OVER THE past 18 years, Paul Guzzi has led the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce with deftness. A former secretary of state and Wang Laboratories executive, he has harnessed connections from his past lives to make the chamber a source for interesting business programming and effective networking. He’s also been savvy about the political challenges business groups face in a state once known as “Taxachusetts.” Unlike its counterparts elsewhere, the Greater Boston Chamber has opted to tread lightly among lawmakers, and it has refrained from staking out inflexible positions. Now, with Guzzi’s impending retirement, the chamber has a chance to honor his record — while also planning for new challenges in a changing business environment.
The group’s next leader has much to learn from Guzzi: As state lawmakers debated a minimum wage increase this year, Guzzi accepted the likelihood of an increase while trying to use it as a bargaining chip to get unemployment insurance reform. That position gave the chamber more influence over the final outcome than if it had reflexively opposed the wage hike. In exchange, businesses in the Commonwealth received much-needed relief on unemployment insurance premiums. Similarly, Guzzi lobbied behind the scenes against the so-called “tech tax” on software services, meeting with legislative leaders to advocate for its repeal.
Continue reading below
Despite that latter move, the chamber hasn’t emerged as a full-throated voice for the innovation economy. While it’s too simplistic to look at Boston’s business community as divided between old and new, such a dichotomy was evident during the debate over noncompete agreements earlier this year. Pointing to Silicon Valley, where noncompetes are largely unenforceable, the Boston-area startup community argued that cultivating a fluid pool of talented workers is more beneficial than allowing companies to lock down their employees. But more traditional businesses won the chamber’s support, and Massachusetts lost an opportunity to send a welcoming message to a new generation of innovators.
While the chamber could use more representation from the startup world, businesses of all shapes and sizes could use a stronger voice for policies that would keep the city’s next generation of talent from migrating to more affordable cities. In seeking a new leader and developing a new agenda, the chamber and its board must also be mindful of the growing gender and ethnic diversity of the Boston business world.
If established leaders at the chamber draw in a new generation of businesses, each side can learn from the other. Boston’s traditional business leaders are far more active in civic causes than emerging tech executives; the chamber could, and should, play a role in persuading tech leaders to volunteer their expertise on problems of public importance. In the meantime, Guzzi’s leadership has created an important regional asset. It’s up to the next leader to build on a strong foundation and make the chamber more representative of tomorrow’s Boston economy.
Related:
• Paul English: New vision needs to include the tech sector
• Jon Auerbach: History shows unpredictable nature of startups
• Noah Guiney: Four lessons from other cities
Open all references in tabs: [1 – 5]