Conservatism, Innovation, and Diversity: Management Lexicon Oxymoron

I have throughout my career been exposed to many companies that have defined the organization as a conservative company. This designation at times has perplexed me for those are some of the same companies that depend upon new ideas to stay ahead of the competition. Merriam-Webster defines conservative and conservatism as follows:

con•ser•va•tive - \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\ adj.
1: PRESERVATIVE 2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism
3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions: TRADITIONAL b: marked by moderation or caution (a conservative estimate) c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners.

con•ser•va•tism - \kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm\ noun
2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.

Literally based upon the definition, these companies are stating that they are committed to the historical authority structure and do not welcome challenges to the established corporate culture and business model. It is not necessary for a company to define itself as conservative based upon its decision-making because the fundamental role of business is to manage risk while ensuring its existence as a going concern. The conservative identification is more about the political affiliation and nature of the leadership than anything else.

For companies in an industry that has not had to change since its initial discovery, I can understand this conservative posture. For example, companies in industries producing commodities and natural resources have had very little incentive to change other than to improve yield and efficiency. The principal methods to remove resources from the earth have not changed. Other industries such as computer technology and consumer goods thrive on new discovery and innovation limited only by the human imagination. Value to these organizations is truly its employee base of creativity and innovation. This is completely opposite of an organization maintaining its existing views or conditions (conservative definition 3a.).

So, at this point my question would be - Does a conservative company value diversity? My idea of diversity goes beyond identity politics of gender and ethnicity although these factors are important and included. I would also add experiences, class, education, and orientation. Many of these companies are directed and managed by men due to the historical early laws of the land excluding others from participating and prospering within this economic structure. In an effort to participate, the excluded groups attempted assimilation by adopting the conservative philosophy to the extent possible for a limited overall prosperity. This conformance is counter to the individual added value of experience and culture to maintain the existing status quo. Ideas, innovation, and value get lost in the conformance.

The premise of Diversity is that all of humanity has value and should be included throughout all levels of society and organizations for enhanced prospective and performance. The oxymoron is a company committed to its conservative traditions touting diversity to prevent being a political outlier. When employees do not feel valued, they can quickly become competitors to those intransigent organizations unwilling to recognize the contributions within its human resources and unable to modify or expand a business model to accommodate a game changing idea.

The Great Debate

During the early days of freedom for Black Americans and the end of slavery after the Civil War, there was an intellectual discussion regarding the path to prosperity. On the one side of the debate was Booker T. Washington arguing greater training in a trade or skill for the newly found free people. This position was supported by the work of George Washington Carver and his multiple scientific discoveries of peanut uses. The other side of the debate was delivered by W.E. B. Du Bois with, in part, the argument of the Talented Tenth to lead the way. The Talented Tenth was defined as the liberally educated, intellectual elite to lead the way to societal change for the benefit of the masses.

Understand that this debate was based upon the segregation and oppression of Black Americans during those early years. As a country we have thankfully passed through this terribly painful history; however, I would like to look at a simplified version of this debate extrapolated and applied to the current, greater U.S. society.

We are experiencing according to some experts the greatest financial and economic collapse in history. So how do we proceed? The current U.S. government planned policies include educating the population to a proportion greater than experienced after WWII to each man/woman according to his/her skill. The plan is to make education available and affordable at all levels (from technical trade to the Ivies). Generally, I wholeheartedly support this initiative. In a speech I gave in New Orleans many years ago I had reached a similar conclusion stating that wherever your position in the linear intellectual spectrum of the debate, contribute! For the progress of us all – Contribute!

The current economic situation in America has enlightened a blind spot in this conversation for the path going forward. The failures can largely be attributed to the collaboration and collusion of the Talented Tenth (Ivy League educated traders, financiers, managers, and think tank rule-makers). When leaders of the country, her assets, and the rules are all working to implement an ideology that has no empathy for those toiling “in the trenches” creating economic value without sharing the benefits, there is a problem. The lesson is that those in power are not always right nor do the right thing.

In a Democratic society empathy must always be taken into consideration in rulemaking. So, how does the public decipher these qualities from candidates asking for support to represent them? Forgoing the “system of riches” and becoming a community organizer is a good place to start along with the personal freedom allowing a person to determine their path no matter the method.

Plantation Economics? [Metaphorical Narrative]

The recent 2008 elections have felt like a turning point in American history for many of us; and, much has been written about the current state of the conservatives and the Republican Party. The mantra of CHANGE unmistakably matched the sentiments of the American majority, but the GOP continues to struggle with its meaning. Most of the published ideas mentioned from Republican politicians have not changed at all.

GOP platform staples include (in simple abbreviated form): 1) Lower Taxes, 2) State’s Rights, 3) Small Government, and 4) Strong Military and a Global Projection of Power.

I have just finished reading a fantastic book by Malcolm Gladwell called Outliers which I recommend highly to all. In chapter six he tells the story of Harlan, Kentucky of the early eighteenth century and the high level of violence in the town as a result of the family feud between the Howards and the Turners. Gladwell states:

“We want to believe that we are not prisoners of our ethnic histories. But the simple truth is that if you want to understand what happened in those small towns in Kentucky in the nineteenth century, you have to go back into the past.”

Although I use this quote a bit out of context, it also applies to understanding the political platform positions of the current Republican party which is a southern-conservative party as reflected in the 2008 election results.

The GOP platform positions can be linked directly to Pre-civil war economies of the South and the Post-civil war social developments and political positions of the “dixiecrats” and their “southern strategy.” They left the Democratic party over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and eventually joined the Republican Party.

Plantation owners held strong political influence in the South pre-civil war and ran their operations with tight controls demanding loyalty from all subjects. This plantation narrative provides a model to understand the political dynamics of Southern-Conservative politics. At this point, I think we are all familiar with the history of slavery. This history plays into, I believe, the current southern political perspective of labor. Minimize and eliminate opportunities for collaboration to challenge the authority of the Leader/Ruling Class/Strict Father figure (no labor unions). This authority is reinforced through biblical interpretation that allows dominion over the earth by God and government should not interfere with these activities (re: the Civil War). Labor is a business cost on the income statement that should be managed with all other input costs to increase profitability to the enterprise.

Further elaboration of this narrative provides that the Ruling Class is the source and creator of jobs and should not be taxed at any greater levels than the rest of the population. In fact, the government should invest into the businesses of this group through subsidies for greater economic prosperity. Therefore, eliminate most social programs to reduce the size and scope of the central government to focus on defense of the national interest through an overwhelming military presence.

The only problem with this platform is that it has been proven to not work and is ineffective at accomplishing any of its stated goals to improve, protect, and benefit all of American society.


My understanding of the strict father model is from the writings of George Lakoff from his book Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate -- The Essential Guide for Progressives and his essay “Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust.”

Could Pensions follow Healthcare?

While reading the lead story in the April 2009 edition of CFO Magazine regarding the evolution of 401k plans in America, I began to wonder about the occurrences behind the shift away from pensions and if their dismal performance could eventually require a government takeover similar to plans for universal healthcare.

Initially, the 401(k) plan was a benefit to the corporations because it allowed for the general shift in financial recognition from the income statement to the balance sheet. The move allowed companies to give employees stock as a benefit where the employees would share in the gains (and losses) of the company stock performance. The pension plans required the company to make-up investment short-comings with cash contributions to ensure the benefit obligations.

With the current state of the economy and corporate equity valuations as measured by stock indices, the gains in stock performance supporting the middle class wealth have disappeared due to the financial crisis. Employees with plans to retire within the next five years will have to reevaluate those plans even if they had managed to alter their portfolio mix prior to the decline. They still took a hit. Those workers in bankrupt companies still covered by defined pensions have some protections provided by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

This current economic state of the financial crisis is what brought on the pondering. However, I do not think that pension/401(k) retirement plans will go the way of healthcare for a couple of fundamental reasons. The first reason is that there is no current political pressure highlighting the system disparities because all employees are theoretically in the same system. Although contributions vary at different employment levels within any organization, all are subject to the market fluctuations in stock values.

The second reason, and probably the biggest, is that the system is not a structural competitive burden to US corporations such as healthcare. The largest commercial competitors in the US market hail from the EU, Japan, and China which all have some version of Universal Healthcare. This means the burden of managing rising healthcare cost rests with the government and not the corporations. Insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies are not transferring inefficiencies and protecting their own profitability at the expense of manufacturers or other companies competing internationally.