In 1990 a Gatorade commercial told viewers to “Be Like Mike” (YouTube, 2006), but some chose not to when Michael Jordan refused to endorse a Democratic candidate for the US Senate, Harvey Gantt. Politics-first activists blasted Jordan for saying, “Republicans buy sneakers, too,” but I think he was exactly right.

Thirty years later he elaborated, “I wasn’t a politician when I was playing my sport. I was focused on my craft.” Jordan was staying in his lane.

Some business executives haven’t heeded Jordan’s advice. They go out of their lane and become Lady Bountifuls tossing coins from their carriages via company contributions programs. I can understand the inclination. Dolly Parton in the 1980 film Nine to Five belted out a reason for corporate philanthropy: “Working 9 to 5, what a way to make a living. Barely getting’ by, it’s all taking and no giving” (Parton, 1980). Some employees whose salaries are greater than “barely gettin’ by” feel in a different way that they are taking, and they want a sense of giving.

One argument for corporate philanthropy is that it’s in the corporate interest, a way to retain excellent employees who want their companies to have a more obvious linkage to benevolence. But here are two questions: Are business executives with talent in providing goods and services likely to be wise when they leave their lane and make contribution decisions concerning social problems? Are contributions that please some shareholders and stakeholders likely to damage a company’s standing among others?