Ray Suarez, senior correspondent of “The NewsHour,” joined that staff in October 1999. He had been the host of National Public Radio’s call-in news program “Talk of the Nation” since 1993. Suarez has 25 years of varied experience in the news business. He talked by telephone with Paula Mirk, vice president of Education at the Institute, on November 11 from his office in Washington, D.C.

Mirk: As a result of September 11, what do you hope will change for the better around the world in the next decade?

Suarez: As someone who’s worked their entire adult life in the news business, I’m finding that the events of September 11 have opened up possibilities for Americans to be more curious and perhaps better informed about things going on in the rest of the world, and how their country relates to and lives with the rest of the world. I don’t know whether to be optimistic or not, but certainly I’m watching as people try to grapple with the history of central Asia and try to understand Islam better. I was interviewing an Islamic bookstore manager, who was telling me about how many more Qur’ans [Korans] have been going out the door than usual. I think, along with the tragedy of it, there may actually be some growth, too.

I think a better-informed public makes a better-informed electorate, and the constant dialogue between people in government makes for a government that better understands the will of the people and has the consent of the governed. These are all cherished American ideals. But for much of the last 50 years, Americans’ own willingness to trust others to handle these things has led the foreign policy to be carried on just by the government, with very little input from the people. A populace that’s more ready to engage on these issues will, I think, live up to American ideals better.

Mirk: As a result of September 11, what do you fear might change for the worse around the world over the next decade?

Suarez: I think there are going to be terrible economic troubles. Because of parochial, local concerns, progress that we have seen toward trade and aid might not continue, because there’s this feeling that we have to watch our own nest. Charity begins at home. [But] there’s this instinct to reel it in a little bit when there’s so much risk around in the world. [What I fear is] just the opposite of what I was talking about in the first question: It’s very possible, with a worldwide community that suddenly becomes more risk-averse, that shakier lenders are perhaps less willing to talk about seeing heavy indebtedness in a new way. Governments that are revenue-strapped suddenly don’t see a heavy engagement in other parts of the world as a priority. And those kinds of things tend to send out lots of ripples. These things don’t happen in isolation.

I get a lot of mail here, and what I’m seeing is that at the same time as there’s a yearning to understand why America was attacked, there is also a dismay with the rest of the world, and a feeling that the United States is on its own. And that tends to dampen down people’s more generous instincts — not necessarily in giving anything, or in extending resources, but generous instincts in a way of looking at the rest of the world as a place where America and Americans need to be concerned, aware, engaged.

Mirk: As things unfold, what are two or three indicators that you’ll be looking for to see whether your hopes or your fears are more likely to come to pass?

Suarez: I’m watching the judicial system and law enforcement. I think whenever there’s a new legal dispensation, which now we have with the antiterrorism act, you have to see how that works in practice. I know what the intention is in the black-and-white letters on the page. [But] we’ve got to see how it works.

I think it’s fascinating that [Mexican President] Vicente Fox’s visit [to the United States] was just a bit before these terrorist attacks. Now it seems like it was years ago. Those ideas that were being floated by President Fox and getting a reception in the Bush administration about finding a new relationship with Mexico? That seems very much ancient history now, as our focus has turned east to America’s NATO allies, and to the war in central Asia. Now there are four-hour waits at the [Mexican] border, and people who’ve had their asylum requests approved can’t even get into the country. So that bears watching, too. Just how open a society is America ready to be after this?

Mirk: I know you’ve spoken at educational forums. I wonder if you have any thoughts or comments about how kids are making sense of this, or what your hopes and fears for the future are in terms of the next generation?

Suarez: Well, for better or worse, it’s created a lot of curiosity in my own kids, who are watching the news more, reading the paper more. Of course, that’s not scientific research, that’s empirical research — anecdotal. But I talked to my [ten-year-old] daughter’s class at school, and this was front and center and foremost on their minds. A great deal of curiosity about [central Asia], about the sufferings of common people there, about what it was like to be in lower Manhattan in the aftermath of the attacks. A lot of concern about the war, and how long it’s going to last. Those kinds of things, very forthrightly stated, very well-put questions. I came away reassured by that. For all their concerns, they had a handle on it — they were going to make sense out of it. They weren’t just going to absorb free-floating anxiety, and be hand-wringing and anxious without any recourse to trying to understand.

I’ve been traveling a lot lately, and I think one of the more interesting parts of this whole experience is how affected by it people are in other parts of the country. Far away from the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, and far from New Jersey post offices where people get anthrax, there is a constant concern. It’s not paralyzing, it’s not blinding, but it runs like a thread through everything they say and everything they do. Because of where I’m based and what I’ve been doing lately, I’ve been so concerned with Washington and New York, and it’s interesting to see how it’s being understood in other places in the country.

Mirk: And do you interpret that as a sign of the times?

Suarez: I don’t think we could have a national experience that was the sole property of people in two cities. I think there had to be a way for other people to hook into it, and their inflamed curiosity and their concern is their way of staying connected to an event that, when you’re in Portland, Oregon, seems very far away.

Mirk: And you’ve been back to New York, I take it? Is Brooklyn a different place now, in your opinion?

Suarez: Yes, I was almost on a plane this morning to go cover the crash [of American Airlines flight 587 on Long Island], but we changed direction with the fall of Kabul. I think it’s a more sober mood that people are in. They’re getting back to their lives, and doing the things they have to do every day, but there are constant reminders of what’s going on. It’s impossible to block it out of your mind, even before yesterday morning. There was no way that you could remain removed from everything that was happening.

Dr. Oscar Arias was president of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990, and 1987 Nobel Peace laureate. With the money from the prize, he established the Arias Foundation for Peace and Human Progress. Dr. Arias responded in writing from his home in Costa Rica.

Kidder: As a result of September 11, what do you hope will change for the better around the world in the next decade?

Arias: The United States dropping food packets simultaneously with its bombing campaign has been criticized as being simply a publicity stunt. If nothing else, it does tell us that the government of the United States is at least aware that its people care about the plight of the desperately poor in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and that the government must at least give the appearance of doing something about that suffering. I hope that this awareness will be channeled into real and sustained action on behalf of the poor around the world, both now and after the military action has ended.

Another phenomenon that I would like to see sustained is the new spirit of partnership and coalition that has been adopted by the United States in the wake of the September 11 events. I just hope that this attitude does not fade away as soon as the current military campaign is over, but instead remains central to U.S. foreign policy from the present forward. It would be in the interests of the United States, as well as those of the rest of the world, to continue to work together, not only against terrorism, but against the many other ills that plague humanity today.

Another change that I am hoping to see is the abandonment of the wasteful and dangerous missile defense project that President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have been pushing. It should be clear to everyone that nuclear shields will not protect the United States from terrorism, which everyone knew to be a more imminent threat than ballistic missiles even before September 11. Defense resources should be invested wisely in the areas where they are most needed, and not extravagantly to keep defense contractors happy.

Kidder: As a result of September 11, what do you fear might change for the worse around the world over the next decade?

Arias: I am afraid that if we don’t start paying more serious attention to issues of poverty and social justice, the anger and misery of millions of people will feed the fire of extremism. I want it to be clear that I do not see poverty and injustice as excuses for terrorism; all acts of terrorism must be universally condemned. At the same time, to me it seems to be common sense that if we truly want to be free of the menace of terrorism, we must fight both the fanaticism of extremist leaders and the hopelessness of the poor masses that constitute their base of popular support.

Another fear I have, which seems to be coming about already, is a rise in the amount of xenophobia and intolerance of immigrants in the United States and Europe. It would be a real tragedy to punish everyone who is or even looks to be Middle Eastern or South Asian for the actions of a small group. This is a lesson the world should have learned by now.

Kidder: What two or three indicators will you be looking for to see whether your hopes or your fears are more likely to come to pass?

Arias: I would look to indicators such as the levels of defense spending versus spending on health and education — like those published in the United Nations Human Development Report — to see whether the world is learning to adjust its priorities and pay more attention to alleviating poverty.

The upcoming meeting of the World Trade Organization in Qatar will also tell part of the tale: whether the wealthy countries are willing to open their markets to the exports of the developing world. To truly alleviate poverty and make strides in development, rapid and sustained economic growth is required in the developing world. Foreign aid and debt relief are desperately needed, too. But the industrialized countries have been chanting the mantra of “trade, not aid,” for years, and now that the poor countries are on board, the powerful don’t seem to want to give up their grip on their own markets.

Finally, the actions of the U.S. foreign policy and national security teams over the next few years will give us all the evidence we need of whether that country’s change of heart in terms of valuing the international community will remain in place or not. The indicator of whether U.S. defense goals have become more realistic will be the government’s actions on the ABM treaty and missile defense. If missile defense continues to be a high priority and to command huge amounts of funds, then I will know that my fear, rather than my hope, has come to pass: the same old thinking in the White House and Pentagon.

John Naisbitt, whose numerous books have sold more than 14 million copies worldwide, is the author of Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. The recipient of twelve honorary degrees, Naisbitt is a former executive with IBM and Eastman Kodak and served presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Rushworth Kidder spoke with him by telephone November 1 at his home in Vienna, Austria.

Kidder: In the wake of September 11, what benefits do you think might flow to this country and the world over the next ten years?

Naisbitt: We have a great opportunity to reevaluate priorities and recalibrate global relationships. It’s really quite extraordinary, the international cooperation that flowed from this [attack]. It’s been a long time since Russia and China and the United States were in a coalition to defeat a common enemy. In fact, the last time was in 1945, in the battle against Japan.

I think there’s not only symbolism there, but a once-in-a-long-time opportunity to recalibrate some of the relationships. And the people who see this best are those who are very clear about the opportunities: [U.S. President George] Bush, [Prime Minister Tony] Blair [of Great Britain], [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, and [Chinese President] Jiang [Zemin]. Bush [has] really found a mission. He’s found something that he’s really interested in, and it’s very appropriate, and we all know that it’s changed his life. Blair has been a tiger, as a kind of foreign secretary for the United States going all over the world. The most interesting one, for me, is President Putin, who really sees so clearly the possibility of having Russia anchored in the West, which Russia has been trying to do for more than a thousand years. And then Jiang Zemin has come in from the cold, and wants to be President Bush’s new best friend.

These are extraordinary recalibrations. I think the possible long-term change in the geopolitics of the world could be the most important thing coming out of all this. And all of this, of course, is happening appropriately in this great era of globalization, where we all have a stake in [global] stability because of our investments and our trade. It’s all recalibrated, it’s all rearranged. And that can be built on, or we can screw it up. But the context of globalization and economic interdependency is a nurturing context for some rearrangements that really help stabilize the world.

Kidder: What’s the impact of these rearrangements, do you think, on other partners we have been working with — Saudi Arabia, Israel, and so forth?

Naisbitt: The most problematical, it seems to me, is Saudi Arabia. You know: They pretend to help us, and we pretend to be their friend. We know that all is not transparent. Certainly China and Russia have more at stake than the other countries, because they’re really important players in the world economy. And global economic stability is more important to them than to the others.

Kidder: You’ve called the current period in history “the time of parenthesis.” Do these changes signal the closing of the parentheses, with something else emerging?

Naisbitt: I’m talking about a world between eras, but it’s between eras in lots of ways. What’s really been underscored in the response to September 11 has been a new kind of war. We’re between eras in that regard. We have the old way of doing war, and we have the new way of doing war. We haven’t quite left the old way, but we’re not all doing the new way, either. I think we’ve probably crossed 50 percent [toward the new way of doing war], whereas in globalization we’re maybe 25 percent to the full realization. But even in wars, the world is between eras. [China and Russia] are eager to participate in the common enemy syndrome for their own interests. This is so manifestly in their best interests that it could really start changing the global politics.

Kidder: We’ve been talking so far about broad global geopolitical issues. You’re also a very astute observer of smaller, more local effects, as in your much-quoted concept of “high tech/high touch.” Is there a community side to the benefits following September 11?

Naisbitt: When I heard [people saying that] “Everything’s changed”[after September 11], I sort of nodded. Then I started to think about it, and I said, “Oh, that’s not true.” Everything hasn’t changed. It’s very important, it seems to me, to see what’s constant, and to ask, “What’s not going to change?” Constancy is the norm — even now, even in times of great change. What we’ve learned about America in these last couple of months is that not much has changed. That’s the great reassuring thing, our resiliency. We were kind of adrift. But this really coalesced [us], really brought things back together. All of the volunteerism, which [Alexis] de Tocqueville noted is one of the great pillars of this country, all of that just came back — all the people lining up to give blood, the valor of firemen, the basic decency of the people in this country. That hasn’t changed.

Kidder: What do you see as the downside to the September 11 attacks?

Naisbitt: This is the question I’m not going to answer. I refuse to put my intelligence and energy into a lot of negative stuff that I would have to invent. There are too many people doing that. I’m trying to see what can we shape out of this. What can we make better? I’m not going to spend any energy trying to string out some scenario about how terrible things could get.

Kidder: Well, tell me more about the upside, then. Education?

Naisbitt: Well, that’s one of the things I’m afraid is not going to change very much! I don’t think my campaign for a poet in every classroom as well as a computer is going to catch on everywhere. But it doesn’t mean that a lot of people aren’t doing a very good job, which they are. Lots of our kids are getting a really good education, but lots are not. That’s a worry. And technology is not going to bail us out of that.

Kidder: Are Americans awakening to the need to be more global and less insular in educational practices?

Naisbitt: I think in our psyche it’s going to change. We absolutely cannot be isolationist and inward-thinking.

Kidder: What are you seeing in the realm of global business and globalization?

Naisbitt: The globalization continues, and it will continue — it’s so manifestly in the world’s interests. [Despite] all the anti-globalists who speak in the name of the poor, we’ve had hundreds of millions of people come out of poverty in the last several decades, especially in China. That’s largely a function of the globalization of our economies, although nobody knows how it works — that’s why we have to leave it alone. The “new economy,” I think, is a media myth. The Internet is a new platform for buying and selling, but buying and selling is what it’s all about. The question is, Is this new platform going to make all of that more efficient? The short answer is yes. But it’s pretty primitive [compared to] what it’s going to be. Yes, the Internet is going to help business a lot, because it’s connecting people. But [the Internet] is not a technological phenomenon, it’s a social phenomenon. It’s going to have, among other things, a very globalizing impact. It puts people in better touch with each other, but it also puts people in touch with people they otherwise would never be in touch with. That’s the important sense of it, I think, and that’s going to continue apace.

Kidder: What two or three things would you steer people toward as indicators to tell whether these benefits from September 11 are being realized?

Naisbitt: We need to watch the global economy. I think it’s going to right itself sooner than most people think. I think it’s entirely possible that, in the United States, the fourth quarter can be on the positive side, even if barely, thereby technically escaping a recession. It’s surprising how little the economy is down. I think global economic activity is a pretty good index as to how the world is stabilizing, how the world is handling opportunities and problems.

Also, I think what’s going on in the arts is pretty important to follow. I expect an explosion of creativity in the arts and literature. I think that’s a good index of people functioning. [Historically,] when times were really bad, there was not much creativity, not much innovation — the Dark Ages, for example. I wrote about it in Megatrends 2000, which was published in 1990. It’s been happening, and the question is, Will that slow down?

[Finally,] globalization. The events of September 11 stopped the anti-globalization movement in its tracks. It’s too easy to associate [anti-globalization protests] with the activities of the terrorists. [The protesters are] backing off. Some small percentage is doing antiwar [protests] or “let’s have peace” — but a very small percentage.

Yve Newbold, a corporate lawyer specializing in international issues, heads the Ethical Trading Initiative, an alliance dedicated to ethical labor practices. She has just been appointed to the British Telecommunications Charities Committee. Rushworth Kidder interviewed her on October 15 at the Institute’s London office.

Kidder: As a result of September 11, what do you hope will be the benefits for the world, including Britain and America, over the next decade?

Newbold: From a corporate standpoint, which is where I’ve lived my life as a corporate lawyer [concerned with] social responsibility, I think that September 11 forced us all to take an enormously hard look at ourselves.

We’ve been learning for some time that economic imperialism just doesn’t work at ground level in developing countries. We’ve gone in with our doctrines of “no child labor,” and we’ve learned that if you have got children who are supporting stricken parents or siblings, they cannot be fired from the workforce. So we’ve learned both humility and a degree of practicality in the implementation of our codes of conduct.

I think September 11 [tells us] that corporates could go one of two ways. They could retrench — and I suspect American companies, less used to terrorist attacks than [those] in the United Kingdom, might well retrench more readily than their U.K. counterparts. [They could] bring production back into the domestic [realm], and say to themselves that they must operate within economic or political environments they understand.

Alternatively, they could take the opportunity, and I hope they will, to consider whether corporate social responsibility must now be put at the top of the corporate agenda — in spite of recession, in spite of the fact that businesses at the moment do not have the tools to understand the social and cultural environment and social impacts of their trade in developing countries. We do seem to be standing at the crossroads now.

If companies take the road of corporate social responsibility — in other words, if we can both defend capitalism and yet show it to be flexible to changing needs, if we can show that the free enterprise system will actually fit us ten years from now — then we will increasingly move to a world government and a world order, with international courts of justice not just to prosecute war criminals but [to address] the whole panoply of trade. International free trade has had an unfettered growth since the Bretton Woods Agreements [following World War II]. But there haven’t been the balancing laws that we had in our [domestic] frameworks — brakes, checks, balances, these have not been met. We need to say, “How can we create this environment where there are checks and balances, where corporates behave much more thoughtfully before they go into a country to operate?”

Kidder: What do you fear will change for the worse?

Newbold: I think a polarization by corporates — a defensive, hostile, aggressive attitude [of] retrenchment, pulling away from developing countries, bringing trade back in, to the detriment of those developing nations. Because while we don’t say that free trade will alleviate poverty, we do say that, handled sensibly, it can immeasurably add to the economic well-being of a developing nation. The risk of September 11 is that it will force corporates to turn in on themselves, to feel persecuted, to develop a siege mentality. And that would be understandable, because what has been done is a dreadful and terrible act.

Corporates are no different [from] the human population. But they are so focused, so good at setting goals and achieving them, that if they were to decide to retrench, to develop a siege mentality, I think it would be very powerful. One of the aspects that we’ve noticed in relation to corporates is what we call the conscious parallelism. They look at each other; they copy each other. Their executives are meeting at the same conference. So I think what we will see in the corporates is this unity of response.

And I think therefore it’s incumbent on organizations that are advising corporates to get to the very heart of the corporate boardroom — to go and talk to these people [who are] extremely nervous and anxious, as they sit staring [at] recession. What do they do? These are very, very difficult decisions. How do you put corporate social responsibility at the top of the agenda when half your executives are screaming that you’ve got to go out there and really kill to bring in the profits to keep the investors happy? How do you balance those? Isn’t it easy to let these difficult, complex human issues just go to one side?

Kidder: This retrenchment — can you say a little bit more about that? What will be the signs of that happening?

Newbold: Well, let me start with the supply chain, because that’s where the Ethical Trading Initiative principally operates. What we could see is that the supply chain is curtailed. Instead of going to, say, Sri Lankan housewives who make buttons in their own homes to supply to the big textile manufacturers and suppliers, we could find that the supply chain is curtailed — that perfectly acceptable, though more expensive, sources of production are found in Portugal, Spain, and countries in Latin America where economic and political systems are tried and tested and known and understood. That would not be an unworthy move for a corporate to make when it considers, as it must, the risk factors which surround its operations.

[And] will they start to look at employees? I’m pretty certain that there will be an added impetus in corporates to say, “Are we harboring terrorists in our midst?” Most major corporates are going to have to bring in a whole raft of security measures about the safety and welfare of their own employees.

So corporates have a heck of a lot on the agenda, some of it purely practical. And what will that do? If a board has to consider huge security issues around its staff, does it develop a kind of collective neurosis? There’s a great tendency to stereotype — not to see the complexity in a situation, but to say, “We’re going to pull out of the Middle East. Anything that’s got an Arab name to it, let’s come out of it.”

The other thing that bin Laden has done, which is much more insidious, is that he’s shot a very powerful arrow into the heart of the free enterprise system, which works on the basis of confidence. What the markets hate is uncertainty. We’re in a recession now, and we’ll come out of it. We’re used to those cyclical movements. But if bin Laden introduces permanent uncertainty at the heart of the free enterprise system, which he has certainly started, then what does that do to our capitalist system? How do we build back the confidence?

Kidder: What indicators are you going to be looking for, for the next few years, to tell you whether your hopes or your fears are being realized?

Newbold: I’ll be looking at signs that corporate responsibility and ethical trading are being moved down the agenda. I can often tell that, by how easy it is to get in to see the chief executive and talk about ethical trading. Some of that is purely intuition. How seriously are corporates beginning to face up to the responsibilities that September 11 has brought them? I will be watching for signs of that among my [Ethical Trading Initiative] membership, because I feel that now is the wrong time for corporates to be abandoning the tasks they were just about to set themselves on the road towards more socially responsible conduct in developing nations.

We don’t ask corporates to address the North/South divide. They cannot do that. But they need to be aware of the climate in which they operate, [and] get a holistic vision. It isn’t just about profitability or keeping investors happy. It’s about far more than that, and it’s about far more than reputation. It’s about doing the right thing, because that’s the right thing to do. They need to hear [this] message a lot more — particularly the outside directors. They must bring into the boardroom the politics of inclusion, a knowledge of poverty, a working experience of the societies in which they are active.

If I had a dream, it would be to take every single corporate director and make them live in a mud-hut village in Zimbabwe for 48 hours. I tell you, the whole corporate world would be a different place.

Lord Phillips founded the law firm Bates, Wells & Braithwaite, London, in 1970, and is a specialist in charity law, business law, and defamation. Cofounder and first chair of the LAG, a legal aid charity; founder and president of Citizenship Foundation, an education charity; cofounder and president of the Solicitors’ Pro Bono Group; and on many charitable and business boards, Lord Phillips is also a working Life Peer. In addition, he is a freelance journalist, a regular panelist and occasional presenter on Anglia TV programs regarding current affairs, and legal adviser (”Legal Eagle”) on BBC2’s “Jimmy Young Show.” Rushworth Kidder spoke to Lord Phillips at his office in London on October 11, 2001.

Kidder: As a result of these attacks, what do you hope will change for the better in our country and the world over the next decade?

Phillips: I think September 11 was unprecedented. The nearest parallels don’t come close: Pearl Harbor, a distant island military hit; the London blitz, a declared war where people were expecting to some extent what they got, horrible and defenseless as it was. [On] the scale of pure evil, I think it comes as near to 10 out of 10 as you’ll get, particularly because there was no warning and there was no war.

What also marks it, of course, is that it was against America, which has a superiority of power, economic and military, unparalleled in the history of the world. It was unique for America, a country in the full flush of its unprecedented power that was suddenly exposed to something beyond imagining.

So what good comes out of it? As one deeply worried about the materialism of the West, deeply worried about the subjugation of spiritual values to material selfishness, I would like to think that it would give us all pause. We don’t lack intelligence. We may lack wisdom, we may lack spirituality, we may lack common sympathy, but we don’t lack intelligence. Our consciences have not been wholly anesthetized.

So the greatest obligation we have to those who suffered is to ask these difficult questions. I hope there will be a real self-examination that will go far beyond the traditional sources of self-examination — the churches, the intelligentsia, a certain part of the liberal community — and embrace the financial, professional elites. There is a massive need for collective reflection on where we’re headed.

Kidder: Do you see that kind of question happening in financial circles?

Phillips: I think this is something that will show itself, if it does, in the next few months or even year or two. I think one of the terrible things about materialism is that it actually coarsens the mind and heart of those who are grabbed by it. You don’t come out of it the same as you went in to it. But I suppose I’m an eternal optimist. I’ve got a sense that a lot of people will start to use their wonderful intellectual talents and energy in a slightly different direction. So a great richness could come out of this — a sort of metaphysical richness.

Kidder: As a result of September 11, what do you fear will change for the worse in the next ten years?

Phillips: That’s easy: The fear is that my optimism is misplaced! That it’s business as usual, and that the intense animosity that our economic and commercial imperialism has created — not just [in] the Muslim world — [is] an animosity that runs so deep that it merges into hatred. I was in Syria and Lebanon in February, and I had meetings with the foreign secretaries of both countries and the prime minister and president of Lebanon. I saw the effects of the Palestinian and Israeli wars in 1967 and 1973, and went into one of the refugee camps. I think particularly [that on] Wall Street and [in] the City [of London] — two of the symbols of an aggressive, hypercompetitive commercialism/mercantilism — we underestimate those feelings. [We] tend to make life easier for ourselves by saying that it’s just the envy of incompetent, illiberal, undemocratic societies, in the face of this wonderful Western superiority gained by energy and application and intelligence. I mean, there’s some truth in that, but not much.

So what I fear is that the divide has opened up between the Muslim world and the post-Christian world. I don’t think we should just look at the dangers in terms of the prospects of us getting on the wrong end of a terrorist bomb. There are other dangers that are different but serious. So if this [terrorist attack], far from giving rise to a reexamination of some aspects of our culture, instead reinforces the rift — [with] people saying, “You’re not going to knock me off my perch! It’s business as usual, with a vengeance!” — then I get very depressed indeed.

I don’t have any faith in the notion that we can deal with this by intensifying security. I think that is completely self-delusional. A man or a woman determined to inflict terrorist damage [and] prepared to die in the process is unstoppable. If we make security on planes so effective that [this kind of attack] doesn’t work there, then they’ll do it somewhere else.

There’s a strange paradox about security, in that in some ways it actually increases the prospect of terrorism. That which is locked is much more attractive to the would-be predator than that which is open. I think that’s also true of cultures. The psychology of openness and freedom is one which is in itself benign [and] sends out ripples that are generous and trusting. We are apt to suspect [these things] as being inadequate to the terrorist threat. And I’m not being silly about this — you’ve got to inspect people going on the planes. All I’m guarding against is the popular clamoring for identity cards and all the rest of it.

Kidder: How do you feel, then, about funding the intelligence services?

Phillips: I’m not very convinced by any of it. Again, I think it can create the very thing it seeks to guard against. You need some level of knowledge of who is in your midst and what, broadly, they’re up to. Soviet Russia didn’t suffer internal terrorism, apart from Chechnya, but collapsed in a great heap. And I don’t think the collapse and the level of security were disconnected, because a certain level of security becomes an expression of a cultural or social malaise, a neurosis on the part of the community.

Kidder: What two or three indicators will you be watching in the coming months to judge whether your hopes or your fears are more accurate?

Phillips: The number one indicator is what happens in Israel and Palestine. The biggest source of poison towards America and Britain is the lack of even-handedness over the Israel/Palestine problem. I think we kid ourselves if we say that bin Laden is a phenomenon [that has] to do with Saudi Arabia from which he came and Afghanistan to which he went. The seedbed of his support is much more wide and deep than we would like to admit. From the Palestine point of view, they’ve got more refugees registered with the United Nations [since] their removal in 1948/49 than there are inhabitants of Israel — 3.7 million. And 1.2 million of these [are in] 59 camps which are unbelievably degrading, dreadful places. How many people in the West know about those? How many people really look at the history of this tragic quarter of the globe in an even-handed way?

Don’t get me wrong: I am totally behind the existence of the state of Israel. In 1973 I offered to fight for the Israelis — I believed that strongly in [their cause]. [But] unless we are seen to be even-handed, I don’t think we can expect terrorism to stop. Worse than that, there could be a real instability in several of those [Islamic] countries which could be devastating, with a capital D, to world economics and world peace. It could inflame a series of countries across the world, and it could spread into Africa, where there are large Muslim populations [with] a lot of feeling against the West.

The second indicator is whether we’re prepared to look at all the world trade organizational structures in order to seriously re-jig things in a way that is less favorable to ourselves. We are the economic colossi. The multinational is broadly an instrument of the Western democratic countries. I think we need an even-handedness in our view of the commercial and economic realities of the globe that is not currently present. I think I understand the American point of view, and I’m about as pro-American as they come. [But] I think a great deal [of the problem] comes back to America, because it is at this moment in such a position of power and influence, militarily, politically, and economically. Unless America does a number of things in a far-sighted, generous way — [like] the Marshal plan after the last world war — and unless it decommercializes its own appreciation of some of these problems, I think we’re in for a very uncertain and probably very dangerous decade, or two, or three.

George Moffett, former diplomatic correspondent and Middle East correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor, is the author of Critical Masses: The Global Population Challenge. He served in the Carter White House, where he worked on the Panama Canal treaties. Now president of Principia College, Dr. Moffett was interviewed by telephone on October 3 in his office in Elsah, Illinois, by Rushworth Kidder.

Kidder: As a result of these attacks, what do you hope will change for the better in our country and the world over the next decade?

Moffett: Our national conversation since September 11th has focused on two things that are important, but not the third thing that might be most important. [First], retaliation — how do we do it? What do we do if we have the good fortune to track Osama bin Laden down? Second, prevention and security measures — get tighter doors on the cockpits, and so on.

The third element is the question of what prompts people to do the things that they did on September 11th. There’s not enough disposition to ask why the attacks occurred, why they drew support from so many people in the Middle East, north Africa, and the [Asian] subcontinent, and how we should proceed from here.

There are certain things that we can’t change. I don’t think that we’re ever going to change Osama bin Laden and those close to him. I suppose the fact that we’re rich is not something we should or need to change, [even though] that fact provokes a good deal of envy that spills over into outright hatred. And I’m not sure that we can do much about the whole process of globalization with which the United States is so closely associated, and which seems to run roughshod over cultural traditions in parts of the world.

But I think there are a couple of factors we can control. One of those is our general lack of sensitivity toward the needs of millions of people around the world who live on the hard and very cold edge of desperation. What is it that turns people to political radicalism? Until we understand [the answer], we will never be able to address the causes of terrorism, and we’ll [instead] be focusing exclusively on consequences and preventive measures.

[The answer] has a lot to do with the failure of secular governments in many developing nations — failure to provide enough houses, food, security, and, in particular, jobs. One can’t spend very much time in the Middle East, and other nations, without being powerfully aware of the desperation that comes when huge proportions of a nation’s population, especially the younger cohorts, are unemployed. [They] may forever be unemployed, for all sorts of reasons having to do with economic inefficiencies, bureaucratic stagnation, and perhaps political corruption and overpopulation. [So] it’s not hard to understand the powerful attraction that Islamic fundamentalism and other forms of fundamentalism have over people who simply see no alternative in life.

We certainly cannot [correct those problems] alone. We can probably only make a dent. An expression of good intentions may well be a step that will help us. Right now, on a per capita basis, we spend fewer dollars on foreign aid than any developed country — actually by a good bit.

Another factor that we are going to have to take very seriously now has to do with a perception out there that the United States has been a principal obstacle to Palestinian nationalism. [There is] a feeling that our policy is too closely joined with that of the Israelis, and that we have lost our role as honest broker and as peacemaker in the region.

These two issues come together most graphically in the tiny patch of [largely Palestinian] real estate called the Gaza Strip. When I was a correspondent in the Middle East ten years ago, the population of the Gaza Strip was 600,000 people. Today [it] is over one million. It has the fastest population doubling rate in the world — about 15 years. Half of the population is under the age of fifteen, and the water table in this parched land is fast diminishing and will soon be salinated.

One could safely say that 15 years from now, packed with two million desperate people, the Gaza Strip is going to make history, and it’s probably going to be some worrisome history, because it’s a critical mass that’s developing in a very dangerous way. [So] if we ask the question, “How can it be that young men will die for the sake of making a point,” maybe that answer [is that] the next world looks much more attractive when this world is filled with such a sense of desperation.

[We need to be] playing a much more active role than we have played before, getting to the heart of the whole question of whether there should or should not be a Palestinian state. And then, simultaneously, [we need] to focus much more seriously on addressing the sources of the most extreme poverty in the Gaza Strip, which doesn’t really have an economic base of its own, and can survive only if workers from Gaza can integrate themselves into the Israeli economy.

[An] interesting thing one sees traveling around the Occupied Territories explains a bit about what’s going on here. In household after household one sees, prominently displayed on mantle pieces, expended tear-gas canisters. [They were] used by the Israelis against the Palestinians, [and] all of them [are] stamped with large letters, “Made in the U.S.A.” That’s how these associations are made in the minds of the Palestinians. And even though my guess is all but the most extreme of them would eschew the methods used by Osama bin Laden, it is why many of them find themselves expressing support.

Kidder: What do you see as the changes for the worse that may be coming in this country and abroad?

Moffett: I would isolate one thing in particular that concerns me, and that is a tendency to indulge in a kind of excess of patriotism in times like this. I want to qualify that quickly. It is very understandable that all of us are feeling a bit besieged right now, and when our nation is under attack, it is surely not surprising that we come together, that we take stock of who we are as a nation and the extraordinary things that this nation is built on that have been a great blessing to the world. [But] there is a point at which the expression of patriotism and nationalism can become a substitute for clear-headed analysis. I think it’s comforting, to a degree, to believe that the people who perpetrated this attack hate us because of our democracy and because of our virtues. [But] I don’t think it’s the fact that we have a congress that bothers so many people, but the fact that we’ve been — in their eyes — so insensitive to their needs. My concern is that an environment of excessive patriotism may not be conducive to the formulation of sound policy. We [need to] take care not to replicate the mistake of America’s enemies — who tend to see things in strictly black-and-white terms — and [not] to lose our ability to gauge the nuances that are so crucial as we size up the appropriate response in a world so filled with amazing complexities.

I am seeing people stop and think more deeply than they have thought before, and more deeply than they would tend to think in the midst of normal day-to-day circumstances about what it is about the United States and its value system that is important. [But] the real paradox here is that when people look at us from the outside, they judge our values by the culture we disseminate — television, and movies, and so forth — which is not a very accurate reflection of what’s going on.

Kidder: Finally, this question of the indicators. What are you going to be watching to see whether your hopes or your fears are coming true?

Moffett: I will be looking for three things in particular, one of which I’m beginning to find. That is a very healthy deliberateness as the administration weighs its next move. The president’s actions have lagged a bit behind his actually very effective speech of [September 20]. I think that’s good, because it suggests the extraordinary complexities of the situation are being carefully evaluated. [Another thing] I suspect is being evaluated is the great possibility that the law of unintended consequences could kick in if we gauge our moves inaccurately. Case in point: There is a distinct possibility that Osama bin Laden will be a much more potent, evocative symbol dead than alive. He may be a figure to whom more dispossessed and deprived Third World citizens will rally, if he’s made a martyr by the United States.

Kidder: Like the image of Che Guevara.

Moffett: Exactly, only much more so, because it’s writ so much larger on the world stage right now.

[We also need to be] sensitive to the way in which we forge a coalition. One need only look at just how we approach the whole issue of shoring up the Northern Alliance. If you look closely at [their] human rights record, you say to yourself, These are not necessarily people who will represent an improvement. [By supporting] them, you could exacerbate the crucial tensions that exist right now between India and Pakistan, because India supports the Northern Alliance, and Pakistan does not. I do take some heart here that the subtleties and the nuances are being given close attention in Washington.

The second thing on my list I haven’t found yet, and that is in American press, especially television journalism. In recent years [it] has reduced the size of its windows on the world, a point which is epitomized by the new format that CNN has gone to, in which every half hour they feature the world in one minute — the “Global Minute,” typically [having] to do with a flood in Bangladesh or a typhoon in Singapore. [We're] not getting the exposure, through the press, to world circumstances. What happens is that we’re caught by surprise by the very kind of thing that’s happened over the last three weeks.

The third thing is a reassessment of American policy in the Middle East. Historically we have said the expansion of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories is a detriment to peace. I think that does not reckon with the powerful emotions that are stirred in the territories by the extension of those settlements. Every time a new settlement goes up, the Palestinians lose faith that Israel and the United States are serious about the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty over any of that territory. This is one area where we have a certain amount of leverage, where we could make a policy change that would result in constructive moves that will ease the tensions. If we do, there will be a couple of significant results. If we are seen playing a more neutral role, we will be easing the pressure on moderate governments in the region whose support we so badly need. That will give us more diplomatic maneuvering room — not only dealing with this crisis, but perhaps dealing with future crises.

Sissela Bok is Distinguished Fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, where she frequently comments on ethical issues in government, media, and public life. Her books include Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life; Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation, and Mayhem: Violence as Public Entertainment. A member of the advisory council of the Institute for Global Ethics, she was interviewed by Rushworth Kidder by telephone on October 1 from her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Kidder: As a result of these attacks, what do you hope will change for the better in our country and the world over the next decade?

Bok: I’ve been very impressed to see the outpouring of generosity, and the huge effort people have made in New York, and in Washington, and elsewhere. The press, I think, has been very good in conveying the significance of this effort.

Stepping back a little, it would be very good if people began to think more carefully about what moral values are the basic ones, the ones we share. In our communities, certain basic values such as constraint on violence, on lying, and on breaking promises — and positive values such as sharing, and caring for the sick and the young and old — are recognized the world over. But they’re often practiced mostly toward one’s own group. What we need to do is to help people recognize that other human beings beyond one’s group matter as much, and that it cannot be right, ever, to kill innocent human beings.

When people say, “Well, my God tells me that I have to do this. I don’t necessarily mean to kill innocents, but my religion drives me to do this,” I always think of Immanuel Kant’s dry enlightenment comment: “Even though something is represented as commanded by God, through a direct manifestation of Him, yet, if it flatly contradicts morality, it cannot, despite all appearances, be of God.”

People need to join together — especially within their own religion — when their fellow co-religionists are carrying out atrocities, to say, “Not in the name of our religion! Not in the name of our God!” It’s always easier to say, “Our religion has been so misunderstood; there really are some good things in it.” That is not a strong enough message at this point. We also have to say, “Our co-religionists are doing things that do not correspond to our religion.” This is already happening in this country and abroad.

Another good thing that could happen — and I see some signs of it — is that in America, people could take the anomaly of entertainment violence more seriously. Children are exposed to so many messages — so many programs and so many songs that glorify violence. I think many parents were shocked when their children saw the September 11 terrorist attacks on television and said, “Ah! A movie! Cool!” We’ve seen so many people say, “This seemed like a movie at first.” Parents had to say, “Wait a minute — this is not like other explosions you’ve seen. This is not like all the war games you’ve taken part in. This is real.” We need to explain that violence is not thrilling when it happens — it is not entertaining, and should not be. If that shift is taking place, that’s important.

This film that was about to come out — the Arnold Schwarzenegger film, which was about blowing up the Twin Towers and was going to be called “Collateral Damage” — I’m glad he withdrew the movie. The phrase “collateral damage” is part of the problem. A number of countries, including our own, use “collateral damage” as a euphemism. For instance, if there is an attack on Afghanistan, and a lot of innocent human beings are killed, or wounded, or injured, the expression “collateral damage” is going to be one way of avoiding responsibility.

Kidder: What do you suppose causes individuals to overcome one of the deepest human drives — the drive to stay alive? What is it that caused the terrorists involved in these attacks to plan their own suicides this deliberately and chillingly?

Bok: I think there must have been indoctrination, perhaps starting early in childhood. In some communities now, the word “martyr” is used, and suicide is glorified. But that only seems to work if there is also a notion of the afterlife — of God willing this activity and providing benefit for you. It seems to me that that form of indoctrination is easier to carry out in societies where there is no free press.

In my book Secrets, I had a chapter on secret societies, such as the twelfth-century Assassins, who terrorized the Near East. I talked about bringing people into the group, and making them able to carry out atrocities that they would never have been able to carry out before. That often happens by asking them first to do some one act — of killing, for instance. Once that’s done, they’re in the group, and it’s very hard for them to get out.. But coming back to the question, I think this is what so many in this country are asking: How could people use themselves as weapons, and go against what many Muslims are saying is the view of the Koran, which is that suicide is always wrong?

Kidder: What do you fear might change for the worse in our country and the world over the next decade? What’s the downside?

Bok: The downside could be a polarization. Americans might get the feeling that there is so much hatred out there that they don’t understand, while others on the outside may find their hatred reinforced by forces whipping up antagonism. Some people are prepared to say that anything goes in war and in love. And, of course, neither in war nor in love can that possibly be true, if we just stop to think about it.

I do think that it’s a good sign that there’s so much more collaboration the world over, by so many organizations and governments. We have much more police effort in many societies, governments collaborating on information being passed back and forth, banks sharing information in new ways. That’s a very important and good thing. But the fear would be a growing polarization in the world, and violence that could spring from it, and other hostilities that could be exacerbated — as, for instance, between India and Pakistan, both of whom have nuclear weapons. So there is a real fear that this could lead to much larger conflicts. This is somewhat similar, perhaps, to the way some people say it was before the First World War, when tensions began to rise and yet nobody could have expected that a world war would break out.

I think Americans can be very good at resisting that polarization. There are many good forces here, in the press, in various religious organizations, in communities, warning of the dangers of polarization, and that is a hopeful sign. But if there is another attack, the terror could lead to emotional reactions that would be very damaging to the country. And of course, that’s what terrorism is all about — it’s about bringing about terror and making people self-destruct morally as a society.

Kidder: In the last three weeks there seems to have been an unprecedented introspection, a willingness to discuss deeper metaphysical and moral questions. Do you think that’s a blip that will disappear, or do you think something has changed here?

Bok: I think something has changed, at least for quite a while, because everybody could identify with the victims, and then ask, “What did I do with my life before this happened? Am I really prepared for this kind of eventuality? Is the family prepared? What can we do more?” We see many more families pulling together, asking what matters in their lives, what kind of life they want to be leading, what kind of person one might want to be, and what kind of community they want to live in.

I think that is a very important change. It’s not at all clear that it will last forever. But for instance, the general attitude of “looking out for Number One” has been shaken. A lot of young people, who may have thought that that was what life was all about, no longer take that for granted at all. The role of the press, the role of intellectuals, the role of communities is all-important in stressing what we human beings have in common.

by Martin Taylor

Interview with Norman A. Baglini, Ph.D., CPCU, CLU, former chairman and chief executive officer of the American Institute for CPCU, the Insurance Institute of America, and the Insurance Institute for Applied Ethics.

Norman A. Baglini, Ph.D., CPCU, CLU, is arguably the most outspoken proponent of ethics in the world of insurance. Former chairman and chief executive officer of the American Institute for CPCU, the Insurance Institute of America, and the Insurance for Applied Ethics for almost 25 years, Baglini made ethics a top-of-mind concern for insurance company executives across the country. As he prepared to retire from the institutes to pursue an interrupted academic career, the Institute asked for his thoughts on ethics, business, and the insurance industry.

Dr. Baglini, why are you so concerned about ethics in insurance?

Trust is a fundamental principle of insurance. The insurance agent who writes a policy, and the underwriter who approves it as business for his company, must trust that the information on the application is correct. The agent and the company providing the insurance must trust that the policyholder making a claim will accurately assess the loss. In turn, the applicant must trust that the agent is giving proper advice, untainted by a conflict of self-interest. The applicant must trust that the company underwriter will not discriminate when establishing the premium. Lastly, the policyholder must have faith that the company adjusters will pay a fair amount for a claim, should it become necessary.

Francis Fukuyama would say that trust, or operating together under a common set of ethical norms, enables societies to function economically. In the absence of trust, the transactional fees from legal and governmental bodies would make a business like insurance difficult at least, and perhaps impossible.

Without trust, insurance cannot perform its proper function as a risk management device for companies and individuals. No industry depends more on trust, and this trust comes from a series of events in which ethical values are demonstrated. For instance, a life insurance policy might provide coverage for decades, although it’s only a piece of paper. That piece of paper, however, commands a series of premium payments totaling thousands of dollars over many years. The same piece of paper, in return, promises a large payment sometime in the future.

Dr. Baglini, when you established the Insurance Institute of Applied Ethics in 1995, what was the first challenge you addressed?

We felt that our first task was to raise awareness of ethics in the insurance industry itself, among insurance consumers, and among the regulatory bodies. The second step was to get industry employers and employees committed to ethics. The third step was to help develop ethical competence. Recognizing that a 15-minute ethical lapse can ruin a career as it did for the CEO of Bath Iron Works, described by Rushworth Kidder in How Good People Make Tough Choices, is an important first step in awareness. Becoming prepared through training gives people tools to deal with the critical moment when their ethics would be tested.

What have you done to achieve these goals?

One accomplishment that’s worth notice is Ethics Awareness Month–which our industry observes annually as a whole, including property and casualty and life insurance–with trade press articles, speakers, and seminars. There’s tremendous diversity in what constitutes ethical awareness, primarily varied by job role. Company CEOs must recognize that they are responsible for establishing the values of their corporations. “CEO” should stand for “Chief Ethics Officer.” Agents, on the other hand, must perceive that ethics is normal business practice–not only what is legal, but what is fair and honest. To reach those ends we frequently convene panels of experienced people during Ethics Awareness Month to discuss common situations in which people are challenged ethically.

Do these panel discussions help?

Yes, the discussions certainly make the audience aware that ethics is above the minimum legal requirements. The panelists don’t always agree, which helps the audience to recognize that ethics is a study of conflicting right answers, where there often is no single correct answer. These discussions also heighten the need for commitment to principles, many of which are clearly stated in codes of ethics.

Currently, what’s the “moral barometer” of the insurance industry?

Well, I don’t know–mergers and acquisitions keep the landscape in a perpetual state of change. I read the trade press, and I’m often upset by what has been done. On the other hand, there are people out there who do the right thing at great personal sacrifice. But whomever we are, we can and should raise the ethics standard, just as many industries improved their customer service.

Trust is less general than it used to be in many sectors–banks, stockbrokers, government are all scrutinized carefully. When an unethical business practice becomes apparent–routinely denying claims, for instance–regulators come down hard, and many employees ask themselves, what about my company? But actually, it’s a few rogues who have caused an awful lot of trouble. When trust departs, the regulations and paperwork arrive.

What can the insurance industry do to improve?

The industry has to take the initiative in heightening trust, training all its people to act ethically–honestly, fairly, and with integrity. In time, there will be a similar response from our clients. Did you know that fraudulent insurance claims may be as high as 15 to 30 percent of the total? There are professional claimants who make a career out of having their cars rear-ended.People view insurance companies as disinterested institutions, not pools of their neighbors. There’s not much loyalty on either side. Clients may have a much closer tie with their agents, however. The Insurance Information Institute did a study among the general population recently that ranked the reputations of insurance agents higher than insurance companies. We need to make the whole relationship much more personal.

Every time my colleagues and I speak, whether at industry annual meetings, individual organizations, conferments, or board meetings, we strongly urge the audience to accept responsibility as ethical role models because they are, whether they want to be or not. CEO or underwriter, what they do is more important than what they say. The image of our industry will not be changed through public relations, but through one personal encounter at a time.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

ST. LOUIS
As Sanford McDonnell recalls it, his wife was the one who, indirectly, propelled the McDonnell Douglas Corporation into a code of ethics.

McDonnell, who became chairman and CEO of the firm in 1980, had been working flat out. But his son was 12. That’s when his wife urged him not to miss the best years of his son’s life–and suggested they find something they liked to do together.

So his son joined the Boy Scouts of America, and "Sandy," as he is known, became a scoutmaster.

"After years of working with boys and telling them to live up to the Scout Oath and Law, [I felt] we ought to have such a code at McDonnell Douglas," he chuckles during an interview for Business Ethics Newsline in his office at the St. Louis headquarters of the company, now part of Boeing.

"We had a code of conduct, a `Thou Shalt Not’ code," he remembers. "But we didn’t have a positive code of ethics, like the Scout Oath. So we put together a small task force and had them come up with a code." It was based on 11 of the 12 points in the Scout Law–leaving aside only the word reverent, since he didn’t feel they could require a religious or spiritual commitment from their employees.

Then, working with Gary Edwards, president of the Ethics Resource Center in Washington, and with Prof. Kirk Hansen at Stanford University, McDonnell Douglas set up one of the first "truly comprehensive proactive ethics programs" in the nation, complete with an eight-hour training program for all employees.

That first code was adopted in April 1983–eight years before the Federal Sentencing Guidelines impelled so many firms to establish codes of ethics. And it helped promote what was to become the nation’s first real industry-wide ethics effort, the Defense Industry Initiative, established in 1986.

"The aerospace industry, in my opinion, is perhaps one of the leaders, if not the leader, in this whole proactive ethics program," says McDonnell. Early on, he recalls, "I tried to get the whole industry to adopt codes of ethics." Their initial reaction, he recalls, was "a manifestation of the halo-clutching syndrome," where his counterparts in other companies would say, " `You may need a proactive ethics program at McDonnell Douglas, but I don’t need it at XYZ Corporation!’"

"I have to admit that I didn’t make it that first time," he says. But David Packard, deputy secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and cofounder of Hewlitt-Packard, saw the need as well.

"It took a David Packard," recalls McDonnell, "to get hold of [CEO] Jack Welch of General Electric and say, `Why don’t you really organize the industry into a proactive ethics program?’ "

The result was the Defense Industry Initiative, which led to industry-wide cooperation in developing ethics programs. "This was way ahead of any other industry," he says.

By the time McDonnell stepped down as CEO in 1988, his company had put about 50,000 people through the program–which was, he notes, "a major investment."

In 1978, S. K. Chakraborty began thinking deeply about human values in the context of management. He now directs the Management Centre for Human Values at the Indian Institute of Management in Calcutta. Author of more than a dozen books–including Values and Ethics for Organizations: Theory and Practice (Oxford University Press, 1998)–he began his work in finance and accounting. He was interviewed for Newsline at his Centre in March by Bruce Lloyd, principal lecturer in strategy at South Bank University in London.

You have established a remarkable Centre here on this campus on the outskirts of Calcutta. How did it all happen?

It began about twenty years ago as a small individual effort, while I was teaching finance and accounting at the Indian Institute of Management. Working with both the Institute and on in-company training, I found many managers raising two questions. First, when it came to managing the human side of the organization, why did we always have to discuss ideas in terms of essentially American values? On the human side, at least, there was a tradition of indigenous Indian ideas that could be offered.

Second, why was it that beneath the surface of almost all organizations there appeared to be an enormous number of factors that were causing managers to operate suboptimally?

I came to the conclusion that the problem was due to not addressing the quality of the human being. Professional competence and professional skills [are not an] answer to being a good human being.

So we began to identify a skills/values gap, and we noticed that, although the combination of skills was changing fast and becoming more refined and focused, at the same time the values area was not being taken care of in any conscious way. It appeared that professional management was taking a more and more manipulative approach toward skills. This manipulating appeared to be taking place primarily because the values dimension in management was not openly and explicitly acknowledged. Inevitably, because of that, this area was not well managed.

The essential content of your work is in two areas: strategy and leadership. It is increasingly recognized that a first organizational priority is to embed effective values, as this will critically influence both the nature of the strategy that emerges and the effectiveness with which it is implemented. Are there elements of Indian culture that enable that importance of the sense of "being" to be more easily recognized than in other cultures, which appear more preoccupied with "doing"?

I agree. There are two aspects of any human role. One is concerned with "doing" and the other with "becoming." Unfortunately, most professionals seem to swing to the side of "doing" at the cost of "becoming." This is not good, either for the corporation or the individual. So we say, "Don’t be impatient. We will talk about the organization later, and we will talk about society even later, and about the world even later than that. First let’s talk about the individual."

We insist in our workshops that we cannot continue talking abstractly about organizations and society. We start with the individual. And at that level we have to reconcile "doing" with "being." If I am "doing" without "becoming," it is no good. It is defeating the purpose of human life.

In many ways the core organizational challenge today is how to reconcile the vested interests of the past with the strategic needs of the future. At a global level, the challenge is to establish some agreement around the core values. Many conflict situations around the world, such as Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, and even in parts of India, are between groups where there is relatively little difference in the core values, but where the historic structures and vested interests can ferment the differences to the point that they produce an almost infinite amount of conflict. How are we going to overcome some of these divisions?

I might be making a rather simplistic response to that point, but in the days to come, unless business and politics are to some extent spiritualized, these problems will never be solved. It is this combination of business, technology, and politics which is the real problem. Unless this combination can, over a period of time, get a little more spiritualized, a little more civilized, we are not likely to make progress.