Results tagged “values” from Marilyn Sewell

Students in the current graduating class of M.B.A. students at Harvard are being asked to sign on the dotted line--no, not for a fancy job that will bring in six figures--they are being asked by their peers to sign the "M.B.A. Oath," a pledge to act responsibly and ethically and to refrain from advancing their "own narrow ambitions" at the expense of other people.  Seems simple enough.  Doctors have to sign a pledge saying that they will try to heal people.  Judges have to pledge that they will uphold the Constitution.  Ministers promise a variety of things, often including the exceedingly difficult one, "to speak the truth to power."  But only a scant 20% of the Harvard M.B.A. class was willing to sign. 

The headline in the NY Times (5/30, p. B4) reads "A Promise to Be Ethical in an Era of Immorality," and the writer seems to be impressed that all these young business people are signing such a vow.  I'm wondering about the other 80%--are they not planning to act responsibly and ethically?  Are they planning to advance their own narrow ambitions, in spite of who gets hurt?  If so, could we have the names of the non-signers?  They'll probably be investing our retirement funds in a few short years.

When I read this article, I was reminded of a graduating law student, a member of First Unitarian Church, who told me some years ago that he had asked his fellow graduates to sign a pledge reading: "Before I take any job, I will ask myself whether or not this job contributes to the greater good."  Note that the pledge doesn't ask anyone to refuse a job that doesn't contribute to the good, but merely to "ask myself" the question.  As I remember, seven law students agreed to sign.

So what's going on?  Change is rearing its difficult head, and it's going to take a while before ethical behavior becomes the norm in business, if it ever does.  But this is a new leaning in the right direction.  The norm can shift.  People will become ashamed of shoddy behavior  when enough of their compatriots clearly disapprove of such behavior instead of admiring it, if it makes a buck.

This is not to say that all business people are unethical and money-hungry--not at all.  And when I see a business like Neil Kelly or New Seasons and watch the values they operate by, I take hope for the future.  It's just that they seem to be the exception and not the rule. 

Bruce Kogut, director of the Sanford C. Bernstein & Company Center for Leadership and Ethics, says that students are beginning to think about how they earn their income, not just how much.  (What a concept!)  He says,"They see inequities and the role of business of address them."  I ask you, how could business students at a school this sophisticated not understand the role of business in addressing economic inequities?  Adam Smith understood something about the relationship of capitalism to community and the larger good--don't Harvard M.B.A. students read Smith, like in the first semester of B school?

The fact is, though, it doesn't matter what you read, or what your teachers say, if the cultural ethic is all about greed.  People will do what other people do, almost always.  Those who don't, surprise us with their integrity. Change will come with leadership and education around these issues, and when the norm becomes service, these grads will want to serve.

Sleazy business practice will then become like smoking--you'll have to leave the group and sneak around out back to do it.  I can hardly wait.

 Share this

On the front page of the NY Times today is a picture of three S.U.V's--great white behemoths--sitting on the altar of Greater Grace Temple, a Pentecostal church in Detroit. Worshipers--including hundreds who work in the automobile industry--are surrounding the vehicles, some with upraised hands in supplication, asking for the miracle that it would take to save their companies.  Officials from the United Automobile Workers union were invited to speak at the service, followed by a sermon by Bishop Charles H. Ellis III, entitled "A Hybrid Hope."  (The S.U.V.'s were all gas-electric hybrids on loan from various dealerships.)

Well, I guess that's the way we usually run our lives--we screw up, and then we beg God to DO SOMETHING and bail us out.  Really, God, I'll never hit my little brother again, I promise!  When do we grow up and begin to take some responsibility for the consequences of our actions? 

Let's talk about General Motors, the biggest baddest auto company.  G.M.'s chief executive, Rick Wagoner, earlier chastened and turned away by Congress, upon his return testified   that "G.M. has made mistakes in the past."  Wagoner named three of those mistakes: agreeing to expensive union contracts, not investing in smaller cars, and failing to convert plants so the company could build more than one kind of vehicle.

But G.M.'s biggest failing, according to some analysts, is the company's refusal to invest in innovation and to support those inside the company who were pushing the company to innovate.  Instead, they allowed the finance executives to carry the day, the guys in the company who were more interested in short-term returns on investment than in making products appropriate for the 21st century.  Their excuse?  "We were giving the public what they wanted."  Well, yes, by pushing hugely expensive ads and lobbying Congress to set fuel standards criminally low.  And the result of taking this direction?  Inflated stock values for investors and fat checks for executives.  Oh, and yes, now bankruptcy.

Let's talk about leadership, shall we?  When a person leads a business or an institution of any kind, that individual should consider his position as a sacred trust.  People will be depending upon that leader for their livelihood, and the company itself must remain not only viable but trustworthy, in the eyes of the public.  It is a public trust of sorts.  Of course a company must make a good profit in order to flourish, but the core mission of the company should never be solely to make a profit.  The core mission should include creating the best possible product for the most number of people at the lowest cost to them and to the environment, while ensuring that the line workers are respected and compensated apporopriately. 

The problem with G.M is a values problem, not a business mistake. Their executives went after the money, disregarding environmental issues and the quality of their product.  A business mistake can be rectified--but a values problem?  That will be more difficult to deal with.  I would suggest that a good beginning might be for Congress to insist that the current executives be relieved of their positions.  These are the leaders who made the decisions that fattened their own wallets and ran the company into the ground.  The leopard has shown its spots.  Should we now trust them with billions more?

 Share this