If individuals reach adulthood without suffering major psychological traumas, such as child abuse, they are usually capable of determining right from wrong.  Many moral problems we face require us to be able to make that determination.  Most of the time, adults know right from wrong, but they may be unwilling to pay the price for doing the right thing. When we knowingly choose the wrong thing, we have succumbed to ethical temptation.

 Facing ethical temptations is not the same as facing  ethical dilemmas.  We know it is wrong to lie; we know it is wrong to steal; we know it is wrong to cheat.  Thus, it is not really a dilemma when we consider choosing wrong over right.  It is merely an ethical temptation.
For example, falsifying an annual report to make the company appear in good financial health is an ethical temptation.    As long an individual knows that this act is wrong, then this problem is are not really a dilemma.

 However, choosing between two rights is a compelling ethical predicament-- for example choosing between telling the truth and maintaining loyalty to a friend.  Truth and loyalty are both virtues:  what do you do when your friend asks you to lie, perhaps to save his marriage or his job?   Choosing between the individual's needs and a community's needs or choosing between justice and mercy are two more illustrations of true ethical dilemmas.  Choosing between two or more positive values requires more than ethical competence; it also requires sound ethical decision making skills.

Developing mature decision making skills involves recognizing problems when they occur.  How can you tell when you are facing issues that have an ethical dimension to them?  The following guidelines may help:

 1. Frequent use of words such as right or wrong; conflict of interest; bottom line; ethics; and values.

 2. Desire to call the state regulatory agency or professional hotline.

 3.   Making lists of advantages and disadvantages of an action.

 4.   Feeling torn between two or more values, goals, or parties.

 5. Wondering how the outcome of this problem would look in the newspaper headlines.

 6. Loss of sleep.

 7. Use of expressions such as:

"Well, maybe just this once..."
"Let's keep this under our hats..."
"We'd better look the other way..."
"No one will ever know..."
"Whew, we certainly dodged that bullet..."
"Don't tell me. I don't want to know."
"I have this friend..."
"No one's going to get hurt..."
"Everybody does it..."
"They had it coming..."
"They'll never miss it...."
"What's in it for me?"

These red flags advise of impending ethical challenges.  Rushworth Kidder, author of How Good People Make Tough Choices, suggests that ethical dilemmas, rather than temptations, will challenge us more frequently and profoundly in the near future as our society becomes increasingly diverse and complex.  He cites the ethical dimensions of technological advancements such as cloning and nuclear power to make his case.

Thus, in addition to being able to recognize ethical temptations, adults will also be called upon to be able to determine "Which is the greater good?"   It is a challenge to those in positions of influence to help others navigate through the difficult moral terrain which we will face in the next decade and beyond.

Regulatory agency newsletters--such as this one--remind us that  licensees make mistakes, sometimes serious ones, in their dealings with the public.  Violations mentioned in these publications range from trust account mismanagement to misrepresentation to fraud and worse.  And even though it is a relatively small percentage of  professionals who are found guilty of professional misconduct, we know that they represent the proverbial "tip of the iceberg."  Members of the public often do not want to get involved in the complaint process, perceiving that it might be too cumbersome.  Some aggrieved individuals may be unaware that a complaint process exists.

When I discuss the complaint cases mentioned in my state's real estate licensing newsletter with my students, it's not uncommon to hear this reaction:  "There but for the grace of God...."  In other words, these licensed professionals are relieved to see that their names have not yet appeared on those notorious back pages.  But they are also expressing the concern  that they have committed similar violations to those described in the newsletter.  They just haven't been caught yet.  To some extent, those quarterly communiqués from our regulators are an important deterrent to practitioners who need constant reminders that their conduct is being watched.

But there are other  factors that keep us from getting in trouble.  One of those factors is our own  ethical capacity and orientation.  While many of our values were instilled in us in children and come from a variety of sources, our capacity to become even more adept at making moral judgement usually grows as we mature and experience marriage, parenthood and other significant life events.

Another factor in keeping us from going astray is professional standards or  codes of conducts espoused by the private and public sector.  While a code of ethics doesn't prevent misconduct, professional guidelines help the us recognize the baseline for behavior.  Codes of ethics set the minimum level of conduct we will tolerate from one another and help us make judgements about right and wrong.  The majority of American companies subscribe to a code of ethics,  acknowledging its importance in curbing workplace problems.

Many organizations realize the important of yet another factor in minimizing opportunities for misconduct:  internal controls, such as adequate supervision, training of staff and careful review of work.  It is particularly important that rules are clearly established and consistently and fairly implemented.  And while policy manuals and one-day employee orientation programs are useful in establishing ethical boundaries, they are often not enough to meet the frequent ethical challenges that many professionals face.  More and more companies are establishing mentoring programs to help practitioners cope effectively--often one-on-one-- with work dilemmas.

Another critical factor in minimizing opportunities for miscount is peer or team review.  Peer auditing of critical cases or issues can be an effective tool in preventing problems or preventing their repetition.  Sometimes, peer reviews by an independent group from another organization or from a regulatory body can be helpful as well as motivational.

Another determinant in minimizing misconduct is peer pressure within the organization.  When the organization's leadership has clearly articulated the values of the company and more importantly, practices those values, then it is more likely that professionals affiliated with the company will practice them as well.  We learn our values and ethics from people who have influence over us:  first from our parents and family; then from our teachers; and later in life, from our employers and leaders.  If our leaders are corrupt, we are more likely to lower our expectations and on occasion, respond by becoming corrupt our selves.  On the other hand, when  leaders have high standards, we are more likely to conform to higher standards as well.

The last-- but not necessarily the least effective-- factor in controlling our conduct is government regulation.  Some licensees conduct themselves professionally because they don't want to pay the various penalties outlined by rules and laws.  But we also comply with regulation because we believe that a society without rules and laws would be chaotic.  So while we may not particularly like the idea of government regulation and reminders from regulatory agencies that let us know our conduct is being measured, we also recognize the importance of some government control.

As I tell my students preparing to take their state licensing exam, the last place I ever want to see them is on the back pages of the licensing newsletter as the "poster child of the month" for bad judgment.  It is hope that the combination of their integrity,  professional training, company values and leadership, their peers' influence, and government regulation  will provide enough discipline and restraint  to keep them from becoming an example to the rest of us of how not to conduct ourselves.

Rushworth Kidder, noted ethicist and author of How Good People Make Tough Choices, tells a true story about a two pilots and their navigator who failed to listen to their aircraft's warning system.  As their plane began to descend, cockpit lights and bells started to go off.  The plane's navigational system had picked up indications that the plane was flying too close to the mountain range that surrounded the airport. The computer voice of the warning system called out, "Pull up!  Pull up! "Pull up!"  Tragically, the pilots ignored those warnings and caused the plane to crash into the mountains.  All aboard died.  Plane crash investigators later revealed that the pilots' conversations indicated they heard and saw all the warning bells:  before shutting off the warning bells, one of the pilots  said aloud, "Shut up!" to the system's computer.

Most of us have a warning system, too--bells that go off when we sense a physical threat is imminent.  In some cases, our response to danger is physiological:  we begin to perspire, our hearts beat louder, or our senses become more acute.   When it comes to conflicts or issues that might be psychologically dangerous to us, we have an ethical warning system as well--only we usually call it a conscience.  A conscience will serve to keep us from ethical temptation.  Cartoonists often effectively illustrate our conscience as the little angel who sits on our shoulders and speaks to us.  Gary Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbies, used the character of a stuffed toy tiger to act as a little boy's spiritual mentor.  When the little boy, Calvin, would hatch schemes that would get him in trouble, the tiger, Hobbies, would become life-size and attempt to steer Calvin to a higher path.

Most adults have a highly-developed conscience.  It effectively warns them away from potential ethical ensnarements.  Experience also teaches us that certain situations are pregnant with moral conflict.  Either through experience or through our conscience, we can usually recognize situations that could cause ethical trauma.  Some of these situations are:

 1.  Receiving freebies-- when a vendor offers you a gratuity--whether it is a gift or cash--is the fit really free from obligation?  Or is there an expectation that you will provide special favors in return for the gift.

 2.  Receiving special loans/deals-- if in exchange for a service, you are offered a special loan or deal available only to you, how will that special transaction affect your conduct?  what is the expectation of the party giving you the special loan?  is it fair to others that you are the only one to receive this special consideration?  how will this transaction look to others if it is discovered?

 3.  Using company/government resources--  when you use resources that are not yours, who really pays the cost of the resources?  what if everyone took resources that did not belong to them?

 4.  Hiring relatives-- what potential conflicts will arise when issues of performance,  promotion or attrition are considered?  how will the hiring of relatives appear to others?

 5.  Conflicts of interest-- when you work for two or more parties with opposing interests, with whom do you side?   what do you disclose and when?

 6.  Disclosure-- what is the effect on my clients, customers, and colleagues of disclosing sensitive information?  how will it appear if I do not disclose the information?  What is appropriate timing of  disclosure?  What form should disclosure take?

 7.  Leaving employment--  what intellectual property are you taking with you? should you share that information with your new employer who was a former competitor?  should you inform former clients that you are newly affiliated?

 8.  Playing politics-- what is the appropriate role of a individual in a regulated business in regard to political contributions, lobbying  and other activities?

 These kinds of issues should trigger our ethical warning systems.  The appropriate reaction to these warning bells is first to acknowledge that a potential problem looms ahead.  The next step is to deal with the problem  appropriately and effectively.  Ignoring our conscience--in a sense, telling it to be quiet or turning it off--  means that we will be unable to keep out of harm's way.

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.

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?"

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.

(For more information regarding the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, go to www.whitehorseinc.com)

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?"

On August 7,  my dear father-in-law passed away.  A few days later, over 250 family members and friends gathered in a small but stately church in Tryon, North Carolina, to say goodbye to a man who had lived, by many definitions, a somewhat conventional life.  George Long  served his country during World War II; was a civil engineer who spent three decades working for one firm in Greenville, South Carolina;  married for 44 years; he raised a fine son and daughter; and retired at 62 to enjoy golf, the view from his mountain home, and his four grandchildren.

All of this a stranger could have gleaned from in the obituaries that appeared in various newspapers around the state. "An ordinary life," you might have commented upon reading the flat prose of the death notice.  But the tributes paid to my father-in-law during the following Tuesday afternoon service illustrated a most extraordinary and wonderful journey.  I remembered my father-in-law's unconditional love and tolerance for those whose background and ideas were different from his own:  this conservative Southern gentleman welcomed me--a Yankee and a lifelong Democrat--into his family without hesitation or an unkind word.  His stock broker remembered George's good humor in spite of what was happening to his stock portfolio during Black Friday in 1987. George's physician wept openly while he read a tribute written by my sister-in-law.  Many spoke afterward's of George's commitment to his work; his enviable marriage; his many expressions of generosity, integrity,  and friendship.  The minister added her recollections of George's integrity and fondly remembered his love of baking pies, exceeded only by his love of relishing the consumption of his own pastries.    While some might think it unseemly, there were many moments of gentle laughter in the church pews as we were reminded of George's many endearing qualities.  My father-in-law's funeral was truly a celebration of his life.

Over the next week, friends and family continued to visit and write and phone.  So many people commented that they hoped, when it was their time, that their friends and family would say the same kinds of things about them as had been said about George.  Many had clearly taken this time to reflect on the quality of their lives so far.  It would be difficult not to consider one's legacy at such a time, especially compared to the one that George left behind.  His was a life of dedication, responsibility, commitment, integrity, tolerance, devotion, laughter and love. Who would not want to be described in such glowing terms?  Some of us took quick stock of our shortcomings and made some immediate and tangible --and hopefully, lasting--differences in how we treated each other.

In his first bestseller, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Steven Covey wrote about a valuable exercise to determine one's priorities: imagine your funeral and what you would want your friends and family to say at such an auspicious occasion.  And then to live your life so that your friends and family will say them when your time comes.  It is doubtful, Covey suggests, that  we would want our best friends to say, "Well, he sure had a nice, expensive car when he departed, " or  "She really had a nice figure all of her life, didn't she?" or "He spent a lot of time at the office."   We don't want to be remembered for the expensive toys we owned or for the 70 hour workweeks.  We all want a legacy that matters.  We want to be remembered for the good things that we did, the noble character that we had, and the way we treated others.

Thomas Mann once wrote that a man's death is more the survivors' affair than his own.  I think he was right.  While my father-in-law's death leaves a huge void, I thank him for setting an example for all of us and giving us an opportunity to reflect on how we can become better at what we are and what we do.  Even if consider our lives as average and ordinary, we have the opportunity and challenge to live in a most extraordinary and phenomenal way.

One of the many myths that exists about ethics is that adults are incapable of becoming more ethical.  In other words, some believe that once we have reached adulthood, we are either ethical or not.  Research studies, however, indicate that adults are not only capable of learning to be more ethical, but that we are likely to experience the greatest leaps in moral development in our twenties and thirties.  During this period, we are likely to experience transformative life events:  for example, our first significant job, marriage, and parenthood.

A good example of how an adult can become more ethically mature can be seen in a 1997 movie about ethics in sports, Jerry Maguire.  Maguire is a sports agent who experiences major moral growth in terms of personal and professional relationships.  Early in the film, we see Jerry's many character flaws.  We watch Maguire dazzle his clients with imaginary propositions about six- and seven-figure contracts,  offers of high- paying endorsements, and  phony promises of  greater glory on the basketball court or the football field.    In another scene, Jerry's business friends mock his inability to sustain personal relationships, a character defect that is underscored by Jerry's inability to be alone.  In yet another early scene, one of Jerry's clients is so badly hurt on the football field that he is hospitalized.  Rather than encourage his client to recover and perhaps retire due to the athlete's numerous injuries, Jerry encourages him to get back on the playing field as soon as he can, mainly to bolster Jerry's commission income.  When confronted by the hospitalized athlete's young son, Jerry is shamed into realizing the degree of his selfishness.  This experience is the triggering event for Jerry's ethical transformation.

Jerry writes a mission statement where he proposes that his firm should have fewer clients and develop better relationships with the clients already under contract.  He sends multiple copies of his mission statement to his colleagues.  Unfortunately, Jerry's new goal is at direct odds with his company's objectives, and ultimately, he is fired.

He suffers yet another setback.  As he furiously attempts to establish his own agency and woo new clients, a prospective client refuses to sign an exclusive contract with Maguire, stating instead, "My  word is as strong as oak."  Later, the client signs an exclusive contract with a competing firm, and merely shrugs when Jerry reminds the client of his verbal promise.

At this point, Jerry's one remaining client and his loyal assistant bolster his flagging spirits. Maguire's ethical transformation begins with a commitment to honesty in relationships.  Jerry realizes that his past misrepresentations and partial truths have hurt his clients, and now, even if it means he will lose clients, he advises them of potential risks as they seek to renegotiate their contracts.  He begins to experience compassion for his client: we see Jerry's moral growth when he is clearly overwhelmed by feelings of concern and guilt when his one remaining client is injured on the field.   Jerry also learns the importance of promise-keeping and trustworthiness, particularly when he begins to establish a personal relationship with his assistant and her young son.  Maguire realizes that an ethical individual makes every reasonable effort to fulfill the letter and spirit of their promises and commitments.  Jerry also learns the meaning of loyalty when his one remaining client and his assistant  stay by his side as Jerry struggles to remain financially solvent

Jerry Maguire also demonstrates the importance of ethical mentoring.  While Jerry is ethically immature in many respects, he is able to nurture ethical qualities in others.  He reminds his only client of the joy of playing football just for the sportsmanship and to give up his obsession with "show me the money."  Jerry's assistant remains by Jerry's side because she is inspired by Jerry's leadership.  The importance of mentoring is underscored by the many scenes of father-son relationships in this complex film and how these parental or parent-surrogate figures are so important in  sharing and teaching values.  Jerry not only teaches and inspires others to be better, he is also taught and inspired by others. Through support and mentoring, Jerry Maguire learns the value of  respect, accountability, and commitment to excellence and integrity.

Jerry Maguire demonstrates that adults are capable of change.  Becoming an ethical person is part of a lifelong struggle for character.  Maguire also reminds us of John Ruskin's maxim: "The highest reward for a person's work is not what they get from it, but what they become by it."

Top of Page

 How do you raise the level of ethical consciousness of adults and children?  Some psychologists, such as Lawrence Kohlberg, suggested that becoming an ethical person is part of a developmental process.  Most of us, develop "moral muscles" over a lifetime of experiences.  The theory goes that as we have more experiences, we become better at ethical decision making.

 But can we stimulate ethical growth instead of waiting around for it to happen?  Certainly. There are a number of strategies we can employ to help individuals achieve their full ethical potential:

1.  Discuss issues with ethical dimensions at the dinner table and at company meetings.  Hardly a day goes by without a headline story that has ethical implications.  For example, as of this writing, presidential candidates are in the midst of primary campaigns.  Not only are their campaign tactics worthy of an ethics discussion, the campaign issues themselves require voters to sort out where they stand.  Issues such as medical insurance, abortion, and immigration all deal with values and principles.  Discussing these matters helps refine our ethical thinking skills and can teach respect for others' views.

2.  Choose a quote for the day and ask others to explain it by giving examples.  Good quotes can be obtain from any number of quotation reference books, but here are a few of my favorites:

A good conscience is the best pillow.--Abraham Lincoln

There is no witness so terrible
No accuser so powerful
As conscience which dwells within us--Sophocles.

I am only one but still, I am one.
I cannot do everything but I can do something.
And, because I cannot do everything,
I will not refuse to do what I can. ---Edmund Hale

One who thinks that money can do everything is likely to do anything for money.--Hasidic proverb

It's easy to be independent when you've got money.  But to be independent when you haven't--that's the Lord's test.--Mahalia Jackson

The highest reward for a person's toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it.--John Ruskin

 3.  Be a role model.  Research studies indicate that indiviuals are cognitively attracted to people of superior ethical maturity. That puts a special burden on individuals who are ethically literate to speak up and do the right thing.  These studies also suggest that being a role model is one of the best ways to teach others to make sound ethical decisions.

4.  Seize a 'teachable moment."  Everyy now and then, life throws an ethical dilemma in our path, often in full view of others.  How you react is an object lesson for those around you.  Others will watch what you do and say and and learn from you.  If possible, discuss how you reacted and why.  If the situation created a struggle for you, discuss it with others so they can learn from your mistake or from your achievement.

 Ethical decision making can be taught.   You don't have to be a great moral philosopher to be a teacher either.  You just have to have a vested interest in making your world a better place.

 On occasion when I provide workshops on ethical decision making skills, participants ask me, "Will I get what I want if I'm ethical?"

That's a tough question.  "It really depends on what you want," I usually respond.  "If what you want is a faster, sportier car or a bigger, more ostentatious home --then no, probably being ethical won't help you obtain those material goods."  On the other hand, I also observe, being ethical allows you to look at yourself in the mirror as well as to sleep better at night.

This is not a satisfactory answer for a number of my students.  I realize that some of my students thing that if all you get out of being ethical is a better night's sleep, they might find it more appealing to fall asleep in front of their big-screen TVs in their 10,000 square foot mansion.  A recent movie--The Insider-- also made it painfully clear that being ethical can be very costly in terms of personal and professional consequences.

In order to create a more compelling argument for being ethical, I decided to find out if being ethical pays off in more tangible ways.  Guess what I found out?
Unethical behavior costs.

 Example #1.  Discriminating against employees based on race cost Texaco $176 million.

 Example #2.  Overstating profits to investors cost Mercury Finance $2.2 billion in stock losses virtually overnight.

 Example #3.  ADM paid $100 million in criminal fines--the largest in history--for price-fixing.

 Example #4.  A Genentech CEO lost his job for trying to obtain a $2 million loan as part of a business deal.

 Example #5.  Sexual harassment charges cost a W.R. Grace CEO his job.

That's the bad news.  Here's the good news: Ethical behavior pays.

Example #1:  In a 1994 study, researchers found that 26% of potential investors review the social responsibility of a company before investing.  Corporate values and ethics matter.

Example #2.  A 1995 study indicated that companies that invest in their employees are more profitable than ones that don't invest.  For example,  Motorola estimated that it earned $30 for every $1 invested in training employees.

Example #3.  A Vanderbilt University study demonstrated that low-polluting companies enjoyed better financial performance that high-polluting competitors in eight out of ten cases.

Example #4.  A 1997 report found that 76% of consumers were likely to switch to brands associated with a good cause.

Example #5.  A 1994 study indicate that 75% of consumers avoid or refuse to buy from certain business. The first reason was poor service, but the second reason was the company's business practices.

These examples and studies indicate that greedy, ruthless behavior is not the most profitable.  The evidence clearly demonstrates that good ethics shows up on the bottom line.  While being ethical can be challenging, it can do more personal, professional, and financial good for you than just give you a sound night's sleep.

 Anne Frank wrote in her diary, “In spite of everything, I believe people are good at heart.”  Some of her  readers cannot help but view that sentiment with cynicism, particularly in light of Anne’s tragic end in Bergen-Belsen’s death camp a short time later.  No matter how one views Anne’s belief in the goodness of human beings, acts of altruism baffle and trouble us.  Altruism runs counter to the primal urge to survive, particularly when such acts of grace are not only selfless but also self-destructive.

 It is much easier for us to understand selfish, aggressive, or brutal acts.  Muggings, murders, child abuse, and other heinous human behavior commands our attention while we rarely notice the decency of our neighbors.  Yet there is startling evidence that indicates that human altruism not only exists but thrives:

•  An estimated 109 million adults aged 18 and over volunteered in 1998, up from 93 million in 1995. This number of volunteers represent 56% of the adult population.

 •  The 109 million adult volunteers gave a total of 19.9 billion hours during 1998, an average of  3.5 hours a week.   The volunteer workforce represented the equivalent of over nine million full-time  employees.  Their combined efforts were worth $225 billion.

 •        43% of seniors aged 75 and over said they volunteered.  Thirteen million teens, more than half of America’s teen population (59%)  volunteered in 1995.  They gave an estimated 3.5 hours per week, totaling 2.4 billion  hours of volunteer time.  Approximately one-third of young people in grades 7-12 identified "working for the good of my  community and country" and "helping others or volunteering" as very important future goals.

• The American Red Cross collects blood donations from 20,000 donors every day.

• In 1998, the Salvation Army received $1.2 billion in private donations.  The YMCA of the  USA received $629 million.  The  American Cancer Society received $556 million.  The   American Red Cross received $543 million.

 The volunteers tend the dying at home, answer suicide crisis hotlines, raise funds for AIDs research–all done for the benefit of individuals they do not know.  Blood donors give for the benefit of people whose identity is unknown and from whom they will never receive thanks.  The majority of Americans contribute to charities to benefit strangers.

 And if this isn’t evidence enough that people are altruistic, consider the daily small kindnesses  we perform on a daily basis: helping to pick up fallen items; giving directions to the lost; giving pocket change to the needy; making an effort to find the person who left his car with the parking lights on.  These acts do not make the headlines, but it reassures us, in spite of the media portrait of a world become hostile, that Anne Frank’s vision was not an illusion.  Human  nature requires that we not only live in contact with other people, but also that we are caring and benevolent toward them.  No society could exist otherwise.

 One of the toughest attitudes to address about ethics is “You can’t teach ethics to adults.  You either have them or you don’t.”   Ironically, I sometimes hear this view from individuals who are responsible for continuing education or professional development programs–in other words, people who are responsible for the character education programs of licensed professionals.  Those who espouse this attitude have essentially given up on the notion that adults can be taught new skills or improve the ones they have.  While it may be true that is difficult to change attitudes once they are ingrained, research studies indicate it is entirely within the realm of possibility that we can learn new skills and behaviors, including ethical decision making skills..

 Psychology professor Lawrence Kohlberg studied moral development.  He theorized and later demonstrated through his research that ethical decision making skills can be not only be taught, but can also be developed and enhanced.  His theory suggested that there are at least six stages of moral development:

• Stage 1 moral thinkers believe that you should do the right thing because otherwise you will get in trouble.
• State 2 thinkers believe you should do the right thing so that others will give you something in return.
• Stage 3 thinkers believe that you should do the right thing so that people will like you.
• Stage 4 thinkers emphasize the importance of laws and rules and believe that following those guidelines is important for an orderly society.
• Stage 5 thinkers are critical thinkers who believe that a society’s laws may be flawed.  They believe in possible exceptions to the rules.
• Stage 6 thinkers believe in universal ethical principles that go beyond a particular society’s rules.

 Research studies indicate that while it is difficult to bring about a significant change in an adult’s level of ethical reasoning in an artificial environment, such as a classroom, it is, nevertheless,  possible. Business and education college majors, for example, experience the largest gains in ethical reasoning skill development when exposed to appropriate ethics education programs.

 Researchers have also determined the following:

• Individuals must go through stages in sequence.  Individuals do not skip from  Stage 1 to Stage 3, for example.  This finding is true regardless of the cultural or regional background of study participants.

• Generally, stage development is not reversible.  Once individuals have reached Stage 4, as an example, they will use Stage 4 as their dominant navigational style for handling ethical dilemmas.  Stage 4 thinking, by the way, is the typical navigational style for adults.

• Individuals can't comprehend moral reasoning at a stage more than one beyond their own.  For example, a Stage 2 adult (“I will do this for you if you do something for me”) may understand  Stage 3 reasoning ( “What will the neighbors say?”), but they will not appreciate or understand Stage 4 (“If everyone just did what they wanted, our society would fall apart.”)  It is best to reason with individuals based on their own level of development.

• Stage development occurs when one's cognitive outlook is inadequate to cope with a dilemma.  Bonafide change occurs when we confront real–not hypothetical–ethical problems at home and at work.  We realize that our former method of dealing with problems no longer resolves the problem to our satisfaction.  For example, teenagers who typically use Stage 3 thinking “I wonder what my friends would think” may not find Stage 3 reasoning appropriate or satisfying when their friends ask them to experiment with drugs.  As another example, Stage 4 scientists who are on the verge of human cloning  (“I must follow the law”) may find that level of reasoning inadequate when there are no laws or guidelines to follow.  What we can do in the classroom and at the office is orient and train adults to be ready for ethical dilemmas by giving them many opportunities to learn discuss ethical decision making strategies.

• Individuals are cognitively attracted to reasoning at one level beyond their own. In other words, while we may be unable to mimic the conduct of individuals more advanced in their reasoning skills, we can still be inspired intellectually by those who are more mature in their judgement and in their behavior.

It is this last finding that is most compelling.  Our attraction to ethically superior people suggests not only that we are capable of being taught, inspired and led, but also that individuals who are more advanced in their reasoning skill have the obligation to speak up, teach, and lead.

 Issues of ethics and etiquette are commonly confused, particularly when describing the behavior of professionals.  Ethics has to do with following the morality of a society or group.  Etiquette deals with behaving in accordance with prescribed social standards.  So there’s no question that issues of ethics and etiquette can be very similar.

 However,  do ethical individuals always follow the best etiquette?  No.  We can all think of examples of brusque, abrasive, ill-mannered people who have nevertheless acted morally. Do people who behave in accordance with prescribed social standards always act ethically?   No again.  Very polite people can act immorally. The Nazis, as an example, were very mannered individuals who emphasized protocol and social standards.  Yet their actions were immoral.

 As professionals, we strive to be follow standards of both ethics and etiquette.  Early in our careers, we are introduced to concepts and models of professional conduct and practice.  However, it is assumed that we don’t need any courses in professional etiquette, since these matters are largely common sense and were taught and modeled for us in the home and at school.

 It’s this assumption that professionals are familiar with common-sense etiquette that is apparently getting licensees into more trouble with their licensing boards than we might expect.  A recent study of complaints filed against real estate licensees provides some surprising insights.

 The Georgia Real Estate Commission staff  conducts from 1,500 to 2,000 investigations annually. Year after year, executive director Charles Clark reports, approximately 50% of its investigations of complaints result in a finding of no violation of the license law.  Approximately 40% of  investigations of complaints result in the discovery of minor technical violations of the law that result in no harm to the public and require only warning letters. Only about 10% of its investigations of complaints result in a need for the Commission to take some form of formal disciplinary action.

 Mr. Clark’s analysis of these complaints is incisive.  He suggests that  “ the 50-40-10 numbers tell us that the vast majority of complaints reveal no substantive violations of the license law. Why? The vast majority of all licensees want to be in business tomorrow....  Even if only minimally competent, they are all smart enough to know that violating the law or deliberately harming a consumer means that business is likely to dry up tomorrow. Thus, very, very few of them deliberately set out to violate the law or to harm someone.”

 Moreover, he adds, “...Almost all of the people we regulate want to do right.  The morally and ethically corrupt are the rare exception, not the rule. Therefore, almost all of them will do right, if they know what right is....  Most violations are the result of simple, unintentional error.”

 Considering the fact that only 50% of all complaints were investigated, Mr. Clark’s staff decided to determine what actions really caused consumers to lodge a complaint.  Here is what they found:

 Most of the complaints were filled with such statements as:

1. “He wouldn’t return my telephone calls.”
2. “She didn’t address us as Mr. and Mrs.”
3. “She stopped by our house unannounced.”
4. “I don’t know why she waited two days to present our offer.”
5. “He showed up in a running suit.”
6. “She talked down to me.”
7. “He was late for every appointment.”
8. “She turned me over to someone else for everything.”
9.  “He didn’t explain what that meant.”
10.  “She was rude about everything.”
11. “He wasted our time showing houses that we had no interest in.”
12. “We never could reach her.”
13.  “He never seemed to care about the problem.”

 In other words, these complaints were initiated because of a problem with etiquette–not with a breach of ethics or of  law.  While instructors spend countless classroom hours reviewing licensing law and lecturing on practices and  principles of the profession, Clark concludes, “What may be more help in reducing the number of complaints is an instructional module on manners, dress, and communication.”  (Ironically, few regulatory agencies would provide continuing education credit for such a course.)

 In a telephone call to a number of other licensing boards in my own state of North Carolina, regulators not only agreed that their experiences with complaints fits the Georgia Real Estate Commission’s 50-40-10 profile, many concurred that most of the complaints are initiated or deal with matters of rudeness, poor manners and poor communication rather than with violations of the law.

 Assuming this profile is widespread among regulatory agencies’ complaints, imagine the tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars and licensing board time spent on dealing with matters of etiquette rather than more “serious” issues of misrepresentation and consumer fraud.  Real estate commissions in the U.S. alone report over 25,000 complaints a year.

 What is the solution?  Managers, employers, and educators should integrate discussions of professional or business etiquette into their staff meetings and classrooms.  Punctuality, appropriate dress and language, sensitivity to cultural differences in business customs, and listening skills would be a good place to start.  And it would probably be a good idea to remind everyone not to chew with their mouths open and to keep their elbows off the table, too!

 Emily Post, the foremost authority on etiquette and manners, once wrote:

  "...Best Society is not a fellowship of the wealthy, nor does it seek to exclude those who are not of exalted birth; but it is an association of gentle-folk, of which good form in speech, charm  of manner, knowledge of the social amenities, and instinctive consideration for the feelings of  others, are the credentials by which society the world over recognizes its chosen members.  Etiquette  must, if it is to be of more than trifling use, include ethics as well as manners."

As of this writing, more than three months has passed since the tragic events of September 11, 2001.  The struggle to comprehend this national cataclysm continues.  Every day, we learn more about the heroism and sacrifice of those who perished in the twin towers of the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania.  Many of those heros and victims were professional licensees going about their normal routines on those fateful days.

For example, approximately 30 mechanical engineers were employed by companies that had offices in the World Trade Center.  Most of them were employed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.  At least three of those members are among the thousands who remain missing and are presumed dead.  Seven mechanical engineers worked at the Pentagon in the Defense Department and for the U.S. Navy.  (All of them survived.)  Many of these engineers had arrived at work or were on their way when the terrorist-piloted planes struck.

The total immediate loss of World Trade Center property amounted to roughly 15 million square feet.  Another 2.3 million square feet was damaged or declared structurally unsound from fires, falling debris and building collapses.  Meanwhile, more than 10.7 million square feet of property sustained damage. About 5 million square feet of that will be taken out of the market for at least one year for extensive repairs and reconstruction.  Civil engineers and contractors have been working 16-hour workdays at Ground Zero to develop a plan to clear the debris and overseeing significant health and safety issues.  Architect and engineers have been working with New York City officials to discuss the future of the World Trade Center area and to re-engineer public buildings for safety and security.

Manhattan real estate agents had to quickly scramble to relocate residents in the area and displaced commercial tenants to other areas of New York and New Jersey.  In the meantime, home builder groups have raised over $9 million dollars and REALTOR groups have raised over $4 million for September 11th victims.

Professional licensees were also among the heros of the doomed flight from Newark.  Rich Guadagno was an enforcement officer with California’s Fish and Wildlife office.  Linda Gronlund was an attorney.  Both of them were aboard doomed Flight 93 which crash-landed into a Pennsylvania farmland.  Both had been trained in self-defense.  It is likely that they were among those who fought the terrorists on that flight.

Many licensees performed invaluable services after the tragedies.  Dentists from all of the country flew to Washington and New York to use their forensic skills to identify victims who would otherwise remain anonymous in death.  Funeral directors had the terrible challenge of consoling thousands of families who were affected by these tragedies. Teachers had to cope with their students’ overwhelming feelings of fear and anxiety and loss while also making sense of  a confused situation.  Professional counselors continue to work with victims and their families to help them work through their losses.

Professional licensees are often members of our society’s working and middle class.  They are rarely the stuff of which celebrity is made.  They get up every day, go to work, contribute to their employers and to society, and go back home, exhausted but still ready to contribute to their families at night.  The media rarely lets us know of the ordinary person’s quiet  moments of daily heroism.  September 11th changed that.  We now know that celebrities may be people we want to meet, but the heros are the people we want to be.   We also have learned that the role of professional licensees is critical to a functioning society, not only during good times and ordinary days but especially during times of tragedy and crisis.

Comic Rodney Dangerfield trademark expression is “I don’t get no respect.”  The same complaint is often uttered, perhaps more grammatically, by many licensed professionals.  Real estate agents, surveyors, home inspectors–voice their concerns that the public doesn’t treat them with the consideration and  deference often afforded other business people.  They question why they aren’t treated like doctors, teachers, and engineers who fare much better in public polls.

There are certainly plenty of reasons why some businesses are not respected or who are, at the very least, considered “respect-challenged.”  The annual results of Gallup Polls on honesty and integrity suggest that salaried individuals (nurses, teachers) are thought of more highly than those who earn commissions and continency fees (sales people, attorneys).  Individuals who have greater formal education (doctors, clergy) tend to be more respected more than those who aren’t as well educated (labor union leaders, building contractors.)  People who are in the caring professions (pharmacists, funeral directors) do better on these polls than those who are in the business professions (stockbrokers, advertising practitioners).

Many industries work very hard at creating a positive public relations image for their members.  Witness the recent efforts by accounting companies to tout their firm’s ethics.  Notice the securities industry lobbying for stricter disclosure laws.  Collectively, real estate agents spend millions of dollars letting the public know how hard they work.  All of these licensed industries try very hard to characterize their businesses as professions.

Actually, any group that can distinguish itself by virtue of a distinct task or tools may call itself a profession.   However, the true characteristics of a profession are the ethical conditions of the group, rather than its techniques or tools.  While many disagree about the meaning of the term profession, most agree on the following characteristics:

• a clearly defined field of expertise that distinguishes it from others
• a period of education or training prior to membership
• a procedure for testing, licensing, and re-licensing generally approved by a state agency under guidance from the profession itself
• a dedication to meeting obligations to society and an emphasis on service over income and wealth as a primary motivator
• a provision for free services for those who cannot afford them
• the application of a sliding scale of fees according to circumstances or ability to pay
• a set of self-governing rules that instill a code of ethics regarding relationship among members and toward society
• a means of self-governance, including the application of penalties for inappropriate behavior or negligence

It would be difficult to argue that any group–doctors, attorneys, plumbers, teachers–can meet all of these criteria.  Nevertheless, it can also be argued that all state-licensed industries provide special services at a high level of skills and expertise as well as meet many other guidelines that define a professional.  What is arguable is whether licensees can self-govern and police their ethical conduct.  Let’s face it: if licensees could govern themselves, state legislatures would not have had to create regulatory licensing laws.

This problem of self-governance is ultimately why licensees “get no respect.”   The late senator Patrick Moynihan once said in reference to the demands placed on professional that “[they] need to say ‘no’ to requests that will make life worse. Saying no is what makes a profession a profession. That’s how you can tell the difference between a market-driven business and a profession; a profession can say no to things that it knows it shouldn’t do.” Unfortunately, we have had too many examples in recent years, of professionals and corporate and government leaders saying “yes” when they should have said “no.”

Ultimately, being a professional and getting the respect one deserves is not about compensation or how it’s earned; it’s not about the years of formal education; and it’s not about being in the medical field or on Wall Street.  As James Baldwin said, “The price one pays for pursuing any profession, or calling, is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side.”  True professionals recognize that every business has its ethical quagmires, that every day can be filled with moral land mines, that the very tasks for which they demonstrate expertise can be done incompetently without bringing much notice or suspicion.  It is resisting those temptations and saying ‘no’ to the easy answers that gets the public’s respect.

        I just returned from providing an ethics workshop to accountants.  Most likely, it was the MCI WorldCom, Enron, and Arthur Andersons scandals of recent years prompted the accountants to ask me to lead a workshop on ethical decision making skills.  Nevertheless, as I provided them with a litany of multi-trillion dollar (yes, trillion) losses wreaked by these firms, I was regaled by audience members vociferously stating, “Well, the executives of those companies lied to their auditors,” and “The accountants were just following their clients’ directions to be aggressive,” and “The auditors followed the appropriate accounting guidelines; they didn’t break any laws.”
     I wasn’t shocked to hear these comments.  After all, I’ve heard similar excuses from other licensed professionals as well.  For example, an interior design profession told me he was once directed by a client, a hospital administrator, to substitute less-expensive emergency room curtains (used to separate patients from one another) for the ones recommended by the designer.  The designer pointed out that the recommended curtains were bacteria-resistant, thus much less likely to spread virulent strains of staphylococcus in the emergency room, which was why the recommended curtains were so much more expensive.   Contrary to the designer’s recommendation, the hospital administrator went to the local bed and bath shop, purchased ordinary household shower curtains and told the interior designer to “go along or get fired.”  The design professional went along.
    I also teach real estate agents locally and often hear a similar refrain:  “But my client told me to ….  I have a fiduciary responsibility to do what my client tells me to do.”  Included in the mantra are stories from agents whose clients directed them to commit loan fraud, fair housing violations, and other misdemeanors and felonies.
     Now come the photos from Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison where international audiences recently saw jarring images of prisoners being abused and humiliated by U.S. and British troops.  Attorneys for some of the Army reservists charged with the abuse say “the reservists were just following orders. “  Accused American soldier Lynndie England’s family claimed she was following orders from her violent lover when she abused Iraqi POWs.  England's best friend insisted that the soldier had been ordered to pose for the shocking photographs.  Her friend also stated at a press conference,  "Certain people in the army told her to do what she did. She follows orders. That's what her job is…She's always been obedient; that's why she's perfect for the military."
These soldiers and reservists certainly do not represent mainstream military personnel.  But the excuse, “I was just taking orders” is a cliché’.  Nazis accused of war crimes said it at Nuremberg — “I was only following orders.”  Soldiers like Lt. William Calley accused of atrocities at My Lai in Vietnam tried it, too.  But they got it wrong.  Both military law and international law require subordinate soldiers to obey the lawful orders of their superiors.
    Licensed professionals who do something immoral or illegal because their client or boss told them are similarly wrong-headed.  In fact, in the case of accountants, the U.S.  Supreme Court ruled some time ago that in a conflict between the putlic’s interest and the client’s interest, accountants must protect the public.  Codes of ethics state that design professionals must guard the public safety, regardless of the client’s budget.  Real estate professionals, yes, must honor their fiduciary duties to their clients, but when their clients unintentionally or deliberately tell the agent to disobey the law, agents must turn them down.
In 1961, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted what some experts say was the most important psychological experiment of all time:  he wanted to test the limits of authority in a supposedly civilized country to see just how much cruelty would average people inflict on their fellow citizens just because they were told to. In the famous electroshock experiment, 65% of the volunteers believed they were torturing Milgram's test subjects, and did so just because a man in a lab coat told them to.
     Milgram commented:  “Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the person dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others. For many people, obedience is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct.”
     While some may argue that the very fabric of society is threatened by disobedience, licensed professionals should not and cannot “just follow orders.”  Their professional licenses give them special obligations, including that of critically examining their clients’ and supervisors’ orders.  Their professional status clearly makes them the experts in the relationship between themselves and their clients and requires that they guide their clients toward appropriate choices.  If the client refuses such guidance, that the professional should withdraw from the relationship.  The late senator Patrick Moynihan once said in reference to the demands placed on professionals that A[they] need to say "no" to requests that will make life worse.”
    According to Milgram’s results, we know it takes a great deal of courage to say “no” to authority figures.  Not only must we cultivate that courage in ourselves, we must honor, encourage, and promote individuals who have the ethical strength to refuse orders that violate professional standards, personal codes of ethics, and basic morality.

---

Contact information:
Deborah Long, DREI, Ed.D.
123 Woodleaf Drive, Chapel Hill, NC  27516
Phone:  919/968-3742       Fax:  866/788-3942

d_long@mindspring.com

---