Send Back Those Gifts!

Are we all so greedy that we want what we want when we want it? So greedy that we are tempted by material possessions to give up our integrity? So greedy that we damage the public trust by creating obligations that hamper the public good?

What am I talking about here? I am talking about public officials accepting gifts. I am talking about corporate leaders who accept pay offs, large pensions, and other bonuses beyond a reasonable salary. I am talking about any of us who accept gifts from those we don’t know, or have a passing acquaintance with, people who want something from us and are, in essence, “paying” us to look with favor on their products or services.

Gifts, at their best, are expressions of caring or gratitude. We give gifts at holidays or on birthdays or other special occasions to people we care about and to people that we have nice relationships with at work. We give gifts to those who have contributed to our lives or our success when we are celebrating our success and recognizing the team that helped us to get there. We give gifts to those that we have meaningful relationships with as expressions of appreciation for the richness that they bring to our lives. These are not the gifts that threaten our integrity.

The gifts that threaten our integrity are really “loss-leaders,” not gifts. That is, someone wants something from us, and they are willing to pay some money to give us a little taste of doing business with them. For instance, a restaurant hands out “free” samples. An office supply store hands out sticky note pads with their name on it. A vacation packages company offers an overnight stay at a resort if we will come and listen to their sales pitch. And we often accept these “gifts.” And companies know that the gifts are effective marketing strategies, reminding the “gift” recipient of the company’s name and services, because companies keep on using loss-leaders.

Loss-leaders are not really free gifts. They are small payments ahead of time to entice us to use the services or buy the products. Perhaps if we are aiming for ethical optimums, we should not accept these loss-leaders if we don’t intend to do frequent their business or store. But when we do accept the loss leader, we end up with a warm fuzzy feeling about the company. That is, the company gains name recognition and a reputation for doing nice things for people, which is exactly their aim.

The fact that loss-leaders work should alert us to other “purchases” of favor. I recently spoke with a businessman about offering him some consultation on ethics. When I entered his office, he had several gift cards in his hand, and after we spoke, he handed me a $50 gift card as a gift, saying he likes giving gifts. Initially, I took the gift card. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that I might hedge in challenging his unethical behavior if I accepted the gift card. You see, the gift, if I accepted it, created an obligation to look favorably on him and on his behavior. But if my job is to challenge unethical behavior, then my job would be hampered by holding a favorable opinion that wasn’t earned by ethical behavior.

And so goes the behavior of public officials and business and other community leaders who have been in the news lately. You see, ministers who accept personal gifts from wealthy church members may be tempted to look the other way if that member behaves illegally or unethically, thus failing to fulfill their ministerial role in counseling more godly choices. Board members who receive an unreasonably hefty payment for serving on the board ($100,000 for a once a year meeting is not uncommon) may be tempted to look the other way if the company president proposes actions that border on unethical. CEOs whose bonuses and other payouts depend on the profitability of the company may be tempted to “fudge,” if they think they can get away with it, if fudging will increase their bonuses or other payouts. And, of course, government officials who accept free hotel rooms, golf games, luncheons, or charity ball tickets may be tempted to play favorites with the gift givers despite requirements to equitably consider all views and all bids.

So what’s the point here? If we are shooting for optimal ethical behavior and refusing to start down a slippery slope, if we want to invest in a better society, if we want to prevent our own or others’ boundary crossing or inappropriate obligations, then we need to face the facts: loss-leaders are not gifts. Loss- leaders ask us for favors. Loss-leaders hope that we will have a more favorable relationship with the giver than with their competitors. Loss-leaders are given so that we will pay the giver back. And we need to return loss-leaders if they will tempt us to let down our guard, to play favorites, to sacrifice quality, or to simply not perform our jobs or roles to their best. We need to return loss-leaders if we have no intention of purchasing the product or service, if it would be illegal to do accept the item or service, or if it would harm our families, our companies, or the public trust to accept it. So, let’s put raw greed aside and think of the bigger picture. Let’s send back the loss-leaders!