Business Scholarship Podcast

The episode densely packages philosophical and legal concepts with concrete applications. Thomas articulates the deliberative vs. criterial distinction clearly, traces it through multiple domains (philosophy, corporate law, business practice), and uses specific cases (Dodge v. Ford, Revlon, Unocal) to ground abstract ideas. However, the conversation stays primarily at the theoretical level without heavy operational detail for active practitioners.

“if we are self consciously as managers of a company, if we're self consciously trying to maximize shareholder wealth, we can actually by virtue of that attempt to maximize shareholder wealth, undermine our goal, our desire of maximizing wealth”

“Pop is going to find himself cycling on this problem of if I really want to do the thing that actually maximizes, all of a sudden I can't make any decisions”

Thomas brings genuine philosophical sophistication by mapping the deliberative/criterial distinction from centuries of consequentialist philosophy onto corporate law - a fresh move rarely seen in business discourse. The reframing of Dodge v. Ford through the lens of alienation and instrumental relationships is counterintuitive and original. However, the core critique of shareholder wealth maximization itself is not entirely new, though the philosophical apparatus is novel.

“I wanted to try to leverage the lessons that philosophers have learned over the last two and a half centuries in trying to interpret consequentialist theories to maybe help get us right with shareholder wealth maximization”

“You have this situation where Henry Ford is not allowed to actually care about his employees. At best he can only pretend to care about his employees. But chances are actually caring about your employees is in fact more likely to produce value than merely pretending or not caring at all”

Thomas is an assistant professor of business law with PhD-level philosophical training, giving him credible expertise in legal doctrine and philosophical analysis. However, he appears primarily as an academic theorist rather than a practicing executive, operator, or lawyer with hands-on corporate experience. His insights are intellectually rigorous but lack the ground-truth validation of someone who has actually run a business or advised boards in high-stakes situations.

“William Thomas, Assistant professor of Business Law at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business”

“I'm trained PhD philosopher. And so I bring the analytical tools and the concepts of philosophy into this field”

Thomas anchors arguments with specific cases (Dodge v. Ford, Revlon, Unocal) and historical examples (Apple/Steve Jobs, Martin Shkreli). However, he provides limited quantitative data, timelines, or metrics. The barbershop example is illustrative but generic; while the Dodge v. Ford case is detailed, most other evidence remains conceptual rather than empirically grounded.

“Apple at one point was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. The directors could not figure out how to turn this company around. They throw up a Hail Mary and the Hail Mary is they bring back the founder slash ex CEO Steve Jobs. Now we of course know where this goes, right? Ten years later, Apple is one of the most valuable brands on the planet”

“This is Dodge vs Ford. And Dodge vs Ford is an interesting case. This is early 20th century. Henry Ford is a major shareholder. He's still the key force behind the Ford Motor Company which by the way is running gangbusters. It's making huge profits”

The host asks sharp, probing questions that draw out philosophical distinctions and push Thomas to apply theory to practice (sole proprietorship example, Delaware law, shareholder vs. stakeholder debate). The host follows up effectively and shows clear preparation. However, there is minimal productive disagreement or challenge; the conversation is largely collaborative exploration rather than dialectical tension.

“Could you give us a little bit more in depth view of how those two perspectives on shareholder wealth maximization compare? What do they mean in practice?”

“In thinking about how this approach to shareholder wealth maximization might actually play out in practice, we have, I think, oftentimes in our minds when we talk about this subject, a model of the large public company”