Stephen Collins
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/nc-pic-stars-96x96.jpg)
This is the fourth of ten themes in Nigel Cameron’s open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, exploring obstacles to him seeking the US presidency. Click here for whole series.
There are two big issues here.
First, diversity. I know, this is a problem with other Valley companies. But why isn’t Facebook as diverse as America? Why do so many Silicon Valley companies look more like the Mad Men ad agency world of the 1950s than workplaces of the 21st century?
While there can be genuine problems in recruiting diverse talent in a field like engineering where most applicants may be male, what about the top? Eight pictures come up when you put your board of directors in a search engine. There’s Sheryl Sandberg, your Chief Operating Officer and then there’s Susan Desmond-Hellman of the Gates Foundation, the sole female independent director. Then there are six white guys. No other women. No black or Asian or Hispanic directors. This looks odd enough in the context of the America of 2017 – and to a growing number of people it looks deeply offensive. But given your two billion users span the globe, it looks bizarre and is bizarre.
Here are some quick ideas:
- The board of directors issue can be sorted out pretty quickly, as you don’t just run the company, you control it. Sit down with yourself one evening and think up a dream-team board that brings in some of the extraordinary, proven leaders who represent the global community you serve. Start, perhaps, with India where there are more individual Facebook users than in America – it is, as you may have noticed, a country with quite a tech-savvy population.
- It’s harder further down the company, especially among engineers. But you’re good at the hard stuff. Why not ‘move fast and break some things’ to turn this situation around? Set the company the challenge of becoming America’s most diverse new-technology organisation. Be the major source of initiatives, scholarships, internships, prizes, for women and minorities in every area where you have found them hard to recruit. But please, please, begin with the board.
- Then reflect on what amazing value all this fresh, and fresh-thinking, talent will bring to the next round of Facebook’s global development.
The second part of this question focuses on Facebook the corporation. Why is the world’s top “social” company run on oil-baron principles?
The corporate structure of Facebook is as old-economy as you can get. Like Rupert Murdoch’s media empire1 there are two “share classes.” It sounds a technical issue, but it’s actually very simple. What it means is that even though you don’t actually own more than half the company you personally control it with a majority of the voting shares. (When Facebook went public, you owned 22%, but ended up with 57% of the voting shares.) Many people see this as a thoroughly bad business practice as it drives a wedge between investors and decisions about their money, which can be a big enough challenge in a standard corporate structure where share value is reflected in voting power. It’s also illegal in some other parts of the world, such as the Hong Kong stock exchange2
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/mad-men-drinking-cheers.png-1024x511.jpeg)
Of course, like many iffy practices, it doesn’t defy the principles of the market. When Facebook went public investors knew what they were letting themselves in for. The market priced Zuckerberg’s control of the super-shares into the valuation. They reckoned they could live with it, and would have to if they wanted a piece of the action.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe