Equity and BEE presently damned

There’s a simple principle underpinning human capacity for change. Each individual to be engaged in the change process must see meaning and purpose in the change in order to come aboard. All but the most spiritually evolved people are driven by self-interest or the ‘WIFM’ (What’s In It For Me?) factor.

If it’s societal or community change, then the individual needs to see the value for society or the community, apart from a value for themselves. And it’s on this score that equity balance and black economic empowerment in business are presently headed down the chute.

Real-life example 1: Multinational gives a supplier an ultimatum. “Get a black majority partner or we can’t any longer give you business.” Supplier brings aboard someone they genuinely thought would fit the bill. He’s now seen roughly once a week at about lunchtime, for a meal in the boardroom. He gets R 40 000 per month for his ‘contribution.’ He’s yet to introduce, leverage or facilitate any new business or add value to existing business. But Supplier grins and bears it, because it’s stabilized the multinational account – crucial to their economic survival.

Real-life example 2: Consultancy seeking to do business with government and parastatals. Gets into bed with an ‘empowerment partner.’ The partner is given the largest office, a front-of-building parking bay and his mobile phone account gets paid. He surfaces once a month for a R 35 000 cash in the hand ‘contribution’ for his name being used.

Real-life example 3: Multinational, big on talk about equity, black empowerment, previously disadvantaged executive development and the like. Brings in talented and genuinely capable young black execs, gives them car, swish office, fancy title and then sets about euthanasing them. They’re subtly derided. Interrupted during presentations. Given an odd look when they make suggestions at meetings. Told they’re ‘too assertive.’ Would a white upcoming exec ever be told that as a routine snippet of feedback I wonder? Psychometric evaluations are extensively and frequently done and regarded as gospel. Cryptic comments are made and negative outcomes alluded to, regarding test results.

Real-life example 4: Headhunting company to young black executive: “We’ll place you at X amount. Just hang in there for a few months and we’ll help you relocate elsewhere for at least Y amount.” The motive being: Just get beyond the time penalty phase where we’d have to refund commissions.

There are five possibly inadvertent collusive and evil elements at play here. The first, not in any particular order, is the (possibly legitimate) opportunism of some black business people who see themselves as the saviour and panacea to equity unbalanced business. They’re out only to line their pockets and in the process are bringing their integrity-driven peers into disrepute.

The second is the self-proclaimed ‘empowerment partner’ or ‘government lobbyist.’ She or he, who claims to have contacts, or does indeed have them. But from personal experience, if you attempt to access those contacts they may come at a reputationally hazardous price. Example: Like being asked quite blatantly (as I have) by a senior government official, to route ‘X amount’ of money to him each month ‘in recognition of my assistance’ and to put his wife on the board of my company. The ‘lobbyists’ are often gifted with linguistic intelligence. White people make the patronising mistake of assuming that black people who are fluent and fluid speakers of English are necessarily very capable people. They simply have the gift of the gab. As some of their equally scummy white lobbyist counterparts might have.

The third are the boards, excos and corporations that have no genuine commitment to change or the development of talent. They’ve sunk into the self justifying cop-out of “Whatever we do for them, they’ll up and off for the next bigger salary offer.” So they play their ‘equity-candidate-baiting’ game in the meantime.

The fourth are some of the headhunting companies that have become equity and BEE ambulance chasers. They’re forever running after young execs whom they perceive to be in corporate intensive care, on life-support, or who have been somewhere ‘for a few months too long’ and who represent huge commissions. Seventeen percent of annual salary of the person placed is not uncommon.

The fifth impotent colluder is government. I believe the time has arrived for Labour Minister Membathisi Mdladlana to apply the big stick. Waving it has accomplished nothing. Until we realise that we’re all playing a self-destructive and self-defeating game, we’re never going to get business balanced and on track. It’s time to quit playing chess with people as the pawns.

Get with the global plot

It was good encountering this past week, a client who’s just spent several years overseas, soaking up cultural peculiarities in a variety of countries. As we exchanged business cards afresh, he commented that an additional number he’d hand-written on his card, would be considered rude in Asia. It seems a Japanese business person would also never keep business cards in a back pocket wallet – because then you’d be ‘sitting’ on your cards – considered very disrespectful! But many cultural distinctions, although they die hard, are fading rapidly under the influence of globalization.

An Indian millionaire businessman of my acquaintance doesn’t keep money in his back pocket. He actually irons the notes flat so they look respectable again, and keeps them in a breast pocket of his suit jacket. His philosophy is that one should respect the money. My spiritual teacher on the other hand, when receiving money donated to the monastery, would put it under the sole of his shoe, pray for a blessing on the donor and only then hand it to the treasurer for recording and banking.

So I’ve been following with interest the discussion on a survey recently commissioned by Eskom CEO, Thulani Gcabashe. It evidently concludes that there are still unique Afrocentric leadership characteristics. I also sometimes hear black business people referring to what they call the ‘collective’ mindset. Our very own Madiba, being interviewed a few years ago by Antjie Krog, adamantly refused to accept personal credit for any transformation in South Africa. He deflected the accolades to the ‘collective’ of the ANC. The credit was for the group, never the individual. But I think the relevance of seeking some unique African approach to doing business is long gone. If there ever was a window of opportunity for such an exercise, it’s been rendered obsolete by the pace of global change.

What’s the purpose in now seeking a unique ‘Afro’ or any ‘centric’ approach to dealing with people and issues? The reality of a global village is upon us. In which business people access the very latest information through channel surfing international TV or radio news networks or have their e-mail or PDA automatically download news flashes. In which cultural norms are blurring into a homogenous pot pourri.

A recent newspaper article by a black journalist decried the use by Zackie Achmat, of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), of President Mbeki’s first name and also that of the Minister of Health, Dr. Manto Tshabalala Msimang. The point the journo made was that it’s disrespectful to refer to our President as ‘Thabo’. I agree. But if you don’t (as Achmat clearly doesn’t) respect the President, then using the Prez’s first name is a way of conveying that disrespect. I also ‘disrespect’ the President and the Minister of Health’s  joint, horrifying mismanagement of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in our country. But I have considerable respect for other aspects of President Mbeki’s leadership.

One can’t try to impose some sort of blanket ‘respect’ on people towards any official or person. That has to be ‘commanded’ in the eyes of the individual – not ‘demanded’ as some traditions might wish to have it. We need to accept that certain traditions are dying, if they’re not yet quite dead. They are rendered irrelevant in the context of culture attrition that leaves little of substance that can with any degree of uniqueness or advantage, be applied to modern business practice. I find that some of these ‘cultural’ clichés today become convenient only when people are trying to get at others. I notice among a variety of communities, that many of them cling only to the ‘convenient’ parts of their tradition - and in some cases (as with marriages) only when they apply advantageously to money issues.

We need to slough off years of moribund thinking resulting from our global isolation, courtesy of decidedly isolationist political misbehaviour. We need to acquaint ourselves with the expectations, norms and mores of the global community if we want to conduct business on the global stage.

Instead of expecting others to ‘come towards us’ and do things in a manner with which we’re comfortable, we should explore, look outward and grow our understanding of what others expect. Adopting parochial, tradition or culture-bound rigidity is counter productive. So, let’s stop talking, as the Zulus say, out of both sides of the mouth. Let’s get with the global plot and realise that we’re no longer an island. As Wordsworth said through the mouth of Ulysses, ‘I am a part of all that I have met.’