Who are your influences?

“Who’re your influences?”

This was the question Jimmy Rabbitte posed to each prospect interviewing to join the “World’s hardest working band,” The Commitments, in the 1991 film adapted from Roddy Doyle‘s classic novel. The Commitments is a great (albeit profane) cultural snapshot of the pre-Celtic Tiger Ireland I first encountered as a missionary in January of 1992.

One of the reasons I love this line from the movie is that Jimmy is trying to do what everyone who has ever interviewed someone tries to do—ask questions that probe deep and in a few brief moments reveal a person’s character and future behavior, to peer into the soul of the interviewee and see what kind of person he or she is. The task of knowing for certain whether someone is going to be a good fit for the band, or the company, or the job by spending a few minutes (an hour tops) with them is of course impossible. But the question, Who’re your influences? opens the door for someone to reveal a lot about themselves.

So, I began thinking about my influences. Not just artistic influences, but life influences. Maybe it is right to talk about these people in terms of mentors. I made a list, and I have about a dozen major mentors in my life. These are men and women who had a profound effect on me. They taught me, set an example for me or opened my eyes in one way or another. Then, I realized that I have another cadre of minor mentors that also had an influence even though they may have only appeared once or twice in my life.

I’m not going to list the major mentors by name, but they include my parents, various teachers, supervisors, partners, and friends. Some of the “influence” they had was to teach me that work is a blessing; that knowing mythology, Shakespeare and the Bible were the keys to understanding English; how to recognize miracles and to feel the deep spiritual things of life; that you don’t have to compromise your principles in order to achieve success in business; about commitment and sacrifice; and about strength and gentleness.

Add to that the influence of minor mentors and a great deal of what I am and believe is owed to how I responded when presented these influences. I would guess that if you look at yourself, you will see that the same is true. The more I think about the men and women behind that influence, the more grateful I am.

One of my favorite lines from The Lord of the Rings, is the statement by Theoden as he lies dying on the Pellenor fields. He says, “I go now to my fathers, in whose mighty company, I will not now be ashamed.” In generations past, we built up courage in ourselves by telling stories of the honor won by our heroes, the men and women of valor from our more distant past. In modern times the tradition of venerating the good in our history, has unfortunately fallen out of favor and in its place, we seem wont to focus on the here and now. If I look to my own generation for those heroes, I have been fortunate enough to have them and they are my mentors.

Driving past the cemetery the other day, my daughter asked me what it was. I told her. She asked why we don’t go there more often. I told her that the older you get, the more people you have to see in the cemetery, so you tend to go more often. In truth, I believe we go through life and build a welcoming committee for the other side. So, when I exit this world and enter the next, I hope to stand in the company of many of my mentors. If I am able to stand in their mighty company without shame, I will be satisfied.

Freedom via Constraints

In 2008, I read Presentation Zen by Garr Reynolds. Essentially, it is about making slideshow presentations more powerful, more focused, more interesting and more effective. (I think this book should be mandatory for all students and business presenters.) It is also about the value of simplicity. Simplicity is not easy, but it is powerful and I think a worthy goal in almost any endeavor. As Leonardo DaVinci said, “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

Well this week I picked up the sequel, Presentation Zen Design. The follow-up volume is equal parts effective presentation strategies and a crash course in the basics of design—mostly what we would consider graphic design—at an elemental level that translates into many of life’s pursuits. It was inside this well-crafted package that I found a principle so elegant that I was compelled to spend more time with it. Reynolds often comments on how restraint is key to powerful design, a beautiful yet counter-intuitive idea. But deeper still was the following quote about working within constraints from Steve Hagen,

True freedom doesn’t lie in the maximization of choice, but, ironically, is most easily found in a life where there is little choice.

I find this notion far more counter-intuitive than merely the notion of restraint. In fact, I would expect most readers to read and reject this idea out of hand. However, I think there is a great truth here. In a country based on freedom, where we even have a statue of liberty, and in a world with few restrictions, what external constraints are left?  We aren’t coerced by a king, or a master. We are free to adopt the only true control there is, which is self-control.

Victor Frankl said, “A human being is a deciding being.” and, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” This idea of space relates to what Hagen is talking about. If we look at our lives from the deciding moments, we are essentially looking forward at the unwritten story of our lives. Nothing exists there yet but space. And then we make a decision… From Presentation Zen Design:

If you take an empty slide and put even a single word on it, you have created “space.” Before you put anything on a slide, it is just a frame filled with possibilities. Once you add an element, you activate the space.

When we choose to act in our lives, from those moments of critical decision, we “activate the space.” We are constrained by the consequences of our actions, but within those constraints is where we can achieve the greatest freedom. When we try to act without consequence, we are slaves of our own thinking, because we have rejected the constraints that would have made us free. In fact the energizing creativity that is required to keep harmony with each subsequent decision we make after “activating the space” is exciting and alluring.

In Presentation Zen Design, Reynolds discusses the Japanese ink and wash art called sumi-e. In sumi-e, the ink is always black. A monotone palette from pure black to very light shades of gray is created by the manner in which each brushstroke is made. There are rules in traditional sumi-e. If you do not understand the rules, you can paint all you want, but you are not making sumi-e. You are not free to make sumi-e unless you understand the constraints, the proper method for how it is made. I remember my grandmother telling me that when she was a child and she saw her first opera, she wanted to come home and write one herself. Of course when she sat down to write it, she found that she couldn’t. It was an impossibly hard task from her current level of skill and understanding. I had a similar experience after reading Tolkein, I thought it would be great to create my own language. I spent several hours attempting this, only to discover that I did not yet understand enough about grammar and syntax to produce more than a few code words that related 1:1 to their English counterparts.

If exercises like these demanded that we learn the rules and operate within the constraints, what about the big things in life? What about happiness, relationships, religion, and meaning? Well, it stands to reason that you need to learn to embrace constraints there too. If god’s plan involved giving us our agency, the freedom to choose for ourselves and to act rather than be acted upon, yet at the same time gave us a laundry list of commandments, of constraints, then it stands to reason that if we want to become what we have the potential of becoming, we really don’t have a choice at all.

The irony, as Hagen says, is that to be truly free, we have to choose to act in complete harmony with all of the constraints. If freedom is what we desire, we really don’t have any choice in the matter.

Thin choices among leaders

The Affluenza AntidoteI read something recently that stirred me. It was in a book called The Affluenza Antidote about raising children to be good people in spite of affluence. It said that due to a breakdown of traditional values:

Fewer people are … running for public office.

That resonated with me. I thought back to the 2008 election. Sure these days you would have to be in a coma not to see that Obama is a train wreck as president. Lots of voters are fighting off buyer’s remorse, clinging to hope that his hollow promises and siren song of governmental panacea will come true like some political fairy tale—but not me, cynic, realist, maybe just not audacious enough to still hope. Who knows? Hey, there have always been folks who failed to see the writing on the wall, but I think most people are starting to get it. Things just aren’t getting better. Time will tell. However, my point is not to recite the litany of the presidents failures—others more capable will do a better job of that—I’m trying to decipher a deeper problem. See, even though Obama is a catastrophe, when we remember back to the alternative it was … the utterly lackluster McCain! Ungh. Not yet aware that we were putting a lunatic behind the wheel, in 2008 it sure seemed like we faced a real dearth of choice. No wonder Obama was elected, the alternative was just so tepid and unexciting. Contrast can be good, though. I don’t think the tea party movement and other principle-based political trends would have flourished under McCain. Without the terrifying backdrop of Obama, there just wouldn’t have been the motivation.

Then I think back over past presidents. Bush was really bad. Clinton likewise poor, although then we were only worried about him being someone with poor moral character not a complete madman. All told I think I am forced to admit that, by the time the next presidential election rolls around, no one under twenty will have been alive during the term of a decent president of the United States. Why not? Why haven’t we had better choices? This is a pretty big problem.

Even in my local district, Stephen Sandstrom faces opposition from a truly clueless challenger. Sandstrom is responsible for sponsoring a brilliant bill on immigration reform in Utah. But in so doing has exercised one of the rarest of qualities in modern politics–the courage of ones convictions. Sandstrom might lose his seat over having the integrity to do something about an issue other than his own reelection. I hope not

Iacocca where are the leaders?Lee Iacocca’s book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone? bemoans this same condition. You can read the opening lines and get the gist.

Moral of the story? Mothers and Fathers, don’t just raise your children telling them that they could be president. Raise them to feel an obligation to serve and to have the character and integrity to do it with competence and courage. Maybe in the future, more great men and women will step up and offer America a real choice.

The Root of All Evil..

So recently there was quite a brouhaha about President Obama’s comment that “I think that a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Now, I don’t know if he meant everything that has since been implied by that comment, but I think it is worth some commentary.

Washington is working on what it calls financial reform. Financial service companies in every sector are waking up each day wondering if today is the day that Congress is going to send call them onto the mat and perform an involuntary colonoscopy. In an astounding coincidence, the SEC launched a fraud investigation into Goldman Sachs the week Harry Reid called for a vote. (Interestingly the Inspector General decided to launch a probe into the timing of the SEC’s actions, but very little was made of this in the media.) Also timed coincidentally as Republicans kick up a stink about a proposed provision seen as a pre-funded bailout of $50 billion, Secretary Geithner makes a report that bailouts aren’t as bad as they are made out to be.

I gotta say that the most open-minded observer has to be scratching his head a little at all these shenanigans. It is clear that what is being done is not being done in the open and that there is urgency behind it that is curbing thorough debate. There are also the uber left field inclusions, like the angel investor rules, that are so baffling one has to wonder just what the agenda creating the momentum for this bill really is.

In all of this confusion, I have a few questions.  1. Goldman Sachs is the only Wall Street investment bank left of the big five after the meltdown (Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and Lehman Brothers are all either gone entirely or sold to other institutions for chump change). These guys were the main perpetrators of the CMOs which caused the massive pull-through demand which fueled the sub-prime mortgage crisis and played a significant role in the crash. If they are wiped out as a result, who is Washington still trying to punish on Wall Street? The headliner in Naked Credit Default Swaps, AIG, already got a bailout pass from Washington, so regulating them seems a little schizophrenic.

2. The main body charged with regulating securities since the acts of 1933 and 1934 has been the SEC.  Why haven’t we seen any financial reform legislation directed at modifying the SEC to encompass the more “creative” types of securities? Indeed, why is there a focus on anything outside derivative swaps?


Ghandi on Christians

Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

As a marketer, I’m thinking Christians have a branding problem. As a Christian, my pride was bruised upon hearing this.  That should have been my first clue. What did my pride have to do with anything? I think that one of the most difficult things for Christians is that the doctrine of Christ is totally unyielding.  There is right and wrong and it is like night and day, black and white, no exceptions.  Yet, Christ is also universally forgiving. So, whatever you did wrong is enough to keep you out of heaven—even if it was only something little.  But, on the other hand, if you ask for forgiveness you receive it and VOILA! you’re back in again—even if it was something big. Faced with this dynamic, human beings naturally looked for a shortcut.  They said, “This doctrine is pretty strict and that’s causing us some problems. Hey, if we’re going to be forgiven anyway, why don’t we just redraft the rules and loosen things up a bit?”

And so they did, spawning a multitude of sects and a bunch of Christians that were unlike Christ. The problem is that if you skip a step by no longer requiring the sinner to humbly ask for forgiveness, the step you are skipping is Christ. No wonder then that Christianity with Christ pulled out of it no longer looks like the genuine article.  Whatever you believe, wherever you are in your relationship with God, maybe it’s time to ask yourself whether you see your sins as something you need to humbly as forgiveness for (you know you have them), or whether your pride rebels and you say to yourself that you don’t need anyone’s forgiveness.

A wise friend of mine once said, “The problem is that we love our sins. Otherwise we wouldn’t struggle so much to give them up.” Is it too much to ask that maybe sometime in the future, people who know us as Christians will look back at Ghandi’s quote and not be able to understand what in the world he was talking about?

On the Shoulders of Giants

So, when I told my father that I was going to study art in college, I didn’t get the reaction many of my peers did.  Thankfully, my father did not react by immediately orchestrating an intervention.  He probably didn’t consider my decision particularly wise, or think that it would offer advantages under the trials of life, or that it was the decision he would have made himself. But he didn’t try to stop me or talk me out of it.

My dad didn’t go to college as a young man. The next generation in my family has made up for that and racked up more than a few degrees, due in no small part to the fact that my parents are very intelligent people and instilled in us a value for education. However, they were somewhat ambivalent about the value of a college degree, or more specifically about the notion that what one chose to study would really matter in terms of a career or what someone did with their life. They taught us to answer when opportunity knocked, but also not to let whatever we might lack hold us back from anything.

Funny enough, I have followed in many of my father’s footsteps when it comes to making my living in business.  He worked as a real estate broker and entrepreneur as long as I can remember. In response to my desire to study art, he told me that Thomas Jefferson said, “I study war, that my children may study business, that their children may study the arts.” I later learned that this quote is more accurately ascribed to John Adams and reads,

“I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have the liberty to study Mathematics and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematics and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.”

Dad got the gist and correctly pinned it on a founding father.

Despite his unspoken fears for my chosen course, he inspired me that my pursuit of the arts was possible because of the sacrifice of others. If his work in business was responsible for creating an opportunity for me, I should take the opportunity and he would be proud.

Which brings me to my point. I just finished reading Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman by Jon Krakauer, which I highly recommend. I never followed Tillman‘s college or NFL football career. I heard about him—leaving his football career, joining the army, and subsequently being killed—on the news, complete with all the spin, just like most everybody else.

I think like most people, I was smart enough to know that the story was being spun, but also to know that whatever the truth was behind Pat Tillman’s decision, someone had just made a choice that involved a lot of sacrifice and that had to be based in principles. In my eyes, that alone made him worthy of my respect. When he was killed and it was later reported that his death was due to friendly fire, I thought about whether that ought to diminish my esteem for him. The way it was reported kind of made it sound like “Oh, he got killed by his own guys, so he isn’t really a hero.”

To me it makes no difference.  Pat Tillman made the ultimate sacrifice, but every soldier shows that they are willing to make that sacrifice when they enlist. They become heroes in that moment and then, so long as they keep themselves free from disgrace and dishonor, deserve to command our respect.  By “our” I mean those of us who are free to pursue our livelihoods, to practice business, to raise our families, and to enjoy the life we can create for ourselves, because someone else is willing to die to give it to us. I know that there are thousands of “thank a soldier” blogs out there who do a better job of making the case for respecting those who serve. But for me, Pat Tillman offers the opportunity to reverence a contemporary the way we reverence Nathan Hale, to keep in remembrance the name of a real person, only a few years younger than I am, who “more than self, their country loved.”

Pat Tillman’s story reminds me of another phrase from founding father, Samuel Adams,

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, ‘What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom’–go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Let’s pursue the virtuous goals of our lives in gratitude and reverence for the fact that our ability to pursue these endeavors according to our own choices and abilities depends on generations upon generations of individuals who were committed to the principles of liberty and freedom—committed enough to give up their own pursuit of similar goals, in favor of sacrificing their lives.

Also, check out the Pat Tillman Foundation.

Bailout Gets to Banks, Not to Customers

bankI was recently discussing a recent Business Week article about U.S. banks.  I have to say that this burns me up a little. Here the banking industry is supposedly in big trouble. Seventy seven banks have failed so far this year and many claim that the national bank of the U.S., the Federal Reserve, wouldn’t pass the stress-test audits it has just forced the nation’s banks to go through. But the sector as a whole seems to be riding high. Banks at large are generally profitable, thanks to a generous bailout on the backs of taxpayers (and I suppose the greed and financial savvy of China).

So, what’s the big deal?

The big deal to me is that the taxpayers have bailed out the banks, but banks have not returned the favor! The Business Week article makes a pretty strong claim that banks are not shying away from risky derivatives, they are just firing up their creative engines and looking at ways to stick consumers with the risk.  Now, part of the article cites banks diving into the payday loan industry. In the interest of disclosure, I am in the payday loan industry myself, but one of the reasons that payday advance financial products are both in tremendously high demand and that this type of high-interest credit is useful and necessary in the economy (as outlined in this report from the NY Fed) is, ironically enough, because the banking industry is not serving the consumer.  Credit is tightening for small businesses, home buyers, and credit card users. A slew of articles today, including this one from USA Today, illustrate how banks are taking the kicking they got from new legislation and passing it right along to consumers.

Because they were not allowed to fail, banks were clearly not allowed to learn their lesson.  This is what happens when government tinkers with the operation of free market economic principles.  You get banks, who normally would be accountable to their customers by virtue of their mandate to earn a profit for shareholders, serving a new master—the legislative hand that feeds them (and in some cases owns them). So they preserve their profits at the expense of customers rather than by serving them. With Congress as their rainmaker, this is an industry that has stopped believing in any form of accountability … except the kind they enforce on you and me as customers. And that’s the big deal to me.  I would love to see someone call these guys on the mat for taking a bailout funded by taxpayers and then turning around and sticking it to those same taxpayers in the form of fees, tighter credit, and inflexibility on loan mods for borrowers facing financial crises.


So, last night I went to a reunion for my high school art class. It wasn’t a reunion for my graduating class  or the whole high school, just for an art class that was meaningful to most of us who attended. It wasn’t any special time either (18 years since we were in the class), just a get-together instigated by one of our classmates who had the right combination of interest and motivation.

Some of us used our artistic talent and training in our everyday lives and some of us had pursued careers that had very little to do with art. None of us who attended were making our livings as fine artists—painters, sculptors, ceramists—but some who didn’t make it were reportedly placing their work in galleries and studios around the country. So, as a group, our personal commitment to the arts ranged all over the board. That wasn’t surprising, since it is exceedingly difficult to make a living as a fine artist. The thing that hit home for me, however, was that we had all pursued our life’s work with more passion and relish because we had had a good immersion into fine art as teenagers.

I have two college degrees, a BFA and an MBA. I have only met one other person with this combination in my life (David Graviet, who taught a Photoshop course for Skillpath several years ago). I don’t say this to toot my own horn; I don’t judge people by the letters behind their name. Rather, I think that the diversity of my experience is representative of the unique journey that each of us takes in life and indicative of how exposure to the arts enriches us all. As I read years ago in a Newsweek article by Robert Fulghum titled A Bag of Possible and Other Matters of the Mind,

“To draw is to look. To look is to see. To see is to have vision. To have vision is to understand. To understand is to know. To know is to become. To become is to live.”

Couldn’t say it better myself.

Who Stole More Futures, Madoff or FDR?

twothievesIt’s official, Bernie Madoff is going to the big house. They are tossing him in the slammer and throwing away the key. What else do you call it when a white-collar criminal gets 150 years? He is now the poster child for scam artists—the man who brought the term ponzi scheme into every American household the way President Clinton did oral sex.

Okay, so I know comparing FDR to Madoff is inflammatory and a little over the top. My point is that the much ballyhooed Madoff scandal is a drop in the ocean when compared to the number of people who are going to lose their future because of Social Security. The government is on Madoff like stink on a turd, the SEC is increasing its oversight and scrutiny, and the people trading in the capital markets who haven’t missed a beat in years are walking on eggshells minding their Ps and Qs (or 10-Ks as the case may be). However, nobody is scrutinizing the broken promise that is Social Security. It isn’t on the news, it isn’t in Obama’s rhetoric, it’s tired and absent from the national conversation.Picture 1

I am not an apologist for Madoff. From what I can tell, the guy deserves whatever they give him. But, the comparison is there for anyone to see. Madoff screwed around 13,000 people out of around $13 billion. Social Security has overpromised benefits to the tune of $17.5 trillion at last count! 80 percent of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in Federal Income Tax. Yet, imagine the outcry there would have been if Madoff’s victims had comprised 80 percent of Americans.

I’m going to update this with some more stats in the future, but for now, just think about who is responsible for more lost futures, the biggest Wall Street scammer ever, or the guy who gave us Social Security as part of a New Deal. As the New Deal ages, it’s looking more like a Raw Deal for people looking to their future. Until then, here is an interesting site for polling details on how Americans feel about Social Security.

Customers, Shareholders, Stakeholders, Oh my!

bankBanks and automakers who accepted bailout stimulus money are living the truth behind the proverb, “when you pick up a stick, you get both ends.” Banks are realizing that dipping their hand in the taxpayer till may turn out to be a honey pot that they should run—not walk—away from. Stories like this, this, and this, begin to paint the picture of banks looking to escape the strings attached to bailout money. It looks like at least some of these firms are shaking their heads asking, “what have we done?”

Banks, however, seemed a little quicker on the uptake than the automakers, who may still not fully realize their plight. In Stakeholder Capitalism and Chrysler, Harvard Business Review editor, John T. Landry exposes two significant trends fueled by the Administration’s approach with Chrysler. First, there’s a new precedent of legal priority caves to political expediency. Second, there is an underlying movement to supplant shareholder value as the primary goal and purpose of a business with the similar-sounding, but very different meaning stakeholder value.

What do I mean about the legal stuff? I’m talking about U.S. bankruptcy law. (For a more apologetic and detailed angle, read Who is Screwing With Bankruptcy Law? It isn’t my purpose to delve into the nitty gritty of the Chrysler deal, just to hold it up as an example of a shifting macro-opinion.) Typically, companies raise money by issuing various types of debt and equity. Each of these exchanges represents a promise of repayment, and that promise is called a security. In a bankruptcy liquidation, there is often not enough money available to pay everyone back, so these various securities represent the priority of who gets paid back first. Bonds are debt securities, while shares of stock are equity securities. Typically the pecking order from first to last is, bondholders > preferred stockholders > common stockholders.

chryslerHowever, in Chrysler’s case, the President’s offer gave a better deal to the UAW than it did to bondholders. Bondholders made a statement that to the effect that they felt they had an obligation to their shareholders to defend the rights of their more senior position. The President’s opinion is clearly that workers (read stakeholders) are more important than shareholders. President Obama‘s words (abridged) were:

Now, while many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you, some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.

They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none. Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting.

I don’t stand with them. I stand with Chrysler’s employees and their families and communities. I don’t stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices.
Because of the fact that the UAW and many of the banks, the biggest stakeholders in this whole process have already aligned, have already agreed, this process will be quick, it will be efficient. It’s designed to deal with those last few holdouts, and it will be controlled.

It’s a process that has the full support of Chrysler’s key stakeholders and the full backing of the United States government.

What about the second point, that Obama’s opinion represents a more widespread and significant trend shift toward stakeholder value supplanting shareholder value as the corporate mandate. A more overt treatise is available from Harvard Business Review editor Michael Yaziji in his frightening article, Time to Rethink Capitalism.

My intention is that with the recent surge in popularity of anti-capitalist sentiment both in the U.S. and abroad, I think it’s time capitalism received a defense, however inadequate in the context of the shareholder/stakeholder question.

I contend that companies exist to create value for two groups: customers and shareholders, both of whom voluntarily fund the company with cash in exchange for the value the company creates for them. When the company is successful creating value for these two groups, it is able to use the cash they provide to pay employees and value chain partners in order to grow and increase its capacity to create even more value. Without this funding, companies have no resources to allocate to community reinvestment, corporate giving, philanthropy, and corporate citizenship.

Mr. Yaziji contends that between employees and shareholders, employees take greater risk. His logic is that the scope of individual risk represents the ethical grounds for earning a return. He concludes that since the economics of today’s capital markets produce shareholders that individually have a very small stake in the company, in fact may not even know that they own the stock if the purchase was part of a manged fund, that shareholders individually carry much less risk than do individual employees and that laborism, the notion that employees should make most of the decisions and be the primary recipients of returns, is justified.

What!?! Let’s consider a few problems with this argument. For starters, the individual scope of participation by shareholders does not change the essential nature of the function they provide, or the relationship they have with the company. In other words, just because the capital markets have evolved a mechanism that allows more investors to participate (in line with their risk tolerance), and thereby more money to be made available for companies seeking to raise it, doesn’t mean that the function of their investment is different than if it were a single “deep pockets” investor. Just because an employee’s compensation package may constitute a larger dollar amount than the size of the average shareholder’s investment, doesn’t change the fact that employees have one relationship and shareholders another.

Looking at the relationship in investment terms, we see that employees invest “sweat equity”, they deliver their labor. Although the potential for value exists within that labor, it does not automatically translate directly into value for the company.* It is possible for any amount of labor to end up wasted and worthless. (For instance the labor invested in producing Chrylser automobiles that customers are not willing to buy.) In exchange for that labor, employees receive a paycheck every pay period. As investors, we might say that the risk employees face of losing their original invested capital only lasts as long as the time between paychecks. The only thing at risk for employees is potential returns in the future—employees risk only Return on Invested Capital (ROIC), but practically never risk Return of Capital.

Investors on the other hand risk both their invested capital and their potential returns. But, some say, employee compensation represents much more than simply a paycheck. What about benefits like health insurance, retirement accounts, and options?

Well, the employer portion of insurance is typically paid each pay period, so employees receive that benefit immediately. Retirement accounts and options typically vest over time, so there is the potential for employees to lose some of that value which could be considered part of their invested capital. However, these instruments typically create an opportunity for employees to participate as investors. To the extent that these benefits function as investments, the participants should really be regarded as shareholders and not employees.

As Kirby Cochran argued in What About Those Pesky Shareholders?, when companies focus on shareholder value, all other stakeholders are taken care of. It’s a win-win. However, the opposite is not true. A scenario where stakeholder value is preferred over shareholder value, the cart is before the horse and a win-lose scenario results.

*Note that Karl Marx’s notion that the value of a product was equal to the sum total of all the labor that went into its production is undeniably false. Just look at the current housing market. The labor value could be summed up as the “replacement cost.” Houses are selling below replacement cost. That’s because value is established by the customer, not the worker.