The Parable of the Mango Tree
In Mangoland, where mangos were the currency of trade, a bushel of the golden beauties was equivalent to $1 million in our money. Johnny, an up-and-coming Mangoland executive, was desperate to use his skills and experience to acquire mangos - to consume and to hoard. The orchards were owned by Mangotycoons, Mangolords and Mangopreneurs. One night, as he dreamed of mangos, he had a vision. He did not realize that this vision was about to change his life.
A white-bearded man with a halo, asked in a soft echoing voice, “Do you want mangos?”
“Oh yes!” Johnny replied.
“Come,” said the man, transporting Johnny miraculously to a magnificent mango orchard.
“Wow!” Johnny gasped, taking in the endless acres of luscious fruits, hanging within reach.
“Start your journey by caring for this tree,” said the man, pointing to a sapling that bore the fruits of Johnny’s desires, “With your skills and commitment, it will grow to give you many delicious mangos. Then, you may be called upon to serve other trees that too will share their fruits with you.” With these words, the man disappeared as mysteriously as he had arrived.
Alone in the orchard, Johnny was trapped between commitment to care for the tree and his uncontrollable desire for mangos. Casting commitment and honor aside, he set upon harvesting the orchard, keeping a wary eye for the man. The man never appeared, and Johnny continued to build a heap of mangos large enough to lay on. Soon, exhausted and hungry, he started to devour the fruits of his labor. He ate and he ate, until he fell asleep. Even in his dreams, he was devouring mangos, crouching and hoping he was not being watched.
When he awoke, Johnny did not know how long he had slept. Reaching out for another mango, he shrieked in horror. The heap on which he lay had become a rotting, stinking, bug-infested mess, and there was no tree in site.
………………………
How does this parable shed light on Corporate Greed? Can you compare Johnny with executives who have ruined their firms by unethical practices - driven by taking rather than serving and giving. How does this story relate to life?
The Parable of the Mango Tree is an excerpt from “The Mango Tree,” a short story on purposeful action for children, by Prem Chopra, Brook of Life Press, Copyright 2009 by Prem Chopra, all rights reserved.
Johnny’s story can definitely be compared with executives who have ruined their firms. Johnny is described as an up and coming Mangoland executive who wants to use his skills to gain mangos. He is given a golden opportunity by a mysterious old man to care for a mango tree, and then eventually care for more mango trees, becoming richer and richer. This can be compared to executives who have been given the chance to help a company succeed and also fulfill their own dreams of success, but have let it all go for greed. Instead of maintaining the mango tree and waiting to reap his rewards, Johnny succumbs to greed and begins to gather mangos without putting the work in. This is comparable to big company execs who change the numbers in the books to make it look like they are making a larger profit. Also, as Johnny ends up finding himself on bug infested mess, these company execs also find themselves in messes with no reward in site.
This parable is not only appicable to corporate greed, but to everyday people who also succumb to greed. One problem that has plagued the citizen’s of our country is the problem of debt. Our society is one that is very materialistic, and so people are always striving to buy more of the best of everything. Without having patience or rationale, people spend money they dont have, thus landing themselves in debt. Eventually, just like Johnny, they find themselves with nothing but a mess.
Johnny like so many people lacks self control and disipline. He does not have the maturity to delay gratification therfore his weakness destroys him in the end. There are many such papables in the Bible that demonstrate the need for ethical behavior in everyday actions. It is better to have character that to be one!
This class has taught me several things, the one common factor in all financial disasters, and the fall of major companies is GREED. Our society is driven by financial success, how much can I save in my 401k, when can I refinance and get the equity out of my hohuse so I can buy a new car…..thirty year mortgages are great…….but if you keep pulling equity out of a house to by things that do not last you will die having 30 years left to pay and nothing to show for it.
I agree with you Chuck, the problem in this parable and in many of the companies these days is GREED. Once we are gone people aren’t going to remember or care how much money we had. We can’t take our money with us. My philosophy is to make all you can so you can give it away. We should be givers, not takers as Dr. Chopra calls it.
John Wesley was a great example of this.
“Wesley began to limit his expenses so that he would have more money to give to the poor. He records that one year his income was 30 pounds and his living expenses 28 pounds, so he had 2 pounds to give away. The next year his income doubled, but he still managed to live on 28 pounds, so he had 32 pounds to give to the poor. In the third year, his income jumped to 90 pounds.
Instead of letting his expenses rise with his income, he kept them to 28 pounds and gave away 62 pounds. In the fourth year, he received 120 pounds. As before, his expenses were 28 pounds, so his giving rose to 92 pounds.”
http://www.urbana.org/articles/what-wesley-practiced-and-preached-about-money
John Wesley died poor (by financial means) but what die he leave when he died? Hmmm lets see, oh yea, the METHODIST CHURCH. This goes to show that a man, who was a giver and thought of others, left a legacy.
In Dr. Prem Chopra’s parable of the mango tree, a hypothetical situation arose. Johnny, the protagonist, is faced with an ethical dilemma. He wants to become an executive in the mango industry. His desire is not just to acquire mangos to consume, but he also had a desire to hoard mangos for his own selfish reasons. One night he was given an opportunity to make his dreams come true. He was miraculously transported to a mango orchard rich with fruit that was well within his reach. He was instructed to care for a single tree with all his skills and commitment. He was notified that after this assignment he would be trusted to care for another tree that would also share their fruits with him (Chopra, 2009).
Johnny was at an ethical impasse. He understood his responsibility to take care of the mango tree, but he could also see the opportunity to acquire and hoard the mangos for his own selfish pursuits. Johnny was weak and gave into his lust for power and greed as he ate, until he fell asleep. Even in his subconscious state, he continued to lust for more. Yet, at the same time, he also felt guilty for his actions as he looked around to see if anyone was watching him in the mango field. When he awoke from his subconscious state, he screamed in fright as he looked upon his ill-gotten gains only to see a “rotting, stinking, bug infested mess” and the orchard was no where to be seen (Chopra, 2009).
Corporate greed can originate from simple beginnings, such
as with the mango tree parable. According to the ancient Vedic philosophers, the five core emotional temptations that you must control are lust, anger, greed, attachment, and ego (Chopra, 2009). If you do not control these temptations, they will eventually control you, leading you on a path where your actions will no longer be under your control. The result will be a “life of anxiety, stress, fear, doubt, pain, and suffering” (Chopra, 2009).
When executives first start out in their business practices, they must clearly identify their mission for their professional goals. These professional goals must be parallel with their personal goals, or continual conflict will ensue. Executives must also be influenced by the five positive core values of the Brook, which include: integrity, commitment, persistence, communication, and teamwork. By including these values in all aspects of their professional and personal lives, executives can be free of fear, doubt, stress, and suffering. Purposeful actions are achieved when work is performed to help others achieve their goals. This can only be effectively fulfilled when incorporating the positive core values into the organization, and the leader serves as a role model for these core values. Plans are good, actions are better, but meaningful results are the best outcome. Meaningful results can only be achieved through positive actions and focusing on the duty to serve others, and not on the potential rewards of the service.
The parable of the mango tree is often operationalized in real life by the business world. One such example lies within the deceptive financial reporting and corporate accounting practices of Enron, the company that helped to create the California power crisis in 2000 and 2001 (Mandel, 2002). In addition to helping to create the power crisis, the company also participated in actions leading up to their workers taking huge losses in their 401(k) plans because Enron did not allow the workers to sell the company stock that the company executives encouraged the workers to buy when the stock was plummeting. Not only did the company’s executives manipulate the stock market, they also misled the public (and their own employees) about the company’s debt and the prospects for the company’s stock. It does not appear that the executives at Enron were grounded in the positive core values, but were instead grounded in lying, cheating, and depriving their employees and the public about their business and accounting practices. Not only was Enron unethical about their business status and stock prices, but the accounting company that represented them was also named as being unethical in the investigation. Specifically, names being removed from memos and documents being shredded before the investigators could gain access to those damaging documents (Mandel, 2002).
Despite the negative publicity, humiliation, financial destruction, and loss of trust by their customers, the business executives at Enron (and other American companies) have not gone without being rewarded. The unjust compensation for failure for executives is common. Even if the executive didn’t get fired, people start “talking up” the company due to the publicity and stock prices increase and these actions further reward the executives that remain with the company. “Some might earn as much as $200 to $300 million when they exercise those lucrative stock options, even if they are fired” (Chopra, 2009).
The mango tree parable is useful in articulating how quickly and easily someone can lose their focus from their mission. Executives must know and manage their desires because their desires determine their core values (Chopra, 2009). The desire for wealth and power can be very tempting for those in positions of authority. The desire for wealth is not necessarily a negative trait. It can be a positive outcome for the executive, the workers, the public, and all involved, as long as the power holders “leave the waters better than they found them, for the benefit of others” (Chopra, 2009).
References:
Chopra, Prem. (2009). Masters of the Game, Reaching Beyond the Nexus to Success and Happiness. 1st edition. Brook of Life Press. Chattanooga, TN.
Mandel, Michael J. & Zellner, Wendy. (2002). Commentary: And the Enron Award Goes to …Enron. BusinessWeek. May 20, 2002. Accessed from the World Wide Web November 5, 2009 from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_20/b3783057.htm
I agree that a desire for wealth can be a good thing. It can motivate people to do find alternative ways to do business that benefit both themselves and the consumer. Though wealth can turn into a tempting toxin, it is up to the company execs to make sure that they remain ethical in their dealings.
I think that Enron was one of the biggest scandals of our generation. It shows just how much damage can come from succumbing to greed.
I’ll apologize in advance for my long winded response…… And although the example below doesn’t relate “directly” to the Parable of the Mango Tree, I think it demonstrates corporate values.…which is completely disturbing! Johnny was consumed with hoarding and profiting from mangos….in this example it’s gaining corporate profits from the deaths of employees.
One of the most extreme unethical examples of what I consider to be “greed” is the Wal-mart “dead peasant” life insurance policy case.
http://www.wvbusinesslitigationblog.com/2009/09/articles/insurance/dead-peasant-insurance-policies-are-source-of-increasing-litigation/
“In its simplest form, a dead peasant policy is a life insurance policy that a company takes out on an employee, usually without the employee’s knowledge or permission. When the employee dies, his or her employer receives the life insurance benefits.”
Between 1993 to 1995 Wal-Mart took out approximately 350,000 life insurance policies on the lives of its employees payable to the company. Hartford Life Insurance Co. and AIG Life Insurance Co. sold the policies to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart then borrowed money from the insurers to pay the premiums, which the company was able to write off as a business expense on its federal taxes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/666837/posts
Even more disturbing are attempts from Wal-Mart to sue AIG. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 979 A.2d 858 (Del. 2009).
“Wal-Mart sued Hartford, AIG, and several brokers and agents in Delaware Chancery Court in 2002 for what Wal-Mart felt were insufficient returns on the 350,000 COLI policies that it bought between 1993 and 1995. Wal-Mart’s first lawsuit was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, but the Delaware Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that the issue could not be decided on the pleadings.
Through several actions involving several court systems, the lawsuit had been dismissed.
“The Superior Court dismissed the amended complaint on the grounds that the applicable three-year statute of limitations barred Wal-Mart’s claim, which had accrued, at the latest, in July 1995 and was not saved by Delaware’s “discovery rule.”
However, …
“But on May 12, 2009, for the third time, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, finding in a summary opinion that “material issues of fact” precluded judgment in the insurers’ favor on statute of limitations grounds. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 979 A.2d 858 (Del. 2009).
Wal-Mart’s case goes back to Superior Court for further proceedings. I haven’t been able to locate any estimate of the money at issue, but with 350,000 policies involved, it’s pretty easy to get to several hundred million dollars, if not substantially more.”
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!…Corporate profits earned from the death of an employee?
A recent Video from ABC news is attached…. (full disclosure: I’m not a supporter of Michael Moore, and have never seen any of his “docu” dramas.)
20/20 or 60 Minutes covered this controversial issue years ago.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/abc-news-are-dead-peasant-life-insurance-poli
The dead peasant thing is stunning; I had NO clue something like that existed! At the same time, though, I don’t find it to be necessarily unethical. As long as it doesn’t come out that Wal-Mart is whacking it’s workforce in order to collect insurance money, I think that they’re just giving money away to an insurance company for a shakey reason.
-Interpretation One-
First off, what kind of skills and experience did Johnny have? The old man only told him to care for the sapling, but neither the old man told him how to care for the sapling, nor did Johnny ask how to care for it. As the readers, we could assume Johnny’s experience and skills were in caring for Mango trees, but I do not think that would be right given the information given in the parable. Without the proper skill sets or resources needed to care for the mango tree (water, fertilizer, sun light, pruning shears, etc…) how could Johnny successfully care for the sapling? That would be like dumping $1 million dollars in my lap and telling me to make it grow (invest it). I would need the skill sets and resources required to make the money grow. We cannot assume that I have a general or vague knowledge of investment strategies. So in this case, I think that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Without the proper knowledge, Johnny’s only conclusions had to be to (take) the mangos or not (do) anything. In either case, the end result is the same, the orchard will die. So really it is the old man’s fault for putting a man without the proper skill sets to tend to the mangos.
-Interpretation Two-
If you the reader conclude that Johnny did have the skills necessary to tend to the sapling, then yes, you can conclude that his actions are in line with corporate greed. It is easy to point at the retailing giant, Wal-Mart. They have such great buying power world-wide, and consume, and import more than any retailer I can think of. Their image is not a positive one any longer to a majority of Americans, yet the fact remains, the country is in terrible shape and people simply have not many options on “savings” than to shop at Wal-Mart. Or what I like to call “perceived savings”. I just wonder when the greed will catch up with the people in charge. It certainly does not seem like anytime in the near future. It certainly catches up with the community in which a Wal-Mart store resides. Wal-Mart does not have to compete with the local retailers prices or employee wages or benefits, thus local retailers must compete with Wal-Mart’s prices and benefits. Which means, lowering their prices and offering little to no benefits to stay in business. Although, Wal-mart presents the opportunity to give high employment to the community, the poverty level rises from low wages and benefits, and actually encourages employees to seek out government aid, rather than get insurance through their corporation, which in the end the tax payers are covering that cost. So is there really any savings by shopping at Wal-Mart? Yes, only if you decline to pay your taxes in April.
Wal-Mart in comparison to Johnny is not exactly the same and at the same time it is. Johnny consumes all the resources and everything in the orchard rots as a result. Wal-Mart’s “taking” far out supersedes its “giving”, and given enough time with its presence in a small community such as South Pittsburgh, TN, the community or “orchard” will rot as the result. And by rot, I mean remain in poverty.
I would actually say that Walmart’s story (Sam Walton’s actually) is the opposite of Johnny’s. Sam Walton started the giant retailer that has become Walmart from a small variety store in Arkansas. He started out just managing a variety store and he was able to generate sales by marking up his products less than everyone else and offering lower prices. He eventually bought his own store and continued to generate money through selling at low prices. Whereas Johnny consumed his profits selfishly, Walton used his profits to open more stores and generate more income. If you equate growing mangos to generating profits and eating mangos to spending money on material goods, then Sam Walton is the opposite of Johnny. I’m sure he spent his share of money on material items along the way, but, at least in the context of this parable, Walton used his “mangos” the right way…..to make more mangos.
Hey Scott. I think the skills and experience the old man told Johnny to use are the skills he gained as a Mangoland executive. It says in the first few lines of the story that Johnny is a Mangoland exec that is looking to start making an earning. I think the point that the parable was trying to make that Johnny was not ill prepared to take care of the tree. Johnny had the neccessary skills, but not the ethics needed to care for the tree. Just as most company execs are qualified for their positions, they do not remain honest in their work because they are taken over by greed.