BREXIT: Are there any lessons for organizations?

While tons are being written about Britain’s exit from the EU with pros and cons of the decision and all possible ramifications of the same, are there any lessons that an organizations can learn from the Brexit episode?

My purpose is not to highlight either the positive or the negative implications of Britain’s imminent exit from the European Union but to mention some of the learnings that all organizations can draw from this event where slightly more than half the country voted against what the Prime Minister of that country would have ideally desired. The fact remains that the British Prime Minister did not want his country to exit the EU but now is left with no choice but to do so (although not legally binding on him) because more than half the people who voted want to leave the EU. The fact also remains that what is apparently a country with a very homogeneous population, is completely split down the middle today on this very issue. The fact also remains that this is going to have a much lasting impact not just on British economy but on British society for several years. Finally, no matter what the outcome may be and what its ramifications are, this is not a desirable situation for Britain to be in.

First, inclusion is not just a nice to do thing. It is something for every organization to focus on for its very survival.

Second, the generation divide that is present in all organizations today is not something which can be glossed over but it is to be taken seriously.

Third, the business of business is ultimately business, and if an organization fails to do its business well, other things do not really matter.

Fourth, when things do not go well, it is easy to over-emphasize an issue which is most visible and use that as a scapegoat for all evils that may be plaguing.

Last, but by no means the least, the vision of the Leader was not shared by more than half the population!

All the above points are correlated in some manner.

1. Inclusion: The voting pattern clearly show that people in the country side and those without higher education qualifications were the ones who voted Leave rather than Stay. These were the people who were the hardest hit from the 2008 economic crisis and these were the people who had highest unemployment rates. No matter how prosperous the country is, if it does not include everyone in its prosperity, it would pay a price and that is exactly what Britain has done a few days ago.

When the going is good, there is a tendency to overlook certain sections of the population (or employees) who may not be relevant for the immediate scheme of things. While it may work in the short run, non-inclusion is not an option which even the most successful countries (or organizations) can afford.

2. Generation Divide: The voice of the Gen Y and Digital Natives is clearly very different from that the Baby Boomers. While 66% of the those above 65 years voted Leave, the proportion of those below 34 years who voted similarly was around 33%, that is an over whelming majority of Gen Y (those between 24 and 34 years) and Digital Natives (those between 18 -24 years) voted to Stay within the EU. Hence there is a very clear generation divide between which came to the surface in this referendum.

This divide is not just restricted to the voting on whether to Stay or Leave EU in Britain, but it exist far more rampantly across numerous issues. Organizations which fail to pay attention to these generational differences on a regular basis would be compelled to discover the same someday when the stakes are high. It is much better to recognize that there are differences on world view across generations which are all present in the workforce and cognize for the same, rather than wishfully assume that they do not exist.

3. Business of Business is business: At the end of the day, if Britain had recovered from the 2008 financial crisis completely and the economy had gathered momentum since then, this issue may have never arisen. The reality is that British economy could never fully recover from the 2008 financial crisis till date leading to rampant unemployment and lack of income generation. The basic purpose of any government is creation of job, employment, providing decent healthcare benefits, so on and so forth. If the British Governments had succeeded in doing so since 2008, this day may not have arisen.

If an organization does not do its business well, it is bound to face challenges and the intensity of the challenges is directly proportional to the duration for which the organization has not been doing well and the magnitude of the failure. All other things are peripheral when the organization fails on the basic purpose for which it exists. Organizations which try to do a lot of other things when it fails to do its basic job, more often than not, miss the point and quite comprehensively at that.

4. Over emphasis of an issue: The issue of migration became probably the most important issue in this referendum in Britain. While it would be naïve to ignore the issue of migration (the number of immigrants more than doubled in Britain from slightly less than 4 million to over 8 million between 2008 and 2014), however, it was not the only cause of all ills impacting the British society. What got overshadowed by those voting for Leave was that there are numerous Britons who are working freely in other parts of Europe and that it is incredibly easy for British companies to sell their products in other countries of EU. But the fact that there are some Polish plumbers taking away some of the lowly paid jobs in Britain over shadowed the beneficial part of being part of the EU. Hence the response was to throw the baby with the bathwater.

When the general sentiment in an organization is not very positive, there are chances when one particular aspect, though critical by itself, may over shadow a lot of other good things which may be happening in the organization. Consequently, there is a tendency to mitigate that one issue which in the overall scheme of things can undo a lot of other good things which may be happening. Therefore, it is important to understand each issue on its own merit and deal with it individually rather than allow any one single issue to overarch everything else. 

5. Communicating the vision: While the British Prime Minister was all in favor of being part of the EU, 52% of the people voting did not quite either understand or share his vision. While this may not have been apparent had the referendum not happened, the reality is that the British Prime Minister was completely out of sync with what the majority of his people had in their minds. Or conversely, he could not effectively communicate and convince what he had in his mind to a large proportion of his population.

It is not uncommon for leaders in organization to fail to communicate their vision to the larger masses because what they see as obvious is assumed to be the same for others. That, that is not always the case is seldom understood and rarely appreciated. Communication is effective most when it is in action rather than in terms of monologues. That is precisely what was missing in this case in Britain. What the leader does to allay the apprehensions or concerns of the masses is far more effective than what he/she says. While we all know that actions speak louder than words, we often depend much more on our vocal chords than we do on our actions.

While all the above lessons may be neither comprehensive nor would I suggest that there are very accurate from all perspectives, it is important for us to take some lessons from the BREXIT episode and apply the same in our organizations.