——The Avodah Institute's —– Faith & Work Blog

A few weeks ago, I blogged on how the public responds to our “heroes” when they fall from grace. Many examples exist to make the point – Tiger Woods, General Petraeus, Michael Vick,  and, of course, Lance Armstrong. Since then, Lance, who for years has vehemently proclaimed his innocence, finally went to the high priest of secular confession, Oprah Winfrey, and before a worldwide audience confessed to doping, lying, and bullying those who had dared to tell the truth about him.

The dust is still settling, and one senses the full truth is not yet out. The public is still making up its mind about Lance. Many argue he still doesn’t “get it”, and views himself simply as one of many who cheated by doping. A few days ago, he reiterated his feelings of being cycling’s “fall guy,” and called for amnesty for cyclists who have doped. It’s almost as if we should feel sorry for him, as if he were the victim, not the perpetrator.

How do we take these new comments in relation to his “confession” to Oprah?

The saying goes that “confession is good for the soul.” Of course, confession in a religious sense, specifically within a Catholic sense, is a very serious rite and has a long tradition. St. Thomas Aquinas, an advocate of confession, noted it was only one of three necessary steps in the process of penance.  In his Catechism he says:

“Three things must be present in the Sacrament of Penance: contrition, which is sorrow for sin together with a resolution not to sin again; confession of sins, as far as possible; and satisfaction, which is accomplished by good works.”

Whether one is Catholic or not, if we use Aquinas’ teaching as a model for confession and forgiveness, where does that leave Lance? Did his mea culpa pass muster? Did we see genuine contrition and sorrow, and a resolve not to lie, cheat, or hurt others again? Did he come fully clean, confessing all his wrongdoings? And is he on a path to make right his wrongs by related good deeds and actions?

Clearly, a big step has been taken but one senses there is a need for more… what do you think?

“It was a punch in the gut for those of us who know him.” These words could have been spoken about Lance Armstrong. Or about the CEO of Lockheed Martin who was dismissed by the Board for an inappropriate relationship with an employee. Or the person next to you on the train to work, or in the aisle across from you in church or maybe even the person we see in the mirror.  As it happens, these words are the reaction of West Point professor, Col. Michael J. Meese upon hearing of General Petraeus’ admission of an affair.

Some of us have that same punch-in-the-gut feeling about Lance Armstrong – cancer survivor, iconic Tour de France winner, and major philanthropist who served as a beacon of light and hope for millions. The life and legend of Lance Armstrong continues to unravel, the most recent humiliation coming from the board of Tufts University who rescinded the honorary doctorate they awarded Armstrong in 2006.

How are we to react when the mighty fall? And what does it mean for our view of their sponsorships and charities?  We who admire these larger-than-life figures from afar have feelings of disbelief, disappointment, and even disgust.

In the case of Armstrong, the rumors of his doping swirled for years, though proof was never found. But this fall, the United States Anti Doping Agency (USADA) published a lengthy and damning report, banning him for life from any event it presides over. Armstrong’s denials were less defiant than usual and rang hollow.  The French Cycling Union has stripped Armstrong of his much-coveted and record-breaking seven Tour de France titles; corporate sponsors and advertisers dropped him with alacrity; and even the charity which bears his own name, Livestrong, eventually severed all ties to him.

If we only knew him as Lance Armstrong, cyclist, the discovery of his systematic cheating would’ve been in the news cycle for a couple days, and had little impact on those outside the cycling community. Yet we also know Lance Armstrong, as a cancer survivor, role model, and philanthropist. Indeed, many of us were drawn to Armstrong, and watched his Tour de France victories, precisely because of his incredible story of survival, and the Livestrong campaign, with the ubiquitous yellow wristbands.  It is hard to hate someone who has also accomplished so much good. And yet, he has cheated on one of the grandest of sports stages and over many years.  Can we still be a fan? Can we still be a supporter? So which Lance (if any) do we embrace? Which Lance (if any) do we erase?

Despite the unveiling of his ethical failures, many people still want to follow and support Lance the cyclist or Lance the philanthropist, but are troubled by learning about Lance the cheater.  Notably, contribution levels to Livestrong  have not been negatively impacted by the scandal.

Recently, some academics who specialize in product branding, have studied how fans and consumers respond to celebrities and other public figures who are discovered to have a “dark side,” secretly living a life of vice and dishonesty.

In order to stay a fan and supporter, researchers used to think that consumers would morally rationalize the celebrity’s transgressions, downplaying it in light of the good they do.  Yet recently, some academics have put forward a new idea to explain how consumers can “hate the sin but love the sinner”.

The concept is called “moral decoupling,” and is different than “moral rationalization” (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3074). In moral decoupling, we detach morality from other things. The theory is that consumers can disassociate the moral indiscretions of a celebrity thus allowing us to still applaud our heroes and celebrities for the good they do. We acknowledge our moral outrage and do not seek to rationalize or explain away or excuse their misbehavior. Instead, we isolate it as if it has no bearing on the person’s role, thereby allowing us to still support the public figure.

Philanthropy is seldom a purely rational decision divorced of emotional attachment. If anything, our gifts are usually motivated not just by the cause, but also by our relationship to a person or an organization associated with a cause. Many would not have supported Livestrong had its founder and spokesperson not been a cycling phenom. Perhaps it was the decoupling between different areas of Armstrong’s own life that led to his own breach in the first place.

So where do we go from here? One of the inevitabilities of life is that heroes, celebrities, and even organizations often let us down.  Madison Avenue’s compellingly  crafted images become hard to maintain in the face of our human shortcomings.

And, of course, like many human behaviors this is not a new phenomenon, linked purely to modern media and mass marketing. Remember the biblical figure, King David? This was a man who the Bible describes as being a “man after God’s own heart” and for whose sake, God is said to have acted favorably towards his descendants for generations. And yet, even this iconic figure in Hebrew tradition had ethical and moral failings of the deepest nature; he had an affair with the wife of one of his loyal lieutenants, and orchestrated the man’s murder to hide his own misdeeds. David eventually repented of his crimes and character flaws.  God forgave him and David rebuilt his life and leadership.

We may not be as fast a cyclist as Lance Armstrong, or as brilliant a general as King David or David Petraeus.  And yet, as athletes and generals, scholars and students, CEOs and secretaries, parents and pastors, we share in their accomplishments and failings. Is it possible that we can reduce the moral rationalizing and moral decoupling in our own lives and behaviors? And thereby, avoid giving those around us a punch in the gut…

What do you think?

Credit: Isaac Wedin

This time of year, I often think of having friends over for a nice barbeque in the backyard; a chance to visit and discuss current events while enjoying mouthwatering barbeque chicken, delicious New Jersey corn, and farm-ripe tomatoes.

Over the past ten days or so, many conversations with business friends of mine have included chicken, but not my backyard barbeque version. They all are curious what I think of the big kerfuffle going on about Chick-fil-A. News outlets all over the world are still feasting on this story. It has generated feature articles and Op-Ed pieces by some of the world’s most respected newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations, including The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Economist, BusinessWeek, the Times of India, CNN, NBC, NPR,  the BBC, and even Al Jazeera.

Well, I was also just asked by Harvard Business Review to join in and offer a view, a different view than the other stories I’ve read. Check out the HBR blog (blogs.hbr.org) if you’re interested, and let me know your thoughts.

Thanks, and bon appétit!

David

I read countless journals, papers, websites, newsletters, and blogs about business, ethics, and faith. Yet if it weren’t for the keen eyes of Jonathan, my research assistant, I’d have missed this story. It takes place in China. It is a story about an unusual act of marketplace generosity. It took place at Lenovo, the world’s second-largest PC vendor, known to many as the company who acquired IBM’s former Personal Computer Division in 2005.  Here’s the upshot:

According to CNN and other news outlets, Lenovo attained a 73% increase in net profit over the previous fiscal year, and had its best fiscal year ever.  The board awarded their CEO, Yang Yuanqing, $5.3 million

Lenovo CEO, Yang Yuanqing

in bonuses for this exceptional performance.  So far, nothing unusual about the story; a CEO delivers superlative results and is rewarded with a large bonus.

Many have rightly written about excessive compensation packages to CEOs and C-suite executives who are leading companies that are underperforming. Yet after Lenovo’s banner year, few would say that Yang underperformed or that his bonus was undeserved.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Instead of pocketing his well-earned bonus or spending it lavishly on some new treats for himself, Yang gave $3 million of it away to 10,000 of Lenovo’s junior level employees, which according to reports included receptionists, production line workers, and assistants. Each of those 10,000 China-based employees received a bonus of 2,000 Yuan, which equals approximately $314 USD.

I’m struck by three things. First, that Yang gave away so much of his bonus, almost 60%. No matter how the cynic might wish to explain that away (tax incentives, PR stunt, appease activists, etc.), giving away $3 million dollars of a hard-earned bonus is a rarity.  After all, Yang probably had many lean years building up to this successful year. Second, I’m struck by who he have gave his bonus monies to, his employees.  He could have given it to the local symphony or other worthy and socially prestigious charities. But instead he shared it with the very workers who helped him earn it.  And third, I’m struck by his decision to give the $3 million just to junior level workers for whom $314 is presumably a very significant and maybe even life-changing number.  Moreover, he appears to have done this on a pro rata basis and with no regard for their performance or length of tenure at the company.

Of course, I also have questions. How much do the junior level employees make normally? What percent of their annual wages is this $314 check? Should Yang also consider raising their base wages? Did he get any push back from more senior level employees who were jealous or resentful they did not get any of this bonus money? And what was the reaction of those junior level employees who felt they had performed better, worked harder, and been there longer than some of the new hires in the most menial of jobs?

I’m reminded of the story Jesus tells of the Laborers in the Vineyard. As Jesus tells it, during peak harvest season a manager goes out five different times during the day to hire new workers to help bring in the harvest before it spoils or the rains come. He promises to pay each the usual day labor wages (one denarius). At the end of the day, each worker is paid the same amount, whether they had been hired early in the morning and worked all day in the back-breaking heat, or whether they had been hired in the mid-afternoon and only worked for a few hours. The earlier workers are, not surprisingly, irritated that those who worked less were paid the same as them.

Frankly, I’m sure I’d have felt the same way, too. What about merit pay? Pay for performance?! What about length of service?!

Here’s how the Gospel of Matthew relates the end of the parable:

Grumbling, the workers who had slaved away all day in the heat said:

 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’  

 “But the landowner answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius?  Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you.  Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ (Matthew 20:1-16)

Now, scholars have debated the many meanings of this parable for centuries. Some theologians interpret it literally as encouragement for business owners to err on the side of generosity in employee wages and financial matters. Perhaps that’s what inspired Yang? And others see the parable as a metaphor or allegory for God’s generosity offering salvation even to those who only late in life come to belief, reminding us that salvation cannot be earned, it is a gift from God.

Whichever way you interpret it, there can be little doubt that Yang’s choice to give his junior level workers over half of his bonus is an act of generosity.  And acts of generosity, by those who have plenty to those who have little, is a core teaching shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

To be sure, Yang is not alone in being munificent with his bonus. Many CEOs I know are extremely generous with their bonuses, too, often giving to the arts, sciences, education, and their church. Many of these stories of generosity don’t make the news, as it is done privately and without fanfare. Indeed, my own research and work has been the beneficiary of such generosity.

And yet, I could not help thinking about how other companies and employees might be affected if more CEOs occasionally did what Yang did.  How would it impact future performance, profits, and the company culture?  Hard to say.  But I can imagine it will go a long way toward increasing employee morale, engagement, loyalty, and respect for senior leadership, something any CEO would want.

Have you heard of other modern day parables like this? If so, please share below…

Dear Avodah Blog Friends,

I hope you enjoy this guest blog post from my friend and research collaborator, Dr. Tim Ewest, professor of business at Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa.

Best,

David

“The Spring Crop”

When I say “Iowa” your mind may drift to images of, well, pork; of which Iowa leads the nation with 26.7% of all pork produced[i].  Or, maybe you think of education; Iowa ranks 4^th in most private colleges and 5^th highest undergraduate enrollment, per capita.[ii]   Maybe you know an Iowan and can say “generally” we are hardworking, friendly people. But, one thought probably dominates your picture of Iowa – CORN.  Although my friend David Miller enthuses about New Jersey sweet corn, I’ll back our “Field of Dreams” corn state any day! Indeed, Iowa produces more corn than any other state and up to three times more than Mexico.[iii]   That’s a lot of corn.

But farmers and agrarian communities live in a constant state uncertainty about whether the seeds they plant will survive the ever-uncertain weather, pests, global commodity price swings, and changing tax codes. Yet these farmers retain hope, and year after year, plant, and pray, for a bountiful harvest. As an undergraduate business professor, I understand the farmer’s hope, mixed with worry.  I am always wondering if my students will not only emerge, but also fully mature.  And, if I’m to be accurate with using this metaphor, I get these students for only a few short years and realize the “harvest” from my labor with them will not be seen for many years. So, for the most part, my role is foundational, my role is to focus on getting the soil prepared and the crop started.

Wartburg visits Princeton

As part of this, in May, Dr. Miller and the Faith & Work Initiative hosted eight Wartburg College business and economics students on the Princeton University Campus.  They partook in a week-long seminar entitled, “Trends in Management: Integrating Faith into The Workplace.” These juniors and seniors, many heading to graduate school or corporate training programs are savvy. But, I was a little worried that the topic of integrating faith into the workplace may not take root,  after all, it is not a run of the mill business topic.

The discussions were lively, and at times heated. Right away, students noted from the readings the changing nature of the religious/spiritual landscape in America. While the percentage of people who believe there is a God, in the United States, remains consistent (92%)[iv], but the amount of people who do not identify with a specific religious tradition is growing (currently at 16%).[v]  Scholars generally believe this is due in part to a post-modern value which disavows belief in absolutes, creating an undertow within society.  But one of the students, Meredith, who is going to be entering a PhD program at Marquette University, wondered if this phenomenon was also due to “the influence of Fordism, the demand by employers for only the workers’ practical talents minus interpersonal aspects such as feelings.” She imagined “how the present landscape of spirituality and faith would look if early on aspects of feelings, emotions or even faith were included in the workplace.”  Meredith envisioned a workforce where the whole person would be engaged, and how this new environment would be mutually beneficial for both the employee and the employer.  Meredith shares a vision with another woman, management theorist Mary Parker Follett. Follett noted the division created in the modern worker (Fordism), she called this division a “fatal dualism” and she too envisioned a unity between the material and the spiritual thinking that it “will create a new man and new environment.” [vi] Continue Reading »

On Wednesday, I was in London for meetings with a professional services firm discussing their ethics program. On Thursday, I was in their Madrid office doing more of the same. Guess what everyone wanted to talk about in each location?  The resignation shot that was heard around the world.

Greg Smith

Former Goldman Sachs executive director, Greg Smith’s dropped a media bomb by writing a highly public resignation letter, published Tuesday by the New York Times as an Op-Ed piece entitled, “Why I am Leaving Goldman Sachs.” If you missed it, you should take a moment to read it.

This has to be – or will soon become – one of the most legendary corporate resignation letters in modern times. Even Martin Luther would be proud! The esteemed – but publicly beleaguered Goldman Sachs – received a broadside attack from resigning employee, Greg Smith, as he swung the door behind himself. Smith’s resignation letter is probably doing more public relations harm and rattling of shareholder and client confidence, than the now infamous 2010 Rolling Stone article that called Goldman Sachs “a great vampire squid.” Outside stone-throwers like Occupy Wall Street could never have hit their target as well as this insider’s resignation letter.

To be sure, Smith did this with intentionality and for maximum PR effect. And the New York Times was thrilled to be complicit in publicizing the attack. And Goldman’s new PR director was quick to help them craft an immediate response, which essentially sought to downplay Smith’s seniority (and by inference, his credibility), and portray his views as being out of step with the majority of other employee options.

All spin-doctoring aside – from Smith and Goldman Sachs – I’m extremely interested to know the truth… Was Smith the classic disgruntled employee with an axe to grind, akin to the selfishly motivated whistleblower, who spreads lies about a former employer? Or was he more or less accurate in describing a “toxic and destructive” culture of a once-legendary bank. If the former, I’m less interested, though I feel bad for Goldman Sachs and their unfairly maligned employees. But if the latter, I am extremely interested… How did this happen? How does leadership change it? What do you do if you’re one of the clients?

Assuming Smith told the truth (a BIG assumption!):

• is he to be commended for taking a stand, and for the manner in which he did it?
• or, is he to be commended for taking a stand, but should he have done it differently?

Assuming Smith exaggerated or even lied:

• how would you respond if you were Goldman?
• how should the NYT and other media respond?

What do you think? Please comment below…

I teach an undergraduate ethics course at Princeton University entitled, “Business Ethics and Modern Religious Thought.” Last year’s final exam asked the students to answer this ethical question: “Is CEO compensation just, or just obscene?”

In light of this, I was very interested to read the recent Wall Street Journal article title, “Sprint Adjusts Bonuses:

Photo credit: Ramsey Beyer

Executives Pay Won’t Be Hurt by Costly Apple iPhone Deal.” Apparently, when the performance targets and metrics were put in place for the telecommunications company’s executives, the costly iPhone deal was not anticipated. And without lowering the performance targets, the executives would not have met their performance targets and therefore not received their bonuses.

This is certainly a generous thing for the board to do; whether it is a fair thing for the board to do is another question. It may undermine the credibility of performance based bonus plans.  If top level executives are given a free pass when missing performance targets due to ‘things outside their control,’ one wonders, is that same kindness shown to entry level sales reps and other lower ranking employees when the vagaries of tough market or client situations prevent them from meeting their numbers?  The article suggested that “a broad range” of other employees “were eligible for the short term compensation plan,” but is unclear what that really means.

I’m a big believer in performance based-compensation plans. Shareholders, executives, and other employees can benefit; but only if these plans

Photo Credit: TechShowNetwork

are ethically and equitably administered. If senior executives are taken care of when unanticipated business decisions negatively impact their performance (and therefore their bonuses), I hope that same largess is shown toward middle and junior level employees, too.

What do you think?