Lateral deference, Congress and cowardice: Tu Stultus Es

The B2 stealth bomber (image by Senior Airman Eugene Oliver, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

After recent developments in the conflict between Israel, Iran and America, a lesson in Latin might help, moderated by an 18^th century French philosoph and filtered through a concept in management studies that could pertain to the CEO-turned-politico in the White House.

A few years back, corporate governance scholar of considerable renown called my attention to a little discussed concept, which may be relevant to our current circumstances in American and global political relationships. It’s call “lateral deference” (Fragale, Sumanth, Tiedens, & Northcraft, 2012; Stiles, McNulty, & Roberts, 2017).

In boards of directors, he noted, the independent non-executives – the source of much of the “checks and balances” in corporate governance – sometimes exercise lateral deference by agreeing to what the chief executive (and sometimes chair) proposes. That doesn’t mean, however, that they agree with the action itself. They are merely deferring for the moment to the boss’s better knowledge of the position of the firm and the circumstances. For the moment. Quietly, perhaps secretly, they are plotting his overthrow.[1]

This concept holds out the hope that the board isn’t just a “rubber stamp” for the imperious CEO (Carroll, Ingley, & Inkson, 2017; McKinsey & Co., 2021). They might in fact be a stealth bomber, waiting for the decision to strike.

Fast forward to today, June 23, 2025. The satirical online and print magazine The Onion has taken a full-page advertisement in the New York Times – a mock front page of a newspaper – and sent a copy of it to all the members of Congress: Its headline, in all caps:

“CONGRESS, NOW MORE THAN EVER, OUR NATION NEEDS YOUR COWARDICE”

An image of that front page in full appears in “The Handbasket”. The full letter to Congress ends with a special, final salutation in Latin, where a “Sincerely” might usually be found. Tu Stultus Es. For readers like me, whose education didn’t include classical languages, online translation services come in handy: “You are stupid.”

The legislators might not be, however, assuming those members of both the House and Senate might know something about lateral deference, even as they overlook their constitutional duty to provide checks and balances. Such constraints on executive discretion is what Montesquieu (2024 [1748]) advocated, influenced by John Locke (2005 [1690]). Both influenced the writers Federalist Papers (Hamilton, Jay, & Madison, 1905 [1787]), and their writings informed the US Constitution.

But – oops – ancient languages and philosophy weren’t on the curriculum when I was in school. How many members of Congress will get the Latin meaning, or its Socratic (and comic) irony?

Carroll, B., Ingley, C. B., & Inkson, K. (2017). Boardthink: Exploring the discourses and mind-sets of directors. Journal of Management and Organization, 23(5), 606-620. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.36

Fragale, A. R., Sumanth, J. J., Tiedens, L. Z., & Northcraft, G. B. (2012). Appeasing Equals: Lateral Deference in Organizational Communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 373-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212461439

Hamilton, A., Jay, J., & Madison, J. (1905 [1787]). The Federalist Papers: CALI eLangdell Press.

Locke, J. (2005 [1690]). Second Treatise on Government. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370

McKinsey & Co. (2021, April). Boards and decision making. Inside the Strategy Room, a report of Strategy & Corporate Finance Practice. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/boards-and-decision-making

Montesquieu, C. L. d. S. (2024 [1748]). Montesquieu's 'The Spirit of the Laws': A Critical Edition (W. B. Allen, Trans. W. B. Allen Ed.). London: Anthem Press.

Stiles, P. G., McNulty, T., & Roberts, J. (2017). Lateral deference in the boardroom. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.14192abstract

---

[1] I use the masculine for “chief executive” here, because, still, the evidence is persuasive that the holders of the role are overwhelmingly male. There’s a good chance, I reckon, without evidence, that a female CEO wouldn’t so often be afforded lateral deference.