On Forswearing Greed

Al Sikes

Oaths and the Greater Good

Recently The Economist reported on what it called “a Hippocratic oath for managers” initiated by MBA student Max Anderson for the 2009 class at Harvard Business School.

The article noted that the students promised they would, among other things, “serve the greater good,” “act with the utmost integrity,” and guard against “decisions and behavior that advance my own narrow ambitions but harm the enterprise and the societies it serves.” About half the class took the pledge; the Economist’s writer noted that “such naivety, if that is what it is, will not survive long beyond the university’s walls.”

Milton Friedman is frequently quoted as saying the only obligation a good capitalist has is to “maximize profits.” One can, of course, come up with multiple complex definitions of what that phrase means. Does it mean shorter- or longer-term profits? If the latter, over what span of time? Any discussion about maximizing profits must also include brand value, accounting treatment, the allocation of available cash, potential mergers or acquisitions, and on and on.

Over the years I have managed both small and relatively large enterprises without an MBA—or a pledge. I have tried, clumsily and episodically, to be attentive to my faith in God and to the ultimate importance of his commandments. There have been internal tensions as a result, as well as some external clashes, and I will be the first to admit to the difficulty of aligning faith and action in a postmodern society. But whatever my mental or spiritual processes, I was never naïve about the expectations of business or God.

One of my first encounters between my faith and market realities came in the mid-eighties after reading the lyrics of some hard-rock songs in a radio industry trade publication, Radio and Records. The lyrics promoted drugs and promiscuity, and I told the program director of an FM station that my company owned to take those records off the air. He was incredulous and said we would lose audience share. My memory doesn’t provide me before-and-after market share numbers, but the business did not fail.

My often-spontaneous analyses begin with God’s exhortation to love our neighbors as ourselves. In contrast to other biblical passages that sometimes seem to be in conflict about the ultimate result of profit (that is, the enlargement of wealth), love of neighbor is a good concrete starting point. In the case of the rock lyrics, it was clear to me I would not want somebody airing those records for my daughters.

Unintended consequences often strike the most insouciant. Howard Stern was continually getting his employer, Infinity Broadcasting, into trouble while I was Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. His humor was vulgar, racist, and misogynistic and Infinity was fined three times for “indecent broadcasting.” Stern was not only derisive about our actions, at one point he got so worked up on the air that he wished me dead. But some years later he went ballistic for another reason as his daughter, an aspiring actress, was required to perform in the nude for an Off-Broadway production.

None of us want to be misled about a stock’s prospects, sold a product that doesn’t deliver what its advertising claims, or pay prices that bear little relationship to costs. Simply stated, we want to be treated fairly and should reciprocate. But what about a pledge to “serve the greater good”? What does the phrase mean? Is providing music entertainment over the radio serving “the greater good”?

Modernity offered more and more to the consumer. Now the so-called postmodern period continues expanding, and often improving, the supply of goods and services. But we are increasingly confronted with “zero-sum” arguments. Arguably, selling tasty food at affordable prices is serving the “greater good,” but then critics counter with claims that the fast food industry promotes obesity and harmful industrial farming. Providing electricity seems to meet the test, until critics profile your company’s carbon footprint. Some environmentalists promote the use of “renewable energy” while others object to the visual pollution they claim is caused by wind turbines.

Regardless, I applaud Max Anderson’s pledge initiative. While the greater good can be an elusive objective, we all should pursue our careers in light of personal and public goals that are larger than the size of our paychecks, options, or office.

Still, I can’t help but believe that a business school pledge is more complicated and less inclusive than is needful. And it ultimately carries scant weight, as the writer at the Economist suggests.

In recent decades many in the cohort demographers refer to as “influencers” have derided faith as superstition or mere emotion. The accelerating momentum of this condescending attitude led predictably to a tendency to pay less and less attention to the divine commandment for reciprocal love which compels fairness and justice in human relations. Equally predictably, the attendant neo-Darwinian ethic of survival of the fittest has come to occupy more and more centers of power.

The Trinity Forum’s newest Reading features selections from Adam Smith’s classic Theory of Moral Sentiments and is introduced by Bill Pollard, formerly CEO of ServiceMaster. Bill notes: “The up and down cycles of the economy cannot be eliminated—but we can do a much better job of constraining and managing the natural forces of greed and self-interest as we focus on being guided by a moral compass that points to a true North and involves a care and concern for the interests of others.”

We should all pledge to orient ourselves to “true North” regardless of our degree or school. Critically, the author of this ultimate pledge assures us of real consequences, plus and minus. 

Al Sikes is Chairman of The Trinity Forum and former Chairman of the FCC.

2 Responses (comments are closed) • Features, Business, Character and Ethics, Fri 24 Jul 2009