It's easy to think that the 2010 disaster at the BP drilling platform Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico was the result of a chain of cascading events beyond the control of anyone to stop. But as the authors of Avoiding Corporate Breakdowns: The Nature and Extent of Managerial Responsibility (Palgrave Macmillan) make clear, the blowout that killed 11 people and created an ecological miasma could have been prevented by any one of dozens of managers or executives speaking up about eight serious signs of trouble.

Authors LaRue Hosmer (MBA 1951, DBA 1972), an emeritus professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, and Patrick J. Barry look at three of the largest debacles so far in the 21st century—the BP affair, the mortgage meltdown and resulting crisis, and the use of lead paint in children's toys by a Chinese supplier—to better understand the responsibilities of managers to prevent harm to society.

They begin with a controversial definition of managerial responsibility. Managers must first act to protect individuals, employees, and society from the mistakes made by managerial decisions and actions. Such self-regulation is necessary because these manager-caused catastrophes are happening more frequently and with larger consequences. More frequently because of a rise in joint ventures, where teams across organizations and companies find it easiest to adopt a "go along to get along" philosophy. And with more consequences because the ability to harm society with bad business decisions is magnified by multipliers that include technology, financial interdependencies, and pressure to react quickly in increasingly competitive environments.

The solution can begin with one participant raising a hand to state an objection. That's why Hosmer and Barry devote some detail to how managers should communicate. Dissenting managers must speak clearly, recognize opposing views, state the problem as they see it, and recommend a solution. "Your first few sentences, in either a verbal conversation or a written report, are the critical ones. You want the individuals to whom you are speaking or writing to begin thinking, 'You know, maybe this guy . . . does have a valid point.' "

From Pareto's optimal outcomes to Plato's Republic, the authors draw on academic research, classical philosophy, and contemporary psychology to erect a framework for logical individual action, against which individual biases can be lessened and competing interests balanced. At BP, the overriding concern was economic efficiency. What was not considered, argue the authors, were external costs: the potentially harmful social, environmental, and/or financial impacts. "Our argument . . . is that it is necessary to look at both the costs imposed upon others without their consent and the rights denied to others, also without their consent, from multiple lenses."

Does the business world look different in a Hosmer and Barry universe? Yes. It is populated by managers making rational decisions whose results are understood to be part of society. What is good for General Motors, they recognize, is not necessarily good for society.

—Sean Silverthorne

Post a Comment