What does the AIG story tell us, ultimately, about the role of corporate governance?
3. OPTIONAL DISCUSSION QUESTION: Is there any way to reconcile the
reasoning behind the bonuses and the government response? Consider if you
had complete control over the administration of the bonuses back in March
2009. Draft a plan integrating the best points of the different perspectives.
NOTE – NO POWERPOINT SLIDES ACCOMPANY THIS DISCUSSION. The
teaching notes that follow are provided by the case authors:
For this example, we draw on the dialectical inquiry. This is a conflict-inducing decision
making process. In the paragraphs below we outline two alternatives. The government
Alternative 1. THESIS: Government Position
The main reasoning behind the government response is accountability and stopping
misuse. From the perspective of the government, issuing bonuses to managers of the
Alternative 2. ANTITHESIS: AIG Manager Position
The main purpose of the bonuses was to compensate managers and to free-up resources
going to salaries to use for recovery from the CDS problem. From the perspective of the
managers who signed the bonus contracts, the bonuses are legal, ethical, and necessary
Alternative 3. SYNTHESIS: Developing a More Optimal Solution
Alone, these positions do not appear to provide an optimal solution. One of the reasons
the positions are in such stark contrast is the lack of transparency. The government did
1. You could draft a public document outlining AIG’s commitment to the bailout process.