Question:
I am just curious, whats wrong with entrepreneurs/industrialists being considered as leaders?
This is just my opinion, feel free to jump in, I used the example of an Indian movie called the Guru (I think we can largely ignore the movie - and just talk about the dynamics of business 'leaders' as a concept):
See with the Guru, it was all supposed to be how he got into power right? I.e. he's essentially a hero for making all this money. I know this sounds simplistic, but that's what it boils down to. We worship people for making money (as though that isn't something that happens because of accumulated/saved wealth), i.e. you have to start out with a bit of collatoral/capital already - so you aren't really 'poor-poor' when you become rich.
Essentially it's just another way of celebrity worship (i.e. infatuation with people who have achieved the status quo not necessarily by any great contribution to humanity unlike what I think formerly leaders were). But then again, I am a socialist.
The other thing about the Guru, is that, how are we supposed to worship someone as a hero when what he primarily did was make mock factories - he did smuggle merchandise, he often didn't pay his shareholders what he promised etc... if he paid them at all
I.e. he was essentially corrupt. But how is that different from the accumulation of capital in general? How do people accumulate it? ....it's not usually the nicest, and you do have to start off semi-educated/wellconnected/somewhat moneyed.
How did Guru come into money in the first place? He married a girl who was 'dishonourable' so her father gave him a dowry....
Does this make sense.
Now if you look at what traditionally we look for in a leader, we are seeking someone who has 'the best interests of everyone in mind' - this means socio-economically. The key and main difference between 'business leaders' and traditional leaders (and his comparison to Gandhi was just nauseating) is that business leaders really, truly only go in it for themselves - the welfare of their employees/the country etc... are usually by and large secondary aspects to them. That's why people like Steve Jobs at Apple doesn't care that his workers in China make his products at 65hours a week and get $10 a day. If he could get them done elsewhere for less - he would.
We're infatuated with 'business leaders' because of their accumulation of wealth, not because they necessarily give a crap about us.
People like Steve Jobs and the Guru, like to imagine themselves at the same level as 'leaders' in the traditional sense, and I ask you how much of that image is sold to us by them?
Being at the other end of the recieving end of corporate donations, I know that when you put a dumb-ass logo on your brochure saying "XYZ company" - that company probably donated WAYYYYYY less than an individual private donor. No, joke. But yet, they only give it to you if there's free publicity.
30 comments:
Kind of like when Hollywood actors begin to show up on the campaign trail and show support to their candidate of choice.
Actors are supposed to prance on screen for my amusement.
Shh...shh...don't talk...just look pretty.
Great debate on what is leadership. Being a guilty human coming from sinned corporate world, I totally see your point. (Yes, I am sinned)
In the corporate training, I were taught the definition of the leadership is that the person has followers. And to have followers, you need to create a mechanism to justify you to be a leader. The mechanism could be money arbitrage, classism, sexism, anything that will put you to be in the seat of power. If you are so fair and socialist, how could you create blinded followers who make less than you and who are exploited?
Having said that, I do think these entrepreneurs are inspirational. Disregarding if they would exploit an opportunity or not, they have ability to see through the social structure and human needs, and they get people lined up for that so-called "vision". And they do advance this world, that's the way human beings have advanced their technology, and their society. And that ability exists with certain people disregarding if they are poor or rich. Unfortunate thing is if they are really poor, as you said, it is unlikely that they have starting capital.
And Micro-Finance is exactly trying to make the people at the bottom of pyramid to be one of these entrepreneurs. Lending $30, so that you can scale your business to join the group of rich (in their community, never the group of Steve Jobs). Would these who succeeded in the community give back to their community? Probably not. So is Micro Finance really going to solve the issue of poverty? It may just create the rich and poor among the bottom of the pyramid.
As far as we have this system called "money" and "banking", even at the bottom of the pyramid, we have to leverage this so-called entrepreneurship.
I really liked this post. It fundamentally asks the meaning of "leadership".
I think in the Democratic U-Tube debate, there was a question if candidates would work as a President on the minimum wage. Obama said should not be a problem because these folks are already loaded. We should probably implement the minimum wage for US President.
Furthermore, if we have a thing called minimum wage, why there's nothing called maximum wage in this world? I think that will change a lot of things in this world. What do you think?
In any case, I do aspire to be an entrepreneur. Challenging a status quo and creating something is truly fun. How can we channel such excitement in the good way, not bad way? Can we create such system?
I am humanitarian and a person who values treating others with kindness and fairness.
However, I have to also say that there's no problem with saying that business leaders are leaders.
The actual meaning of leadership has little to do with the social, economic, political value of what is accomplished.
The word leadership refers to:
1. The process of leading.
2. Those entities that perform one or more acts of leading.
3. The ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission designated by the leader
Influential leaders can be an influential social blogger, the first-chair violinist symphony, a holy person, or even the most hated dictator. The fact that people follow them makes them the "leader" of the group.
Sure criticism can be made that many tend to laud those who gain wealth (and thus power). But that still does not make the leader any less than a leader. People still followed.
As for enterpreneurs, nothing is wrong with them being considered leaders. They are leading new technology, leading new businesses that create jobs, etc. What would you think about a an entrepreneur who figures out a way to manage diabetes by creating a sensor that measures your blood sugar level? What do you think about the person who invented the cell phone that you are using to call your mother on Sunday? What about the entrepreneur who makes it possible to ship fresh fruits and vegetables from California to New York? What about the entrepreneurs who created the software and the very computer you are using to write this blog?
If you don't value entrepreneurs you need to stop using their all that they created. If they are not leaders, then don't follow them blogging on your computer.
Of course, I'm being extreme here. But you get the point. Leaders are leaders because people follow them. You can choose to decide whether or not the end result is of value to you. However, at the end, if there are followers (consumers, included), there has to be a leader, by definition.
Cheers,
Humanist, Feminist, Hardworking Entrepreneur
Japanese bobtail - I didn't get you.... What do you mean by 'sinned'? Also, why do you think they are 'inspirational'? What does that mean? I.e. because they have achieved something - hence my point that there only real achievement is making money. That's not necessarily the samething as being the type of leadership role they assume. I.e. a model for others to follow - a standard by others to follow - morally and intellectually.
the problem of course goes further when government bodies consult 'business leaders' on social policies etc...
BM - I think a lot of what you said rests on a lot of straw arguments.... Your general attitude seems to be very 'if you aren't with us - you are against us,' I'm asking you to explore more than just 'if someone says something negative about businesses they don't deserve to live'.
Namely - I guess, let's play on the humanitarian sense of the idea of everyone can be a leader... Since you brought up humanitarianism. So, in the purest sense there are other models to follow in a truly democratic sense - i.e. collaborative actions.
I also never said being corporate is inherently 'evil' or that businesses are evil - I said that current 'business leaders' often assume the idea that they are also 'humanitarians' and posess god-like characteristics that benefit humankind.
Unfortunately, that is not necessarily the case. Because a large part of the 'business leaders' we can name - really are multinational business owners, in which case - most of their practises are significantly exploitative of the 'third world'.
Look, I'm not talking about a mom-n-pop start-up. Or some crafts-person starting a small business. Most of us couldn't name 5 small business owners, but we can in fact name 5-10 multi-million/billionaires and know what they do and how they do it. I'm asking you why we admire them? and why do we use them as a model/standard of leadership. Basically the lines between 'hero' and 'leader' are blurred constantly.
I do have problems with people like bill gates and buffet going around consulting local governments on how to 'aid' the developing world. Many grassroots activists have been working on local issues forever, so why do business people feel especially entitled to work on these issues? They aren't necessarily the experts to do so, but by creating an image of 'benevolence' and 'superior morality and intellect' we naively buy into those ideas and allow them to do so.
Okay, to summarize the problematic nature of leadership applied to 'business people':
"Leadership" is infused with a moral code of conduct, i.e. leaders are people we look up to not only in the sense that they direct us to do things - but because they are the people we 'ought to be like' on a moral plane as well.
That is why I find it triply problematic that increasingly in the last 20 years we've built up a cult of celebrity around 'business leaders', largely because they have assumed this title for themselves.
Aradhana,
Interesting post!. I agree with you on most of the points you raised. I have slight disagreements though.
Lets go back to Guru for a minute here, My favorite character in that movie is not the entrepreneur (the protagonist) , but the Journalist-Editor duo (Mithun & Madhavan), who try to bring down Guru's empire.
To be fair to The filmmaker, he tried to show the other side, through those two journalists, albeit half heartedly (I heard that they edited out lot of screen time of those Journalists for whatever reason, may be pressure from film financiers). His last two hindi films failed miserably at the box-office (both were great, if you ask me) and may be he was trying to score a box-office hit.
Now coming back to seeing entrepreneurs as leaders. Not all entrepreneurs/industrialists are greedy and infatuated with wealth. Anita Roddick and Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, come to my mind..Ha ha no men here, "we are like that only" ;)
I am with the other poster bm on this issue. I admire people like Bill Gates/Steve Jobs not for their wealth, but for their enthusiasm about all things related to technology
I love this debate.
The reason why I am sinned -- because the corporate world is never that moral, and I played in the world for a long long time. Yes, it is legal, but if it were moral, we would never have a class called ethical dilemma in business school.
At my ex-employer, people from the West work for 40 hours a week and take a lot of holidays. In our Chinese operations, people work for 100 hours a week even if we do not ask them, and they normally have expatriated caucasian bosses who work 40 hours a week. It is a debate, is this ethical? For the sake of the company, we should exploit hard working motivated employees. And we were taught the "leader" is the one who can motivate them to work 100 hours a week, not the other way around.
And you know the quality of life. So don't you think anyone who just keep these practices in the corporate world and do not challenge are sinned?
Why business leaders are inspirational? I do not think many Fortune 500 CEOs are inspirational to people. But Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are inspirational to me. Not because of their power, not because they donate money. Because they have invented the world called personal computing that is the foundation of internet age. When IBM's mainframe was the still the way, they saw the possibility of the world. And they convinced people to work for them and realize their vision. That's why they are so inspirational. They did not invent Personal Computing, to become a billionaire, nor to be a humanitarian in the future. It is like U-Tube founders. They were just playing around, and that hit the needs of people, and wow, now they got $1.6 billions in total.
The issue is that made them a billionaire and they do need to do something with their money. So they start a foundation to help the world. I bet U-Tube founders will set up a foundation soon.
If there were no possibility for them to become a billionaire, I think they would still have invented these. Some people just like to invent.
I think the issue is more in the system to allow people to become that rich. No one needs or deserves billion dollars, while some people are dying with $1 a day.
And because of the money, yes, people do exaggerate the admiration for entrepreneurial vision with admiration for money, and try to become one. But I think even without money, still people would admire Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for their visions.
I really vote for "maximum wage" as a solution.
AradhanaD -- Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid somehow my communication style may not be clear and that it may have been misinterpreted.
What I'm trying to say is that society is not aligned with the idea that leadership must have social-economic tones. Leaders are leaders because they are followed, for whatever reason-- good or bad.
I agree with you that we are in a society that worships "wealth" too much. And I agree that extreme wealth creates an environment for exploitation. I like Japanese Bobtails idea of a maximum wage. It makes a lot of sense.
As a side note: In Steve Jobs case, I actually believe most people admire him for his "leadership" in creating technology that's actually an artistic creation, and not for the fact that he's rich. Most people, including myself, probably have no idea how much he makes. What they (and I) admire is his passion to pursue his talent in combining technology and art, and his energy in fighting the "establishment" of the PC.
i don't consider entrepreneurs leaders unless they help humankind as japanese bobtail cat said.
a leader who leads is too fundamentalist a definition.
and ad seems to have left the premises.
indianoguy, I'm sure there are tonnes of inventors sitting in their basement who are really super into technology and inventing.... Hell, at this point neither jobs or gates does any inventing anyways....
why don't we know their names? ;)
Aradhana
Offcourse, there are tons of inventors, who didnt make it big and thats exactly my point. Jobs/Gates are inspirational because they created something new and they marketed those inventions really well (may be they got lucky, by being at right place at the right time).
Jobs/Gates are less inspirational today, but they were truly inspirational at one point of time, when I was THE fat kid in my school :D
I dunno.
The fall Yes! magazine has companies that activists can work for and get behind.
Companies activists will "lead" to create a new economic system that will treat everyone appropriately are definitely what is needed in today's economy.
corporations change when stockholders pressure them and this is starting to happen.
"I dunno.
The fall Yes! magazine has companies that activists can work for and get behind."
This kind of sounds like a straw argument - no offence. I'm not saying that we need to overthrow capitalism (would be nice but seriously). I'm saying we worship 'business owners' and we internalize their values as a morality. So not only do we internalize race/class/gender etc... we also internalize neoliberal policies!!! ;)
"corporations change when stockholders pressure them and this is starting to happen."
Um, not. You didn't hear about SSP (Security and Prosperity partnership) shit that Bush/Harper are trying to convince Mexico to sign?
Shareholders are single issue and that's largely profit motivated. Marketing looks good when an issue has been brought out into the forefront by YEARS of activist work. Take for example animal rights and 'the environment'. So shareholders push for change only when marketing permits them to.
That's why we have 'eco-friendly' cars.... well, sorry in my world - no car is 'environmentally friendly' - it's just not the 'worst' option.
But please, change doesn't happen unless activists spend their entire lifetimes pushing for it and until someone attaches a dollar sign to it. It's not for the 'benefit' of the planet that corporations become benevolent.
And i disagree with the movie the corporation in one sense. They basically boiled it down to the fact that 'corporations' don't have 'individualities'. Mind you this movie was made what - 4-5 yrs ago? Identities exist - and that's usually the CFO/CEO celebrity culture/worship around it.
These so-called leaders become icons for whatever 'value' they have created. And don't be fooled, Jobs and Gates told you they were the ones who were 'innovative' - you didn't come to know that on your own. The message was massaged by a pretty eleaborate style/consulting/branding team.
I have some insight into marketing....
when shareholders who are profit-driven also hold corps to the fire beyond pr we're getting somewhere and sometimes it takes the realization that their children and grandchildren inherit the earth they leave behind, morals intersect with the profit motive. corps are very slowly heading in that direction.
Aradhanad, we should discuss this topic more. I agree with your observation on their Public Relation and Branding. And Donna, as a person who is in the depth of the corporate world in three Continents, I can tell you that Corporations are NOT heading that good direction.
Taking a eco-friendly car as an example, McKinsey actually did an analysis which one is more eco-friendly between Hammer and Prius. Of course Prius is more friendly to air, but it generates more non bio-degradable garbage with less life time and pollute soil with battery dispose. So in the end, eco-friendly car is just "marketing".
Aradhanad, we do need to find a better system than capitalism. When I look back my childhood in Japan and how the Japanese society changed, and also how European society is changing these days, capitalism and business "leader" worship is strongly linked. When Japanese stock market was restricted from foreign investors and offering very limited IPO opportunities, we seldom discussed these entrepreneurs. Maybe, Sony and Matsushita? But people did not warship them, they did not appear on TVs. The income difference was very small and CEOs made only "...only..." $400-500K a year. Now with the full capitalism forced upon by the US, it completely changed. We worship business "leaders" and they make $ millions a year. And did the society improved? No, it is more competitive, more cut throat, and materialistic.
I see the same when I do business with places like China as well.
Whenever we say something against "capitalism", American would scream. I do not know why we came to confuse "capitalism" with "democracy" "human right" "freedom" "equality", and somehow assume "capitalism" would assure everything else.
i watch too many idealistic documentaries and read too many progressive blogs so i'm jenny sunshine here!
democratic socialism has proven to be competitive. most of the top 20 nations in the world economic report with high gdp-ppp are democratic socialist. also: fair trade over free trade.
Donna, you do realize that people are 'shareholders' in order to profit - you do understand that right?
So, it's not like someone goes out and buys a share in a company cause they want to change the company. They go out and buy a share to profit, all other things are secondary to the actual profit. Sure, there are companies that are 'better'.... but that's another story.
I'm not being debbie dismal - if you are sally sunshine here. It is a fact that corporations are celebrated and 'innovation' is a construction that they sold to us. the only reason why we think corporations are innovative - more so than say some nerd making solar panels in their basement to stick on their own house, is because the corporations told us 'they define innovation'.
;)
aradhana,
of course i realize shareholders are concerned with the bottom line.
they have children and grandchildren too and when they pressure corporations to be accountable to human health and the planet, corporations will change.
government will have to pressure them too by regulating corporations again and by revoking their legal personhood.
Some interesting article.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/news/
economy/ceo_pay_workers/
Look how much Private Equity and Fund Managers are paid. And that is still not in a comparison with the large shareholders.
CEO pay can look like chump change next to private equity and hedge fund managers' pay. Those managers made an average of $657.5 million in 2006 - more than 16,000 times what the average full-time worker makes, and roughly 61 times that of the average CEO.
They're the executives not the shareholders, right? Or do these two groups overlap?
"they have children and grandchildren too and when they pressure corporations to be accountable to human health and the planet, corporations will change....."
I disagree, because at the end of the day - the rich and the very rich know that they can always buy a better health than the rest of us. And that is why so many of them are willing to exploit people everywhere. They get top of the line education, if their water is contaminated - they get special water, they break a leg - they get it fixed.
Again, capitalism doesn't 'fix' itself. Oddly, enough I thought most things I was saying here were slightly different than the corporation (you posted the links a few days ago to it), and they aren't cause I went back to watch it - it's worth rewatching.
well-off people with children don't necessarily think they can escape to gated communities and escape the destruction of the environment. many with children and grandchildren realize the interconnectedness of everything on the planet.
i remember the end of the movie. like i said earlier, democratic socialism and fair trade are answers. so is cultural change. capital can be held accountable. laws can be changed. corporations can be held accountable. corporations lost their constitutional rights in pennsylvania. alternatives that work are changing laws, direct action, boycotts, education, vision. someday, people will look at market fundamentalism as a myth like the greek gods. a very dangerous myth that is easy to believe. moore is convinced a few people will do something anything to get this world back into our hands. it will take a cultural sea change.
"...democratic socialism and fair trade are answers"
Donna,
I kinda agree with you on that, though I am not sure what exactly you mean :)
Let me explain..India was founded on the basis of Democratic Socialism (we call it Nehruvian Socialism) and it failed miserably.
I lived in the UK for about 4 years and I was fascinated with their kind of governance and economic system. I do think entire western Europe and Nordic Countries have managed to balance Capitalism and Socialism fairly well, which I think is called Modern Democratic Socialism.
I guess, you were referring to Modern Democratic Socialism.
yes, but unlike what you said earlier (I don't know how what you are saying now is different than what I'm saying - but it is NOT what you were saying before) - it's not the shareholders who are going to do it. It's the people for goodness sakes. And if we keep on worshipping business people as 'heros/leaders' - we're not going to get anywhere are we?
Men didn't hand out rights to women - we fought for it. Likewise, same goes for businesses.
shareholders = the people. not all people but they are citizens (probably with more money) like you and me.
indianoguy, yes modern democratic socialism. most of the top twenty most competitive nations are democratic socialist in the world economic report. the us is last to realize environmentalism, women's equality, business ethics, etc. are good for business.
No offence intended Donna, but I have to say I find it extremely ironic that you put up a link to a movie that you recommend, without completely getting one of it's central points. Namely that it takes a hell of a lot of activists and revolt by everyday people to get MNC's to be held accountable. In the movie they gave a prime example of this - and that was how in Bolivia US owned corporations did not care about literally 'stealing' water from the people of Bolivia. It was not some benevolent shareholders who decided "let's give them their water back, most of them can't afford it". It was the masses of people (and yes, shareholders are people too - just like men are, just like everyone is - that's an odd point you made there) who had to revolt and fight for their water. Most business people only if (and often not even then) they are confronted directly with the circumstances that they put other people (often poorer people) do they ever do anything about it. And even then - it's highly unlikely. Notice the Kathy lee Gifford example in the film too? she went back to doing the samething within months! LOL
I strongly recommend that you read up on some third world feminist/socialist literature to see how there is definitely blatant disregard by MNC's towards women & all people's of the 'third world'. I know you are trying to make it sound like you are appealing to a 'shared humanity' but that stuff is really dated and historically proven to be inaccurate as demonstrated by any 'revolution' that has ever happened. It is only when masses of people revolt when we can 'overthrow' anything.
As a friend of mine said to me "people in power like to protect their power, and do so anyway they can". It's true.
I am opting to bow out of this convo at this point.
Cheers
AD
obviously. but it's only the bottom line that matters to these people. when stockholders/people get it, corporations will get it and change. and the movie was about changing the whole culture and of course that takes people/revolt. it's like in politics, the whole culture will have to change before politicians who are like the stockholders in this situation stop taking money from lobbyists.
in other words, the way things are set up right now in capitalism, stockholders, corporations, lobbyists and politicians are the FINAL STEP. people and grassroots efforts have to organize and push these things to happen.
Post a Comment