Ethics from Fiction

I am reading a semi-biographical novel titled Shantaram. For quick background:

It is about a man who was sentenced to 19 years in prison in his home of Australia, but he escaped a few years into the sentence and fled to India - Bombay (at the time).  He begins to live a good life in the slums - starts a free clinic for the 25, 000 slum-dwellers, befriends those in the slum and helps all when he can.  Then he eventually turns to crime again (fake passports, exchanging rupees for dollars at different percentage than the banks, etc) for various reasons dealing with his personal safety and protection.

In one scene, Lin (main character) is having a moral discussion with the man training him to do crime in India.  They begin to talk about wrong versus right...an interesting talk if you think of what these two men do for a living.  The leader - Khader - goes on to tell Lin that many people say things are wrong, but those people never seem to know why.  They may attribute it to the Koran, the Bible, the Upanishads or some other text but still cannot say exactly why.  Khader then says that one must ask himself the question: "What would happen if everyone did this thing?" and "Would this help or hinder the movement toward complexity?"

 His point about complexity is that if everyone ran around stealing, killing, etc then we would all be so consumed with worrying about that that we would not be able to move towards "the ultimate complexity...that is God". 

I loved this part in the novel.  And I can take what Khader calls the "ultimate complexity" and frame it around a more secular view.  It is like saying, if we were all consumed and worried because we lived in a (morally or literally) lawless state, then we would be constantly sitting at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid.  We could never reach the top to self-actualization.  It's like having students who are so concerned with feeding their families that my request for them to read The Crucible and understand the finer points of its themes is ridiculous.  That is not on their radar.  They need survival first.

So how can this be brought into business ethics?

If there were no rules - SOX or AICPA, etc - then people would be consumed with the ideas of what is really being done.  Are they being treated fairly? There would be no groundwork to keep that basic level of safety with their finances (their livelihood), so they would not be able to begin moving upwards in trust and would not use CPA's or financial advisors.  People would want to have the trust and feeling of safety, so they'd just prefer to do work on their own (possibly not very well) and do their own planning.  Because of this, I think it is quite essential that we have laws at not only the governmental level, but within that to those who deal with other aspects of our lives.  It lets the rest of us know what is being done and that we are backed up by something and needn't worry - too much.

Medical practitioners have laws (HIPAA), politicians have laws (in theory), so should those who deal with our monetary livelihood.  It is just essential if we want to move forward.

Independence

We began with the question - why are some people willing to go against their own principles and societal norms in order to take actions.  This led us to the expected discussion - people want $$ and they don't think they'll get caught.  But then we went elsewhere and the topic of independence arose. 

The idea is that if you are an independent employee you will not be as likely to fall victim to pressures from employers (or colleagues) to act illegally.  But how can one truly be independent?  You can get fired for going against a boss or ostracized from your co-workers (not a pleasant way to spend your working life).  Well, there is always the "F-This" bank account, as someone in class brought up.  Keep 6 months' to 1 years' salary put away so that you can just quit at any time and never have to worry about being forced to stay in a bad situation.  Not a bad idea.

But what if you just got this job?  Or you've not been able to save up that kind of money yet?  I'm sure many would say that you have no choice, and you've just got to stick it out, do what you're told and hope that later on you can enjoy that dream quitting moment.  But I disagree.  Everyone always has a choice.  The alternatives may be equally unpleasant, but there are choices for every situation in life.  So, you would have to ask yourself one very important thing - how will I feel about myself after making this choice?  I believe so many questions in life can be pared down with such a question.  "Should I have one more drink?"  "Should I take this course?" "Should I do this thing I'm being asked to do?"  All can lead to thinking about how you will feel after the choice.  And, hopefully, people like to feel good about themselves as people.

Ethics and HR

While taking this course I am concurrently studying Human Resource Management, and I came across some interesting ethical issues.  The case study posed to us was that of a woman going through the interview process at her "dream job" company.  The interview had several people present - top-level management along with her potential colleagues.  During this interview she was asked several highly inappropriate questions that were not even relevant to the position.  The company claimed that they asked such questions to see if she'd be easily "thrown off" and that they needed someone who could handle that type of pressure. 

After reading this case study, I spoke with my own mother about the ethical issues often found during the interview process.  She told me of a story in which she was interviewed and the boss asked her if she would ever cover something up (obviously asked it in different wording) to help him and/or the company.  My mother hesitated in answering this awkward question but did eventually say that she would indeed turn him in.  She then told me that the boss was really hoping she would quickly and without pause say that, yes, she'd turn him in - and anyone else.  It was good to hear that employers do value ethics in their employees.  And I suppose it only makes sense...without ethical employees an organization will gain bad notoriety with the public and potentially lose out...big. 

But back to the original case study.  Would I take a job if put in the same situation as the woman in the case study?  If fellow colleagues were allowed to ask inappropriate questions during an interview without recourse from the management, what type of environment would that be to work in? 

My answer:  I'll find another job.

Privately vs Publicly Owned

Our readings continually state that these rules apply for publicly-owned organizations.  But I want to know about private ones.  If a privately owned company is not following through with fiduciary duties or not following corporate governance, what happens to its investors?  Is there any form of recourse for those investors when the top-level is not following good policies and is intentionally taking actions that harm the investor's investments? 

Obviously, this is an ethical issue for the private company, but, as another Ethics Blogger pointed out, ethics are sometimes only as good as the person making the decision. 

There should (and perhaps there are) be controls in place for private corporations as well.  Perhaps I just have yet to learn of them.

A Perceived Effect

In reading our third chapter, I came across a topic of conflict of interest and how "private interests or personal considerations may affect or be perceived to affect and employee's judgment to act in the best interests of the organization".

This idea of a "perceived" effect on an organization and/or a single person in that organization interests me. Does it mean, then that just because it seems to others that I may have a conflict of interest, that I am doing wrong ethically? 

For example:
My cousin owns a company that produces milk.  I am a manager at a small grocery chain.  I am given the task of deciding what products we use to stock our shelves and have been looking at milk producers.  Once I go through the numbers, I find that my cousin's product truly is the best for our store - price, quality, etc.  Is it ethically wrong for me to go ahead and suggest that the chain choose her milk product(s)?  Would it be wrong ONLY if I did not disclose our relationship? 

My opinion is that I should disclose the relationship AND lay out all of the findings for those people making the final decision.  Allow them the opportunity to send in someone else to check up behind my research. 

Is this idea of a negative perception most dangerous, then, for the outer public?  And, thus, can become a harmful perception of the organization as a whole?

I think that must be the main point behind it because there are situations in which the conflict-of-interest decision may very well be the right one.