"The most important limitation on social responsibility is the limitation of authority. The constitutional lawyer knows that there is no such word as "responsibility" in the political dictionary. The appropriate term is "responsibility and authority." Whoever claims authority thereby assumes responsibility. But whoever assumes responsibility thereby claims authority. The two are but different sides of the same coin. To assume social responsibility therefore always means to claim authority."

-- Peter Drucker; "The Essential Drucker"; Page 61

So, one might ask, what does the Hippocratic oath (Primum Non Nocere) have to do with responsibility and authority? Drucker explores this relationship in Chapter 5, Social Impacts and Social Problems, in "The Essential Drucker." I read this chapter several weeks ago. I keep returning to the ideas expressed there.

Because we are people we each have social impact on and social responsibilities to each other. But what is the responsibility of the business organization. According to Drucker, perhaps not as much as we may be lead to believe. What does it mean when state officials publicly scold a company for not contributing enough to the local community? Is it the responsibility of the organization to address the social needs of the greater social construct?

And does the company have authority to make social change? Does the governing official mean to relinquish authority to the large business entity? Important questions.

And Drucker pulls no punches in this area. It is the responsibility, and authority, of business leaders to expand their business and to meet the needs of its share holders, employees and customers. Extraneous social projects are the responsibilities of all people. In this regard the manager is an employee, the same as any other, and is under no greater or lesser responsibility and bears no more authority than any other employee.

And here is where the charge to "above all, knowingly do no harm" emerges. Business Leaders and Managers cannot guarantee that their actions will bring positive results. But we do have the ability to knowingly do harm. And, as professionals, we should actively avoid such knowing harm.

This statement begs the question, "what harm can we knowingly do?"

Very good question.

Drucker specifically addresses three areas. These are:

Executive Compensation

Use of benefit plans to impose "golden fetters" on people in the company's employ

Profit rhetoric

These may not make sense on the first pass. But in each instance managers can possess good intentions, yet, at times, knowingly cause harm. I won't take time to outline Drucker's rational here. I'll leave it to you. Get the book and find out more. And think about how your actions as a manager should be directed to the benefit of the organization and should knowingly do no harm........
9:33:05 PM    comment []