Hubris

Hubris of Communal Organisations.

Hubris is so extensive that is permeate to all aspects of society, it is devolved from individual that have whole belief in themselves to the exclusion of any recognition of unsavoury traits, into any organised institution that loses sight of the legitimacy of the pillars of its existence. Individuals may only have ability to infect their own environ and such individuals, subject to the strength of their egotistical character, may have influence to affect limited long-term consequences. This ‘localised’ individual hubris, is not so damaging in small measures and might be ridiculed for what damaged it caused after the creator of such hubris is exposed. However, it becomes extremely contagious in corporate organisations, were the individual fear of being ostracised as not being one of the team or under covert pressure of loosing position; is used to force acceptance of the developing hubris culture by an assemblage of uncritical overbearing characters. Hubris then takes on a sinister mantle that is difficult to correct, it is then akin to religious dogma; unquestioned, unchallenged, a given fact.

Hubris develops as a form of institutionalise behaviour, that become prevalent in all large organisation, when the leadership becomes repressive and the culture within it is either obviously or covertly directed to adopt, as a whole, the direction that is taken from the leadership; to be seen to be in line with the ‘guiding principles’ of the one that holds power. Often no formal dictates are issued, no instruction or paper trail is laid and much is pressed by indication, intonation, innuendo; the quiet word in the ear or covert (or blatant overt) threats. Under such fearful intimidation, the organisation does not allow nor has much capacity to foster a difference of view. Those that attempt to do so inevitable find themselves to become isolated. 

Although hubris has often been associated with individuals who eventually fall by their own misguidance and their deeds be revisited for instructive assessment, at that time, they generally do no longer have power to cause apprehension in those that choose to examine the affect of any actions driven by the application of their hubristic beliefs. The damage that is done by them, exposed by an examination, becomes self evident to the extent that as they usually stand alone in the hindsight court of examination, their supporters will attempt to rewrite and bury their own part of their own influence. Indeed, they may even be seem to welcome some element of exoneration by assisting in a forensic inspection so limiting the reprisal risk that may have been pursued by those that undertake to precipitate an investigation in the first place.

It is not so risk liberating or easy to unpick hubris dissembled drives when an organisation is found immersed with a hubristic culture or an ideology riddled with hubris. For often, there is a large amount of vested interest at play to hide the deceit propagated into an organisation and a sacrificial lamb is, in some cases, brought forward to carry the errors of the organisation and paid off to maintain secrets. More generally organisations play for time, they stone wall objections and allow complaints to fall away and call for a philosophy to ‘look forward’ to put the past aside. Overlooking as much as possible any damaged caused by the organisations corruption of any principles of worth.   

There have been a number of good examples of organisational hubris, at the heart of which can often be found an individual that can be held to be the focus of the perversion of what might be previously have been seen as good guiding principles. An example of recent and notable ones, could be the past antics of Fred Goodwin (“fred the shred”) ex of RBS  and Adam Appelgarth ex of Northern Rock, of both of whom it could be said, displayed via hubris a disregard of good principle that drove both organisation to ruin. They were not alone to be swept up with the exuberance of their own importance and the ‘excepted’ economic hubris of the time with some threads considerable more damaging than any other, like that of  the FSA, Treasury and the Bank of England which did nothing to challenge the market.

The hubris of economic philosophy, so willing followed by those that prompted the supremacy of the market in its inherent stability that derives from self-correction and self-regulation, is destructive. These devotees locked themselves into the unshakable belief that they were right and the fundamental of the ‘market’ were imbued with the conviction that there is no other way of global economic trading, that could meet the needs of a modern ‘free’ market system. For the market economy to be stable it relied on the veracity of traders to be on the whole ultimately rational in their dealings and have regard to measured self control not affected by the same hubris that infected the supporters of lasisez faire free market activity and to guard against greed and manipulation. As is the case now, it is shown that no such control of hubris was evident. Their whole conviction in the rights of the financial market was wrong, with one major exception, it was too big to be allowed to fail! The ultimate pawn of last resort is the taxpayer’s government; this has always been the prime pillar of the financial edifices that the hubris of the economic market exploited.  It is an exploitive deceit that in the financial ‘good times’ allowed the inherent weakness of the market and productive capacity to be overlooked, reliant on expansion of GDP to carry the exuberance onwards to conceal the great deception.  That deception is that economies are imploding.

Such hubris and deceit is continually and largely practiced by government and a more obvious good example is the miss creation of angst over the Iraq war / conflict. The current investigation being carried out by the Chilcott Commission is still a long way from gaining any real insight into what went on in government to drive the impetus to make a war on Iraq by the UK. The US has its' own ‘justification’ from the unfinished business of Bush senior to 9.11 and Bush junior’s naive attitude of “bring it on”.

It will be while before any conclusion is reached by the commission and given the nature of the persons engaged in decoding the wealth of information it is going through with written, verbal and ‘in camera’ testimony, it will be no surprise if some uncomfortable truths fall out. It will perhaps be quite apparent that for whatever reasons there occurred in government a cadre of people that adopted a single mindset that became cohered into accepting with little conflict the hype that was created afterwards around the issues of Iraq – 9.11 and 7.7. This was amalgamated organisational hubris on a grand scale.

Currently, there is also an ongoing discussion focused by Vince Cable MP that the financiers in ‘the city’ are steeped in: “the murky world of corporate behavior” as “Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can”. Alternatively, “on banks, I make no apology for attacking spivs and gamblers who did more harm to the British economy etc” “while paying themselves outrageous bonuses underwritten by the taxpayer". And in view of this some measures need to be put in place to limit bonus’s, corporate share dealing, bank gambling and vested takeovers that produce no benefits to the country but selfish rewards for those with their own pecuniary interest. All those operating in the banking - finance sector have proved the adage ‘too big to fail’ and are there in the secure knowledge that they are under the protection of the taxpayer state and are too valuable to risk curtailment or loosing. 

This out spoken language of Cables’ has caused some upset in some representative quarters like the CBI, Chamber of Commerce and banks. All, which naturally do not agree and are at pains to argue that without such rewards, the city will not be able to attract the best personnel to be active on the financial scene and will, if they are not handsomely rewarded, will leave to external competitors. This argument is clearly a form of corporate hubris and has no volume of evidence at all to support it; yet, it is designed to be voiced as a threat to others not to challenge the supremacy of the market or those that work in it.

Unfortunately, such threats are not tested and in order to secure the financial importance of vested interest, governments are so far corralled into letting the markets dictate the terms of government surrender. The result of which can be seen in the maintenance of low interests rate against the rise of inflation, the devaluing of currency and competition to cost exports to market, with all countries manipulating position for best advantage to avoid their own prolonged recession.

The above effects are because of hubris that has gained professional status, in that although evidently market economies have apparently to worked, they have done so and can only do so with the exploitation of others and the ultimate support of governments. From this economist and the market have developed attitudes of professional protectionism to stand behind the hubris they cannot see; conferring the hubris deceit onto ‘markets’ and society they profess to understand.

Of current interest is the UK’s Deficit & Debt fiasco of large and growing proportions that is now blamed on the past Labour administration and its “no money left” note to be picked up by the ConDems. The ConDems are playing this angle for all their worth in the hope that the electorate will be convinced that the existing financial excess, the spending review of today and the austerity to follow, will be blamed on the previous government and not them. However, since most of the electorate do not know the difference between national deficit and debt all that will matter to them will be how much it hurts them financially, or if not them someone else like the amorphous public sector under the divide and conquer principle. It does not matter to them that since the 2ww debt as a percentage of GDP has been variable, rolled over many years i.e. 1975@52%, 1991@26%, 1997@42.2% 2003@29% and the one that gives ConDems delight 2009@63.8% = £830bn+>. However, Deficit arise within a year i.e. 2009/10 = £160bn@11.4% of GDP up from 2.75% in 2007/8. The trend unfortunately over the past 3 years is spiralling up primarily as a result of a world recession, fighting financial collapse, lower trade activity and higher social cost all of which plays into the hand of the ConDems and their obsession with the blame game ignoring all government hands on the tiller since 1914. This placing of blame may just be playing politics and is focused today around the “comprehensive spending review” of Osborne and Alexander but the greater serious issue cannot be solved within their target of a 4 years reduction. In order to mask the culpability of all party’s economy involvement over time, again immense hubris is underway.

Moreover, of course what this economic hubris is hiding in this respect is that the UK like others are no longer able to pay their way at the scale enjoyed thus far. All major western economies carry increasing debt and deficit that they use to balance and manipulate their economy, with the latest rapid increase due to the credit crises, and it is a spiral upwards that is getting harder to break from.  The reason is that as their productive capacity is eroding in favour of imports and as they move further away from self sustainability they will not be in a position to limit either a growing debt or deficit without greater massive realignment of income and expenditure. If this happens, there are frightening implications.

There can only be three peaceful solution, energy acquisition, make more goods and sell it, or impoverish the nation; this is the path the ConDems are to pursue.

 © Renot 2010

2010101450