We need corporate jesters

Given the amount of information available to most executive teams, it is strangely surprising to discover how insular the thinking is inside most companies.  Even consulting firms, brought in for industry expertise and to identify new opportunities, rarely confront the limited thinking and organizational group think that happens in most firms.

Today David Brooks writes about GM and its problems.  He notes that two senior executives have written about the issues GM faces, most of which are caused by a corporate culture that rejects information from the outside.  While many of GM's financial issues are now behind us, are their corporate issues in terms of cultural arrogance and their ability to incorporate challenging and conflicting information in place?

If the management team can't or won't confront and synthesize what's happening in the "real world" and if management consultants and other advisors are only willing to advocate the party line, then who is going to inject a true third party or external perspective into the organization?  It's fairly clear that most consultants COULD do this but don't want to upset the lucrative financial agreements and projects that exist.  After all, they have a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the relationship with the client.  After Enron and Worldcom, we can't necessarily count on consultants or accountants to alert the world to malfeasance inside the organization, or for consultants and accountants to tell the executive teams that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.

The board of directors could do this, but there's too much clubby interaction and not enough true debate at most board levels.  This follows the "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" relationship of most board members.  While board members could bring this third party or market perspective, they often fail to do this as well.

Even industry analysts don't take a strong enough stand when they have the data they know can make a difference.  Gartner, Forrester, Yankee and a host of other firms too often couch their published material and tailor their private consulting findings to align to the expectations of the sponsor.

So, who should be the true third party voice and perspective?  Perhaps it's time we require a corporate jester - a person paid to tell the king (CEO and board) that they are naked.  Court jesters, while comics, were also the few people who could communicate to the king a different message than what he heard from his courtiers.  Perhaps we need to require a professional court jester for every company, to introduce what's really happening out in the market.  Bloggers and others can serve this function, but only if we can get the executives to listen.

In a world where I can buy products and services from anyone, at almost any time, through almost any channel, the firm with its finger on the pulse of what's happening in the market will thrive.  Contrary, firms that are insular and ignore or disdain what's happening in the market will fail.  Brooks argues that's one of GM's problems.  Given the fact that most GM executives were provided with free cars and in many cases free gasoline, is indicative that they did not understand the issues facing most car buyers.  Too many executives are too far removed from the reality of the market and don't get true, unadulterated facts about their products, their customers and their markets.  This has got to change for US businesses to be successful.

Comments

[Dave Riveness]

I completely agree! In my business book, "The Secret Life of the Corporate Jester: A Fresh Perspective on Organizational Leadership, Culture and Behavior", I reveal how to adopt and leverage "jester's perspectives" in organizations to increase results, make faster decisions and grow more positive cultures. Feel free to check out the book on Amazon or contact me if you want more info!