Blog

Caux Round Table Proposal for Reconciliation Among Those Faithful to the Abrahamic Religions

I write to you from Rome where yesterday, our chairman emeritus and myself, with our Caux Round Table fellows, Silvano Cardinal Tomasi, John Dalla Costa, Dean Recep Senturk and Professor Ibrahim Zein, made public a press release and statement on the use of covenants for reconciliation among the faithful within the family of the Abrahamic religions.

Yesterday was most significant for releasing a statement on seeking peace in the Holy Land.  It was the anniversary of the 1948 Nakba, a devastating experience for many Palestinians, leading to decades of alienation and conflict between Palestinians and the Jews of Israel.

The world has watched, over many decades, failure after failure to heal the wounds of fear and conflict in the Holy Land and bring about a just and lasting reconciliation among parties in conflict.

Perhaps, therefore, a new approach is needed.  Neither war, nor sovereign claims to territory, nor conferences and diplomatic interventions, have been successful.

Finding a basis for mutual respect and appreciation of the other is needed, as Pope Francis proposed in his last encyclical, Fratelli Tutti.  In this context, the precedent of the Prophet Muhammad giving covenants for himself and his followers to keep until the end of time to respect and protect Christians and Jews becomes of great significance.

Orn Bodvarsson Appointed Fellow

It is my honor to report that Orn Bodvarsson has been appointed a fellow of the Caux Round Table.

Professor Bodvarsson has an enviable record of accomplishment in teaching and thinking about capitalism, business, finance and public governance.  He has been graciously supportive of our work in past years and I look forward to his greater involvement in our delivering thought leadership and a foundational vision of justice.

Orn has a Ph.D. in economics from Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada, with research in labor economics, applied microeconomics, economics of information and financial economics. He received his B.S. in economics, with honors, from Oregon State University in 1979 and his M.S. in agricultural and resource economics, also from Oregon State University, in 1982.

Orn is currently the dean of the Atkinson Graduate School of Management and professor of economics at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon.

Previously, he was dean of the Gore School of Business and professor of economics at Westminster University in Salt Lake City, Utah, dean of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies and professor of economics at California State University, Sacramento and founding dean of the School of Public Affairs and professor of economics at St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Orn has published The Economics of Immigration: Theory and Policy, 2nd edition (with Hendrik F. Van den Berg), Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag (2013) and numerous articles for peer reviewed journals.

He will bring to our discussions a wise humanity, an open mind and thoughtful attention to detail.

I am delighted to have his guidance and counsel readily available.

Cultivating a Better Understanding of AI: Video

Back on April 2, our fellow, Michael Wright, CEO of Intercepting Horizons, provided us with a general overview of AI, which you can view here.

Michael is a values-driven leader and innovator who is passionate about leveraging technological convergences to shape future business landscapes.

He is the author of two books, The Exponential Era and The New Business Normal, both on management and technology.

Many thanks to Loren Swanson, one of our regular participants, for recording it.

American Education In-person Round Table – Thursday, May 23

Our colleague, Michael Hartoonian, keeps us thinking about how a society can meet expectations of promoting moral capitalism and benefiting from moral government if citizens are not well educated.

America is in crisis – mostly due to elite failure in government and culture.  Our slogan, to borrow from students in our elite educational institutions, might be: “From the Atlantic to the Pacific – America is unhappy.”  The crisis has enveloped all our institutions of education, from pre-K to post graduate.  Failure of educational institutions has aggravated our dis-ease.

One set of data on this is the following chart:

Michael has recently drafted a statement on public education.  I have sent it to the presidents of colleges and universities in Minnesota with a request that they work with us on a Minnesota statement of ethical principles for higher education.  I attach a copy for your review.

Please join at noon on Thursday, May 23 at Landmark Center for an in-person round table over lunch to discuss what needs to be done to address what is both a consequence and a cause of our national anxiety and consequent low expectations of ourselves and our leaders.

Registration and lunch will begin at 11:30 am.

Cost to attend is $20.

Lunch will be provided by Afro Deli.

To register, please email jed@cauxroundtable.net.

April Pegasus Now Available!

Here’s the April issue of Pegasus.

In this edition, we include three articles.

The first, by yours truly, is about equity.  What is it?  What’s its history?  Do people who speak of it actually know what they’re talking about?

Secondly, we include a piece by Michael Hartoonian on the causes, propositions and policy recommendations for atrophying societies.

Lastly, we have a guest article by a colleague at the Sasin School of Management on boosting Western capitalism with Eastern wisdom.

As usual, I would be most interested in your thoughts and feedback.

It’s the Values, Stupid!

Bad actors make a mess of capitalism.  Deepfake creators are taking advantage of AI capabilities available in the market to scam companies.

In particular, AI programs can now imitate actual voice patterns of individuals to create phony, over the phone instructions to companies to do something for a supposed customer.

Banks and financial service companies are among the first to be targeted.  Companies providing voice activated access to personal accounts could expose depositors to theft.

OpenAI has showcased technology that can re-create a human voice from a 15-second audio clip.  But, thoughtfully, OpenAI said it would not put the technology on the market until it has more information on potential misuse.

Bad actors could also use AI to generate fake driver’s licenses to set up online accounts.

Could it be that we really do need “morals” in capitalism to protect the common good, that self-interested, short-term money profiteering is an unreliable road leading to increasing the wealth of nations?

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

One hears, more and more, in cautious, somewhat reluctant, but worried tones, people coming around to say out loud what worries them – there are no leaders anymore.

Some seven or so years ago, one of the smartest executives in our network, a European, told me with definitive certainty: “Everyone knows we are living at the end of an age, that a new age is coming.  But no one knows what the next age will bring, so everyone does today only what they did yesterday.”

In my inbox a few days ago, the consulting firm McKinsey & Company sent tips on leadership from one of their reports of 9 years ago.  It was titled Decoding Leadership: What Really Matters, written by Claudio Feser, Fernanda Mayol and Ramesh Srinivasan.

Based on a survey of 81 organizations operating in Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America, in agriculture, consulting, energy, government, insurance, mining and real estate and sized from 7,500 to 300,000 employees, they reported that “the secret to developing effective leaders is to encourage four types of behaviors.”

They wrote:

Earlier McKinsey research has consistently shown that good leadership is a critical part of organizational health, which is an important driver of shareholder returns.

A big, unresolved issue is what sort of leadership behavior organizations should encourage.  Is leadership so contextual that it defies standard definitions or development approaches?  Should companies now concentrate their efforts on priorities such as role modeling, making decisions quickly, defining visions and shaping leaders who are good at adapting?  Should they stress the virtues of enthusiastic communication?  In the absence of any academic or practitioner consensus on the answers, leadership-development programs address an extraordinary range of issues, which may help explain why only 43 percent of CEOs are confident that their training investments will bear fruit.

Our most recent research, however, suggests that a small subset of leadership skills closely correlates with leadership success, particularly among frontline leaders.  Using our own practical experience and searching the relevant academic literature, we came up with a comprehensive list of 20 distinct leadership traits.  Next, we surveyed 189,000 people in 81 diverse organizations around the world to assess how frequently certain kinds of leadership behavior are applied within their organizations.  Finally, we divided the sample into organizations whose leadership performance was strong (the top quartile of leadership effectiveness as measured by McKinsey’s Organizational Health Index) and those that were weak (bottom quartile).

What we found was that leaders in organizations with high-quality leadership teams typically displayed 4 of the 20 possible types of behavior.  These 4, indeed, explained 89 percent of the variance between strong and weak organizations in terms of leadership effectiveness.

The 20 possible types of leadership behaviors included in the survey were:

-Be supportive.
-Champion desired change.
-Clarify objectives, rewards and consequences.
-Communicate prolifically and enthusiastically.
-Develop others.
-Develop and share a collective mission.
-Differentiate among followers.
-Facilitate group collaboration.
-Foster mutual respect.
-Give praise.
-Keep group organized and on task.
-Make quality decisions.
-Motivate and bring out best in others.
-Offer a critical perspective.
-Operate with strong results orientation.
-Recover positively from failures.
-Remain composed and confident in uncertainty.
-Role model organizational values.
-Seek different perspectives.
-Solve problems effectively.

The 4 optimal leadership behaviors were:

• Solving problems effectively.  The process that precedes decision-making is problem solving, when information is gathered, analyzed and considered.  This is deceptively difficult to get right, yet it is a key input into decision-making for major issues (such as M&A), as well as daily ones (such as how to handle a team dispute).

• Operating with a strong results orientation.  Leadership is about not only developing and communicating a vision and setting objectives, but also following through to achieve results. Leaders with a strong results orientation tend to emphasize the importance of efficiency and productivity and to prioritize the highest-value work.

• Seeking different perspectives.  This trait is conspicuous in managers who monitor trends affecting organizations, grasp changes in the environment, encourage employees to contribute ideas that could improve performance, accurately differentiate between important and unimportant issues and give the appropriate weight to stakeholder concerns.  Leaders who do well on this dimension typically base their decisions on sound analysis and avoid the many biases to which decisions are prone.

• Supporting others.  Leaders who are supportive understand and sense how other people feel. By showing authenticity and a sincere interest in those around them, they build trust and inspire and help colleagues to overcome challenges.  They intervene in group work to promote organizational efficiency, allaying unwarranted fears about external threats and preventing the energy of employees from dissipating into internal conflict.

The researchers concluded that:

We’re not saying that the centuries-old debate about what distinguishes great leaders is over or that context is unimportant.  Experience shows that different business situations often require different styles of leadership.  We do believe, however, that our research points to a kind of core leadership behavior that will be relevant to most companies today, notably on the front line.  For organizations investing in the development of their future leaders, prioritizing these four areas is a good place to start.

What is startling to me and connected to the growing perception that we have no leaders is that the 20 behaviors associated with leadership did not include any core values or orientation to stakeholders.

To me, these 20 behaviors resonate with “teaming,” with “conversations,” with everyone at the table and no one responsible for anything in particular.

Only “operating with a strong results orientation” smacks of leadership gumption.

What the McKinsey researchers looked at was management, not leadership.  Management is team-centered.  Leadership is values centered and so purpose driven.

Managers perform.  Leaders deliver.  Managers process.  Leaders have courage and take risks. Managers are often substitutable, one for another and expendable.  Leaders are hard to find.

We were warned about mistaking management for leadership by Chester Bernard in 1938 (The Functions of the Executive) and again by Philip Selznick in 1957 (Leadership in Administration).

Maybe it was no accident, but something more systemic, which has bedeviled Boeing and destroyed its capacity for leadership in the manufacture of aircraft.

More Short Videos on Relevant and Timely Topics

We recently posted more short videos on relevant and timely topics.  They include:

Should We Have Very Wealthy People?

What Happened to GE?

Take Care of Your Stakeholders

Predicting the Future

All our videos can be found on our YouTube page here.  We recently put them into 9 playlists, which you can find here.

If you aren’t following us on Twitter or haven’t liked us on Facebook, please do so.  We update both platforms frequently.

Causation: The Boon and the Bane of Capitalism (of life, really)

A while back, I ran across a story about the law of unintended consequences.  Cause and effect is how life happens.  Is not that why with business and finance, we think of forecasting, making judgments about risks, following the science and creating new products, taking due care, of assuming fiduciary responsibilities, of bringing stakeholder concerns into our decision-making?

This story turned on the consequences of farmers in India giving their cattle the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac.  When vultures fed on dead cattle having been so treated, the vultures suffered kidney failure and died within weeks.  From the 1990s to the early 2000s, some 90% of Indian vultures died.

Other scavengers took their place: feral dogs and rats, which carried rabies.  But more impactful were the rotting carcasses full of pathogens, which spread to drinking water.  People died.  A study concluded that in districts with vulture suitable habitats, the loss of vultures caused some 500,000 human deaths more than in districts that were less suitable for vultures.

The Economist captured these causal connections in this graphic:

Boeing: Failing at Moral Capitalism

Boeing, maker of airplanes, has paid $160 million to Alaska Air Group to compensate that customer for lost profits following the midair blowout of a door plug on a Boeing plane sold to that company.  The accident and subsequent forced grounding of Alaska Air’s jets had a negative impact on Alaska Air’s income.  Alaska Air said it expects more compensation from Boeing in the future.

Now that’s a great way to make a profit: sell your customers poor quality products and then compensate them for the inconvenience.  What was Boeing thinking?  What went wrong?  We get an answer from a recent interview by Chrisopher Rufo with a Boeing employee.  In short, Boeing’s corporate culture and its values drove it to acting stupidly, not taking care of stakeholders and in so doing, failing at capitalism 101.

Christopher Rufo: In general terms, what is happening at Boeing?

Insider: At its core, we have a marginalization of the people who build stuff, the people who really work on these planes.

So, right now, we have an executive council running the company that is all outsiders.  The current CEO is a General Electric guy, as is the CFO, whom he brought in.  And we have a completely new HR leader, with no background at Boeing.  The head of our commercial-airplanes unit in Seattle, who was fired last week, was one of the last engineers in the executive council.

The headquarters in Arlington is empty.  Nobody lives there.  It is an empty executive suite.  The CEO lives in New Hampshire.  The CFO lives in Connecticut.  The head of HR lives in Orlando. We just instituted a policy that everyone has to come into work five days a week – except the executive council, which can use the private jets to travel to meetings.  And that is the story: it is a company that is under caretakers.  It is not under owners.  And it is not under people who love airplanes.

In this business, the workforce knows if you love the thing you are building or if it’s just another set of assets to you.  At some point, you cannot recover with process what you have lost with love.  And I think that is probably the most important story of all.  There is no visible center of the company and people are wondering what they are connected to.

Rufo: If they have lost the love of building airplanes, what is the love, if any, that they bring to the job?

Insider: Status games rule every boardroom in the country.  The DEI narrative is a very real thing and at Boeing, DEI got tied to the status game.  It is the thing you embrace if you want to get ahead.  It became a means to power.

The radicalization of HR doesn’t hurt tech businesses like it hurts manufacturing businesses.

Service means you are spending the extra time to understand what’s really happening in the factory and in your supply chain.  There should be some honor in understanding that we inherited something beautiful and good and worth loving.

Boeing’s outgoing CEO, David Calhoun, for his leadership in 2023, received from the company $33 million in compensation, mostly from awards of stock and not company cash – only $1.4 million in salary.  But as discipline for the door plug blowout on a 737 MAX jet this past January, for 2024, Calhoun and other senior executives will get 22% less in shares of Boeing stock than originally proposed.  Calhoun also gave up a cash bonus for 2023 in the amount of $2.8 million.

Even with such reduced compensation, Calhoun is not hurting financially, but the company surely is.