Our conversation about Sutton’s “no asshole rule” was important for me because it causes me to examine situations where effective business practices (which I define as those practices that lead to financial success) and ethical business clash. I hope that at Notre Dame we define the “best” business practices as those that maximize effectiveness and ethics.

My ethics are deeply rooted in my understanding of the Christian faith. A cornerstone of my beliefs – Christ’s admonition to love each other – causes me to assert that it is never ethical to be an a-hole, in other words it is never acceptable or right to treat another person with cruelty, meanness, disrespect, condescension, insults, abuse, or the like. Assertiveness, properly used, is fine and even encouraged, but no a-holeness.

After class, someone made a comment that I found very provocative and, for a while, one that made me rethink whether it was really never acceptable to be an a-hole. (I love it when someone challenges my thinking this way! BTW, they did it in a very respectful manner.) They said that, in the case of professional sports, aggressiveness and even violence on the field can be very important determinants of winning. And, assuming that is true, being an a-hole coach might be the best way to create aggression and violence among players. This comment really got me thinking.

There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that a-hole coaches can be winners, but there is also evidence that “nice” coaches (e.g., Lovie Smith, Dick Vermeil) can be winners too. I don’t know these coaches (a-holes or not) well enough to speak with confidence, but what I hear and read about them suggests both approaches can be effective over the short run. I do not know of any really good studies into which approach is best over the long run, so I’ll have to rely on anecdotal evidence here too. Again, I think the evidence suggests both approaches can work long-term too.

Assume for a minute that it is true that the a-hole approach is, indeed, the best strategy for winning. Before crowning it the best approach, period, I would want to consider the consequences of this approach beyond its effects on the field. Externalities (which economists define as “an effect from one activity which has consequences for another activity but is not reflected in market prices”) would be one class of consequences. After class, when I was working-out, I saw a report on ESPN that suggests that increased violence in the NFL may be causing long-term health problems for players. The costs, both financial and non-financial (e.g., loss of quality-of-life) of these health problems to players & their families can be quite high. There may also be costs to fans, for example in the form of higher ticket prices to cover health care to injured former players or the premature retirement of a high-quality player, and to other stakeholders as well. Another report I read recently suggested that the increased aggressiveness and violence in the NFL and other professional sports was a contributing factor to the off-field problems players seem to be getting into more regularly. So, even if the a-hole approach is the best strategy for winning, other consequences may make it the less-preferred approach.

In the end, this discussion leads to what I think is a very important question: what do we chose when effectiveness and ethics clash? That’s a question I think each of us should give deep thought to. I hope that at ND we say the ethics – which the University defines in terms of its Christian values – is always the most important factor. I think there are plenty of universities, businesses, and people that would argue the reverse, that effectiveness matters most, so I would like ND to be one persuasive voice advocating for ethics as the paramount concern. I have to admit, I’m not convinced that we really do enough to advocate this position, but that is a different issue.

My current thinking – which, although it is rooted in science, is always incomplete and always shaped by my values, ideals, and beliefs – is that the ethical approach to business is the most effective approach over the long run. In other words, I believe the ethical approach is also the most effective approach over the long-run. Over the short run it will probably cost more and it is also probably the most challenging or the hardest approach to adopt.

So, this is why I still believe that there is never a good or acceptable reason for being an a-hole, even in professional sports. I welcome and encourage your comments!