A recent study of college students suggests that how your employees feel about their ability to make their own choices could shape the culture at your company. In the study, students were split into two groups. One group read a section from a book by Francis Crick (of DNA double helix fame) which claimed “that rational, high-minded people—including, according to Crick, most scientists—now recognize that actual free will is an illusion”. The other group was given the same book but “read a passage from a chapter on consciousness, which did not discuss free will.” The students were then asked to answer 20 math problems on a computer. They were told that the computer program had a glitch which caused the answer to appear on the screen after a few seconds, but that they could prevent the answers from appearing by pressing the spacebar.

The students who read that free will was an illusion cheated (by failing to prevent the answer from appearing) on average 14 out of 20 times, while those who read the other section only cheated an average of 9.5 times. It’s pretty clear that how we feel about our personal responsibility affects our choices. If we have a choice, if our honor and our reputation are in our own hands, we’re much more likely to behave ethically. If we feel as though it’s out of our hands, we simply don’t try as hard to do the right thing.

How do your employees feel about the choices they make at work? Do they feel empowered to make decisions? Do they know that they are personally responsible for making the right choice?

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A title as vast and presumptuous as this one cries out for a weighty book of several hundred pages. It will have to wait, because the Supreme Court decisions impacting organizations and workplaces merits more immediate attention from ethics and compliance practitioners. The key cases:

MetLife vs. Glenn
In this case, a corporation that both pays for and administers a benefit plan is found to have a conflict of interest that may weigh against the firm when deciding on the legality of benefits decisions. “The employer’s fiduciary interest may counsel in favor of granting a borderline claim while its immediate financial interest counsels to the contrary,” wrote Justice Breyer explaining the conflict. The conflict may be viewed less negatively if the firm has addressed it by “walling off claims administrators from those interested in firm finances, or imposing management checks that penalize inaccurate decision making irrespective of whom the inaccuracy benefits.”

Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
The Court decided that the burden of evidence that an employment action was done for reasons other than age rests with the employer not the employee. In this case, 31 people were laid off by a federal laboratory; 30 were over the age of 40. The Court decision means that the laboratory—and other employers—must prove non-age related reasons for decisions such as this.

CBOCS West v. Humphries and Gomez-Perez v. Potter
These two cases are the most important of all for ethics and compliance officers, for they appear to recognize that U.S. civil rights legislation broadly prohibits retaliation against private and public sector employees for raising concerns about employment issues that may be viewed as discriminatory. In CBOCS, a black manager at a Cracker Barrel claimed he was fired for complaining about discriminatory treatment against other black managers. In Gomez-Pearce, an employee at a federal agency claimed he was retaliated against after she complained about age discrimination. Solid Court majorities in both instances recognized the rights of the plaintiffs.

In the face of these decisions, what can organizations do to protect themselves? The answer is simple, and no longer naïve: Do the right thing in the first place.

Ethics/compliance officers can and should be involved in making sure that their employer has reviewed structures for conflicts of interest, and put steps in place to reduce or eliminate them. (MetLife vs. Glenn) Ethics/compliance officers—not just employment attorneys—should be involved in thinking through large scale downsizing or layoffs, so that employees perceive fair criteria as guiding these difficult decisions. (Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory) And ethics/compliance officers not only have a critical role to play in fostering a culture of respect and non-discrimination, but in protecting from retaliation employees who have the courage to raise issues. (CBOCS West v. Humphries and Gomez-Perez v. Potter)

It is not every month that the Supreme Court provides so many ways for ethics and compliance professionals to demonstrate value. This is not a Midsummer Night’s Dream, it is the real thing. Take advantage of it.

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We continue to read bad news about the ethics of MBAs. Duke’s Fuqua School of Business recently announced they were taking disciplinary action against 10% of this year’s first year MBA class (28 students) for cheating. Of course, like Captain Renault in Casablanca, I am shocked, shocked that there was cheating at a competitive school filled with competitive people—even though the students had signed an honor Code.

Yet there are signs of hope. The New York Times of May 29, 2008 has an article called Hot Ticket in B-School: Bringing Life Values to Corporate Ethics. The Times reports that a lot of MBAs are deeply concerned with bringing their values to work. One Wharton alum who took a class with Professor Stuart Friedman is quoted saying “The course had a profound effect on me. As part of the class, you have to create a leadership vision for yourself, and he asks you to write a brief analysis of yourself 15 years from now. That exercise made me realize that what I was doing at the time — recruiting for hedge funds and venture capital firms — was not having any societal impact other than driving up compensation for people who were already grossly overpaid. I wanted to do something that was still financially rewarding, but had more of a positive impact on society.”

I had my own brush with hope last week. I was interviewed on Fox Business for a program called Fast Track—a career advice segment. (You can view the segment here.) Anna Gilligan and Christina Scotti are the two bright women responsible for this segment. They appear to be in their twenties (it would have been rude to ask)—a generation that many of us a little/lot older criticize for ethical behavior. (“How could they download that music for free?”) They have considerable latitude in choosing content. Yet these intelligent—and presumably ratings savvy—professionals have created a number of segments on ethics issues. “Is it ok to lie?” “Age in the office,” and “What do you do if you see an unethical act?”

After the interview, I asked Anna why. “We find these topics really interesting. We think others do too.”

There is hope for us yet.

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week I was lucky enough to see Macbeth on Broadway, with Patrick (Jean-Luc Picard) Stewart in the starring role. I loved Macbeth when I first saw it performed traditionally in Stratford upon Avon 25 years ago—and I loved it again despite, or because of, its Stalinistic setting at the Lyceum Theater.

But these days I can’t help looking at everything through the eyes of business ethics, and here I think Shakespeare’s insight is fundamentally flawed.

Analogizing medieval Scotland to modern day corporate life is not too difficult. King Duncan is the benevolent CEO. Macbeth is the striving corporate officer who has just received a promotion and is now one rung from the top. Except the CEO has named a new potential successor. And Macbeth’s wife is nudging (ok, manipulating—this is a sexist tale with not so subtle allusions to Adam and Eve) Macbeth to displace the CEO. She taunts him

“Do I fear thy nature; it is too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way. Thou wouldst be great, art not without ambition, but without the illness (evil) should attend it. . . . [thou] wouldst not play false.”

Lady Macbeth believes that the way to the top is achieved through ambition fueled by evil and stoked by falseness. And she urges her husband to be a man and murder Duncan in order to become King/CEO.

In one of his many self reflective moments, Macbeth reinforces this theme by accusing himself of having “vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself.”

The theme of corporate evil as a result of unfettered ambition has persisted through the ages. Television commentators and congressional inquisitors use this story line to explain most acts of wrong doing, real and perceived.

Perhaps some of the more egregious acts in corporate history vindicate Lady Macbeth’s cynical world view. But more are far less evil; far more banal. Most acts are rationalized as “not too bad,” “what everybody is doing,” “just a little.” Are these bad actors ambitious? Yes. But these are not the acts of individuals devoid of virtue—just devoid of the discipline or courage necessary to do the right thing. And then the “toil and trouble” the three witches of Macbeth portend fall on the individual and the company alike.

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In my small town of Wilmette Illinois, we honor those who sacrificed their lives in military service for our country with a parade that is perfect for the television age: it is not more than seven minutes long—just the amount of time between commercials. We can all pay attention to the girl scouts, American Legionnaires, VFW heroes, and local pipe and drum corps for that long.

We often forget in the middle of the picnics and the sales that this is a day to remember those who honored us all with their lives. This Memorial Day, all of us—especially those of us doing work in business ethics and corporate responsibility—should add a group of individuals to the roster of those we honor.

I am thinking of the men and women who work for private enterprise in support of those who serve our country. They may be involved in wars that many object to, and may even have jobs that many find objectionable, but there are tens of thousands of people serving as cooks, clerks and drivers who do not wear a military uniform, but put themselves in harm’s way for a the opportunity to earn a living and defend our country.

Over 1,000 contractors have died in Iraq alone since the war began.

We honor and remember them, and those in uniform, for their service.

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)