People ask about Enron. They ask about Andersen, and Global Crossing. Editorial sleuths go about unearthing
dirty secrets, investigators piece together shredded paper, and politicians pontificate. In this collective
shaking of heads, it becomes bafflingly clear that values have been disregarded by a whole army of
middle-class professionals who are just like you and me. Baffling indeed, for values, after all, are a
middle-class fetish. But who's stolen our very own crown jewels? Amidst all the finger pointing, I see an
unlikely culprit: the calculator. The miracle machine that allows us to deduct cost from benefit, loss from
gain, lets us merrily trade-off one good for another, has turned us into a new species - Homo Calculus - and
set us down the road to ruin.
There was a time when it was fashionable to speculate on the sources of human behaviour. Philosophers and
psychologists spent careers trying to capture the complexities of human motivation within their models. Arch
rivalries grew out of contending views, some of which have remained with us - Plato's Kinship, Maslow's
Needs, Marx's Class War, to name a few. If anything, these models have served to illustrate the point that
we, Homo Sapiens, can be wonderfully diverse, and rather slippery to mould. Of late, however, a specific model
has taken hold of our collective imagination, threatening to erase all that we knew to be true, even partially
true, about us. And, it has come from the pen of two business professors.
In a widely cited article written in 1994 (1), Michael Jensen and William Meckling argue that
all behaviours of all humans can be successfully explained by a model that describes us as resourceful,
evaluative, maximising beings (REMMs, in short) who are always willing to trade-off a quantity of one good for
that of another. We respond to our environment, they claim, by seizing opportunities that maximise personal
gain, which we are able to perceive clearly through evaluating our choices and by displaying the flexibility
The REMM is willing to give up some sufficiently small amount of any good for some sufficiently large
amount of other goods. Inside our minds are smart calculators, which operate not on the basis of absolute
needs, but temporary wants. Jensen and Meckling, in fact, hail the Homo Calculus as a far more liberated
species than the Homo Sapiens, unencumbered as it is by the messy business of irrational needs, ideologies,
and quaint values. Behaviours of REMMs are championed as rational, flexible, and downright efficient –
qualities that have of late taken over the hallowed seat of values.
Like it or not, REMMS we have become, and unwittingly. Think of any domain of our lives, and you'll see
the indelible trace of trade-offs. The calculator has made it easier to make and justify our decisions, from
choosing a car to buying a house. Armed with information, a list of costs and benefits, we have managed to
eliminate anxiety from choice. The culture of managerialism within which we exist, has heightened our
challenge to 'achieve goals with limited resources,' a task well suited to the spirit of smart choices.
Trade-offs, in fact, have come to govern large swathes of management practice: long-term vs. short-term,
market share vs. profitability, make vs. buy, cash flow vs. ROI, and so on. Listen to any management guru and
the message that'll come through is that there is no absolute good, simply actions that might deliver the
goods. The challenge of management then, as with much else in life, is to figure out what works best where and
rid us of the useless. Jensen and Meckling, while certainly not responsible for the cult of the calculator,
aren't too far off describing our world that has increasingly come to resemble a giant Weight Watcher's
diet, with an exciting variety of trade-offs that can help us reach the target number of points.
What about items that shouldn't be traded, that can't be entered into our calculators? Despite numerous
treatises on Value-Based Management, values themselves – such as truthfulness and integrity – are too
unwieldy when it comes to combining them with other decision factors. They are unwieldy because they suggest
fixity while all else is variable; they carry the unpleasant whiff of dogma in an open-ended setting.
Additionally, they don't promise to maximise anything, offering simply psychic gratification.
When was the last time we heard of a CEO being congratulated by his/her board or fêted by the media for
incurring a loss on the back of a value-based decision? Yet values, drawn from human experience and/or faith,
could very well lead us to defeat just as they might to success. History is replete with martyrs, who have
done just that – died for their values. Yet nobody, not even the harshest critic of corporate governance,
would deem that to be appropriate.
It is important to realise that Enron et al aren't simply corporate perversities, or the mischief of a
few wayward managers. They illuminate a deeper question: can the conduct of business be any different from our
conduct of life? Will the model we enshrine invariably percolate everywhere, finding its way from the
supermarket to the boardroom?
It's time for the Homo Sapiens to stand up to the Homo Calculus.
Kunal Basu is Fellow in Strategic Marketing at Oxford and co-author of 'Memo to CEOs' (Fast Company)
and' Beyond Selfishness' (Sloan Management Review), both recently published to great acclaim.
1. 'The Nature of Man', by Michael C. Jensen & William H. Meckling, Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance, Summer 1994, V. 7, No. 2, pp. 4–19 Also see: 'Memo to CEOs', by Robert Simons, Henry
Mintzberg & Kunal Basu, Fast Company, June 2002, 117–121. 'Beyond Selfishness', By Henry Mintzberg,
Robert Simons, & Kunal Basu , Sloan Management Review, October 2002.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT