I hesitated before writing this post, there are some topics that I’ve seen over the years tend to draw the wrong kind of audience, the ones that want winners and losers, the ones that want to blame and point fingers, the ones that – no matter how many caveats or waivers you include – want to read hidden meaning into the words that you write. But on the flip side, there are more people in the world that want to reflect, consider and discuss than there are those that want to provoke.

So perhaps unsurprisingly, for a UK audience, my thoughts are on the Supreme Court ruling in the last week on the legal definition of a “woman”. But, (and here come the waivers) I don’t want to talk about the decision, the opposing arguments, the rights or the wrongs. I want to talk about the role of leadership and organisations and how they organise themselves for their employees and customers in a broader ecosystem.

One of our primary responsibilities is to act within the law. Over the thirty years I’ve been running businesses I’ve seen a whole host of legal decisions, some that I’ve agreed with, some that I haven’t. But that doesn’t really matter, because my role is not to make law, but to run my business. The simple fact is that the ruling last week has brought clarity on an area that was previously driven by opinion and belief (often in conflict with others) and so any leader should welcome that clarity, even if they may not personally agree with it.

Organisations get into trouble when they are led not by the law but the beliefs of a few senior people and I’ve written before about the dangers of business moving into social policy. My guess is that some organisations who’ve been doing that will be left scratching their heads at the ruling and trying to figure out how they reconcile the approach that they’ve previously taken, based on some half complete advice, with the direction they’ve just been given, based on the law.

Of course there will be those that don’t agree with the judgment, like there will be those that don’t agree with the outcomes of elections, referendums or the actions of government or the authorities. But ultimately, the reason we have these mechanisms in our society is to make these decisions for us and to give us the clarity to operate within the parameters we are set. In the same way there is no point in calling the electorate stupid for voting for a different outcome than the one you want, there is no point in suggesting the Supreme Court judges made a poor decision unless you have the knowledge, understanding, means and wherewithal to challenge the technical legal points. We should remember, that the judges were faced with a specific question, not given an open opportunity to opine.

The politicisation of business over the last decade or so hasn’t, in my opinion, been a positive step forward. There are very few founder led businesses who can essentially do their bidding, the rest of us should focus on our stakeholders, customers, shareholders and employees and knuckle down to deliver. If we’d been doing that, rather than making statements, the ruling of the Supreme Court would have been significantly less sensational, regardless of the decision they landed on. And we would have spent more time, focusing on those things that we truly had under our control – which is what we all need to do right now.