Leadership and Political Correctness — how to fix Google’s problem with 2 letters.
A lot has been said and written about “the memo” and the Google employee who got fired for publishing it. So what would I, as a total outsider, have to add to the discussion? I will try to keep it short and simple.
At PLOT we work with organizations to develop purpose statements and actionable brand philosophies. And I see a direct line from a fundamental flaw in Google’s brand statement “Don’t be evil.” to their Code of Conduct and the current controversy.
How so?
I hope we can agree that there is a fundamental difference between thought and action. Thinking that you would like to hit me is different from slapping me in the face. Speech falls somewhere in between. It can simply be taken as an expression of thoughts. It can have performative power by convention (what linguists call speech acts, as in “you’re fired”). Or it can be perceived as doing something — intimidating, threatening, offending, etc. — entirely depending on context, culture and speakers.
My problem with Google’s Code of Conduct is that it mixes action, thought, and perception when — in the words of Sundar Pichai — it demands
Discrimination clearly falls in the category of action and is a no-brainer, whether you base it on laws or on policy. But to strive for a culture without bias does not make much sense. Bias is simply part of our thought process and only becomes a problem if we brainlessly act on it and it leads to discrimination. I may have a bias against religious people, cat lovers or Giants fans, but as long as I keep it to myself and don’t base my hiring policy or promotions on it, I am hardly discriminating against anybody.
How about “intimidation”? What if I publicly state that I think fat people are less likely to do a good job, or that one should not hire Germans because they are all rude? Some people may find that intimidating or offensive, but shouldn’t I be allowed or even encouraged to freely share my thoughts?
In society: Yes. It’s called free speech. In an organization: No, because my speech may have a detrimental effect on the business, the culture, or the well-being of individuals within the organization.
But then who gets to decide what is acceptable speech in an organization and what isn’t? Not the speaker, just ask our friend at Google. But also not the individual listening to or reading the speaker’s thoughts. That is the problem with Political Correctness: If we take any single individual’s subjective perception of a statement as being hurtful, intimidating, or threatening as cause for alarm, then we end up with a most timid culture and all meaningful discourse dies. (Are you following what is going on at American universities right now?)
In any organization, business, political party, or school, it is up to the leadership to work with their people and come to an agreement as to what kind of actions and statements are acceptable and where you cross a line. A good brand philosophy, as we would call it at PLOT, has to be actionable and falsifiable. You don’t want to become a thought police, and you don’t want to leave things open to interpretation or individual perception.
To be fair, most of Google’s Code of Conduct does this really well, so how can the principle be applied to the speech issue? Again, simply stay away from thoughts (bias) and perception (intimidation) and stick to the act of the statement with something like this: “We do not allow any statements that call into question the equal opportunity and potential of all our people, regardless of gender, religion, etc.” (sorry, rough draft, but you get the idea).
Tracing this back to Google’s brand statement: Prescribing character (“don’t be”) addresses identity instead of action, is open to interpretation (perception), and not falsifiable (thoughts). Quick fix: Evil is who evil does. Change “Don’t be evil.” to “Don’t do evil.” and define “doing evil” as violating the Code of Conduct. There you have it: a wonderfully simple and actionable statement of brand philosophy. Well done.
PS: Even an open society can reasonably limit free speech. As you might know, the elected leaders of the brand “Germany” created a Code of Conduct for the country that makes it illegal to deny the Holocaust. Note that where totalitarian regimes would establish a thought police and go after identities or beliefs, an open society punishes the action of making certain statements just as it would outlaw other actions. “Die Gedanken sind frei”, but that does not mean that you are allowed to do or say whatever you want.
