In this Wednesday's New York Times, an employee of A.I.G., Mr. Jake DeSantis, published his resignation letter in the form of an Op-Ed contribution. Mr. DeSantis worked for A.I.G. for 11 years in the Financial Products division, coming to the company from a middle-class background (school teacher parents), by way of M.I.T..
To his boss at A.I.G., Mr. DeSantis addressed these remarks regarding Mr. Liddy's recent congressional testimony:
I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn't defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.
Mr. DeSantis also seemed to remark on Mr. Liddy's character:
I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It's now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made - tacit or otherwise - with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.
Mr. DeSantis judged himself as well:
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised.
I note here that Mr. DeSantis vowed he would give his bonus to charity (if it were not taxed away). He also acknowledged that: "Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn't disagree."
Many readers of Mr. DeSantis' letter may likely pause at this sentence, which appears toward the end of the letter and describes the size of his bonus:
On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes.
Hundreds of comments in response to Mr. DeSantis' Op-Ed post appeared almost instantly, ranging from (my paraphrases), "Thank you for this defense of your work, my husband is in the same position," to "This guy has been well overcompensated for the job he did. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Buddy."
There are three psychological phenomena concerning personality psychology relevant to his letter.
First, a public shaming of the sort that sometimes accompanies congressional hearings can be a powerful social instrument when it is used against vulnerable groups and individuals. Mr. DeSantis states his perception that unfair accusations were leveled at his company and, indirectly, at his work, that prompted him to resign publicly. Such effects will likely ripple through his own,his coworkers'. and their families' lives for some time.
Second, Mr. DeSantis' A.I.G. payment of $742,006.40, after taxes, is a large sum. Many, including Mr. DeSantis himself, have raised the issue of why, or when, such pay is warranted. From the perspective of personality psychology, there surely are differences among people in how well they perform at various jobs. Mr. DeSantis' background suggests he is smart and well-trained. Continuing along psychological lines, however, I wonder how much salaries can diverge from the national median before the average person begins to feel that, regardless of performance, the discrepancy simply cannot be justified. A 2006 study by James Wade, Charles O'Reilly, and Timothy Pollock of the Rutgers Business School, suggests that perceived unfairness in salaries undermines an organization from within. Such inequities may undermine perceptions of an organization's legitimacy in outsiders' eyes as well. Businesses may wish to be more attuned to such issues.
Third and finally, we do not know enough about Mr. DeSantis to judge his character. We do not know Mr. DeSantis' motivations for writing the letter (beyond what he has told us), we do not know much about his job, what he did, what his resignation means and so on. The more opinionated commentators, be they supportive or dismissive, reflect people bringing their own experiences to an event that is in some ways like a Rorschach inkblot. Such comments may raise interesting ideas, and even allow for a writer's temporarily feeling better about perceived (and real) injustices, but they should not be confused with the considered understanding of another person.
I have been writing about judging personality in various wisdom traditions in this column. In this Monday's column on Confucianism, for example, I pointed out that when Confucius was asked about one of his own students, he would describe their capabilities and then remark, "But whether he is good, I do not know."
* * *
Click here for information about the Personality Analyst posts including schedules, the various series of the blog, policies concerning comments, and a glossary.
Click here for earlier posts in this series.
Notes: Wade, J. B., O'Reilly, C. A., & Pollock, T. G. (2006). Overpaid CEOs and underpaid managers: Fairness and executive compensation. Organization Science, 17, 527-544.
Correction and additions, 3/26: Three hours after the iniitial posting, the above "notes" were added, the teaser was edited, and Mr. DeSantis' name was corrected in the post's headline where it had been misreported (it was correct originally in the text and elsewhere). The title was re-edited again (dropping the word "letter") several hours later.
Copyright © 2009 John D. Mayer
