In this election season, editorials seem to pound hard on the difference between “Values” voters (usually conservative Republicans) and others. But, really, are any of us willing to be considered “Valueless” voters? What happens when we allow only one group to claim such a name? And, in some situations, to usurp the name for values we don’t agree with? Can we reclaim our true heritage and call out for the values that we stand for and that we wish everyone would stand for? Can we, in the process, stand up for some values that we all can agree on, rather than focusing on those that polarize us? What might those values be? And after we identify them, can we challenge one another to think carefully about how to live them out, without imposing our choices on others?
For instance, “The Golden Rule” might be the first we could all agree to. Some rendition of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” has been around since Aristotle in every major religion and philosophy. It seems to me that it has pretty good credibility as a value that we all ought to stand squarely in the center of. What might it mean to seek fully live out the Golden Rule? Well, most of us want people to respect us – our words, our choices, our actions – and to behave with respect toward us in their words and action. So it stands to reason that we ought to respect others if we are to treat others as we wish to be treated. Most of us also want people to act kindly toward us, reaching out to us when we are in need, helping us when they can, and not treating us meanly. So, choosing to do the same for others would also fit within The Golden Rule.
Justice seems closely related to respect and kindness – that is, it doesn’t seem fair to treat some people kindly and respectfully without treating others the same way. We want to be treated fairly, and so we ought to also treat others fairly. We ought to figure out how to resolve justly the inevitable conflicts that arise. Understandably, if we have been mistreated, it may be harder to behave kindly and respectfully in response. But even if we eliminate those situations, that still leaves plenty of opportunity for being fair toward others.
Being kind and just also seems to include taking on our share of responsibilities. That is, we need to take care of ourselves, our family members, and our property. We need to keep our commitments, carrying out the jobs that we are responsible for when we are responsible to do so. We want others to keep their commitments to us, or to be responsible toward us, doing what they have promised. We don’t want to bear the whole load of family or workplace or community responsibilities. Responsibility means people working together to take on their fair share and to follow through. Without carrying out our responsibilities, other people will have to pick up them up or spend money to fix what we have failed to do; neither of which seems fair.
Further, if we fail in our responsibilities, others will not find us trustworthy – they may consider us undependable or childish. They will simply stop depending on us because we have shown that we do not consistently behave well or do the right thing. And, in addition, when we combine responsibility and kindness or caring, it seems relatively obvious that we will need to give back to our communities some of what we have received, will need to take care of our communities, and will, as a result, offer some of what we have to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in great need. And this we might call citizenship, or giving back.
The “Character Counts!” community considers some rendition of these five character traits to be the building blocks of their “values” agenda. But I find that it also takes wisdom to know when to do what to whom. And it takes courage to actually act on that wisdom, particularly in the face of opposition or when we might lose something that matters to us if we do act. I think it takes a strong sense of self and self control not to lash out at others when we are frustrated or angered by injustice or the lack of responsibility in others; as well as to have the backbone to act on what we believe.
And although there are some values that so-called conservative Republican “Values Voters” espouse that others will disagree strongly with, would anyone disagree with the need for these ten values? I am sure we can think of other important values; but as a minimum, can we stand up for these? Can we make a conscious effort to evaluate each of our actions each day on the basis of whether we are shooting for the optimal with respect to these values? Can we get out of a reactive mode into a more proactive stance, advocating that everyone in our families and workplaces and communities at least try to live out these values? Can we expect the others around us to commit to these values, and can we encourage them and ask them to encourage us to do the same? If we can, then I think we reclaim our positions as “Values Voters,” even if we are not Republican, conservative, or Christian. The question is, will we?
Showing posts with label business ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business ethics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Lower Case or Upper Case Morality
In his article, “The moral naturalists” (explanations for lower case letters to come), David Brooks points to research that points to a sense of right and wrong that we are born with and learn very early. Even “lower” animals such as rats and monkeys learn to cooperate. It seems that we have “natural receptors that help us recognize fairness and cruelty,” and we show preferences for goodness and fairness from infancy. Social norms, evidently, “fall upon prepared ground. We come equipped to learn fairness and other virtues.” Those who behave morally seem to do it because they are “more sensitive to other people’s points of view” and better at “anticipating and reading other people’s pain.” What researchers seem to be identifying as a moral sense is one that values such virtues as cohesion, cooperation, and empathy. However, Brooks complains that researchers’ perspective on morality seems to be “lower case” and that it might not satisfy “those who want their morality to be awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.”
I find myself asking the following questions in response: If morality is inborn and starts so early, what happens along the way that people let go of it and allow themselves to choose such immoral behaviors? What do we have to do to encourage people to continue caring about the group, about other people’s pain, about respect and empathy and responsibility and courage (those lower case virtues)? Why are we seeing so many fall from grace? Fall from honesty and integrity? Right into our prisons. When will people understand that a lack of trust is the greatest risk to our society, to our psychological wellness, to our safety, and to our financial well being?
Personally, it is the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” that motivates me. Without a powerful faith, my fears would overwhelm me and persuade me to take the easy, safe, and perhaps less than honest or kind path. That faith keeps me moving along the path toward greater character, remedying my faults, and striving for what’s optimal (believing that it is only possible with help from Beyond). Many of the people that I collaborate with on character issues also find their motivation in the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.” So I ask the question – must we have “the awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to move us out of our moral depravity? Does it take something grand and holy to persuade us, to enable us to live differently?
If so, then the approach I have been using in the Eriksen Institute for Ethics is likely to fail. That is, I figured, given the clear relationships between our economic recession and the unethical behavior of mortgage and financial institutions, and given the clear relationships between long term profitability and developing an organizational culture centered on aspirational values, that businesses and other organizations would be hopping right in line to fully infuse aspirational values from top to bottom. I figured that because of the clear ethical needs in our society, we could, without calling on the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” feel justified in advocating for business ethics. We could justify our demands or expectations that businesses and corporations live according to a basic set of aspirational values without having a discussion of religion or faith or. . . you get my drift.
And yet, we seem to be a people who respond to crisis. We seem to need it to break through our inertia. If Haiti and the Gulf oil spill and a war in the middle east and an economic crisis can’t get organizations to put values first, then perhaps we really do need the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to empower our efforts. However, I personally have found that when I daily think the “lower case” morality, how to be more loving or kind or trusting or responsible, I feel less defensive and more willing to grow and work on myself. I believe that, despite a life time of the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” I am a better person from having, for a few short years, invested in “lower case” morality. Do we need to require people to take the larger plunge into the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great?” Or might they be more willing to begin with the smaller steps, with the “lower case?”
I find myself asking the following questions in response: If morality is inborn and starts so early, what happens along the way that people let go of it and allow themselves to choose such immoral behaviors? What do we have to do to encourage people to continue caring about the group, about other people’s pain, about respect and empathy and responsibility and courage (those lower case virtues)? Why are we seeing so many fall from grace? Fall from honesty and integrity? Right into our prisons. When will people understand that a lack of trust is the greatest risk to our society, to our psychological wellness, to our safety, and to our financial well being?
Personally, it is the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” that motivates me. Without a powerful faith, my fears would overwhelm me and persuade me to take the easy, safe, and perhaps less than honest or kind path. That faith keeps me moving along the path toward greater character, remedying my faults, and striving for what’s optimal (believing that it is only possible with help from Beyond). Many of the people that I collaborate with on character issues also find their motivation in the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.” So I ask the question – must we have “the awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to move us out of our moral depravity? Does it take something grand and holy to persuade us, to enable us to live differently?
If so, then the approach I have been using in the Eriksen Institute for Ethics is likely to fail. That is, I figured, given the clear relationships between our economic recession and the unethical behavior of mortgage and financial institutions, and given the clear relationships between long term profitability and developing an organizational culture centered on aspirational values, that businesses and other organizations would be hopping right in line to fully infuse aspirational values from top to bottom. I figured that because of the clear ethical needs in our society, we could, without calling on the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” feel justified in advocating for business ethics. We could justify our demands or expectations that businesses and corporations live according to a basic set of aspirational values without having a discussion of religion or faith or. . . you get my drift.
And yet, we seem to be a people who respond to crisis. We seem to need it to break through our inertia. If Haiti and the Gulf oil spill and a war in the middle east and an economic crisis can’t get organizations to put values first, then perhaps we really do need the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to empower our efforts. However, I personally have found that when I daily think the “lower case” morality, how to be more loving or kind or trusting or responsible, I feel less defensive and more willing to grow and work on myself. I believe that, despite a life time of the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” I am a better person from having, for a few short years, invested in “lower case” morality. Do we need to require people to take the larger plunge into the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great?” Or might they be more willing to begin with the smaller steps, with the “lower case?”
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Cheap and Happy?
In a recent article, Cheap, Jeff Yeager relates his cycling trip across country to visit self-proclaimed “cheapskates.” His conclusions and those of other cheapskates? “A true sign of wealth is free time.” And “spending less money creates more free time.” And we can invest our time in creating happiness if we spend less time making money and spending it and taking care of what we have spent it on. Given the challenges to ethics posed by financial decisions, it seems worthwhile to reconsider the notion that “more is always better” – more stuff, more money, more toys. After all, aren’t many of the ethical struggles that employees and company leaders face related to questions about whether the costs justify the results?
We have many current examples of attempts to get more money to spend to look at. For instance, isn’t the current BP Gulf crisis the result of decisions to cut corners and costs by not incorporating the optimal in safety and warning mechanisms, thus increasing profits? Isn’t the “profit at any cost” mentality of mortgage companies and financial institutions what resulted in our current economic meltdown and in the huge losses of people’s jobs and homes? In fact, might we see as evidence that such a mentality has permeated our society in the fact that we now have someone running for the U.S. Senate (Jeff Greene) who has made millions by betting during high mortgage times that people would become unable to pay their loans? If he is to be a leader in our country, shouldn’t he have helped people to make better decisions about what they could afford, rather that betting on their losses and failures? Although it may not be true that “money is the root of all evil,” certainly greed contributes substantially.
And yet, contrarily, we have many examples of companies (think Ben and Jerry’s, for instance) creating innovative and highly successful products while still maintaining optimal values – so clearly competition for greater and greater profits as the only value worth aiming for is not necessary to creativity and innovation.
So, what if we all got less greedy? What if we adopted frugality -- that has been necessary for many of us due to the economy – as a more permanent lifestyle? What if we invested in using only our share of the world’s resources, instead of using as much as we can get away with? What difference might it make? Might we be happier? Less stressed?
Can we all agree that from an ethical point of view, these are good ideas? For instance, can we agree that living within our means is responsible? Can we agree that living modestly and giving substantially is not only generous but compassionate, given that most of the world lives on less than $2 per day? Can we all agree that making decisions out of greed and unrestrained desire challenges the amount of time and energy that we might be spending in service or planning for the benefit of our children’s futures? I hope we can!
So, in the interest of taking my own medicine, I thought I would examine my “to do list” from this weekend to see if the cheapskates’ ideas bore consideration. Think about your own lists as you review mine.
1. Clean the pool filter, visit the pool store to have the chemicals in the water checked, buy and put in the chemicals, sweep the pool because the automatic cleaner doesn’t seem to be working right, figure out how and when I am going to get the automatic cleaner fixed. Of course, if I hadn’t spent the money on the pool, none of this would be necessary. And the joy, social events, and exercise that we get from the pool could be gotten from the pool right down the street in our development.
2. In the yard, pull weeds, trim the bushes, check and water the new grass that I had tried to put in due to drought conditions, haul weeds to the composter to make compost for plantings, call the yard service to find out when they are next coming because the grass is getting longer than usual. Make a note to talk with the homeowner’s association yard service about why they haven’t been trimming the bushes. Contact friend who’s been doing remodeling about giving her some of the plantings from my yard – partly a nice gift and partly that I have to keep trimming and reducing due to things growing so fast. If I didn’t have such a big yard, I wouldn’t have to do all of this. I can only think of one reason to have such a yard that contributes to my happiness: I live in a city, and I feel cramped and trapped without having a certain amount of space around me. However, my proposed move to Colorado aims to solve some of this: I will be able to have the space in the woods without having to do any yard care. (of course, a move costs money!)
3. Order health care supplies from health care provider. Probably a good idea, but still takes time and money.
4. Get medications for the dog. Take outside to potty regularly. Pick up poo. Take for a walk. Ahhh to not have a dog that I have to feed, pick up after, and arrange for care for when I travel! Of course, I love her and she does add to my happiness.
5. Clean up junk around the house and clean out the garage of excess junk. Clean the house. Obviously if I hadn’t bought so much stuff, it wouldn’t accumulate around the house and need picking up. And if the house was smaller and I had less stuff to dust, I wouldn’t need to spend as much time cleaning.
6. Make appointment to have mold cleaned off the roof (a Florida problem) – If the house wasn’t so big and two stories, it would not cost so much to have done, and I could do the roof myself. Or I could live somewhere where mold doesn’t accumulate, or where a homeowner’s association doesn’t require large monthly payments and require one to conform to appearance standards.
So, let’s consider the proposition – would I have been happier had I not had these things to do? What might I have done instead? What would you have done instead of your “to do” list? Would all of the things I would have chosen instead have cost less money?
Well, it definitely does not make me happy to do the things that I listed above. They fall under the “have to’s” that I would like to do less of. If I had not had these tasks to do, I can think of many activities that would have made me happier: I could have read a book, talked with friends, gotten together with friends, walked around the block and talked with neighbors, called my daughter to talk with her, done some crafts, cooked a gourmet meal, walked the beach in the evenings, gone dancing, watched a movie, or served a meal at the soup kitchen. Although there are some minimal costs to some of these, they don’t come anywhere near the costs of lawn services, mortgage payments, cleaning services, vet bills, and such. And while all of these alternative activities would have made me happier -- and I did do some of them -- I didn’t have much energy or time left to do many of them because of all of the house and pool and yard care that I felt obligated to do.
A great picture of the contrasts between my obligations and my happiness is my love of camping. There is nothing I like better than camping with my family and friends out in the woods, with nothing but the bare necessities. I immediately feel the stress lifting and the joy starting when I am away from my task-filled home, exploring the beauty of nature, with people that I like only a tent away, and the opportunity to sing and make s’mores around the campfire.
What about you? What is your picture of happiness? Is it hampered by lack of time and having so many “things” that you have bought and are responsible for? Ready to try spending less or divesting yourself of the material possessions that take up your time? How about trying a week without spending money on anything but absolute necessities or without taking care of those things that you have spent money on? How much empty time would you find? What would you really like to fill it with? What would make you truly happy? (Note: You might have to write a list of the things that make you happy so that you intentionally do these things rather than falling into habitual patterns).
Our current economy faces many of us with less money to spend. We may have found ourselves underwater in many ways, which may be creating great stress. In the interest of preserving our sanity and our family lives and keeping our children from feeling overly deprived, some of us have gotten very creative in coming up with cost-free or inexpensive fun and ways to create happiness – we have spent family dinners together, gotten out the cook books and enjoyed the fun of cooking something fancy together, dusted off the games that have been hiding away in our closets for years, pulled out the craft supplies to make gifts for birthdays and holidays, hung out with the neighbors on the front stoop, taken walks or bike rides through the woods, visited the beach, invited friends over to sit out on the patio to enjoy happy hour, visited the library or the local museum. We have shared resources with our friends and traded our services for those that others have to offer.
Sounds like great ways to create our own happiness without money!! Also sounds like great ways to build community and teach our children the value of time together playing and talking and creating. So, how ‘bout it – will you take the plunge? Will you take the challenge with me of spending less, saving more, and as a result, freeing up more time for creating happiness? Or will you at least think about the possibilities? Take a few steps and see how it works?
We have many current examples of attempts to get more money to spend to look at. For instance, isn’t the current BP Gulf crisis the result of decisions to cut corners and costs by not incorporating the optimal in safety and warning mechanisms, thus increasing profits? Isn’t the “profit at any cost” mentality of mortgage companies and financial institutions what resulted in our current economic meltdown and in the huge losses of people’s jobs and homes? In fact, might we see as evidence that such a mentality has permeated our society in the fact that we now have someone running for the U.S. Senate (Jeff Greene) who has made millions by betting during high mortgage times that people would become unable to pay their loans? If he is to be a leader in our country, shouldn’t he have helped people to make better decisions about what they could afford, rather that betting on their losses and failures? Although it may not be true that “money is the root of all evil,” certainly greed contributes substantially.
And yet, contrarily, we have many examples of companies (think Ben and Jerry’s, for instance) creating innovative and highly successful products while still maintaining optimal values – so clearly competition for greater and greater profits as the only value worth aiming for is not necessary to creativity and innovation.
So, what if we all got less greedy? What if we adopted frugality -- that has been necessary for many of us due to the economy – as a more permanent lifestyle? What if we invested in using only our share of the world’s resources, instead of using as much as we can get away with? What difference might it make? Might we be happier? Less stressed?
Can we all agree that from an ethical point of view, these are good ideas? For instance, can we agree that living within our means is responsible? Can we agree that living modestly and giving substantially is not only generous but compassionate, given that most of the world lives on less than $2 per day? Can we all agree that making decisions out of greed and unrestrained desire challenges the amount of time and energy that we might be spending in service or planning for the benefit of our children’s futures? I hope we can!
So, in the interest of taking my own medicine, I thought I would examine my “to do list” from this weekend to see if the cheapskates’ ideas bore consideration. Think about your own lists as you review mine.
1. Clean the pool filter, visit the pool store to have the chemicals in the water checked, buy and put in the chemicals, sweep the pool because the automatic cleaner doesn’t seem to be working right, figure out how and when I am going to get the automatic cleaner fixed. Of course, if I hadn’t spent the money on the pool, none of this would be necessary. And the joy, social events, and exercise that we get from the pool could be gotten from the pool right down the street in our development.
2. In the yard, pull weeds, trim the bushes, check and water the new grass that I had tried to put in due to drought conditions, haul weeds to the composter to make compost for plantings, call the yard service to find out when they are next coming because the grass is getting longer than usual. Make a note to talk with the homeowner’s association yard service about why they haven’t been trimming the bushes. Contact friend who’s been doing remodeling about giving her some of the plantings from my yard – partly a nice gift and partly that I have to keep trimming and reducing due to things growing so fast. If I didn’t have such a big yard, I wouldn’t have to do all of this. I can only think of one reason to have such a yard that contributes to my happiness: I live in a city, and I feel cramped and trapped without having a certain amount of space around me. However, my proposed move to Colorado aims to solve some of this: I will be able to have the space in the woods without having to do any yard care. (of course, a move costs money!)
3. Order health care supplies from health care provider. Probably a good idea, but still takes time and money.
4. Get medications for the dog. Take outside to potty regularly. Pick up poo. Take for a walk. Ahhh to not have a dog that I have to feed, pick up after, and arrange for care for when I travel! Of course, I love her and she does add to my happiness.
5. Clean up junk around the house and clean out the garage of excess junk. Clean the house. Obviously if I hadn’t bought so much stuff, it wouldn’t accumulate around the house and need picking up. And if the house was smaller and I had less stuff to dust, I wouldn’t need to spend as much time cleaning.
6. Make appointment to have mold cleaned off the roof (a Florida problem) – If the house wasn’t so big and two stories, it would not cost so much to have done, and I could do the roof myself. Or I could live somewhere where mold doesn’t accumulate, or where a homeowner’s association doesn’t require large monthly payments and require one to conform to appearance standards.
So, let’s consider the proposition – would I have been happier had I not had these things to do? What might I have done instead? What would you have done instead of your “to do” list? Would all of the things I would have chosen instead have cost less money?
Well, it definitely does not make me happy to do the things that I listed above. They fall under the “have to’s” that I would like to do less of. If I had not had these tasks to do, I can think of many activities that would have made me happier: I could have read a book, talked with friends, gotten together with friends, walked around the block and talked with neighbors, called my daughter to talk with her, done some crafts, cooked a gourmet meal, walked the beach in the evenings, gone dancing, watched a movie, or served a meal at the soup kitchen. Although there are some minimal costs to some of these, they don’t come anywhere near the costs of lawn services, mortgage payments, cleaning services, vet bills, and such. And while all of these alternative activities would have made me happier -- and I did do some of them -- I didn’t have much energy or time left to do many of them because of all of the house and pool and yard care that I felt obligated to do.
A great picture of the contrasts between my obligations and my happiness is my love of camping. There is nothing I like better than camping with my family and friends out in the woods, with nothing but the bare necessities. I immediately feel the stress lifting and the joy starting when I am away from my task-filled home, exploring the beauty of nature, with people that I like only a tent away, and the opportunity to sing and make s’mores around the campfire.
What about you? What is your picture of happiness? Is it hampered by lack of time and having so many “things” that you have bought and are responsible for? Ready to try spending less or divesting yourself of the material possessions that take up your time? How about trying a week without spending money on anything but absolute necessities or without taking care of those things that you have spent money on? How much empty time would you find? What would you really like to fill it with? What would make you truly happy? (Note: You might have to write a list of the things that make you happy so that you intentionally do these things rather than falling into habitual patterns).
Our current economy faces many of us with less money to spend. We may have found ourselves underwater in many ways, which may be creating great stress. In the interest of preserving our sanity and our family lives and keeping our children from feeling overly deprived, some of us have gotten very creative in coming up with cost-free or inexpensive fun and ways to create happiness – we have spent family dinners together, gotten out the cook books and enjoyed the fun of cooking something fancy together, dusted off the games that have been hiding away in our closets for years, pulled out the craft supplies to make gifts for birthdays and holidays, hung out with the neighbors on the front stoop, taken walks or bike rides through the woods, visited the beach, invited friends over to sit out on the patio to enjoy happy hour, visited the library or the local museum. We have shared resources with our friends and traded our services for those that others have to offer.
Sounds like great ways to create our own happiness without money!! Also sounds like great ways to build community and teach our children the value of time together playing and talking and creating. So, how ‘bout it – will you take the plunge? Will you take the challenge with me of spending less, saving more, and as a result, freeing up more time for creating happiness? Or will you at least think about the possibilities? Take a few steps and see how it works?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Oil and Ethics
Is there really anyway an ethics expert can justifiably avoid discussing the Gulf oil spill? I think not. Perhaps our inclinations are always to focus on the evils of big corporations. But then, perhaps the historical evils of big corporations are what lead us to suspect that this time also they have not done the right thing. So, what about it? Eleven men have lost their lives. We have certainly been hearing about the $500,000 that was not spent on a backup system in case of an oil spill. In Florida, there is a great deal of talk about cancelling any approved or proposed drilling programs off of our coast – programs that were voted on by politicians who favored the oil company’s desires.
So, where do the ethical questions lie? I think there are a number of ethical questions for politicians, oil company executives, and the public to ask themselves:
Some questions relate to taking care of the environment so that it can sustain us long term – for instance,
• Are we paying attention to what it takes to live sustainably, using only our share of the earth’s resources, the resources that we actually need, rather than far more than we need or that the earth can bear over time?
• Have we reduced our consumption of non-renewable energy – like oil – by driving smaller cars, riding bikes and walking, and investing in renewable energy, environmentally friendly appliances and supplies (e.g., online newspapers and products, eliminating plastic bags and water bottles)
• Or are we, in our ever expanding greed, taking whatever we can get away with, for as long as we can get away with it, somewhat in competition with others who are doing the same thing?
• Are we staying aware of what will damage the environment and thinking about how we might leave a useable world for our children and grandchildren?
• When the environment is unavoidably damaged, do we “give back” by cleaning up the messes, cleaning up the spills, cleaning up the animals and their habitats?
• Or do we have only the present tense attitude of “getting while the getting is good?”
• Or are we simply uninformed, unaware, and uneducated about what it takes to sustain a healthy and functioning environment?
Some questions relate to carefully weighing the potential harm to other industries and stakeholders should oil companies’ assurances about safety not be upheld by realities – for instance,
• Do we, our politicians, or other decision makers fully inform ourselves so as to be able to evaluate the claims of those who make the news, of companies who want to use our natural or other resources?
• Do we hire, if necessary, independent experts or scholars to evaluate the claims if we are not able to do so ourselves? Do we listen to them?
• Are we taking every precaution or insisting that companies take every precaution to ensure that people and environments and economies are not hurt?
• Or do we swallow, hook, line, and sinker the company’s claims – because they are authority figures who we want, need, or hope we can trust; or because they have big, profitable companies?
Some questions relate to doing the right thing in a profit-driven environment – for instance,
• Do we expect companies, company leaders, and politicians to act ethically, investigating their character before we select/elect them or purchase their products, expecting them to demonstrate to us that they do their best to always do the right thing?
• Do we expect these folks to have restitution and recovery plans in place in case the unavoidable happens and people, property, or the environment are harmed?
• If the unavoidable happens, do we behave ethically, by insisting firmly but respectfully, assertively, but in ways that value relationships, that companies, company leaders, and politicians do the right thing?
• Or do we fall prey to advertising gimmicks that tell us what we want to hear?
• Or buy into the notion that companies have the right to do anything they want to in order to make profit for the stockholders?
• Or accept their premise that whatever the market will bear, they can do, without understanding that WE are the market and thus can say, “No.”
Some questions relate to encouraging workplace health, so that everyone is working at the top of their game, in jobs that they feel very committed to because they have a sense of calling or “vocation” associated with the work – for instance,
• Do we accept what Dennis Bakke, former CEO of AES, calls “having fun” at work – which means not being or feeling like a cog in a machine; choosing what we want to do at work, what gives us the most fulfillment, what fits best with our interests and needs and talents?
• Or do we just accept that work is work, and that it isn’t supposed to be fun and enriching? That whatever the boss says goes? That we aren’t supposed to have a voice? That our jobs may be at risk if we say what we really want to say?
• Do we aspire to treat everyone as gifted in some way, as deserving of respect and kindness, as worthy of being listened to?
• As a result, do we create the kinds of environments where people speak about their concerns, the best answers are found, and there is the least likelihood that crises like this oil spill will happen?
• Or do we only grant such privileges to those in power, those making the most money?
Some questions relate to whether we expect everyone in a company to do their best at their job and to do what’s optimal ethically;
• Do we really try our best to create the best products possible and have optimal working relationships with our colleagues and others?
• Or do we just go along, waiting until the work day is over so we can have fun, saying and doing as little as possible, keeping our head down and our nose to the grindstone?
• Do we try always to do the right thing, reflecting carefully on our and our company’s values when making decisions, and always aim for what is optimal ethically?
• Or do we get while the getting is good, get what we can before anyone notices, or do the minimum we have to in order to meet legal requirements -- without considering the bigger picture?
Some questions relate to whether we, as members of the public, balance our lives in ways that allow us to invest energy in ensuring that our communities are strong and that we are all working together for what is optimal – including informing our politicians of what matters to us – rather than having a fire truck mentality in which we only react in a crisis.
• Do we take the responsibility to be intentional about how we live day-to-day in our communities, how we raise our children, how we treat our neighbors, and what we expect of those who do business or run organizations in our communities?
• Or are we on automatic, struggling to get by, and figuring that whenever we can get a break, we will take it?
• Do we wisely decide what to invest our time and money in, so that we will have time and money left over to improve our society, to consider what is optimal ethically, to inform our politicians and decision makers so as to help them to make good choices, and to intervene in whatever ways are necessary to stop illegal, unethical, or simply unwise behavior?
• Or do we cram as much activity and fun as we can into every hour of the day because life is short, and if we don’t, we might “lose,” although it is sometimes unclear what the prize might be for winning the race.
These are all ethical questions, about responsibility, kindness, trustworthiness, fairness, respect, citizenship, wisdom, courage, and about living thoughtfully or intentionally, rather than on automatic. They are questions that we need to think carefully about if we are to do the right thing, if we are to make the best choices, if we and our companies are to become healthy, are to be around for the long term, and are to create communities that we all want to work and live in.
Should we point the finger at the oil companies because of the “crisis” that faces many people, companies, and states at the present moment? We could.
Should we ask the companies the above questions and expect answers? We should!
But more importantly, should we ask ourselves and our friends and neighbors and coworkers these very same questions? And ask them and ask them and ask them – so that we intentionally create the kinds of communities where oil companies and others will not succeed or exist unless they too comply with what is right? Absolutely! And let’s start right away!
/
/
So, where do the ethical questions lie? I think there are a number of ethical questions for politicians, oil company executives, and the public to ask themselves:
Some questions relate to taking care of the environment so that it can sustain us long term – for instance,
• Are we paying attention to what it takes to live sustainably, using only our share of the earth’s resources, the resources that we actually need, rather than far more than we need or that the earth can bear over time?
• Have we reduced our consumption of non-renewable energy – like oil – by driving smaller cars, riding bikes and walking, and investing in renewable energy, environmentally friendly appliances and supplies (e.g., online newspapers and products, eliminating plastic bags and water bottles)
• Or are we, in our ever expanding greed, taking whatever we can get away with, for as long as we can get away with it, somewhat in competition with others who are doing the same thing?
• Are we staying aware of what will damage the environment and thinking about how we might leave a useable world for our children and grandchildren?
• When the environment is unavoidably damaged, do we “give back” by cleaning up the messes, cleaning up the spills, cleaning up the animals and their habitats?
• Or do we have only the present tense attitude of “getting while the getting is good?”
• Or are we simply uninformed, unaware, and uneducated about what it takes to sustain a healthy and functioning environment?
Some questions relate to carefully weighing the potential harm to other industries and stakeholders should oil companies’ assurances about safety not be upheld by realities – for instance,
• Do we, our politicians, or other decision makers fully inform ourselves so as to be able to evaluate the claims of those who make the news, of companies who want to use our natural or other resources?
• Do we hire, if necessary, independent experts or scholars to evaluate the claims if we are not able to do so ourselves? Do we listen to them?
• Are we taking every precaution or insisting that companies take every precaution to ensure that people and environments and economies are not hurt?
• Or do we swallow, hook, line, and sinker the company’s claims – because they are authority figures who we want, need, or hope we can trust; or because they have big, profitable companies?
Some questions relate to doing the right thing in a profit-driven environment – for instance,
• Do we expect companies, company leaders, and politicians to act ethically, investigating their character before we select/elect them or purchase their products, expecting them to demonstrate to us that they do their best to always do the right thing?
• Do we expect these folks to have restitution and recovery plans in place in case the unavoidable happens and people, property, or the environment are harmed?
• If the unavoidable happens, do we behave ethically, by insisting firmly but respectfully, assertively, but in ways that value relationships, that companies, company leaders, and politicians do the right thing?
• Or do we fall prey to advertising gimmicks that tell us what we want to hear?
• Or buy into the notion that companies have the right to do anything they want to in order to make profit for the stockholders?
• Or accept their premise that whatever the market will bear, they can do, without understanding that WE are the market and thus can say, “No.”
Some questions relate to encouraging workplace health, so that everyone is working at the top of their game, in jobs that they feel very committed to because they have a sense of calling or “vocation” associated with the work – for instance,
• Do we accept what Dennis Bakke, former CEO of AES, calls “having fun” at work – which means not being or feeling like a cog in a machine; choosing what we want to do at work, what gives us the most fulfillment, what fits best with our interests and needs and talents?
• Or do we just accept that work is work, and that it isn’t supposed to be fun and enriching? That whatever the boss says goes? That we aren’t supposed to have a voice? That our jobs may be at risk if we say what we really want to say?
• Do we aspire to treat everyone as gifted in some way, as deserving of respect and kindness, as worthy of being listened to?
• As a result, do we create the kinds of environments where people speak about their concerns, the best answers are found, and there is the least likelihood that crises like this oil spill will happen?
• Or do we only grant such privileges to those in power, those making the most money?
Some questions relate to whether we expect everyone in a company to do their best at their job and to do what’s optimal ethically;
• Do we really try our best to create the best products possible and have optimal working relationships with our colleagues and others?
• Or do we just go along, waiting until the work day is over so we can have fun, saying and doing as little as possible, keeping our head down and our nose to the grindstone?
• Do we try always to do the right thing, reflecting carefully on our and our company’s values when making decisions, and always aim for what is optimal ethically?
• Or do we get while the getting is good, get what we can before anyone notices, or do the minimum we have to in order to meet legal requirements -- without considering the bigger picture?
Some questions relate to whether we, as members of the public, balance our lives in ways that allow us to invest energy in ensuring that our communities are strong and that we are all working together for what is optimal – including informing our politicians of what matters to us – rather than having a fire truck mentality in which we only react in a crisis.
• Do we take the responsibility to be intentional about how we live day-to-day in our communities, how we raise our children, how we treat our neighbors, and what we expect of those who do business or run organizations in our communities?
• Or are we on automatic, struggling to get by, and figuring that whenever we can get a break, we will take it?
• Do we wisely decide what to invest our time and money in, so that we will have time and money left over to improve our society, to consider what is optimal ethically, to inform our politicians and decision makers so as to help them to make good choices, and to intervene in whatever ways are necessary to stop illegal, unethical, or simply unwise behavior?
• Or do we cram as much activity and fun as we can into every hour of the day because life is short, and if we don’t, we might “lose,” although it is sometimes unclear what the prize might be for winning the race.
These are all ethical questions, about responsibility, kindness, trustworthiness, fairness, respect, citizenship, wisdom, courage, and about living thoughtfully or intentionally, rather than on automatic. They are questions that we need to think carefully about if we are to do the right thing, if we are to make the best choices, if we and our companies are to become healthy, are to be around for the long term, and are to create communities that we all want to work and live in.
Should we point the finger at the oil companies because of the “crisis” that faces many people, companies, and states at the present moment? We could.
Should we ask the companies the above questions and expect answers? We should!
But more importantly, should we ask ourselves and our friends and neighbors and coworkers these very same questions? And ask them and ask them and ask them – so that we intentionally create the kinds of communities where oil companies and others will not succeed or exist unless they too comply with what is right? Absolutely! And let’s start right away!
/
/
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Obama Care and Ethics
The big news, or the lack of it, last week was the Health Care Summit. The big news because it was discussed ad infinitum in every news or opinion venue. The lack of big news because it seems that, despite our tentative hopes, no miracles emerged from the summit. I began thinking about the ethical issues related to health care, why this has become such a big issue, why it is and promises to affect so many people. Here are my thoughts.
First of all, we are promised the freedom to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and clearly we consider these rights to be equivalent to ethical mandates. Health, and therefore, health care, is clearly related to all three of these mandates. And I don’t think any of us would argue that we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that people’s health is attended to. After all, our higher moral sentiments are clearly aroused when we see pictures of starving or ill children from less advantaged countries. We hardly want our children or parents or other family members to be writhing in pain from some treatable problem or disease merely because they have no health insurance or are unable to pay for the health care they need. We hardly want anyone we know to die of a stroke for the “lack of a $6 prescription to high blood pressure medication,” to quote a doctor speaking during the Clinton health care debates.
Second, some people are very clearly disadvantaged when it comes to access to health care, and, as a result, find their health and happiness, and even their ability to work, at risk. Some may be unemployed and not have money to pay for health insurance or health care. If they have access to a government supplemented plan (Medicaid), they may not have access to the best that health care has to offer. If they do not have a car, accessing this health care may be difficult. Other people may be self-employed; and again, insurance and/or health care may be beyond their reach financially. Still others may work for small businesses, that may have difficulty providing health coverage for their employees. And finally, anyone may be denied health care because of their inability to pay for it, or denied health insurance coverage if they have preexisting conditions that threaten the profitability of the insurance company. If we believe that health care is a moral obligation, then we have to find some answers to these problems. We don’t worry about the wealthy because they can pay for whatever they can find. We worry about the middle class and lower income folks who can’t. And our worries are called humanity. They are about caring. They are about sensitivity to need. And, of course, given that most of the country is middle or lower class, these worries may also be about our self-interest.
Third, in a free market economy – which most argue is best for our citizens – we believe that people have the right to make a living (part of those freedoms above), and this clearly includes doctors and hospitals and those who run insurance companies and medical/pharmaceutical research companies. If these medically-associated businesses can’t make a living or a profit, if they can’t pay their employees, sooner or later, they will have to stop providing care or go out of business. They suffer, and we lose out on their services or what they might produce or create.
Relatedly, emergencies or crises create a greater sense of need than ongoing health maintenance or prevention, and so, marketing and profits being what they are, it is sometimes difficult to persuade the general public to take care of their health or to pay for prevention. And so the medical culture in our country has become overly focused on problems and medication, and under-focused on self-care, prevention, and health promotion. The crises and emergencies also bring in more money for health care providers and cost more for insurers. The ethical question becomes, how much profit do they have the right to make? On the backs of whom? What is fair? How much disparity in benefits and income will we tolerate between the heads of these companies and the disadvantaged who are in need of services before a revolution breaks out? History points to revolutions that broke out in the face of vast disparity.
Fourth, much of government exists to take care of “externalities,” that is, those services that benefit us and are often times needed for society to function well, but are not profitable for businesses to invest in (ie., roads, bridges, the military). And we are taxed in order to spread the burden of these societal needs among all that benefit from them. Health care for those who are disadvantaged in some way, or whose health problems challenge the ability of the health care industry to make a profit, is clearly one of those externalities.
But therein lies the rub – most Americans are not aware of these larger pictures; instead, they hold onto only a myopic view of “what’s good for us and ours.” In addition, we have to work out our differences with regard to what we think government needs to take care of and how much tax we can afford to pay without discouraging the free enterprise that creates our country’s standard of living. This additional need requires that we have some understanding of our political system and that we take the responsibility to vote or to otherwise voice our values. Unfortunately, I think it is pretty clear that many people in our society don’t have a grasp of the larger picture, nor do they understand the need or the ways to participate in resolving society-wide problems. A certain level of consciousness, of responsibility, of awareness of our connectedness is necessary to enable the larger view and to motivate action.
We are all pretty good at knowing when the system is failing us, or when it feels unfair to us, or when too many people that we know or come into contact with are suffering. And this awareness brings moral outrage to our lips when doctors charge so much money, or when insurance companies deny our claims or deny us coverage, or when insurance or pharmaceutical companies are making such large profits. If we can lift our vision above our own or our family’s health, we also don’t want people that we know and care about to be denied essential services. We don’t think it is fair that people who are wealthy get that new heart they need, while those who are middle class or below can’t afford basic medical care.
So, what are the ethical issues? The health care debate has brought forth questions about fairness, about caring, about inequities, about responsibility. It is about how money impacts choices (for instance whether the best quality care is provided, or whether prevention is fully funded to prevent medical crises), and whether those choices take into consideration what is the best for the long run, rather than only the short run. It is about whether everyone gets a fair and equal vote on decisions to be made, rather than “money doing the talking” and the financially disadvantaged having little voice. It is about how to have respectful, responsible, even-handed dialogue about important issues, rather than disparaging other people and ideas. What will you do related to the health care debate that takes into consideration these ethical issues?
First of all, we are promised the freedom to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and clearly we consider these rights to be equivalent to ethical mandates. Health, and therefore, health care, is clearly related to all three of these mandates. And I don’t think any of us would argue that we have an ethical responsibility to ensure that people’s health is attended to. After all, our higher moral sentiments are clearly aroused when we see pictures of starving or ill children from less advantaged countries. We hardly want our children or parents or other family members to be writhing in pain from some treatable problem or disease merely because they have no health insurance or are unable to pay for the health care they need. We hardly want anyone we know to die of a stroke for the “lack of a $6 prescription to high blood pressure medication,” to quote a doctor speaking during the Clinton health care debates.
Second, some people are very clearly disadvantaged when it comes to access to health care, and, as a result, find their health and happiness, and even their ability to work, at risk. Some may be unemployed and not have money to pay for health insurance or health care. If they have access to a government supplemented plan (Medicaid), they may not have access to the best that health care has to offer. If they do not have a car, accessing this health care may be difficult. Other people may be self-employed; and again, insurance and/or health care may be beyond their reach financially. Still others may work for small businesses, that may have difficulty providing health coverage for their employees. And finally, anyone may be denied health care because of their inability to pay for it, or denied health insurance coverage if they have preexisting conditions that threaten the profitability of the insurance company. If we believe that health care is a moral obligation, then we have to find some answers to these problems. We don’t worry about the wealthy because they can pay for whatever they can find. We worry about the middle class and lower income folks who can’t. And our worries are called humanity. They are about caring. They are about sensitivity to need. And, of course, given that most of the country is middle or lower class, these worries may also be about our self-interest.
Third, in a free market economy – which most argue is best for our citizens – we believe that people have the right to make a living (part of those freedoms above), and this clearly includes doctors and hospitals and those who run insurance companies and medical/pharmaceutical research companies. If these medically-associated businesses can’t make a living or a profit, if they can’t pay their employees, sooner or later, they will have to stop providing care or go out of business. They suffer, and we lose out on their services or what they might produce or create.
Relatedly, emergencies or crises create a greater sense of need than ongoing health maintenance or prevention, and so, marketing and profits being what they are, it is sometimes difficult to persuade the general public to take care of their health or to pay for prevention. And so the medical culture in our country has become overly focused on problems and medication, and under-focused on self-care, prevention, and health promotion. The crises and emergencies also bring in more money for health care providers and cost more for insurers. The ethical question becomes, how much profit do they have the right to make? On the backs of whom? What is fair? How much disparity in benefits and income will we tolerate between the heads of these companies and the disadvantaged who are in need of services before a revolution breaks out? History points to revolutions that broke out in the face of vast disparity.
Fourth, much of government exists to take care of “externalities,” that is, those services that benefit us and are often times needed for society to function well, but are not profitable for businesses to invest in (ie., roads, bridges, the military). And we are taxed in order to spread the burden of these societal needs among all that benefit from them. Health care for those who are disadvantaged in some way, or whose health problems challenge the ability of the health care industry to make a profit, is clearly one of those externalities.
But therein lies the rub – most Americans are not aware of these larger pictures; instead, they hold onto only a myopic view of “what’s good for us and ours.” In addition, we have to work out our differences with regard to what we think government needs to take care of and how much tax we can afford to pay without discouraging the free enterprise that creates our country’s standard of living. This additional need requires that we have some understanding of our political system and that we take the responsibility to vote or to otherwise voice our values. Unfortunately, I think it is pretty clear that many people in our society don’t have a grasp of the larger picture, nor do they understand the need or the ways to participate in resolving society-wide problems. A certain level of consciousness, of responsibility, of awareness of our connectedness is necessary to enable the larger view and to motivate action.
We are all pretty good at knowing when the system is failing us, or when it feels unfair to us, or when too many people that we know or come into contact with are suffering. And this awareness brings moral outrage to our lips when doctors charge so much money, or when insurance companies deny our claims or deny us coverage, or when insurance or pharmaceutical companies are making such large profits. If we can lift our vision above our own or our family’s health, we also don’t want people that we know and care about to be denied essential services. We don’t think it is fair that people who are wealthy get that new heart they need, while those who are middle class or below can’t afford basic medical care.
So, what are the ethical issues? The health care debate has brought forth questions about fairness, about caring, about inequities, about responsibility. It is about how money impacts choices (for instance whether the best quality care is provided, or whether prevention is fully funded to prevent medical crises), and whether those choices take into consideration what is the best for the long run, rather than only the short run. It is about whether everyone gets a fair and equal vote on decisions to be made, rather than “money doing the talking” and the financially disadvantaged having little voice. It is about how to have respectful, responsible, even-handed dialogue about important issues, rather than disparaging other people and ideas. What will you do related to the health care debate that takes into consideration these ethical issues?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Send Back Those Gifts!
Are we all so greedy that we want what we want when we want it? So greedy that we are tempted by material possessions to give up our integrity? So greedy that we damage the public trust by creating obligations that hamper the public good?
What am I talking about here? I am talking about public officials accepting gifts. I am talking about corporate leaders who accept pay offs, large pensions, and other bonuses beyond a reasonable salary. I am talking about any of us who accept gifts from those we don’t know, or have a passing acquaintance with, people who want something from us and are, in essence, “paying” us to look with favor on their products or services.
Gifts, at their best, are expressions of caring or gratitude. We give gifts at holidays or on birthdays or other special occasions to people we care about and to people that we have nice relationships with at work. We give gifts to those who have contributed to our lives or our success when we are celebrating our success and recognizing the team that helped us to get there. We give gifts to those that we have meaningful relationships with as expressions of appreciation for the richness that they bring to our lives. These are not the gifts that threaten our integrity.
The gifts that threaten our integrity are really “loss-leaders,” not gifts. That is, someone wants something from us, and they are willing to pay some money to give us a little taste of doing business with them. For instance, a restaurant hands out “free” samples. An office supply store hands out sticky note pads with their name on it. A vacation packages company offers an overnight stay at a resort if we will come and listen to their sales pitch. And we often accept these “gifts.” And companies know that the gifts are effective marketing strategies, reminding the “gift” recipient of the company’s name and services, because companies keep on using loss-leaders.
Loss-leaders are not really free gifts. They are small payments ahead of time to entice us to use the services or buy the products. Perhaps if we are aiming for ethical optimums, we should not accept these loss-leaders if we don’t intend to do frequent their business or store. But when we do accept the loss leader, we end up with a warm fuzzy feeling about the company. That is, the company gains name recognition and a reputation for doing nice things for people, which is exactly their aim.
The fact that loss-leaders work should alert us to other “purchases” of favor. I recently spoke with a businessman about offering him some consultation on ethics. When I entered his office, he had several gift cards in his hand, and after we spoke, he handed me a $50 gift card as a gift, saying he likes giving gifts. Initially, I took the gift card. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that I might hedge in challenging his unethical behavior if I accepted the gift card. You see, the gift, if I accepted it, created an obligation to look favorably on him and on his behavior. But if my job is to challenge unethical behavior, then my job would be hampered by holding a favorable opinion that wasn’t earned by ethical behavior.
And so goes the behavior of public officials and business and other community leaders who have been in the news lately. You see, ministers who accept personal gifts from wealthy church members may be tempted to look the other way if that member behaves illegally or unethically, thus failing to fulfill their ministerial role in counseling more godly choices. Board members who receive an unreasonably hefty payment for serving on the board ($100,000 for a once a year meeting is not uncommon) may be tempted to look the other way if the company president proposes actions that border on unethical. CEOs whose bonuses and other payouts depend on the profitability of the company may be tempted to “fudge,” if they think they can get away with it, if fudging will increase their bonuses or other payouts. And, of course, government officials who accept free hotel rooms, golf games, luncheons, or charity ball tickets may be tempted to play favorites with the gift givers despite requirements to equitably consider all views and all bids.
So what’s the point here? If we are shooting for optimal ethical behavior and refusing to start down a slippery slope, if we want to invest in a better society, if we want to prevent our own or others’ boundary crossing or inappropriate obligations, then we need to face the facts: loss-leaders are not gifts. Loss- leaders ask us for favors. Loss-leaders hope that we will have a more favorable relationship with the giver than with their competitors. Loss-leaders are given so that we will pay the giver back. And we need to return loss-leaders if they will tempt us to let down our guard, to play favorites, to sacrifice quality, or to simply not perform our jobs or roles to their best. We need to return loss-leaders if we have no intention of purchasing the product or service, if it would be illegal to do accept the item or service, or if it would harm our families, our companies, or the public trust to accept it. So, let’s put raw greed aside and think of the bigger picture. Let’s send back the loss-leaders!
What am I talking about here? I am talking about public officials accepting gifts. I am talking about corporate leaders who accept pay offs, large pensions, and other bonuses beyond a reasonable salary. I am talking about any of us who accept gifts from those we don’t know, or have a passing acquaintance with, people who want something from us and are, in essence, “paying” us to look with favor on their products or services.
Gifts, at their best, are expressions of caring or gratitude. We give gifts at holidays or on birthdays or other special occasions to people we care about and to people that we have nice relationships with at work. We give gifts to those who have contributed to our lives or our success when we are celebrating our success and recognizing the team that helped us to get there. We give gifts to those that we have meaningful relationships with as expressions of appreciation for the richness that they bring to our lives. These are not the gifts that threaten our integrity.
The gifts that threaten our integrity are really “loss-leaders,” not gifts. That is, someone wants something from us, and they are willing to pay some money to give us a little taste of doing business with them. For instance, a restaurant hands out “free” samples. An office supply store hands out sticky note pads with their name on it. A vacation packages company offers an overnight stay at a resort if we will come and listen to their sales pitch. And we often accept these “gifts.” And companies know that the gifts are effective marketing strategies, reminding the “gift” recipient of the company’s name and services, because companies keep on using loss-leaders.
Loss-leaders are not really free gifts. They are small payments ahead of time to entice us to use the services or buy the products. Perhaps if we are aiming for ethical optimums, we should not accept these loss-leaders if we don’t intend to do frequent their business or store. But when we do accept the loss leader, we end up with a warm fuzzy feeling about the company. That is, the company gains name recognition and a reputation for doing nice things for people, which is exactly their aim.
The fact that loss-leaders work should alert us to other “purchases” of favor. I recently spoke with a businessman about offering him some consultation on ethics. When I entered his office, he had several gift cards in his hand, and after we spoke, he handed me a $50 gift card as a gift, saying he likes giving gifts. Initially, I took the gift card. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that I might hedge in challenging his unethical behavior if I accepted the gift card. You see, the gift, if I accepted it, created an obligation to look favorably on him and on his behavior. But if my job is to challenge unethical behavior, then my job would be hampered by holding a favorable opinion that wasn’t earned by ethical behavior.
And so goes the behavior of public officials and business and other community leaders who have been in the news lately. You see, ministers who accept personal gifts from wealthy church members may be tempted to look the other way if that member behaves illegally or unethically, thus failing to fulfill their ministerial role in counseling more godly choices. Board members who receive an unreasonably hefty payment for serving on the board ($100,000 for a once a year meeting is not uncommon) may be tempted to look the other way if the company president proposes actions that border on unethical. CEOs whose bonuses and other payouts depend on the profitability of the company may be tempted to “fudge,” if they think they can get away with it, if fudging will increase their bonuses or other payouts. And, of course, government officials who accept free hotel rooms, golf games, luncheons, or charity ball tickets may be tempted to play favorites with the gift givers despite requirements to equitably consider all views and all bids.
So what’s the point here? If we are shooting for optimal ethical behavior and refusing to start down a slippery slope, if we want to invest in a better society, if we want to prevent our own or others’ boundary crossing or inappropriate obligations, then we need to face the facts: loss-leaders are not gifts. Loss- leaders ask us for favors. Loss-leaders hope that we will have a more favorable relationship with the giver than with their competitors. Loss-leaders are given so that we will pay the giver back. And we need to return loss-leaders if they will tempt us to let down our guard, to play favorites, to sacrifice quality, or to simply not perform our jobs or roles to their best. We need to return loss-leaders if we have no intention of purchasing the product or service, if it would be illegal to do accept the item or service, or if it would harm our families, our companies, or the public trust to accept it. So, let’s put raw greed aside and think of the bigger picture. Let’s send back the loss-leaders!
Friday, September 18, 2009
Disney Does It Right (November 2008)
Well, after all of the reading I have done on business ethics, I have become sensitized to what an ethical business looks like from the consumer perspective. And, of course, I have had a number of conversations about the need to improve with businesses who have fallen short. I have even, as you might imagine, terminated relationships with businesses that have fallen far short. But I was pleasantly surprised this week by the performance of a business that I had, up to this point, thought was overly commercialized, overly superficial; a business that I had avoided for a number of reasons.
My family and I just spent a week at Disney World, and from my observations they outperformed many businesses in living out good character or ethics. Every employee we had contact with greeted us in a friendly, enthusiastic manner, with a smile, and questioned with interest how our vacation was going. Never did I receive an "I don't know" or experience an indifferent or unhelpful attitude in response to a question. Service was always prompt, despite the crowds of the Thanksgiving holiday. And I was amazed at the crowd management, particularly given the holiday - despite the masses that were clearly apparent, never did we have to wait more than a few minutes for transportation or food service or entry to events.
In addition to terrific customer service, everything we attended reflected values that I think ought to be promulgated. Respect for diversity was reflected in the number of disabled people enjoying and working at the parks and the accommodations provided for them. It was also evident in the wide range of diverse cultures represented in employees and performers - "cast members," as they are referred to. Further, whether it was Epcot or Animal Kingdom, consideration for the environment and for the animal world were clearly apparent. We were all encouraged to do more to sustain our planet and had many opportunities to learn how to do so. Healthy food for children and adults was also available at the restaurants we went to. I don't think the carrot sticks, raisens, and apple sauce sides that were offered to accompany children's meals are even available to my daughter at her elementary school.
And in every show we attended, cast members were upbeat and cheerful and enthusiastic and had a positive attitude about life. They encouraged children to pursue their dreams, to work hard, to persist until the best goal could be reached. They encouraged and demonstrated caring and kindness and respect for all people and the natural world. And they did it in playful, entertaining, and often humorous way. Epcot, in its Candlelight Processional and concert, even did what many companies consider too great a risk - they acknowledged the religious element of this season by telling the Christ story. Even if it isn't the only story or everyone's story, they seemed to be saying, it is a story worth telling, and an important part of many people's history and lives. I was happy to have my child at Disney World - the values illustrated there were clear, did not detract from what I am trying to teach her, and were values I would be happy to see reflected in every part of our society.
The big question is why they aren't reflected in very business, school, government, and community organization. If Disney - which is clearly a very profitable and enormous enterprise - can do it, why can't everyone else? Now, I am sure that someone can probably dig up some dirt about Disney. I understand Walt wasn't all that delightful. But if the lowest members in the chain of command at Disney - those picking up the garbage and cleaning the bathrooms for minimum wage - can reflect such positive attitudes and values, the values must now be infused throughout the organization from the top down. Can't we all start today deciding on and living out values that create a better working environment and better physical and mental health for ourselves and everyone around us? Can't we all live as though our children or mothers or the evening news were watching us? I say, "Yes, we can!"
My family and I just spent a week at Disney World, and from my observations they outperformed many businesses in living out good character or ethics. Every employee we had contact with greeted us in a friendly, enthusiastic manner, with a smile, and questioned with interest how our vacation was going. Never did I receive an "I don't know" or experience an indifferent or unhelpful attitude in response to a question. Service was always prompt, despite the crowds of the Thanksgiving holiday. And I was amazed at the crowd management, particularly given the holiday - despite the masses that were clearly apparent, never did we have to wait more than a few minutes for transportation or food service or entry to events.
In addition to terrific customer service, everything we attended reflected values that I think ought to be promulgated. Respect for diversity was reflected in the number of disabled people enjoying and working at the parks and the accommodations provided for them. It was also evident in the wide range of diverse cultures represented in employees and performers - "cast members," as they are referred to. Further, whether it was Epcot or Animal Kingdom, consideration for the environment and for the animal world were clearly apparent. We were all encouraged to do more to sustain our planet and had many opportunities to learn how to do so. Healthy food for children and adults was also available at the restaurants we went to. I don't think the carrot sticks, raisens, and apple sauce sides that were offered to accompany children's meals are even available to my daughter at her elementary school.
And in every show we attended, cast members were upbeat and cheerful and enthusiastic and had a positive attitude about life. They encouraged children to pursue their dreams, to work hard, to persist until the best goal could be reached. They encouraged and demonstrated caring and kindness and respect for all people and the natural world. And they did it in playful, entertaining, and often humorous way. Epcot, in its Candlelight Processional and concert, even did what many companies consider too great a risk - they acknowledged the religious element of this season by telling the Christ story. Even if it isn't the only story or everyone's story, they seemed to be saying, it is a story worth telling, and an important part of many people's history and lives. I was happy to have my child at Disney World - the values illustrated there were clear, did not detract from what I am trying to teach her, and were values I would be happy to see reflected in every part of our society.
The big question is why they aren't reflected in very business, school, government, and community organization. If Disney - which is clearly a very profitable and enormous enterprise - can do it, why can't everyone else? Now, I am sure that someone can probably dig up some dirt about Disney. I understand Walt wasn't all that delightful. But if the lowest members in the chain of command at Disney - those picking up the garbage and cleaning the bathrooms for minimum wage - can reflect such positive attitudes and values, the values must now be infused throughout the organization from the top down. Can't we all start today deciding on and living out values that create a better working environment and better physical and mental health for ourselves and everyone around us? Can't we all live as though our children or mothers or the evening news were watching us? I say, "Yes, we can!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
