The recent Dimension Data judgment shines a harsh spotlight on the questionable competence of South Africa’s so-called “captains of industry.” With allegations of a sham empowerment deal and a trail of glaring missteps, this case raises critical questions about the sky-high pay and unchecked power of corporate executives. Are we rewarding brilliance or mediocrity cloaked in prestige? As the veneer cracks, shareholders and stakeholders must demand a leadership culture that delivers true value, accountability, and competence.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
The seventh BizNews Conference, BNC#7, is to be held in Hermanus from March 11 to 13, 2025. The 2025 BizNews Conference is designed to provide an excellent opportunity for members of the BizNews community to interact directly with the keynote speakers, old (and new) friends from previous BNC events – and to interact with members of the BizNews team. Register for BNC#7 here.
By Jim Tait
The recent Dimension Data judgment has peeled back the veneer of “prominence” often afforded to South Africa’s so-called business leaders. Jeremy Ord, Steve Nathan, and their colleagues—referred to by some as captains of industry—were individuals entrusted with the stewardship of vast resources, commanding extraordinary salaries and benefits. Yet, the judgment reveals actions that, if upheld, call into question not only their competence but the very justification for the astronomical financial packages they enjoyed.
This isn’t just a case of ethical failings or legal missteps. It’s a stark reminder that shareholders and stakeholders alike must critically assess whether these individuals truly earned their keep. After all, what are we paying for if not competence and ability?
The Judgment: A Debacle Exposed
The Dimension Data case is, in many respects, a masterclass in what not to do. The judgment describes a transaction alleged to be a sham empowerment deal that sought to enrich a select group of insiders while undermining the spirit of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE).
Yet what stands out even more than the alleged unethical nature of their actions is the apparent incompetence with which the transaction was executed. According to the judgment, a trail of incriminating emails, blatant conflicts of interest, and a poorly conceived strategy ensured that the scheme unravelled under even minimal scrutiny. This raises an uncomfortable question: if these individuals couldn’t competently manage a scheme of their own design, what does it say about their abilities in their official roles?
Are We Paying for Incompetence?
Senior executives like these often enjoy enormous salaries, benefits, and bonuses. In some cases, they hold positions across multiple organizations, raking in millions annually. Shareholders justify these pay-outs under the belief that such figures are necessary to attract and retain top talent.
But this case raises a troubling possibility: if leaders of this calibre—entrusted with significant responsibilities—can demonstrate such glaring failings, are they truly worth the price? Consider:
Read more: Rob Hersov unpacks DiData judgement and the abuse of BEE
1. Exorbitant Compensation:
o These individuals earned staggering sums, likely including stock options, performance bonuses, and golden handshakes. Yet, their actions, as outlined in the judgment, indicate shortcomings in governance and risk management.
2. Failure to Deliver Value:
o Shareholders don’t mind paying for performance, but when leaders fail spectacularly—as the judgment alleges—it’s clear that their salaries far exceed their contribution.
3. Unlikely to Lead Again:
o If this judgment is upheld, it seems improbable that these executives will hold prominent positions in corporate South Africa again. They may also face further legal consequences, which could significantly impact their professional futures.
The Broader Problem: An Executive Bubble
The Dimension Data case also highlights a broader issue in corporate South Africa—and globally. Executive pay has skyrocketed, particularly in industries like finance and banking, often outpacing the value delivered to shareholders and stakeholders. Here’s why this should concern all of us:
Disconnected Incentives:
o Many executives are insulated from the consequences of their decisions, with pay
packages structured to reward short-term gains rather than long-term sustainability.
o Even when failures occur, executives often walk away with hefty severance packages, which can disconnect them from accountability.
Cronyism and the Club Effect:
o High-level appointments often seem more influenced by connections and legacy ties than by merit. While this isn’t unique to the Protagonists, cases like this raise questions about how executives rise to and maintain their positions of influence.
Barrier to Entry:
o The same structures that protect these individuals often exclude more diverse and potentially more competent candidates from leadership roles. This perpetuates mediocrity at the top and stifles innovation.
A Shareholder’s Perspective: Are We Getting Value?
As shareholders and stakeholders, we must ask ourselves whether we are truly getting value for the money spent on executive pay. The Dimension Data case exposes a dangerous precedent: individuals who are paid extraordinary sums but demonstrate little competence or accountability.
1. Accountability Gap:
o Cases like this highlight how mediocrity can persist in high places before it is exposed. While this judgment could mark the end of these executives’ careers, it raises questions about others in similar positions who might also lack the competence expected at this level.
2. Industry Reflection:
o The banking and finance sectors, in particular, are rife with exorbitant executive pay. Are we rewarding genuine competence, or are we trapped in an “executive bubble” where pay scales have outstripped performance? If we’re paying champagne prices for flat soda, it’s time to reassess.
3. Demanding More:
o It’s time for shareholders to demand not only ethical leadership but also demonstrable competence. Prominence and high pay should be earned—not assumed.
Conclusion: A Call for Change
The Dimension Data judgment isn’t just a cautionary tale about poor governance or alleged unethical behaviour. It’s a damning indictment of the executive culture that insulates leaders from accountability. As shareholders and citizens, we have every right to demand better.
The Protagonists in this case weren’t just overpaid—they were overestimated. If these allegations represent the pinnacle of South African corporate leadership, then perhaps it’s time to rethink the system altogether. And maybe next time we hand out the title “captain of industry,” we should ask: are we giving them the captain’s hat, or just letting them steer the ship straight into the rocks?
Regards
Editor BizNews
Read More