Summing Up
Our perceptions of whether we do "what's right" depend on such things as the situation, the time frame, the expectations of others, and whether we are face-to-face with the object of our actions. And we are much poorer judges of whether we are doing what's right than those observing us. In a nutshell, those are the feelings of many respondents to this month's column. Frances Pratt summed up the comments of others in three words, "ethics is subjective."
Ravindra Edirisooriya asked, for example, "Can humans be ethical in one environment and unethical in another environment?" Anyone who has studied business cultures in various parts of the world probably would respond affirmatively. Gerald Nanninga observed that "unethical decisions can often appear to be the 'best' decision when using a narrow time frame mindset." Shadreck Saili concluded that, under the circumstances, "we should be as ethical as the situation around us can determine while at the same time be mindful of the consequences …."
Turning to the core issue of the column, why do we so often regard ourselves as more fair and ethical than we really are? Why do those with whom we interact judge us differently than we judge ourselves? Phil Clark commented that "Ethics is in the 'eye of the beholder,' not the person carrying out the action." We may rationalize our behaviors depending on, as R. Keller put it, "pressure … to meet deadlines, desire to further one's career, or desire to protect one's livelihood (or, one might add, one's loved ones)."
In an organization, doing what's right starts at the top. Ashraf Khan commented that "Individual managers (tone at the top) play an essential role making sure (that unethical behavior) doesn't happen," noting also that "… it is a heck of a job to keep staying aware…" Vasudev Das suggests that words of Krishna are appropriate here, to wit: "whatever action a great man performs, common men follow; and whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, the entire world pursues." Joe Schmid commented that "the 'highest behavior' any leader can expect from those they lead is the 'lowest behavior' they demonstrate."
To the extent that fairness and ethical behaviors are in the eye of the beholder, good leadership involves establishing expectations and meeting them, probably through a process, as Mike Flanagan put it, of "more open discussion at home, work and at play." Other suggestions came from C. J. Cullinane when he said "we can make better, fairer decisions by being aware of these biases." Ajay Kumar Gupta suggested hiring practices that place a great deal of weight on "attitude" and "listening skills."
Trust is a cornerstone of an efficient and effective system. Bad things happen when it is undermined by unmet expectations or ethical blind spots. What can we do to insure that we as well as our managers are taking steps to deal with their ethical blind spots? What do you think?
Original Article
Umpires and referees favor the home team. That's the conclusion of research by Tobias J. Moskowitz and L. Jon Werthheim that appeared in their recent book, Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won. It was biased judgment on the part of supposedly unbiased referees and umpires.
They hypothesize that the cause is a natural tendency to avoid excessive booing by the home team crowd, particularly in the later stages of a contest in which unbiased behavior is most necessary. Of course one could ask, "Are they cheating, especially when they are probably unaware of what they are doing?"
In a new book Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It, authors Max H. Bazerman, a professor at Harvard Business School, and Ann E. Tenbrunsel, a professor of business ethics at the University of Notre Dame, argue that something they call bounded ethicality leads "even good people to engage in ethically questionable behavior that contradicts their own preferred ethics."
We do it when it is easy to do, when it is hard to verify, when we have insufficient time or information ("bounded awareness," which often occurs in large organizations in which functions are walled off from one another). We may do it in ways that allow us to preserve our perception of ourselves as an ethical person. Doctors experience it when they make diagnoses and prescriptions biased by their special training while maintaining their belief that they are putting their patients first.
It helps explain why people systematically regard themselves as being much more ethical than they really are. And it supports a conclusion that, unless ways can be found to reduce bounded ethicality, most ethics "education" is missing a large part of the problem. In fact, one study found that ethicists who teach the subject are less likely to return library books associated with their research than the general public is to return books that it borrows.
Why should this matter to us? Employees tell us in one way or another that the single most important characteristic of their job is "a boss who's fair," who hires, promotes, and recognizes the right people. Nearly all bosses think they're fair, a much larger proportion than is perceived by their employees.
As antidotes to blind spots, Bazerman and Tenbrunsel argue that we can change ourselves, in part through awareness of the phenomenon itself, putting in place "precommitment devices" that seal you to a desired course of action--imagining your eulogy, or reviewing decisions with a friend. For organizations, greater transparency and fewer silos, among other things, can help (as opposed to such things as signing codes of conduct or undergoing training in ethics).
How do we address these problems? Do we just hire more ethical people? Or do we help people see how they act in ways that are inconsistent with their more reasoned ethical preferences? What can organizations do to increase the likelihood of employees acting ethically? And, what can society do to change the institutions that guide individual and organizational behavior? Or is the problem beyond us? After all, how ethical can we be? What do you think?
To Read More:
Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel, Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 2011).
Tobias J. Moskowitz and L. Jon Werthheim, Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences Behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won (New York, N.Y.: Crown Publishing Group, 2011).
Precommitment devices are merely means to an end. Research described by e.g., Paul Stern, Dan Ariely and yes even Marc Hauser seems to indicate that activation of (dormant) norms helps us to "get back on track". If signing a corporate code (a) reflects norms that are de facto not shared or (b) the code is not brought back now and then to re-activate us, it will be ineffective to precommit individuals.
What I gathered from my own share of issues in life and my job as a corporate governance advisor:
a) Once you start becoming more aware of your own behaviour, it is a heck of a job to keep staying aware (while simultaneously there is no way back),
b) Organisational checks and balances to maintain this awareness easily fall into a "tick the box" exercise (there and done, let's get on with business),
c) Individual managers (tone at the top) play an essential role in making sure this doesn't happen: make employees feel as "insiders", people who can identify themselves with the norms (see Akerlof & Kranton).
And this, again, requires working on your own behaviour first and foremostly. There is no easy consulting possibility I fear.
This is from personal experience as a corporate whistle blower.
ith other humans including oneself (for example to or not to commit suicide), institutions, commerce, society and environment is based on his or her moral standards. Humanely, we know (or do we not know?), deceit, greed, stealing, lying, lust, and harmful conduct (to oneself and others) are unethical. Humans can have upward, downward or zigzagging ethical short-term trends since we are human. The dilemma is how to find harmony given the humans have a shade different to widely opposite moral systems.
There is no place for ethics anywhere in the equation of profits. Hence, the free market model (frame) does not require its adherents to be ethical. Humanistic and moral frames are based on ethics.
One glaring example of deceit among our presidential hopefuls is that they canvass the public by saying in essence that they will bring down the gas prices since they know that Americans are hurting with the sky rocketing gas prices. Their solution is "Drill Baby Drill" which helps them with corporate campaign contributions. The OPEC countries tell us that there is enough world production (is it true?). The Obama administration is going after the speculators in the oil market but is there any misconduct? The problem is either the oil refineries controlling the distillate production capacity to less than the market needs or we do not have enough capacity to produce the market needs. In order to bring a refinery online, probably it may take (a long time) four years or more!
As recently exposed in a short film, another glaring example of deceit is how some economists color (doctor) there reports depending on whose payroll they are in.
Moral systems cannot be regulated. In the free market frame, ethics will take a back seat. Perhaps, could we solve the problem if we can reduce the number of (materially and morally) needy on this earth? The best we can do is to talk about the importance of ethical conduct and wish for increasingly ethical behavior from the free market adherents: citizens, students, teachers, passengers, drivers, shoppers, consumers, producers, marketers, sportsmen and sportswomen (umpires and referees included!), professionals, businesses, corporations, institutions (UN for one!), nations, societies, politicians, governments, law enforcement officers, international /national forces, scientists, clergymen, judges and etc ...
We are seeing continuing CEO banditry in salaries and bonuses defended as fair and equitable among the princes, but grossly unfair in general. Should a CEO choose to draw the line and not accept them for ethical reasons and is he/she guilt of unethical conduct? Should a client of an IB firm engaging in nefarious dealings turn back those profits on portfolios? Should a pension fund engaging in high risk dealings disclose to their members the real risk to their future? Choose the ethical target wisely or it shoots back.
Leaders need to create leadership trust and transparency at top and across all level in every actions, decisions and behaviours. Leaders should follow SSCEE Model to restore and create ethics in the organisations. Showing self example of taking ethical decision and setting trends for future employee to follow the path; this also includes being self role model of ethics. Creating opportunity for people to take ethical decisions, engaging them into opportunity and encouraging them to take ethical decisions will help organisation to be ethically right. This actually make virtuous circle of making ethical decisions in the organisations.
While hiring, employers should put more weight on attitude than anything else. Listening skills is more important than talking skills.
Managers should design their performance appraisal to include decision, effort and initiative that could build brand reputation and leadership credibility in future. Long term value creation should be focused more than short term profitability alone. Organisations should also follow "Zero Tolerance Policy" for outcome based on unethical decision. They should focus more on means rather than outcome by any means.
Societies can play both complementary and supplementary role to help organisations to encourage ethical decisions. For this, organisations should engage them into employee feedback system and also what they think about activities of the organisation. It should be make integral part of organisational survey. Engaging societies into organisations actions, decision, and activities as a complementary partner could strongly build reputation and trust that will definitely create long term organisational and social value. Society should organisation event, seminar or workshop to reward individual employee whom they think encourage and make ethical decision. They should felicitate effort and outcome of organisations that have benefitted societies, communities or people.
I believe every decision making person has some bias that they may not even be aware of. I have met some CCOs (Chief Compliance Officers) who were responsible for 'fairness' and enforcing regulations but had their own blind spots and biases. Pointing out what you feel is a bias or blind spot (after they calm down) does seem to help but for how long!
When hiring, do we really know who is 'ethical'? It is a very tough call. I think we have to work at teaching our employees to be alert to their "blind spots" and biases. I also believe we have to question decisions that may not be the best decisions (instant replay in the boardroom).
In closing, I do feel we all have some deep seated biases and blind spots. I also believe we can make better, fairer decisions by being aware of these biases.
Charlie
In order for us to be more ethical we need more open discussion at home, work and at play. We need to expose our thinking process to our surrondings so that we can judge our final decision based on the "norm."
It is also important to consider what is driving the decision making. I believe that a prosperous company does not need to cut corners to survive and afford to behave more ethically, whereas one that is struggling to keep its doors open is more likely to cut corners and more likely to behave in an unethical manner. If the decision is driven by the bottom line, then oftentimes ethics fly right out the window. Wall Street brokers are a prime example; "buy/sell" is their game, that is how they get wealthy. They do not care If make money or lose money on the trades that's they encourage you to make.
On the other hand we have workers that are driven by the job satisfaction they get from doing a good job. I certainly would hope that this group would behave very ethically.
Since I am an HR professional, please allow me one indulgence. HR is supposed to be conducted in a fair and ethical manner. Discrimination is unacceptable; unethical conduct is grounds for removal. That keeps us on the straight and narrow path. It is also important to remember that it only cost 24.00 dollars to file a suit with the labor board and an arbitrator will examine your case for you so you do not even need an attorney. That too is a great reason to behave ethically. I do not want to be sued and my employer does not want to be sued either.
So - if this is true then how do we work within that? For me the answer is about honesty. To expand, I think we need to work harder and spend more time on being honest with ourselves in uncovering and stating our biases. This takes effort, we need to reflect on our actions and uncover question our biases and very often it takes the shared insight from an external party (such as a mentor, husband or co-worker) to draw to our attention to the bias in the first place. So the question then becomes, in my mind, how do we create our world so that people feel that they have permission to bring this up with you? How do we teach people these skills of insight, reflection and sharing that enables them to say and us to listen? And lastly when we have listened - what skills do we have to use this information when talking with others or to change ourselves?
These tools need to be used in balance with the others that perhaps we are more familiar with in running a business so that things are done on time, with fulfilled clients and money to pay the wages and other expenses.
To be totally ethical, one has to be completely above board and not get tempted by forces giving more by hook or by crook. At times, there are opportunities which could be grabbed by twisting morals a bit and lot many do so. This too is unethical.
To be ethical, one's conscience should be the guide,
Even if one can't remain entirely untouched by unethicality, if greed is shunned, this touch will be brushed away. Somewhat difficult but a strong character can really make one ethical to a great extent.
Some steps that organizations can initiate to ensure that ethical behavior prevails:
?Devise HR processes that keep at bay nepotism; nepotism breeds non-ethical behavior;
?Reward and support ethic-vigilantes; they need strong support to sustain the vigil
In organization the grids are the functions and the employees are responsible to fill the grid. Some will learn how to be an ethical employee just to sustain their income and some are ethically by nature due to their paradigm. Both do reflect on their surrounding and on their careers, which do reflect at the end on the overall picture of being ethical.
Getting the right way or the wrong way of being ethical will depends on our own ethics; however, do we -organizations- sought to be any less than ethical or do we treat this matter as a point of perception?
Usually, it takes a much larger time horizon until the negative consequences of unethical decision-making appear. For example, a pattern of unethical behavior over time erodes trust. When customers, suppliers, and fellow employees stop trusting you, all sorts of bad outcomes can occur.
Until people take responsibility for the long-term consequences of their actions, unethical behavior will appear desirable. Unfortunately, given our preference for emphasizing the next quarter's earnings, annual reviews, and short tenure at any given position, there is no reason to expect people to own up to the long term consequences.
I had the pleasure of talking to some of the Enron employees shortly before and after their fall. In my mind, it was Enron's excessively short-term orientation which triggered most of their ethical problems.
As a weather forecaster, I was often lambasted over an errant forecast. I had a CEO of a company chew me out over a forecast one day with many unkind words and disparragement. Finally, I had enough and ask him, "When you make decisions are they sent to every TV, radio or newspaper in the country to be widely broadcast to everyone in the nation?" A huge silent pause was heard on the line. In a quiet and appologetic voice the CEO said if that every occured he would be linched overnight. He said, "You must have one of the toughest jobs in the world. Everyone knows when you are right or wrong, you cannot hide. That would be catastrophic for a CEO." After that he was the nicest customer I ever visited with.
Everyone has their own ethical foundation. Trying to fit into the judgement mold is nearly impossible. If, as Mike Flanagan mentioned we exposed our thinking more, we might make some progress. Listening instead of judging would go a long way to better understanding.
Is there an ethical litmus test? The California Ethics Orientation online certification (except for 2 pages out of 200) deals with misuse of power to personal financial gain. Is this what bad behavior boils down to - I don't think so. Should the "12th man" be barred from football stadiums - I don't see that happening - it's part of the game. Is "fair" in the eye of the beholder - sure is. Are "precommitment devices" the answer? The corporate "chastity belt" or "shock collar" - a patent waiting to happen (outside of the automotive insurance industry which already has such devices). My guess is it will be some time.
Codes of behavior and ethics set the table. How you behave at the table is always very visible and defines who you are (a true pig or a gentleperson) to wit "The Emperor's New Clothes." "Bounded awareness" is an excuse not a reason. I believe there is one overarching behavioral truth - the 'highest behavior' any leader can expect from those they lead is the 'lowest behavior' they demonstrate. The "disease" and the "cure" are that simple. "It" is not beyond us - it is us. Every time we give bad behavior a "free pass" we set a new standard and we become further entangled in the "Stuck-on-Stupid" fence. Stop giving out "free passes" in your organization. However, before you stop handing out the "free passes", be aware that doing so is not without personal risk - there is downside. The question in front of each of us is - Are we willing to take the risk?
The lead to this story is the questionable decisions of umpires. I like to think that my great uncle, Ed Hurley, was one of the good umpires. He was certainly one of the more famous ones. But I was too young to really get to know him. Here is a clip of his identity being guessed on What's My Line after a particularly controversial World Series game (http://www.yourememberthat.com/media/5834/Umpire_Ed_Hurley_on_Whats_My_Line/). Perhaps we should hold up the examples of the honest umpires again today, and the honest CEOs, managers, and individual contributors that are just doing the right thing.
But we need to stay away from the politically motivated examples. As Moskowitz and Werthheim point out, just as the ethicists that teach the subject have a lower propensity to return library books than the general population, there is a likelihood that disproportionately large number of amoral actors have worked their way to the top of organizations on the shoulders of other like-minded contemporaries. While this creates a perception of integrity, they're really just well-connected members of an unethical, and often criminal, cabal.
We should reserve celebrated examples for those that are truly worthy. They're likely just doing what they always do, waiting to be discovered and recognized for their sacrifices. And the flip side is also true. We need to publicly expose the unethical CEO's and corporate leaders, cops and judges, public servants and everyday people that have long ago given up on doing the right thing. Beyond all the other damage they do on a daily basis, they obstruct the professional path of ethical people with honorable intentions.
We need to do more beyond this, but it's a good start. It's hard for competent people, companies, and teams to win, when their opponents, and the "umpires," are cheating.
It is quite difficult though to balance and come up with what may be termed " the ideal ethics" . The reason being that ethics have more than one dimension and that includes individual feelings of what is right or wrong,religious belief, law requirement, society's nomes.
Further these dimensions are perceived by different persons in various ways making the whole matrix more complicated. That being the case therefore, my view is that we should be as ethical as the situation around us can determine while at the same time be mindful of the consequences that what we may consider "the ideal ethics" will result into. It bring to my memory" If you are in Rome do what the Romans do" Whether that is ethical enough it remains a wonder.
1. Pressure to meet unrealistic business objectives/ deadlines.
2. Desire to further one's career.
3. Desire to protect one's livelihood.
As executive business coach, I am asked to "assist" Fortune 500's on addressing ethical behaviors amongst the company's leadership. My finding over the years is that a greater number of people act ethically and desire to behave so (yes even on Wall Street).
For those few who "choose" to act unethically, my experiences in such matters lies fault at the feet of both one's organizational "culture" AND its leadership ( more accurately, what "behaviors" leadership rewards.)
Inherent in driving unethical behaviors ( a correlating factor to aforementioned Top 3 Reasons) is the fact that in many cases where unethical business acts/ behaviors are in question, little to no consequences are suffered by the perpetrator- especially if they are "rain-makers": (no greater examples exist then in our politicians, athletes, executives or celebrities who smirk or outwardly laugh at the pithy suggestion that they are to be held accountable for their unethical behaviors as would "normal" citizens.)
With the potent combination of lax whistleblowing policies, scarce SEC resources, increased deregulation, and in some cases "behind the scenes governmental protection", companies -and their leaders- who deem themselves, "Too Big To Fail" and those narcissistic company cultures whom think they are smarter than everyone else, have successfully gone from their "perception of impunity", to the realization of no consequences and immunity from prosecution will be doled out on them.
It is with this mindset that the current- and future- laws enacted to thwart unethical behaviors DO NOT apply to them. So each will continue to behave in a manner which has, thus far, ONLY rewarded them: Please remember: what gets rewarded always gets repeated.
In closing, I am passing on this breaking news story. The Manhattan federal jury announced its unanimous verdict on Raj Rajaratnam. Raj Rajaratnam will spend a very long time in prison. Twenty-one pleaded guilty and one defendant is at large.
R. Keller
Convictions such as bribery by Alcatel and insider trading by Galleon cover up the fact that such behaviour is standard operating practice for all organisations in their sector - companies that don't cheat can't survive.
Nor is the government exempt. As US offiicials repeatedly state: US foreign policy is primarily to further US interests. Ethics is a secondary factor.
Our political system is designed on the basis of selfishness - politicians are motivated to get elected, and there is an assumption that this gets translated into the public good (and therefore ethical).
If we really want to build an honest society, we need to redesign the fundamental systems by which our society functions.
The workers, the managers, the CEO, the owner, the Board, the community, the labour board, the government, the UN - or all of these stakeholders?
A fair boss is situational - corporate vs. business owner, size, industry, country, public vs private ownership.
Canada is a remarkably "fair" place to do business because of the level of ethics drilled into the Canadian culture from childhood. Yet, many Canadians will say their boss is not fair because expectations for standards of fairness rise as all boats rise. A Zambian miner would think they were in heaven if they were working for a Canadian boss. The Canadians may think they deserve more pay or consistency in treatment because they are higher up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Canadian employees do indeed regularly say their boss is not "fair".
The problem is that it is cheaper to do business in Zambia with the lower level of definition of "fair" boss. In Zambia, The Economist reports that workers do not have safety helmets. This would be illegal in Canada, never mind be unfair.
I believe that if you want to see "fair" boss levels, it shows at a granular level in the economy. Right at company level, you can see the turnover rate. In private equity, we work with family owned businesses and I notice just anecdotally that there is zero turnover rate. Consequently, I look more to see who is being a "fair" employee and who is behaving in an entitled manner.
In the private sector, with businesses under $300M, it is very hard to hide unfair treatment in the market place where employees come from the same town.
As for the ethics researchers not returning their books, I would assume that the people interested in ethics are on the more touchy-feely side of business rather than the harder minded finance types. Here is another angle, personality types also influence the definition of "fair" and perhaps people who do not return books are going to believe an employee should have far more given to them than that hard-nosed business owner who has to reach payroll every month.
Realistic expectations are everything and employees definitions will be far from the business owner's definition. I see owners writing checks for old time employee retirement and ultimately, it is trying to regulate "fairness" which stops this generosity as it is seen to be "unfair".
Who defines "fair" is the most important question of all.
In the neck throat competetive corporate world, any single miss can prove costly to business and share holders. So the fear of being answerable to many people and not giving their due return for the money invested is motivating the companies to get business by hook or crook, sometimes making slight compromises to ethics factor. This may be a good solution to withstand the competition in short term, but can be detrimental in long term. Even the employees can take cue from such unethical company behavior and apply it in thier work place. Boss typical should lead by example and so his behavior has direct impact on his subordinates
In my opinion, we all are ethical as long as our decisions are correct in absolute manner.
The statement "people systematically regard themselves as being much more ethical than they really are" brings to mind the Dunning-Kruger effect - that many people overrate themselves on a variety of attributes. Part of the effect seems due to poor metacognitive ability among the least competent, causing them to overrate themselves very significantly. But another part of the effect is the most competent underestimating themselves.
This seems to be paralleled by the effect described here - the most ethical (or in historical terms "saintly" or "holy") judging themselves harshly (as "sinners" even) while the most unethical remain oblivious to their own wrongdoings.
I would like to appreciate the scholarly comments in this discussion on "How ethical can we be?" Heskett (2011) asseverates that an investigative study brought to bear that "ethicists who teach the subject are less likely to return library books associated with their research than the general public is to return books that it borrows." This is interesting. Most people would have expected that scholars should not only philosophize, but also actually practice what they profess. If someone is teaching ethics, but his/her private/public life is devoid of ethical values, then such a teacher needs help. Such an ethicist ought to become a scholar-practitioner. Krishna (Prabhupada, 2011) asserts that "whatever action a great man performs, common men follow; and whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, the entire world pursues." Unfortunately, in the 21st century - subsumed in the Kali-yuga or Iron Age, which is predominantly characterized by hypoc
risy and quarrels - people do not walk their talks, but this is uninspiring. It is not surprising, therefore, that even great policy formulators become victims of the very laws they enact and promulgate.
An introspective sage may wonder if such non-practitioner scholars, who are masquerading as mentors, deserve to be heard. I should think that ethicists who are devoid of ethical values should be relieved of their services, inasmuch they are quacks. Such ethicists are pretenders and cheats. Of course, the cosmic creation is replete with the cheaters and the cheated, but it would be a bunch of hogwash and an unintelligible misdeed to condone such cheating in the academy. There is the probability of some of their students following the footsteps of such non-practitioner scholars, if we have to take Lewin's Field theory into consideration. Prabhupada (2011) corroborates Lewin's premise that our operational field has an impact on our behavior/actions. Bhakti-Tirtha (1998) brings to bear that there are gross and subtle exchanges that take place when people associate with each other. Therefore, hiring ethical people will positively influence the behavior of the employees. One may
cherish ethical choices, and yet he/she can act in unethical ways, against his/her better judgment, due to the influence of organismic lust. One approach to address the inherent lust of employees is to resort to sonic therapeutic intervention (Prabhupada, 2011; Das, 2003) which helps to purify living entities of unethical consciousness. On a Likert scale of 0 to 10, 10 being the optimum, I would suggest leaders of society should at least be up to a 9, as far as ethicality is concerned, so as to be proper role models worthy of emulation.
References
Bhakti-Tirtha, S. (1998) Leadership for an Age of Higher Consciousness, volume 1. Washington, D. C.: Hari-Nama Press.
Das, V. (2003) Lawmakers and corruption: Sonic therapeutic approach, Journal of curriculum and instruction, 11(2), 88-92.
Heskett, J. (2011). What do you think?: How ethical can we be? Harvard Working Knowledge. Accessed on May 17, 2011, from http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6711.html?wknews=05162011.
Prabhupada, A.C.B.S. (2011). Bhaktivedanta VedaBase. Los Angeles, CA: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International.
be raised -
1. Am I violating any law or ethically accepted practices in whatever decisions I take?
2. Are my subordinates raise the similar points as in 1 before theymake any decisions?
3. How will I deal with if the decisions and followup actions are contrary to what is in question 1?
It is also a matter of concern how the corporates themselves deal with every issue of unethical practices that haves been unearthed? In the end unless our universal moral values do not form the basis of all our actions the ulcer of unethical behaviour can never be eliminated. Thats why the Vedas in Hinduism proclaim the following - "Protect the Dharma (ethics) and the Dharma (ethics) will protect you". Then what is Dharma (ethics)? It is that action/decision which does not bring any harm to any one.
Something to recognize in the case of bounded ethicality, and responses to reduce its effect toward eliminating it, is that the approaches will find resistance from other organizational approaches, which put ethics low on the list of priorities. These are the those organizational styles which primarily value results above all else, where the concept of entrepreneurialism, for instance, is promoted to the detriment of structure and the procedures that come with, including procedures intended to foster good ethics.
I think the ethics training currently provided is helping people see how they act in ways that are inconsistent with their more reasoned ethical preferences, as Jim Heskett, the articles author, puts it. But still the problem remains, begging the article's question, 'How do we address this problem?'. I suggest that hiring more ethical people into leadership positions higher and higher up in an organization is an effective answer. This helps address the conflict of organizational styles which has a waterfall effect down through an organization, disseminating the idea of good ethics and countering any ill-effects from silos, the lack of transparency, and matrix-management, for example.
Although the business world is different enough than a society that it needs to be looked at differently, societies have historically gone the approach of ethical leadership. The promises to promote the rights of people or the credos about bringing about change have been common among those wanting the societal leadership position. And as in the business world, improving ethics in a society presents its own difficulties, but the ethical leadership approach has been very popular.
Having worked in the operations end of multinational businesses myself, I appreciate the complexity of the business environment and the difficulties in implementing the ideas spoken of here. When people, information, products, and resources of various types must come together in a way that meets very stringent criteria, any solutions sought will present many considerations and challenges. It is no surprise the manufacturing sector has gained the reputation of being the most complex system of work.
The problem of bounded ethicality is only beyond us if we acknowledge it to be, and we can only be as ethical as the boundaries forced on us permit. I think it is dangerous to entertain thoughts of ethical and moral behavior being beyond us. Without these, we step into a boundlessness world which in essence moves toward a no-rules environment. And once that is accepted and considered acceptable as a rule, we have to start asking very basic questions, like is the information in this article real at all? A bit absurd to ask, of course, but it makes the point that nothing will be worthy of being trusted, and why would it if there are no ethics?
I will not go so far as to talk about what a solution to bounded ethicality would look like, my consulting days are over, I do however offer thoughts on business related and other topics in the books I write. I realize this is not a forum for promoting products or services, but if you are interested, my books; A Business Diary and The Swindle look at issues pertaining to the business world, some the same as the ideas presented in this article. My novel Legend Station relates to societal ethics in terms of people's vices.
"How Ethical can we be?" makes me wonder how we are shaped to get affected by the environment. Whether its the umpire or the mom who is mad at her child or a boss who appears to favor. We learn to forgive!
the equilibrium between ethical and unethical behaviour. Ethics can be compared with the law, there is a lot of grey area.