In the service of our fellow beings

Today I was reading the message of the prophet Thomas S. Monson. You can read it here. It strongly resonated with an epiphany I had just about a year ago. There has been a couple of moments in my life when I've felt a profound sense of spiritual and emotional emptiness. Not a feeling I advice you to seek and want to experiment with. It did cause, however, strong reflection about my life in general and the direction thereof. At the same time, my father had advised me to create my own mission statement (the WHAT) and my own "plan of salvation" (the HOW) to be my living guide through life. I say 'living' because it is not set in stone... I will modify it to adjust to the changing needs and stages of mortality. Back to the point I was going to make.... heeding to the counsel of my father I commenced the task of writing this guide. After much study, prayer and meditation I came to the following conclusion, "I will live a very empty live if I live for my own".... it is in service that I find true meaning in life and intense satisfaction. It is service that erases and replaces any thought of stress, despair, and emptiness. My grandfather, Udine Falabella, used to say, "el que sirve sirve y el que no sirve no sirve" which translated from Spanish means "whosoever serves is good for something and whosoever doesn't serve is good for nothing".


Then, just today, I read the following from President Monson:

The Lord Jesus Christ taught, “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it” (Luke 9:24).

“I believe,” said President Thomas S. Monson, “the Savior is telling us that unless we lose ourselves in service to others, there is little purpose to our own lives. Those who live only for themselves eventually shrivel up and figuratively lose their lives, while those who lose themselves in service to others grow and flourish—and in effect save their lives.”

As you read this, you can image how I felt. It was as if his message was tailored especially for me, God giving me a kind reminder and a confirmation of the things that I had in mind, for which I am very grateful.

Sustainability

BYUethics.org has a link to an article about sustainability[1]. I found the article interesting because it confirms some of the thoughts I wrote about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at the beginning of this month. The columnist Gael O’Brien quotes “For sustainability to take hold and be real in a company what is done must make business sense in terms of the long-term needs of the business and creation of value for shareholders”, “doing something good for the world, the community, or other stakeholders needs to be linked with other corporate objectives -- including cost reduction, quality, risk management, reputation, and being an employer who people want to work for or buy products from.”

In my previous entry I wrote “Is there a way in which both the benefits to shareholders and the benefits to the rest of the stakeholders can coexist? That is what CSR is all about; it calls for a win-win outcome.” There are some times when a corporation will donate money that will not produce a quantifiable economic return but they do it for the sake of reputation. For example, under natural disasters, companies will be very supportive, especially with their own employees. But most of the times, the company will indulge in sustainable actions because it produces a direct or indirect economic benefit.

O’Brien also makes the case that for sustainability to work it has to be ingrained in the strategy of the company or at least in most areas of the business. She gives the example of the Herman Miller where the CEO, Brian Walker, set two environmental goals by which his performance was measured. In the case of Herman Miller, sustainability is not about intentions but about actions, it was embedded in the culture and mission. I feel that it's the duty of every company to provide not only short-term results but a long-term sustainable future for the company and for the resources that it consumes out of this World.

---

[1] http://business-ethics.com/2010/10/06/1736-sustainability-business-strategy-trumps-reputation/

TIME Wall Street ethics

The cover of TIME magazine in the February 13^th issue reads: “This man is busting Wall St.” The article tells the story of US attorney Preet Bharara. Preet puts law violators in Wall Street behind bars. Most of his focus has come from listening and recording conference calls where many times information is shared illegally between corporations, like hedge funds. This has led to the arrest of 63 people on insider-trading and other stock-fraud charges. It’s impressive that he has had 56 convictions, of which 7 are pending, and he has had no losses. One of his goals is to finish Wall Street’s culture of greed and allow equal competition.

The down side of the coin is that the notion of inside trading is not clear at all, “Neither the SEC nor Congress has ever defined inside information, nor has either succeeded in specifying the level of significance the information must have to be the subject of a criminal violation” said Henry G. Manne, a dean emeritus of the George Mason University School of Law. I wonder the impact that this has on privacy and condemning employees that are innocent. I’ve heard so far too many cases of governments sneaking into people’s lives and corporations’ affairs. Nowadays is not about violating the law but about avoiding any appearance of violation. A simple joke over the phone or in an airport can be considered as a threat if it’s wrongly interpreted. The article highlights the fear that many executives have to pick-up the phone knowing that someone might be listening. For people whose affairs are conducted honestly, it’s very uncomfortable and contra-productive. It limits freedom of expression.

But not all is negative. The outcome of Bharara’s investigations has had very positive results in Wall St. After all, the financial crisis of 2008-2009 was caused by the financial system along with some wrong decisions from the government itself. The article tells the story of Bharara accusing Dan DeVore, a former global supply manager of DELL who sold information on sales, forecasts and future pricing of DELL computers to Adondakis of Level Global for a sum of $145,000 paid by PGR. There are crimes that are more obvious than others but this one doesn’t require half of an eye to notice.

The work done by Bharara provides an external and strong incentive for Wall Street professionals to be ethical in their dealings. About my point made two paragraphs above, to detect violators in Wall Street has more weight than potential privacy issues. The things that happen in Wall St., as we learn from history, have an awfully big impact, for good or bad, in the whole World.

Government's Sentencing Guidelines

In the book “Managing Business Ethics” the authors mention the positive impact that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines have had on the preventing unethical behavior. These guidelines sentence corporations more than individuals. A corporation can be severely punished even if only one employee breaks the law. Organizations are very concerned about offenses because this could mean closure of the company.

To provide an example of this impact, in Guatemala a new law was signed in 2009 called “Ley de Creación de Ambientes Libres de Humo de Tabaco” (Law for Creation of Smoke-free Environments). The law prevents people to smoke around non-smokers in closed environments. They do this in two ways:

1.       Penalize smokers that break the law

2.       Penalize institutions if smokers break the law in their premises

Of course, the second option was more feasible because it is easier to control and more effective because institutions have more power and resources to prevent these actions than does the government. The severe penalties made institutions openly and explicitly communicate against breaking this law and establish policies and monitoring. Before the law was signed, the rules in my University prohibited smoking on campus but nobody followed them. It wasn’t until after the law was signed that the University impeccably complied with its rules.

Disseminating ethics across countries

Today we had an in-class discussion on our responsibility to disseminate good ethical behaviors across countries and cultures. The point was made that it was not US responsibility to impose ethics on any country. It was argued that this was each country’s task and they made it sound as if ethical behavior in some countries was different from that in US, for example, to have meager working conditions in factories. While I agree that US should be careful in imposing politics, economy and culture in other countries, I believe that ethics is standard in the entire World because is not a mater of opinions but of human’s dignity.

We cannot assume that we can provide Chinese with bad working conditions just because they will not quit since they have financial needs. Chinese suffer from bad working conditions as well as an American would suffer, and that’s because we are all humans and want to be treated with respect and dignity.

I liked what Peter Xie (a Chinese MBA student) wrote in his journal: “I was later asked: What is the standard of “good” work environment for a Chinese worker? I guess the best answer will be that “How comfortable you feel about letting your son (brother, husband, etc.) working in that kind of environment?”  If we are happy about that kind of work environment, then I am sure that Chinese workers will be seven times more than happy about it.”

Internationals want to be ethical but sometimes external forces like corrupt governments and cultures make living good standards very difficult.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Today I was very intrigued about the idea of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). The needs of society and the needs of shareholders sometimes contradict each other. Usually, a responsibility towards society is seen by some managers as an economic burden with no financial return. For them, it’s a lose-win situation, them being the losers. On the other hand, a company might be tempted to do things that economically are sound but that deteriorate society or the environment. For example, manufacturing of certain products can cause serious environmental or health issues. In this case, society loses while shareholders win.

Is there a way in which both benefits to shareholders and benefits to the rest of the stakeholders can coexist? That is what CSR is all about; it calls for a win-win outcome. For example, managers can better make use of natural resources like water. If they become more efficient in water use the outcome is good for the company in terms of savings and great for the environment. Hotels do this when they ask you to “recycle” their towels. If you use the same towel during your whole stay then you will saved them and the environment some water. 

Companies also are very involved in humanitarian and social causes, like supporting campaigns against cancer, or giving money to fund orphanages. They will usually do things that can better the image of the company as well as provide additional sources of income. For example, Microsoft will give free computers equipped with Microsoft Office to school with limited resources, or Bayer (where I worked before) will fund a global campaign against Pulmonary Hypertension (blue lips) to increase awareness of the illness while improving their image and commitment to treating rare diseases. This will not only be good for society but in the future it can increase Microsoft and Bayer’s sales.

Ambition and the Soul

Nathan O. Hatch addressed BYU in March 27^th, 2001. He entitled his address “Ambition and the Soul”. You can listen to it for free at the link at the end of this reading.

“Does ambition constitute a virtue or a vice?” Nathan asks. The dictionary defines ambition as “A strong desire to do or to achieve something, typically requiring determination and hard work.” Under this definition, I am very ambitious. I strongly desire to have an eternal family and I am working hard for it. So ambition is not bad in all instances. In fact, I would say that it is ambition that keeps us alive, we all follow the earnest desire to achieve happiness. On the other hand, ambition can get us off track when motivated especially by our self-interest. Power, fame or wealth is usually motivated by the benefits it can bring to me at the expenses of what it would mean for others. Nathan counsels to “scrutinize professional ambition with respect to how it affects other dimensions of life”. How do the means and the ends of my ambition affect my family, my friend, those around me, my relationship with God? The answer to this question will clearly highlight potential pitfalls in our desires and actions.

Ambition can be a bad thing for two reasons:

1.       Success rarely satisfies ambition, once we have success we will fall into a perpetual cycle of wanting more.

2.       We can fall into thinking that our success depends on somebody else failing. This will put us in the wrong path of trying to trip others to reach our goals.

It is our duty to take a deep dive into our convictions and desires to keep ambition from taking us in wrong paths.

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=238&tid=10