CORPEOPLE

Are corporations people?

After I first read about and then watched on Youtube Romney affirming that corporation's are, indeed people (my friend) at the Iowa State Fair, the question lingered with me. This echoed through my head last week as I ran. 

So much so, I sought out a dear friend afterwards, who spends much of his professional life arguing the legal and philosophical answer to this question.  In his response to me he wrote, “The short answer is corporations are a collection of contracts to prevent a repeat of negotiations.  Who are the negotiations between?  Who drafts the contracts; benefits from them, and the like?  Why, people of course."

Then he went on to ask, “What is a corporation on a desert island?”

Though this question keeps getting thrown into the political arena, it certainly isn't a new one. For me it came to light back in my college days, when all things Ayn Rand and the principles of Objectivism were introduced to me by my aforementioned friend. In Rand's works, especially in Atlas Shrugged, she essentially personified corporations through her characters. 

She developed those corporate people in a manner, which made their pursuits almost inseparable from their person. It worked for me, in the bent of individuals building something bigger than themselves in their pursuit of happiness. And, I’ll go ahead and say it —  through self actualization. I believe to this day that the best of the best comes into fruition only by this, and mutual respect.

Rand's basic tenants always have lingered with me, not only in my professional life, but also through my individual pursuits and athletic endeavors.

Today I see it played out in a very basic level every day through swim coaching. You can be the best coach in the world, but each swimmer must be willing to find out who they are in the water. Realizing their best takes more or less time, depending on the individual. At my best, I’m a steward, helping an athlete realize their true potential. A team's success is measured through individual accomplishments.

Is a person who they are, based on the logo they wear, the team they represent, or the corporation for which they work?

That's a big no. It comes down to branding, and the effectiveness of a collective message. Whether it is a small group, comprised of individuals who together make a team, or a larger group of people who work for a corporation.

But it's more complicated than that, isn't it?

Are the characters in works such as Rand’s congruent with what we see today in corporate America? I would argue, “No.” Obviously her view was a utopian version of what corporate America should be, and sometimes is, but certainly not always. And I think it's this reality, which has people stumped — or at least me.

Corporations are comprised of a collection of individuals who, if the corporate branding is successful, identify in some way with the institution. The employees of said corporation act lesser or more on behalf of their employer, depending on their level of commitment. And their commitment isn't always so great. Frankly I see this all the time when dealing with folks who work for our government.

It gets more personal with family owned companies and smaller businesses. 

 In Rand’s world, when corporate commitment was on par with a life-long pursuit, I buy into the relationship between the two — institution and individual. But in today’s society when employees are fairly transient, how can they possibly relate to the core humanity of a  corporation as strongly?

In today's reality, when someone is acting on behalf of their employer, do they feel compelled to a lesser or stronger degree to hide behind that branding when the situation serves? Do folks use their corporate position to make the world a better place, or maybe sometimes, to achieve their own individual sustainability, to the better or worse of another?

That, too, is a yes.


So are corporations people? Still yes — and sometimes people behave badly. 


That last assertion is something upon which we can all agree.