The debate is growing for a better balance within business models, as talent quietly calls out unacceptable behaviours.

It is of no surprise, in the present market, that there is increased debate and discussion round the model which has served to reward directors very well and which has arguably encouraged directors to ensure strong return to shareholders, over what may be right for the sustainable long term in a business. It has long been a thorny issue but, with the impacts from the cost of living crisis, is becoming greater.

The issue for many leaders is that new top talent is now calling it out, far more respectfully than maybe previous generations but it is disengaging many.

All readers will have heard and listened to the views as to how millennials and others simply do not stay in their jobs and are not committed. However, it has long been questionable why more has not been asked as to why so many are disengaged? Is it really a coincidence that so many are disengaged and also that the majority believe that business directors lack ethics?

The question is what is the right balance?

To bring it all into perspective, during the 2008/9 financial crash only 1% of directors lost their jobs and yet thousands at lower level staff were left vulnerable. The same trend was seen in the pandemic. The counter argument of course is that director rewards are against results and their expertise and knowledge is vital to success. Of course true but again where is the correct balance to build trust?

In 2002, the average tenure of a CEO stood between 24-36 months. The argument was that CEOs could only therefore focus on results and reward as their tenures were so short lived. It was one of the leading arguments as to why CEOs did not focus on internal culture and people. However in the last decade these tenures have more than doubled but the behaviours have not changed.

So the question becomes asked “how can a better balance be found?”

It is not an easy one to solve as, in truth, many leaders are aware of the problems and want to create change but the culture and demand of shareholder return is dominant.

Therefore, it is natural that many need to make their own choices as to what organisation they want to work for and many are quietly and actively making their choices.

For many companies, the best way to combat the problem has been to illustrate and show real social purpose as this does serve to inspire and engage younger talents and of course, is both important and not a major cost. In fact, strong social purpose improves retention which becomes a major saving in itself. Companies are rightly working hard to ensure that they do build strong programmes in communities, with new audiences and local societies.

There are a number of reports which have noted that the reward system for directors has had a detrimental impact on behaviours and on internal values. This is natural and understandable and the good work taking place now is in how behaviours are being expected to improve and that there is more focus once again on people and talent.

The debate will naturally continue but as much as there are many illustrations on bad behaviours, there is also much good taking place across all industry. There seems to be a momentum in all trying to find a better balance and answer to a complicated question.