Darden's Dorky Dean

On August 20th, the Wall Street Journal published an article about the dean of the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, Professor Robert Bruner, and lessons he thinks students can take away from financial crisis. But does he really? Think, I mean?

Commonplace drivel is rather atypical for the WSJ, but Professor Bruner seems to be a master of trite statements.

"Ethics are always No. 1," he says. Since when? He continues, "It appears that the system rose to tolerate borderline or obviously unethical or illegal behavior." The system--of governmental oversight, I assume--did not tolerate unethical behavior: it grossly proliferated the suspension of ethics. What has Mr. Bruner been reading for the last twelve months? Certainly not the Wall Street Journal. Apparently, Professor B. does not trust the markets--you and me--to shake out the shady nor does he have much faith in our judicial system.

How do I know that?

If a certain behavior is illegal now, it can be prosecuted immediately with or without Bruner's moral lectures. Except, in the case of our recent crisis we are eager to let the true culprits go. It's too dangerous for some seemingly innocent folks to open that can of worms, and we don't want to inconvenience individuals who live in clouds above and beyond ethics classes.

Are we so retarded that we need the dean to tell us that the comprehension of his ethics can keep us from committing crimes? How naive is this gentleman? Does he believe those who violate ethics and/or laws are unaware of their behavior and its consequences?

It is silly to raise the moral index finger, as if to say that better ethical training will prevent future ethics violations. There will always be crime, dear Professor Bruner, and teaching your unbelievable drivel to "the next generation" with "more critical care and reflection" would not have prevented an army of banksters from feeling tempted by the sugar high of credit default swaps.

"The aftermath is a much larger role for government" because the benefactors of past ethics violations don't care to miss out on the fruits of unethical behavior in the future, and if they can exploit crises to increase the sum of money that goes around--they undoubtedly will. A fine reason for government to push for its own procreation. Professor Bruner knows as well as I do that (deliberate) incompetence of government oversight won't be magically eliminated by more government oversight.

If it's not working now we should do more of the same? Really? We have slept through moral theory since Socrates and Aristotle, but suddenly dean Bruner discovered the recipe to solve the remaining problems during Darden's next class? I am so impressed ... by his arrogance!

"It's always in the panic that the world settles up with unethical behavior. If you look at the discoveries of Ponzi schemes, they coincide with economic troughs," says Mr. Bruner. If a crisis is a tool to end unethical behavior we should be looking forward to the next crisis, shouldn't we? Or does he believe that Bernie Madoff would have never ponzied around had he had the pleasure of sitting through dean Bruner's ethics training?

Apropos Ponzi: We have known for a century that Ponzi schemes cannot work. Further, we are aware that Ponzi schemes are illegal. However, governments--and the individuals who do the governments' holy work--don't interrupt their donut breakfast for "more critical reflection." Charles Ponzi's dubious accomplishments have inspired our government more than Professor Bruner's ethics lecture ever will: illegal or mathematically impossible--governments don't hesitate to engage in activities that are STRENG VERBOTEN for everybody else.

Enter social security, the most grandiose Ponzi operation under the sun. How do you teach business ethics without cynicism or a heaping portion of intellectual dishonesty?

Dean Bruner goes on to embarrass himself by sharing platitudes "Good leaders are present and engaged and alert," or "The best leaders do the opposite [of playing Bridge]." How do you do THAT?

But Darden's dorky dean's $64,000 lie rolls off his tongue thusly: "I believe in pay for performance ..." Damn. I wasn't sure if business schools (B.S.) are still deceiving their students with such reprehensible nonsense. Now I know: they do and shamelessly so.

Do you believe in performance related pay? I won't laugh if you do because it's just as sad as it is funny, but I suggest the following:

Make a list of everybody you know, from your hunchbacked relatives and friends to your dry cleaner at the corner. Don't forget to add the famous (Simon Cowell), the droll (Paris Hilton), and the infamous (Michael Vick).

Then write down how hard and how many hours they work. Put numbers next to their names--each person's annual salary or wage--before you ask yourself whether the belief in "pay for performance" continues to make any logical sense. Does Beyoncé Knowles work 2,200 times harder than your car mechanic?

Too much underpaid work to figure it out?

I thought so. As an alternative, you may purchase a copy of my book 'How to Better Hate Your Job.' It will thoroughly answer this question for you. Not enough: my book rudely rips into numerous uncomfortable issues and I solemnly promise it would make Professor Bruner's head spin.

Egbert Sukop


P.S.: Uh, before I forget: have you bought my book yet?