The legal construct of the corporation presents interesting questions of collective and individual accountability. The subject has attracted new momentum with the egregious managerial excesses that led to passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act. Many commentators have argued that we don’t need additional laws like this, targeting people already burdened with exceptional responsibilities. But as new scandals emerge, that assertion is losing its force.
And yet, the shifting arguments continue: We have enough laws, we only need to enforce them – we don’t need to single out this class of manager taking so many risks so important to our economic success.
When I hear this sort of argumentation, I am reminded of something that happened years ago when I, after service as an enlisted Marine, had been selected to serve as an officer.
A young Marine in my unit had performed so brilliantly during a field exercise that I was putting him in for an award. Unfortunately, the first night of liberty after our return to barracks, he celebrated so much that he missed formation the next morning.
My command expected me to charge him for unauthorized absence, which he deserved. But I submitted along with the charges his award recommendation, which he also deserved. This caused some consternation.
I was informed that since he had committed a violation, his award had to be tossed, and he needed to be punished for his infraction. You may recognize this approach as one commonly taken toward those slugging away in the trenches (and even widely accepted as normal by them).
I responded that, since he had shown notable initiative and produced such terrific work under trying conditions in the field, perhaps we should look the other way regarding the violation, and give him his honorary recognition. You may recognize this as an approach commonly taken toward senior managers (and certainly widely expected as their right by them).
The truth is, I wanted to give him what he had really earned, which was both the award and the punishment. But the best I could achieve in this instance was to have both withheld, and I was glad enough for that.
Generally, the risks taken by senior managers are to their reputation or the scale of their financial remuneration. Those taken by line workers are that their initiative will pass unnoticed, be un-rewarded, or even be punished.
The venturing of which risks do you suppose work to power our economic performance, and which to eviscerate it?
Corporations need to right their own ships, or they can only expect to be boarded by government legislators.
And don’t pin your hopes on the recent explosion of MBA program ethics classes, either – the only institution that can prevent further degradation of the fiduciary integrity of business is the board of directors. Inside managers need to be removed, and directors need to take command.
—
Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.
Technorati Tags: corporation, Sarbanes-Oxley, SOX, Marine, MBA, board of directors, directors
Sphere: Related Content
3 Comments
“The truth is, I wanted to give him what he had really earned, which was both the award and the punishment. But the best I could achieve in this instance was to have both withheld, and I was glad enough for that.”
What a valuable lesson that would have been had you gotten your way, too. Actions have consequences. If you do something that gets your buddy killed in battle, you don’t get to do something better to bring him back.
The end result was the next best solution, IMO.
Hi Cam,
Thanks for your comment, and your contribution to the discussion, here, and the lesson really there to be learned. I have encountered your arguement before, of course – it is an instinctive one, and deeply felt, especially when configured as you have expressed it. It is also one that underlies the problem I try to address. It is usually applied only to juniors – especially those of whom much is expected and little is given. It is rarely applied to seniors, including so many who have made fatal mistakes that have been overlooked or considered simply part of the unavoidably awful cost of war.
The truth is, your illustration can often work the other way – again, usually for seniors, who feel that it is only natural that it should work that way for them, and your way for juniors – but I have seen it work for juniors, also. I know Medal of Honor winners from wars over the past 75 years who won their recognition for really incredible bravery, and have followed that with performance in their subsequent service that ranges from indifferent to, at times, dangerous – but we look the other way because of their instance of special heroism. These Marines have been allowed to do plenty worse, based on the credit of those acts.
Indeed, that example more closely follows my story in the post, inasmuch as the Marine I discussed had performed notably as a Marine in the field, helping to advance his unit’s mission. His mistake was to be late for a formation. So, I took the position that if it is being argued that nothing he did previously can undo his violation, can it not also be argued that so petty a violation cannot be viewed as having undone his superlative earlier performance?
I argued it not to get my way (I wanted both the reward and the punishment) – it would have been ludicrous and a harm to unit morale and discipline to let him skate on the unauthorized absence charge. My intent was to turn the justification I was being given on its head so the ludicrousness of it could more easily be seen. If the argument is nonsensical from one view, its mirror image is, as well.
I have gotten my way, both punishing and rewarding people for behavior demanding punishment and behavior demanding reward, since the initial incident described in this post. The lesson learned is by them: understanding that actions – all of them – do indeed have consequences. This lesson is generally better taken when those consequences are fairly applied, and not picked and chosen in an often callously unfair manner by those in power, who are often unfamiliar with the full nature of the hopes and pressures their own actions impose on those they deign to meaningfully punish, or symbolically reward.
Sorry about the long response, but I felt your heartfelt comment deserved a detailed effort to explain my problems with the dual standards applied routinely on the one hand to the rank and file, and on the other to the stars – in military or civilian organizations. I do appreciate your pushing me on this, both for forcing me to more carefully outline my argument, and to expose our positions more clearly to the opinions of other readers for their consideration.
No apology necessary. It was beautifully stated, and rightly reasoned. Thank you for taking the time to do it.
Post a Comment