1978
n
A rock or a soft place?
My former colleague (the great) Sumantra Ghoshal – who unfor-
tunately died some years ago – would even argue (if inebriated)
that shareholders are not owners at all, at least not of the
company. He would argue something like the following (and a
posthumous pardon to Sumantra if I remember his argument
slightly incorrectly; he would often not be the only inebriated
party taking part in the conversation . . .): He’d say, if you own a
dog, and the dog jumps into your neighbor’s house and wrecks
the place, you are responsible for all the damage. However, if
you own shares in an oil company and one of its oil-tankers
shipwrecks and causes a billion dollars’ worth of damage to
the environment, you’re only responsible for the extent of the
monetary value of your shares; that’s the maximum you can lose.
Although Sumantra of course realized the legal reality of the
situation, his argument was that a shareholder’s ownership rights
are just as limited as his responsibilities. As a shareholder, you’re
an investor, which gives you the right to, for instance, dividends,
but it doesn’t make you the “owner” of the company in our tradi-
tional sense of the word.
Moreover, he would continue to argue that as an employee you
often give a lot more: your intellectual capital, loyalty, ideas,
rm-specic skills, investments, etc. And companies would do
well to solicit such “gifts”. And if as an employee you give a lot
more (than just money), and a lot more of yourself, perhaps
you’re also entitled to more, in terms of the company’s loyalties
and priorities.
Who should come first? Shareholders? Are you
sure . . . ?
Herb Kelleher – the founder and former CEO of American icon
Southwest Airlines – used to say: “We place our employees rst”.
It’s a fairly extreme thing to say, especially in corporate America,
that you do not place your shareholders rst. Of course, he would
always be quite quick to continue: “Because if you have happy
employees, you will get happy customers, and if you have lots