In our egalitarian society, few of us like to acknowledge that double standards exist. As a hot button issue, the idea brings up strong and immediate impressions of social injustice and special treatment. Tax breaks for the rich. Military deferments for the well-connected. Legacy appointments to elite colleges for the children of the wealthy. Affirmative action or racial profiling for minorities. We’d prefer to believe that the existence of various forms of the double standard are either anomalies of privilege or temporary bandages for righting old wrongs.
And yet, there are many complex aspects to any argument that some people should or should not get more than others. In addition to living in an egalitarian society, we live in a capitalist one. We believe that people should be rewarded differently, depending on the market value of the work they do, the services they provide or the assets they possess. By default, this means that some people will have more, get more, and be able to do more, than others.
We also believe in the American Dream, the idea that we have an inalienable right to build a prosperous life for ourselves, and pass on that prosperity and security to our children. Under such a system, is it possible or even rational to imagine each generation beginning its own journey from the same starting point?
As a society, we believe that some people are more talented than others and we applaud those capabilities and accomplishments. In our obsession with fame and uniqueness, we shine a bright light on such people, on and off the job, and treat them like modern day royalty. Whose fault is it that teachers and nurses don’t get celebrated and rewarded like pop stars and second basemen? It’s our fault. We don’t value those capabilities or services as much as we say that we should.
To an objective observer, the answer is clear. We make the decision to differentiate via the double standard every day. Should we be concerned at how large or shocking the gap between the elite few and the many becomes? It doesn’t make any rational sense, and yet the taboo remains. Is our reaction to the double standard an outmoded concern that should wither and disappear? Or is it a healthy way to keep in check the avarice and elitism inherent in our social system? Taboos can be rooted in superstition. They can also be functional, providing a necessary barrier to bad habits.
Is there any reason to believe that the taboo of the double standard has anegative or positive impact on our business leaders? On the one hand, we need to compensate and support our business leaders adequately because their talent is so rare and their value is so critical. On the other hand, human beings can be extremely sensitive to feelings of justice, fairness and equity. Peter Drucker, and other theorists, warned that in a healthy organization executive pay should not exceed that of average worker by more than four times. Yet, upward mobility is so much more available to all people these days. Perhaps the double standard provides a healthy incentive for entrepreneurial energy?
When it comes to special treatment in an organization, should it bother us that some people receive exceptions to the general rule? The treatment can be justified in terms of relative contributions. But what are the costs? Does the erosion of consistency carry with it a more significant burden than we may realize? Credibility is an important currency for leaders. One of our most powerful definitions of credibility can be summed up in the following way: A leader does what he says he will do. In other words, he walks the talk. If a leader proclaims that we must all tighten our belts to survive a rough period, and then continues to receive lavish treatment; or if a leader freezes bonuses but garners them himself; or if a leader transgresses on a core value that he has declared sacrosanct; isn’t his credibility greatly diminished in the eyes of his followers? On a personal level, a danger exists that special treatment can blind or protect a CEO from unwelcome but ultimately helpful data. Many times, I have been called in by a CEO to conduct extensive evaluations of that CEO’s top people, but been told by the CEO that he doesn’t need that kind of assessment himself. Is the CEO the best judge of that fact? Who is going to contradict him in an environment in which the double standard is the norm?
The debate remains open, the answers are murky and situational. The question for future leaders should be: Are you comfortable with the costs and benefits of operating under a double standard? The question for companies should be: Is your organization healthier without the double standard, or is it being put at a competitive disadvantage because of that aversion?
Anthony Smith is Co-Founder and a Managing Director of Leadership Research Institute and author of ESPN: The Company (Jossey-Bass, September 2009). He is also the author The Taboos of Leadership: 10 Secrets No One Will Tell You about Leaders and What They Really Think (Jossey-Bass, May 2007). This article originally appeared in different form in his book, The Taboos of Leadership.
