what message is emerging from the corporate world
introduction
Are we missing the point here?
We all know about Sony pulling the film. We all know about the hack, and depending on who you listen to, which entity was responsible. We all know about heated words being exchanged between governments and corporations alike. We also know how Sony backtracked on its original decision and have now aired the film. We all know the CIA is standing firm on its beliefs about the situation. Perhaps ‘The Interview’ should have been called ‘as the stomach turns’, allowing overzealous producers to integrate further twists and turns on an ongoing basis. What has however astounded me is the lack of reference regarding what initiated the disagreement. This whole situation started somewhere, that being a script that cast a living person in a role of satirical vulnerability and ‘on-screen death’.
The corporate world is starting to clamber out of a cocoon devoid of emotion. Previous notions of diversity and conscious efforts towards tolerance simply did not exist. The light that attracted attention some years ago was the realization that sustainable power stems from respect and service, resulting in corporate policies and discussion. Naturally a policy does not guarantee engagement yet it was a small step in a changing direction.
Management is starting to recognize that people are another resource that is not limitless. Just as raw resources come perilously close to drying up or running out, and mechanical resources can ‘demand’ downtime, so too the human resource has limits to how much it will consciously allow and accept. People have already realized the power of respect, in all walks of life. When respect exists in our personal lives yet is absent in the workspace, a lack of congruency exists, fuelling major dissention.
Regardless of ‘who said or did what to whom’, regardless of any and all perspective on the leadership of Kim Jong Un, one fact remains. A living person was cast in a role, one that was to be assassinated. Should that character have been your father, leader, community guru, son, brother or even yourself, would we all still be laughing at the plot? What responses could that evoke? Many times we hear authors state that names are withheld in bestsellers or even videos to protect the innocent. Being a fan of satire, one with absolutely no penchant for politics, I have to look at this conflict and wonder if a greater message is not trying to emerge here, one that would serve corporate futures well. What could that be?
