The Golden Rule and the Invisible Stakeholder

‍

‍

Rabbis have long debated which part of the Torah is the most important. Popular candidates range from the giving of the Ten Commandments, to the Exodus from Egypt, to the creation narratives of Genesis. In the Torah portion read last week, we encountered Leviticus 19:18, argued by some well-respected rabbis to be the most important, most fundamental part of the entire Torah. Within it is the famous passage “love your neighbor as yourself,” commonly rephrased as the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

We often think of the rule narrowly, applying it mainly to the people we directly interact with. It’s easy to consider the applicability when engaging with a neighbor, family member, or other person literally right in front of your eyes. Even if out of sight, there is a concrete person to whom to apply the rule and so it’s not hard for people to consider their actions and consequences.

Unfortunately, the rule gets harder to apply as the “others” become more distant, literally or figuratively, and more abstract. In the workplace it is not hard to keep it in mind when dealing with co-workers. Again, they are literally right in front of you. However, our jobs also affect many others who may not be so visible, such as customers, suppliers, partners, and even the community at large.

When we make decisions at work that impact those groups, we often do so with an asymmetrical perspective. In the room it’s easy to envision the additional revenue or cost savings a particular decision may have. What’s harder is to recall how it may affect those others. Concretely, this includes things such as insurance policy processes that make it difficult for people to file or qualify for a claim, usually during a difficult moment in their lives, or limited customer support that leaves users frustrated (I’m looking at you cable companies). It can be larger companies putting onerous terms on smaller companies who need the business and don’t have the leverage to push back. At multiple companies where I worked, I saw large corporate customers regularly pay extremely late because they knew they could (resulting in cash flow problems for their vendors).

Very commonly, communities are thought of last, if at all. Pollution, noise, and heavy traffic are common community complaints that are often given little consideration. Noise and traffic are especially easy to dismiss because their impact is localized: a few neighborhoods bear the burden, while the broader community receives the tax revenue. The few pay the price for the benefit of the many. How often do companies and neighbors consider the few in such cases? “Others” can also be construed more broadly to include wildlife, which rarely has a seat at the table. Currently, we see the repeated debate about new data centers that can place significant demands on local power and water supplies, often impacting far more than the one town in which the data center will be located.

Undoubtedly, the concept of the Golden Rule is well known and likely agreed to by many. Its concrete application, however, especially in the workplace, is something that still needs work. Amazon has famously used an empty chair in meetings to represent the customer. That is a useful practice, but the chair does not have to represent only customers. From time to time, it can also represent suppliers, partners, investors, employees, neighbors, and the broader community. Even taking ten minutes once a month to ask, “Who is affected by this decision but not represented in this room?” is a small effort that can help you practice, and not just preach, the Golden Rule.

‍