Seaweed for cows and my own suggestion to create world-changing leaders at our business school
Reflections from two years at the Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB)
“Feeding cows seaweed can help reduce the methane emissions.” I’m intrigued yet perplexed. Is seaweed for cows the ‘change’ my classmates and I should pursue under GSB’s world-changing motto? When I re-emerge, the topic has switched. We’re speculating about Tesla’s stock price.
As Co-Director of the Corporations and Society Initiative (CASI), I spent the last year creating opportunities for students to familiarize themselves with the messy, inconclusive challenges of society and business — so they can navigate these challenges in leadership roles after the GSB. Amongst others, we heard about the need for governance in big tech from WSJ reporter Emily Glazer, discussed how to handle lay-offs thoughtfully during the pandemic with Associate Professor Lester, and learned how to ask provocative questions in a workshop.
But CASI is not enough. For the GSB to truly live up to its world-changing motto, it should prepare us, students, to face the pressing societal problems in front of us, emphasize trade-offs instead of win-wins, and start this now.
After the GSB, we cannot choose the problems, the problems will choose us
I enrolled for my climate course when my former employer BCG, whose logo is greener than its business, predicted that up to one third of its revenues will come from climate-related advisory five years from now. When consultancies talk about climate as business, rather than their CSR, it is a sign that any future leadership role will face climate-related decisions.
The GSB still believes we can choose which societal and environmental problems we will engage in our career, if any at all. There are no mandatory courses that discuss climate, diversity and inclusion in the workplace, and no courses on labor rights and upholding democratic institutions — just a snapshot of the pressuring societal issues all business leaders will be forced to engage with in some way or another in their careers.
This is not reflective of students because interest in socially oriented courses overall is growing, with an all-time high of 130 (out of 400) students receiving the “certificate in public innovation” this year. However, some groups are notably missing. There were noticeably few straight white males in our Equity by design course And at CASI we really struggled to get our more traditionally business-minded peers to join our events.
But after the GSB, we cannot choose the problems, the problems will choose us. The GSB should treat them as inevitable parts of our careers. We should celebrate our “successful” alums and View From the Top speakers with the lens of how successfully they lived up to the existing and upcoming world’s challenges. What world are they building?
Moreover, we need a foundational course in year one that exposes us to the most complex problems in our society. Great examples already exist: the Business & Government elective, and the Design for Extreme Affordability elective at the d.school, which forces you to collaborate with a NGO and policymakers to solve a problem with those who have the lived experience. (more on that here)
Win-wins are great, but trade-offs are real
‘Seaweed for cows’ was being pitched to us not just as a magical climate solution, but as an investable opportunity. This was emblematic of the narrative in the classroom, in courses from climate change to philanthropy: if we engage with society’s problems, there is profit to be made — classic ‘win-win’.
Recent research shows that after we graduate: most MBA graduates increase profits by cutting (labor) costs rather than increase productivity — classic ‘win-lose’. ‘Doing well by doing good’ is still the exception rather than the norm for people like ourselves. This is an uncomfortable truth, but we are much better off if we acknowledge that facing society’s challenges is hard and win-win situations are rare.
Recognizing this, we should learn to interrogate whose interests are on each side of those trade-offs, and recognize the biases baked into each. We do this in our Impact Investing course as we discuss the conditions to accept below market rate returns in exchange for impact. We can apply this way of thinking in all social impact courses, and beyond. For example, what does it take, really, to offer living wages to our factory workers, or to contribute to effective government legislation? What are the costs to the people involved, what are we willing to give up, and how do we hold a conversation about this with others?
If not now, when?
During my last week in the CASI leadership, I received a request to organize a workshop called “living ethically after the GSB”. I was thrilled this student had taken this initiative, but also wondered: why do we not try to live ethically during the GSB?
I do not want to put the burden of the world’s problems on our shoulders but as we prepare to be leaders now, we need to acknowledge where the world is headed tomorrow. Building a wider sense of responsibility and the trade-offs within is the smart choice. And that is a ‘win-win’ I can stand by.
