Contributions to society’s well-being

I recently spent some time in the US to attend a conference. I was reading the daily newspaper and an article caught my attention. It reported on a representative study by the Pew Research Center asking adults about which profession they thought was the one contributing the most to society’s well being and the least respectively.

 

On the top of the list were the military (78%), teachers (72%) and then medical doctors (66%). This makes sense due to the fact that since 9/11 the Americans have a higher need for security and hold the importance of the military very high. Also, the average citizen can experience the positive impact of education and health firsthand. As a lecturer on strategic management I found the low ranking of business executives (24%) who made it second to last on the list, just behind journalists (28%) and above lawyers (18%) quite worrisome. Therefore teachers were rated three times higher than managers. But they are not paid three times as much as managers, but rather 30 times less! Once again, this study shows that the reputation of business leaders has dropped to a very low level. The survey confirms the outcome of a plebiscite in Switzerland (a sample survey of a special kind). It was a proposal that translates into “the fat cat initiative” which was widely accepted, showing that many managers were in fact not.

 

Many causes for this negative sentiment toward managers can be discussed. For example the double reward for strategic misperformance of top managers: Before 2007 managers of major Swiss banks were rewarded with big bonuses for risky growth (investment banking) and acquisitions of financial institutions of all kinds. Today these bankers are rewarded even more for reversing the strategy of their predecessors, selling supposedly unprofitable and risky parts of business. Despite the fact that either the one or the other strategy must be wrong, high “performance” bonuses where paid in both cases. It could also be discussed that citizens increasingly tend to disapprove of valuating firms on the grounds of their short-term success. It doesn’t seem to impress them that speculators at the stock market think otherwise.

 

As a lecturer of strategic management I think about what I could do to improve the standing of leaders in business. I think that on the one hand educators should regularly draw attention to the issue (e.g. in case studies) that when decisions in business are made not to solely consider monetary results but to also assess the effects the decision has on society. Value creation for all stakeholders is the issue! Further, in my opinion educators in management studies should apply this socially responsible strategy to their research projects and particularly to the evaluation of research results.

 

It should be noted that the renowned Academy of Management aspires “to inspire and enable a better world” in their vision statement (and not a higher income for managers!). This undoubtedly means not to propagate the short-term shareholder value thinking in research and teaching but to rise to the challenge to “contribute to society’s well-being”. If business leaders perform convincingly in this aspect their reputation in society ought to improve in the future.

Edwin Rühli

Changing from economic to political primacy: Why this is necessary

Recently many publications of economists and philosophers were released which question and want to contain the dominant role of the economy and the market in our societies of today (e.g. R. and E. Skidelsky, T. Sedlacek, L. Herzog, M. Sandel). They demand that the role of the economy has to be debated publicly. This corresponds basically to the demand for a primacy of politics over economy. But why is it important to contrast the primacy of politics with the one of economy?

 

First of all it is decisive to see that among all political views of a society also such exist according to which the economy and its material fruits indeed are not seen as an end in itself. In a society living the primacy of real democratic politics institutional conditions are in place which enable to include all (non-radical) political views and matters of a society. Of course, and this is fully clear, also in such case economy will play an important role simply because people want sustenance and wealth.

 

In a society in which the primacy of economy rules economic issues are basically considered as the most important ones. Principles like the market, growth or profit maximization become to end purposes of all existence. All forces which potentially constrain the forces of the pure market as the only regulative force will be fought. Factually (and although democratic institutions may still exist) this model of society shows fundamental and even totalitarian traits: everybody has to subjugate herself to the primacy of economy and its principles, if she wants or not.

 

Once established, to depart from this model is difficult: each concept of economy other than the one of a neoliberal economy acknowledges also other matters than pure economic ones to have a meaning or value on their own (e.g. stakeholders, society, environment). This of course endangers the economic primacy. But a society with e.g. a primacy of religion has similar problems: all its members have to subordinate themselves to religious principles if they want or not.

 

Only the primacy of politics which is committed to a democratic order can provide remedy: only in this way the full colourfulness of views of a society can be integrated. Despite this also caution has to be exercised: material power asymmetries between political actors e.g. can influence the formation of majorities. Moreover, it has to be acknowledged that politicians like R. Reagan or M. Thatcher which have contributed significantly to the primacy of economy were democratically elected.

 

Because today we know to what such primacy is able to do critic at it has become good form even in economic circles. But the voyage has not ended yet: the actual requirement is the return to the primacy of politics and also to stay there. To stay there it is also necessary to debate in Aristotelian manner what is good and hence moral. To think about the good helps preserving before leaving the primacy of politics: nobody will then voluntarily leave this primacy for a fundamental-totalitarian system, be it of religious, economic or of other character.

 

Claude Meier