What Are the Values?

The subprime mess in the end was caused by people’s collective actions. People came to believe that you could put nothing down, pay only interest and not principal and make 30% in a few months. They could barely make the payments. Others, bought more house than they could possibly afford, not thinking about the “what if’s”. What if taxes go up? What if utilities go up? What if rates adjust upward?

Lenders were part of the plot. They encouraged people to take out loans, when there was a fair possibility that they could not pay it back. No documents, no problem. No down payment, no problem. An undocumented alien no problem. There was no risk to the lender. The loans were “securitized” and sold and the lender made their fees.
The portfolio managers were part of the plot. In a low interest rate environment, they wanted a higher yield. They didn’t give much thought to the risk here.

This did not happen in isolation. There is a deeper dimension. Actions are, in large part based on our values. If the actions result in bad outcomes, it is likely to happen again in other places and other ways. What are the values that cause athletes to use steroids and news commentators to say “No big deal. The fans don’t care.”? What are the values that cause us to treat the environment in a manner that says “I can do what I want. I can take what I desire,” without any regard for the rest of the world and for our future?

What are the values? This is a “warrior question”. It’s a question that asks us to evaluate our assumptions and perhaps cause us to behave differently. It seems to me that our values say “I have a right to all of it now.” We behave as owners without any sense of stewardship. Think about the difference between the two.

Ownership was quite precisely defined in Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations:

As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

While not exactly in either the Buddhist or Christian tradition, Adam Smith’s work is generally viewed as the starting point of modern economics. In this model which relies on “the invisible hand” of the marketplace, there is little regard to human welfare. The only thing that matters is money and the price that one can pay. Sound familiar? Smith was not claiming that all self-interest has beneficial effects on the community. He did not argue that self-interest is always good; he merely argued against the view that self-interest is necessarily bad.

Contrast this definition of ownership with stewardship. Peter Block defines stewardship in his book of the same name (Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest):

Stewardship is being accountable to the larger team or organization by "operating in service, rather than in control, of those around us"
"We choose service over self-interest most powerfully when we build the capacity of the next generation to govern themselves"
Stewardship offers a model of partnership that distributes the power of choice and resources to each individual
Stewardship is personal - everyone is responsible for outcomes; mutual trust is the basic building block, and the willingness to risk and be vulnerable is a given
Total honesty is critical. End secrecy. Give knowledge away because it is a form of power

What does stewardship look like? While uncommon, it does exist. When you see it, there is food for the soul. Of course, people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson come to mind, but they can do so without sacrifice. There are a number of corporations that behave like stewards. Abbott Labs in 2006 invested nearly 300 million dollars in grants for maternal, child care and nutrition programs. They provide low income countries with HIV treatments at 1/3 the cost of generic drugs. They have cut greenhouse emissions. In 2006, they embarked on a series of internal discussions on how their corporate values will influence and shape the future. These workshops included 11,000 Abbot people. They seek to align decisions with values.

Stewardship appears in many forms. The thousands of South Africans who appeared before the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation were stewards when they expressed forgiveness over incredible atrocities. Having a right to retribution they chose to forgive to open the door for a new beginning for all. We act as stewards when we live our values so that our children believe and trust them. We act as stewards when we pass on our skills and wisdom, without expectation of compensation, to those new to our profession or those who are the leaders of the next generation. They don’t have to be large acts to be great ones.

Mother Theresa was once asked what enabled her to do such great things in her life. She looked at the interviewer as if she was trying to figure out what he could possibly mean. Then she responded “You cannot do great things. You can only do small things with great love.”

Ownership without a sense of stewardship can have the energy of selfishness, greed and unsustainability. Without stewardship, ownership is a cause of conflict. It creates war over oil and it is wasteful. Fossil fuel created over 300 million years ago by dying organisms may be exhausted within 50 years. It is unsustainable. While many of us would claim a right to ownership, ought we not consider the responsibility of stewardship? Is there a place where we can allocate resources for ourselves and for others both now and in the future for long term sustainability?

Stewardship deals with the livelihood of people on a global basis. It takes into consideration the finite and precious nature of life and resources. It seems to me that the basis of the subprime mess and so much else that afflicts modern life is found in our values that we live by. From here it feels like we need to revisit them.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry