Who Stands Out?

When you look back on your week, which people stand out in your memory? I just completed a seven day speaking and training tour to Ontario, interspersed with meetings, during which I spoke to hundreds of people. As the aircraft was descending back home in Vancouver, I thought of the people who had made a strong impression on me. I came up with sixteen out of hundreds. I could see their faces clearly in my mind. With the exception of one, who was an unhappy, negative type, they all shared the same characteristic that earned them a special place in my head and heart. I added one yesterday, even though I was already home.

From Patsy, a sixty-something waitress at one of the hotels I stayed at, to Edeltraud, an Austrian exchange student on an aircraft, to Jennifer, my publicist who put the whole tour together and made it all work, Jerry, a highly successful businessman who attended every event in Toronto, and Winston, who went the extra 1000 miles as always, they all shared this characteristic. They stake a claim in your heart that earns them special priority. What is it that these people from such diverse backgrounds do, that sets them apart from thousands of others? How do they manage to get and keep your attention and loyalty?

I think real life examples will clarify my point, so here goes. Joan quietly greases the wheels, spending her own money, caring about everybody and everything, with humility and purpose. Although she is very successful, she understands the big picture and is always there for you. Shawn is constantly checking how he can produce a better video, add value, and make it easier for me to work. Richard is a generous, professional, friendly man who makes friends with everyone and brings light into the darkest room. Brenda is always seeking to direct others to their goals, helping them, encouraging them and gently pushing them. And Andrew gives you the distinct impression that he will have your back in any situation. Perceptive, attentive and sensitive to my needs and the situation. I could go on, but you get my drift?

These people are naturally caring and giving people. They understand at a cellular level that "what goes around, comes around", but that is not their motive. They just care. They like people. They want to help. They are secure and comfortable with themselves. They have high self-esteem that allows them to put their egos on hold. They don't manipulate others or sacrifice themselves like some altruist or mystic - don't misunderstand me - they just care about others and it soon becomes abundantly clear that their motive is pure. They're the Eagles in my life, and I am so grateful to meet and know these wonderful people who are salving balm for the cynicism, greed and dishonesty that is so abundant these days. And they are the type of people who join the DollarMakers Joint Venture Forum. Thank you for being in my life, even if it's only to point out the raccoon in the garden or ask me if I'm thirsty. You're Eagles!

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Who-Stands-Out?&id=953511
entrep

The Business Value of Proper Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is the concept that that a corporation's responsibilities include other stakeholders and includes other responsibilities above and beyond a return for shareholders. These responsibilities include legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities in addition to economic responsibilities (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 31). Other stakeholders could include employees, suppliers, the customers, the community and others. Types of responsibilities the corporation may hold beyond a return for shareholders could include, protecting and or improving the environment where the company operates, improving conditions for the community where the company resides, etc...

Corporate Governance refers the way in which the corporation governs itself. Governance includes the way the company reports earnings, pays Directors, etc... Recognizing that improper governance can have huge consequences for employees and shareholders, the government requires corporations to follow Corporate Governance laws and guidelines that are designed to reduce the risk of fraud, and financial ruins such as those that caused the demise of corporations like Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing.

Solid Corporate Governance that protects investors and employees from accounting fraud, conflict of interest, etc., can be seen as a part of any company that is acting socially responsible. Because a CSR company is acting in a way above and beyond what is required of it by law to protect stakeholders in the company, solid Corporate Governance of a CSR oriented company could be viewed as a way in which the company can ensure that the interests of many directly related and dependent on the company can be protected, including; employees, customers, the communities that depend on tax revenues and employment, etc... Solid Corporate Governance can be seen as an essential first step of any CSR oriented company. Without it, it risks conflict of interest of its board members, CEO, uncertain financial and accounting practices and other risks which could have devastating negative impacts on all stakeholders. For example, Enron's collapse due to failure of Corporate Governance to prevent fraud and deceit hurt thousands of employees, the community of Houston, where most employees lived, the tax revenues that supported public works, the effect on families and couples who lost retirement savings, health insurance coverage, etc... In fact, before Enron's accounting fraud became known, many would have considered Enron a solid socially responsible citizen because of its much recognized funding of museums, hospitals and many other organizations in the community where they operated (p. 163). However, all the communities would have been better off in the long run, if Enron had never contributed a dime to these social responsible activities, but had rather provided solid Corporate Governance over its internal operations. If Enron had done this, thousands would not have lost jobs, communities would have maintained higher tax revenues, retirements would have been more secured for thousands, health insurance would have been secured by many more, returns would have been higher for investors and shareholders, etc...

Corporate Governance should be seen as a top priority of any company seeking to be a good corporate citizen. More good can be done by a company ensuring solid corporate governance, than other activates usually seen as important for Socially Conscious organizations. Furthermore, more pressure should be exerted on organizations to establish good social governance than should be exerted on companies to sponsor other socially responsible activities and stakeholders in communities, the press, the government, etc., should also recognize and applaud companies who may put more effort on Corporate Governance although they may lack other social activities. Governance should be seen ad rewarded as the top priority.

References:

Trevino, L., and Nelson, K., (2005). Corporate social responsibility and managerial ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Business-Value-of-Proper-Corporate-Social-Responsibility&id=934416
continuity disaster recovery

Christians In Business- The Importance Of Integrity

The importance of Iitegrity for Christians in business. One of the most obvious characteristics of a Christian in business should be integrity. Unfortunately, too many Christian business owners and Christian employees fall into the commonly accepted trap of "graying" the line between right and wrong. If you're a Christian in business, and you're concerned about what kind of witness you make for Jesus, you'll want to closely guard the level of integrity in your life, both at home and in the marketplace.

According to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia - http://en.wikipedia.org - integrity is "the basing of one's actions on an internally consistent framework of principles." This means that living with integrity ensures that everything you do and believe is "based on the same core set of values."

What are our core values as Christians? There are many we could choose, but the Ten Commandments give us a good starting point. Put God first. Don't take the Lord's name in vain. Don't lie, steal, commit adultery, etc.

So, to live with integrity means that--if you believe it's wrong to steal--you NEVER steal. Not even a pencil from the office supply cabinet at work, or an added hour of time from your client. Or if you believe it's wrong to lie, you NEVER lie. Not even a "little white lie" as to why you missed your latest deadline or why you came into work late *again.* (This doesn't mean you have to be so brutally honest you hurt someone's feelings by telling her that her new haircut really looks horrible!) Or if you believe you shouldn't use the Lord's name in vain, you NEVER use the Lord's name in vain. Not even when someone makes you really angry. It means that you do what is right because it's right... even it's uncomfortable, or even painful, for you.

For Christians, living with integrity is absolutely essential. Integrity ensures you have a solid witness with your family, friends and business associates. Integrity gives you credibility in all areas of your life. And integrity is what will help convince your non-Christian friends and loved ones of your sincerity when you share the gospel with them.

Are you living with integrity? Here are a few examples of what "lagging" integrity looks like.

Do you ever...

* "borrow" money or supplies from an employer or client?

* "forget" to include some of the income you earned on your tax return?

* take longer lunch periods than you're allowed without permission or charge a client for time not actually worked?

* pad your expense report with unauthorized charges?

* use a company-assigned vehicle for personal use?

If you see any of these actions in your own life, begin immediately to correct those behaviors. Allowing your integrity to falter in even the smallest aspect of your personal or business life harms your Christian witness among your clients, co-workers, family and friends. Not to mention the hurt it brings to our Heavenly Father.

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Christians-In-Business-The-Importance-Of-Integrity&id=948816
change management

How Poor Business Ethics Led To The Collape Of Enron Ethics

The Enron Corporation was one of the largest companies which sold electricity and natural gas, distributed energy and other services like bandwidth interest connection and provided risk management and financial services to consumers the world over. This company became rich because of its initiative marketing and endorsement of power and communications bandwidth services and risk management offshoots. All these services were supervised by the operations management department but there existed other management departments which carried out half of their functions. Though these functions were purely executive in nature, there was lack of integrity, responsibility, creativity and control. The absence of these ethics led to the bankruptcy of the company. In other words, Enron ethics was ignored by the employees while working.

In an organization, the functions of the operations management department should consist of ethical values, integrity, competence and clear accountability of term papers. But Enron did not abide by these functions which led to its bankruptcy. We may say that the company's employees lacked Enron ethics. As the company's reputation grew in the global world, the competition within the employees rose and hence individual greed also generated in the atmosphere of the company's egotism. Every employee wanted to make it big, achieve a lot within the company, and thus there was high motivation to succeed and earn more. But in such an atmosphere, the tendency to distrust people around is high as each is only concerned about themselves. With the mistrust among the employees booming, highly confidential term papers got used in trade contracts. Thus, trading contracts were made in secret and its admission was also kept undisclosed. Dealings in the finance section grew rapidly without paying much attention towards the company's goals. Hence, the employees had started to ignore Enron ethics.

As a result, we cannot say that the problem rose due to the accounting practices only. It is not the financial department which is to be blamed solely. The problem which led to the bankruptcy of the company lay in the operations management department. On one side, Enron was gaining praises from the outsiders and on the other side, it was full of decentralized financial control and decision making structure which gave an illogical and unclear picture of the company's activities and operations. But we cannot say that the managerial performance was poor but the departments were ruining the ethical values and principles of the company. It was the duty of the managers and directors to check whether Enron ethics is being followed in their company or not. If they had supervised properly then they could have escaped from this bankruptcy tragedy.

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Poor-Business-Ethics-Led-To-The-Collape-Of-Enron-Ethics&id=951763
fundraising

Loose Ips Sink Privilege - Profile Of Legal Professional Privilege And Spiritual Connotations

WE LIVE IN A WORLD of "all or nothing" at times, don't we? For instance, the legal world operates this way around the subject of legal professional privilege (LPP)-the right to seek legal opinion to protect information, and the advice sought. But, there's a catch...

Give a little away, and you give the lot away.

The problem is LPP can be waived. This 'privilege' can, in other words, be given up. Waiving LPP by disclosing information (even only a little information) is quite a foolish business or personal practice, and is often only recognised in hindsight.

To illustrate the matter, the Australian Wheat Board (AWB), in its dealings in Iraq, appears to have made important information, which could have been subject to LPP at a later date, available for subpoena by the Federal Court; all because it divulged the 'gist' of its findings and advice to the Commonwealth Government and the Independent Inquiry Committee of the United Nations (IIC) after commissioning its own internal inquiry into the scandal in 2003.

Contrary to the many who might think the law is an ass, it seems to me that the law is a complex system set up on the 'rules' of wisdom, rules that can often appear invisible until it is "too late"--without the crucial benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

The core of the matter seems to be around comments made relating to courses of action that may or may not be taken from the legal advice that is given. Commenting that a particular course of action is taken because of advice would threaten LPP; the protection of the information. The general message is, "The less said, the better LPP is protected." Government personnel seeking legal advice are often referred to the State Solicitor's Office, so LPP can be protected. It is almost a case of "'getting advice' before getting advice."

In the biblical wisdom of Proverbs, King Solomon is attributed for saying words to the effect, "All who act prudently protect knowledge, but fools expose their folly."

Further again, Proverbs 14:8a says, "The Wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways." And at risk of overstating the point, we find written again in Proverbs 12:23, "The prudent keep their knowledge to themselves, but a fool's heart blurts out folly."

The central message seems to be that we can act in one of two ways when it comes to knowledge. We can either act in consideration of known factors, and more importantly, in consideration of possible unknown factors, or we can simply exercise some level of blind (bad) faith, which implicitly is not qualified in knowledge but may be supported in some other level of 'truth'-for instance, one's (often) skewed perception. This would be risky, and by definition, "foolish." This behaviour is the direct opposite of diligence. In legal terms, we cannot afford anything else but a complete commitment to diligence.

Giving 'thought to one's ways' implies a humble honesty and a healthy guarding, and respect, of the truth, or at least one's view of the truth i.e. perception. In other words, it is acknowledging that one's perception is often skewed, even slightly. In response, it is prudent to give thought to one's ways-not doing so is dangerous. Accounting for a skewed perception, wise advisers are crucial i.e. advice.

Perhaps the illustration of LPP is really about having foresight of potential consequences; of future outcomes. Isn't foresight inherent in wisdom?

So, what is the general message here for us? We might not all be in the position to need or require LPP in our daily affairs, however, we will often assert a particular position out of a lack of prudence, and that can have damaging consequences within a familial or business context. We must learn to respect knowledge and the power of information, guarding truth tightly and thereby protecting relationships and therefore life.

Perhaps one further Proverb would be an appropriate place to finish: "The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty."

© Steve J. Wickham, 2008. All rights reserved Worldwide.

R. King, "Loose lips sink privilege" in Government Risk Management (Vol. 8, Iss. 15, August 2007) p. 8-9.

See Proverbs 13:16 in the Today's New International Version. The actual rendering in the TNIV is, "All who are prudent act with knowledge..."

Both 14:8a and 12:23 are from the TNIV.

P.E. Koptak, NIV Application Commentary: Proverbs (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2003), pp. 343, 360, 375.

The distinction here is "knowledge" means something that is actually true.

Koptak Ibid., 340-43.

Proverbs 22:3 TNIV.

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Loose-Ips-Sink-Privilege-Profile-Of-Legal-Professional-Privilege-And-Spiritual-Connotations&id=946037
change management

The Ethics Dilemma

In Justice Gomery's final report, he observed that "only a handful of government officials failed to live up to (ethical) standards in the Sponsorship program". Most of us in business or government have faced situations where our personal principles have come under attack yet, unlike that handful, we successfully resisted temptation. Further, some of us may have faced personal risk standing up for our convictions, taking responsibility, and holding ourselves accountable for our actions.

But is there a point where we might start to bend or even break as they did?

A 2005 global study of over 1100 managers and executives, commissioned by the American Management Association, (with which Canadian Management Centre is affiliated), identified the top three factors most likely to cause business people to compromise ethical standards. All three impact most of us from time to time, so it would be an unusual person who would not have experienced temptation. The factors, in order, are:

1. Pressure to meet unrealistic business objectives/deadlines
2. Desire to further one's career
3. Desire to protect one's livelihood

So here is a theory. Model the dynamics that put pressure on people's ethics and you have an early warning of possible problems.

Dynamic A is Pressure. Sometimes the pressure to compromise comes at a person externally on vectors such as:

• Urgent timing, "I don't care what the policy book says, I need your decision now."
• Entrenched opposition that can be avoided, "HR won't find out till it is too late"
• Superiors or colleagues, "If you don't do this, we'll all pay a price"
• Critical impact, "National unity is at stake here"
• Competitor's tactics, "Competition gives them money under the table. We have no choice."

Any single one of these, let alone a combination, can isolate a person on ethical grounds.

Dynamic B is Personal Benefit. Even scrupulous people generally look at choices through a lens of self-interest that includes:

• Financial gain
• Financial risk
• Reputation
• Career and stature
• Power and influence

The greater the personal upside or downside associated with a decision, the more internal pressure will build to compromise on honesty and ethics.

When you buy a house from a vendor with hundreds of thousands of dollars and their personal life plan at stake, who is represented by a commissioned salesperson, you know it is wise to get a home inspection done. Buying a used car? Take it to a mechanic you trust first. Interviewing a job applicant who is currently out-of-work? Check references.

These are commonplace, small town, daily examples of a recognized need for safeguards against unethical behaviour by ordinary people when pressure and self-interest intersect. We understand the need to watch out at that level. But when we learn that "a handful" of the participants in multi-million dollar transactions in the colossally critical and legacy-charged national unity debate behaved badly, we have the right to be dismayed but not surprised.

Millions of dollars spent on the Gomery Inquiry has yielded recommendations the country is glad to see. In the clear absence of a sense of personal accountability, the only solution is a body of constraints. But there is a danger now that associated bureaucracy will inflict cumbersome and stultifying rules and procedures on transactions in the matrix's green low risk boxes. These transactions have neither materiality nor external pressure nor sufficient personal benefit to the buyer or seller to pose much of a risk.

As an example of unnecessary procedure, in one recent situation, Canadian Management Centre was presented with a complicated federal government RFP that would have required us to invest days of preparation and would require the government people days of due diligence -- all for a $6000 contract. We declined to pursue the RFP. There was no pressure and only incidental benefit, not enough justification to warrant the trouble of proving our qualifications beyond the shadow of a doubt

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Ethics-Dilemma&id=933741
customer services

Governments and Banks - Who is in Who's Pocket?

We often don't see the connection between the banks and our governments, because we have been sold the fiction that our government is all powerful, and the banks do what they are told.

Yeah, right! The power sits firmly where the money is, and that's with our old friends the bankers. The Governments of this world do what they can to ease the flow of money into the banker's coffers.

Witness two recent stories about the British Government that will leave you in doubt that it is always the bankers' interests that come first, regardless of the detrimental effect on the people and the public purse.

The first story will quite obviously be the Northern Rock fiasco. £25 billion of tax payers money used to shore up a corrupt, mismanaged business. And our money will be paid back (hopefully) within 5 years. However, what our £25 billion does, is allow already filthy rich bankers and business people to buy what's left of the Northern Rock without taking on its debts and being able to keep all the profits!

Indeed and, this helps the British taxpayer how? Of course, this scheme was dreamed up by the bankers at Goldman Sachs, and of course the bankers were looking to get the best deal for themselves and their cohorts, the British public be damned.

Oh and yes, this deal has been presided over by the UK government, Prime Minister Brown and his Chancellor in particular.

See more on this story at the Times here.

The second story about how the government bends over backwords to help the banks fleece us regards debt relief for people who find they are currently unable to pay their bills.

Currently, we have a system of Adminstrative Orders, which are long term debt management plans administered by the courts. Under these plans all interest on debt is suspended in return for people paying a set amount every month.

So, what would our helpful government like to introduce? New rules being proposed by the Government would enable consumers struggling to pay debts to apply for a court order to have a repayment break.

Repayments could be suspended for up to a year, but interest rates would continue to accrue. The orders will not be allowed to include such debts as mortgages, child maintenance and student loans. And, AND there would be a fee for taking out such a court order.

I'm not sure I see the upside here! However, the Chief Justice Minister Bridget Prentice says 'Debt's a problem that can affect anyone at any time. We want to ensure people who run up debts are given every opportunity to pay them off'.

Good for her.Good for the banks. Good for you? I'm not so sure. After all, even though you're taking a 'repayment debt', the total you owe will be higher at the end of the break. Under the current system, no further interest is added to your debts, it's clear which option serves you and your financial health best.

This administration has presided over policies and actions that have resulted in the UK having a current deficit of £43.6billion. They are further saddling us with another £25billion debt to cover the Northern Rock fiasco. This is money they don't have because of the profligate spending this government embarked upon since taking office with Tony Blair back in 1997.

The next budget is not going to be able to do anything to stimulate our stagnant economy, no tax cuts, no government spending, because there's nothing left! And who are we in hock to? That's right, the banks!

Isn't it time to step out of such a travesty of a democratic system. We pay over 60% in taxes, do you like where your money is being spent? We then have to try and afford a decent lifestyle even when faced with predatory lending practises and corporate greed.

Take a stand, open you eyes and see what's really going on. Opt out of the bankers game, opt out of governmental control. Take small steps forward, but move forward to freedom

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Governments-and-Banks-Who-is-in-Whos-Pocket?&id=946338
Business online blog

Your Ethical Self and the Larger Question of Business Ethics

We see and read about what appears to be obvious lapses of ethical behavior almost on a daily basis and ask "how is that possible"? It appears obvious to anyone learning about these stories for the first time that there was a breech of what is appropriate behavior and we wonder how so many people could be so unethical. We also believe that we certainly would act differently if we were in the same situation.

One reason why otherwise normal individuals may be caught in unethical behavior is because of a social learning process that occurs in all teams and groups. Members of teams and groups learn acceptable and expected behavior by other members and leaders of the team. Over time, a culture evolves that either encourages or discourages certain behavior. Members are even pressured either consciously or subconsciously to conform to what is accepted by the larger group. If the social group in which an individual belongs does not punish negative behavior, or even reinforces inappropriate behavior through the use of direct or indirect rewards, many people who may not behalf inappropriately in normal circumstances, may cross the line and behalf inappropriately in other circumstances.

The Tailhook Association is an association of naval aviators whose annual convention became the center of a sexual scandal because of the 90 sexual harassment charges that resulted from their 1991 convention. In all, 140 aviators were charged. While these men were not participating in such behavior outside of the convention, while at the convention, they felt their behavior was appropriate and undeserving of punishment. These types of incidents had long been known to those in the Navy and those familiar with the organization. The group never had been disciplined for treating women inappropriately.

In fact, most everyone in the military accepted the behavior as appropriate for this type of group and convention. Over the years, a culture had developed within the group that permitted sexually inappropriate behavior to occur. While no one in command would have explicitly rewarded the activity, no one would reprimand anyone for it either. Because it was permitted, the convention became a safe haven for behavior that would have been considered inappropriate in other circumstances. Members "learned" through the lack of punishment and through the tacit acceptance of the behavior that the behavior was accepted and even expected at a Tailhook Convention. It was a place where they could "let their hair down" and have fun, even though they may not have acted the same elsewhere. (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 169).

The public was outraged as to how the men could act the way they did and how the Navy could have allowed such behavior to continue. While the activities seemed obviously inappropriate and unethical to anyone learning about the story for the first time, very few of the men were ever seriously held accountable for the incident. How could the group have developed a culture of such inappropriate behavior? Because, the individuals in the group had received reinforcement through many years of the organization that such behavior was accepted and even expected at Tailhook Conventions. The military did nothing to stop it, which actually encouraged the behavior more. After 1991, they slowly began to change, but still took no drastic action to discipline those involved. This lack of discipline likely reinforced the viewpoint of those involved that the behavior was acceptable and should not be punished.

The implications for other organizations and managers are clear. Rewarding unethical behavior will reinforce the behavior within the organization. Furthermore, even looking the other way and allowing the behavior to continue is a form of reward because it sends the message that the behavior is acceptable. Over time, the behavior can be ingrained in the culture and individuals, who otherwise would otherwise not do so, may begin to feel pressure to conform. Managers must not allow unethical behavior to continue without taking action to correct it. This should include taking actions against those who participate. If the Navy had taken action to punish those involved in sexual harassment at the convention, a clear message would have been sent that the behavior would no longer be accepted, and improvements in behavior may have begun to occur. The same in true in all organizations; managers that may look the other way, while inappropriate behavior occurs in their teams, are inviting unethical behavior to become part of the learned organizational behavior of their teams. Unless, they act to prevent and correct unethical behavior, individuals will continue and new members will be taught and encouraged to begin unethical behavior.

References:

Trevino, L., and Nelson, K., (2005). Corporate social responsibility and managerial ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Your-Ethical-Self-and-the-Larger-Question-of-Business-Ethics&id=934358
accounting payroll news

8 Steps to Prevent Common Ethical Lapses in Organizations

A review of case studies of ethical problems various organizations have encountered show that many common ethical problems that organizations find themselves facing arise from individuals protecting their own financial benefit and/or the short-term economic goals of their organizations and not protecting other key stakeholders of the business or organization. Organizations can avoid serious consequences by considering the consequences of their actions to six key stakeholders, including; business partners, customers, employees, opinion formers, community and authorities (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 196). By analyzing decisions using these six groups as a guide; "one can begin to identify how a variety of calamities might affect a company's reputation and the value of its brand, and how much those calamities might cost" (p. 196).

By reviewing how companies have both effectively and ineffectively responded to severe ethical dilemmas, leaders of organizations can identify 8 steps for preventing ethical dilemmas in their own organizations.

1. Top down responsibility for ethical behavior must exist within an organization. The head of the organization must take responsibility to manage the ethical behavior of the organization. This responsibility cannot be delegated. Furthermore, this responsibility cannot be downplayed to a lesser role than other key leadership responsibilities, such as, short term profits. Top leadership must set the ethical tone of the organization. They must communicate their vision regarding ethical behavior to employees often and with as much emphasis and clarity as they do with other organization goals. The leader cannot leave the ethical tone of the organization to chance or to others within the organization.

2. Organizations must design a code of ethics for the organization. This code should be developed with input from a broad section of individuals within the organization. It should be distributed to every member of the organization and referred to often in training and other types of communication to employees so that it is not just a manual that sits in a file but is seen as a valid document for answering questions regarding what is accepted and not accepted as appropriate behavior within the organization.

3. Policies must be established and reinforced in the organization regarding how to report ethical abuses. Employees must understand how to report problems and know that they can do so without fear of retribution. Care must be taken that this is not just a theoretical exercise but that examples of real reporting be given and employees are rewarded for reporting ethical dilemmas.

4. Ethical responsibility must be taught to members of the organization. This must be done in various settings including on boarding of new employees, ongoing workshops, business meetings, round-table discussions with leaders, newsletters, websites, etc... Training should include case studies where employees must examine and discuss ethical dilemmas that they realistically might face and possible actions they should take. These case studies should include real cases that have occurred or theoretical cases that may occur in the organization so individuals can understand the proper way to handle real life issues. Employees must clearly understand what they have a shared individual ethical responsibility to each of the stakeholders along with the responsibility of the organization.

5. Practices must be incorporated to ensure that discussions regarding ethics are included in the decision making process. For example, a "devil's advocate" should challenge decisions in order to explore whether unforeseen stakeholders may be jeopardized as a result of the decision; or decisions should be reviewed by an ethics committee or department to evaluate whether other stakeholders may be at risk. The practice of questioning decisions and openly exploring their consequences must be encouraged and rewarded.

6. Accountability for ethical behavior must be taken seriously by all levels of the organization. Unethical behavior should be punished and not allowed to continue. Ethical behavior must be rewarded. Performance management systems should include ethical behavior as well as other key aspects of job performance. Those higher in an organization should be punished equally as those lower in the organization. In fact, it could be justified to punish those higher in the organization more severely than those at entry level positions because they should know better and because of the example it sets for others in the organization.

7. Organizations should act swiftly to protect stakeholders when dilemmas occur. Contingency plans should be made for dealing with a crisis in order to act quickly to protect stakeholders in times of emergencies.

8. Members of the organization must know that their primary responsibility is to defend and maintain the high reputation of the organization at all times. Leaders should encourage standards of behavior to be set higher than what the law requires. What is lawful should be considered a minimum standard; however, standards should be set higher than this minimum in order to enhance and protect the reputation of the organization. Conduct below that standard should not be accepted and raising the bar higher should be rewarded and recognized by senior leaders.

References:

Trevino, L., and Nelson, K., (2005). Corporate social responsibility and managerial ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?8-Steps-to-Prevent-Common-Ethical-Lapses-in-Organizations&id=934381
entrep

Individual Responsibility and Ethics in the Organization

In modern corporations responsibility for actions become easily diffused so that "the individual often becomes disconnected from the consequences of his or her actions and doesn't feel personally responsible for them" (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 181). There are many reasons why responsibility is easily diffused in modern organizations including the fact that management may tell individuals it is not their responsibility and that they will take care of it, because it is often "shared with others in decision-making groups, obscured by the organizational hierarchy, or diluted by psychological distance to potential victims" who will suffer the consequences of the actions (p. 181).

Many organizations have faced downsizing in recent years. Many of these examples can be used as an example of how responsibility for negative actions can be dispersed within an organization. For many years, I was a manager of an international training team for a large pharmaceutical company. Because of budget constraints it was decided that my team would have to be downsized. While our team was based in Europe and the Middle East, the world wide headquarters of the organization was based in New York City. It was determined that the decision of who would be cut from the team would be made with input from myself, the senior leaders of the training group, HR and senior managers of the region. I was the only individual who knew these individuals on a personal basis. All the others only knew them from a distance as they were each based in New York City.

As their immediate manager and because I lived in Europe and worked with them on a daily basis, I was asked to provide my recommendations of who should be let go based on performance and capabilities. I gave this decision a lot of thought knowing that I would have to justify the decision. I sent my recommendation to my manager in New York, based past performance reviews, feedback from the business partners who worked daily with the individuals, and the level of commitment and performance they had demonstrated. To my surprise, the final decision came back to let two of the individuals go that I had recommended to keep. In the end, the group making the decision also included information such as salary level, expense of keeping individuals in certain countries etc...

The recommendations I made went ignored. In addition, the team decided that each individual would be notified by email. In addition, the top performer of my team, a Turkish citizen living in Brussels would be repatriated to Turkey for several months and then let go. I soon discovered that because Turkey had no law that required a severance payment to be made, unlike the European Union, which required a large severance to be paid to each individual. When I protested about the decision criteria, each individual on the team claimed they made the decision as a team using guidance from other groups within the company. No one would take responsibility for the decision because the responsibility had been diffused to other team members and procedures made by other departments higher in the company. In addition, all the other decision makers where both physically and emotionally detached from the individuals affected by their decision, so they felt no emotional connection to them.

The only explanation that I was given was that this decision was made based on which what would be best for the largest amount of people. They were using consequentialist thinking to make their decision, claiming that the team could run more economically with the people who were to stay irregardless of the fact that two of the best people would be let go and the Turkish citizen would not be allowed a severance package like the European team members would receive. Because this decision was seen as unjust and severely damaging to the most capable of team members, me and several other team members soon left the company. Training suffered and they were unable to recruit other training professionals from within the company. While no one individual took ultimate responsibility the consequence to the department was devastating and long lasting References:

Trevino, L., and Nelson, K., (2005). Corporate social responsibility and managerial ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Individual-Responsibility-and-Ethics-in-the-Organization&id=934365
careersemp loyment

3 Approaches To Ethical Decision Making And My Ford Pinto

Since my first car was a Ford Pinto, I have always been interested in the Ford Pinto explosions that were caused by a defective gas tank design provides an interesting case study into approaches to ethical decision making. There are three possible approaches to make when making ethical decisions; a consequentialist approach, a deontological approach and a psychological approach. In a consequentialist approach, the decision maker would base their decision by focusing attention on the consequences of their action (Trevino and Nelson, 2005, p. 89). In the deontological approach, the decision maker would base their decision by focusing on what is right or wrong based on common values and rights of individuals and/or groups (p. 91). A decision maker basing their action on a psychological approach may vary their actions based on the level of their cognitive moral development (p. 115).

In the Ford Pinto case, an individual who took a consequentialist approach could easily make the decision which Ford did and produce the car despite the possibility of having the gas tank explode on low speed rear-end collisions. Furthermore, they would likely agree with Ford that the car did not need to be recalled once it was on the market. A decision maker using the consequentialist approach would look at the consequences for the broadest number of individual and groups as possible and make their decision based on doing the least harm and the most amount of good to all. Since the data should that there were no more accidents with the Pinto than with other vehicles and the companies stakeholders would greatly benefit from keeping the costs low and bringing the car to market as fast as possible; they easily could have decided that the most benefit would come from going ahead with the design since there would be many who would benefit and likely no more than what existing standards permitted would be harmed.

On the other hand, a decision maker using the deontological approach would easily have decided not to move ahead with production and/or to recall the car once it was on the market. Since this individual would base their decision on a set of moral values and/or the rights of individuals, they would likely argue that the car should not be produced unless the rights of the minority group who would be harmed could be assured.

The results of a decision of an individual following a psychological approach would vary depending on their level of cognitive moral development (p. 115). If for example, they were at a preconventional level they likely would have agreed to move forward with the sale of the Pinto and/or not to recall it from the market because they would have been highly influenced by others in the company. They would have feared punishment from management or they would have hoped that by supporting the majority opinion that they would have been rewarded in some way. Even if the individual was at the conventional level they might still not have decided to redesign the Pinto's tank. While striving for "good behavior" they would have been highly influenced by the majority of decision makers in the company and not gone against their will. They also would have followed the "letter of the law" which supported the case of not needing to make a change to the design. Only if they had a highly developed postconventional or principled level of moral development would they have felt the need to go against the trend within the company in order to uphold the rights of the minority "regardless of the majority opinion (p. 115).

By the way, I survived my 1974 Ford Pinto! Thank goodness I wasn't rear-ended!

References:

Trevino, L., and Nelson, K., (2005). Corporate social responsibility and managerial ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Franchising