 |
 
3/14/04
Ethics
Where did Martha Stewart, the doyenne of good taste, go wrong? Laura Nash, a senior research fellow at Harvard Business School who teaches business ethics, summed up the reason for Stewart's recent fall in one word: greed. Stewart was convicted last week in US District Court on all counts relating to a conspiracy to cover up her sale of $228,000 worth of stock based on an inside tip. Stewart and other top managers, said Nash, could learn a thing or two from business leaders who eschew the winner-take-all philosophy for a more balanced approach to business and life. ''Where Martha went wrong was in not knowing when going for that extra dollar was too much,'' said Nash, coauthor of a new book, ''Just Enough: Tools for Creating Success in Your Work and Life'' (John Wiley & Sons Inc). ''The definition of success today is to go for the maximum. That gets people in trouble.'' Nash said Stewart and business executives like L. Dennis Kozlowski, former chief executive of Tyco International Ltd., were addicted to money-making and didn't know when to stop. Instead, they got caught up with trying to maximize their gains. For example, Kozlowski and Mark Swartz, former Tyco chief financial officer, were already earning top salaries when they allegedly stole more than $170 million from the company. They also are accused of earning $430 million from fraudulent stock sales. Such business leaders often get caught up in celebrity success, according to Nash and coauthor Howard Stevenson, Sarofim-Rock professor of business administration and senior associate dean for external affairs at Harvard Business School. They describe celebrity executives as self-centered, with no sense of limits, and possessing a need to have one big win after another. By contrast, business leaders who achieve enduring success do so over a lifetime of career accomplishment and were forced to deal with trade-offs and limitations. They also cared about others and shared their gains. Stewart, like many celebrity executives, assumed she could have it all and not play by rules, said Nash. ''Martha thought she could be the happiest, most caring, wealthiest person around,'' Nash said in a telephone interview. ''Nobody can be all of those things. People get desperate when they try. It's like success on steroids, and things fall apart.'' Stewart's fall from grace offers a valuable lesson for managers, she said. ''To have real success, you must stay true to your values,'' noted Nash. ''You have to be able to say, 'This is enough. I do not have to go for the maximum.' '' One reason putting the brakes on greed is no longer desirable is that many Americans now link success to instant riches, with few or no costs. ''Success has always been an American preoccupation,'' write Nash and Stevenson. ''But the definition of success takes on a new urgency today, when every conventional measure of success seems to have a faster burn rate than ever before.'' The book says success has been reduced to a ''flat idea of riches'' and ''getting more, doing more, being more.'' DIANE E. LEWIS
US workers Contrary to what you might have heard, American workers aren't slackers. They go to work even when stricken with a serious cold or the flu, according to a new survey. ''Despite one of the toughest flu seasons in recent memory, the vast majority of employees who got sick forced themselves to work this winter,'' said Richard A. Chaifetz, chairman and chief executive of ComPsych, a Chicago firm that provides employment services such as counseling to workers. ''Unfortunately, the practice of working while sick, often perpetuated by corporate culture, results in the spread of illness and an even greater reduction in productivity,'' said Chaifetz. ''Employers should encourage workers to take time off when sick, which actually would increase productivity in the long term.'' In an online ComPsych survey of 700 employees last month, 77 percent said they routinely go to work while sick. The reasons ailing workers gave for reporting to work provided a revealing snapshot of today's workplace. Of those polled, 26 percent said they went to work because it felt ''too risky'' to stay home. They were worried about the uncertain economy and the ongoing threat of layoffs. Thirty-three percent said their workloads were too large and staying home could cause them to fall behind. Eighteen percent said they were saving their sick days so that they could care for a sick child. Only 23 percent said they usually stay home when ill. The reason? They put their health first, according to the survey. DIANE E. LEWIS
MILITARY WASHINGTON -- Stressed out and afraid to get help. That's the admitted state of mind of many US troops, and Pentagon officials say they intend to look harder to find the reasons. In a survey conducted for the Pentagon, 32 percent of troops stationed at home and around the world reported feeling ''a lot'' of work-related stress. Almost half said they believed their careers would probably or definitely be damaged if they sought mental health counseling. The survey also found that cigarette smoking and heavy drinking are on the rise in the military. Use of illicit drugs is holding steady, however, far below the rate for civilians. Dr. William Winkenwerder, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said the high level of stress is ''not entirely surprising'' given the military is fighting wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan while remaining involved in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world. The survey results, however, said people who reported high levels of stress were more likely than those with lower levels of stress to say their work performance suffered as a result. Also, injuries, illness and workplace accidents were twice as common among high-stressed troops. The results released Monday are from a survey conducted in fall 2002, just before tens of thousands of troops were deployed to the Persian Gulf in preparation for the invasion of Iraq. Of the 12,756 troops who responded to the survey, 32 percent said they felt a lot of stress in their military duties and 30 percent said they felt some stress. The most frequently cited sources of stress for men were deployment (18.9 percent) and separation from family (18.7 percent); women cited changes in personal life (21.4 percent), separation from family (21.2 percent), and deployment (19.6 percent). ASSOCIATED PRESS
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
E-Mail This Article
