simulating integrity

a mad rant about professionalism

This was the first thing Mark had been asked to do which he himself, before he did it, clearly knew to be criminal. But the moment of his consent almost escaped his notice; certainly, there was no struggle, no sense of turning a corner. There may have been a time in the world’s history when such moments fully revealed their gravity, with witches prophesying on a blasted heath or visible Rubicons to be crossed. But for him, it all slipped past in a chatter of laughter, of that intimate laughter between fellow professionals, which of all earthly powers is strongest to make men do very bad things before they are yet, individually, very bad men.

This was an excerpt from C.S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength, referring to the moment in which Mark was asked to write false articles for widely-circulated newspapers. I wonder if it felt just as uneventful, just as banal for those insider traders in the 1980s, the Wal-Mart store managers who denied workers overtime pay, and the Enron accountants of Arthur Anderson. I wonder what it feels like to do things that are not necessarily illegal per se, but unethical—the blind complicit eye in the use of underpaid workers, hospital managers who turn down Medicaid patients, the predatory mortgage lenders, the more recent irresponsible portfolio decisions of the Lehman Brothers executives and the income tax accountants who obscure the truth of the cost and nature of their services to lower-income (or shall I say low-wealth?) families. But I do know what that feels like, because I would have to lie to say I haven’t done legal but unethical things in my past—and that little sigh of guilt lies somewhere buried between “everyone else is doing it too” and “I’m just doing my job and providing a service or product to the economy.”*

I recently heard the story of a very intelligent Christian, who engineered a key product for his company, and was invited to apply to become the head manager of an entire region. He was denied the position and later discovered the two reasons for it: 1. That in his interview, he mentioned that he talked to God everyday and so management suspected that he must have delusions of grandeur, and 2. that one of his guiding principles was to never lie, and the hiring consultant found himself slipping and saying “how can you trust someone who will always tell the truth….”

And perhaps that in a nutshell captures what governs the boardrooms and skyscrapers where the makers and shakers of the world concoct their plans. While governments will never disappear, many will argue that it is now economics, not politics, that drives the modern world, and that the major players are not sovereign states but multinational and global corporations. And what prevails in these corporations is a code of professionalism that prioritizes profits (and mainly short-term profits) above everything else.

Every year, prestigious universities send hundreds upon hundreds of recently minted and impressionable graduates into the halls of prestigious investment banks and consulting firms. Many climbed the ranks in these institutions, perhaps with a brief boost from an MBA program. They surely have behaved up to par with the code of professionalism. Professionalism expects the employee to wear the fancy suits, talk the small-talk and the fancy jargon and know the numbers behind the pretty graphs. But we’ve ended up with-- or perhaps that’s better worded as, we’ve ended up without-- Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Let's not forget that alongside their graves, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in critical condition supported by the ICU of taxpayers.

Professionalism evades the question of responsibility. It shifts the blame to the institution, without acknowledging that an institution is composed of individuals. With professionalism, everyone acts according to what is expected of him in his occupational role, without question to the morality of his actions.

It is integrity that forces an employee to consider the consequences of his actions on others (rather than just trying to win the approval of salary-determining, bonus-awarding superiors). Integrity involves asking whether something that someone is asked to do for his job is right or wrong, not just profit-making, and having the courage to say no when something is wrong.

How different could the world be if people actually acted with integrity at their jobs, instead of abiding by the codes that prevailed in their work environments? Would low-wage earners be able to make a decent living (as many homeless actually have full-time jobs)? Would there be less people trapped in crippling debt?

A friend mentioned a book written by the founder of DC Central Kitchen, who argued that it’s not nonprofits that need to run more like business, but businesses that need to run more like nonprofits. I have yet to read the book but I suspect he meant that we need to abandon the code of corporate professionalism, and opt instead for one of genuine integrity, one that takes into consideration the situation of the less privileged or the less powerful.

I have questioned whether it is possible to change the system from the inside. So far, the outcomes have not been too promising.** Though if you have some examples or evidence to the contrary, perhaps they will give me some hope concerning the current trajectory of the world.


*Hannah Arendt, the Milgram Experiments and the Stanford Prison Experiment may confirm my suspicion.
** I supposed being in the system requires some degree of complicity with the system...