Goldman's PR Seems Like a Perfect Reflection of Goldman's Culture

It's 20 years since I read a book called We're So Big and Powerful Nothing Bad Can Happen to Us, authored by USC professor Ian Mitroff, but rarely do more than a few weeks go by without some giant company reminding me of one of the book's central lessons.

Mitroff warned that large and successful companies are particularly prone to believing their own mythologizing. They come to believe in the rightness of their own mission to such an extent that any criticism of that mission is not only ignored, but taken as evidence that the organization's critics are either ignorant or malevolent. At best, they simply don't understand the institution or policy they are criticizing; at worst they are pursuing some agenda that involves the destruction of all that is right and good in the world.

This kind of thinking can be detected in the response of Goldman Sachs to those who are mildly displeased that the company helped to bring the entire global economy to the brink of financial catastrophe and yet continues to vocally oppose any checks on either its behavior or the rewards it lavishes upon those responsible.

The most visible example of Goldman's attitude was provided by chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein as part of a Sunday Times interview in which he insisted that the bank was doing "God's work." The clear implication is that anyone who opposed Goldman or criticized its behavior was pretty much by definition an agent--wittingly or otherwise--of Satan.

A similar contempt for competing viewpoints was evidence in the behavior of Goldman employees during protests in the City of London last year. Those who participated in those protests returned with stories of bankers ostentatiously setting light to currency (the smallest paper note in London is worth around $8) in response to anger at their role in the collapse of the economy.

So it seems a little unfair that a post at the New York Times' Dealbook blog focuses entirely on Goldman's PR chief, Lucas Van Praag. Even if all of the criticisms compiled in this post are true, it seems to me that Van Praag's attitude is merely a reflection of the corporate tone and--more significantly--the corporate culture.

Having said that, the most telling criticism comes from Market Watch, which has written of Van Praag's communications style: "The message is you're emotional and don't have your facts straight. We're reasoned and objective about our own matters. You, dear media critics, don't know what you're talking about."

It's interesting that people who respond with a knee-jerk defensiveness--a reaction that spares them the effort of actually engaging with their critics--always seem to believe that their critics are the "emotional" ones. In the world of psychology, I believe that's called projection.