It seems there’s a theme running here at the moment. Change. Whatever that might mean. The above video which features prof David Harvey, a radical sociologist, is something I came across as a result of sifting through some of Richard Murphy’s recent posts. As he says – this is taking a Marxian approach – anathema to many I know, often without understanding what it really means to take this path. What many people don’t realize for example is that sociology is the study of inequality, something that Marx was deeply concerned about at a philosophical level. You simply cannot discuss the problems that beset our economies, societies and business without recognizing the validity of that basis for new thinking.
Contrast this with the critique that follows:
This comes from someone I’ve never heard of but appears to be supporting the Hoover Institution’s view of the world and especially that of Thomas Sowell.
I leave to others with larger brains to figure out the rights and wrongs of each argument though I have to say I am more persuaded by the former than the latter.
As an aside, I would probably not have written this piece if it hadn’t been for the fact that James Farrar, an SAP exec who has more experience understanding sustainability than most others I know had not drawn my attention to this piece in the Irish Times by ex-AIB director Jim O’Leary. He makes much of the risk management problems at banks but also acknowledges that he didn’t do enough to prevent gross risk taking. Thumbs up for that but…he gets into a bit of what James might call ‘revisionist thinking’ when he says:
A critical impediment to be overcome in the delivery of good corporate governance outcomes is asymmetry of information. Put crudely, the starting position is that a company’s managers possess all the relevant information while the board or at least the non-executive directors have none. The board is given as much information as management is prepared to share with it.
I don’t buy this but I do see how it fits into one or more of the scenarios that prof Harvey presents in the early part of his presentation.
As we try and think more critically about the firms of the future, what shape they will likely take and the important role of ethics, then the questions that prof Harvey raises and which are at risk of being swept aside need consideration. As I implied in an earlier piece talking to Ray Wang’s model of new firms, a strong ethics code is no longer something that you can assume but something that needs to be worked at. A key aspect of that comes in balancing value delivered against reward.
These are difficult questions but I believe if we get stuck in doctrinal wars then nothing of value can come out the other side. Of one thing I am reasonably certain: the old economics and the old philosophies upon which our firms are based is fundamentally flawed. Pieces of those past philosophers can be built upon but not the whole of their thinking. invoking the ghosts of Marx, Hayek, Adams and Keynes makes for high sounding debate but if you REALLY think about all of them – none have given us the sustainable practices we need.
