Beyond share empowerment schemes.

Lessons from the failed SASOL Inzalo share empowerment scheme.

In their heyday, employee share option schemes, or ESOPS, were nothing more than an extension of the agency system: that much vaunted snake oil of the 80’s which enticed executives to “think like shareholders” and pursue the narrow dictates of shareholder value growth.

“The world’s dumbest idea”, declared American Industrialist, Jack Welch back in 2009. Adam Smith, if he were alive today, would no doubt concur. Perhaps even Milton Friedman, the ultimate champion of shareholders, would agree.  One can’t blame shareholders only. They are such a divergent at times perhaps even naïve group with varying interests that to attribute to them clearly defined expectations in the form of abstracts concocted in business schools, is misplaced at best.

At the same time it made them easy prey for a new mercenary breed of executives who understood those theoretical concoctions enough to create smoke, mirrors and myths around their exceptionality and exclusiveness and extract maximum short term gain from that body. Finally along came King and regulations. It is not appreciated enough that governance prescriptions were not triggered by a social rebellion against executive misbehavior, but by shareholder wrath. It’s a moot point whether the executive mercenaries have been curtailed by the outcry. They are by no means defeated and despite the mounting body of evidence against them, shareholder-value criteria, according to an article in Forbes Magazine, still predominates most of executive thinking.

The key lesson from Sasol’s Inzalo scheme is the limitations these programmes have in broad based black economic empowerment. The costly and complex nature of a massive multi-billion rand exercise such as the Sasol scheme must surely beg the question whether they can really deliver on their large promise, even if market conditions did not turn against them. From a labour perspective in particular, no one can still seriously consider ESOP’s as a method of enhancing employee involvement in the destiny of the enterprise. If you view a company as a feedlot; as a means of extraction then you will focus on where you can extract the most. As a worker the more you extract through wages, the less you can extract through profits. That creates an inherent conflict of interest.

But one could use the same argument against all of the three estates of labour, capital and government – all viewing enterprise as a means of self-gain rather than an opportunity for contribution. This has naturally swung economic emphasis globally from tangible wealth creation to wealth accumulation and ownership. It is value-adding, or wealth creation, and not wealth accumulation that encourages inclusivity and broader empowerment. Because the latter naturally encourages concentration, it will always end up in the hands of the few and exacerbate inequality. It’s a disastrous formula for a country like South Africa, where even wealth creation itself fosters huge disparities through skills shortages, unemployment and barriers to opportunity.

In a world obsessed with possession it may sound counter-intuitive to argue that possession on its own does not represent power. Ownership that exists purely for self-gain and self-gratification becomes barren as an economic factor, especially so when they are productive assets. Responsible major shareholders know this. And private owners of small and medium enterprises even more so.

Asset ownership, whether in the form of capital, land, property, equity, or companies themselves is a highly flawed cornerstone of populist rhetoric and regulatory thinking. I have often argued that business itself has invited this response through its own championing of shareholder supremacy, of profit maximization and of a narrow definition of purpose. But now politicians themselves seem to understand that power, or empowerment, cannot be narrowly confined to ownership, and have added “control” and “management” in their latest Radical Economic Transformation framework.

That does not make the framework better, but indeed even more flawed. It’s a classic case of where macro theory simply clashes, or is destroyed by the micro reality. And I’m not even talking about the obvious of the shortage of skills, experience, and expertise to change the current racial composition of “management and control”. The entire empowerment framework has to change or be redefined to embrace tasks, operations and ownership: and in that order.

It starts with the individual taking ownership and responsibility of his or her own destiny and at the very least be willing to make a meaningful contribution to their social and economic environment. That willingness is reflected in their daily tasks, mainly at work, which are part of operations that have a common purpose in adding value to society, or customers. Such a commitment removes any barrier to being part of “management and control” and it is a small and valid leap to being given equity in the company itself. Only then will share option schemes make sense. To summarise then, the progression of empowerment is from self-accountability; to ownership of task; to operations and then to assets. A lot of this presupposes the existence of means and abilities to pursue that process, but the most important is individual willingness and a shift from expectations to aspirations. Achieving this in society starts with parenting, then schooling and then proper skills development. In companies themselves, individual ownership can be much enhanced through appropriate strategic, transparent, and governance models such as the Contribution Accounting methodology.

Self-worth is not simply about self-gain. The ownership-equals-power assumption rests on a shallow understanding of power itself. Authentic and legitimate power is earned by its contribution to others. When it does not do that it is simply control, which relies either on seduction or coercion. Ultimate empowerment is that which enables one to make a positive difference to people’s lives. It’s based on the simple premise that our true value lies in our capacity to make a contribution to others.

That’s how we judge others. That’s how we should judge ourselves.

The wealth distribution obsession.

To the point of Incapacitating wealth creation itself.

It’s a cliché, I know, but one can only imagine the positive change that is possible if South Africa, or any economy for that matter, switches focus from wealth distribution to wealth creation. No matter which way one looks at it, one cannot share what has not been created. Eventually all the intangible vapour that has been created through debt, financialisation and asset appreciation, will have to find some anchor in the production of goods and services.

That means being market driven, serving customers and creating a link between meaning and money. In my first article (see here) on following meaning in wealth creation, I argued that  our customer focus is in an appalling state as shown by poor service delivery, customer neglect, streams of cases before the Competition Tribunal, lack of competitiveness, and poor levels of innovation.

One could argue further that all of that is due to a very narrow focus on wealth distribution; on reward rather than contribution, which translates into exploitive behaviour by the key “internal stakeholders” of labour, capital and state in the form of wages, profits and taxes. It spawns a relationship between them that is inherently antagonistic. That is highly counter-intuitive to wealth creation: detracting from the only common purpose that those stakeholders can have and which gives not only meaning to their involvement but fosters the source of all rewards.

No amount of stakeholder management, concessions and tolerance will be effective if each maintains a narrow self-gain purpose without swearing full allegiance to a common serving purpose. That will only happen when each appreciates that they all also have a common fate in the enterprise.

Given the unprecedented re-examination of macro-economic theory, the time has never been better to extend that to the micro; to companies and organisational theory itself. That world has been changing even more profoundly since the early 80’s, with South Africa in some respects ahead of the pack, and in others trapped in outdated theories and ideologies as well as onerous demands for transformation. When these externally driven forces translate into a tug of war between the main internal stakeholders of labour, capital and state trying to maximise their own benefit, the biggest loser is service delivery and customer focus. That has a far bigger impact on wealth creation than global economic conditions or the external economic environment.

There are laudable attempts at a national level, through organisations such as BLSA, Nedlac and others, to create greater economic cohesion between the three economic estates. But this is mostly in the form of a haggle around trade-offs, and often gets derailed by political rhetoric, distrust and exaggerated demands. Stalemating can only be broken by facing an existential reality: all have a common purpose in serving markets and creating maximum wealth, and all are dependent upon the value added for their respective rewards. That distribution can at the very least be pegged to some broad principles: it has to meet legitimate expectations and it has to encourage continued contribution.

That, in a nutshell, is the base of meaningful relationships between the contributors or beneficiaries of wealth creation in business. Those critical relationships, as I have argued before, are destroyed by having absurd theories, abstracts, metrics and aggregates define them. That demeans the entire venture to a mechanical money making process, away from its true nature as an eco-system of people serving people.

Largely through its own doing, labour has commoditised itself as an institutional abstract, priced according to supply and demand for skills and qualifications, and accommodated as a “cost to production”. That crass understanding simply disappears when one argues that labour has made a contribution to the market through the company structures and processes, and then receives a legitimate share of the value that has been added. In my consulting and training days, I was constantly struck by the extent to which the true meaning of all work, that of creating something of value for others, is simply lost in conventional expression. But more encouragingly, attitudes become far more flexible when the link between task and contribution is made, incumbents are involved in customer and productivity improvement processes, information is shared more openly and fortune sharing incentives are introduced.

The hard nut to crack, is the dogmatic approach to capital interests, and the absolute holy cow of shareholder supremacy. A good example of this can be found in an attempt by BLSA research (see here) to debunk the corporate cash hoarding “myth”. Apart from some magic with metrics that can be challenged, the key trap that the researchers fell into is the assumption of a “generic capital model” that applies to all investment in business and that has unshakeable and invariable expectations. Even if that were true, the whole construct of investment in business has changed dramatically in the past few decades. It is simply impossible for normal ventures with even acceptable risk profiles to compete in financial markets with quadrillions of dollars incestuously looping around for quick and lucrative returns. American author and columnist, Rana Foroohar estimates that only 15% of the money in the financial sector is invested in business.

That demands a review of old paradigms around enterprise funding and even some of the dogmatic expectations captured in key measurements such as EVA, ROI, ROCE and the plethora of others. It may even need a new approach to capital formation in productive capacity generally, including more partnerships between capital and state, like we have seen in Asia and specifically the South Korean Chaebols. But let’s be clear: no-one can accuse these nations and their companies of not being truly market- and customer driven. That is a non-negotiable and it virtually rules out the South African government with its SOE track record as a trustworthy partner.

Most psychologists and life skills experts argue that meaning is to be found in having an external focus and making a difference to others. Business is the ideal and most inclusive platform to do that. But, if business is simply about making profits, it has little true meaning. If work is simply about earning a living, it has little true meaning. And if government sees companies simply as a means of generating revenue, that too has little meaning.

And because enterprise and work is such a significant part of most of our daily lives, it renders a significant part of those lives meaningless.

Follow the meaning.

And get a better idea of company health than following the money.

“Follow the money”, they say, “and you will get to the essence.”

Do that with any company or business and you will confirm a self-evident truth: it comes from the customer.  But here’s a more relevant proposition: follow the meaning! Do that and you are most likely going to arrive at the same point – the customer. Imagine, if you will, what an honest response would be if you asked any business leader: “what’s the meaning of your business?” or “what difference does your business make?”, and “what value do you add?” Will that not reflection their real calibre? Compare the possible answers of Tesla’s Elon Musk and Enron’s Jeff Skilling. It was a similar question to Skilling that brought the Enron empire down.

It’s a question I regret not asking enough on the Business programme Diagonal Street many years ago. But it’s certainly a question that’s become far more relevant today against the background of King IV, and going back further to Ed Freeman’s “stakeholder theory”; John Elkington’s Triple Bottom line; and Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard. And in their wake: clutter, clutter, clutter: sheets of brown paper with endless bulleted scribbles plastered floor to ceiling on walls of conference rooms, offices and barely missing the office loo. I was present at one of those sessions, when Martin Rosen of Pick ‘n Pay exclaimed: “For heaven’s sake; we are not trying to invade Spain!” The clutter clearly has some value, but all can be distilled into one powerful postulate:

The health and success of a company depends on the meaningfulness of its relationships.

They include the mutually empowering relationship between meaning and money; meaning and means; and meaning and form. The above theories don’t do that very well. Indeed in some cases they create huge volumes of work, resentment, conflicting positions, inappropriate definitions, activities and targets that are difficult to reconcile, especially with the final shareholder accounts that drive the organisation. The Contribution Account^© (see format examples here) is the closest you will get to the shareholder accounts; is absolutely reconcilable with them and condenses all of the volumes of information crammed into an integrated report into 6 or seven lines: income; (less) outside costs; (gives) value-added; (shared with) labour; capital, and state. The abstracts take human form in: customers, suppliers, employees, government and shareholders.

Customers. Hierarchical rankings are mostly juvenile and silly, but if psychologist are right in arguing that meaning is found in the contribution we make to others, then following meaning and following money both lead to customers. That makes them the most important relationship of all. MBA schooling that often defines the market as an “exploitable resource” in profit pursuit is crassly inappropriate, and simply untrue. Perhaps equally inappropriate is to relegate customers to “stakeholders” under Freeman’s theory, or one of the beneficiaries in “creating value for all” under King IV. Being market driven means being driven by customers’ needs and wants within the rules of ethical, mutually fair and legitimate transaction. That is subject to only one higher order, and that is the interest of society as a whole as expressed in its values, norms and laws.

Those rules do not detract from business’s natural external focus and being the most inclusive institution we have devised. Indeed, those who see the service driver as a “mushy”, soft and ill-disciplined act of charity, fail to recognise that it actually supports sound business principles of prudence, sustainability, productivity and maximum efficiencies. That’s rooted in the understanding that going out of business is the ultimate customer let-down and inefficiencies are mostly paid for by the customer.

There can be no tougher test of any action, behaviour, asset or measurement than simply asking: “does it add any value and is it in the customers’ best long term interest?” The perfect order is when the interests of society, customers, and the company are aligned.

Customers’ interests should also inform any regulator, policy maker, lobby group, trade union and outside supplier or even a competitor whose actions may impact on a company that is providing a product or service to their society. Including competitors may seem to be a paradox. But only an insecure, immature, inwardly focused organisation will view competition as an enemy, and not as offering customers a choice while creating benchmarks for excellence and innovation. Enlightened business practice distinguishes between competitor co-operation and collusion, with the former in the interest of customers, and the latter for self-gain.

Outside suppliers: A meaningful relationship with suppliers goes beyond text book theories of being supportive and empowering. Ultimately they have to be subjected to the same customer interest lens, which, if taken seriously enough, will preclude questionable practices such as nepotism, bribery and corruption. (As an aside, I include environmental care in this section, albeit not always quantifiable.)

Here’s an example of how being service driven supports sound business practice: because outside suppliers are mostly the biggest cost to value added or wealth creation (income less outside supplies = value added) it is tempting to follow the trade union call to eliminate outside contractors or outsourcing and do everything internally. Taken to extreme, you could also argue that all companies should generate their own electricity, make their own paper, build their own computers, etc. None of this would make sense in ensuring the customer gets the best product or service at the best price. It would also not make business sense. Suppliers have become a favourite instrument in economic transformation policy. The question seldom, if ever asked is whether it’s in the customer’s interest.

In this article I have dealt only with the two main categories of wealth creation: customers and outside suppliers. There’s even a bigger problem of dysfunctional relationships in wealth distribution, which I will cover in a future article. But we don’t need more evidence to demonstrate that most companies, and even the country as a whole, simply do not get it. Our customer focus is in an appalling state as shown by poor service delivery, customer neglect, streams of cases before the Competition Tribunal, lack of competitiveness, and poor levels of innovation.

Some may argue that we are essentially a free market economy. But that’s a very far cry from being market driven or even market orientated. It is the latter that gives meaning … and money.