The Rules and Morality... Who Is Laughing Whom?

 The Rules and Morality... Who Is Laughing Whom?

One percent of the population will never lie, cheat, or steal, according to research published by a famous psychologist many years ago. Only 1% of people are completely honest and forthright all the time; the remaining 99% would probably be just as dishonest under the right conditions.
I bring this up to emphasize that if we can agree on this one principle—as depressing as it is—we will have something to work with when trying to comprehend the erosion of ethics that results in scandals like Enron and WorldCom.

The majority of people think that unquestionable ethics and morality go hand in hand. The term "morality" is defined by a wide range of terms in dictionaries, including "good," "right," "honorable," "just," "principled," and many more. I don't question a word of it. Words that capture the essence of what the majority of us—including Enron executives—assume: being morally upright.
However, there are plenty of people who, from their lofty position, try to [dare I say] separate themselves from the common folk by pretending to be utterly committed to honesty and ethics while actually doing everything but that. Messages of kindness and justice abound on the foyer walls of most organizations, but they are merely for show and never meant to be acted upon.
Truthfully, the great unwashed aren't immune to immorality or a lack of willingness to fess up to wrongdoing. Even if it's only stealing office supplies or abusing business time on the Internet, it counts.
When it comes to immoral practices, the Enrons and Worldcoms are far from alone. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, moral decay is pervasive in our culture.
Justice Potter of the United States Supreme Court once said, "...is knowing the difference between what you have a legal right to do and, what is the right thing to do." This statement was an effort to shed light on the realities of actual ethical behavior.
Quite omniscient, to put it mildly! Expressions that, in principle, are very coherent. But in reality, one can argue that when sitting on the Supreme Court bench and asked to rule on anything, his Honor's moral and ethical stance is and always will be undermined by the question of, "What is the law?"
He can stand on any pedestal he likes, but in reality, his commitment to ethics is nothing more than empty rhetoric, like the smarmy corporate mission statements that sit side by side with mundane tasks.
No one should fault the judge for being well-versed in the principles of genuine ethics and morality or for arguing for their advantages in this case. Equally wrong is the idea of letting him stand alone when, as we all know, he is constrained by the same question that affects the result of nearly every moral business decision: IS IT LEGAL? We have the authority to lay off anywhere from one hundred to one thousand workers, but can we do it legally? The practice of companies choosing to delay or withhold payments in order to weather economic downturns - What does the law say about this?
A: What's our legal position?—regarding the moral conundrum of whether to reduce contracted services in order to boost profits and satisfy shareholders.
Blaming the Business-Barons from companies like WorldCom is a foolproof way to avoid taking responsibility for our actions in this ugly world. We can all agree that the most ethically challenging situations make us want to hide, if possible, behind the skirt of the lady holding the scales of justice.
That's not all!
But how do companies like Enrons and WorldCom become so out of control?
In light of what has already been said, the answer is not too cryptic: almost all of us [sometimes] will choose the wrong road when presented with the correct conditions.
Assuming that C-suite executives wake up every day with a scheme to cheat the system, take advantage of others, or otherwise behave unethically is naive. I couldn't be more wrong! It's not that they can't have an inherent moral commitment to ethics; it's only that, as in the example of Supreme Court Justice Potter, there are external factors that can clearly dictate decisions.
As an example, I'm sure we can all recall a supervisor who stated something along the lines of, "I don't want to hear how you're NOT going to achieve what I asked and the company EXPECTS..." Please, just show me the results!
Is it more vital to maintain our employment and provide for our family, or to stand firm on our ethical stance? This is a common dilemma in real life. The world can be a harsh place for people who are unemployed. So, soldier, swallow it! You're merely carrying out instructions! You have no say in the matter! When things go bad, someone else will have to pay the price for your immoral behavior.
…. Then we're all dragged a little farther into the ethical dilemma...
Everyone supports holding corporations and individuals accountable, which should include penalties such as fines and jail time, particularly for those in positions of power who have been entrusted with our responsibility to do the right thing. Ugly caution is required of us. If we limit our investigation to chief executive officers and chief financial officers, we will fail to catch the true culprits.
Even CEOs have superiors. To the Board of Directors, they report. While boards do have shareholders to whom they must answer, in reality, all moral judgments, good or negative, must originate with the board.
Addressing this matter, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras bring attention to the [Board's] "explicit emphasis on Fair return rather than Maximum return" in their book Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies.
Fine words that we can all embrace because they sincerely center around the Golden Rule of fairness—I'll say it again. Yet, in most cases, they are not put into effect. There is no place for compassion in business; unfortunately, people live longer now, which goes against author *Ayn Rand's existential stance.
When faced with a maximum return issue where the choice is either accept or reject, it's important to understand the CEO's ethical problem. "Carrying out" or "being carried out" is the ultimate determinant of an executive's lifespan.
That's not all!
Please do not take my statement as a support for the wrongdoings committed by Enron, WorldCom, or any of the others whose names may be revealed at a later date. What they are accused of did not occur suddenly, and that is the main thing. With the correct amount of time, the correct amount of exposure to global competition, and the right legal protections, these massive corporations learnt to adapt and grow into their current selves.
Is that an excuse for them to be less responsible? No way! However, its primary purpose is to alert us to the fact that (a) this issue is far-reaching and (b) it has to be fixed immediately, rather than as a mere afterthought.
That's not all!
Fortunately, numerous credible studies have shown that ethical practices have a favorable effect on workplace performance. One such study followed 207 big companies for 11 years and was conducted by professors from Harvard Business School, John Kotter and James Heskett. They concluded that a company's culture significantly affects its financial performance in the long run. Firms with leadership from all levels of management and cultures that prioritized customers, stockholders, and employees beat those without by a significant margin. While the latter saw a decline in net income of 1% over the same 11-year period, the former saw a gain of 682% in sales, a 282% increase in workforce size, a 74% increase in stock price, and a 901% increase in stock price growth.
A net growth income factor of 756% was achieved during an 11-year period by organizations who gave equal attention to consumers, investors, and employees, as compared to those that didn't. Honor is Wealth!
That's not all!
However, as long as those who participate in unethical behavior are permitted to persist, no amount of positive research will be able to halt the erosion of morality and ethics. It is about time that governments and law enforcement agencies put greater pressure on corporate boards, who are knowingly crafting policies that violate laws and encourage unethical behavior.
Board directors who are already well-off should face stronger laws and heavier financial and criminal penalties so that they learn their lesson and return to the "Do Unto Others" principle that strengthens businesses and brings people together.
Authors: *Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged *Jeffrey L. Seglin: The Positive, the Negative, and Your Company ZZZZZZ

Location:

Share :