Married, With Children

This is the third in a series of articles (see the first and second) analysing corporate personhood and the standards to which we hold corporations. Since Dartmouth v. Woodward in 1819, private corporations have been viewed as having many of the same rights as you or I, prompting one to look at the state of business around them and ask simply, what kind of person are you?

We all grow up and corporations, just like people, become adults and eventually get the urge to settle down, buy a nice place in the suburbs, have kids, grow old and complacent, and then die.  At the peak of their game, adult human beings rule the world around them with a seamless balance of knowledge, experience, power, influence and confidence. So too do adult corporations; the long established goliaths of the business world determine the sway of our global economy and while typically, the young upstart corporations are the more innovative ones, it is the well established that hold most of the power. However, if we agree that corporations are persons, then at their adult phase, businesses become some of the most disturbed yet frighteningly untouchable individuals in the world.

If corporations are persons, then publicly traded companies are whores.
Every time I hear about another company going IPO, I giggle a little to myself (Twitter, you filthy minx). How many people do you know that allow themselves to be bought and sold without a care in the world as to who’s involved in the transaction or what they intend to do? Even prostitutes with the lowest of self-esteem still have some limits (granted, I’m making an assumption here… thank god). Yet every day, professional traders, bankers, investors and common folk like you and I jump between the roles of john and pimp as we buy and sell stocks freely on the market.

From the highest-end escorts money can buy in companies like Berkshire Hathaway to the most depraved, under-bridge crack addicts trying to make a quick buck (at one point, I was really pulling for you, Blackberry), corporate whores, much like human ones, come in all shapes and sizes for all different types. Whether conservative, high risk (ewww) or somewhere in between, if you have the cash, then you can take part in the fun and own a bit of one of these strange persons for a while before discarding them as fast as you found them. I’ll only recommend that you exercise caution around those paying dividends.

If corporations are persons, then hostile takeovers are rape.
However, just like regular people, not all corporations are immoral, baseless heathens. From time to time, wedding bells chime and two corporations promise to have and to hold, through insolvency and solvency, until bankruptcy do them part. Yes, mergers and acquisitions can be a wonderful thing (I always cry at M&As) where we celebrate the union of two beautiful companies into a synergistic partnership for optimized business operations. We always wish them the best and hope that we may soon hear the pitter-patter of little spinoff companies rushing to take on the world and prove mom & dad wrong.

Yet partners in these mergers are not always willing. A hostile takeover, or as I like to call it, corporate rape, can be a traumatizing thing, regardless of the outcome of the takeover attempt. The individual targeted will never be the same and unless we stop the aggressor, odds are, they will do it again. Much like the sex offender registry, we really need a database of corporations that have tried to violently overtake those around them. Unfortunately, this list would likely be exhaustive in the corporate world and therefore not serve much of a purpose.

If corporations are persons, then why can’t they go to jail?
Perhaps what is most concerning about the situation is that even through such terrible acts as outlined above, corporate persons cannot go to jail. Since corporations exist almost solely to create profit, by merely slapping them with a fee whenever they break the law, we assume that we are doing enough. However, the issue is that these companies don’t learn anything; there is no process of rehabilitation.

What if instead of a fee, corporations could go to a sort of jail? Imagine if any time they broke the law businesses had to cease regular in-market operations for a duration appropriate to the crime they have committed. Much like humans go through counselling and reintegration, so should corporate persons undergo business therapy and guidance back into the market. Did one of your faulty products kill someone? Let’s ensure that you feel enough remorse so that your goods never suffer shoddy design again. Did you steal ideas or technology from your competitors? Let’s give you the idle time to think about what you’ve done so that you understand that theft will not be tolerated.

If human beings are inherently moral and we still feel the need to put them in jail, then what are we doing allowing these sociopathic financial behemoths the freedom to run amok with nothing more than a financial slap on the wrist each time they commit a crime? If we want better behavior, we may have to impose better punishment.


If you want your customers to start respecting you like a person, then start acting like one.

The Awkward Years

This is the second in a series (see the first) of articles analysing corporate personhood and the standards to which we hold corporations. Since Dartmouth v. Woodward in 1819, private corporations have been viewed as having many of the same rights as you or I, prompting one to look at the state of business around them and ask simply, what kind of person are you?

Companies grow just as people grow and somewhere between being a cute and adorable infant and a fully functional adult, both people and corporate persons go through a phase of being annoying, confused, misguided and kinda funny looking. Along with the rights corporations inherit by being persons, come some of the same challenges and difficulties that regular people face when suffering through the awkward teen years.

Last week , we looked at the similarities between infants and startups and this week, we’re going to think through some comparisons of that in-between phase; you’re big enough to think you can take care of yourself, but you really have no idea what you’re doing just yet and will go through a lot more changes before coming into your own. However, unlike your average pimple-faced teen, medium sized corporations seem to be bigger outcasts than that kid you knew growing up who collected toenail clippings.

If corporations are persons, then why do they have so few friends?
It is odd that so little genuine interaction happens between companies. Sure, manufacturers sell things to distributors and retailers and of course, service providers lend a hand in times of need (for the right price). However, would you really call any of this friendship? To me, these are transactional relationships. Friendship is defined by a certain connection and collaboration – what the business world likes to call a partnership.

We see a handful of these in the world: Nike & Apple on early generations of the Fuel system, Google doling out various iterations of the Nexus to a rotating cast of hardware partners, Microsoft integrating Sync into the new line of Ford vehicles. However, thinking of those 3 examples was the bottleneck to me writing this whole article. On the whole, companies tend to stick to themselves and minimize interaction with other persons or keep them so basic, cold and calculated that one has to question whether some even have the ability to make friends.

If corporations are persons, then most of them are sociopaths.
When we think about it this way, it feels a lot like corporations don’t play very well with others; so much so that you could even call this behaviour somewhat sociopathic. Couple the lack of friends with a patent disregard for the rights and needs of others and, while I’m no psychiatrist, I would be curious to see how one would analyse this basic profile:

Has very few friends and tends to exploit or manipulate those closest to them. Obsessively focused on money and the creation of profit above anything else. Shows a pattern of deceitfulness and a disregard for authority. Fails to adhere to social norms show basic empathy when interacting with others. Engages in impulsive behavior due to a reactionary personality and an inability to effectively plan for the long term.

Any one of the above statements could be a marker for antisocial personality disorder and by my count, the bulk of companies probably tick off most of them. I would step forth and recommend that these corporate persons seek help, however, the reality is that many of them already do.

If corporations are persons, then consulting firms are therapists.
You could see this one coming from a mile away. While I haven’t had a client lay on a leather couch in years, the typical consulting process goes like this:

• They tell us what’s wrong and what things have been troubling them
• We work with them to dig deeper on the issues and get to the root cause
• We collaborate to think of solutions to their problem that best fit their context
• We conclude by recommending a plan of what to do next, but usually walk away and leave them to do it themselves

This is consulting in a nutshell and while I’ve never sought professional psychiatric help (I know, I’m shocked too) my understanding of that experience (admittedly, a Hollywood understanding) isn’t far off this one. Yet with so many corporate counsellors running around in immaculate suits, why does it feel like corporations haven’t improved much?

Either the bulk of us are terrible at our jobs (not pointing any fingers) or corporations are the biggest head-cases you’ve ever seen. Regardless, what matters is that we've identified a segment of persons in this world who seem to have deep-seeded psychiatric issues and as of yet, no effective way to treat them.

If you want your customers to start respecting you like a person, then start acting like one.

A New Light Enters the World

This is the first in a series of articles analysing corporate personhood and the standards to which we hold corporations. Since Dartmouth v. Woodward in 1819, private corporations have been viewed as having many of the same rights as you or I, prompting one to look at the state of business around them and ask simply, what kind of person are you?

Before we even embark on this journey, I want to make one thing abundantly clear. Let’s dispel any concerns that this article is going to be nothing more than a rant against western capitalism – I’m far too invested in the system to call for something that brash. I’m an MBA and a management consultant, so at this point, one can assume that my education and current business practices have sufficiently brainwashed me. However, my mind as of late has been having a lot of fun playing around with this metaphor and, hopefully like you, I’m curious to see where some of these questions will lead as we hold businesses up to the same scrutiny and judgement that we do normal people.

What Kind of Person Are you?

Like a ray of sunlight breaking through the clouds after a long storm, a child is born. However, this child is unlike those that immediately come to mind. 10 fingers and 10 toes are no longer our top concern. Instead, we investigate the management team, revenue forecasts, go-to-market strategy and operating policies. This child is a corporation, and while they may not be flesh and blood, in many ways, the moment that a business is registered and on the books, they already have more rights than any normal new-born.

Just as thousands of babies are born each day, so too are thousands of start-up businesses. Some are brought into the world in rather deplorable conditions – garages, basements, and pubs - but nearly all with a common goal: to grow and thrive. In many ways, early start-up businesses are a lot like infants; they’re a little awkward and clumsy, don’t fully understand the world around them, tend to be a serious liability for their parents and initially, don’t do much other than whine and crap themselves. However, when we play around with the corporate person metaphor, some stark differences arise between the early days of a business and the early days of a child. Some of these differences are laughable and clever, but others are downright concerning.

If corporations are persons, then we should be alarmed by the infant mortality rate (IMR).

Pending on which statistic you choose to pull from your ass, startup failure rates are quoted as anywhere from 25% in the first year, to around 50% within 5 years, or even up to 90% in the case of tech companies (hang your heads in shame, you deplorable nerds). The exact number doesn’t matter, but what does is the fact that even the countries with the highest IMRs in the world (Afghanistan: 12.2%, Mali: 10.9%, Somalia: 10.4%) still come nowhere near the morbidity rates of our little corporate people.

Looking to literature on IMR, we see a number of consistent issues involving endogenous factors (mainly biological in nature, affecting the foetus), however, also a number of exogenous considerations (the surrounding environment). Crowding & congestion correlates with a higher IMR do to the lowered sanitary conditions and higher competition for basic resources. Nutrition is important, both in quantity of nourishment and in the quality that the child receives. Access to basic medicines can be crucial in times when an infant falls ill and requires life-saving technology. Lastly, illegitimacy of birth can cause social burdens on the mother and community, leading to neglect and poor health.

Again, if we take the corporate metaphor to the extreme, we can assume the following conclusions:

·         The small business space is more congested than the highest density cities of India

·         We are funding our start-ups with the equivalent nourishment of a minimal amount of the worst infant formula money can buy, mixed with tainted pond water

·         Our professional aides, start-up guides and business-helping technologies are on par with medical advances from the Victorian era

·         Entrepreneurs are fickle, deadbeat moms and dads that are nearly always starting new ventures in the equivalent of broken homes

Should we be holding our entrepreneurs to higher standards when it comes to the management and development of small businesses? Alternatively (or additionally), should our governments be working to improve the surrounding environment for start-ups by providing greater access to funding, support and guidance then is currently available? If corporations are persons, then we’re neglecting our youth.

If corporations are persons, then why do we trust infants with such large responsibility?

Let’s assume for a moment that your small business does not become a statistic. You survive the cull and manage to grow your infant into a baby. How many babies do you know that own land? When was the last time you saw a three year old sue one of its colleagues?

At the core of these questions lies a harsh reality: we give young corporations far too much power with far too little oversight. Once a business flourishes and grows into an adult behemoth, we can trust them to understand and play by the rules (… right?), however, in early days, why would we expect a young organization to know everything about law, management or accounting? Many of these businesses are still in developmental stages.

Therefore, much like we pamper, train and restrain our young, why not put corporate persons through the same rigorous education and slowly growing responsibility regime? While I’ve typically been one who’s all for learning how to swim in the deep end, looking back to our first question regarding how frequently start-ups fail, there might be something to the concept of forced entrepreneurial education and limited power in early business phases.

Why are parents held accountable for the actions of their biological children, but not their corporate children?

Call me crazy but the concept of limited liability seems completely bonkers. I know that this entire series of articles is about how corporations are persons, however, these organizations don’t actually have sentience themselves. Therefore, when someone screws up, we can’t just blame the company; odds are there was some significant human decision making involved that deserves a good finger pointing or two.

If a young child were to pick up a weapon and injure another person, we wound find the parents guilty of negligence and improper oversight. So why is it that when corporations pillage their way through society, we don’t point the finger at their parents? Of course, in cases of extreme corporate malfeasance, we have seen a number of white-collar criminals be brought down. However, in the absence of massive personal wrong doing or illegal behaviour, we still have to ask who takes the fall when a corporation screws up. Somebody designed that part, somebody signed that contract, somebody authorized that product launch and somebody screwed up.

At bare minimum, if we’re not going to blame the parents, can we at least do a better job of punishing the child? Where is our equivalent of corporate juvenile detention and what would it look like to lock up a company for a few years?

If you want your customers to start respecting you like a person, then start acting like one.