Virtuous Management: Ordering Pagan Ethos in Business Management

Humans are driven by fear, self-interest and honor, said Thucydides, the Greek historian who had a phenomenal understanding of relationships between cause and effect. All thinking men have considered that constraint when designing their plans, policy and movements. One of the founding fathers of American Constitution, Alexander Hamilton has said that masses can be ambitious, vindictive and rapacious. This view is, as a result, inherent in many policy documents including our constitution, American Constitution, and perhaps in a whole lot of such written texts. It is obvious that founding fathers of their country’s provided for impeachment because of this insight into human behavior.

Though Christianity falls somewhat short here and advises idealism and moral correctness of action, in Bhagvad Gita, Lord Krishna approves deceit when done for a greater good. Morality of action and idealism are smaller virtues in the sense that they are for self development. Morality of outcome is a virtue for public good. For higher good, Machiavelli sanctions deceit and lies. Virtue, therefore, has to be related to the outcomes rather than an inherent character trait of a leader. 

Despite all of the talk about how life changes and advances, Robert Kaplan, the renowned author and journalist, argues that our world is pretty much the same world it was 3,000 years ago. It’s a violent world, one where the strong survive and the weak are crushed. In addition, Kaplan argues that the modern notion of a moral conquest is a far-off dream. Real leadership requires putting aside the ethic of sacrifice and taking on a more pagan perspective. 

Pagan ethos, then in international relations, foreign policy and war alike should be for eventual benefit of mankind.

Virtue of good outcome for masses is the need in leaders, whether that is for a country or a business organization. In democratic governance, people have to be moderated by filtering the masses through elected representation. In business organization, every tier is selected rather than elected; and they represent masses below in the lower tiers. Not all masses can be allowed to act on their own for, at best, they will bring in their conflicting “self-interests” (Thucydides), and at worst they will act in a “vindictive and rapacious manner” (Hamilton).

In a business entity, management is rooted in pagan ethos, as it should be. It is not questioned. Individual self-interest is the motive force. In wars this force is fuelled by arms, and in business it is powered by economic resources. Raw display of financial might instills fear in people within and those outside its domain. It allows competitive advantage through deliberate indiscretions which could be morally reprehensible and perhaps often on the fringe of the man-made law.

In foreign policy and war, international control mechanisms, e.g. UN, International Court in The Hague and Geneva Convention are found inadequate and toothless. The entreaties for equality with the powerful emanating from the weak are usually ignored at no detriment to themselves. In business parlance, judiciary comes in when contravention of law is suspected. However, here again, financial muscle often protects the business entity from judicial wrath. Inadequacies in man-made law are turned to advantage of the powerful.

People in an organization have to be given a limited space of their own where they perform with honour. And yet, towards managing a whole set of conflicting self-interests, Thucydidesian fear has to be instilled. One has to deal with a swathe of self-interests into a compromise that is in consonance with the higher good, which obviously is the achievement of aims and objects of the business organization as well as all its stakeholders. 

There is concern, though.

Would these successive compromises all through the tiers finally take a distorted shape beyond sculpting into desired order? It would, but it calls for virtuous leaders. This leader has to ensure that successive compromises between divergent self-interests are more akin to honing and finishing – not disfigurement and mangling.

This is virtuous management. It is steeped in the traditional conservative notion of virtue, but with a small twist. And that rider is that the leader should palliate the necessary use of force and occasional deceit with a wise sense of larger purpose. It is rather a pragmatic determination to use whatever means are available to secure the organisation’s own benefit at any particular moment. 

Get the drift here? We would rather have visionary businessmen who are driven by achieving virtuous outcomes rather than get overly bogged with the propriety of their processes. 

***