In an increasingly politicized world, where facts are eschewed for fear, and partisanship is exacerbated, the boundaries of business ethics are being redefined. In class we have primarily discussed these topics on a corporate level, where the practices of the firm are being evaluated.

As an extension to this, I see a trend of the social and political beliefs of a firm’s principals and leadership becoming public, which can have bearing on firm performance. Examples include the publicly organized embargo on Chick Fil-A because of its founder’s homophobia, and a former Mozilla CEO’s political donations resulting in him being fired after only eleven days on the job.

Chick Fil-A Founder Truett Cathy – Image from GCM Watch

The question then, is how to evaluate competency versus the costs of controversy in the course of personnel decision making. I believe that an application of Milton Friedman’s belief in maximizing shareholder value is the best way to address this issue. The level of public outcry and the likelihood of persistent media coverage must be weighed against the individual in question’s unique ability to excel in their position. In cases where the former is stronger than the latter, the individual should be fired, because their harm to the firm’s value is greater than their positive impact.