How exactly is this "fiscally responsible"?

Investors themselves should possess a better sense of business than this. As an investor, I should be less interested in the normal fluctuations of a point or two, than I should be in the overall fundamentals of the company. If those are stable, I can count on slow, steady increases in profit over time, and this is a much more proven way to wealth than a spastic, frantic search for the quick buck at the expense of my fellow man. It's that kind of sustainability that investors SHOULD be seeking, but it seems no one possesses the long-term view anymore, and it's going to cost us.

As a business owner, personally, the LAST thing I would want is for my company to be publicly traded on the stock market in these conditions. In doing so, I would be sacrificing the spirit and overall direction of my company to the whims of other people's greed and short-sightedness, and stand a very real chance of betraying the people who work for and WITH me, and helped build the organization in the first place. It simply isn't worth it. For these reasons, I would encourage a total divestment from the stock market system, as it is a force for destruction and random brutality. It stands in opposition to some very basic logic, "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be." The stock market is usury, plain and simple, and there is a reason we were warned not to engage in it.

Additionally, if America truly wants to act as a force for positive change throughout the world, it must insist that all companies who operate within the United States or even hope to sell their products here, must also afford its workers, the overall environment, and the community it produces in, this same kind of respect.

What do I mean by this, specifically? What will be it's consequences?

Many of the problems that have been encountered with globalization arise from an unequal treatment of those involved. Let's examine the specifics of this situation. A company, operating in the United States, is required to pay a minimum wage. And this "minimum" should really be determined by the standard of a livable wage, rather than an arbitrary low number which does not take into account the costs of living. The wage must provide a solid roof over an employee's head, sufficient food for complete nutrition, means for transportation, and some small measure of cushioning from emergency events, such as health related issues. This is a minimum of survivability. However, the current reality is that the minimum wage within this country is not remotely "livable", and in most other countries not only are the wages not livable, they are downright shamefully low. The end result of all of this, is that in order to secure higher profits, American companies lay off their "expensive" workers here, and hire less expensive ones in other countries. Therefore, the standard of living for American workers is obliterated, while those in foreign countries are not lifted from their state of poverty, but instead are consigned to a state of indentured servitude, and eventually the entire nation is impoverished by this practice. Most American corporate leaders say they don't like this state of affairs, but these are "market realities" and that they must pursue profitability for the company. To quote Lily Tomlin, "I refuse to be intimidated by 'reality'."

And the question remains, is it really profitable? I would submit that while a corporation may see some short-term gains from such a plant move, ultimately, this system sacrifices the sustainability of the overall profits of the company. Why? Well the workers in that foreign country in which your plant is located, cannot buy your products since they can barely afford to buy food. And the American workers who are also, you should be reminded, consumers themselves, can no longer afford your products because they have no job. Who then, will buy your products? To repeat, you have killed your own market, and in effect, have decimated the economic viability of all concerned, including yourself.

So what is the remedy?

Equality and standardization. Create a level playing field that would not exist otherwise. Brutality is neither necessary, nor practical, and is the province of animals, not intelligence. Business has adopted the Darwinian concept of so-called "survival of the fittest" to the exclusion of yet another Darwinian principle of evolutionary change, namely "transcendence." As intelligent sentient beings, we can choose to transcend mere cut-throat brutality and be something much more extraordinary. The concept of equality has transformed formerly brutal governments, and created a much better world as a result, and this concept should be infused into corporate life as well. And frankly, if the market will not discipline itself by behaving honorably, it must be disciplined through enlightened regulation. Simply put, companies should adhere to standards because ultimately, it's in their own best interest.

It should be the law of the land, that if a company wants the privilege of running a manufacturing plant in the United States and benefiting from it's skilled, and educated workforce, it must pay a livable wage, allow for human frailty and protect its workers health by recognizing the need for rest and stress reduction techniques, respect the personal privacy of it's workforce, promote community building and education within the surrounding neighborhoods, and operate cleanly to prevent damage to the physical environment around the plant and protect the health of the consumers who live in the area. If a company fails to do any of these things, they forfeit their rights to own a plant in this country. Period.

But what's to prevent all these companies from simply taking all their manufacturing elsewhere? The second part of the law. Namely, that if you operate a plant in a foreign country, and do not follow these standards, and pay your foreign workers as much as you would pay your American ones, you will not be allowed to SELL your products in America either. You will lose the ENTIRE American marketplace as a consequence, and never forget, Americans are the premiere consumers of goods and services worldwide. Quite frankly, your profitability would be decimated, all because you were incapable of a simple act of respect. Other countries will find that implementing such standards in their own country will benefit them as well. This will lead to TRUE globalization. Where ALL workers are paid equally for similar services and given the same benefits and opportunities to succeed, and the health of the planet as a whole will be VASTLY improved.

There are those in business who say that such regulation is too costly. That they cannot operate a business with these kinds of "restrictions". To them I say, then don't be in business. It will be costly at first, but the longer we wait, the higher the cost will be. And the overall cost for NOT adhering to these standards, and allowing misguided concepts of what is profitable to ultimately abuse the rights, freedoms, health, and safety of the majority of humans on this planet, is too high. If you as a businessman cannot act respectfully and responsibly, you should not be afforded with the power over others. It's that simple. As this concept applies to government, so should it apply to the corporation. They are both large-scale institutions of power, and such power should be rationally restrained, lest it should be abused. The pursuit of building personal wealth should not outweigh the rights of others, and it has become frighteningly clear in recent history, that the market forces alone will not drive us toward this state of mutual respect. Business, through it's own actions, has lost the ethical high ground by abusing it's power. It has demonstrated in practical historical reality that it cannot be self-disciplined and honorable, and as such has forfeited it's power of choice and self-determination.