Image by Financial Times
Overall, I think Scott Galloway's suggestion, reviewed in my previous post, would be the most effective solution. Changing the culture surrounding work hours is the best way to gain control over them. Managers should be aware of how long their subordinates are working and should be compensated when they take action to reduce their hours or at least take action when they exceed their hour limits. Also, more junior bankers should be employed to spread out the playing field, or as Galloway says, "increase the bandwidth."
He also says the self-report hours are not going to be effective enough, likely because they can be easily cheated. People don't want to be called into HR meetings if they want to deliver good results to their clients; they just want to focus on getting the deal done. For those bankers who wish to have a break, they will be honest and report their high numbers and will probably get their break. It will be quite personal, I think, as to how honest workers choose to be when reporting their hours, dependent on their goals and values. This brings up the virtue framework discussed in class. If the worker wants to become a prosperous, hard-working, and dedicated individual, they may be inclined to report fewer hours in order to complete the deal they are working on.
However, I also believe that investment banking requires a certain person, and these rigorous work conditions should still be available to them. Not everyone can do it. This is very clear from all the information I have looked at. And for those who are willing to suffer the consequences of having such a job, it should exist. At an entry-level position, employees can likely leave their job when they please without suffering too much consequence. This is always an option for them. It's not like they are forced to work there. If they are unable to endure the conditions, or just don't think it's worth their efforts, they are always free to choose another path. Anyways, most people who get jobs in investment banking come from very prestigious universities, so it's likely other businesses in other fields would be very happy to employ them.
The most applicable ethical framework here is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, a form of theological ethics, focuses on maximizing happiness or minimizing harm to the greatest number of people. Should we prioritize economic success and personal wealth, or should we focus more on having a balanced life? This question, as hinted above, is very personal. For some people, it makes sense to them. If they can retire at the age of 40 with millions in their bank account, the grueling hours, lack of work-life balance, and poorer mental health will make sense. Temporary pain for future gain, right? To others, those who value family time, traveling, and exploring their city, investment banking may not be the right career path.
However, looking at this problem from a deontological perspective, the responsibility may lay upon the banks themselves. As an employer, they have the duty to support their employees and make sure their mental and physical health is optimal. In a high stress environment such as investment banks, employe health should be top priority. To do this, banks may enforce the employee hour limits, just as they already do. They may increase the strictness of this, requiring employees to complete this in order to get their monthly salary. Additionally, banks may also mandate mental health check-ins and counseling services.
In my opinion, I believe the responsibility is mainly on the person to decide whether a job in investment banking is something they want for themselves. They should thoroughly consider the pros and cons of the opportunity and make that decision. This sort of view is more of a free-market perspective, different to the ethical frameworks.
Commenti