Scripture and corporate management (in general and related to the Swedish company Alfa Laval)

(Version 1.1, article originally released 20240407)

Below, you will see me mix deliberations about religious organizations with deliberations concerning my previous employer, Alfa Laval of Sweden. In that spirit, I could start by observing that John 1:1 is a prequel to Genesis 1:1 even though the former was published about 500 years after the latter.

Similarly, this essay could be seen as a prequel to this previous video of mine. I of course make use of the fact that no Alfa Laval representative has contradicted my claims in the video even though YouTube offers several options for that purpose. Otherwise, the presentation below has been ”beefed down”, and I have done my best to maintain a high information and argumentation density.

Here you will find a version on my own website which enables navigation within the article itself (and which allows for hyperlinks in headings).

Contents

1. This article moves from very abstract thinking to something more specific
2. The need for a judiciary system was identified in the middle of the 18th century
3. Judiciary systems tend to be strikingly similar
4. Scripture constitutes some kind of contract
5. The effect of Scripture on the Roman-Catholic church
6. and the effect of Scripture on Danish military organization
7. Scripture and The Third Reich
8. Das Führerprinzip has alluring properties, also in the context of company management (management without Scripture, that is)
9. At this stage, I will allow myself to convey a little hearsay
10. What you can read between the lines from Alfa Laval’s latest annual report
11. , which leads me to conclude
12. Special properties of my take on a judiciary system
13. Alfa Laval’s first claim to fame: Maintaining Scripture for decades without an accompanying judiciary system
14. My claim to fame: Seeing something which wasn’t there
15. Alfa Laval’s second claim to fame: Maintaining Scripture without an accompanying judiciary system even though top management knew that this was illegal
16. And the ultimate Alfa Laval top management claim to fame: Illegally refusing to tell the shareholders that they have made at least 13 fools of themselves

1. This article moves from very abstract thinking to something more specific

I will use the term ”Scripture” for any written message which can lead to some kind of human action. The picture above shows a fragment of the Dead Sea scrolls, which are one of many sources to Judeo-Christian scripture. In case you did not know already, such scripture may lead to human belief and is the foundation of large organizations like the Roman-Catholic church.

2. The need for a judiciary system was identified in the middle of the 18th century

Credit for describing the raison d'être for a judiciary system is normally given to the Frenchman Montesquieu, though any fan of target-oriented action should acknowledge that the Ukranian Pylyp Orlyk preceded the theoretical work of Montesquieu by 38 years, authoring a fully-fledged constitution already in 1710.

The reasoning is simple: If you take Scripture seriously, you must have a procedure which in the best possible way will establish the necessary connections between Scripture and human actions (future or past as the case may be).

3. Judiciary systems tend to be strikingly similar

This should not come as a surprise. Only humans can transform Scripture into human action, and the only way to do so is by observation and subsequent reasoning. Disagreement during the transformation process can only originate from humans, too. Thus, the well-established procedure of having two parties exchanging observations and reasonings in front of some kind of judge originates directly from taking Scripture seriously.

4. Scripture constitutes some kind of contract

This is why Scripture must be taken seriously. The Christian Bible consists of two ”testaments”, and that term may be translated directly into the word ”contract” – here between humans and a super-human existence identified as ”God”.

In a political context, the body of laws constitutes a Scripture which the executive power has promised ”the people” that it will adhere to – irrespective of the specific details of the Scripture or the political system.

And – tadaa! – in the management of non-governmental but public corporations, Scripture issued by company management only makes sense if it forms a contractual bond between the shareholders and the management of the company. If company management handles Scripture in a sub-optimal way, that management is by definition sub-optimal.

5. The effect of Scripture on the Roman-Catholic church

is elaborated on here. Public companies like Alfa Laval should consider themselves lucky that they do not need to anticipate testimonials of paranormal incidences. But as Christian Scripture explicitly anticipates such events, the associated jurisprudence must be able to distinguish between such paranormal incidences, human mistakes and outright heresy. The well-known term ”Devil’s advocate” originates from this special but well-described corner of the general discipline of jurisprudence.

6. and the effect of Scripture on Danish military organization

is described here. Even though immediate obedience is highly relevant when the fog of war is all around you, Denmark is contractually obliged to keep a distance to previous practices of one of our neighbouring countries.

7. Scripture and The Third Reich

In 1933, Adolf Hitler instigated The Third Reich by invoking some special provisions of the Weimar Constitution which relieved him of ties to existing laws and regulations. One of his followers, Carl Schmitt, celebrated Hitler’s move this way.

It is worth noting that Hitler’s maneuver was twofold, as he explicitly entered a new kind of Scripture into his de facto contract with the German people. Consistently adhering to the latter Scripture during his reign, one could argue that Hitler walked his talk better than what Alfa Laval top management has recently been up to (see below).

Hitler’s new way of ”interpreting” the Weimar Constitution got a name: das Führerprinzip.

8. Das Führerprinzip has alluring properties, also in the context of company management (management without Scripture, that is)

The most alluring property is that it is the default principle in legislation governing the relation between an employer and his employees: You permit your employer to make decisions and get paid for giving that permission. Seems to be no big deal.

When managed like this, you are also relieved of responsibility concerning your actions while at work. That is, until you one day realize that your manager has made a decision which is incompatible with Scripture, i.e., with company rules, regulations and principles (constituting a contract with the shareholders, see above). If you at the same time realize that your manager does not perceive the incompatibility at all and is therefore inaccessible for face-to-face discussions, you can only serve the shareholders by attempting to change the incompatible decision some other way.

If your employer has a published judiciary system, now is the time to use it. If the judiciary system works, you have passed on your responsibility and will be off the hook – end of story.

If not, you are in dire straits. Your inaccessible manager may have started a rumour among his colleagues that you are a troublemaker, and most things you could do (e.g., escalating and/or sidestepping) will only amplify that attitude towards you. You have now become a person who consciously works for the shareholders against the wishes of company management. You have become me.

9. At this stage, I will allow myself to convey a little hearsay

Knowing that I walk in dire straits, I normally try to avoid hearsay in order not to get trapped in any way.

1. I once had a walk beside my local HR manager at Alfa Laval. I then stated the ideal that any Alfa Laval manager should be able to justify his decisions with specific references to Scripture. Her response was a contemptuous ”ha!”, indicating that the pool of managers known to her was very far from that ideal – and also (probably without her realizing so – she is the one who could not spell her own name) indicating a need for a judiciary system to ensure the best possible Scripture compatibility.
2. An Alfa Laval colleague once described CEO Tom Erixon (then a newbie) as a ”top-down man”. Translating that description into a ”fan of das Führerprinzip” (with him at the top) is only a small step.
3. On March 22, 2019, Emma Adlerton had invited me to a surprisingly clandestine meeting, more than two years after Alfa Laval had decided that they had no further need for my services. Even though she on that occasion knew that I had outlined a judiciary system for Alfa Laval and that the absence of such a system could have extremely unpleasant consequences (turning shareholder servants into perceived and therefore persecuted troublemakers), she declared that Tom Erixon had no intention to make changes.

If item 3 above is true, this simply means that Alfa Laval’s present CEO – when given a choice – was (and according to item 2 probably still is) unwilling to establish a judiciary system in order to optimally follow Scripture under all kinds of conditions. Mr. Erixon is thus on unfriendly terms with the shareholders at large and has been so for most of his career at Alfa Laval.

If I had at any time perceived any information contradicting the hearsay quoted above, I would have told you so by now. Quite on the contrary, this statement from Emma Adlerton conveys a general acknowledgment that Alfa Laval’s Board of Directors are now the ones in dire straits (because I have consistently strived to synchronize our knowledge and understanding). I consider that switch of status rather just.

10. What you can read between the lines from Alfa Laval’s latest annual report

, which you can download here.

1. The character sequence ”principle” occurs 95 times. Frequently with ”business” in front of it, but the character sequence is also used in a purely financial context.
2. The character sequence ”value” occurs 204 times. Frequently in a financial context, but not always.
3. ”whistleblower” occurs only 4 times but in noteworthy contexts. Allegedly, you can remain anonymous when whistleblowing, but just as during my days of Alfa Laval employment, the reporting procedure still bears the title ”Speak up!”. One thing is for sure: If management for any reason wants to suppress a message of Scripture incompatibility (in order to avoid acting upon it), an anonymous whistleblower is exactly what they need. They can then feed the whistleblower with bullshit without risking a backfire: Only by breaking her anonymity will the whistleblower be able to pass the management bullshit on to others.
4. At the bottom of page 13, you read that all employees are now acquainted with Scripture, but the status is still yellow instead of green. I see this as an acknowledgment that Scripture is something which all Alfa Laval representatives are required to act upon and not just to know about. Acting optimally in the interest of Scripture (and thus the shareholders) must be a collective effort with possible contributions from anywhere in the command hierarchy which fans of das Führerprinzip tend to cherish so much.

11. , which leads me to conclude

that important and communicating Alfa Laval representatives know that they still have a problem. The basic problem is that feedback is encouraged, but qualified feedback to the feedback is in no way guaranteed (see me solve that problem in the next section). Without the best possible solution to that problem, an employee attempting to serve the shareholders through Scripture and a manager adhering to das Führerprinzip may never find common ground. Even – actually: in particular – the brightest head among Alfa Laval employees also today risks an outcome along the lines of what during The Third Reich happened to Sophie Scholl...

The basic individual to blame is CEO Tom Erixon. However, the poor guy, trapped in his own convictions, is just an employee among thousands of others. Continued support from the Board of Directors is what made the problem persist (see section 15 below). Now you know why no Alfa Laval representative has responded to my latest sequel to the prequel which you are reading right now.

Items 1 and 2 in section 10 above leaves no doubt that Scripture is still part of the relation between Alfa Laval top management and its shareholders. Scripture may have changed since my employment. In those days, ”profit” was an explicit business principle, opening all kinds of complex business scenarios and decisions for employee scrutiny on all levels. With ”profit” included in Scripture, I could easily distinguish between managers able to argue for the profitability of their decisions and managers who couldn’t (see item 1 of section 9).

I was and am convinced that with ”profit” explicitly included in Scripture and with a fully functional judicial system to support it, Alfa Laval will be optimally configured to reach the targets described in its marketing material for shareholders. Nobody should expect this target to be reached without harnessing the full intellectual potential of its employees and other supporters (among which I unabashedly count myself).

12. Special properties of my take on a judiciary system

, which you can see here.

1. Everything happens in writing. If the outcome of the judiciary process is embarrassing to any of the participants, the resolution with respect to Scripture will be reached with the least possible risk of collateral personal damage.
2. It is ”potentially judgeless”. It would seem natural for Alfa Laval to recruit judges from its management ranks, but here you run into a problem: Some of the candidates for judges may be perpetrators without knowing that they are. My suggestion solves that problem by emphasizing the initial phase of providing evidence and arguing. In brief, my DPNC procedure forces any manager to continue exchanging evidence and arguments until one of the participants decides to stop contributing (a Danish civil lawsuit ends exactly like that immediately before leaving the final word to the judge). Any employee raising a DPNC will at least leave the table with a clear notion concerning the question of who drew the shortest straw. Even if such knowledge has no chance of improving Scripture compatibility, it may at least serve as highly valuable career advice (the option which Mrs. Scholl was never given).

13. Alfa Laval’s first claim to fame: Maintaining Scripture for decades without an accompanying judiciary system

I have already commented on the general intellectual steam pressure of Alfa Laval management and rest my case.

14. My claim to fame: Seeing something which wasn’t there

This is no trivial matter. Human perception tends to attract itself to something which is there. Without that inherent flaw, it would be hard to work as a magician. But moving the wand in a dramatic manner tends to provide the misdirection of the audience needed for the act to succeed.

15. Alfa Laval’s second claim to fame: Maintaining Scripture without an accompanying judiciary system even though top management knew that this was illegal

It is simply illegal to put an employee in the conflicting and thus stressful situation of observing a Scripture violation without any means to alleviate it (and thereby satisfy the expectations of the shareholders).

16. And the ultimate Alfa Laval top management claim to fame: Illegally refusing to tell the shareholders that they have made at least 13 fools of themselves

Some crimes are claimed to be victimless, but the one of section 15 should be considered ”victimful” (I know more about that subject than I in the interest of Alfa Laval intend to tell you). But I consider the absence of true beneficiaries the most confusing element of my observations. I do not even agree with Hannah Arendt concerning the ”banality of evil”. For more than 10 years, I have consistently observed the banality of banality.

As a consequence, I will at the April 25 Annual General Meeting in Lund, Sweden, don this sweatshirt (and carry five envelopes of illegally returned letters of ”?renden” unhandled before the meeting):