Thought for the Week: Moral leadership
Ian Kirk-Smith reflects on self-regulation
What kind of a society do we live in? What kind of a society do we want to live in? Are the salaries, for example, that are being paid to people in different sectors in ‘right relationship’ to the kind of society in which we wish to live?
The annual bonuses for staff working in Barclays Bank were recently announced. One group of employees received a bonus of £63,000. The average wage of a nurse in the National Health Service is £31,600.
Who, or what, determines how much people should earn in our society? Competition, it appears, where there is a free market system – especially when Britain is ‘open for business’. But how?
Take the salary of £2.3 million paid to Ian King, the chief executive officer of BAE Systems, in 2010. His salary was decided by a ‘remuneration committee’ of three non-executive directors…and the chief executive officer of BAE Systems. So, Ian King sat on the very committee that awarded him £2.3 million. In 2010 BAE Systems took the decision to make 3,000 workers in the United Kingdom redundant. The state, under government procurement rules, pays for this.
Today, many important areas of responsibility in organisations, such as remuneration, are ‘self-regulated’. We are told it empowers. People working in organisations that employ self-regulation tend to want to continue it. Sometimes they talk as though it is a ‘right’ that was fought for in the English Civil War.
In the 1990s the Labour Party defended self-regulation in our banks and in the city. It was good for business. We could trust the leaders of finance and banking. The Catholic Church, particularly in Ireland, defended self-regulation. They were spiritual leaders. They could be trusted. Members of parliament, at Westminster, regulated their own expenses and benefits. They were elected by the people. We could trust them.
The press has, for centuries, held those in power to account. It also defends its right to regulate itself. A healthy democracy needs a free and open press and any attempt to interfere with it endangers important values and liberties. The press is the conscience of the people. In matters relating to its internal working, such as how it gathers information, it has also argued for self-regulation – like the police with whom it often seem to have a close relationship.
Why do people who benefit from self-regulation feel so comfortable about the rewards it can offer? Do they, unconsciously, feel a ‘sense of entitlement’ to them? Does this culture of self-regulation and entitlement, however, have broader, unintended, consequences?
In 2011 hundreds of young people took part in riots. Some put bricks through shop windows. Many pulled out mobiles phones, televisions and trainers. How many felt a sense of entitlement to do this? What message might they have taken from the actions of leaders in key sections of British society?
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Quakers ran many businesses. These were often very complex and placed great responsibilities on their owners and managers. These Friends were known for their integrity. Their regulator was internal – spiritually rooted and clear as crystal. Every aspect of their lives, in fact, was guided by its light.
It was renewed and refreshed in Meeting for Worship. These powerful and wealthy Friends provided, within the Religious Society of Friends, strong moral leadership. They were faithful to an internal guide, lived their lives and ran their businesses in fidelity to it, and were inspiring ‘patterns and examples’.
How strong is the moral leadership in key institutions in British society, such as parliament, the city, the banks, newspapers and the police? Self-regulation is not a bad thing. It is necessary. But it is meaningless if some of those responsible for implementing it have no sense of ‘moral compass’. More severe external regulation may now be needed. It is a pity.
The best regulator is a compelling, sincerely followed, internal one.
Comments
Until i walked away from the City two years ago i used to move in the circles of the ‘self-regulated’ as Ian describes the informal elite in his lead article this week. As a historian I also became more alert perhaps than most observers to the wider consequences of the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This momentous event signalled not only the collapse of communism, it also signalled (if somewhat delayed) a challenge to the legitimacy of the West. Both communism and liberalism were (are) sophisticated political systems whereby in turn the party and the elite could characterise the two dominant global regimes as ‘democratic’. Now 25 years after the demise of communism we are starting to see more clearly and begin to question the realities of ‘liberalism’ which, without the opposition (threat) of its bette noire of communism looks increasingly anachronistic. But where is the ‘new order’? Where the moral alternative? Is now the time for Quakers once more to take a leading role in our society alongside those others who once again find liberalism alone no longer adequate to address our need?
By kelvinbeerjones on 18th February 2012 - 12:52
Please login to add a comment
