This past Monday, Business Week published an interesting piece entitled Karma Capitalism, exploring how various elements of Indian religion and philosophy are reincarnating as popular themes in modern management thinking. This may appear, at first glance, to be a remarkable new development, but, actually, it’s merely a new face on an old one.
The concern here isn’t that we need to shoot a messenger bearing a false, alien message. There is much of value that Indian religion and philosophy elaborate in eloquent and relevant ways for the modern manager. The real issue is that the oriental allure from which this ancient wisdom cryptically emerges to waft around us should not be confused for what is actually being said - we should not mistake the messenger for the message.
With that in mind, let’s subject that message to some closer scrutiny.
The Karma Capitalists, as the article styles them, argue that executives should rise above a one-dimensional focus on money. Executives and their companies need to take a broader, more holistic view of who they are, what they do, and how they do it. This entails identifying, assessing the needs from the company of, and considering how the company might satisfy the needs of, a wide range of (here’s the old part:) stakeholders, from employees and customers to society itself and (this next one’s hardly an Indian innovation in progressive thinking, but one that is easily absorbed by it) the environment.
Some advocates of this approach consciously see it as breaking new ground, establishing a new path for the modern manager ascetically to trod. This path will bring the manager in closer contact with the company’s stakeholders, rather than exclusively with shareholders (actually, has there ever really been enough focus on shareholders?). One of the gurus (pun intended) of this movement, C. K. Prahalad, as quoted in the cited article, actually says:
It’s the idea that corporations can simultaneously create value and social justice.
Now, there’s a debating point for you. Can corporations do both of these things at once? (Sure). Should they? (Why not?) How should they go about doing this, if it is indeed possible? (There’s the rub: by consciously attempting the latter goal, they inescapably muff both.)
Muff both? Why should that be so? There are a number of reasons, but for the moment let’s stay with one suggested by another of this group’s champions, Ram Charan:
The key point is to put purpose before self. This is absolutely applicable to corporate leadership today.
On the face of it, how can anyone argue with this? I’ve argued it, myself, although I do so from a fundamentally different standpoint. The questions are: 1) What is meant by “purpose?” 2) How is it put before “self?” and 3) Who is meant by “self?”
As we can see in the first quote, by “purpose” the Karma Capitalists mean “social justice.” As for the unfortunate phrase “corporate leadership” in the second quote, that is the executive class, senior managers. The spokespersons for this movement are never once quoted in the cited article mentioning boards or directors in this or any other context. Moreover, in introducing Mr. Charan’s quote, above, his role as a coach to CEOs is emphasized. “Self,” then, is clearly the manager.
Okay, so how is the pursuit of social justice raised above the narrow instinct for self-aggrandizement that this group posits as the key issue for modern management? Well, that’s not quite clear, unless it is simply by listening to this new vanguard of thinkers and consultants, promoting the spread of the faith in corporate training programs and business schools across the land, and following their lead; becoming, as it were, their disciples.
The foregoing is sufficient to establish the basis for a critique, which I will venture in tomorrow’s post. In the meanwhile, please do review the article using the link above. While doing so, consider the following:
- In “Karma Capitalism,” what is the philosophical cornerstone used to set the starting point and to discipline the construction of corporate structure and governance?
- What and where is the keystone that maintains the integrity and stability of that structure (whatever it is)?
There is much to discuss regarding the teachings of this movement - much more than will be addressed in this forum. Here, I will try to focus only on my contention that this doctrine actually acts to perpetuate the corporate failings and scandals it presumes to allay. An examination of the questions posed above will be used to explain why and how.
See you tomorrow.
—
Please be sure to see all the posts in this series:
- Management as a priesthood
- Same faith, new robes
- To the devil with the details
- Fire and Brimstone
- Salvation without the sermon
—
Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.
Similar Posts:
- To the devil with the details
- Fire and Brimstone
- Judge, jury, and executive
- Roundup: From virtue to virtual
- The juggler
Technorati Tags: Business Week, Indian, religion, philosophy, management, manager, executive, company, stakeholder, employee, customer, society, innovation, progressive, environment, shareholder, guru, Prahalad, corporation, value, social justice, Ram Charan, purpose, corporate, leadership, executive, senior manager, director, coach, CEO, manager, consultant, training, business, governance
Sphere: Related Content
8 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] Finally, take a look at this WSJ piece from earlier this week that reports the results of a study of corporate tuition assistance programs. Some advisors discourage such benefits, fearing that they simply encourage beneficiaries to cut and run for better-paying jobs once the courses are paid for. It turns out, though, as many of us suspected, that these programs increase loyalty; employees who use such programs are only about half as likely to leave a firm after 5 years as those who do not use them. This is a sort of “Karma Capitalism” that really does return to benefit you. [...]
[...] After all, who can determine what “fair” is, in the larger scheme of things? Indeed, the debates about this are often all the more confusing because people are contesting with each other on the same stage, and even using the same jargon, but are arguing from positional frameworks that are miles apart. (Please see here for an elaboration of this in the context of “Karma Capitalism”) [...]
[...] Capitalism gets a bad rap these days - even from people who believe in it, or who, at least, acknowledge the pointlessness of denying its fundamental veracity as a means of explaining and predicting human economic behavior. The Karma Capitalists, whose thinking we have reviewed and critiqued over the past several posts, are only one of a panoply of attempts to rectify the presumed shortcomings of capitalism. As it happens, these efforts all typically fall short, themselves, in two ways. A clue to both of these is hidden in one of the purpose statements of Karma Capitalism (please see the 02NOV06 post): The key point is to put purpose before self. This is absolutely applicable to corporate leadership today. [...]
[...] In the course of examining the emerging management approach that has been referred to as “Karma Capitalism” (please see the 2 and 6 November 2006 posts), we have been trying to test it against two questions that should give us an idea of how robust a system of thought this really is. [...]
[...] In last Thursday’s post, we reviewed the key elements of ‘Karma Capitalism” as identified by its proponents. They were, in brief, that: [...]
[...] Management as a priesthood [...]
[...] If you are interested in this general topic, I encourage you to view the 5-part series on “Karma Capitalism.” [...]
[...] most recently in this post: Social engineering and genius, but also in a popular series about Karma Capitalism. And we’ll get to hear more on this topic soon enough: according to this WSJ item, the [...]
Post a Comment