This post is part of the Bible and Business series on Christian ethics for Christian Business Owners.
Description of the problem: Some organisations, including Christian ministries, make conscious tradeoff decisions to accept a level of egocentricity, arrogance, callousness, or insensitivity in key employees because of the talents, skills, and positive outcomes these employees bring to the organization. Their destructive tendencies can be mistaken as leadership qualities: “Taking charge, making decisions, and getting others to do what you want are classic features of leadership and management, yet they can also be well-packaged forms of coercion, domination, and manipulation. Failing to look closely beneath the outer trappings of stereotypical leadership to the inner workings of the personality can sometimes lead to a regrettable hiring decision” (Babiak, 2006, “Snakes in Suits”).
Keeping a key employee on staff when the owner knows the destruction that lies in the wake of that employee represents an ethical problem for the owner. Should the owner keep the employee because of the profits and success the employee brings, or should the owner let the employee go because of the interpersonal and cultural destruction this employee inflicts on the organization?
Type of problem: Stand up for Ethics.
Filter: Almost all boorish behaviour violates “loving your neighbour as yourself” and betrays a lack of love for God. It is difficult to reason oneself into a place where insensitivity, arrogance, or callousness are examples of loving one’s neighbour. It is only when the offending employee is simultaneously bringing in unusual sales levels or fixing difficult problems that an ethical dilemma may appear. The temptation is to believe that the positive results of the offending employee’s work can only be achieved with that individual employee in the picture. The false (and wrong) belief develops in the owner’s mind that only the offending employee can accomplish what is being accomplished. This belief leads to a no-win narrative that forces the owner to choose between two equally negative options: tolerating bad behaviour that would normally not be tolerated or losing the positive results the offending individual brings to the organization. Most owners choose the latter as a tradeoff decision for the former.
Boorish behaviour violates most of the Ten Commandments. As an example, Table 3-6 is offered as it evaluates arrogance (a type of boorish behaviour) against the Ten Commandments:
Table 3-6: Arrogance Filtered Against the Ten Commandments (NIV):
| Reference | Command | How Arrogance Violates These Commands |
| Exodus 20:3 | “You shall have no other gods before me.” | Arrogance displaces God; it does not bow itself to Yahweh. Only humility bows to God. |
| Exodus 20:4 | “You shall not make for yourself an image.” | Arrogance makes the individual the individual’s own god. In a sense, everytime the individual looks in the mirror, there is a mistaken image for Yahweh. |
| Exodus 20:7 | “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.” | |
| Exodus 20:8 | “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.” | Holiness is about being set apart for God’s work; the arrogant will not allow themselves to be under God’s authority, so it is impossible for them to keep the Sabbath day holy. |
| Exodus 20:12 | “Honour your father and your mother.” | The arrogant only honour themselves and what they value. It is difficult to see how they would honour their fathers and mothers, though in some subcultures, motherhood is sacred. |
| Exodus 20:13 | “You shall not murder.” | |
| Exodus 20:14 | “You shall not commit adultery.” | |
| Exodus 20:15 | “You shall not steal.” | In a sense, arrogance steals from God the glory that is due to God. |
| Exodus 20:16 | “You shall not give false testimony.” | |
| Exodus 20:17 | “You shall not covet.” |
Correct ethical decision: the owner cannot make the correct decision until the owner lets go of the wrong premise that only the offending individual can bring the results the owner desires. It is a deception to believe that only one individual on the face of this earth can achieve certain results.
But once the owner clears the owner’s mind of deceptions, then the owner is free to choose that valuing all employees equally (as opposed to valuing the offending employee more than the mental/emotional welfare of all other employees) is the correct course of action. It is the only decision that “loves your neighbour as yourself” and shows relative equal love to each employee. The owner is free to end the employment of the offending employee.
