Wow. Quite a bold position to take re: the "inherent immorality of public corporations", and even though I am sympathetic to this view, I would probably have worded it more along the lines of "the system" opening the door or even encouraging such behaviour, rather than "guaranteeing" it.

It is nevertheless very important for potential employees to be reminded that we all have to look out for #1, because most companies (public or otherwise) certainly are doing so on their own behalf.

I would note that IMHO there's a significant difference between amoral and immoral.

Please note, _a_morality (Having no bearing on, declining to be influenced by, or making no reference to, moral values or judgments) vs. _im_morality (violating agreed-upon moral values).

Bob didn't say companies are immoral. He said amoral. Big difference.

Bob pointed out to me, quite correctly, the distinction between "amorality" and "immorality", which I did indeed read incorrectly in his followup. (which doesn't actually negate my original comment, although it does blunt my impression of his original statement somewhat)

Now if only we could reverse the trend over the last decade or 2 of pretending that corporations have constitutional rights like "free speech", as if they are equivalent to people..

I recommend watching "The Corporation". They take an amusing approach of saying, "if the corporation is legally an individual, what type of individual is it?"

Then, based on the the legal requirements imposed on corporations and using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria, they "diagnose" The Corporation as a psychopath.

An interesting movie - more info at thecorporation.com.

He said "Amoral", not "IMmoral", those two words have very differnt meanings. And Bob Lewis is entirely correct in his analysis of the situation.

I am a very ethical, moral, and caring hiring manager. That does NOT mean I am a free agent: I must abide by the policies and procedures of the company I work for.

The company is run in a very ethical manner, as well as a legal manner, and prides itself on having great integrity. That doesn't give the CEO the freedom to take positions or do things that are detrimental to their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareowners.

If someone doesn't understand this, I suggest they only apply for jobs with small, private companies, where they have face to face meetings with the owner.

I don't think Bob ever mentioned anything about the "inherent immorality of public corporations." He did mention the *amorality*, though. Big difference.

Pretty one-sided attitude from your respondent. I have never found that any corporation was to be trusted. I certainly wouldn't give any company an exclusive. They will never give an exclusive to an employee. The basic rule here is: "Never trust nobody". Especially HR people. Most of them make Catbert look like a nice guy.

I think mr. Koenig missed something; Bob didn't say publicly held corporations were 'immoral', he said they were 'amoral'. A subtle, but important difference.

Legally, a corporation is a 'person'. However, unlike real people, it has no inherent morality, hence corporations are amoral. That 'person' exists in this country to maximize (theoretically) it's owner's value (slavery of a fictional person, if you will). Morality has no part in those decisions. Moreover, the separation of corporate 'person' from the actual people gives them the freedom to make those amoral decisions without directly bearing the consequences.

Thus the owners or their representatives can use or treat the corporation as they see fit - to the point of using it to kill other 'persons' (hostile takeover), give itself steroids (stock value manipulation)or even commit suicide.

Not even sure if [a]morality enters the equation.

I took an MBA class where the professor said to view employment in purely economic terms. You're selling a service, the company is buying said service. End of story. There's no "we're a family", no loyalty by employer or employee, just a business arrangement. While things are never that purely absolute, it is an interesting lens to view employment through.

To that end, the hiring company is trying to acquire a resource as cheaply as possible. The selling employee is trying to maximize revenue for his/her service provided. The "trust" is knowing that both sides are operating on these terms.

To that end, while there is a certain political protocol that needs to be played out, the employee has every right to leave if he/she has a better opportunity. The employer certainly wouldn't think twice about laying off or firing someone to bring in a "better candidate."

This is a very interesting discussion, in part because I am having difficulty deciding what I would do.

The notion that you should put yourself in the other person's shoes as a behavioural test for instance. It's a good idea overall. One key limit that I see however, is that it's difficult to divorce yourself from the things that you know and the other party does not. Also, your attitudes are going to influence you no matter how hard you try.

Just take, for instance, a button-down, rules driven personality negotiating with a free-thinking, creative personality. Do you really think they can inhabit each other's head space? The problem, as I see it, is that EVERYONE thinks they are right, almost all the time.

Don't get me wrong. It's still a good exercise and worth spending the time on. Just don't think that it will resolve all ethical dilemmas to the other party's satisfaction.

On another point, probationary periods are an explicit acknowledgment that the first months of an employment are less certain, and less trusting, than what hopefully follows. My thinking is that most probationary intervals are realistically set up for the benefit of the employer. It limits their liability. However there's no reason why this can't benefit the employee too.

If the employee were to leave abruptly during the probationary period, for a better opportunity, I really don't think the employer would have a leg to stand on. Not legally, and not morally/ethically either. Now THAT's the employer putting on the employee's shoes, and seeing how they like the fit!

Bob's point is correct: the purpose of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders (aka "maximize shareholder value") and corporate officers are duty-bound to pursue that goal. Unfortunately corporations are considered to be persons under US law due to an unfortunate series of precedents. I think reform of corporate law is in order, and perhaps even an amendment to the constitution to state that the term "person" shall apply only to living entities.

I think people need to be careful on definitions - immoral is not the same as amoral

Your argument for the amorality of corporations doesn't hold water. Yes, in general the board has an obligation to maximize shareholder value. But can the shareholders immediately sue if they pass up any opportunity for profit? Of course not. If this were really true the way you state, almost every corporation in the world would have an immediate obligation to go out of business, liquify their assets, and invest them in the stock of some company making more profits than they are. That would increase the shareholder value, and it's perfectly legal. So can you sue if the company fails to do this?

Corporations have the goal of maximizing shareholder value, but it's a given that this is to be done within a mission statement that defines the company as a going concern in a certain industry. This mission statement can also define other values that the company intends to uphold, frequently involving social justice, innovation, employee care, environmental impact, etc. Many companies refused to invest in South Africa during apartheid, for example, and I'm not aware of any lawsuits upheld against them because of lost profits.
Shareholders have a right to expect transparency, that is, these goals should be openly stated, at which point the shareholder knows what he's buying. They have a right to complain if the board fails to pursue the goals in the mission statement. But they don't have a right to demand blind pursiut of short-term profit at any cost.

Please don't confuse amorality and immorality. There are those who believe that "the homosexual lifestyle" is immoral (and many more who don't). However, your hiring decisions should be amoral, which means that if someone is gay, it is no concern of yours.

'Inherently amoral' hit the nail on the head.
Amoral does not mean Immoral. It simply means morality has no consideration in the response.
As a director of a public corporation, your marching orders are to improve shareholder value by legal means. In some enlightened corporations with enlightened shareholders and an SEC-approved statement about what your corporation considers "shareholder value," you _may_ avoid a lawsuit. In a regular corporation, you won't because "value" is legally defined as $.

Whats not to get ? We are all commodities in this grand game. Would you seriously believe that a hiring manager does not have pick number 2
from all the applicants that applied for the job ? I am not hired until I start, otherwise additional compensation please.

I think excellent points are made on both sides. I think that Bob's response highlights the need to approach any ethical dilemma with your eyes wide open and counting any potential costs of adhering to your principles in a very rigid fashion. I think the correspondent most likely does this, but I also think that each situation must be evaluated on an individual basis. The goal, I think, is to layer your principles on top of company policy, legal issues, and all available information and see what the overall picture looks like. Then determine how best to behave in order that you can sleep at night. One could argue that the more mature person will knowingly take on greater risk in order to adhere to an ethical standard.

I think some of you are getting hung up on the black and white way Bob characterized the amorality of corporations. It was done for rhetorical value, not because it's really that simple.

If there is a way to increase profits by 20% but it is considered immoral, yes, a public company must pursue it. But, real situations can't be cast so simply.

Let's take tuna fishing, for example. Doing it in such a way that dolphins get killed during the process is considered by many to be immoral, yet it costs less to do it that way. But, there is a class of consumers who will pay more to get tuna that wasn't caught in this way. That changes the economics, so you can't easily say which course makes the company more money. Even if you could definitively analyze the situation and find out which provides the better ROI, that analysis only matters in a monopoly situation. Once competition enters the picture, there's room for multiple ways of doing business, because defining your niche and going after it is part of maximizing shareholder value.

This is why Google, a public company, can get away with their "Don't Be Evil" slogan. They're telling the market that they believe they can maximize shareholder value best by appealing to those who care how the companies they do business with behave. Whether Google is in fact Evil or not really isn't at issue here. It's all about market positioning and perception.

I might offer two additional points for the original author to consider:

* Most if not all companies have a 30- or 90-day "trial period" for new employees where you can be fired for essentially no reason. Doesn't this mean an inherent power-imbalance exists in the "honest" relationship the author is professing? Someone makes me a better offer and I'm supposed to NOT look at it, while the company can receive a "better offer" in my first 30 days and I can be let go? I know this is a bit of a straw-man, what company would really fire one new-hire to grab a second one? But the imbalance exists, and it seems relevant in this situation.

* As for being corporate HR being honest, umm, do you really want to air all the dirty laundry? Besides potentially being a violation of confidentiality, it could also be exactly the reason you're hiring the new person -- new blood, new ideas -- so do you honestly admit that the CEO wants your department axed?

* And I'm sure that the author always presents the candidate with the HIGHEST POSSIBLE salary that the company can afford to pay. And of course that offer comes BEFORE the candidate is asked to name his/her own salary figure, right?

My understanding is that this "corporation = person" was actually the mistaken entry in a judicial decision many years ago.
The only real problem is that the judges apparently didn't read the clerk's output and other judges took it as law.

And So It Goes...

You must never ever forget that employees are every companies most valuable asset. Why is this? They are the easiest commodity to liquidate. To save money just lay off your employees, the more you liquidate the higher the stock price the next day, the more the bosses options are worth.

Guys, in the U.S., the amorality (not immorality) of a publicly-held corporation is s not some kind of ethical choice, it's the law.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was formed to enforce the body of law requiring publicly-held corporations to act in the best financial interests of the owners, that is, the public stockholders. That literally prevents them from doing the "right" (moral) thing when something else is the more profitable (but still legal) thing. As much as an individual hiring manager may want to do the "right" (moral) thing, doing so can easily provide them personally (not just corporately) with a criminal record under U.S. law.

As it is the requirement of law for the employer to not be up front with the potential employee in a number of cases (and is hence, inherently untrustworthy), if the employee wants to maximize his/her potential for them and their family (in my mind, a moral requirement), it becomes the requirement of logic for them to pursue any path which results in their greatest profit.

While many of my fellow hiring managers have denigrated candidates who play their options, to do so is clearly a double standard. As Poor Richard so succinctly put it, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." Or, as my Dad used to put it, "If you're going to dish it out, you'd better be able to take it."

note techgrrl phrasing leaves a loophole:
"That doesn't give the CEO the freedom to take positions or do things that are detrimental to their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareowners"

shareholders are not the law. (and certainly cannot decide ethical and moral concerns of all people.)

further on:
"I took an MBA class where the professor said to view employment in purely economic terms. You're selling a service, the company is buying said service. End of story. There's no "we're a family", no loyalty by employer or employee, just a business arrangement.'

yep. that's why business or any "random" entity/individual cannot be trusted to ethically "self regulate".

down..
"corporate officers are duty-bound to pursue that goal'
according to common belief (fud?) that kind of stipulation is within their employment contract, yet/and often there is little control over execs.

"Yes, in general the board has an obligation to maximize shareholder value. But can the shareholders immediately sue if they pass up any opportunity for profit? Of course not."
exactly. the incestuous relationships of boards w/ execs.

competitive pressure (political skillz) selects for sociopathic personalities.

warren:
"It's all about market positioning and perception."
yep. there's no way law enforcement could monitor business practices. (recall enron and its auditors?)

down..
"the amorality (not immorality) of a publicly-held corporation is s not some kind of ethical choice, it's the law."
as determined by representative democracy.

advice to all employees:
adopt execs POV: your strongest duty is to maximize (net) profit to yourself. of course, you can (as i do) overlay your level of ethical standards. :-)

From one Dr. T to another (above): While there is an obligation of management of a publicly-held corporation to act in the best financial interests of the shareholders, how one determines those interests is certainly open to interpretation.

Without creating tedious examples, let's grant that imaginative people can create theories and strategies of corporate well-being that will justify almost any action from the most despicable to the most altruistic. But NONE of those actions will be amoral, no matter how oblivious or delusional the organization's management (or its apologists) may be.

The reality of it is that in a society, there is no such thing as amorality for responsible actors. The proponents of the notion of corporate amorality encourage a renewal of the drift toward institutionalizing corporate irresponsibility with the theory that the pursuit of earnings justifies any action, no matter how unreasonably it conflicts with community standards. That's a choice they make, and in my opinion, a wrong one.

Maintaining that the law readily requires immoral action of managers who see an opportunity to turn a quick buck reflects a truncated view of the history and possibilities of the corporation as well as of the notion of right in civil procedure. It does not, however, conflict with mind-sets readily observable in business and government today.