Laying down the law

I worked for an organisation where the most despised department, and one of the few never to be down-sized, Human Resources, decided that the solution to its perception problem was to change its name. It became People and Capability. Setting aside the grammatical and operational contortion that name evokes, the precept that a name change is the panacea for problems is seemingly endemic: Hamilton could become Kirikiriroa but it is still Hamilton, and insisting on calling yourself Richard doesn’t make yourself less of a Dick.

You cannot solve a problem by changing a name; you solve it by changing your culture. Strange thing about culture. Its literal definition is the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively, but in the corporate context it is the prevailing atmosphere, demeanour and attitude of the management and staff—mainly the management. It can be good and it can be bad. And it can change. I worked for one organisation, the Rodney District Council, that made such a change, from the bad to good, through the simple expedient of having a new mayor. I have worked for another council, Far North District Council, which is yet to make such a change.

But the worst corporate culture I ever came across, and one that is rightly coming under fire, is that of Russell McVeagh. It had nothing to do with alleged sexual misconduct, but it did have links to their recruitment process involving university law students. I was working for an advertising agency instructed by Russell McVeagh to create an advertising and promotional campaign to attract university graduates. I attended the campaign presentation in one of the firm’s many meeting rooms. The agency team, five of us, along with seven Russell McVeagh staff, were in that meeting room for 30 minutes waiting for the arrival of a “senior partner” who was to chair the meeting.   And believe me, advertising people and lawyers (however junior) have very little in common and even less to make small talk about. When the senior partner finally arrived with a putter but not an apology, he got right down to business. He said he was late for a round of golf (late for at least the second time that day, I thought) so rather than waste time—ignoring ours, which he had already wasted— his view was the campaign was crap and he was leaving it to his “underlings”, motioning toward his staff in the room, to sort out. He then walked out. Yes, that was the term he used: underlings. Remarkably, the only people in the room who were visibly shocked was the agency team; the young lawyers seemed to take it as the norm…as their lot. Let me make it clear, this guy was not joking; he was acting on and from a position of sheer arrogance. That told me a lot then—confirmed now—of the culture of Russell McVeagh.

Every company, except mine, has good and bad people in it. Mine is the exception only because it is only me and my wife and we are both good people. But all larger companies and organisations have a mix. However, law companies such as Russell McVeagh and now, we hear Chapman Tripp, seem to have a greater intolerance for, and missunderstanding of, basic human decency. At this time the universities seem to be boycotting them; perhaps their clients should consider doing the same; there are law firms in Kirikiriroa who would gladly accept their business.

-->