Regressive regulation: does big government stifle big business?
Ryan Wallman

<  Previous article  |  Next article  >

Posted Monday, 1 February at 12:13 pm in People

Stifling big business

At various levels, it seems the standard Western experience is one of increasing external regulation. Closed-circuit cameras, workplace surveillance, legislation around child-rearing practices, advertising bans, risk-averse playground design… and on it goes.

Though insidious, this has been no trivial development. And yet our collective response to this enmeshed relationship with authority has roughly amounted to ‘meh’ (a neologism now acknowledged by the Oxford Dictionary, which perhaps says something about our changing capacity for mature dialogue – but more on that shortly).

Recent events have not helped to alleviate this complacency. With our inner children understandably frightened by the fallout from the GFC, it seems we are more willing than ever to acquiesce to the whims of any ostensibly responsible guardian, rather than be led astray by some dodgy stranger (albeit one in a tailored suit).

Yet most of us know, from our experiences on one or both sides of the parental divide, that authority can cut both ways. It’s true that being burned by irresponsible risk-takers playing fast and loose with our investments doesn’t exactly enhance our sense of security, but nor does an intrusive bureaucracy encourage us to be capable decision-makers. While much is made of the trend towards children being hyper-parented, their every move planned, monitored and scrutinised, this sort of behaviour is not confined to the family unit. It’s coming from the top.

Think this is overstating it? Then consider the furore in the UK surrounding the sacking of Professor David Nutt for advising against Draconian laws on drug use (see The Guardian website). Closer to home, we have been subject to increasingly prohibitive alcohol legislation in recent years, not to mention ever more restrictive smoking laws.

To be fair, these examples mostly reflect noble objectives, but they also betray a remarkably heavy-handed approach to what are (mainly) lifestyle decisions made by competent adults. Indeed, it is not so much the specifics that are concerning, but the overall message being communicated – that we are not sufficiently adult to make our own decisions. Anyone detecting a hint of condescension here, or is it just me?

Well, it’s certainly not just me who is affected by all of this. And neither is it only those who have shown themselves to be incapable of mature judgement or whose lifestyle decisions have direct and unequivocal consequences for others. These people may have been the catalysts for such didacticism, but does that really justify a scattergun approach to policy in a progressive society? Moreover, with all that is known about the individuation process, how does such an approach shape our collective identity – and to what extent does it erode free will?

These are important philosophical questions, but the potential effects of big government transcend abstract debate. As anyone who has parented (or indeed been) a teenager knows, excessive regulation can have practical – and spectacularly counterproductive – consequences. Do our leaders really believe that shouting moralistic orders at people will have the desired effect of encouraging behaviour change? Surely there is the distinct possibility that those who take umbrage at being infantilised like this will up the ante and, consciously or otherwise, rebel? In the manner of autonomy-craving adolescents, they might just do… like, whatever.

So what effect is this trend having on business? Is increasing regulation achieving its aim of protection – or are organisations finding it increasingly difficult to make their way? Does big government stifle risk-taking and, thereby, creativity and entrepreneurialism?

Is business – like the broader society in which it operates – in danger of regressing?

Ryan Wallman is a Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, specialising in brand-building (some would say rule-breaking) B2B, corporate and healthcare communications strategy and execution.

Where do you stand?

Add comment (3)  |  Trackback  |  Follow comments (RSS)  |  More by Ryan Wallman

  • Steve

    29 Jan 2010 at 8:49 pm  

    Being from a large (anonymous) company I can’t comment on this as I was obliged to sign a waiver

  • Tamara

    4 Feb 2010 at 3:27 pm  

    The notion of being principle centered is always a work in progress. I work within the human services field and see the outcomes of lifestyle choices every day and their impacts on children, families and communities. I am not sure if making such a broad reference does your point justice, in this arena I believe the debate of regulation is much more complex.

    In my work everyday I see people who are not capable of making adult decisions and thus incur for all much tighter regulation. Individualism vs collective then becomes difficult as we are shaping a society not identifiying different rules for individual behaviour. This would then be based on rewarding what is seen as the ‘right’ behaviour possibly creating a even more fractured society, as we see when this occurs on a smaller scale. Who determines what is the right behaviour…the people.

    The focus of regulation on business I believe does bring us back to a more philospohical and values based place. The current economic and environmental climate has brought with it increased competition and fighting for resources, the financial gain often winning out over valuing people.

    This is particularly seen in large businesses, in the government sector where I have worked, there is no connection to those carrying out the core business.

    The structures of management often patriarchal and authoritarian and based on outcomes, measures and successes. Often times these are achieved to the detriment of staff. I have seen those charged with certain responsibility have it usurped to make bottom lines look better regardless of the outcomes on clients. So these roles then become tokenistic, fire-fighters having to defend decisions not made by them. How unrewarding and demoralising!

    Now working in a non-government organisation as a manager I am charged with the responsbility of growing a team of committed staff, growing my programs to meet client need and contributing to an organisation who have clear values by which they work.
    The management structure is participative and inclusive and focuses on consultation and empowerment. This is how I choose to work and what I instill in my team – being principle centered and taking them on the journey so we all can enjoy the fruits of our labour at the end.

    What does this buy business? Skilled staff, grounded teams, positive relationships with clients and community and retention of staff who can now model to others. The flow on effect to the notion of work-life balance is evident, and looking big picture our societal framework.

    Ironically it is often those at the top we see misusing the system, so accountability and fairness at all levels is important and should be upheld. But lets involve people in the development of such procedures and policies so they are clear about why and people are more likely to comply if they feel as though they have had an opportunity to contribute and be heard. Every voice has something valuable to say.

    We also must recognise that technology plays a role in the regulation at this level and increases the opportunity for litigious battles and seeing what may have otherwise been hidden, which then incur knee-jerk reactions from politicians down to CEO’s to save face.

    Goverments change, policies change, business must identify a set of core values that underpin the work they do and ride the storm when change occurs. There is a need for structure and accountability, but in business I believe we have the opportunity to build it together.

  • Ryan Wallman

    5 Feb 2010 at 11:34 am  

    Thank you for your comments Tamara. You make a very good point that these issues are not always generalisable. To my mind, that’s the problem in a nutshell: excessive regulation is essentially a crude instrument for what are nuanced issues. As you rightly point out, the leaders most likely to empower people (and organisations) are not distant policy wonks but those who appreciate these nuances – i.e. those closer to the coalface.

    Having previously worked in the public mental health system, I too have been closely involved with people who struggle to make ‘capable’ decisions; almost invariably, increased bureaucracy was counterproductive for these people. What mattered to them – and allowed them some autonomy – was having people who understood and listened.

*will not be published