November 2005

Letters to the Editor

Dealing with Cheaters

In the article “Who Says Cheaters Never Win?” [in the August issue] Kirk Hanson asks: “How might I have better prepared our graduates to live in a world that says in so many ways that it is worth cheating to get ahead. And how do you and I prepare ourselves to resist that message in the years ahead.”

My wife and I have an ongoing ritual that reminds me somewhat of the movie Meet the Fockers. The father (played by Dustin Hoffman) shows the Focker Wall of Fame, where they celebrate the seventh place ribbon of their son (played by Ben Stiller) and other less than stellar performances. We call our ritual “Celebrating the Process.”

Whenever we go through a milestone experience, we celebrate, even if the outcome is not what we would desire. Some of the most difficult times we have celebrated by going out to dinner or on a weekend trip or by making a special purchase. This included the ending of a job, interviews that did not result in job offers, and nearly 10 years of unsuccessful fertility treatments. Of course, we celebrated the successful events in the same manner: a new job, my wife’s pregnancy and birth of our son (now 9 months old), graduations, etc. By “Celebrating the Process” we have developed a way to be thankful no matter what the circumstances. We celebrate the life we have, knowing that sometimes there are setbacks. And maybe by not placing such emphasis on the outcomes, we have insulated ourselves from the temptation to take an easier path. We will try to model this value to our son.

CAM PIATT, Pepperdine University MBA ’91
Westerville, Ohio

With all due respect to the ethics lament of University of Santa Clara Professor Kirk Hanson, MBA ’71, let me suggest that America has always been a winner-take-all society, and that cheating has always worked all too often. There has been further erosion of ethics in the last half-century, but the stink has always been there, and further putrefaction is inevitable as long as, to be sickeningly trite, the benefits outweigh the costs.

Invoking spiritual crisis and ineffective parenting is not at all unreasonable, but unfortunately these conditions are incurable in the short run with any known remedies.

Blaming it on the media is right on. … We should blame everything on the media, whether they deserve it or not. It’s a relatively unassailable and popular position. Nobody will ever argue that the media has made a net positive contribution to the moral well-being of our society.

Competitive capitalism a catalyst for cheating? The communists, socialists, taoists, Marxists, imperialists, whatsists didn’t cheat?

Professor Hanson is absolutely spot on when he suggests that cheaters might have cheated because it was worth it.

Meaningful change happens only following cataclysmic events. Maybe the seismic eruptions of moral turpitude in the business world, the churches, and many of our “professions” will continue to get the attention they deserve (by the media we apparently despise). With a bit of luck, the righteous indignation of the likes of Eliot Spitzer will catch fire and we, the people, will demand change.

Write more explicit laws, take enforcement seriously, protect/reward whistle-blowers, continue lowering the boom on the cheaters, and we just might have a chance to tidy things up a bit. Will cheating disappear? Never. There are always those who will endeavor to beat the system, and those occasionally include our “best and brightest.” Does teaching ethics in business school help? I think a better solution would be to have each student spend a couple of days in San Quentin … maybe discussing net present value with Charles Manson.

JIM NOYES, MBA ’74
Wheaton, Ill.

[Kirk Hanson’s] excellent essay brings to mind Michael Josephson and his occasional “Character Counts” minutes, between commercials, on KNX Radio in Los Angeles. He deals with mundane items, yet their consideration has broader impact on your thinking.

In our society of pervasive excess, perhaps repeated reminders that many of our choices have ethical implications may be salutary beyond initial expectation.

To that end, what about designing a periodic presentation in the San Jose Mercury News on aspects of ethics, having Stanford Business magazine include it, and syndicating it for national distribution?

LEW HASTINGS, MBA ’40
La Cañada, Calif.

Why I Vote

Professor Jonathan Bendor et al in the May issue article, “The Logical Illogic of Casting Your Vote,” are far from understanding why people vote. It should be obvious that some need is being met other than the expectation of casting a pivotal vote. For example, I suspect that the high turnout (by U.S. standards) in the recent Iraqi elections was due to a novelty factor. In this country, in small towns and even in some precincts in larger communities, voting is a social event for the voters that meets a need for social interaction. Would it be naive to suggest that voters might also feel some satisfaction in performing a duty or taking advantage of a privilege?

Personally, I always try to vote in even the most seemingly inconsequential election because, in that way, I “purchase” the right to be critical of elected officials. If I don’t vote, I haven’t purchased the right. I developed this long-term spending plan after discovering that the most virulent critic of all politicians and all things governmental that I knew had never voted in his life, nor had his wife. Sorry, Prof. B. Just call me irrational.

NICK DAVIS, MBA ’72
Lawrence, Kan.

Racial Stereotyping

The research of Brian Lowery, assistant professor of organizational behavior [reported by Marguerite Rigoglioso in “Role Models Counter Subliminal Racism,” August issue], may be needed to confirm what is generally known and accepted. What I found most intriguing is that Professor Lowery’s work has been expanded to “live settings such as the juvenile justice system.”

Ironically, it may be that the stereotyping he is researching is the source of most of the juvenile population. The problem is the unjust entry of large percentages of youths of color into a system where they may remain forever. I am not sure how his research will result in improvement in the selection, evaluation, and disciplining of law enforcement officers, from whom all sectors of society should be protected.

Henry Organ
Stanford Staff Emeritus
Menlo Park, Calif

Editor’s Note: The following two letters arrived too late to appear in the printed version of our November issue.

As a student in the Executive Program for Smaller Companies in 1976, I had the privilege of listening to and learning from Hal Leavitt.

After reading the “Necessary Evil of Hierarchies” in the August 2005 edition I continue to be inspired by and learn from Hal. At 67 years of age that is no mean feat! His clear and concise thinking is still enlightening.

Keep up the great work in your excellent publication.

BILL COLUCCI
Wilmington, Del.

The subject of the excellent article, “Who Says Cheaters Never Win” by Kirk Hanson, in the August issue deserves far more than a letter to the editor can accomplish. However, at the risk of being called a raving conservative (I’m not) and being a target for those who disagree, I believe the increase in unethical behavior is one of the results of the “Me Generation” having grown up and being in control positions. The beliefs that rights overshadow responsibilities, that wants are as important as needs, of reward now, pay later, etc. are coming home to roost. This liberal bias has chipped away at the internal strength we once had. It has squandered the capital built up by past generations and is passing on a huge debt to the next.

One example is the lack of engineering and science graduates. The tech area has been our country’s greatest economic force since World War II, but its majors call for very disciplined and measurable results. Now, other countries that provide the opportunity and whose citizens are willing to work hard are starting to take our “bread-and-butter” jobs in the tech fields. Far worse is the very high level of our internal debt being financed by foreign nations. This puts us in an acquiescent (dangerous) position in dealing with them. We have seen how unethical behavior has negatively impacted companies, government entities, sports, and all facets of our lives. We all pay for this one way or another, but the long-term deterioration is the biggest threat.

It will take a real change of mindset to overcome this weakness. It means turning around a culture with which many have grown up. They were (are) raised with a large part of our media, including much of the entertainment industry, effectively promoting unethical behavior. I certainly agree with the article that the place to start is in the home. Real moral values instilled in family life can build a disciplined strength in the children (citizens) to carry it into overall strength for our country. I hope the next generation has the internal fortitude to do it.

RICH SCHOLZ, MBA ’58
Palo Alto, Calif.

From the Editor

Dean's Column

Letters to the Editor