"Who gets to define 'the greater good?'" is the key to this discussion. As a good capitalist, I define the "greater good" and work towards it. And the compensation I receive for the "greater good" is the satisfaction of doing the right thing. This is very different from entering into some type of contract or agreement, such as my job, in which both parties (hopefully) benefit.

That last paragraph is a cop-out. A well-used one, but just as you can't really define "truth" we all know what it means. Greater good is what society says it is. What is collectively perceived to be the greater good.

No single person or corporation gets to define it. But we all "generally" know what it means. As for the darwinistic view of capitalism, some self-interest (we used to call it enlightened self-interest) is positive and productive. It's when means justify the ends philosophies take over that the trouble begins.

There are fundamentalists who are every bit as fanatical as religious fundamentalists when it comes to economics. And what they seem to lack more than anything else is a sense of not only irony, but of hypocrisy.

Picking up the trash is most definitely part of the world of commerce. If I toss the trash, or don't bother to pick it up, then someone has to pay to have it picked up. That cost either detracts from the bottom line of a corporation, or comes out of the government coffers which also detract from the corporate and personal bottom line. Being a decent, mindful individual is good economics.

Eric - we all "generally know what it means" (truth) - but when push comes to shove, do we do anything about it. Every employee at ENRON's corporate HQ the day they staged the phony trading room knew that something was amoral about the company. Did they do anything about it at the time - apparently not since they got away with it. Did any of them get hurt when the company failed - probably. Did they deserve it - if they were still working for the company and were there that day, then I have to say yes.

Another related problem is that folks don't do what their managers tell them to, but do what they believe their managers would want them to do, given their past history. This seems to account for most of the political scandals that I know of. It may even be at work in a certain country that's been in the news lately, and with respect to a certain sports star that's now in the news.

This is the last Bob Lewis post I will read.

I will spend my time updating my resume and looking for another job. The company that I work for places 'Ethical Behaviour' at the top of the list of corporate values. Every employee donates 1 day every year to charitible work. Clearly this company is going under soon.

Instead, I'll find a company that is made up of the smartest guys, not the most ethical.

Is Enron still hiring?

Lucid as usual Bob -- especially the part about "who defines". In a world where you cannot get two people to agree on the what football team is the best it wouild be the height of insanity to attempt to mix some amorphous undefinable "greater good" standard into commercial relationships.

That being said, I do want to make a point that intelligent business manaagement is one that strives to create an operating environment where conflicts between the interests of customers, employees, and the organization are minimized. Failure to do so will ultimately cost all parties concerned -- but especially the firm whose very survival depends upon pursuing that goal.

Who gets to define "the greater good?" indeed. In Capitalism, the one with the greatest money (but not always). In Democracy, the one who gets the greatest number of votes (but not always). In spiritual matters, the one who has the greatest wisdom (but not always). In reality as such, it is already defined and can only be recognized. The term for this is "Humanity One", since human survival as an organism is at risk.

Normally, I am very impressed by Bob's insights and thinking outside or beyond the box views.

This one seems a little off the mark.

I think Bob missed the (perhaps unspoken) theme here that we, or at least some of us, are completely disgusted and fed up with corporations that are becoming increasingly arrogant, mean-spirited, and repulsive.

His response is to hide behind an examination of Capitalist and Marxist economic principles. This is the kind of answer I'd expect from Ken Lay, not the normally enlightened Mr. Lewis! :)

Of course economic systems are amoral - they can't have morals any more than they can be happy or sad.

But the extent to which "morality isn't part of the discussion [of business success]" isn't a consequence of which economic system we choose to (loosely) follow, it's a function of what we, as a society, define as success.

Bob has chosen the "bottom line" criteria espoused by Wall Street and BODs everywhere, where the ends justifies the means, and greed is good.

Bad Bob, bad. If I had a newspaper, I'd hit Bob on the nose.

"Every employee donates 1 day..."

I'm curious. If you get paid, then the shareholders donated the time. I'm sure they were asked. Just kidding. Generosity with the money and property of others is not a virtue in my book.

I've reservations about money taken from me without my consent and donated to organizations, some with missions that I oppose.

If you didn't get paid, you donated the time. Good for you, and I hope there was a benefit to you as well.

I taught English on a voluntary basis in Japan for several years, long ago. It was fun and I met a lot of good people and had a lot of great experiences. If it had been an aggravation and boring, I would have quit doing it.

As for us all agreeing what constitutes the greater good, I disagree.

Take the posited example of stopping to let somebody into traffic. Good? Maybe. What if you delay traffic on a mile long stretch of road that causes 500 cars to proceed through at an average of 5mph instead of 45mph? Is that good? Or is it just too bad for everybody behind me? What about the wasted gas and pollution caused by the slowdown for everybody? What if an accident occurs because someone just stops on a busy street?

I have some problems with Bob's statements on this subject.

If the concept of the group, and the team, and the Company have any meaning, then one of the things that it must mean is that individuals subsume (at least some) personal interests, in favour of those of the group.

I'll buy into the notion that over the longer run, and for larger strategic issues, most individuals eventually act in their own interests. However even then it isn't universally true. Most people are trading off groups of things they like against things they don't like, for their organization.

There's no way around the fact that the near-universal organization structure is a hierachy. And most of us aren't at the top.

Pure personal interest only works in a chaotic situation. Within an orderly society it's a recipe for madness and psychotic behaviour. "Your right to extend your fist stops where my nose begins."

Bob often has good workplace advice.

But he actually is wrong for once. Organizations often have values that serve the common good, both within the organization and the greater society.

And I believe Bob is the one who actually needs to dig a bit deeper. He seems to think that personal gain and collective gain are mutually exclusive, perhaps because he thinks of personal gain solely in terms of money.

Bob, you are right as ever.

I think people confuse business/government behavioral models with personal models.

I want my business to focus on being profitable.
I would prefer that it be a good place to work.
I would love it if it valued strong ethics and charitable giving.

If I love working at a place, then it is also my responsibility to make it profitable.

As you see, the choice is mine, the preference is mine, so we are back to enlightened self-interest.

Worrying about your own performance vs worrying about "everyone's" performance has no clear boundaries since you need other people to help you survive. In fact, "survival of the species" is accomplished not by "the species" getting together and deciding how to survive; it is accomplished by individuals finding food and reproducing, even if it's your food they're eating and your wife they're seeing. Adultery and strife guarantee the survival of our species against the vagaries of nature at least as well as the meagre cooperation we provide each other, else neither behavior would have lasted this long.
Here is the same argument from the other side. In this day and age, someone could morally decide not to reproduce because of over-population. Others won't care a whit as long as their television works. Which ones guarantee the survival of the species?

One thing missing from these comments is that looking out for yourself can easily include seemingly selfless acts since they are either rewarded by the good feelings they give you or they result in some "not of this world" reward.

As to allowing employees a day to volunteer, I would ask MarkD if he is always fully productive every day? Does he also take the lowest possible compensation so the shareholders can make the most money? I expect not. Part of AGC's "pay" is in that day off. AGC may not want to acknowledge that it is only the success of the company that allows for it, but a company that didn't ultimately look out for itself couldn't afford to give him (or her) the day to "help someone."

Open up your eyes. Your rewards can be far more than money. You should still optimize them or you are being worse than a "commie," you are being stupid! :)

In answer to MikeM's scenario as to whether reproducing or watching TV guaranteed the survival of the species, I would have to go with TV as there is much more sex on TV than in real life... :)

Intertesting discussion.

Unfortunately, corporations are under no compulsion to act in a moral manner. They exist to make money for their stockholders. There are some who also act in a moral manner, but they are DEFINITELY exceptions, and are castigated by Wall Street. Ben and Jerry's (before buy-out) and Costco are recent examples. There are mutual funds that hold stock in corporations that do have a moral compass. You won't make as much money, but you can do so with a clear conscience.

I work in government healthcare because of a moral choice. I've dedicated my skills to helping those that need it, but may not be able to afford it. I could make more in private business, but the money mattered less than the satisfaction of helping others.

No one is forced to work for an amoral corporation. If you don't like it, bite the bullet; buy stock in moral corporations and go to work for them or a non-profit. Put your money where your mouth is...

Another point that I haven't seem mentioned here is "Over what time period?" It might be to my short term advantage to maximize my salary, but then the company may either go broke or they decide they can't afford to retain me. Is it to my long term advantage to be paid at a competative rate even if I could force my salary higher?

And what about trade offs? Suppose we metaphorically need to get from "A" to "D". There are two paths, "A", "B", "D" at a cost of 200 hours. Alternatively you could go "A", "C", "D" at a cost of 100 hours. I happen to be "C", and nobody else has noticed that the alternative path is available. Is it to my advantage to point the way to the alternate path even though it means more work for me? Would the answer be any different if I was in a lull or if I was already putting in overtime? Would the answer be any different if I was "B"?

Bob says:

"The world of commerce is the world of laws, regulations, contracts and negotiations. Employees should place the greater good ahead of their own interests only to the extent that the corporation structures things so that employees who do so are more successful than those who don't."

Let me add:

Corporations should place the greater good ahead of their own interests only to the extent that the government structures things so that corporations who do so are more successful than those who don't. Who chooses the government - we do - so in a way we define the greater good.

Seeking...,

I'm "fully productive every day" just as my company compensates me for being on call, 24 by 7, so I'm fully productive even when I'm not working. :-)

The owners of the company would, in small part, be me. The pension isn't enough to live on, but it will help. If the company tanked, I'd also be out a fair amount in my 401K. So I have a stake in them continuing to do well.

As I noted, the money they give to charity is partly mine. Is that OK? Legally, yes. Morally? I'd beg to differ. Would I give some of my own money and time to charity? Absolutely. But I wouldn't force you to give without your permission.

Hypothetically, what would you say if the company were under financial pressure. Would it be OK to give to charity, even if that meant that there would be greater layoffs than might otherwise happen when business conditions are bad?

When folks say we all 'know' what the greater good is, they are being disingenuous at best. People say that 80% of the popn believes in God (and that 'fact' supposedly means something). However, they don't. There are 950 different Christian denominations, 700 different Muslim ones, and various Bahai and Jewish traditions that all 'believe' the Bible. If you don't examine that statement at all, then it seems as if we do believe in God or knwo what the greater good is. But I cannot find an actual single 'Christian' belief, something specific enough to Christians that Jews and Muslims won't agree with it, that is BELIEVED by ALL 950 Christian denominations.
That is the problem with finding any specific recommendations for the 'greater good' also.

If you live in a capitalistic monetary system, the whole purpose of a company is to make money. If you don't make money, you will go out of business, regardless of any non-capitalistic ideals.

Companies should be amoral, neither moral nor immoral. Morality is for individuals. Companies should follow the law and business ethics. If the owners, shareholders, executives, employees, etc. want to follow a certain moral code, so be it, that is their right.

If a company is engaging in legal and ethical practices, but you, as an employee, customer, or shareholder, do not agree with the morality of their actions (let's say they are building bombs for the navy), you certainly have the right to leave (employee) or no longer purchase their products (customer), or sell their stock (shareholder). You also have the right to disagree (ask the CEO at a shareholder meeting).

Every dollar that a company spends that does not go to the bottom line is a dollar wasted. You may say that is not important if the company is "doing the right thing". I say it is just dumb.

>>Every dollar that a company spends that does not go to the bottom line is a dollar wasted. You may say that is not important if the company is "doing the right thing". I say it is just dumb.

I disagree. Just one example:

If public perception is such that what a company is doing is wrong (e.g. elevated executive compensation or excessive golden parachutes despite poor performance), that company risks losses in the bottom line as well -- in this case on two fronts: 1) Actual money spent on that mostly ill-advised compensation; and 2) public perception of mis-management or poor judgment in selection of CEO's or other executive management.

It DOES matter ... even to the bottom line. After all, don't these actions affect shareholder profits, as well as what is ultimately charged to the consumer? What about the ability to pay employees? What about contributions to government revenues in the way of taxes (which is reasonable to expect, given the amount of use corporations make of public services, including sewer, trash, water, energy, roads, etc).

Economics IS a matter of weighing the best use of resources to maximize productivity -- I understand that. However, economics does not function in a void. If it did, there would be no need for this discussion.
By the way, Bob, there is also a concept in economics called "externalities" that comes into play here. I submit to you that the "greater good" question falls into the realm of externalities and does deserve closer scrutiny and application.

Social Justice (Greater Good) -- What Would Jesus Do?

If I would attempt to define justice or fairness, at least within the American democratic tradition, I would say that it would distill down to simply this: apply the same rules and standards to everyone. But in recent years, this definition of justice has been rebuked as "not good enough". I am told that because not everyone comes into this world with the same talents, resources, and connections, there needs to be "special considerations" or some means to boost those who do not naturally rise to the top.

It is true that the weak, the disabled, and the downtrodden need advocates to help them in coping with their lots in life. Our prayers and appropriate financial support should certainly go to further the missions of those who choose vocations as aid workers, rural health care providers, occupational therapists, tutors, orphanage practitioners, and the like. The questions that need to be asked, though, are how should the necessary help be distributed, how does one determine the worthy recipients, and who should gauge the most efficient methods to offer the aid?

One definition of social justice that I recently read is that it "can be seen as a belief in and the pursuit of human rights and the equal distribution of resources for all people." This sounds very pious and worthy on the surface. What good person would ever say that he or she is against human rights? Wouldn’t it be a wonderful world if we were all equal? The problem that I see with this philosophical argument is the tendency of the "pious" ends to continue justifying the means, any means, calling for ever-expanding social and political interventions. When I read "equal distribution of resources for all people", I can’t help but think, "who is doing the distributing?"

Can we take a page from Jesus, the most wise and wonderful philosopher, when it comes to furthering social justice? What would Jesus do? First, we should remember that Jesus taught his disciples that in order to be like the Master they must "wash one another's feet" (John 13:14). Recall also that before Jesus told them this, it was He who actually washed their feet. I don’t think that Jesus ever sent followers down roads that He did not travel himself. In fact, Jesus is the embodiment of compassion (suffering with), agonizing to the point of death to save humanity. There is a lesson here for all of us. It is really one thing to tell others what to do "to be just" and quite another to instruct by example.

It is very bothersome when "the powers that be" tell everyone else that they will decide what is worthwhile (foreign aid, entitlement programs, and subsidies) and that "we" (and our pocketbooks) should just go along for the ride. If I disagree with your methods or have a moral conflict with your causes, is it "just" to be forced to fund them? I would much rather do my own research and then give my time, talent and treasure to those efforts that I deem to be the most worthy. On the other hand, if I see that what you are doing is really valuable and a genuine help to those in need, I will naturally feel motivated to join your efforts for good, and do so without coercion.

Social justice, in my opinion, has become a catch-all phrase to wrap around any project to give it that warm and worthwhile feeling. Too many times, the "equal distribution of resources" objective has become a deterrent for individual initiative and a mechanism for corruption (a la the oil for food program). When "greater good" becomes a bureaucratic endeavor rather than an aggregate of individual convictions, true justice is not served.

Jesus taught his disciples to follow His own example in living a life of service to others. In following Jesus’ example, we can learn to bless those who exhibit faith, to reward personal ambition, to respect authority and law, to live simply, to shepherd the lost, to provide hope for the hopeless and to tend to the needs of our neighbors. Remember that when Jesus instructed the lame man to "take up [his] bed and walk", it actually took initiative for the man to receive his anointing. Free will is always a major component in Jesus’ teachings. So it seems that social justice, on the whole, is best achieved through embracing a system based upon merit and initiative, promoting a free and fair market, and encouraging philanthropy and charity according to the convictions in each individual heart.