The investment bank Godman Sachs recently announced their new diversity rule that states that they will no longer take companies public that do not have at least one Board member from an underrepresented group. Although this is a gesture in the right direction, it also amazes me that at that inflexion point where they were about to make a ‘bold’ decision, the decision itself can only be labelled as bold when you compare it to the past and not to what is needed for the present and future. Depending on the size of the Board, insisting on one individual is hardly going to make a meaningful dent in the actual diversity that is needed, of course noting their phased approached, according to news reports, which looks at least two female directors by 2021.
Silent collusions, groupthink and unbridled power
The word ‘collusion’ has its roots in Latin. The Latin prefix col-, meaning “together,” and the verb ludere, “to play,” come together to form collude. The related noun collude has the specific meaning “secret agreement or cooperation.” (Mirriam Webster dictionary). The Collins dictionary defines collusion as “to act together through a secret understanding, esp. with evil or harmful intent”.
On the face of it, it seems clear that there would need to be a conversation of sorts to reach an agreement to cooperate. The question that is plaguing me however is whether the need for a verbal conversation or written agreement is necessary to enter a collusion. Could you have two or more players playing together without any meeting, secret or not, and without a verbal or written agreement to cooperate?
