Ever been asked this question? It implies all scruples, morals, ethics and belief systems are subject to compromise. Promises of money, power, fame, influence, sex, or any combination thereof, by all historical accounts, serve the same purpose as the barrel of a gun or the point of a sword, albeit without the nasty clean-up. Bureaucrats, whether public or private, understand the powers of both graft and force to achieve a desired end. To the detriment of the rest of us, the “end” so often sought is personal gain at the expense of the masses. The most pious of individuals have been corrupted by the adrenaline that comes with control, and not unlike the tolerance developed by substance abusers for their drug of choice, achieving the “high” requires the exercise of ever greater domination. Most are familiar with the first half of Lord Acton’s famous quip “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, but few remember the close “Great men are almost always bad men.” Persistent scandals in academia, business, and politics remind us of the importance of perspective; the importance of asking ourselves, “What would it take?”
Societal attitudes both reflect and define culture, whether business or national. The recent trials of Bernard Ebbers, former CEO of Worldcom, Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco, and Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth exemplify the lengths to which “bad men” will go to disguise the nature of their acts. Cast as ever-benevolent philanthropists by their respective defense teams, these men, it was argued, should be exonerated of all culpability for the frauds committed at their former companies not due to their innocence, but because they had given so much to the surrounding communities.
Apparently the question is not whether corporate tycoons steal, but how much of the stolen booty they give away. Unsurprisingly, this line of reasoning actually influenced the juries, and helped convince one to acquit of all charges. The other two defendants were not so lucky. Our collective outrage, justified as it is, would be better served taking solace in the eloquent words of the iconic frontman Meatloaf for indeed, in cases of corporate scandal, “two out of three ain’t bad”. (On a side note, how about the irony that business courses at Seton Hall University, including those in business ethics, are conducted in Kozlowski Hall, so named thanks to the $3 million donated by Tyco’s former leader.)
O.K., so we covered corporate corruption and the influence money can have on personal behavior. How about power or sex or fame? Last Monday the Wall Street Journal reported a disturbing story on a bachelor party held for a former trader at Fidelity Investments and the lascivious behavior associated with the apparent dementia caused by great wealth. It’s a story of private jets and yachts, dwarfs and prostitutes, but most of all it is a story of the excesses irresponsible wealth views as entitlements. (Shocking as it may seem, Mr. Dennis Kozlowski was an attendee of this party as well.) The use of people for one’s personal pleasure, as prevalent today as it was in ancient Rome, seems contrary to our foundation. Temptations so great for the financially strapped that, while slavery was abolished more than a century ago, paid servants voluntarily subject themselves to humiliation and scorn for the amusement of their paying masters. Most of us are likely disgusted by these gaudy displays, but, believe it or not, some are envious.
Mankind is highly corruptible. We are driven by the forces of greed and fear, both in our individual and collective endeavors. Fear of retribution or punishment or societal norms usually keeps most of us in line, but temptation or necessity can distort our views and behavior. To maintain a functioning society it is important that individuals regularly confront their demons so that when asked “What would it take?” they will know both their weaknesses and their strengths, and tend toward the latter.
Search
