When business pep talk falls short
Last week, the government’s 36-point action plan provided further evidence that New Zealand seems to be being governed like a business, with quarterly performance goals, decision trees, inspirational talks about efficiency gains, morale and commitment, and a Prime Minister who appears to regard himself as the chief executive of a large corporation.
Little of this will come as good news for anyone who isn’t a major shareholder in NZ Inc, or who has health, housing or income needs that make them appear as a cost item on the nation’s ledgers.
The political use of business-speak is pervasive.
On Breakfast TV last week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon explained that his 36-point plan would require his government to “clunk down” and define the tasks required for it to reach its performance targets by the end of the next quarter.
“We’re locking on our course of action, we’ve actually considered the issue, we’ve taken advice on the issue, this is how the proposal’s going to shape up, we’re moving it forward – so that the next quarter and the quarter after that, we’re continuing to get it actually closer to implementation for people,” Luxon said.
For fans of self-help books on leadership and time management, such pep talk can be motivational.
Other people might be sceptical.
For the past 40 years, as Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick argued last week, business ideology has been more often the cause of the social problems facing New Zealand than the solution. Corporatist thinking, she claimed, “has prioritised short-term, hyper-individualised gain at the expense of pretty much everything that holds society, and the climate necessary for our survival, together.”
The underlying message in today’s political business-speak is one of self-reliance, and resilience.
Allegedly, once the nation has re-found its lost mojo, the Kiwi “can-do” spirit will enable people to cope with any adversity – or bad political decisions – thrown at them.
As Bloomberg News recently pointed out, airport bookstores currently bristle with paperbacks that explain “why some flourish, while others fold” or that promise to help readers develop “unbeatable” levels of “mental toughness”.
The traits of resilient people are being extolled, from optimism to grit to a growth mindset. Many of the associated insights, Bloomberg has noted, come from elite military forces, or extreme athletes.
For any politician, there are obvious advantages if the public can be led to believe that the merits of a policy matter less than one’s own personal attitude, and inner mental fortitude.
When life knocks you down, why can’t you just get up again?
It is rarely conceded that the ability to be resilient is easier for people blessed with a solid backup team of friends, family and finance.
It is when those cushions don’t exist, that using the business model as a good way to run a society begins to break down, sometimes with tragic consequences. The core difference being that CEOs need only to govern narrowly, for the prime benefit of their largest shareholders.
By contrast, political leaders need to be willing and able to govern for the well-being of everyone. This includes the people who need a lot more than pep talks and tough-love if they are to survive, and to thrive.