First of all, a word of thanks to Leo Linbeck III, whose recent contributions to this Forum have been most welcome for their intellectual verve and incisiveness. His arguments against MacIntyre on not voting and against the UN on, well, just about everything, are right on target, but what I want to do here is continue the interesting discussion about work that he brought up in his last post. Leo is right that this is an issue that those outside of business schools seldom if ever discuss. No doubt, this is in large part due to ignorance of the issues. I know that is so in my case. So I'm grateful for Leo helping to bring me up to speed on "The New Workplace," and for inspiring the following reflections.

Leo sees Catholic social teaching as behind the times when it comes to recognizing the advantages of The New Workplace. I, however, see recent Catholic social teaching as an ally in the cause of putting, as Leo says, "the human person at the center of the process [of work]"; of "unleashing human creativity"; of putting others (the customer) ahead of self (employees and owners). In short, of making human dignity and liberty the guiding principles of economic activity. True, a central theme in the Church's social teaching in the first part of the 20th century, especially in Leo XIII's Rerum novarum and Pius XI's Quadragesimo anno, was the protection of the rights of labor against the incursions of management. On this issue, the Church's promotion of labor unions was of key moment. And true, the protection of labor and the promotion of labor unions still plays a part in the major economic encyclical of John Paul II's pontificate, Centesimus annus. But there is also a lot more going on. Consider, for example, the following passage from section 42 of Centesimus, in which the pope responds to the question of whether, given the collapse of communism, capitalism should now serve as the economic model of developing (and, presumably, established) economies:

"The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy," "market economy," or simply "free economy."

This passage seems to confirm, no doubt in very general terms, many of the virtues Leo finds in The New Workplace. Clearly there is approval of the market model. And the emphasis upon worker creativity and employee responsibility for the means of production seems to jibe with the intelligence, creativity and flexibility demanded of employees in The New Workplace. Stock options-for-performance would be just one way to give employees, not just responsibility for, but even partial ownership of, the means of production.

So if The New Workplace is more congruent to the dignity of the human person than The Old Workplace, then the Church's positive regard for the market and for human responsibility and creativity in work should be seen as encouraging the achievements of The New Workplace.

Yet what I take to be the most important theme in recent magisterial teaching on economics is sounded in the passage in Centesimus that immediately follows the one cited above:

"But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply [to the question of whether capitalism should serve as the economic model] is certainly negative."

Throughout John Paul II's writings on economics, he constantly returns to this theme of circumscribing the economic sector within the ethical and religious. My question is (and I offer it as a question and not an objection; I'm not informed enough to object), how effectively does The New Workplace circumscribe work within the ethical and even the religious? Leo makes the claim that the positive ethical dimension of The New Workplace is clear. And he seems to be right that the new relationships he talks about--e.g., the focus on pay for performance rather than zero-sum negotiation, the focus on individual rather than collective benefit programs, the focus on intelligence rather than compliance--do seem to promote qualities of prudence, courage, and justice to which human liberty is ordered.

But more needs to be said about the relationship of The New Workplace to those aspects of the ethical and religious that exist outside the workplace, principally the family. In talking about productivity, for example, Leo writes that "The key is [for employee and manager] to work together to find the best way to drive productivity higher." But on what basis is the decision made as to what is "best"? If the criterion is simply an increase in productivity and earnings for both management and employees, then there still may be ethical drawbacks. Creative work is always an end in itself, but we also work to secure the goods and virtues of family life. These goods and virtues must come into play when employee and management discuss how best to drive productivity higher, or else the ethical dimension of the work is diminished. Dad may be bringing home a big paycheck, and may be personally fulfilled in his work, but the time required to increase his productivity, the transcience it may involve for the family, may be a huge price to pay for the pleasure. And it isn't enough to say that if an employee can't satisfy all his needs and desires with one employer, then he is free to take his 401K and negotiate a better deal with another. For that kind of fluidity in market relations oftentimes has a negative impact on the family and the wider communities with which that family is involved. It keeps us from joining bowling leagues, for example. So, one important question is: how much of the ethical life beyond the workplace is The New Workplace able to accommodate?

Daniel McInerny