Reflections on Issue Twelve

Our Reciprocal Lives

Thank you to everyone who read Issue Twelve over the past week. For those who have not yet had a chance, you can read “Our Reciprocal Lives" here.

The Understory reflections between issues share thoughtful comments from readers that expand upon and challenge parts of the previous issue. This week was atypical in that I only received one comment. So, I’d like to try something new. In addition to sharing the thoughtful comment from Peter Tavernise, I am going to share parts of the speech given by Anand Giridharadas (Winners Take All) on Monday at the annual summit of the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD). The Understory is not a newsletter. But sometimes, events align to fit perfectly with the past week’s theme. 

Giridharadas’ incendiary speech provoked such outrage by some of the corporate directors in attendance that they not only walked out of the discussion, but also requested refunds and threatened to cancel their NACD membership. By understanding why the accusations were so cutting, we can further explore the theme of interdependence and leadership introduced last week.

As Shared by Peter Tavernise

“This week I've been working with the new-to-me concept of Entelechy. Aristotle said the Entelechy of the acorn is the majestic and ancient oak tree, one that has shaded generations. We each also have an Entelechy that draws us forward in time into our fullest flowering. To try this on, spend a half-hour with your eyes closed, envisioning this self as vividly as possible. And then begin to ask them questions - what do I need to know now, begin to practice, in order to become my fullest flowering?

I'm beginning to recognize there is also a reverse-time-stream version of Entelechy, which is myself now to my past self of say, three decades ago. And how we can heal inter-generational trauma now, in a way that reached back in time and forward in time. Perhaps a topic to explore later.

What does all this Entelechy business have to do with what you have written? What draws me about Solnit, and Kimmerer, and others' writings that you have referenced over time is that they are pointing to a kind of Societal or Communal Entelechy. The fullest flowering of our aggregate selves, if each of us individually could simply be open to becoming our fullest selves. And how naturally we default to that mode of tend and befriend when the curtain of daily illusions is torn back by disaster or disruption. We are living in such a time, and may we use it as an opportunity to manifest what is best in ourselves, with each other, and with the world.”

Peter’s comment adds to our ongoing thread about the possibilities of becoming. The term Entelechy is new to me as well, but now I recognize it was one of the essential building blocks of the mechanistic worldview of Descartes and Leibnitz as shared in Issue Six. While the philosophers debated over millennia where the source of these possibilities resided (soul, God, pineal gland, etc.), Peter’s comment focuses on the practices we integrate into our lives to bring about those possibilities. Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell is a late-capitalist critique of the structures that inhibit those possibilities from emerging within individuals and communities. Kimmerer guides us to sacred stories, ceremonies, and beliefs that help us cast forward to the possibilities of a different future by reconnecting with Indigenous ways of knowing and living interdependently with others and nature.

“As well, your above regarding the forest being one enormous and multivariate superorganism - as usual science when it goes deep enough emerges through the other side with mystic truths. Buckminster Fuller would be right at home here. We are, as a planet, a superorganism, radically interdependent whether we like it or not. And ideally that recognition should lead to our becoming radically reciprocal. Our rabid denial or terror of that reality of interdependence is the original wound. So now we are back to the themes from last issue, of how best to support and practice re-connection, with ourselves and each other. Inner and outer, as Dan Siegel would say.”

In reading this comment, I had a massive smile on my face. Given how influential Buckminster Fuller has been on my own thinking, I cannot believe this is his first appearance in The Understory and that I neglected to mention him on interdependent relationships. I thank you, Peter, for bringing Bucky back into my life. 

Fuller used the metaphor of Spaceship Earth to help us realize our interdependencies on each other and shared systems of the planet. Fuller described “starting with the Universe” as a springboard for lifelong discovery:

“I did not set out to design a house that hung from a pole or to manufacture a new type of automobile, invent a new system of map projection, develop geodesic domes, or Energetic-Synergetic geometry. I started with the Universe as an organization of energy systems of which all of our experiences are only local instances. I could have ended up with a pair of flying slippers.”

Dome Over Manhattan, Buckminster Fuller & Shoji Sadao 1960 by josephbergen (Shared by CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Fuller believed insatiable curiosity of humans would “generate spontaneous social behaviors that will avoid extinction.” Fuller called for us to depend more on each other, and that humans collectively could save humanity. He believed that specialization deprived humans of comprehensive understanding—inevitably causing us to leave responsibility and social action to others due to feelings of isolation and futility. I promise to further explore Fuller’s views of interdependence we in future issues.

See Peter’s comment in its entirety and add your reflections to his

As Shared by Anand Giridharadas

“The question I would have for everybody who was a corporate director in the years running up to the signing of that statement last August or who continue to be today, my question would be: Where were you? Where were you all these years?... Where were you in the run-up to the climate crisis? Where were you during widening inequality over the last four decades? Where were you in the run-up to the subprime crisis? Where were you in the run-up to the opioid crisis? Where were you?”

The “statement” is the Business Roundtable’s revised “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” (2019) to serve all stakeholders which was signed by 181 CEOs of some of the largest companies in the world. I wrote about a similar stakeholder capitalism campaign by the World Economic Forum in Issue One. 

The questions that Giridharadas is asking could be reframed within the context of Issue 12 as: ‘where are the Max De Pree’s of today?’ If the first responsibility of a leader is to define reality, how could leadership have missed the corporate responsibilities to identify the threats of climate breakdown, widening inequality, the subprime crisis, and the opioid crisis? Missing any of these could be understandable, but missing all of them was a failure in structural corporate governance. And if these 181 companies have agreed to shift their models from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism, by what mechanisms will they be held accountable?

“I ask you: What major change, what major rebalancing of power, what major shift in favor of humanity and of workers and of equity, which shift do you have in mind that has occurred in American history because of voluntary corporate virtue? We need to change who has power. We need to change how power works. And, frankly, if you are a person in a corporation—actually, not just a person but a director of a corporation—you have a very critical choice here about whether you want to be on the right side of history.”

Giridharadas frames the opportunity for corporate directors as a choice, much like Kimmerer described the fork in the road between the soft green path or the black and burnt one. I think Girharadas would describe voluntary corporate virtue as a false choice, which depends on structural change rather than volunteer virtue to achieve the BRT suggested shift. Rather, the real choice is whether these directors will support stronger regulation that imposes enforcement on corporate power. He cites myriad historic examples where regulation, not corporate responsibility, was required to mitigate corporate irresponsibility. 

While I am guessing that many in the audience would have shared the reaction that Jamie Dimon had in negating Giridharadas’ proposal, I am guessing the levee did not break until he said the following:

“So many of the people who read my book are young people who then buy it for their parents and grandparents, often people who have jobs as corporate directors or CEOs. I get such a large amount of mail about this. I just want to say one quick point.

A lot of your children and grandchildren do not respect your work. Some of them say this to you; some of them don't. But we know this from public attitudes. You know this from survey data. There is a sense among younger people coming of age in the most diverse, open-minded generation in American history that what their parents and grandparents did in corporate boardrooms near broke America.

And if for no other reason than to have a less awkward Thanksgiving this year with your relatives, try to get on the right side of history.”

With this statement, Giridharadas hit many leaders where it hurt–the significance of their legacy. And this is what likely fomented the outcries among directors attending the NACD summit. What baffles me is the question of what they expected Giridharadas to say when they put him on the stage? 

It has been over a year since the BRT statement was signed. Several research efforts have been undertaken to validate the legitimacy of the commitments. Two professors at Harvard Law School, Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita, found that of the 48 signatories who responded to their enquiry, 47 indicated that the decision was approved by the CEO but not the board of directors. As the researchers point out, “the most important corporate decisions (such as a major acquisition, the amendment of the by-laws, or an important change in the corporate strategy) require or at least commonly receive approval by a vote at a meeting of the board of directors.” They conclude that most likely the BRT statement was “a mere public-relations move rather than a signal of a significant shift in how business operates.” 

Giridharadas cited another study, A Test of Corporate Purpose, that found signing the statement made no difference in the signatories’ response to COVID-19. “Since the pandemic’s inception, BRT Signatories did not outperform their S&P 500 or European company counterparts on this test of corporate purpose.” In a separate study cited by The Atlantic in “Beware of Corporate Promises” (August 2020), Wharton professor Tyler Wry researched companies’ responses in March and April at the outset of COVID-19. Wry found that companies who signed the BRT statement “actually paid out 20 percent more of their capital than similar companies that did not sign the statement.” They were also 20 percent more prone to announce layoffs or furloughs. Wry’s research not only validated the findings by Bebchuk and Tallarita, but also found that signing that statement may have produced negative effects which he attributes to moral self-licensing. The theory is that a token gesture of moral behaviour psychologically frees someone to do something more morally dubious.

While the data demonstrates that Giridharadas’ skepticism in true structural change from the BRT signatories is justified, we should be heartened by what he hears from the front-lines of younger generations. As the most “open-minded generation in American history,” they not only influence their parents and grandparents, but are also entering the workforce where they will continue to fight for what they believe is needed for a healthier living planet. Undoubtedly, they see the possibilities of corporate interests aligning with broader social responsibilities in a more reciprocal relationship. So while we might not see the BRT signatories rapidly making the shift to stakeholder capitalism, the move is afoot. The question is whether the move will happen in time to prevent climate collapse.

Read Anand Giridharadas' interview in its entirety

I hope this week between issues provides the space for further discovery and reflection. Go forth and make a difference in the week ahead. See you next Saturday with Issue Thirteen.

Adam

---