Hack:
It is time for a new Metaphor. (Beyond “Ethics” and “Responsibility”)

“In violence, a person is violated—there is harm done to his person, his psyche, his body, his dignity, his ability to govern himself.”  (Dr. Alexander Liazos)

Corporate misconduct is almost always a form of violence, as it directly and indirectly violates the lives of many people.  Alexander Liazos used this definition of violence to describe what he called Covert Institutional Violence, which he called the “unethical, illegal, and destructive actions of powerful individuals, groups, and institutions in our society”.  He was right to be concerned about these actions, but his concern—and his metaphor—focused on the intentional actions of the powerful.  Sure, there are major scandals concocted by a few deviants in powerful positions, but I believe a much larger portion of corporate misconduct is perpetrated unintentionally and often completely unconsciously.

By dropping the word covert, I believe the metaphor “Institutional Violence” will shine a brighter light on the root causes of corporate misbehavior.  In this HACK, I intend to show the connection between individual violence and “Institutional Violence” by defining some of the theoretical causes of individual violence then assessing how these issues can cause corporate misconduct and destructiveness.  The problem is, many of the causes of individual violence have become entrenched in our organizational structures and cultures to the point that we consider them to be the norm.  Even more, the effects of institutional violence are hardly ever felt or seen by the perpetrators, creating a perfect storm for escalating destructiveness.

To illustrate the connection between violence and corporate misconduct, I first will bring together some of the major elements from theorists Erich Fromm, Arno Gruen, and Marshall Rosenberg (illustrated in the chart below), and then I will compare these elements to elements within destructive corporate cultures.

In the chart above, the orange elements in the circle make up the basic cycle of violence and the yellow element stands for one of the most common entry points into this cycle: fear.  Whether it is a fear of dying, a fear of losing a job, or a fear of looking like a fool, this fear can often make us feel powerless.  This powerlessness initiates or magnifies our need to feel like we can control our circumstances.  Since we often cannot take direct control of the situation that made us feel powerless (or at least feel like we cannot), we look for other ways to prove to ourselves that we have power in the world.  In our quest for power we often attempt to conquer or control other things or other people.  We might try to conquer a mountain or control a video game character, but since destructive actions tend to be one of the easiest and most intense ways to feel powerful, they are often the actions we take.  However, destructive actions tend not to coincide with our core principles (at least not at the subconscious level), so in order to ease the tension between our wrongful actions and our principles, we disconnect from ourselves, disconnect from those we hurt, and, out of shame and self-hatred, disconnect from those we love.  The disconnection from others makes us feel alone, and the disconnection from ourselves makes us feel less than human.  Feeling alone and less human leads to even more feelings of powerlessness, and the cycle continues either until we are able to get out of it or until our destructive actions become so violent that someone else stops us.

“Thanks for the lesson Kevin!  But, how does this relate to corporations again?”  I’m so glad you asked that question!  In addition to fear, there are countless other ways in which someone can enter this cycle, many of which have become the cornerstones of corporate policy and organizational design.  The chart below shows the same cycle of violence, but this time I added some common entry points found in organizations today.

The chart above is by no means an exhaustive list.  It is just a first cut to get you thinking about all the ways in which your organization may be pushing people into this cycle of violence.  I believe it would be an inefficient use of space to describe each entry point in detail, but please do not hesitate to comment on this post or email me directly if you have any questions or comments.

Obviously, one way to reduce Institutional Violence would be to eliminate, or reduce the impact of these entry points, and I will discuss this approach more in the “First Steps” section of this Hack.  What is not quite as obvious is that for every entry point into this cycle there is also an opportunity to exit it!  By addressing the elements directly, we can create opportunities to short-circuit the cycle, producing even more profound changes in the corporate culture than simply removing the entry points.  Below are some examples of how we can directly address a few of these elements.  (if you are interested in hearing ideas for other elements, again, don’t hesitate to ask!  J)

DISCONNECTION FROM OTHERS

Perhaps the most basic and well-known theory on violence is that a person must disconnect oneself from others, usually by dehumanizing them, in order to commit violence against them.  This can be done intentionally with propaganda, epithets, and other techniques signifying “otherness”, but the problem is that it is also done automatically, in our subconscious, whenever we view people as being outside of our group.  For example, engineers will subconsciously think of accountants as less human than other engineers.  The further removed a person is from the group, the less human he or she will seem. 

This dehumanization can impact a corporation in many ways.  If an engineer sees accountants as less than human, they will have a much easier time making decisions destructive to the “Bean Counters”, resulting in anything from “stretching the truth” on expense reports to excessive project plan budgets to sourcing from higher cost suppliers.  If the engineer sees the customer as less than human, it could lead to anything from unwanted gimmicks to deadly design flaws.  An engineer disconnected from living beings in general could lead to carelessly toxic designs that wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.  As noted before, once this engineer starts making destructive decisions, he or she can get stuck in a repetitive cycle continuously increasing in destructiveness.  (By the way, I used to be an engineer, so I feel safer picking on them). 

Solutions to this issue of disconnection can come in many shapes and sizes.  Below are a few examples.

Ask “individuating” questions to create an image of a complex individual.  By applying social-psychological theory, a company might create a process to encourage employees to envision humanizing aspects of those in other areas.  This could be done with “individuating” questions that help to conjure up an image of a complex human being.  These questions often invite you to imagine the other person’s relationships, ambitions, or other situations that require a complex set of emotions.  For example, along with a photo (like the one below) a question may ask: “What hopes and aspirations do you think this man has for his oldest daughter?” or “What do you think motivates this man?” or even “Why do you think he is smiling?”  The point is to paint a picture of a human with emotions and desires quite similar to the responder.  These questions are often successful because, when asked a question about someone that they do not know the answer to, people often project themselves onto others.

Individuating methods, such as this one, should be applied in corporations where dehumanization is most rampant, and most vulnerable to abuse.  Thus, whenever decisions are being made that will affect the lives of others those others should first be “humanized” in the eyes of the decision makers by using individuating questions, or other methods with similar intent.  Such situations can range anywhere from defining offshore manufacturing strategies to setting H.R. policies to deciding on socially questionable marketing campaigns.  Individuating processes can also be used to gain a better understanding of various stakeholders and thus should be used as a first step to build or improve relationships with typically dehumanized stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers, government agencies, protestors, members of the media, or NGOs. 

Create a Super-ordinate group mindset.  Some solutions can be beautifully simple.  Last week I had the opportunity to hear a talk by the former CEO of Wiley and Sons, Will Pesce.  He made it a point to always think and speak of each employee as a “colleague”.  This simple gesture instantly put the CEO in the same group as everyone in the company, from mail clerks to executive vice presidents, and this mindset became contagious because he made sure to give it the proper emphasis. 

Before you go running off and implementing this as a corporate policy, however, it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that all employees are authentically thought of as colleagues.  First of all, this means that “calling everyone a colleague” will never work as an officially mandated policy.  This behavior must become part of the culture naturally, through proper role modeling.  From Will Pesce’s demeanor, it was clear that he thought of each employee as a colleague.  This is why it worked for him.  The first step to implementing this idea would be to become intentionally conscious of how you think of each worker in your daily interactions.  Ask yourself: Do I consider her to be my colleague?  Do I think he is an important part of this organization?  If the answer is “no”, think about how they contribute to the company, or practice some of the individuating exercises mentioned above.  No matter what, before you talk about how each worker is your colleague, or call them a colleague, you should actually feel that way.  Otherwise, your words will ring hollow, and they will feel even more disconnected from you.

Social Media and Communication Technology.  We can also use various communications technologies to create images of others as complex individuals, as part of our group, or both.  According to media theory the printed or written word draws a person inward, separating him from the outside world, while live oral/aural communication unites people in a shared moment.  In the 21^st century, we have plenty of technology to bring people together.  Web-cams and video stations installed in high traffic areas could allow people to interact with each other from far off locations.  Or, going a step further, a company could create a video blog social website in which employees post general—or work related—comments, stories, questions, and answers for people in other locations.  This option would be beneficial on multiple levels.  First, in seeing what others are curious about, and listening to their stories, workers on both sides will begin to see each other in a more human light.  Second, these workers will gain a much better appreciation for the challenges faced in other areas of the company and can contribute ideas to help solve them.  On top of that, the questions you decide to post on the website could be simultaneously used to pursue, harvest, and store innovative ideas for strategic planning, corporate policies, cost reductions, new products, or even new markets for current products.  In many cases, interpreters will be needed, but these expenses could easily be offset by the increased efficiency, productivity, and loyalty created by a more connected corporation.

DISCONNECTION FROM ONESELF

Violent acts also become much easier when one is detached from one’s own needs and emotions.  This self-detachment is commonplace in many corporations and other large organizations.  Studies have shown that people become detached in a number of common job-related situations, such as strict and controlling hierarchies, mundane and repetitive tasks, and being required to perform ethically questionable duties.

These findings suggest a two-fold approach.  First, organizational structures and job-related processes and requirements need to be assessed to reduce or eliminate these factors.  However, many of these factors are deeply ingrained within corporate culture and some, such as repetitive and mundane tasks, can be near impossible to eliminate.  Thus, corporations should also institute programs to reconnect people with themselves.  These programs could take many forms ranging from periodic meditation breaks to pet friendly policies (as pets have been shown to reconnect people with their emotions).  Basically, any recurring activity reminding people of their own biological “human-ness” would be beneficial.

APPLYING MORE SPECIFIC THEORIES

Viewing corporate misbehavior from the lens of “Institutional Violence” brings with it a wealth of solutions from much more specifically focused theories as well.

Energy of Tension/Fear. Randall Collins’s micro-situational theory on violence suggests there is an energy of “tension/fear” present during any aggressive and potentially violent exchange.  In fact, it is this tension/fear that makes violence so difficult to commit.  The energy is directly related to physical closeness, and is greatly intensified by eye contact, which is why “hitmen”, snipers, and even suicide-bombers go through great pains specifically to avoid eye contact.

This theory helps explain why corporate scandals and abuse can become so rampant, for there is little to no physical interaction between a decision-maker in a large organization and those affected by her decisions.  In most decision-making situations it would be impractical, or nearly impossible, to require the physical presence of those people who would be affected by the decision.  However, a company could provide photographs of these people and require the decision-makers to look into their eyes (via photo)*.  Now, there are obviously many difficult yet necessary decisions made by managers that negatively impact other people.  I am not saying these photographs would, or even should cause an executive to stop from closing a factory.  However, this simple exercise could change how the decision is carried out, ensuring the closing process is done with respect and those being laid-off are treated with dignity. 
(*Care should be taken before implementing this policy in other regions of the world, as some cultures may be highly averse to looking others in the eyes)

Neuroscience and Human Reactivity.  The vast majority of violence committed in the world is instigated by a perceived sense of threat.  The problem is, in modern society this perceived threat is often imagined.  Neuroscience has shown that the primitive regions of our brain that react against a threat function much faster than the higher-reasoning regions used to determine whether or not something is actually a threat and, if so, how to proactively avoid it.

The faster-acting reactivity of our brains can cause high-pressure meetings to end in destructive decisions and cause individuals to act irrationally or unethically when faced with the perceived threat of losing their job or a cancellation of their project.  To address these situations, we need to slow things down and allow the higher-reasoning portions of the brain to catch up with the reactive and dangerously aggressive portions. 

Jeffry Hollender, former CEO of Seventh Generation, did just this by instituting mandatory breaks in his meetings.  In these breaks, meeting participants reflected upon who they were being at the meeting and what they were working towards to see if their actions were in alignment with their goals and principles.  Similar safeguards could be placed within project schedules.  With each major milestone those involved with a project could write a short reflection on whether the project was or was not proceeding in alignment with the goals and principles of the company and that individual.

Other Theories.  An exhaustive list of theories and their related applications would be more fitting for a book than a MIX hack.  But please feel free to message me if you are interested in hearing about other theories and their possible applications, or if you have a specific issue that you think could be addressed using violence theory.

NEED for ADAPTATION

I must stress that all the examples above tend to be a bit simplistic because they are meant to be generally applicable.  Any organization looking to take on the issue of “Institutional Violence” in a more serious manner is likely to want to create specialized programs and policies to most powerfully address its unique set of processes and organizational structures.

SYSTEMIC IMPLICATIONS

If the metaphor of “Institutional Violence” is adopted on a larger scale, it could bring with it other systemic implications.  A progressive response to low-level violent crime would be to place the offender in corrective and/or restorative treatment programs (most likely while the person is serving a prison sentence).  It is well documented that prisons and judicial systems with these more holistic treatment based programs tend to have much lower recidivism rates than those that do not. 

Why not expand this concept into the arena of Institutional Violence?  Currently, when a corporation commits a crime, it is often slapped with a fine and possibly audited more meticulously, but that’s about it.  Scare tactics are not as effective in preventing repeat crime on an individual level, so why do we think scare tactics alone will prevent many repeat corporate offenders?

Goldman Sachs is a perfect example of this.  In July of 2010, the SEC fined Goldman Sachs $550 Million, the largest fine in SEC history, for dishonest business practices.  Goldman Sachs was also told to change those dishonest practices.  But changing practices did nothing to fix the corporate culture, the true cause of the misconduct.  In October of 2011 Rajat K Gupta, former director of Goldman Sachs was arrested for insider trading.  So, by the end of 2011 we had plenty of evidence that Goldman Sachs needed to fix its culture, but procedure to force the issue.  So, instead, we were once again reminded of their destructive culture on March 14^th, when Greg Smith published his letter “Why I am Leaving Goldman Sachs” in the New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs...)

This letter is not only important because it shows that fines and arrests on their own do not work, but it is also important because it begs us to answer some crucial questions with respect to corporate destructiveness.  At what point do we intervene? And, how can we intervene?  In his letter, Greg stated that he knew of no illegal activities taking place in the firm, but clearly painted a picture of the toxic and contagiously unethical atmosphere promoted throughout all levels of Goldman Sachs.  Goldman Sachs is a time bomb, waiting to explode.  The warning signs have been clearly laid out in front of us.  Do we have a moral obligation to act?  If so, what can we do?  Why haven’t we done it already?

I believe a major contributor to our inaction is that we are not sure of what action to take.  Cue “Institutional Violence”.  Just as high-risk individuals are often given access to treatment programs, we could create corrective treatment programs for offending, or high-risk corporations.  These programs could include consultants assigned to develop a healthy organizational culture within the company, or they could take the form of something beyond my current imagination.  Corporations that violate the law would be forced to both cooperate with and fund these programs, with enough funding included to offer the programs free of charge to other corporations designated as “high-risk”.  For “high-risk” corporations the programs would be voluntary with the caveat that if they do not participate, they will face much stiffer fines for any illegal activities discovered in the future.

The establishment of these treatment programs could have other rippling effects.  One such effect could be a national (or international?) corporate destructiveness hotline.  This hotline could allow for anonymous callers to voice their concerns, ask for advice, or report ethically questionable activity.  Details would have to be worked out for when action is taken, and what that action would be, but I imagine that repeatedly named companies would, at the very least, be put on an actively investigated watch-list and sent letters expressing concern.

Restorative treatment programs could also prove effective for corporations.  Such a program would find some way to bring the offending decision-makers from a company together with their victims.  The end goal of such a program is three-fold.  First, all involved would work together to create a plan to restore the community (as much as possible).  Second, these discussions will be designed to help members of the community find closure, as is often the case when restorative processes are applied to cases of individual violence.  Third, and most important for reducing further incidents, the offending corporate decision-makers will get to see and hear first-hand accounts of how their decisions affected others.  Putting faces and names to one’s victims can often have seriously humbling effects.

What I have written in this section should be taken as just the beginning of what this framework of “Institutional Violence” could offer.  As more and more people from various disciplines adopt a metaphor, its outer limits are continuously tested.  I cannot wait to see all that this metaphor can bring to light.

A MERGING OF THE METAPHORS

I am not espousing we stop using the metaphors of “ethics” or “responsibility”, as each provides a unique set of benefits.  Instead, I am arguing that these metaphors can be further elaborated by incorporating notions of violence, which will help us concentrate on the ROOT CAUSE of corporate misbehavior, the organizational cultures within corporations themselves.  “Institutional Violence” seems like the right metaphor for the job.

Unfortunately, in the vast majority of companies and professional societies, Compliance and CSR are treated as completely separate entities.  Rather than solving problems together, they focus only on what they can see with their own metaphors.  For example, I recently had a discussion with a compliance officer working in California about the state’s now operative Transparency in Supply Chains Act, which requires companies to publicly state what they are doing to avoid supporting slave-labor and sweatshops in their supply chains.  The law does not require that companies actually do anything to avoid such practices in their supply chain; it only requires that they report what they are doing, if anything, in hopes that public pressure will force them to take action.  In our discussion, I learned that the compliance officer recently argued with the company’s chief compliance officer that the spirit of the law calls for the company to take action to reduce destructive actions in the supply chain.  The chief replied that since the law did not require any such action, the company would simply state their current policy on their website.

One could argue that the Chief Compliance Officer was in the wrong, but I disagree.  Compliance departments are filled with attorneys.  Attorneys are not trained to develop socially responsible organizations, they are trained to interpret and comply with the law.  Requiring them to do anything else would be a waste of their education.  The problem is that either the executive management of this company does not take responsibility seriously enough or there is no communication between those responsible for CSR and those responsible for compliance.  A cursory read of most California based company statements with respect to this law shows that these issues seem to be endemic in our corporate cultures.  Most of these statements discuss how the company does not approve of slavery or sweatshops, but few give concrete examples of actions they are taking to reduce or eliminate such activities.

Not surprisingly, I see many parallels between the CSR / Compliance disconnect and our heavily disconnected justice system.  It is rare to find court systems (paralleled with: Compliance) that are well connected with community programs (paralleled with: CSR) or treatment programs (paralleled with: Institutional Violence).  However, when these three are connected, the results can be mind-blowing!  Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting one such justice system in the Red Hook community of New York City.  In the late 80’s and early 90’s Red Hook was one of New York’s most violent communities.  In 1992 the school principle was killed in the crossfire as he was trying to break up a fight.  Out of this tragedy came the Red Hook Community Justice Center.  The first of its kind, this community center houses a court (think: compliance), presiding over all misdemeanor cases for the community of over 200,000; Community outreach programs (think: CSR) including the local housing authority, GED prep classes, mediation services, a little league team, and a youth court; and treatment programs (think: “Institutional Violence”) for problems such as drugs and anger management.

The Honorable Judge Alex Calabrese described how the key to the community center’s success was that all these programs worked together to find the best solution for each case.  Before he hears any case, he is given information about the offender’s background and the underlying context of the offense.  Using this information, and the unique power the community has bestowed on him, he is able to order much more than just prison sentences or community service.  In fact, prison sentences tend to be used only if he thinks the offender is still a threat, or if he thinks a few days in prison will get them to snap out of their current destructive behavior by seeing where it will take them.  Thanks to the work of its community justice center, Red Hook is now a vibrant community.  In fact, the program has become so successful it has an unending list of communities asking for (and receiving) help to create similar programs in their areas.

To deal with corporate misconduct, we do not have to reinvent the wheel.  If we are serious about reducing corporate destructiveness and increasing corporate responsibility and compliance, we should take lessons from systems currently successful in similar endeavors.  Two lessons we can learn right off from the Red Hook system is that we MUST combine these programs in order for them to be successful, and there must be leadership at the most senior level to direct these programs.  Compliance, CSR, and Institutional Violence should be one tight-knit organization led by an executive reporting straight to either the CEO or, even better, the Board of Directors itself.  In addition, a specific board position should be created to focus on corporate behavior.  Only then will we be able shine a light on all the issues related corporate misconduct as a whole.