A couple of weeks ago the New Zealand Herald, which dominates the printed media scene in Auckland, released its “Mood of the Boardroom” survey. It largely reflects the views of those who have oversight of large to medium sized companies. The survey, produced annually, is seen as an indicator of how well the government of the day is performing.

And the survey creates its own news. Radio stations, particularly those of the talkback variety, feed off it. Television news and other media similarly. For a day or two or more, the survey is dominant and then fades. And, predictably, its findings tend to favour centre-right governments rather than the centre-left, matching I suspect the voting preferences of the individual boardroom members.

While I think any survey giving feedback is good, particularly when the background or biases of participants is clear, there are a couple of things that concern me.

Firstly, I don’t like the paramountcy it gives to parliamentarians, particularly those whose party is in power. Not that they’re unimportant. Not that their policies or ideas don’t affect many people, for good or ill. Not that they don’t have the capacity to model empowerment and kindness.

It’s rather that if the ‘Mood’ is a comment on where we are as a country, then its not just politicians who have the power to affect and change that mood. For example those in boardrooms have power to affect the mood of people by mandating in their companies the living wage rate as a minimum. All companies, organisations, even churches, have the power to create policies and practices of empowerment and kindness.

For the ‘mood’ of a country is not just about Beehive business, or what the NZHerald prints, or what radio stations like Newstalk ZB spout. I think ‘mood’ includes how and what we celebrate, how we treat those different from ourselves, the value we put on children’s wellbeing, and how we practice equity.

By equity I don’t mean in the financial sense of how much of one’s own money is put into one’s house or one’s business (as compared to mortgage or investors' monies), but more in the legal and social sciences sense of proportional fairness. Equity recognizes that we do not all start from the same place and together we must acknowledge and adjust imbalances. This understanding is thus different from equality (providing the same to all).

In short, practicing equity means not assuming we all the same. We need different things, different support and empowerment, in order to flourish.

Which leads me to the other thing that concerns me about the NZ Herald’s boardroom survey. Where is the survey “Mood of the Factory Floor”? Or from the queue in the local Work & Income offices of those trying to find employment?  And where is the survey “Mood of the Classroom” (I’m thinking students not teachers) or “Mood of the Playground”?

The problem with the boardroom view is that it’s primarily a view of people who are employed, well compensated in their employment, with skills, abilities, and experience reflecting the upbringing and opportunities that usually a level of affluence can offer. In other words, it offers a class perspective. And I appreciate hearing that perspective.

But I don’t appreciate the subtle bias that this is the perspective we should then prioritise, or the only perspective worth listening to, or the only perspective period. As if other classes, experiences, and perspectives are of little account, or don’t count.

Glynn

(Photo: NZME. Note this is the cover of the 2022 report, but I thought the yacht underscored my comments on class).