Photo by Matt Collamer on Unsplash
Every quarterly update, every investor call, every polished slide deck featuring a smiling employee and a bold mission statement—it’s all part of the show. Today’s corporate culture often wraps itself in the language of ethical responsibility, visionary leadership, and values-driven purpose. Executives speak in confident, measured tones about fiduciary duty, sustainable growth, and stakeholder alignment. Their words are meant to reassure: that the ship is steady, the mission is noble, and the course is just.
In this carefully curated theater, fiduciary responsibility is cast as a moral obligation—a kind of executive creed. You’ll hear it invoked not only in financial justifications, but in town halls and press releases, subtly framed as a north star that guides all decision-making. It implies diligence, wisdom, and even benevolence: after all, who could argue with doing what’s best for the company, for the shareholders, for long-term success?
But peel back the curtain, and you’ll see that the script has changed.
Today, fiduciary duty is almost universally interpreted as one thing: maximizing shareholder value. It’s a clean, simple directive—measurable, defensible, and profit-centric. This narrow framing provides a moral alibi for decisions that cut headcount while raising dividends, or shutter local operations in favor of cheaper labor overseas. Executives do not apologize for these moves; they present them as evidence of responsibility. To do otherwise, we’re told, would be a failure of duty.
Yet this modern understanding is not a distillation of the original mission. It is not a subset of a broader ethical framework. It is an inversion.
Historically, fiduciary responsibility encompassed far more than shareholder profits. Its roots lie in trust law, where a fiduciary is bound to act in the best interest of another—not just in financial terms, but in good faith and with care. In the corporate context, this traditionally extended to employees, customers, communities, and the long-term health of the organization itself. It demanded stewardship, not just performance.
Over time, however, this expansive responsibility was reduced, redefined, and eventually rebranded. Starting in the 1970s, driven by economists like Milton Friedman and the rise of shareholder primacy, the concept of fiduciary duty was narrowed to serve capital above all else. The ethical framework collapsed into a financial mandate.
What was once a compass has—since, and too often—become a justification.
And in that shift, we’ve born witness to the birth of corporate culture theater: a world where ethics are projected, not practiced; where responsibility is performed, not lived; and where the very language of integrity has been hijacked to excuse its opposite.
Recommended Listening
(working title for playlist: “This Meeting Could’ve Been an Exorcism”)
The Values on the Marquee
In the world of corporate headlines and glossy brochures, culture is always bold, benevolent, and beautifully aligned. Companies don’t just declare their values—they brand them, trademark them, and plaster them across every surface. Integrity. Innovation. Inclusion. These are the modern commandments of the corporate stage, repeated in all-hands meetings and proudly emblazoned on lobby walls.
You’ll rarely see a press release that doesn’t name-drop “culture” within the first few lines. A new executive hire? It’s because they’re a “strong cultural fit.” A round of layoffs? “A difficult but necessary decision to preserve our culture of resilience and accountability.” A merger? “Two complementary cultures coming together to create exponential value.” No matter the occasion, culture becomes the rationale—one that is always noble, forward-thinking, and unassailable.
And to signal that culture to the public, companies lean on the most photogenic props available: volunteer days in company T-shirts, spotlight articles about working parents thriving under flexible schedules, or carefully timed DEI campaigns rolled out during heritage months and Pride season. Internally, these signals may be accompanied by pizza parties, wellness webinars, or mental health Slack channels—gestures designed to show employees they are seen and supported.
But these gestures often exist apart from the deeper structures of power and practice. A donation to a social cause does not offset a hostile work environment. A free subscription to a mindfulness app does not negate chronic understaffing or burnout. A commitment to “diversity” on the website rings hollow when promotions still flow through old boys’ networks behind closed doors.
Corporate culture, in headlines, is framed as a virtue. In reality, it is often a costume—carefully tailored to match the moment, but quickly changed when the next quarter demands a different look.
Social Progress: The Greenwashed Mirror
No value is more frequently used to signal corporate virtue than social progress. Sustainability, equity, and justice are the banners of the modern brand. Companies release glossy ESG reports, champion UN development goals, and light up their headquarters in rainbow hues for Pride Month. The message is clear: they are not just participants in the economy—they are stewards of a better future.
And many of them do indeed fund meaningful initiatives. They invest in environmental clean-up projects, partner with social justice organizations, and implement DEI trainings across departments. These efforts are not entirely hollow.
But they are also not the whole story.
While one hand offers public gestures of progress, the other often undermines them in silence. Nestlé has been praised for its water stewardship programs—even as it continues to extract vast quantities of freshwater from drought-prone areas like Florida and California, bottling public resources for private profit. Monsanto has run campaigns focused on feeding the world and empowering agriculture—while legally crushing small independent farmers and locking them into cycles of seed dependency through aggressive patent enforcement.
Companies that sponsor climate summits may simultaneously fund lobbying efforts against environmental regulation. Those that champion diversity may quietly settle discrimination lawsuits without systemic reform. A tech firm might promote online safety while profiting from algorithms that radicalize and divide their social media user base. These contradictions are not anomalies—they are features of a system optimized for optics over outcomes.
To the public, the values are aspirational. To the corporation, they are often negotiable. Social progress becomes less a mission and more a marketing strategy: a curated narrative that allows companies to deflect criticism, pacify stakeholders, and maintain a veneer of moral leadership—all while continuing business as usual behind the scenes.
Community: The Disappearing Neighbor
If social progress is the promise to change the world, community is the promise to protect the world immediately around you. Companies tout their local investments—sponsoring youth sports teams, donating to school programs, and showing up at food drives with matching T-shirts and photo ops. They pledge to be more than just economic players; they cast themselves as neighbors, allies, and anchors.
And often, they are—on the surface. Grants are awarded, foundations are launched, and employees are encouraged to volunteer on company time. These are not illusions. But they are only half the picture.
Because behind the feel-good headlines, many of these same organizations are steadily eroding the very communities they claim to champion. Local operations are shuttered in favor of overseas manufacturing. Regional offices are consolidated or closed outright. Entire workforces are relocated—or eliminated—through automation and outsourcing. And when the savings are banked, they’re rarely reinvested locally.
Consider the retail chain that proudly funds a community garden, while quietly laying off regional warehouse workers to centralize distribution in a tax-advantaged state. Or the tech company that hosts a STEM education fair at a local high school—right before announcing that its support team is being offshored to a call center overseas. These contradictions aren’t hidden. They’re simply overshadowed by narrative.
Even worse, some companies extract value from communities while demanding tax breaks, zoning exceptions, and infrastructure upgrades as conditions for their presence—then leave when the incentives dry up. What’s left behind is a brittle economic ecosystem, often more dependent on the company than before.
The cultural performance remains: smiling executives at local events, press releases about “commitment to place,” and videos of employees planting trees. But the underlying structure tells a different story—one where community is not a shared value, but a lever. Something to be used for goodwill, brand equity, and, ultimately, profit.
Employee Wellbeing: The Branded Band-Aid
Few values are as central to the internal narrative of modern companies as employee wellbeing. It appears in onboarding videos, in HR messaging, and in the wellness programs that now accompany most benefits packages. From mental health apps to ergonomic chairs, from DEI town halls to flexible work initiatives, companies proclaim that they care—not just about what employees produce, but about how they feel while producing it.
And at a glance, many of these gestures are real. There are listening sessions, employee resource groups, and leadership messaging that emphasizes psychological safety. There may even be authentic attempts to reckon with equity gaps, toxic leadership, or outdated policy. But these gestures are often not matched by structural change.
Leadership demographics remain overwhelmingly white and male, even at companies that champion diversity on social media. Wage growth for most workers continues to lag behind inflation, even as corporate profits reach all-time highs. Burnout is now the norm in many industries, yet workloads continue to increase—just with more mindfulness webinars and digital gratitude walls to soften the blow.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline workers were called heroes—only to be handed layoffs, wage freezes, or schedule cuts once the urgency passed. Companies that raised prices on essential goods cited supply chain constraints while booking record earnings and distributing executive bonuses. In one infamous case, egg prices skyrocketed despite record production and falling feed costs, as companies used perceived scarcity to inflate margins.
The return-to-office mandates that swept across industries in 2023 and 2024 offer a case study in this contradiction. After years of touting flexibility, adaptability, and remote productivity, many companies abruptly reversed course—not in response to performance issues, but to executive preferences and commercial real estate pressures. Employees who had been celebrated for thriving remotely were now told that culture could only exist under fluorescent lights and watchful eyes. These decisions were framed as cultural imperatives, but they often ignored employee feedback, undercut wellbeing, and reinforced the very control dynamics that wellness programs claim to solve.
Wellbeing, in this context, becomes a symbolic offering—a checkbox met through curated gestures, not a commitment backed by power-sharing or profit-sharing. It is easier to hand out a subscription to a meditation app than to increase headcount. Easier to preach resilience than to reduce unreasonable expectations.
The result is a culture that says all the right things, while doing only what’s convenient. Where care is implied, but not embedded. Where employees are praised in public, but pressured in private. And where wellness becomes not a standard, but a salve—offered in exchange for silence.
Shareholder Value: The Altar of Sacrifice
Of all the values projected by corporate leadership, none is held so sacred—or so theatrically invoked—as shareholder value. It is the throughline of every earnings call, the justification behind every restructuring, and the mantra whispered beneath every budget cut. If the other values—sustainability, community, wellbeing—form the backdrop of the corporate stage, then shareholder value is the altar at center stage, upon which all others may be offered up.
And yet, for something so often treated as morally absolute, it is rarely interrogated.
Quarterly targets are pursued with near-religious fervor, even when doing so cannibalizes long-term viability. Stock buybacks are prioritized over research, product improvement, or employee compensation. Executives take home bonuses tied to short-term stock performance while deferring costly but critical investments—maintenance, modernization, training—that form the foundation of any lasting enterprise.
In theory, shareholder value should align with the company’s sustained health. In practice, it increasingly reflects volatility, speculation, and opportunism. When Amazon cut 27,000 workers while posting billions in profit, it was defended as a fiduciary move. When pharmaceutical companies raise prices on life-saving drugs by hundreds of percent, it’s cast as business strategy. These are not isolated incidents—they’re systemic expressions of a culture that measures value only by ticker symbols.
Ironically, even shareholders—the supposed beneficiaries of this system—are often left worse off in the long run. Boom-and-bust cycles, overleveraged expansions, and misaligned incentives hollow out companies from within. The obsession with short-term gains undermines the very asset those shareholders supposedly own. What remains is not value, but theater: growth reports inflated by layoffs, earnings driven by price hikes rather than innovation, and a vision of success built on sacrifice rather than stewardship.
When everything else is cut in the name of shareholder value, but even shareholders are left with declining trust, fragile returns, and precarious portfolios—what, exactly, has been preserved?
In this final act, we’re left with a bitter truth: shareholder value was never a value at all. It was a performance. One so convincing, so rehearsed, and so deeply embedded in our economic script that we mistook it for virtue.
Curtain Call
Normally, this would be the part where I offer a solution—where we pivot from critique to construction, from disillusionment to hope. A set of reforms, perhaps, or a call to action for more ethical leadership. But not this time.
Because this isn’t just a problem of bad behavior or insufficient vision. It’s a structural, systemic choreography—one that rewards performance over principle, extraction over investment, and silence over dissent. And it’s working exactly as designed.
The truth is, individual leaders who attempt to do things differently—who prioritize people over quarterly gains, or long-term sustainability over immediate returns—rarely last. They are ousted, sidelined, or outmaneuvered by the very shareholders they refuse to betray. Boards cite performance. Activist investors apply pressure. The market corrects what it sees as deviation.
Even well-meaning reforms are constrained by the mechanics of the machine. A company that refuses to maximize returns in a market built to reward acceleration is not seen as ethical—it is seen as weak. Competitors will move faster. Capital will flow elsewhere. The machine does not allow reversal.
So what, then, is the purpose of seeing the stage for what it is?
Perhaps it’s not to fix it from within. Perhaps it’s to stop being fooled by the props. To see the difference between culture and costume. Between leadership and branding. Between value and valuation.
Because the performance only works if the audience applauds.
And maybe the most radical act in an age of corporate theater is simply refusing to clap.
I say that not as a distant observer, but as someone who has walked offstage. I’m one of the few people I know who has left a company for purely ethical reasons. Each time I update my résumé, I start not with my skills or metrics—but with my values. Not because it’s strategic, but because it’s honest.
There are still leaders out there trying to do good—those who balance the needs of customers and communities with the actual wellbeing of their employees, who hold the line when it would be easier to yield. Companies like [Patagonia], for example, which has repeatedly chosen environmental responsibility over cheaper production or rapid expansion, even when it comes at a cost to profit margins. They aren’t perfect, but they are consistent. They mean it.
Not everyone has the flexibility to walk away. But we all have the agency of our own actions.
Will you silently allow a strategic shift to be presented without its cost? Will you lie through omission about your company’s real impact on the community it claims to belong to? Will you help write the next slide deck knowing the story is incomplete?
It’s often easier to stay silent. But silence is part of the script.
And the truth is, no performance survives contact with an honest witness.
Leave a comment