Firms of Endearment revisited
At first sight criticising a book without having read it is rather unfair and at first sight, my blog on Firms of Endearment by David Wolfe does just that. I’ve been ‘cavalier,’ says Jim Gilmartin and should refrain from ‘shooting from the hip’.
Nevertheless, I’m inclined to defend the critique, which seconded the Observer magazine’s Mickey taking. Jim feels the new jargon – firms of endearment – is clever, but it’s still twee to me. Wolfe distances ‘firms of endearment’ from ‘corporate social responsibility’, not because it isn’t CSR under another name, but because CSR offends ‘capitalist fundamentalists’. I’m don’t see why they should find FoEs any more endearing.
And yet the biggest criticism isn’t that it creates jargon for jargon’s sake. It is that David Wolfe’s approach is oxymoronic. It’s a claim that arises from the manner in which the book is marketed. According to the Observer, Wolfe claims firms of endearment treat, ‘five stakeholders “like good parents of a brood look upon their children – no favourites”’. However, the book’s sold on its ability to enhance return on investment, a benefit enjoyed by just one stakeholder. That makes shareholders the clear favourites… who needs to read the book?
(Read the original blog, David Wolfe’s and Jim Gilmartin’s response.)
Contact Stephen Newton
Comments (2 comments)
Hello, Stephen,
I need to set a few things straight. First, I did not coin the term “Firms of Endearment.”
Second, you erroneously said, “And yet the biggest criticism isn’t that it creates jargon for jargon’s sake. It is that David Wolfe’s approach is oxymoronic. It’s a claim that arises from the manner in which the book is marketed. According to the Observer, Wolfe claims firms of endearment treat, ‘five stakeholders “like good parents of a brood look upon their children – no favourites”’ I never uttered the quote you attribute to me, nor did The Observor say I made that claim.
For the record, The Observer never interviewed me.
You also said, “However, the book’s sold on its ability to enhance return on investment, a benefit enjoyed by just one stakeholder. That makes shareholders the clear favourites… who needs to read the book?” The book will most definitely not be sold on “its ability to enhance return on investment.”
So, I must wonder about how often you must be wrong in serving your PR clients, although I rather think you are never in doubt. Please try a little harder to get your facts straight before you cobble together an opinion. I welcome honest criticism.
David
David Wolfe / February 26th, 2006, 9:12 pm / #
Well said David!
The basic tenets of business propounded in the book can only be understood when put in a different box. Definitely not in the current balanced scorecard mindset of reducing everything into accounting numbers - even relationships!!
The new box is a balanced value paradigm.
So I wouldn’t really blame you Stephen. I’d simply ask you to step into this new ‘box’ to understand the intangibilities and then decide for yourself.
This is a very interesting debate - sorry for jumping in so late, both in terms of the thread and calendar - and it will be interesting to see other reviews/opinions/critiques on FoE - the book. It is a favorite of mine.
David, could you point me to some?
Sunil Malhotra / June 28th, 2007, 1:04 pm / #
Post a comment