Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CASE STUDIES
Case Study 6.1 Any Way You Look at It, You Lose: Longshore
Workers versus International Container Services Inc. 183
Case Study 9.2 Wells Fargo: Getting the Ethics You Pay For
290
Figure 0.1
Source: Dilbert cartoon, July 25, 2013.
KPMG: failure to uncover illegal sales practices and corruption in client firms;
collusion with government regulators
Sterling Jewelers (Kay and Jared jewelry chains): sexual harassment, gender
discrimination
United Nations Haitian peacekeeping force: child sexual abuse and rape
Samsung: influence peddling
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical system: falsifying wait times for
patient care
We all pay a high price for unethical organizational behavior. Offending organizations
suffer damaged reputations; declining revenues, earnings, donations, and stock
prices; downsizing and bankruptcy; increased regulation; and civil lawsuits and
criminal charges. Their members may lose their jobs, see their retirement savings
shrink, and end up doing jail time. Outsiders who have a stake or interest in the fallen
organization also suffer. For example, patients taking drugs with undesirable side
effects face a higher risk of death; neighbors near a polluting manufacturing plant
have to live with environmental damage; investors victimized by fraud see their net
worth decline; and needy citizens must do without important services when taxpayer
funds are wasted. In addition, society as a whole suffers because trust in many of
our basic institutions is lost. According to the 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer, there
has been a worldwide “implosion of trust.” In two-thirds of the countries surveyed, the
“distrusters” outnumber the “trusters,” with more than half of the respondents saying
they don’t trust their governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
businesses, and the media to do what is right.1 Such low trust levels threaten the
stability of countries around the world.
Preventing significant harm is one reason why organizational ethics is worthy of your
time and attention; the fact that you will constantly be faced with ethical choices is
another. As a member of an organization, you will make ethical decisions on nearly a
daily basis. Some are obvious, such as whether or not to clock in for a coworker or to
lie to customers. Yet even routine decisions involving hiring, accounting, planning,
manufacturing, and advertising have an ethical dimension. Take the case of a
supermarket produce buyer deciding which fruits and vegetables to sell in her local
stores, for instance. She must weigh several ethical considerations when making
these determinations. For example, should she stock only organic products? Should
she use suppliers who treat their workers poorly? Should local growers be given
priority over distant producers even if the cost is higher? Is price or quality a more
important consideration? Should she use her bargaining power to take advantage of
growers or negotiate agreements that benefit all parties?
Not only will you continually make ethical choices, but those decisions can also
determine your success or failure in your career. Technical skills alone are not
enough to guarantee you a productive future. For instance, accountants at the now
defunct Arthur Andersen accounting firm had all the proper professional certifications.
But, to keep their clients happy and to generate consulting revenue, they signed off
on fraudulent financial statements at Waste Management, the Baptist Foundation of
Arizona, Sunbeam, Enron, and WorldCom. In the end, the company, which was one
of the world’s largest and most respected accounting firms, failed.2
Business ethics professor Lynn Paine argues that moral thinking is “an essential
capability for effective managers and organizational leaders.”3 She contrasts moral
reasoning, which is concerned with ethical principles and the consequences of
choices, with strategic or results-based thinking, which focuses on reaching
objectives such as increasing revenue, finding new distributors, or manufacturing
products. Though distinct, these two strands of reasoning intertwine. As a manager
making strategic choices, you ought to consider important moral principles and weigh
potential ethical consequences or outcomes. If you don’t, your organization (like
Arthur Andersen) may lose the right to operate in a modern society. Conversely, you
must be a good strategic thinker to make wise moral decisions. You have to
understand marketing, production, and organizational design, for example, to
implement your ethical choices.
There’s one final reason that you should focus on understanding ethics in
organizations—you have a duty to do so. I believe that when we enter organizations
as managers, workers, or volunteers, we assume the ethical burden of making them
better places. Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach is designed to help us
carry out that task. But as we take on that responsibility, we need to clear out some
misunderstandings that serve as barriers to ethical change. I call the first of these
myths “There’s nothing to it.” Those who fall victim to this misconception believe that
changing ethical performance is easy or that making moral choices is just common
sense. They are seriously mistaken. Acting morally can be a tough task, as you’ve
probably discovered when you tried to do the right thing in the face of peer pressure
or were punished for telling the truth. At times you will be called upon to put aside
your self-interest to meet the needs of others, to stand alone, and to endure
criticism. You could risk losing your job because you “aren’t a team player” or
because you have to bring organizational wrongdoing to the attention of outside
authorities (see Chapter 7). Further, ethical decisions are complex and often without
any clear answers. They may require choosing between what appear to be two
“rights” or two “wrongs.”
The second myth is “It won’t do any good.” This myth comes out of widespread
cynicism about organizations and stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from
the first misconception. According to this perspective, change is too hard, not too
easy. The individual can have little impact on the ethical climate of an organization.
Organizations are too complicated and have a life of their own. Even people with high
personal moral standards leave their scruples at the door when they go to work.
They end up following company dictates, no matter how immoral.
This misconception contains an element of truth. Situational pressures are important
determinants of ethical versus unethical behavior. In recognition of that fact, a great
deal of this text is devoted to how we can reshape the ethical climates of our groups
and organizations. There is little doubt that many of us do act contrary to our
personal convictions due to outside pressures. However, this myth overlooks the fact
that organizations are the products of choices. Organizations become embroiled in
scandals because individuals and groups decide to lie, steal, abuse their positions
and power, and cover up crimes. The same members that create and sustain
unhealthy practices, values, and structures can develop more productive alternatives.
Granted, your ability to make significant systemwide changes will be limited if you are
a college graduate entering your first job. Nevertheless, you do have the power to
manage your own behavior, and your coworkers will note how you react to ethical
issues. Your influence will likely grow over time, as those with undergraduate and
graduate degrees generally end up in management positions.
If you question the ability of one person to make a difference, consider the humble
origins of Barack Obama. He was the son of a white mother and African father who
abandoned his family. As a child, Obama spent time in both Indonesia and Hawaii,
living either with his mother and sister or with his grandparents. He admits
experimenting with drugs in high school as he struggled to find his identity. It wasn’t
until he enrolled in law school that Obama began to emerge as a leader, becoming
the editor and then the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review.
Later he moved to Chicago to become a community organizer and teach
constitutional law. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate and then to the U.S.
Senate (after first being defeated by a two-to-one margin in a race for a
congressional seat). From there he went on to be elected and reelected as the first
African American president of the United States.
The third myth is “Too little, too late.” Proponents of this view—including some
university faculty—argue that our ethical values and standards are set in childhood.
Studying ethics in college or on the job is a waste of time if that’s the case. If we
don’t have strong values by the time we are adults, coursework will do little good.
Research doesn’t support this argument. Neuroscientists report that brain structures
are malleable, which means that we can improve our moral functioning throughout
our life-spans.4 Psychologists have established that moral development, like physical
and psychological development, continues beyond childhood.5 Discussing ethical
issues in the classroom does increase moral reasoning abilities all the way through
graduate school. Most of us, whatever our stage in life, can point to ways that our
views on moral issues like the death penalty, cloning, gay marriage, stem cell
research, and recycling have changed over a period of years.
The fourth myth is “It all depends.” This myth sometimes comes up at the beginning
of ethics courses and workshops. One or more participants point out that ethical
standards differ between cultures. They argue that what they will learn about ethics in
the upcoming class or training session is of limited use in a global society where the
right behavior depends on the cultural setting. They believe that there are no
universal moral standards and that we should set aside our particular values to fit into
the local culture. Those who adopt this stance are correct in noting that ethical
standards vary between cultures. However, as we’ll see in Chapter 12, there do
appear to be universal moral standards. We shouldn’t go along with some local
practices, such as bride burning and female circumcision. Further, there are
guidelines to help us determine when we should accept or reject local customs.
The fifth myth is labeled “Yes but.” Proponents of this view acknowledge that while
ethics is important, it is not as important as other topics. They argue that time
devoted to studying organizational ethics would be better spent on other subjects
(e.g., public administration, management, financing, accounting, entrepreneurship,
marketing). They object to offering a stand-alone ethics course. As recent scandals
indicate, however, more, not less time, should be spent on moral decision making. An
Ethics Resource Center survey found that misconduct is common in the workplace.
Forty-one percent of business employees reported observing unethical conduct in the
past year (managers were most often the perpetrators), and 26% said the
misconduct is ongoing in their organizations.6 Ethics deserves the same attention as,
say, topics focused on the bottom line.
The sixth and final myth I’ve titled “We can’t afford it.” The argument here is that
adopting high ethical standards is too costly. Adherents believe that ethical
organizations can’t compete in the modern marketplace. Groups that do the right
thing, like refusing to bribe foreign officials to gain contracts, lose out to less
scrupulous competitors. Proponents of this view also point out that unethical behavior
often goes undetected and that good intentions, by themselves, are no guarantee of
organizational success.
There is no doubt that ethical behavior can be costly. Unethical behavior frequently
does go unpunished, and careful planning and execution must back lofty goals.
However, there is evidence that ignoring ethics is costlier than pursuing ethics.
Business ethicists report that, more often than not, it pays to be ethical. High moral
standards and outstanding performance often go hand in hand. Many ethical
strategies and actions—empowering employees, creating a sense of shared mission
and values, demonstrating concern, truth telling, rewarding moral behavior—can
improve employee commitment and productivity. The productivity of the entire
organization improves as a result. In addition, there is evidence that organizations
that strive to be good citizens are frequently (but not always) more successful.
Winners of the prestigious Baldrige Performance Excellence award, for instance,
must demonstrate ethical and social responsibility. Companies adopting the Dow
Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) standards for social and environmental
performance reported a higher gross profit margin and higher return on investment
than similar non-DJSI firms.7
LOOKING AHEAD
This version of Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach incorporates substantive
changes from previous editions. Material on ethical competency has been moved to
Chapter 1. Separate chapters on ethical leadership and followership are combined
into Chapter 7, which now comes before the discussion of ethical group performance.
A new feature titled “Contemporary Issues in Organizational Ethics” has been added
to every chapter. This box highlights special topics, trends, and controversies in the
field. Half of the previous case studies have been replaced, and many of those that
remain have been updated to reflect the latest developments. New cases deal with
computer hacking, fake news, Uber, the Barnum and Bailey Circus, Confederate
monuments, Morning Star, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Theranos, the EpiPen, the
University of Missouri, and Baylor University. Several self-assessments have been
replaced with new instruments. Material on corporate social activism, consumer
boycotts, framing, redefining the followership role, polythink, self-disclosure, universal
dilemmas, and other topics has been added.
The fourth edition also retains several features found in earlier editions. First, as the
title suggests, this is a book about the practice of ethics in all sorts of organizations
(not just businesses). Second, there are plenty of opportunities for the application of
concepts through practical suggestions and chapter-end projects. Third, the text
retains its interdisciplinary focus. In recent years, a significant number of social
scientists have begun to examine ethics in the organizational setting. I cite findings
from the fields of management, moral psychology, education, communication,
neuroscience, marketing, human resources, organizational behavior, accounting,
finance, and social psychology in addition to philosophy. This research is cited in the
notes as well as in the comprehensive reference section at the end of the book.
Fourth, I emphasize self-examination and reflection. There are two self-assessments
in each chapter. Fifth, my goal is to write in a reader-friendly style to make the
discussion of ethics less intimidating. Sixth, I don’t hesitate to reveal my biases. You
are likely to take issue with some of my conclusions. I hope you do. Discussion and
dialogue are essential to the learning process.
Seventh, Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach is organized around levels or
concentric circles of organizational behavior as depicted in Figure 0.2, starting with
the individual and then moving outward. However, in practice, these levels are
permeable, as reflected by the dotted lines that separate them. Each level influences,
and is influenced by, the other levels. A dishonest employee, for example, can
undermine interpersonal communication, promote defective group decision making,
and help create an unethical organizational culture. Conversely, a corrupt
organization can corrupt otherwise honest groups and individuals. The organization
and its members operate in a global society. Cultural values and practices shape the
ethical behavior of organizations and the people that inhabit them. At the same time,
organizations can help reshape the values of the larger society. Each level is covered
separately in the pages to come, but don’t lose sight of their interdependence.
Part I, “Practicing Personal Ethics in the Organization,” examines the skills and
knowledge we need to function as ethical organizational members. Many of the
concepts introduced in this section play an important role in the later sections of the
text. Chapter 1 describes ethical competencies and important ethical perspectives.
Chapter 2 surveys personal moral development, including character development.
Chapter 3 describes moral reasoning and intuition as well as decision-making
processes and formats. Part II, “Practicing Interpersonal Ethics in the Organization,”
looks at the moral issues raised by our connections to other organizational members.
Chapter 4 outlines an ethical framework for interpersonal communication. Chapter 5
addresses questions of power and influence in organizational settings. Chapter 6
examines the practice of ethical conflict management and negotiation, providing
strategies for dealing with aggression and sexual harassment. Part III, “Practicing
Leadership, Followership, and Group Ethics,” focuses on the ethical dilemmas that
are part and parcel of leadership and followership (Chapter 7) as well as
organizational groups and teams (Chapter 8). Part IV, “Practicing Ethics in
Organizational Systems,” examines organizations as integrated units. Chapter 9
looks at the components of ethical organizational culture and cultural change efforts.
Chapter 10 identifies ethical issues that arise when carrying out critical organizational
functions—marketing, finance and accounting, and human resources. Chapter 11
discusses tactics for promoting corporate citizenship. Chapter 12 addresses the
challenges of practicing ethics in an increasingly global society.
Figure 0.2
DIGITAL RESOURCES
SAGE Study Site for Instructors
Chapter Takeaways
Application Projects
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.