How to Suck at Business: A Case Study

Citation preview

How To Suck At Business: A Case Study By Martin Goldberg

Copyright 2019

Dedication To all hardworking Americans, who keep fighting the endless tide. And to the executives and businessmen that strive to break the corporate mold.

Introduction: The Birth of a Question In the course of my mutterings over the state of the market, which I usually favor in the name of efficiency, I have been asked to explain where skepticism comes to fruition. After all, I broadly endorse the machinations of our financial system, but not without a steady hand to prevent worker abuse. This position greatly dismays free marketers, but I align with the reality of personal experience in the lauded private sector. Here I make no attempt to wave a pink hand desperately, haranguing in some fifties Brooklyn accent about the evil of corporations, whilst calling for “Taxes on Wall Street.” These behaviors represent basic booty politics, too often practiced by those with no more appreciation of business than a cat might have for property rights. Such gremlins are obsessed with the 20th Century Fox image of greed: the James Cameron-inspired corporate gorgon who seeks wealth at any cost; deliberate and vicious, but not forward in service. The truth is somewhat less dramatic. Rather than a thundering morality tale for online streaming, we face the slow, complacent, and indifferent fortress that is modern corporate culture. This market agenda lacks all vision apart from improving metrics through costcutting and productivity-squeezing, usually at the expense of employees. It is more content to preserve outdated management structures than take a risk (and perhaps fail), in the perilous new realm of the economy. I have seen such corporations crash and crumble, or at least tucker on meekly as they bleed workers dry, always with the fundamental inability to acknowledge what ails them so. I have witnessed the most bizarre forms of management philosophies, which could only be codified on an eight-ball’s diamond, ever subject to change. In some cases, I saw businesses waste money simply to avoid basic procedural shifts that could have easily been

implemented. Worst of all, these firms somehow survived. Despite being devoid of an intelligible corporate agenda and possessing no measure of responsive leadership, they proclaimed onwards, restive like beautiful growths on the skin of a staggering host. This book is the story about one firm that really stood out, not only for its sheer corrosion, but also because it simply would not concede to better practices as a matter of principle.

Part I: Legal Matters When it comes to these discussions, transparency is obviously a winning ideal, but I am forced to consider that ours is a society ruled by lawyers and politicians with law degrees, so I must necessarily delimit my tale by not straying too far into the clutches of pure openness. The broader legal framework is built to ensure any pronounced honesty about corporate strategy is not suppressed through NDAs and lawsuits, which I have no desire to deplete my own resources for. Of course, the firm that would choose to react in such a scenario might inadvertently showcase some harsh truths about itself, but I will leave that stuff to the birds. I specifically crafted this memoir to be vague; it refers to a defunct, anonymous company where I may or may not have worked in the past, and avoids providing information on the specific industry. All the names and scenarios are changed for those involved, such that their reputations and practices are not exposed to the world like some cruel internet video. These precautions all work towards the educational purpose of the text, while steering clear of unwanted intrigue with Corporate America. I must point out that I have no ill will towards the company itself, or anyone I might have worked with. My goal here is not to deposit rage into a public altar for mockery and shame. This is strictly a structural analysis of business culture, meant to bring daylight which might serve to better corporate governance across different industries.

Part II: Onboarding I remember things distinctly, because it was all so memorably boring. I was browsing a jobs site and hit the apply link, hoping for a better option than my current spot (which was pretty bad). I filled out the questions, dropped a resume, and waited. For a few weeks there was nothing. Then an email arrived about setting up an interview with the hiring manager. It was replete with spelling errors, and even an incorrect date/time continuum. I shrugged it off because the pay was decent, and arranged for a sit-down. A few days later, I was in the lobby, waiting on my interviewer to materialize. I sat there for about 15 minutes, during which time the other staffers stared blankly into the wall. I assumed they were in love with their jobs. After another five minutes, I was informed that the on-duty supervisor would have to fill-in for the interview because the manager was busy. Alright, cool enough, I thought. Some more time passed, and a rotund fellow with a blue dress shirt half removed from his pants waddled out from the general corporate void, inviting me to follow him. The interview that succeeded this limbo was nothing short of astounding. I was asked to address over twenty questions, the answers to which went against every principle of the industry we worked in, to the extent that I began to wonder whether he had any clue about the subject. He smiled sheepishly at the resistance, multitasking his eyes to the Bacon, Egg, and Cheese sandwich laid across his desk paperwork, at this point only half-eaten. “We’ll let you know in a few weeks,” he said finally.

“I appreciate it.” Considering that I had failed several questions (by standards I still cannot understand) I assumed that was the end of it. My mind moved on to other matters, and I effectively forgot what had happened. But the job did not forget me. Three weeks later, I was told to report for training, again in an email with God-forsaken spelling and punctuation. Seeing as I had an adventurous spirit, it seemed worth the risk. I made the drive and walked into an office that was so alike any other in the vicinity you might almost call it generic. Inside the training room the sight that greeted me was no less than a Dirty Dozen, some professional and others looking like they had just escaped from the local halfway house. Nonetheless, they were all pretty friendly. One of the participants was an African chick of my age with the most magnificent ass I had ever seen. You give and take in life. We were shortly introduced to the instructor, a sweetly bipolar woman who could go in seconds from happily discussing class subjects with you to a ferocious ball of flames. And to be fair, she WAS a ball. Together with other classmates, I took to standing up against her so as to test whatever resolve stood behind the variable snarling and smiling. It had mediocre results Her behavior did however serve as a marker point for the way the industry operated: if you wanted to move a superior, you had to get angry and verbally combat them. There was no appreciation for civility and respectful behavior. Accomplishing anything meant going primal, no matter how much it might contradict everything we are taught to believe. Of course, getting too aggressive or demanding allowed them room to choose justice based on the personality in question; if you were enough of an upstart, or if that behavior did not fit your nature, the mallet would come down hard.

Part III: Starting Out My first day commenced predictably enough, with a sloppy addon to training and some passive-aggressive chastising from one of the managers, who attempted to verbally indict me for not bringing a piece of paperwork that his preceding email specifically said should be turned in several days after the current date. Upon seeing this pointed out, he shrugged it off and prepared for the day. What struck me from the very get-go was the culture of shirked responsibility that seemed to permeate from the top down. The first supervisor I spoke with, a long-time employee, did all but feign ignorance of the training objectives I was supposed to complete and have certified by some superior (according to management). Said supervisor did the minimum in terms of interaction, then pretended to not know I was new. He swiftly assigned training to another employee, who suddenly “forgot,” and passed me on to someone else (I’m friendly and smell good, before you attempt to be snarky). So the rest of the day was spent following around my trainer, who seemed totally aloof and more interested in his sports betting app than instruction. As we journeyed on throughout the shift, rumors swiftly became a currency. Everyone seemed to know who was banging who, which person got away with it and which sucker got fired, the worst supervisors (those who did their job), and the best (those who slept on the clock). In the midst of all such intrigue, trying to get a feel for the standards was quite tricky. I saw people pressed and squared away in their business suits, others in sloppy attire or with odor difficulties. Remarkably, these latter folks seemed to get better treatment from the higher ups. From here I came to understand the “real man” factor ingrained in the firm’s corporate culture. The rules, as it turned out,

only applied based on how submissive you were to them. Imagine a law enforced according to the personality of the subject in question; if you were enough of a tantrum thrower, it was as though the regulation didn’t exist. The way things worked, individuals who maintained a standard of excellence by being punctual, performing their duties properly, and not creating drama were rewarded with disdain and harsh treatment. If they ever had a slight shortcoming, such as running late for work, there would be trouble. The managers came down much harder on them and threatened major repercussions, at times worse than even a write-up or suspension. On the other hand, employees who walked around looking like Times Square bums got begrudging loyalty from the higher-ups. If you made showing up late a routine, that was brushed off as “Just the way he is,” even if it hurt the project at hand for the week. Arrive with a natural perfume that choked out other employees? Not a problem. In the rare event they were actually called on such behavior, the comfortable schmoozers could simply cough up a reason to neutralize the matter: -

You’re racist Sexism Homophobia Age/Fat discrimination You hate me cause you ain’t me (seriously!)

These would be followed up by a threat to sue, and any semblance of rigid justice went out the window. Consequently, the “punishments” were nothing more than written or verbal talking-tos, of which they could have hundreds and never be shown the door. Even in such cases, the most effective strategy was to become angry and scream. Providing the outburst was hysterical enough, managers would meekly back off, almost as though they had a newfound respect for the person’s willingness to stand his ground. This even worked for an employee who demonstrated patterns of violence and anger in the workplace; he simply gave superiors an

attitude about any serious penalties, and the whole thing waltzed away, the risk to fellow workers be damned. At this point the reader might assume that consistency did not exist, and hence no one knew how to act in regards to specific regulations. Absolutely correct. Now, in the odd chance that the real hammer DID come down, it was always dealt with in a cowardly, around-the-bush manner. The only way to bust someone was if they operated entirely alone and red-handed. Because most people worked in teams, however, justice developed an ever-collectivist nature. Some people have experienced the same concept as children: if one sibling screwed up, they ruined it for the rest of the bundle. Instead of addressing that child directly, the spineless parents retracted privileges from the group so “Everyone suffers for your mistake.” Of course if that sibling is self-assured and arrogant enough, they will actually take pleasure in seeing the ship go down. Anything so they feel right. In the same way, managers at the firm would always look for methods to lessen the blow on an individual employee, so the person who was merely present when some coworker violated rules or disrespected authority got penalized as well. One chap in particular nearly got fired because of this convoluted practice, against the wishes of even some superiors. It should come as no surprise that the primary culprit had a dismissive attitude towards the whole measure, and acted sarcastic in the aftermath. The inmates were running the prison, and they were bloody good at it.

Part IV: That’s Just How It Is Max Weber once theorized that bureaucracies which refuse to update their practices and change would invariably become corrupt and moribund as time went on. With modern organizations, the broader idea is that changing technology and economic developments necessitate a certain measure of adaptability to prevent the institution from falling behind (or perhaps apart). In the case of this company, Weber’s principles flew clean out the windows and several miles down the road. At any suggestion of reform to improve basic business processes, the head honchos had a dedicated refrain to employ: “This is how we’ve always done it.” The extents to which this philosophy reached were truly incredible. Newly-minted workers who saw promised schedules go up in flames to make way for less-desirable alternatives were treated to the condescending remark, “That’s how it was when I started.” Words and commitments were utterly meaningless unless they came from individual line employees, who would be held fast to standards of integrity that their supervisors could not meet for $1 million in taxfree compensation. A great example on this front would be the way vacation distribution was handled. After an employee had his leave doublebooked by different managers, the culprit admitted responsibility and then said, “I’m not gonna do anything about it.” The same individual responded to a question about whether a separate worker’s vacation request had gone through by quipping, “Let’s hope so, or you’re out of luck.” To be clear, these attitudes were not some light-hearted banter meant to be taken in jest; they embodied the corporate culture of pure indifference. You were viewed as little more than a couple

zeroes in the matrix, temporary and replaceable at the drop of a top hat. This callous flair in the use of words contributed to the devious methods practiced by management when they attempted to get the one-up on an employee. I’m not certain if Good Cop/Bad Cop is the best descriptor, but it absolutely felt that way at various times. For instance, a coworker of mine once accidentally left the building with a work phone and proceeded to go home. Upon realizing the mistake, he informed a supervisor and immediately wheeled back around to return the device. At the time, the manager said it was no problem, and thanked him for quickly addressing the matter. All was well. Several months later, when the manager in question misplaced company equipment and was called to task for it, he attempted to shift blame to the guy who returned the phone, claiming “They have a pattern of forgetfulness,” and referring to the same event. The worst part was how supervisors like him actively tried to befriend people before throwing them to the lions. You could be their best pal in the whole wide world – especially as a new employee – so they might prime the pump in case you one day had to fall on their sword. A matter of honor. As it turned out, the best defense against the caravan of hooligans up top were coworkers, who served as witnesses to check the tongues slithering from on high. Another fellow employee learned the value of collaborative resistance when she got in the hot seat over missing tools. She was fresh at the job but still quite sharp and aware, so when assigned a task she was not familiar with, her first move was to ask coworkers if the role required more equipment than had been issued. Several folks confirmed that they previously worked the same spot with no further equipment than she possessed, and the day went on as usual.

The following afternoon, a grim-sounding supervisor gave her a call, inquiring about additional tools she was supposedly responsible for. She explained how the other manager on duty has not provided any beyond what she turned in upon completing the shift. The inquisitor checked with his fellow ruminator, who promptly lied, and returned to accuse her of misplacing the items, an act which could have easily meant a write-up, or even termination. Their plan failed precisely because she possessed an alibi of sorts: other workers. Apparently, the accusing manager had gone around to various nonsupervisory employees, pressuring them to corroborate his story, and line-by-line they all refused, defending her because she specifically inquired about additional equipment before going to work. Now trapped, the chief prosecutor concocted a story suggesting the other supervisor had “found the stuff in his pocket,” and it was all a big misunderstanding. I was not eyewitness to his attempt at a mea culpa, but others described it like a dance you might do after sitting on the loving head of a Texas cactus. Were there any repercussions for those involved? Indeed. The second supervisor was patted on the back, while the mastermind of it all received an award for top sales performance. The company continued to thrive.

Part V: Praise in Public, Cremate in Private One lesson I took to heart from my days as a youth leader in the Scouts is the importance of uplifting those beneath you rather than looking for opportunities to strafe them in front of an audience. The reasoning behind this principle is quite basic: if you portray them in a horrible light to the world, it ultimately reflects poorly on your leadership. Not many people enjoy being humiliated before their friends or peers, apart from the masochists of our species. If it is necessary to criticize as a manager, you should always do it out of sight and hearing, with the intent to build stronger resolve so the subordinate can improve in the future. With my company, the R&D department had a model of corporate brilliance destined to make Richard Branson look like a FreeCycle donation: the Everyone Is Crap Principle. Under its guidelines, the standard issue assumption when an employee made suggestions or complaints was that they were out to get the management. To be sure, they never said this to a person’s face; it was forever energetic motivation and greeting when the fellow was in the vicinity. They were doing a great job as a “fantastic pal and friend.” When the subject stepped away however, the cookie got a bit gnarly. In the event someone asked about an inaccurate schedule layout, they were accused of lying behind their back. The managers would then look for (or invent) reasons why that employee could not be trusted or was, “A piece of shit.” Once they sorted through the rage phase and found there was not enough basis to continue, the attitude shifted dramatically. “What’s up my brotha from anutha motha?” they chirped warmly, right after the verbal decapitation. You might have taken from this section that most employees were necessarily seen as imperfect, and the conclusion isn’t too far

off. When it comes to evaluations, companies generally will start a person at the baseline of average, and move up or down from there. But being special is what the world lives for. The day I received my first evaluation, around the six month mark, I was struck by the diversity; the diversity of nothingness. No detailed comments hung in the box apart from my name (misspelled), no idea of what should be done to improve, and no verbal consultation either. If I had money down on the table, I would wager they simply copy-pasted whichever generic format had worked for the previous decade or so. The worst part was realizing that this system meant the certified soup sandwiches in our midst often got higher evaluation scores than decent employees because of chance or favoritism. Managers even admitted the judgment forms were meaningless, yet they completed them anyway, giving good workers below-average marks. Added on to this was the bizarre principle (one I have seen elsewhere) that “No one is ever perfect.” As a result, supervisors were barred from giving higher ratings to employees by upper management. In a previous job I held, restrictions on merit ratings had to do with funding issues; the company could not afford to give everyone the max wage increase (or so they claimed), and thus the majority got a standard bump. But with this firm, they did it simply because they could. Taken in sum, the review structure might be casually accepted, but the weird part is that evaluators never provided any information about how to improve, while still extolling subordinates to “Keep up the good work.” This logic goes on, as I close my eyes.

Part VI: Malnutrition Benefits One of the great economic tragedies of the late 20th Century was the transition of companies to a more exclusively profit-based model of operations, which left employees to be seen as mere pawns contributing to the statistical ideal of quarterly earnings releases. Firms realized they could manipulate the stock market by presenting a blacker financial picture through the slashing of perks long offered to dedicated workers. Employees who once looked forward to retirement pensions and low-cost healthcare were suddenly greeted by poorly-funded 401ks, ballooning health insurance premiums, and stagnant wages. In fairness, part of these changes were forced on companies by shifting trade policies and technological innovation, but in other instances it became an easy tradeoff between stock juggling and employee loyalty. We live in a time when many publicly-traded firms are experiencing zero or anemic growth.[1] Rather than branching out to new markets, they often choose to better their bottom line by gutting existing expenses and manipulating numbers. Getting a few more points in EPS or revenue figures can mean potentially billions added to their financial strength, if only on the digital screens of the Chicago trading floor. The little guy is nothing more than a numerical android to his CEO and CFO, so naturally the decision is easy to make. This broader attitude was amped up by a factor of 50 in the case of the company I worked for. To start, the retirement plan provided no employer match to encourage participation. According to the managers, a 1-3 percent contribution by the company was not costsensitive, making the program little more than a money market account with management fees. Sad as it sounds, the organization’s approach to retirement relates to some of my previous predictions on the coming economic system. In my estimation, American workers

should expect a future in which employers match nothing at all, or perhaps cease offering retirement accounts altogether, because at the end of the day, cost and GDP come first. Furthermore, while healthcare in general is not faring great in the United States, the firm really made a point of outdoing itself in the department of utter failure. Signing up for coverage as a single ready to eat pringles meant shelling out $400 per month. You might think this is reasonable, but the insurance itself only applied to about 19 percent of the medical bill when all was said and done, which meant it became cheaper to pay out of pocket than use the plan in most cases. Now, if you were lucky enough to have a 250lb wife and one spring peeper, the gravy got thicker. Such a fellow would end up paying over $1600 monthly to maintain coverage, and even that was not enough to avoid costly after-claim fees. People regularly talked about being engaged with payment plans to cover tens of thousands in pediatric expenses, even after paying almost $20,000 a year in premiums. I am past the point of debates concerning what is caused by government and what falls on the head of the private sector, because they become one and the same in our present era. A person might argue that the Obamacare mandate on employers was the cause of this price crunch, while others claim it is just the private sector trying to desperately decrease costs. Either way, the plan was worse than equivalents I experienced at other companies as a parttime employee. Bear in mind that this firm had income into the billions at the time, and was performing fine on a stock earnings basis. Libertarians would probably assert at this junction that the benefits and provisions are based on the relative “worth” of the employee, and thus the company was more than justified in its choices. At the same time, a dismissive culture at the top breeds

indifference at the bottom. I noted previously how slob-like workers were a common factor in the job environment; if the company really had good intentions, those folks would have been brought to task, but because the executives did not care, so behaved their workers. We should pause here to consider one of the fundamental issues with modern corporate philosophy: you cannot demand high standards from people who are treated like garbage by your leadership structure. A strong compensation package offers an investment baseline by which you can measure the value of the employees. Providing nothing while pushing them to pursue a CEO’s goal, which they neither comprehend nor care about, is recipe for utter depression and languid standards. Sadly, the corporations seem to realize this, but still attempt a propaganda message involving an engaged, pleasant-natured workforce rallied around the same objective. We are still bound to gear the grating voices appealing for people to gain more skills and thus better their relative standing in the economic system. There is no question that advanced education can help an individual move up, but the real inquiry relates to how long those posts will remain immune as the creeping tide of stock price manipulation rolls on, and companies look for more ways to cut.

Part VII: A Question of Consistency Veering back to the management structure and training regimen, the firm employed a strange approach to the enforcement of rules. The best illustration of this dynamic involved the use of written penalties to check subordinates when the leaders themselves could not avoid similar mistakes. More specifically, if the right person failed to show up to work on time, they generally got written up for it. I say “right,” because everything depended on your (probably nonphysical) relationship with the supervisor involved. For some people, it was the same “That’s just the way it is” justification noted earlier; for others, the result of pure boredom. In the case of those who did face the clobbering mace, what remained peculiar was how bald-faced the hypocrisy happened to be. There were several managers who made getting to work late a matter of style. No matter how early they planned to depart, “Something always seems to come up, maaan.” At other companies, such an excuse might buy a day or two of freedom to enjoy protection; after that, you would be happily job-free, and with another baby on the way. But my company was a totally different exotic animal. Such infractions simply blew away, or were blown away, even as the rules said otherwise. There was an additional problem concerning the general quality of the folks chosen to serve as supervisors. In most companies, leadership positions are meant to be doled out on the basis of ability and time in service, not mere ego-satisfaction. The point is for leaders to set standards which others can follow instead of strutting themselves around with a fancier letterhead. This might seem too idealistic, but rest assured that corporate philosophies have at least

attempted to improve from the days of barking taskmasters focused on cruelly erecting the Great Pyramid. Not quite with the company in question. To be fair, a few of those who stumbled into leadership roles possessed relatively mellow personalities, and thus were capable of weathering the storm without resorting to skullduggery. Unfortunately, the individuals most clutched by zeal for those posts had regressive, reactionary-style attitudes towards anyone beneath them, often with an almost bipolar twist to the emotions. Everything was fine if you caught them at the right moment; anyone who stepped outside of this little safety zone was prime rib-roasted. As an illustration, when a particular supervisor got caught in a lie, he became irate and passive-aggressive, trying to haze the person who merely explained that he had been wrong. Adding fuel to the flames was his attempt to find something bad about the worker in question as a means of dismissing what they put forward. Apparently, owning up to his mistakes was far too problematic, and thus the scythe had to swing. In keeping with the shifting dynamics of his personality, the next move was to attempt a begrudging master-servant relationship by ordering the subordinate around, and demanding tasks be performed which had nothing to do with the job, but everything related to his ego. Beyond this, the same supervisor responded to an employee’s question about a job they were not familiar with by flying into rage and pounding his fist on the nearby table. “You should already know this by now!” he seethed, despite being the person responsible for their training. He proceeded to order the subordinate to complete the job absent any guidance or advice. Might makes right, I guess.

Part VIII: The Elusive “They” One of the great joys of living in our 21st Century world is the ability to relish in the various forms of communication available at our fingertips. Some would call this a downside, a factor that alienates us from each other and the value of the normal spoken word, leaving genuine human relationships a thing of distant legend. These observations hold some merit, but on the other edge new technologies for interaction have led to the streamlining of business processes, especially in regards to distributing information to employees. A good corporation will strive to encourage an upward and downward flow, fusing opinions of both management and frontline workers to achieve its mission of maximum profit. With our private sector bloc, the truth was rather blurrier. Messages, if you could call them that, usually emerged from secondary sources and in the form of biting rumors. An executive would tell a manager, be overheard by a supervisor, and they would pass it on to the appropriate employee, so like a game of telephone the gossip flushed down the hierarchy (or up from the ashes). Everyone was the self-appointed expert or inside source, with a trail that usually led back to the biggest lip smackers in the company, although they would sharply deny if put to task. A fatal outcome of the method was that people frequently found out about their fate indirectly. One poor fellow I knew discovered his position would be eliminated through hearsay, and once he inquired with management about the matter, they pretended it was not an accurate story. As things turned out, it was not accurate yet. The broken communication system lent itself to a structure where managers would cite anonymous sources or people to justify their actions. First in this category lay the “I’m powerless to resist them” explanation for disciplinary actions or dubious merit. If a supervisor chose to dole out punishment which was unreasonable given the

circumstances, such as an employee untrained but penalized for not knowing, they chose to first build up the dramatic air. Typically they might storm into the employee lounge, fuming and fussing, while claiming they thought it was all bullshit and “You don’t deserve this!” The spiel might go further, lamenting how “You’re a great guy. I always look out for you, but they’ve got my hands tied.” If pressed on who this illustrious “they” might be, the supervisor would begin the itchy jig dance, firing off more pretend outrage at the “guy upstairs” (the office was actually across the hall). With the retreat covered (and the nasty paperwork taken care of) they could withdraw, still waving a fist in theatrical animosity at those villainous goons who live miles under the surface of the earth. As Mel Gibson might say, “Hold the line!”

Part IX: Justification Our culture likes to ascribe any critical comments on a matter to some ulterior, often repressed, motive. The hallmark of this trend can be seen in the pattern of the gay rights movement that flourished throughout the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Generally speaking, people either supported gay marriage on the basis of civil libertarian ideals or fantastical “love,” while others opposed the concept due to their socially conservative views, or discomfort with its close association to certain diseases. These placeholders became the basis for vigorous debates across many years, sporting prominent figures from faith-based organizations, scientific groups, business, and politics. People held close to their beliefs, but they also strove to understand one another better through interactions. Regrettably, things had to change. A fresh breed in the gay rights activist community began adopting the intellectually-primitive argument which held that anyone who even slightly opposed gay protections – even if they supported civil unions and opposed gay marriage—was a closet homosexual. There were no ifs, butts, or whats about this apparently sainted truth. No reasoned argument existed to where a person could legitimately oppose their position except from the psychological weakness of one afraid because of an individual secret. They would proclaim this opinion, dust off their hands with satisfaction, and ignore come what may. After all, why bother? Tragically, this amateur Freudianism has so infected our world that is it now impossible to engage in any sort of serious discussion without the dissenting imbecile at hand conjuring up a similar explanation. If you are looking to solve problems, voila! You are insecure, or projecting some hidden issue too uncomfortable to proclaim. You must be repressed, sheltering something, or otherwise “wounded,” and thus incapable of holding a legitimate diverging

viewpoint. Such a mentality is both anti-progressive and illogical, but it nevertheless holds sway because so little effort is demanded. You need not be well-read, curious, or in any sense humble; simple whip it out and the deal is done, prematurely of course. I am content to leave such an angle to the swine of our world, because it wastes time that can be better spent solving real problems rather than chasing ghosts in the mind. When you broach a subject like the one discussed here, the tendency of detractors is to elect for the same opinions, arguing the message is a cover for rage or disappointment towards a former employer that did no wrong. While it remains impossible to persuade every knee-jerk brain from using the convenient escape discourse, I can firmly state that I view myself mainly as a witness. My personal biases are no secret to anyone who knows me, but they do not prevent the honest consideration of fact. The predictable responses only point out the manifest cynicism of the corrupt. Poor treatment of subordinates in any setting is something I have never liked or tolerated. Have I experienced it before? Obviously. Does this invalidate everything I say because I am, in modern Petersonian terms, “a victim”? Clearly I don’t believe so, but we have no real control over those rushing for their toaster pastry talking points approach. Thanks to the deluge of cable network propaganda, anyone who so much as speaks out against a corporation is feathered with the label of greedy union member or lazy person, jealous because they are not as wealthy as the CEO. This argument is one for the doldrums of our society. If the State or a corporation acts in a broadly unethical manner, they should not be excused because somewhere a blight can be found in the person pointing it out. Every chap has flaws, but most of us can comprehend the difference between normal business practices and the devious, stock-driven approach of the current day. The big firm apologists have become so adept at inventing reasons for their self-conceived perfection that much of the public now speaks their language,

unwittingly selling themselves out. What remains fascinating is how guilty corporations are of the same charges they bring against market detractors. If we look back to cases like GenCorp[2] and General Motors,[3] you had firms aggressively litigating and employing bizarre benefit calculations to avoid paying out retirement income to employees who had counted on those returns based on agreements between their unions and the organization. Companies also complained bitterly and manipulated numbers to fight against the elimination of the Medicare double deduction,[4] one of the proposals in the Affordable Care Act. They grumble about high taxes while forcing increased charges on employees, not because they are unaffordable, but to better the bottom line. Attempt to point this out and you are labeled a socialist or, once again, projecting some insecurity on them. The clown world continues to thrive.

Part X: Is It The Free Market’s Fault? I began this script by noting that I am more than willing to recognize the value which business brings to our lives, Furthermore, I do not think highly of the clamors for complex legislation and spending in response to every perceived ill in our world. Some reforms work fine, but it is entirely possible to go so far that damage is done, and opportunities for innovation are snuffed out. We should avoid using an enraged position as reason enough to swing sharply the other way, guided by nothing more than blind emotion. At the same time, being willing to acknowledge the source helps us dodge the attitude provided earlier, where anything is dismissed offhand on the basis of ulterior motives. As far as I am concerned, whether blame goes to the market or the government when it comes to corporate behavior is largely irrelevant, because that simply plays to base partisan instincts. People love having a side they can identify with and a target to demonize because it saves them the trouble of grappling with the boring technicalities buried within dense legislation and business accounting practices. They want the surface-level explanations and talking points, foundations for their livid expressions, and validation for what fragile egos dwell between the pink slop of the human mind. Symbolic victories or legislative majorities matter far more than actual solutions where they become concerned. It is of course possible to create an issue at both sides. Loose regulation eventually pits people against the challenge of being an expert at everything; if one fails to do the supposed “due diligence” called for by the free market advocates, they run the risk of losing capital altogether. After all, they are responsible under the ownership model being advanced by these zealous predilections for capitalism. “They will regulate themselves,” you might hear, but of course the rotten apples falling through the cracks are the fault of those who

become victims, because they were supposed to know better. This poses a profound problem, however: What if the experts are corrupt? We cannot afford to avoid this dilemma. People often preach the value inherent in consulting good guides before putting forth money, but they evade the underlying issue relating to those chosen service providers. They could have great ratings, maximum prominence, or be seen as economic aristocrats, proven and safe for the long haul, yet somewhere within a virus is brewing. The common man does not, and will not, know this until it is too late, at the expense of his future. Keep in mind that the firms which collapsed in 2008 were not all obscure, as-seen-on-TV brands that the shrewd mind could examine and escape. Consider Countrywide, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns; these were household names backed by billions of dollars and years suggesting an almost impervious status. Their stock prices stood higher than many companies can begin to dream, and yet consumers were supposed to know better? What about all the industry players who got tanked because they trusted the same metrics? We consult experts because they are specialists in subjects where we may be deficient (law, healthcare, finance, home repairs etc.), but it is difficult to tell if they are watching their own practices. The free market crowd basically implies that every person must become a subject matter expert on any part of their life where money goes, or else be responsible for getting screwed over. This sounds good in theory, but it is neither cost effective nor practical. You take your car to the mechanic because the alternative requires investment in a personal garage (expensive), and countless hours of practice (opportunity cost). Likewise, you might outsource financial planning or investing to an individual trained and experienced in order to have more time for yourself. There is nothing inherently wrong with this practice; most people provide a service with their job (excluding politicians), but seek specialized help for areas where they are less familiar. It is reasonable to assume that some professionals will behave ethically as a matter of principle, yet this

does not eclipse the possibility that others act in a corrupt manner. If there is no legal punishment for fraudulent or reckless actions, the system will not provide a solid alternative. Arguing that market failure is an adequate remedy remains limited, because shrewd operators can walk away with large lump sums after being shamed and exposed. Not helping the matter is the weak nature of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has limited authority to smack down figures that commit heinous financial crimes and rob common people of their retirement savings. Precisely for these cases we need preventative regulations on the financial industry, and strong labor laws to protect employees. A properlyconstructed regulation will only prove disruptive to those firms with a liberal desire to disregard consumer safety principles. Companies that already sport such rules can effectively ignore the legal requirements because their systems are functioning appropriately. To be clear, regulations are not guarantees of good behavior on the part of firms or individual employees; it is entirely possible that rogue actors dismiss rules or violate laws wholesale, leading to financial losses or employee abuse. The benefit lies in the consequences foisted on the corrupt and maleficent. Break the law, and you face high fines along with prison time. None of this “slap on the thigh” policy we have seen in days past, which does little to discourage morally reprehensible behavior. Leaving the market to its devices on the subject results in a hodgepodge model where the consumer and the employee must fend for themselves against whatever is “good for the economy.” We need to also consider where regulation can be immensely destructive. To begin, rules crafted for large corporations and financial firms may not work well when applied to small, independently-owned businesses. Herein rests one of the critical issues with progressive-style legislation. If the State takes a onesize-fits-all approach to consumer and labor protection, it runs the risk of penalizing small-timers trying to break into the market.

Looking back at the ACA’s requirement for healthcare, you had a model designed for larger groups being thrust upon little companies at the expense of their fledgling growth. As such, regulations ought to be crafted on the basis of firm size, industry, and organizational structure. The rules should also accommodate fail safes to prevent larger corporations from circumventing standards by redefining their business type or leadership tree. Enforcement of the guidelines could occur at the state level by federal mandate, and be subject to review with adjustments, thus reducing the likelihood that firms can skip out on their responsibilities with a one-time procedural fix.

Part XI: Conclusion Ultimately, the recriminations in modern economic debates should be laid aside in favor a clear-headed approach. I wrote this short case study to demonstrate how businesses can at times operate in a toxic manner and resist change, even when critical reforms stand to build a stronger company. They stick to their guns, as the saying goes, notwithstanding the impact on profitability and the morale of employees, who are too often dismissed as statistics in the grander scheme of corporate operations. By the time that needed reorientation materializes, it can be far too late, or even doom the firm in question. There is a better way. Should businesses be open to endorsing humility, their leaders will find means to avoid systemic decline by empathizing both with expense reduction metrics, and their subordinates in the corporate structure. Communication stands to become more streamlined, with employees given further motivation to strive hard and become productive for their managers. The corporate mission statement morphs in this manner from a lofty ideal created in the Human Resources department to a commitment embodied by all workers on a day-to-day basis. Change is not impossible. Above all, this approach to modifying the culture of business need not become a crude jostling of various interests. There is nothing preventing a firm from treating employees well and hiring qualified, professional managers. It must merely be willing to reexamine old attitudes and view everyone from the janitor to the CEO as an individual toiling consistently to provide maximum value. Such worth should be rewarded in an atmosphere of encouragement and reasonable compensation, with the aim of promoting mutual respect between managers and their subordinates. Working as a unit, the organization can achieve profit goals without sacrificing the

quality of life for those advancing its mission. There will always be naysaying voices clamoring about impossibility, but we know the status quo is always more appealing. Doing nothing requires minimal effort, while delivering tremendous mental satisfaction. They can feel right without beginning to know what wrong looks like. That is good for the peanuts gallery, but not those trying to create a better life. If Howard Schultz was able invest in his employees, many of whom are low-wage, the potential across different industries is almost limitless. What remains important is the will to act in the name of a better world. We need not only dream; we can rise and attempt to change the complacency of the economic system.

About the Author Martin Goldberg is a wonderful human bean who has also authored the books Total Invincibility, Six Months In A Van, and Ass Culture. When he’s not chuckling at his own handiwork, he can be found working as an amateur gardener and fitness expert. He makes his home in Florida land. You can find him online pretty easily with a web browser search. There are no others like him.

[1]

Bryan, B. (2016, May 25). This is the most depressing chart for businesses everywhere. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/revenue-growth-is-anemic-2016-5. [2]

Schultz, E. (2012). Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit From the Nest Eggs of American Workers. New York: Portfolio/Penguin. (pp.160-167) [3]

Ibid, (pp.168-170)

[4]

Ibid, (pp.196-197)