 |
Photo used with permission
|
Don’t
get me wrong. I don’t believe that the utter failure of Enron was a good thing for its employees, its
customers or any of its stakeholders. Tens of thousands of people were
negatively impacted, and many were horribly wronged by the recklessness of a
few of the company’s leaders and their corrupt inner circle.
So
why might one think, as the title suggests, that the failure of Enron was perhaps
a good thing?
First,
it should be stated that by “good,” I mean it in the sense that often when
“bad” things happen, there is a paradoxical result of something of benefit
later arising out of the bad, which is a positive change that might not have
happened otherwise. So from this narrow
viewpoint alone, I do think some good has resulted from the tragedy of Enron.
Corporations
participate in the construction of meaning that we, as individuals, sense and
acknowledge around us. As such, the
incredible level of deception that a few top leaders were able to get away with
for so long should (and did) make most all of us pause in awe. There was certainly something to be learned
about how we had been preparing -- or were ostensibly failing to prepare –
future business leaders of the corporations and firms that are the primary
engines of a free society, regardless of size, to lead from an ethical base.
Second,
I think that beyond the deception itself, the very fact that comparatively so
few within the firm seemed to be actually aware of what had been going on,
stuns us into disbelief. This disbelief propels
us forward, as a society, towards new learning and subsequently, some new
positive and beneficial action.
Many
would point to Sarbanes Oxley as one of the “new” actions. I, however, would describe the enactment into
law of stricter and more prescriptive regulations as a reaction – not a new action.
And while I suspect that for some time to come it will continue to be
debated as to whether or not the new regulations were the right and best
response (including also if “ethical” behavior could be achieved through some
governmental mandate), I still offer that a regulatory response was reactive, regardless
if one believes the new regulations were needed or not.
So
what non-reactive response or new actions have occurred? I
think it can be summed up in two words: radical transparency. The failure of
Enron, and especially the unbelievable level of unethical behaviors undertaken
by its corrupt leaders and their accomplices, literally shocked us all, jolting
us into wanting and demanding transparency not only in financial auditing and
reporting related to publically-traded companies, but at all levels across our
society.
And
this I believe to be a good thing. We need ready access to information related
to publically-traded companies, publically supported institutions, publicly-funded projects, and in fact all decision-making and actions taken
by government itself. Without this
information, it is impossible to shine a light into dark corners. Information
helps us to clarify, understand, and give meaning to the past, while
simultaneously providing us a basis on which to construct meaning presently and
for the future.
So
was the collapse of Enron a good thing for any of its stakeholders? Certainly
not in the classical sense of the word good.
But this unbelievably bad event in U.S. corporate history may have led to
tremendous benefits, which otherwise might have never come about. For that, we can thank Enron for its
contribution to radical transparency across all levels.
-------------------------------Anna Amato is the President and CEO of edtec central, an educational consulting firm based in Michigan. She is a student in Benedictine University’s Ph.D./D.B.A. program in Values-Driven Leadership. -------------------------------
