IMMENSITY ("Bigness")
There is a common perception that if one commits an unethical act against a large entity, no one will really be harmed. Examples include: padded time sheets and expense accounts; taking office supplies home; cheating on tax returns; and falsifying insurance claims. While very few people would ever consider stealing a neighbor's lawn furniture, a sizable number would think little of taking a set of towels from a hotel room. The first action would cause harm to someone associated with a face and name; the second is a violation of a corporate organization — in the perpetrator's view, a non-entity.
There is also a widely held belief that big means rich, and therefore the large corporation (business, government or church) can easily afford the impact of a "minor" transgression. Unfortunately, people don't realize that such actions become a cost of doing business, which will ultimately be passed back to consumers in the form of increased prices. Eventually, the many must pay for the inconsiderate acts of a few.
"FREE FOR ALL"
No one wants to be left out of a good thing. Regrettably, Americans have been conditioned to view certain goods and services as rights rather than optional benefits. One might reasonably expect to pay for police and fire protection from a local government in the form of taxes; or to receive a fair wage from an employer. But today the governments have nearly an infinite assortment of transfer payments (welfare, AFDC, social security, etc.) and community military bases or other federal installations, and a "pork barrel" mentality beyond comprehension or accountability. Unions have extracted unbelievable, and unaffordable, compensation and benefit packages from major employers. Even non-union workers have no incentives to maintain high productivity levels.
The result of this attitude is best summarized by Howard: "The free lunch mentality has given us public and private debt of a magnitude beyond human imagination." Americans, in a scramble to be included, have become accustomed to receiving things they have neither earned nor paid for, in the mistaken belief there is no cost associated for anyone, e.g., the "free lunch."
COERCION/FEAR
This is perhaps the most reprehensible of all causes of unethical behavior. While it is true that one always has options, the choices may be almost equally distasteful. Some examples include:
- A woman who must choose between sex with her supervisor, or losing her job.
- A politician who must vote against his conscience or the stated preferences of his constituents, or be exposed as a homosexual.
- An employee who must sabotage his company's products, or face striking co-workers with lead pipes in the parking lot.
- While unethical behavior should never be condoned, one must consider how he/she might react under the same circumstances. Consider the plight of a health care worker who sees continued endangerment of patients.
Friedman points out: "...most of us... would like to live in a world in which the choices are clear between right and wrong... the good guys always win, and nobody gets hurt.... The real situation is more likely to be that of a nurse who is the sole support of two young children and who has finally landed a job... she fears that if she turns in Doctor Jones, she is more likely to be censured — perhaps even dismissed — than she is to achieve protection of patients against the good [sic] doctor."
FOLLOWING ORDERS
The first thing that comes to mind for most people with an appreciation of history is a Nazi war criminal. A second thought might be of Watergate or the Iran-Contra affair. In the first situation, it is at least conceivable that the executioners were acting egoistically out of fear for their own lives. The Nazi regime was ruthless and unforgiving of disobedience. The second situations posed only career and status threats to those involved. This is simply an attempt to transfer responsibility for one's actions by assuming a position of duality. As Friedman queries: "If you must take a risk in order to achieve an ethical good, how do you judge the relative consequenses of doing it or not doing it?"
PEER PRESSSURE
As discussed above, peer pressure often serves as a motivational factor for ethical behavior. It can just as easily be reversed. Co-workers can harass one into work stoppages, slow downs or strikes. Unions can enforce arbitrary rules which significantly reduce a person's productivity. Members of an all-white church can compel others to shun non-white neighbors. Again, referring to Maslow's hierarchy, the individual's need for affiliation and esteem causes him or her to remain at or below the second level of ethical development, i.e., "it's not my problem."
Organizational behaviorists use the term "group-think" to explain the dynamics involved. Griffin and Moorhead suggest three conditions which encourage this type of group behavior: cohe-siveness; the group leader's tendency to promote his viewpoint; and the group's insulation from outside influence. Lau and Shani furnish eight symptoms of groupthink, as identified in the figure below.
Of the three types of organizations examined here, groupthink is considerably more prevalent in religion than in business or government. It has a higher probability of nurturing the three conditions cited as fostering groupthink, especially with regard to the leader's sway and insulation from outside influences.
RECIPROCITY
There are two prime examples of reciprocity which clearly illustrate the negative effects of this type of behavior. The first involves the purchase of a used car. The seller may not believe he received a fair value when he purchased the vehicle. Something substantially wrong, but not readily apparent (e.g., transmission), was not disclosed. What is the likelihood the seller will voluntarily inform a prospective buyer of the defect?
The second situation involves malpractice litigation. A patient may have legitimately suffered an unintentional wrong. Rather than accept the fact that the doctor was acting in good faith, the patient elects (often with encouragement from an attorney) to seek damages far in excess of the wrong suffered.
Reciprocal action is based on the concept, "I was wronged, so I will inflict an equal or greater wrong." Ironically, one of the most basic of doctrines, consistent with duality, is that "two wrongs don't make a right."
ECONOMIC/FINANCIAL
Reilly and Kyj maintain: "...people find the ecomonic definition [of behavior] unthinkable as a principle of human decency for a functionally progressive and civilized society." Yet, as much as we protest and deny this during interpersonal exchanges, it is an irrefutable fact that "bottom-line" behavior is the rule, and not the exception, in our society. They elaborate on the differences between individual and corporate deportment.
"To practice the morals of economics or business one must strip oneself of characteristics usually associated with 'the good person.' It may be necessary to deny the meaning and significance of community, eliminate loyalty to employees and suppliers, deceive customers, betray one's country, violate the safety of the environment, and destroy the health and quality of life of the people who live in the environment of one's business. Namely, the pursuit of the interests of the corporation makes all of these realities unimportant if they hinder the corporate self-interest. Economic moral theory values the behavior of 'the good person' only to the extent that it contributes to the self-interest of the firm.... The often stated role of the executive is to 'maximize shareholder equity' as the prime function of management is a restatement of the self-interest principle [i.e., egoism]. Those behaviors that lessen, deter, or stand in the way of this goal are considered 'inefficiencies' to be eliminated by responsible corporate management."
Reilly and Kyj further suggest: "The individual may not be the problem; it may be the system that makes 'good' people 'bad.'" At the personal level, one may have to choose between committing an injustice or losing one's job. In effect, this is another form of coercion, whether or not intended as such.
INEQUALITIES
This situation occurs when the punishment for doing wrong is less than the potential reward for committing the act. We should have learned our lesson after the savings and loan industry collapsed in the mid- to late-1980s. Then there was Enron and Worldcom, triggering passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. That didn't prevent the necessity for the US to spend $700 billion to bail out major American banks and corporations in 2008. The reasons these bailouts occurred at all was there were no prohibitions (laws) for the majority of fateful transactions which took place. To date, none of these corporate executives have been held accountable.
APATHY/INDIFFERENCE
In this circumstance, the individual is basically overwhelmed. There is no sense that any action on his part will make an impact. It is a significant factor in declining American voter turn-out. It is also a result of public castigations of "whistle blowers." Now when people witness corruption or inappropriate behaviors, rarely do they come forth. The belief is that their actions won't significantly change the condition, and in their minds, it certainly is not worth jeopardizing their own situation(job, income,community acceptance, etc.).
In addition, Harris and Brown suggest "The second-phase philosophy of 'live and let live' tends to foster an extreme form of individualism. If one person has no right and certainly no responsibility to judge or attempt to change the behavior of another, then each person is by default granted permission to pursue his or her own goals without regard for the common good." In fact, the individual is between libertarianism and egoism.
Mitchell and Scott summarized this problem quite well: "...the coverage given to miscreant managers by the media has heightened America's awareness of wrong doing by those in power, leaving us with an alienated distrusting populace."
"IT'S THE LAW!"
This is perhaps the ultimate demonstration of duality. Laws (statutes, regulations, court rulings, etc.) are initiated and enforced by special interest groups. There is rarely a thought given to ethical considerations, such as that proposed by Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance." In terms of permutations of ethical behavior, laws are typically egoistic, serving the interest of proponents at the expense of others. Laws are libertarian at best, and self-destructive at worst.
No comments:
Post a Comment