|
Introduction I first met Vladyko Anthony in 2000, when my future wife
Marina took me to liturgy at the Russian church in Ennismore
Gardens in London. I was immediately struck by Vladyko’s persona
and obvious nearness to God. It was the first time that I, an
ex-Anglican, ex-Catholic, and after that for some time an
ex-churchgoer altogether, had experienced the Orthodox liturgy.
I found it both beautiful and very moving. The Feast was that of
All Russian Saints, and Vladyko’s sermon was about the visit of
Prince Vladimir’s emissaries to Hagia Sophia. I was impressed by
the content, and of course charmed by Vladyko’s exquisite
English, delivered in his unique, more French than Russian
accent.
Before his final illness, Vladyko Anthony used to come out of
the sanctuary after liturgy to bless those parishioners who came
up to him. The first time that I came to him, he blessed me in
Russian, and I said, just to start the conversation, “Actually,
I’m English”. “Ah!” he replied, “I couldn’t tell, because it
isn’t actually written on you!” He retained his delicious sense
of humour until the very end of his life.
A few months later he agreed to see me privately, and I told
him more or less the story of my life, almost a general
confession, although of course I was not then Orthodox. Vladyko
gave me very useful advice about my life in general. He blessed
my union with Marina, so that we were able to be married despite
our differences in age and background. This time Vladyko blessed
me in English. He said “May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God the Father, and the Communion of the Holy
Spirit, be with you and Marina, now and for ever”. I knelt for
the blessing, and will never forget the feeling of grace which
descended on me.
I became Orthodox in January 2001, on Christmas Eve, and
Marina and I were married in a Russian church in Paris later
that year. For some time we had a home in London and we were
regular worshippers at the Russian cathedral of the Dormition
and All Saints in London. We were privileged to have several
personal and intimate encounters with Metropolitan Anthony, and
on one occasion he said to Marina “Let’s be friends”. I always
think of us as having been close to him, but then I think many
people who met him felt close to him, because he had this
ability to give himself to whoever he was with, and he made
everybody he came into contact with feel special.
Today I want to share with you some thoughts about the
relationship between work and religious belief, with particular
emphasis on the choices made by people who consider themselves
to be businessmen. I never managed to discuss these thoughts
explicitly with Vladyko Anthony, but I like to think that they
were very much inspired by him.
Who or what is a businessman? I deliberately chose the title
of my talk to be provocative. The term ‘businessmen’ has a
negative connotation for many people, particularly in Russia,
perhaps. But I define ‘business’ and ‘businessmen’ so broadly
that really anyone is in some business or other, and of course
in Russian ‘businessmen’ includes women as well. The word
‘business’ really means whatever it is that you are ‘busy’ with.
So priests, monks and nuns are definitely in business. So also
is anyone who is employed by any company, or any charitable
organisation, or even the State. In other words, all occupations
entail business of some sort. The unemployed may be considered
to be in the business of seeking employment, and pensioners
could regard whatever they choose to spend their time on as
their ‘business’.
Choosing our occupation
First I will talk about occupational choice, and then about
the choices or decisions we make every day in carrying out our
occupations. How many of us have really chosen our occupation or
business? Did the early cavemen and women make occupational
choices? Is the notion of career choice a very recent one,
perhaps only relevant to an elitist sector of the well-educated
populations of countries with an advanced economy and a high
level of democritisation? Have you followed a career path? What
do you see as your career prospects? And how do you see all of
this, in relation to yourself and your choices, as being
connected with your religious beliefs?
I was baptised into the Anglican Church, not surprisingly for
an Englishman. My mother was a keen churchgoer, my father was
not. At the age of seven, I was sent to a boarding school. The
Headmaster and owner of the school was a priest of the Anglican
Church. He was very ‘Anglo-Catholic’, but fiercely anti-Rome. He
celebrated mass every day in the school’s small chapel, usually
with only his wife and an altar-boy in attendance. He had a very
profound influence on me, and I was one of his most regular
altar-boys. By the age of eleven I had decided to become a
priest in the Anglican Church, and perhaps become Headmaster of
a private school.
Instead, I graduated in psychology at Cambridge University,
and after a short period working in clinical psychology, I
became a business or occupational psychologist. Business
psychology has now been my occupation for nearly fifty years. I
am very pleased with it, and I think it suits me. But I could
probably equally well have been an accountant or a lawyer, maybe
a doctor, or perhaps I should have become a priest. I realise
that I am fortunate in having had the opportunities that I was
given and the choices I could have pursued.
My job is really about other people’s jobs, about what they
are suited to, about who should be selected for a particular
job, or what career choice a particular person should make. That
is why I presume to stand here today and speak about this
subject. Fifty years should have been enough to make me an
expert, and I think I could have been an expert if I had studied
harder, but I have to confess that I am a lazy student.
Instead I have to admit that I have been a successful
businessman. After twenty years working for various institutes
and then as an independent operator, I started a real business
in the area of psychometric testing, the measurement or
assessment of people’s abilities, personality and values, and
relating these to the requirements of jobs. Together with a very
able business partner and a large team of people, we built the
largest psychological assessment business in the world, with
more than a thousand employees working in thirty countries. We
had many of the world’s largest companies as our clients, and
these clients covered every sector of industry, commerce and
government. Although I retired from that company five years ago,
I still do this kind of work and recently started a much smaller
company in the same field.
When I had my ‘audience’ with Vladyko Anthony, of course I
told him about my work. He was delighted to hear about it, and
said that he thought psychometric testing should be applied to
candidates for the priesthood. Unfortunately we never managed to
take this idea further, but I leave it to some of you here to
think about. It fits very well into my theme that any science,
or any legitimate profession, can be used to the glory of God,
and made to fit His purpose.
One of my personal achievements has been to set up
businesses, often through ‘Joint Ventures’, in many different
countries, and in 1993 we started a company in Russia. Through
this I met Marina, now my wife, and this is therefore the
indirect reason for me becoming a member of the Russian Orthodox
Church. Of course I was not ‘converted’ by Vladyko Anthony,
because he never converted people. But he and Marina were the
main influences on that decision, although I could mention
several other fine Russian priests who have helped me too. I
would like to mention in particular Father Dmitri Akinfiev, the
head of our parish in Moscow and I am very pleased that he is
here with us today.
While I have been telling you a bit about my career, I hope
you have been thinking about yours. And about the ‘career
decisions’ you have made, or that have been made for you.
Vladyko Anthony would certainly have agreed with me that you
don’t have to be a priest, a monk or a nun to be a good
Christian. Obviously, some occupations, and some activities are
intrinsically ‘better’ than others. But many, apparently ‘less
good’ occupations are necessary to the survival of other people.
Which automatically makes them capable of being good occupations
or activities. I often remember from my childhood the words of
an English hymn (from the 19th century): “Who sweeps a room as
for the Lord, makes that and the action fine”. It was once put
to me that smoking while praying is probably wrong, but praying
while having a smoke is all right. If you pray while doing
anything, well anything that is at least not very sinful,
you may offer it up to the glory of God, ‘making that and the
action fine’. I have to admit to being fond of good cooking, and
good wine, and I seriously believe that good cooking and good
wine can not only be produced to the glory of God, but also
enjoyed for His glory. Not to excess, of course, and sometimes I
no doubt do go to excess. Vladyko Anthony used to say that God’s
love can and often does take the shape of food and drink.
But back to our real work, not just eating and drinking.
Whatever our job is, provided that it isn’t in itself evil, we
can and should offer it up to God very deliberately, and we
should give this at least a moment’s thought every day when we
start and finish our work. Not like the typical Englishman, who
is said to believe in God on Sundays, and in the Stock Exchange
for the rest of the week! I am very pleased that Marina crosses
herself whenever she leaves our home or starts the car, and at
many other times, and she has told me how she got into trouble
at her Soviet school for crossing herself at the beginning of a
lesson, particularly if it was gymnastics, which she didn’t
like! It also pleases me a great deal when I see footballers or
other sportsman crossing themselves at the beginning of a match.
Of course I realize that this could in some cases mean very
little, but just making the sign, or offering up a little
prayer, even if one doesn’t have the ability to concentrate
enough to make it a very good prayer, is something, and
something that God will accept. And of course it’s better if we
can follow this up by thinking of Our Lord during our work, and
letting Him guide us through it. Work is part of our life, and
cannot be separated from our religious life.
We can also consider our career choices in the light of the
parable of the Talents. Aren’t most of us rather like the man
who was given one talent and buried it? I always feel very sorry
for this man when I hear that gospel, and I know that I have
only used to a small degree the talents that I was given. My new
company is actually called ‘Talent Q’, and my whole career has
focused on maximizing the use of other people’s talents. On
helping companies to select the ‘right person for the right
job’, and on training people to use their talents.
Values in business
Having talked about making career decisions, and generally
about what we think about our work, I would now like to focus
more on business, and on the values which guide businessmen, or
at least should guide them. I have developed a structure
of 8 value dimensions which apply in business. This structure is
based on the general literature in my field, with no relation to
any religious belief. But what I want to put to you is that
these 8 values all do actually relate to Christianity. Probably
most of the people who have written about corporate or business
values didn’t think of religion when they wrote. Like in many
areas of psychology, or in any scientific field, quite a lot of
them probably didn’t have any religious belief, or were
downright atheists. But we all use electricity and the
telephone, and most of us drive cars, without being put off by
whether the inventor was a member of the Orthodox Church. If
anything in my thesis is new, it is the linking of these common
business values to religion. I think Metropolitan Anthony would
have approved of that.
The two obvious texts to guide us here are the one that
starts “Render to Caesar”, and the one about God and Mammon.
Jesus said (Mat 6:24) “No man can serve two masters: for either
he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to
the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.”
Living, as most of you do, in post-Soviet Russia, you must often
feel that you are experiencing an era of intense Mammon-worship.
The so-called free economy may have brought good things with it:
availability of products, freedom of choice, a better quality of
life for the more fortunate. But it has also made many people a
good deal worse off, and it has no doubt encouraged a lot of
greed and corruption.
Throughout Western Europe, the most beautiful examples of
architectural style of the Middle Ages are the cathedrals. Men
built these monuments to the glory of God, and the church was
the main patron of the arts. A few years ago, I was on a
business trip to Lisbon, and went for a meeting in the newly
constructed head-office of a major Portuguese bank. It struck me
then that the West has now entered an age of exaggerated
Mammon-worship. It is now the banks and other major
money-making, or money-laundering, corporations who are the
patrons of architecture and other arts. Look at the Manhattan
sky-line, look at Monaco, look at London, – yes, look at some
areas of Moscow too.
When we apply science to the selection of people for jobs, we
look at many different facets. Success in a job can depend on
skill with words or with numbers, with the way the person
relates to other people; how they approach tasks and projects;
and how they cope with their drives and emotions. When Vladyko
Anthony said we should use my science in selecting people for
the priesthood, or perhaps more for giving them different ‘jobs’
as priests, he would probably have been thinking about all of
these factors.
Jobs in the priesthood, or roles in a monastic community, are
no doubt special cases, but the normal principles of
differential psychology do also apply. It is very obvious that
the best mechanic will not necessarily be a good foreman, that
an excellent book-keeper will not necessarily be a good finance
director, and that the best salesman will not necessarily be a
good sales manager. So also, the most pious monk will not
necessarily make a good abbot, or the best deacon make a good
priest. Of course I am not trying to make a hard pitch for an
assignment to carry out psychological assessments of candidates
for the priesthood, or for promotion to bishop, still less to
assist in the election of abbots. Although, why not, actually?
Surely, these things matter, and we should use the best means
available. Vladyko Anthony obviously thought so.
Saint Paul teaches us (1 Cor 12:8-11 – parts only) “For to
one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the
gifts of healing by the same Spirit, to another the working of
miracles, to another prophecy, to another divers kinds of
tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But all these
worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as he will”. Saint Paul stresses that each person has
his or her own profile of aptitudes and personality traits, and
that all these talents originate from the Holy Spirit. As Psalm
100 says, “It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves, we
are His people and the sheep of His pasture”.
In addition to reasoning ability and personality, we
psychologists are also interested in the assessment of values.
Corporations or companies have values, but so do individuals,
and it is individual values that I will focus on here. In my
company, we assess eight dimensions of work-related values, and
I’ll tell you more about them. But first, let’s go back to
scripture and Christ’s admonishment (Mk 12:17) to ‘render to
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that
are God’s’.
Our system of eight value dimensions considers various
so-called ‘stake-holders’, to each of which we need to render
what is due to them, and then some other value-categories, such
as ‘innovation and change’ and ‘personal freedom’. Christ’s life
focused so much on change, and we are often called on to accept
change, or even to instigate it ourselves, instead of wallowing
in a static contentedness. Of course we should not seek ‘change
for the sake of change’, and we should respect traditions that
are worthy of respect, but we should probably opt for change
more often than we do. I invite you to think about your attitude
to change in your work.
Then, personal freedom to make decisions, another vital value
dimension. Surely, Christ was in favour of granting freedom to
people, as exemplified by all his healing miracles, freeing
people from leprosy or blindness, ridding them of their internal
demons. Do we as managers seek to free people, or to bind them?
How much freedom to act do we give to other people? In the West,
we jokingly call all employees ‘wage-slaves’, in contrast to
entrepreneurs, although slavery and serfdom are now things of
the past, which they weren’t of course in the Roman Empire. I
think it is fundamental, and Christian, to give people a lot of
freedom to make important choices themselves, as individuals or
in a team. And not to bind them with bureaucracy or an
authoritarian leadership. Christ was clearly an opponent of
bureaucracy, as exemplified by Pharisaic restrictions. Obedience
is undoubtedly a virtue, but it can also be an excuse for not
taking responsibility. It takes courage to free ourselves, and
to free other people. I believe that we are all called to behave
in a ‘free’ way ourselves. Do you have the courage to be free in
your work?
Now I will turn to values related to ‘stakeholders’, and
consider what we should ‘render’ to them. First, I will list
them: Shareholders, Customers, Employees, the Community, the
Law, and the Mission of the enterprise. I will take each of them
in turn. They can all take the place of Caesar.
Whoever you work for is a prime ‘stakeholder’ for you,
someone to whom you owe a duty, whether this is an impersonal
relationship with a company, the State or the Church; or a more
personal one with an owner, a boss, or even the Patriarch.
Earlier I mentioned the Stock Exchange, and I have personal
experience of working indirectly for funds which had invested in
my company. Are these funds representatives of Mammon, or are
they a Caesar to whom we owe a duty? They should be a Caesar,
but unfortunately they can behave in a very greedy and
Mammon-like way, as Caesar must also have seemed to the Jews in
Our Lord’s time. Jesus said however that we must render to them
what is their due, and this is clearly the case, whatever we
think about their merits.
The next group of stakeholders are our customers. You don’t
have to be a salesman to have customers. The word customer is
being used more and more widely nowadays. Anyone in any kind of
business has customers. Think of it this way that anyone you
serve is your customer. So, most certainly priests also have
customers, their parishioners or anyone who comes to them for
help of any kind. It is said that the Pope’s favourite title is
‘servus servorum Domini’, the servant of the servants of the
Lord. The same applies to doctors, teachers, policemen, soldiers
and others. Officers in the Roman Army had to serve the
population of the country they were occupying as well as Caesar.
We should all define our customers as anyone to whom we owe any
debt of service. And this is a very honourable and Christian
thing to do.
The third stakeholder group is employees. You can look at
this from the point of view of a corporation, or a government
department, or any employer. All of these have duties to their
employees. But also, every boss has duties towards his
subordinates. As well as serving our subordinates, we have a
duty of care towards them. They are our flock and we have to
tend them like a good shepherd. Or like a parent.
How easy or difficult is it to serve shareholders, customers
and employees, all at the same time? So long as everything is
going fine, this may seem possible. But there are potential
conflicts between any pair of these groups. In a Utopian
situation, paying perfect attention to the needs of your
customers should be the most profitable strategy, at least in
the long-term. But often, customers require immediate advantages
and these may conflict sharply with the short-term interest of
your company, and the demands of your boss.
Similarly, there can be conflicts between the interests of
employees and customers, or of employees and shareholders or
those providing finance. Most Western nations have enacted rafts
of legislation over recent decades to protect the rights of
employees, even when these conflict with the interests of
owners. It is very common to say ‘people are our greatest
asset’, but employers would be happy to get rid of their
employees, even on dishonourable terms, if this was in the
interest of shareholders. So the State has had to step in to
protect wage-earners. In France and Italy, for instance, it is
practically impossible to fire employees. France has therefore
become the number one nation in employing people as ‘temporary
staff’ in order to get round these rules. Is that honourable, or
Christian?
Businessmen therefore have a very difficult job in trying to
balance the interests of owners, customers and employees for the
maximum benefit of all three groups. In a way, they have to
serve at least three masters! I have referred to this as
different aspects of rendering to Caesar what is his due, but it
is really much deeper than that. By serving all of these groups
we can ‘make that and the action fine’, because we can use our
best endeavours not just as any pagan might do, but we can offer
our service to God and seek to ‘hallow His name’, to ‘do His
will’ and as far as possible to make ‘His kingdom come’, ‘on
earth as in Heaven’. My theme is therefore that we should be
good businessmen, good managers or stewards, and good servants
or shepherds of our employers, not just because that seems a
sensible and profitable thing to do, but because it is what we
are called to do.
And suppose you work for an organisation with a disagreeable
management, or with a mission or ethos which you find
oppressive. What then? Maybe you should try to change this. It
could be difficult for you to change the management, or the
mission or the ethos. But perhaps you could choose a more
congenial employer. On the other hand, perhaps your management
is a ‘cross’ that you are called on to bear.
All businessmen exist in a community, in fact in many
different communities. This can be a geographical community, a
professional community, and ultimately in the community of all
citizens of the planet which God has given us to live in. On the
whole, we are not doing a very good job at looking after our
environment. This is not only against our own interests, and
against the interests of our children and grandchildren, it is a
profound sign of disrespect towards Him who created the world.
Perhaps we feel we are making some effort to protect the
environment, but as soon as this is in conflict with the
interests of customers, shareholders or employees, it tends to
take a very low place in our hierarchy of values.
All businessmen also have to obey the law. I will pass over
the problem of what to do if one sincerely believes a law to be
unjust. In that case, maybe it is right to put legitimacy low in
one’s hierarchy of values. As Christ did, perhaps ultimately.
Often, businessmen see themselves as being in a position of
conflict when strict adherence to the law seems to go against
the interests of their company, their customers or employees.
There have been several serious instances in the West recently,
with the complete collapse of large public corporations whose
accounts were deliberately falsified, by managers who I suppose
thought they were doing what was best for the shareholders and
employees.
My final category of values I call ‘authenticity’. This means
valuing the thing that your company, unit or government
department was set up to do. How authentic are you in your job?
What is the mission or vision you are seeking to achieve by your
work? And how do you think this relates to why God put you here?
So businessmen have an enormous challenge, to look after the
interests of their company owners, or the State; of customers
however broadly we define them; and of employees or colleagues;
also the environment and the community we live in – all as
rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s. And, of course making sure
they keep the law at the same time. I believe that we can do all
of these things, even when they are apparently in conflict with
each other. Then add veing true to their mission; giving freedom
to others to develop, and daring to seize freedom ourselves, to
maintain our own line in all things. And also constantly
striving to change, or in Saint Francis’s words, ‘to change that
which can be changed and to accept that which cannot be changed’.
And, above all to be authentic, to seek God’s will. Then only
can we be good and Christian businessmen.
Some of the best people I know, the best managers, even the
best businessmen, are not in fact believers at all. One of the
colleagues I respect the most is actually writing a book about
why man through the ages has found it necessary to ‘invent’ God.
Another is much better than me at following the precepts I have
spoken about, but does not believe in the immortality of the
soul, let alone in the resurrection of the dead. This is a
puzzle, isn’t it?
Vladyko Anthony, as I have said, did not seek to convert
people to orthodoxy. He wanted to help them to become better
people, by removing the layers of dirt that obscured the image
of God in them. Obviously, like C S Lewis, he believed that the
best way to be good is to follow Christ, and Bishop Anthony was
clearly unswerving in his commitment to orthodoxy.
Surely the conclusion is that we should seek goodness through
Christ and through out belief in Orthodox Christianity. But then
it should also show. Vladyko used to ask whether people would
recognize from our lives that we are Orthodox Christians. Well,
would they?
And perhaps the ultimate question to those of us gathered to
remember Vladyko Anthony’s heritage is whether people would
recognize that we see ourselves as his heirs. Not just at this
conference, but when we are back at our desks.
A talk given by Roger Holdsworth at the I conference dedicated
to Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh legacy, Moscow 2007 |
