March 2008

I picked up a copy of French soprano Natalie Dessay’s Italian Opera Arias. This is a nice collection of bel canto favorites from Verdi, Belinni and Donizetti. I truly enjoyed these recordings! Dessay’s Violetta, from Verdi’s la Traviata, is very strong, emotional and intelligent; she quite adeptly illustrates the shifting moods of the tragic courtesan destined to die. The offstage phrases were sung by none other than French tenor Roberto Alagna. As Elvira, from Belinni’s i Puritani, Dessay gives an emotionally-charged performance. Her sweet, lilting voice singing “Qui la voce” is ravishingly beautiful.

My favorite piece on this recording is Dessay’s Lucia, from Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor, a role she played in the Met’s opening night gala this past September. Just as in her Met performance, Dessay played a wonderfully vulnerable, fragile Lucia during the famous “mad scene.” And if the music itself isn’t enough, the CD comes with a bonus DVD of Dessay’s Lucia performance at the Met. One can’t truly appreciate this diva without actually seeing her perform! Brava!

Earlier this week sports radio host Angelo Cataldi asked Presidential hopeful Barack Obama about his recent speech on race at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia in which he referenced his white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that

“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.”
(emphasis mine)

There’s been a lot of debate the past couple of days about Obama’s use of the phrase “typical white person.” Many feel that this comment is acceptable when taken in context, and shouldn’t be considered a racist remark. But it is. More importantly, since the remark is the result of an extemporaneous dialogue, not a scripted speech, it gives us a unique insight into who Obama really is: A racist.

Broad, generalized statements such as “typical white person” reduce an entire portion of our society to a racial stereotype. That single phrase strips me of my individuality and discounts my uniqueness in society. The fact that Obama made this remark “off the cuff” displays, in my opinion, his true thought process, and is a poignant comment of his views on race. He is not the great uniter her claims to be. I believe he’s weighed down by a huge racial chip on his shoulder.

I don’t think we’ll ever eliminate racial prejudice, but we can certainly move toward it. The first step is to stop defining ourselves in terms of race. Descriptors such as “African-American,” “Italian-American” and “nth-American only direct attention to one’s ethnic background. How is it possible not to consider race when its constantly thrust upon us in this manner?

My ancestors migrated to America from England in 1600 and we’re planters in Jamestown, VA. This doesn’t make me a European-American and certainly doesn’t define me. Although I believe its important to know and understand one’s past, it doesn’t mean one must be a slave to it. Mr. Obama, please stop telling me about the “Black Experience”; there is no collective black experience. Each of us has our own individual and unique “American Experience.” Tell that story.

That’s how we overcome racism.

Is there ever a moral justification for lying? No. I’m often criticized for being too black-and-white in my perceptions, but I cannot think of any instance when lying is justified. Even when my wife asks, “how do I look in this dress?” I’m compelled to tell the truth. If I think it isn’t flattering, I will tactfully tell her so, feeling that although she might not like hearing it, she would appreciate an honest answer. It is a matter of trust.

In business, as in one’s personal life, honesty–the truth–is sacred. To lie to an employer or an employee is to deny him or her the truth, even if the lie is told for the person’s benefit. For example, a manager who tells an employee he’s being let go due to cutbacks, when he’s really being fired for poor performance, is really being disrespectful to the employee by not telling him the truth behind his termination. Although he may sincerely be trying to guard the employee’s feelings, the manager fails to provide the employee with knowledge that could potentially preclude this situation from happening in the future.

Because telling the truth can be unpleasant, we sometimes resort to telling a “white lie”. Another example would be the employee who is asked to comment on a sales presentation his employer is going to provide to the board of directors. The employee, trying to be polite, tells his boss all is a-okay when the yellow letters against the slide’s red background is distracting and hard on the eyes. The employee’s white lie may make the employer feel better, but may not prevent his embarrassment in front of the company’s board.

If lying is wrong in one instance, it is wrong in any instance. Lying, regardless of one’s good intentions, is nothing more than a betrayal of trust between one person and another. Lying for any reason is a violation of the business ethics principles of ordinary decency and distributive justice. A person who lies, even to protect the feelings of another, is still a liar. If the lie is discovered, the person may never regain the trust of the other.

In the book, If Aristotle Ran General Motors, author Tom Morris writes, “Truth is just that mapping of reality that corresponds to the way things are.” I find this a very interesting concept and am in total agreement. Mr. Morris is basically saying that truth equals reality. Therefore, truth would be an absolute representation of fact. In this sense, truth gives meaning to and allows for the understanding of the object being considered. This statement is also consistent with correspondence theories, which attribute an existence to objects whether or not those objects are being perceived or even thought about. This means truth is independent of and may conflict with perception.

In simplest terms, and in a physical sense, if I have a red ball, the fact that I’m colorblind and see its color as something other than red, doesn’t change the fact that the ball is red. The truth lies in the ball’s actual color, red, versus my perception of the ball’s color. Therefore, truth gives meaning to the knowledge one possesses of the ball’s actual color. Otherwise, my perception of the color of the ball would be reality.

The “perception is reality” or “what is true for you may not be true for me” philosophy denies truth and is the basic attitude of relativism. Relativism rejects the idea of universal truths and, instead, endorses that truth is only relative to the circumstances to which it is applied. For example, to properly understand the Holocaust, one must consider the beliefs and actions of the German government in a historical or cultural context. In this manner, depending on one’s point-of-view, the senseless killing of thousands of Jews could be considered justified and therefore a true action.

In the working environment, relativism would likely foster an environment of anything goes. Because almost any action can be justified based on one’s perception of a situation, relativism undermines morality. If I believe it is wrong to lie, I just as easily could believe that lying is right, no matter what the circumstances.

If the principle objective of business is to maximize long-term owner value, then anything I do that contributes to that end could be considered right. For example, if an EPA inspector is going to shut down a chemical manufacturing plant for unsafe practices and the forced shut-down is expected to have a negative effect on the maximization of long-term owner value, then the plant manager could be justified in murdering the EPA inspector. I realize this is an extreme example, but it follows the principle of relativism. After all, for a relativist to condemn this action, he would have to consider the act of murder to be fundamentally wrong. This implies a moral absolute that is contrary to the relativist philosophy.

Another, and more realistic, example would be in the area of negotiation. If the rightness of a person’s bargaining position is relative to that individual’s perception of rightness, then it only follows that everyone at the bargaining table is right. The contradiction in this situation is evident when the goal of negotiation is to reach an agreement. If all positions are equally right, they are just as well equally wrong. How could agreement be reached?

The relativist premise, what’s true for you may not be true for me, in the work environment, infuses a severe subjectivity into every aspect of business operation. If what is true to me is false to you, then what is true to you is false to me. Since this philosophy doesn’t recognize anything as absolute, nothing can be considered true. If there is no universal truth, there is no reality.

Most people involved in business, from the CEO of a large corporation to the assembly line worker, will eventually face an ethical dilemma. Although the breadth of responsibility for some business members is much broader than others, all have a responsibility to stakeholders. Because everyone within the business entity can potentially impact the business stakeholders, everyone should fully understand and practice sound business ethics all the time.

Consider the Firestone tire recall of 2000. This was a recall of over 14.5 million tires at a cost of more than 3 billion dollars. The tires had been manufactured at a plant in Decatur, IL, and had defects that resulted in tread separations and rollover accidents. The ethical dilemma for business leadership in this case would be between profit loss and consumer safety. To initiate a recall the tire manufacturer would probably consider the cost of the recall versus the cost of litigation. The lesser of the two would determine the company’s course of action. On the surface, this doesn’t sound very ethical, but from a practical standpoint, it may be. For a tire, there is an acceptable rate of defect and if the harm caused by these defects is within that range, it’s considered ethical to refrain from a product recall. This doesn’t mean the company keeps the information secret or initiates a cover-up. It simply doesn’t undertake what it considers is an unnecessary action. In this respect, one can easily understand the manager’s ethical dilemma and why it’s important to understand and practice sound business ethics. But what of the employee on the assembly line?

The Firestone employee at the Decatur, IL, plant is engaged in the actual manufacture of the tire. Perhaps this employee has been working the job for several months when he discovers that he has been performing a function incorrectly. This inadvertent mistake resulted in a tire defect that could lead to a tread separation. Should the employee inform management of his error and place his job at risk or should he keep quiet, simply make the process correction and eliminate the error. The potential repercussion of his silence would be harm to the consumer and the potential repercussion of his informing on himself would be a recall of the affected tires and his firing or reprimand. How the employee responds to this ethical dilemma could mean serious injury or death to consumers or severe profit loss to his employer in the form of a product recall and ultimately, the termination of his employment. How does the employee determine the right course of action?

An organization should encourage all employees to understand and practice sound business ethics. Incorporation of ethics into the business culture will ensure personnel at all levels make the rightdecision when faced with ethical dilemmas. The Firestone employee who brings his error to the attention of his employers has resolved his ethical dilemma with the right choice. How the employer responds to this information represents his own ethical dilemma and is an indication of the business ethical culture.

I believe the market should determine the level of employee compensation. An employer is interested in hiring an employee at the lowest possible cost. Conversely, the employee is interested in obtaining employment at the highest possible wage. This conflict results in an equilibrium wage being paid to employees by employers. Basically, the scales would balance.

Consider the manager of a fast food restaurant. In the absence of a minimum wage policy established by the government, the manager could offer workers any amount he or she sees fit. Let’s assume the manager offers $4.00 per hour to workers in a market where the average hourly wage was $5.00 per hour. He may be able to fully staff his restaurant, but his employees would likely resign their positions at the first opportunity of new employment for better pay. This high level of employee turnover would have a tremendous negative impact on his business. He would soon be forced to pay a higher wage in order to retain workers. Therefore, all fast food restaurants in a given market would essentially be forced pay the same basic wage.

The market would ensure the employees are treated with fairness and honesty because for the manager, turnover means money. The market would also satisfy distributive justice concerns. Fast food managers would be paying the same basic wage determined by the market they’re in. This would also apply to leadership positions within the restaurants, like assistant manager or shift leader. The manager who is interested in expanding or simply having a day off will need to delegate some managerial responsibility. To do so, he would train one or more of his employees to perform those duties. In order to keep these middle managers, the manager would be forced to pay a competitive wage. Should he fail to do so, his workers would likely take their new training and find employment elsewhere. In this respect, equals would be treated as equals both within the organization and across the given market.

I believe the market should determine the wage-rate for employees. Absent a minimum wage law, the market is a powerful driver and the laws of supply and demand will always result in equilibrium. This balanced scale would ensure the inviolate principle of distributive justice and encourage ordinary decency across the market. Managers who pay a fair market wage will, therefore contribute to maximizing long-term owner value.