58 Business The EconomistNovember 16th 2019
21advice critical of management. Charles El-
son of the University of Delaware argues
the secproposal is “a punitive solution
looking for a problem”. He believes that
business chambers’ claims of vast num-
bers of errors in proxy recommendations
are overblown. It is telling that few of the
proxy advisory firms’ institutional clients,
who would be most affected by erroneous
or conflicted advice, are complaining.
On the contrary. “The goal of the co-or-
dinated, corporate-funded campaigns...is
to make it harder and more expensive for
institutional investors to get the expert ad-vice they need to hold executives account-
able,” says the Council of Institutional In-
vestors, which represents funds with $4trn
in assets under management. Chris Ail-
man of the California State Teachers’ Re-
tirement System, which has $242bn in as-
sets, fears a return to “egregious
management behaviour”. “People have for-
gotten Enron and WorldCom,” he warns,
referring to two huge corporate-fraud
scandals in the early 2000s.
Drew Chapman of Baker Botts, a law
firm, sees the proposed rule changes as
double-edged. More transparency shouldin principle benefit investors. But tougher
solicitation rules may make it easier for a
firm’s management to sue the proxy firms
over advice it does not like—possibly dis-
couraging them from being overly critical.
The sec’s proposal now enters a 60-day
comment period. The regulator is expected
to make a final ruling early next year. The
advisory firms may then challenge it in
court. That could stretch the fight out by
months, or even years.
Another outcome is possible. The sec
could instead modify the proposal to soft-
en its sharp edges. This would push proxyBartleby Don’t show, tell
Economist.com/blogs/bartlebyI
t was one of the viral videos of 2017.
Robert Kelly, an American academic,
was discussing South Korean politics live
on bbcWorld News when his two small
children, eager for daddy’s attention,
toddled into the room to interrupt him. It
was a natural, joyful moment.
What did not look natural was Mr
Kelly’s pose before the interruption. He
was being interviewed by video link,
staring at his screen, his gaze fixed and
glassy. Like most people who use the
same technology, he looked as if he was
appearing in a hostage video.
These awkward interactions are a
regular feature of 24-hour news chan-
nels, with their insatiable appetite for
experts, many of whom live far from the
studio. Increasingly, they are a regular
part of people’s working lives, too. Many
meetings now require a video screen so
that others can participate from afar—
their faces looming large like the villains
appearing on the screen of the bridge of
the starship Enterprise in an episode of
“Star Trek”.
The future is likely to involve even
more screen-based meetings. One sur-
vey, published earlier this year, predicted
12% annual growth in global sales of
videoconferencing equipment between
now and 2023.
On the plus side, videoconferencing
could contribute to combating climate
change. A video link is immeasurably
cleaner than a long-haul flight. However,
it is difficult to find any realistic esti-
mates of how much this will save in
terms of carbon emissions. It is helpful if
video calls mean people do not drive to
the office; less helpful if they simply
avoid public transport.
Some advocates also claim that video-
conferencing beats phone calls. It is, they
say, easier to establish a rapport withsomeone if you see them on screen, rather
than simply hear their voice. Facial expres-
sions and hand gestures can give a better
clue as to the other person’s mood and
intentions, which can help avoid misun-
derstandings.
Yet in many professional exchanges
you may want to disguise your actual state
of mind. Even in more intimate settings
than the office texting has replaced phone
conversations. If being heard makes many
people self-conscious, imagine being
seen. Bartleby has a face that only a mother
could love—which is why, although he
occasionally appears on The Economist’s
podcasts, he is rightly absent from its
films. He has no desire to be seen by the
other people with whom he is communi-
cating—or to see himself in a corner of the
screen, a process that automatically makes
him want to fidget. If a public-relations
type suggests a video interview with some-
one, your columnist always opts for a
phone call instead.
Not everyone wants to be watched
while undertaking a long phone call,
especially at home where neither clothesnor surroundings redound to most peo-
ple’s advantage. It is also hard to pay
attention for extended periods. The
ability to check emails, or sports scores,
is the only way to cope with the tedium
of, say, calls to discuss participation in
conference panels (which are typically
longer than the panel itself ). That option
disappears when your face is on camera.
Videoconferencing may improve.
Facebook has brought out a product
called Portal, which promises (or threat-
ens?) to keep track of you as you move
about, always keeping you in shot. Apple
plans a feature which will use “advanced
image manipulation” to ensure it seems
as if your eyes are always looking at the
screen, even when they are not.
To Bartleby, the first recalls scenes in
old horror flicks where the eyes in the
painting followed the victim around the
room. He prefers the sound of the sec-
ond, especially if a version could keep a
digitised version of his face on screen,
while artificial intelligence is pro-
grammed to insert pre-recorded phrases
like “you’re right” and “mmhm” at suit-
able moments, leaving him to go about
his business.
Great writers have toyed with the idea
of our being constantly watched—with
disturbing results. Jeremy Bentham
devised the panopticon, a prison where a
single guard can see into every inmate’s
cell. Winston Smith, the doomed hero of
George Orwell’s “1984”, finds that agents
of Big Brother have been watching him
through his tvscreen, and are thus
aware of his disloyalty. A videoconfe-
rence can be highly useful on occasion.
But not every meeting requires it. Before
switching on the screen, ask yourself: “Is
my face really necessary?”The agonies of videoconferencing