It's easy to blame moral poverty on other people. Today's headlines give us plenty of moral failures, from government officials to celebrated athletes to famous entertainers. By blaming others, we feel less responsible and less likely to act ethically ourselves. I call this tendency the "Doctrine of Relative Filth." In other words, "I'm not so bad; there are other people out there that are worse." In my profession--real estate--we always point to used car salespeople as ethical illiterates. Attorneys point to real estate agents. Doctors point to attorneys. And so on.
It's easy to point the fingers of blame at others. What is more difficult is accepting responsibility for some of our profession's ills and taking action to remedy those problems.
What can licensees do to take responsibility and create a more ethical workplace and profession? Here are some suggestions:
1. Support tougher standards for obtaining professional licenses and for keeping them. Research on moral reasoning skills indicate that ethical judgement is related to education: that is, individuals who have more years of secondary education perform better on tests of ethical judgement. (Interestingly, education is much more strongly associated with mature ethical judgement than with chronological age. Getting older doesn't necessarily mean getting more ethical.) Thus efforts to "raise the bar" by requiring more classroom hours in pre- and post-licensing courses may promote more ethical judgement among licensees.
2. Promote the discussion of ethics in professional meetings. Discuss and analyze transactions/events where licensees had problems solving ethical problems. Give this discussion special priority in these meetings by providing them early in the agenda. It's also important to make ethics a topic of conversation at the dinner table at home.
3. Give recognition for civic contributions and de-emphasize promotions and publicity for financial achievement. Discourage the promotion of "top producer" and "million dollar sales clubs" and similar advertisements which emphasize financial success rather than other important individual or team contributions. Too many licensees are encouraged to be successful only in financial terms. This is particularly true in industries were licensees are compensated on a commission basis. The public is often confused about the meaning of terms such as "million dollar clubs" and become cynical about an industry's perceived obsession with income. Insurance companies have done much to restore the public's perception of them by promoting their contributions to charities such as United Way instead of the number of policies insurance salespeople and their firms sold.
4. Support the implementation of a regional or national ethics helpline and ombudsperson for your industry. Early attempts to implement ethics offices resulted in ethics" hotlines" where callers may have felt that they were turning in colleagues to regulatory agencies. A "helpline" provides callers opportunities to talk to neutral but expert individuals who assist callers in sorting through ethical aspects of their problems and refer them to appropriate resources for additional information. The expert would have no vested interest in the outcome of the problem except to help the individual make a mature ethical decision.
5. Become an ethical mentor and role model. Of all the suggestions here, this one is the toughest. First it requires an acknowledgement that we all have the power to influence others, and equally important, our colleagues, our friends, and our children are all learning from our conduct.
Second, the notion of being a role model forces us to be agents of change. As ethicist Thomas Lickona points out, having ethical will is a critical element in ethical conduct. Individuals who have this atittude believe that they can make a difference in the world around them. Sadly, many of us believe that what we do and what we say makes no difference at all. The authors of Chicken Soup for the Soul advise us otherwise.
They tell the story of a tourist walking along a starlit beach. The tide is out, and many starfish at the beach's edge are exposed and dying. Coming from the opposite direction, another tourist is walking along the shore's edge, periodically stooping over, picking up a starfish and flinging it back into the sea. As the two tourists approach each other, the first says, "What are you doing? There must be a million starfish here. You can't throw them all back into the sea. You can't save them all. You can't possibly make a difference."
The second tourist stops, bends over, picks up yet another starfish and throws it into the ocean and says, "Made a difference to that one."
Our ethical conduct may not save the world, nor may it even save a small nation, but our ethical conduct and our willingness to be an example of moral courage and ethical will to others, may make a profound difference in the people with whom we work. After all, we do not learn our ethics from ethics teachers. We learn our ethics from people who have influence over us.
Questions About Ethics (© 1998, Deborah Long)
As I travel around the country speaking to real estate professionals, interior designers, and other licensees, I am frequently asked questions regarding integrity, character, and other issues related to moral development. In this issue's column, I share those questions and answers with you.
If I am an ethical person, will I get what I want?
It depends on what you want. If you want money, power, and a Mercedes--no, being ethical will probably not help you achieve that kind of success. Sometimes being ethical can be expensive in terms of time and money. Doing the right thing can mean sacrifice. But if you want is to be happy and help others as well as make a significant contribution to your family and society, then yes--being ethical will get you want you want. It will also make you feel good about yourself.
If people would just follow the law, would we still have ethical problems?
The law merely sets a minimum standard for what is acceptable behavior. Remember the old movie Towering Inferno about the brand new high-rise building that went up in flame at its gala inauguration? The builder's defense was "Hey, I built that structure to code. It's not my fault the building's on fire." Doing the minimum is not enough. We canot create laws fast enough, nor do we wish to abdicate moral responsibility to our legislators and regulators. Our ethical judgement requires us to do more than what the law requires.
Is there one simple test of whether I am making an ethically sound decision?
The easiest test is to ask yourself, "How would I want to be treated?" In other words, use the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would want done unto yourself. My real estate students often face dilemmas that involve fiduciary relationships and client confidentialities. They are torn between giving the buyer information that is not legally material but that many buyers would consider relevant, such as information regarding the whereabouts of sex offenders in a neighborhood or unnatural deaths that may have occurred on the property. Deciding whether or no to provide this information is an ethical judgement often best decided by the Golden Rule.
Isn't making ethical decisions playing God? It's not up to me to make these types of decisions.
In most ethical dilemmas, you can rely on rules, policies, and laws that provide you with reasonable answers to the dilemma. In other cases, you may have to search your soul or conscience. Some believe our conscience is the divine spark within us. And remember, there are consequences for not making a decision as well as consequences for whatever decision we make or action we take. We are not powerless to act. Govern yourself accordingly.
Is it possible some adults are incapable of becoming better people?
Sure. If adults are in a work environment or social environment where integrity is not valued or opportunities to exercise moral reasoning are limited or non-existent, there will be little moral development. But few adults live or work in a ethics-free zone. Everyday we encounter opportunities to make ethical judgements. If we exposed to ethical leadership and/or work where ethical conduct is expected, we are likely to experience cognitive moral growth.
On the other hand, if we are debased by everyday encounters with violence, anti-social behavior, and ethical literacy, it is unlikely that we will demonstrate ethical conduct much less get better at behaving ethically ourselves. That's why we all have a responsibility to act as moral mentors.
What can we do to become more ethical people?
First, start at home. Be a role model to your children, your spouse, and your relatives. Second, do the right thing at work and in your community. Third, support those around you and those in the news who do the right thing. Fourth, talk about issues with ethical dimensions--exercise your ethical intellect as well as those around you. Fifth, avoid cynicism. Remember what Anne Frank wrote in her diary: "Isn't it wonderful that we don't have to wait a single moment to improve the world?"
Federal Sentencing Guidelines (© 1999, Deborah Long)
Of all the means at our disposal to compel people to virtue, one of the least effective is government regulation. Professional standards, adequate supervision and training; peer pressure within an organization, and personal integrity are all better guidance systems for ethical conduct than government regulation.
Nevertheless, a powerful deterrent to ethical misconduct was created in 1991 with the enactment of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines (FSG) overhauled the potential penalties for all types of federal crimes. In the past, it was possible for corporations and other organizations to avoid penalties for the criminal misconduct of their employees. They would state in their defense that their managers were unaware of their employees' misdeeds. Typically, corporate fines were relatively modest and jail time for corporate CEOs was rare.
The new sentencing guidelines, however, have a severe impact on all organizations as well as on those individuals who did not properly supervise their employees when any felony or Class A misdemeanor is committed. Witness the Archer-Daniels-Midland Co fine of $100 million imposed in 1998 on a pleas of guilty to two count charge of price-fixing.
What types of organizations are at risk under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? All organizations including corporations, non-profit organizations, associations, unions, pension funds, and government entities. When an employee of such an organization commits a federal crime, such as fraud, bribery, giving or receiving kickbacks, money-laundering or other regulatory violation on the behalf of the organization, the organization and its managers are at risk. Offenses involving drugs, public safety, immigration, national defense, food laws, the environment, antitrust, taxation are other potential areas of application under the FSG.
Virtually every professional licensee and an employing firm have exposure to millions of dollars of fines as well as imprisonment under these guidelines. The purpose of the Guidelines is to assure that sanctions imposed on organizations and their employees will provide not only just punishment but also adequate deterrence and incentives to organizations to maintain internal controls for preventing criminal conduct. The guidelines require judges to determine the culpability of an organization by looking at the seriousness of the offense, the role of senior management, the effectiveness of a compliance programs and other factors.
In order to mitigate punishment in the event a company's employee has committed a serious crime, an organization must demonstrate that it had a program in place to deter unlawful conduct. Part of the program must have been an effective comprehensive ethics training component where company standards and policies were communicated. Company brochures on the subject of ethics or compliance without actual training is unlikely to be sufficient to demonstrate that a firm has an effective ethics training program.
Furthermore, the FSG require that a specific high level executive must have been designated with the ultimate responsibility to assure compliance with the organization's standards and procedures. The company must not have delegated discretion to a person with a propensity to engage in unlawful conduct.
The effect of the FSG is significant in terms of ethics in the workplace. These guidelines mandate that all firms institute comprehensive effective ethics compliance programs or face very stiff penalties. Supervisors, sales managers, and other company executives are now charged with the responsibility of being ethical mentors for their firms. Further, this statute creates an affirmative obligation on the part of all organizations to prevent, detect and report criminal conduct. The burden of proof is on the organization to prove that its ethics program was comprehensive and effective. The degree to which an organization can demonstrate due diligence in this regard may result in a decision by an attorney general not to prosecute the company.
In view of these guidelines, it's not just good business to have an ethics program--it's required.
In the aftermath of the Columbine tragedy, it was both repugnant and fascinating to watch television pundits and newspaper editors blame everything from poor parenting to anti-gun control politicians. Similarly, parents blamed toxic cultural influences, such as the rap music and MTV. The NRA indicted the media. Everyone blamed everyone else: it was rare to see anyone accept personal responsibility for the Littleton massacre.
Yet personal responsibility is one of the important pillars of character. Even if we don't live in Littleton, Colorado, or Conyers, Georgia, or Jonesboro, Arkansas, we can all do better jobs of being ethical than we are doing. How?
1. We must be role models. Children learn by watching adults. Employees learn from their managers. Many of us are in positions to lead others, either because we have accepted the responsibility of leadership or because circumstances have thrust leadership upon us. Parents must role-model ethical conduct because their children will learn from them. Teachers must be moral agents because they influence their students. Athletes must be good people and set examples because young people hero-worship these celebrities. Engineers and architects must develop safe products and design. Real estate agents must support fair housing practices. Government leaders must inspire us to do better and be better or risk increased cynicism among their constituents.
2. We have to inspire others. Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg's research into moral development tells us that people are cognitively attracted to ethical thinkers. While we are not always capable of ethical conduct or even mature ethical reasoning, we are attracted to those individuals who are. That is why we still speak in reverential tones about Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech or the spell-binding words of Kennedy's inaugural address: "Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can for your country." Such words inspired a generation of young people to contribute to their country and to others. Those who have the gift of ethical clarity should be recognized, rewarded, and given the opportunity to lead within their organizations. Those who have the gift have the obligation to use it.
3. We must critically examine elements of our culture that may have a toxic effect on young people. While technology has created a wealth of opportunity for communication and education, some uses of technology can encourage or emphasize isolation rather than participation and pro- social behavior. To counter the negative aspects of technology, we must provide more opportunities for interaction, both at work and at home. Sociologist Mary Pipher, author of Reviving Ophelia and In the Shelter of Each Other warns that despite the advances of this century, we see more depression, eating disorders, addictions and suicide and murder attempts, particularly among the young, largely due to the influence of the media. Rather than censoring or boycotting TV, however, she suggests that we take time at home to watch what our children our watching. We must help them develop healthy and critical perspectives regarding the messages of commercial television. At work, we have to make an effort to create opportunities for social interaction (meaningful meetings, company picnics, group sabbaticals or retreats) so that co-workers have a chance to learn about each other and to create or renew relationships. Employers have to give parents time to spend with their children to accomplish the same goal. And we have to encourage the media to take the high road even when their competitors may earn more money by appealing to baser instincts.
4. We must be agents of change. It is easy to be overwhelmed by the evil in the world: seeing the tragedy of Columbine and across the globe in Kosovo makes us all feel impotent. But it is because we cannot fix all of the world's ills that we must do what we can to prevent future tragedies. Chances are, the evil at Columbine was the result of many failures--social, parental, and cultural. We can all take responsibility for not doing enough. Pointing the blame at others is part of a misguided belief that we are not personally responsible. But we are in a position of making a difference. It may be simply an issue of being more ethical more often. As Anne Frank wrote, "Isn't it wonderful that we don't have to wait a single moment to improve the world?"
