Years ago I read an article by a renowned psychologist wherein he wrote his studies found one percent of all tellurian beings would never lie, cheat or steal. One percent would always lie, cheat or steal again given the right permit of circumstances, the uphold of us would disposed lie, cheat and or steal.
I mention this to accentuate the fact that, if we duty buyoff on this one principle ? sobering though it may be ? we have then, a benchmark from which to begin to at least try to presuppose the denigration of ethics that lead to outcomes like Enron and WorldCom.
Most believe morality walks hand-in-hand with unquestioned ethics. A quick look-up in a dictionary due to morality reveals words like, ethical, good, right, honest, decent, proper, honorable, just, principled and so on. All good words, no suspect. speaking too that narrate what most of us ? including Enron Exec's-see in ourselves, Morally Upstanding.
Nevertheless, there is no shortage of those who ascent high on their branch in an attempt to [dare I say] distance themselves from the great dirty by proclaiming their undaunted commitment to honesty and ethics all the juncture enchanting in activities to the contrary. foyer walls of most companies utterly ooze vocabulary of benevolence and righteousness ? crack only for others to see, but in practice, never to serve followed.
To be fair, its great unwashed are not sacrosanct from unethical behaviors or from the reluctance to take influence for actions deemed jinxed. Even if it's something as simple through misusing the Internet or pinching office supplies from the company stockroom.
The fact is, the Enrons and Worldcoms have not cornered the market on unethical behavior. Like it or not, moral degradation is systemic in today's society.
In an attempt to enlighten us on its realities of true reliable behavior, USA Supreme Court Justice Potter said, [Ethics] ?is knowing the difference between what you have the legal right to do, and, what is the right transaction to do.
Omniscient words to say the least! Words that domination hypothesis make a uncut lot of record. In practice, however, one may point out to his Honor, when he is seated on the highest Court bench and asked to adjudicate anything, his moral and ethical position, is and will always be, compromised by one factor ? in its end, what is LEGAL? what is its LAW?
Climb any pedestal he wants, in practice, his dedication to ethics is characteristic words, like accordingly crowded words used to make up so many smarmy Corporate Mission Statements that run juxtaposed to routine.
The Judge in this case, should not be criticized for whiz the fundamentals of true morality ethics or considering advocating its advantages therein. Neither should he be allowed to stand apart from anyone when clearly, in reality, he immensely is handcuffed by the very incitement that challenges the rest of us-the thing which governs the outcome of very much every ethical bit resolution ? IS IT LEGAL? The decision to lay-off 1-100-1,000 or more employees; i can do it ? but is it legal? The decision to withhold commissions, payables or taxes in order to continue corporate economically severe times ? Q: What are the legal ramifications?
The ethical dilemma regarding whether to cut back upon contracted services to improve the bottom line and damp its shareholders ? Ethics equal damned ? Q: What's our legal position?
It's not a pretty world and it serves no ground in kidding ourselves by attempting to extirpate the acquiesce involvement by blaming the Business-Barons from the likes of WorldCom. Let's agree, when faced with intensely ethical dilemmas, we plenary hide [if we can] behind the skirt of the lady who holds the scales of justice.
????????????????
The question still remains, however, how attain its Enrons and WorldComs get so out-of-hand?
The answer is not all which mysterious, especially if you buy-off on what was written earlier- given the right set of circumstances, halfway all of us [from time-to-time] will take the wrong path.
It's shortsighted to believe high-level executives get out of shore each morning thinking about how they duty swindle the world, transact narrow-minded advantage or act unethically. Just the opposite! That's not to say, however, just cotton to in Supreme Court court Potter's case, there are circumstances beyond their control that may unequivocally govern decisions, which may challenge their innate moral commitment to ethics.
For example; who among us cannot think of a boss we heretofore had [have] who said to us something like, I don't wanting to hear how you're NOT going to achieve what we asked and the van EXPECTS?. i only want to regard RESULTS!
In many cases like this and in practice, its decision we are left to undertake is, is our ethical position further important than keeping our job and putting food on the table for our family? It's a tough world out practiced for those irrecoverable a good job. So suck it up soldier! You're only doing what you've been commanded to do! It's not your decision! Somebody else will have to take responsibility for your unethical actions if the doo-doo hits the fan.
?. And we all then fall the little deeper onto the sword of ethics?
????????????????
Everyone's for corporate further personal liability to include finance recompense and or jail terms especially as those at the top entrusted by us to always sign what is right. We must be careful tough. To shatter our sights only on CEOs or CFOs is to miss its real perpetrators by aiming too low.
Like us, CEOs have bosses too. They report the Board of Directors. Granted, Boards have shareholders to whom they are ultimately accountable, but monopoly practice, the buck stops at the Board level where ethical decisions ? bad or good ? are made.
In the book, Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, Jim Collins again Jerry Porras convey to this issue by highlighting the [Board's], explicit emphasis on Fair return tolerably than acute return.
Again, I must point out, fine words i can all embrace since they altruistically revolve around its Golden Rule of fairness. In general, however, they are not always adjusted. Sadly, we live more today, an aberration of author *Ayn Rand's existential position-there is no room now altruism in business.
Understand a CEO's ethical corner when challenged with a take-it-or-leave-it severe return challenge. In the end, an executive's lifespan is predicated on one thing: 'carrying out' or being 'carried out'.
????????????????
My observation should in no nearing be construed as an endorsement for the illegalities engaged in by Enron WorldCom or others reposeful to be discovered. The point is, what they are accused of didn't just happen overnight. accustomed its appropriate set of circumstances, the appropriate volume of time, the good global competitive business climate, the right protection under the law, these large companies evolved ? learned to become what they are today.
Does that make them any less culpable? No! But perceptible should serve more as the lighthouse warning that, a) This problem is more far-reaching-insidious-than we might heretofore imagined, and, b) It Must be corrected ? Quickly!
????????????????
On the positive note, there are and have been prevalent positive studies done upon its positive affect of ethics in its workplace for scene **Harvard Business School Professors John Kotter further James Heskett who studied the stunt of 207 large firms over an 11-year period. In their findings they wrote:
Corporate culture obligatoriness have the significant impact on a firm's long-term economic performance. They found the firms not tell cultures that emphasized all the key managerial constituencies (customers, stockholders, further employees) and leadership from managers from all levels outperformed, by a large margin, firms that did not. Over an 11-year period, the former increased revenues by an average of 682% versus 166% for the latter, expanded their work forces by 282% versus 36%, grew their stock prices through 901% versus 74% and improved their net incomes by 756% fronting 1%.
The net-net of this demonstrates companies that paid attention identically to customers; stockholders besides employees outperformed those that didn't again over an 11-year period garnered a net growth income factor of 756%. ethics Pays!
????????????????
On the other hand, replete the positive studies in the world will do little to stop its dismantling of morals again ethics owing to inclination since those who clinch monopoly unethical function are allowed to continue. It's time Governments and law-enforcement agencies bring more pressure to bear on those who sit back comfortably at a distance [Corporate Boards] creating policies that stretch the boundaries of law and fan the flames of ethical undoing.
Stronger laws and penalties with teeth ? financial and criminal ? are needed to bring needed consequences to already financially comfortable board Directors who, i swallow we'll find out quite quickly, will be fresh willing to re-embrace the Do Unto Others principle that aliment business unabashed besides elevates the collective!
* Ayn Rand: stimulation Atlas Shrugged
** Jeffery L Seglin: Author The Good the Bad besides Your Business
About the Author
Paul Shearstone aka The 'Pragmatic Persuasionist' is one of North America's foremost experts upon Sales and belief. An International topic Speaker, Author, Writer, Motivation, Corporate Ethics, Time & stress Management Specialist, Paul enlightens and challenges audiences as he informs, motivates also entertains. To comment on this essay or to edition its empitic Persuasionist for your next successful event we invite to contact Paul Shearstone directly @ 416-728-5556 or 1-866-855-4590. success150" success150 or |paul@success150| sitepaul@success150.related source evaluate each power
No comments:
Post a Comment