The Stanford Business Reporter

      An interesting read during winter break prompts this week’s column. It’s a book called Buddhist Economics: A Middle Way for the Market Place. The author, P.A. Payutto, a Thai monk and Harvard lecturer, offers a modified approach to evaluating economic activity. 

      Starting with a revised take on human nature he disavows the idea that economic decisions should be based on self-preservation, greed or fear. He believes that insight into the forces that motivate behavior can lead to compassion, restraint and more ethical choices.

      Payutto describes the two types of desire that motivate people: tanha, feeling-based cravings or desire for pleasure objects, and chanda, the desire for well-being. Throughout the book he demonstrates how moderation (or “the middle way”) makes it possible to pursue self-interest while cultivating individual and social well-being.

      Sounds too good to be true? Well, he goes further to say that it is not necessarily human nature to compete. The competitive instinct arises when people are motivated by tanha, and strive to satisfy the desire for pleasure. On the other hand, he claims true cooperation is inspired by the desire for well-being, chanda. 

      But why would anyone choose chanda over cheddar? (meaning $$$for the pop slang illiterate) The thought is that money and wages are social contracts that distort the natural relationships between activities and outcomes. We use money as a proxy for true happiness, rather than as resource that supports the creation of well-being. We do tasks and endure jobs that are often unfulfilling in order to afford desire-sating goods. Or, we substitute status jobs for happiness. The preoccupation with material gain leads to excesses of tanha, which can take the form of over-work, over-consumption, greed, or poor health.

      Alternatively, if we focused on our well-being we might prefer to work less. Or, if we could expand our consideration to the well-being of others, we could part with more of our resources yand still derive satisfaction. With a greater focus on well-being, Payutto states that the acquisition of wealth facilitates “the development of the highest human potential.” Material security only sets the stage for the higher goals of well-being and inner freedom.

      Whether or not you buy this description of human nature or this goal for morally sound economic activity, the question of how to balance getting what you want in life against the greater good of others is one we all face. How will you decide where the middle way is?

Pursuit of Buddha or Booty?

      So how do you approach personal gain in a collective, “non-competitive environment” like the GSB? Is it reasonable to think that chanda would guide our decisions? Or, as expatriates of the working world, do we know better than to fall for the GSB utopia spiel? When resources are scarce--like spots in a marquis class, or jobs at favored company--shouldn’t cooperation give way to competition? Do I have to share the spoils with you or can I fight to keep them for myself? What are the rules of the game?

      Of course no one in their right mind, who stayed awake during any of the E200 lectures on repeat game strategy, would say it’s a good idea to completely “go for self.” Yet, when there are no checks in place or when there are no likely future consequences, do we still practice what we preach? A few examples from the GSB community provide evidence both ways.

      There have been occasions where classroom discussions have become hostile to the point where one student seems to be willing to “win” a discussion point at all cost, and inappropriately goes on the offensive with classmates. 

      There has also been a case of a student’s idea for a business plan winding up in the application of another team that was vying to get into the same class, after she shared her ideas with the competing team’s group leader. 

      There is also the example of the student who changed their behavior towards other students when they entered the summer internship work environment together, leaving behind the team-player concept for trying to get an offer.

      Happily, however, there are also some unsung heroes who give up their own study time to help tutor other students. And, there are even more still who have taken time help prep other students for interviews or share personal contacts or war stories for companies at which both are trying to get jobs.

      There are also GSB students who are seeking career paths that will enable them to help others and will forgo some of their financial rewards for the social well-being of others.

      It is clear that our values are not all uniform, and some of us have defined different personal guidelines than others. Is it more ideal to find the GSB mean cooperation/competition boundary line and emulate it? At least then we’d be no nicer or meaner than anyone else. Or maybe it’s safe to say that the few examples of anti-cooperative behavior are anomalies and we can ignore them. Or maybe some of us have to wise up and not be so thin-skinned (especially the traders-to-be). After all we’re not going to be here forever. This is just a temporary safe-haven from the business world, right?

 What do you think?

We welcome questions, comments or ideas for future articles. Please email us at kaizen@gsb.stanford.edu.

Article Tools