It all comes down to values!

First managers often look to lawmakers to direct their actions. Next, they look internally and to regulators to ensure they are in compliance with environmental law. If the company is complying with the law, they are not obligated to do anything beyond this point. This is where political and managerial views can collide or coincide. A manager may encourage the company to lobby for politicians that will decrease environmental regulations to allow its business to prosper. For example, a chemical company may lobby for less strict waste disposal policies. Is it not a manager’s responsibility to ensure the company can go about its business successfully?

However, this also brings up the larger idea discussed frequently in class: should long-term success trump short-term success? In this case, managers should lobby for politicians to improve regulations and promote environmental protection policies. For example, that same chemical company should recognize that if they damage the environment around them so severely, they many destroy other crucial resources that are necessary for their success.

In short, it is values that inform a person’s managerial ideology and their political ideology. These two spectrums should typically coincide if a manager is being true to her value system since these values are used to inform her decision-making processes on all levels.


One response to “It all comes down to values!

  1. Does this mean part of a manager’s job is to surface and explain her or his own personal values?

    I think you are on a key point that often managers and executives pursue policies that while they narrowly benefit their firm, are harmful to the firms stakeholders including employees, suppliers, and customers.

    A natural gas company can (and did) push for fracking to be excluded from the clean air and water acts so as to to jump start the industry and provide the kind of rapid growth that attracts new investors and meteoric stock growth. However, if the CEO of a gas company values being able to grow the company, to expand. maybe, into related businesses in similar areas or industries, and yet, their reputation is abyssmal, their own employees or gas users fear the water quality where they have operated, and moreover, to get regulatory approval, they have to fund politicians directly, are they actually making more problems? What happens if there is a political backlash that leads to tighter regulation then there would have been if the firm had honestly engaged with real concerns? Being short-termist and politically egotistical is not cost-free. maybe it just externalizes or delays certain costs on to other actors or even later managers (after said manager cashes out and moves on?)?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s