4.A CPU with 128-bit
multimedia extensions was designed by researchers in 1999.
5.Anglo-Saxon cultures make more use of illustrators than many
Asian cultures.
6. Kinesics is the non-verbal behaviour related to
movement, either of any part of the body, or the body as a whole.
7.In short all communicative body movements are generally
classified as kinesic.
8.There are basically five different types of kinesics;
emblems, regulators, illustrators, affective display and adaptors.
9.Series Frequency Converters can also be used
to convert the available "signal AC" (25 Hz, 100 Hz, 250 Hz, etc.) to
the 120 VAC, 60 Hz needed to provide lighting or power hand tools.
10."straight" and
"reverse" polarity are used.
11.Pottery used for cooking
fish over 12,000 years ago.
12.Smoking can have negative
impact on the kidneys.
13.The
combination of computer and interface controller is called a station.
14.a
quintamillesimal (Q) or LM scale diluting the drug 1 part in 50,000 parts of
diluent.
15.It is illogical that a
process of dilution would arrive at a higher potency.
16.In homeopathy, a solution that
is more dilute is described as having a higher potency, and more dilute
substances are considered by homeopaths to be stronger and deeper-acting
remedies.
17.A 6C
dilution repeats this process six times, ending up with the original material diluted
by a factor of 100−6=10−12.
18.Higher
dilutions follow the same pattern.
19.Some
homeopaths developed a decimal scale (D or X), diluting the substance to ten
times its original volume each stage.
Values and ethics are central to any
organization; those operating in the national security arena are no exception.
What exactly do we mean by values and ethics? Both are extremely broad terms,
and we need to focus in on the aspects most relevant for strategic leaders and
decision makers. What we will first discuss is the distinctive nature of ethics
for public officials; second, the forces which influence the ethical behavior
of individuals in organizations; and third, explore the actions strategic
leaders can take to build ethical climates in their organizations.
THE CHARACTER OF VALUES AND ETHICS
Values can be defined as those things that are important to or
valued by someone. That someone can be an individual or, collectively, an
organization. One place where values are important is in relation to vision.
One of the imperatives for organizational vision is that it must be based on
and consistent with the organization's core values.
In
one example of a vision statement we'll look at later, the organization's core
values - in this case,
integrity,
professionalism,
caring,
teamwork,
and
stewardship-
were deemed important enough to be
included with the statement of the organization's vision. Dr. John Johns, in an
article entitled "The Ethical Dimensions of National Security,"
mentions honesty and loyalty as values that are the ingredients of integrity.
When
values are shared by all members of an organization,
they
are extraordinarily important tools for making judgments,
assessing
probable outcomes of contemplated actions, and
choosing
among alternatives.
Perhaps more important, they put all
members "on the same sheet of music" with regard to what all members
as a body consider important.
The Army, in 1986, had as the theme
for the year "values," and listed
four organizational values-
loyalty,
duty,
selfless
service, and
integrity-
four individual values-
commitment,
competence,
candor, and
courage.
A Department of the Army pamphlet
entitled Values: The Bedrock of Our Profession spent some time talking
about the importance of values, and included this definition:
Values are what we, as a profession,
judge to be right. They are more than words-they are the moral, ethical, and
professional attributes of character . . . there are certain core values that
must be instilled in members of the U.S. Army-civilian and uniformed soldier
alike. These are not the only values that should determine our character, but
they are ones that are central to our profession and should guide our lives as
we serve our Nation.
Values are the embodiment of what an organization stands for, and
should be the basis for the behavior of its members.
However, what if members of the
organization do not share and have not internalized the organization's values?
Obviously, a disconnect between individual and organizationalvalues
will be dysfunctional. Additionally, an organization may publish one set of
values, perhaps in an effort to push forward a positive image, while the values
that really guide organizational behavior are very different. When there is a
disconnect between stated and operatingvalues, it
may be difficult to determine what is "acceptable." For example, two
of the Army's organizational values include candor and courage. One might infer
that officers are encouraged to "have the courage of their
convictions" and speak their disagreements openly. In some cases, this
does work; in others it does not.
The same thing works at the level of
the society. The principles by which the society functions do not necessarily
conform to the principles stated. Those in power may covertly allow the use of
force to suppress debate in order to remain in power. ("death squads"
are an example.) In some organizations, dissent may be rewarded by
termination-the organizational equivalent of "death squad" action. In
others, a group member may be ostracized or expelled.
Group members quickly learn the operatingvalues, or they don't survive for long. To the extent they differ
from statedvalues, the organization will not only suffer
from doing things less effectively, but also from the cynicism of its members,
who have yet another reason for mistrusting the leadership, or doubting its
wisdom.
VALUES PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHAT
IS IMPORTANT FOR THE ORGANIZATION TO SUCCEED IN ITS CORE BUSINESS.
So, there are some disconnects, and
these disconnects create problems. However, the central purpose of values
remains. They state either an actual or an idealized set of criteria for
evaluating options and deciding what is appropriate, based on long experience.
The relevance of the Army's values, for example, is apparent.
When soldiers may be called upon to expose themselves to mortal danger in the
performance of their duty, they must be absolutely able to trust their fellow
soldiers (to do their fair share and to help in the event of need) and their
leaders (to guard them from unnecessary risk). So the Army's values
prescribe conditions that facilitate trust, a necessary element in willingness
to face danger. Without trust, risk tolerance will be low, as will combat
effectiveness.
TO BEHAVE ETHICALLY IS TO BEHAVE IN A MANNER THAT
IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BE RIGHT OR MORAL. ETHICAL
BEHAVIOR IS THE BEDROCK OF MUTUAL TRUST.
So how do values relate to ethics,
and what do we mean by ethics? One of the keys is in the phrase we quoted above
from the DA pamphlet: "Values are what we, as a profession, judge to be
right." Individually or organizationally,
values determine what is
right and what is wrong, and doing what is right or wrong is what we mean by
ethics. To behave ethically is to behave in a manner consistent with what is
right or moral.
What does "generally considered
to be right" mean? That is a critical question, and part of the difficulty
in deciding whether or not behavior is ethical is in determining what is
right or wrong.
Perhaps the first place to look in
determining what is right or wrong is society. Virtually every society makes
some determination of morally correct behavior. In Islamic countries, a
determination of what is right or moral is tied to religious strictures. In
societies more secular, the influence of religious beliefs may be less obvious,
but still a key factor. In the United States much of what is believed to be
right or wrong is based in Judeo-Christian heritage. The Ten Commandments, for
many people, define what is morally right or wrong. Societies not only regulate
the behavior of their members, but also define their societal core values.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" represent core American
values.
Experience often has led societies
to develop beliefs about what is of value for the common good. (Note that
societies differ from one another in the specifics, but not in the general
principles.) One example is the notion of reciprocity. ("One good deed
deserves another.") Another is the notion of good intent. ("A
gentleman's word is his bond.") Yet, a third is the notion of appreciation
of merit in others regardless of personal feelings. ("Give the Devil his
due.")
These all contain implied
"shoulds" about how people interact and behave toward one another in
groups, organizations, and societies. These "shoulds" define collective
effort because they are fundamental to trust and to team relationships that
entail risk. The greater the potential risk, the more important ethical
practices become.
Organizations, to some extent,
define what is right or wrong for the members of the organization. Ethical
codes, such as West Point's "A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate
those who do," make clear what the organization considers to be right or
wrong. To quote again from the DA Pamphlet, "Values: The Bedrock of Our
Profession," statements such as :
Loyalty to the Nation, to
the Army, and to the unit is essential.
Selfless service puts the welfare of
the Nation and the accomplishment of the assigned mission before individual
welfare. All who serve the Nation must resist the temptation to pursue
self-gain, personal advantage, and self-interest ahead of the collective good.
[Integrity] is the basis for trust
and confidence that must exist between the leaders and the led. Furthermore,
integrity is demonstrated by propriety in one's personal life.
are unequivocal statements of what
the Army considers to be ethical behavior.
What does "generally considered
to be right" mean? All one needs to do is to look at the positive values
of society and the organizations one belongs to, and what is right or wrong
should be evident. There is another aspect to be considered, however, and that
is the influence of societal or organizational norms. Norms are the unstated
rules, usually informally reached by the members of a group, which govern the
behavior of the group's members. Norms often have a greater effect on what is
and isn't done by the members of a group than formal rules and regulations.
The reason norms are important for a
discussion of ethics and values is that norms may allow or even encourage
certain behavior as "OK" that is not in keeping with society's or an
organization's stated values. When there is a disconnect between stated and
operating values, it may be difficult to determine what is "right."
An example might be a company that has among its stated values to treat
everyone with dignity and respect, but whose norms have permitted and perhaps
even encouraged a pattern of sexual harassment over a number of years. Do those
in the organization know that the behavior is wrong, but condone it nevertheless?
Is it clear to the Bosnian Serbs that ethnic cleansing is unethical and wrong,
or would it fall under the mantle of behavior that is considered to be acceptable
in that society? Listen to the arguments in support of ethnic cleansing that
have been made, and you will find that many of the perpetrators argued that
they did nothing wrong, and were only righting previous wrongs done to them.
THE PUBLIC TRUST
If ethics and morality are important
for groups and organizations, they should also be important for public
officials, and for very much the same reasons. York Willbern, in an article
entitled "Types and Levels of Public Morality," argues for six types
or levels of morality (or ethics) for public officials. By public officials, he
means those who are in policy making positions in public institutions; in other
words, strategic decision makers in the government, including the national
security arena. The six levels he differentiates are: basic honesty and
conformity to law; conflicts of interest; service orientation and procedural
fairness; the ethic of democratic responsibility; the ethic of public policy
determination; and the ethic of compromise and social integration.
WILLBERN'S LEVEL OF PUBLIC MORALITY
ETHIC OF COMPROMISE AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION
ETHIC OF PUBLIC POLICY DETERMINATION
ETHIC OF DEMOCRATIC RESPONSIBILITY
SERVICE ORIENTATION AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
BASIC HONESTY AND CONFORMITY TO LAW
BASIC HONESTY AND CONFORMITY TO LAW. "The public servant is morally bound, just as are
other persons, to tell the truth, to keep promises, to respect the person and
the property of others, and to abide by the requirements of the law"
(Willbern). In many ways, this level only describes the basic adherence to
moral codes that is expected of all members of a group or society. There are
some basics of behavior that are expected of all if a society is to function
for the collective good. For public officials, there is an additional reason
why it is important to adhere to these basic moral codes and laws: they have
more power than the average member of the society, and hence more opportunity
for violation of those codes or laws. There also is the negative example that
misconduct by public officials provides.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. This relates to public officials, because it deals with the
conflict between advancing the public interest, which a public official is
charged to do, and advancing one's self-interest. The duty here is to ensure
that the public interest comes first, and that one does not advance his own
personal interest at the expense of the public.
Willbern uses embezzlement of public
funds, bribery, and contract kickbacks as examples of pursuing personal
interests at the expense of those of the public. The requirements for public
officials to divest themselves of investments that might be influenced by the performance
of their duties (or put them in trust) and to recuse themselves in situations
where they have a personal interest are designed to help public officials avoid
conflicts of interest. Ultimately, it still comes down to the individual making
an ethical decision.
Avoidance of conflict of interest is
often difficult because it is often hard to separate personal and public
interests, and because individuals as private citizens are encouraged to pursue
private interests through any legal means. One of the areas where there is the
greatest potential for conflicts of interest is where public officials deal
with private organizations which are pursuing their private interests, and
where any decision by a public official on allocation of resources will favor
some private interest. The fields of government contracting and acquisition are
two areas where the possibility of conflicts of interest is high.
SERVICE ORIENTATION AND PROCEDURAL
FAIRNESS. This level relates closely to the
last, and deals with the responsibility of public officials to ensure their
actions serve the public, and that the power they wield is used only for that
purpose. It is easy to abuse the power that comes with public office.
Procedural safeguards are designed to prevent that abuse. The moral obligation
of public servants is to follow established procedures, and not to use their
power to circumvent those procedures for their own convenience or benefit.
Power must be used fairly and for the benefit of the public. One can again
think of examples of public officials who have violated this moral charge by
using their influence and power for their own benefit or for the benefit of
special interest groups, or who have circumvented established procedures for
their own benefit or convenience. One frequent example is the use of government
vehicles or aircraft for nonofficial business.
These first three levels of public
morality share one important characteristic: they all relate to the behavior or
conduct of public officials. These three levels are the areas that get most of
the attention in discussions of ethics, this is where public officials are most
likely to get in trouble. However, there are three additional levels of public
morality equally important. These deal with the content of what public officials
do, "the moral choices involved in deciding what to do, in pursuing
the purposes of the state and the society" (Willbern).
THE ETHIC OF DEMOCRATIC
RESPONSIBILITY. Given that
public officials are operating within a democratic system, they either are
elected by the people or appointed by an elected official. This confers upon
them the obligation to carry out the will of the people. However, public
officials also have the responsibility to make moral choices consistent with
their own values, and that may be in conflict with what they perceive to be the
will of the people.
Willbern contends that the public
official acts according to his or her own judgment, rationalizing that it would
be the will of the people if they were well enough informed on the issue. To
give one example of this level of public morality, consider whether or not the
representative in Congress is morally bound to support policies and legislation
which his constituents overwhelmingly support but he personally opposes.
THE ETHIC OF PUBLIC POLICY
DETERMINATION. This level
involves the most difficult ethical choices, because it concerns making moral
judgments about public policies. The responsibility is to make moral policies;
the difficulty is in determining how moral a policy is. Public policies almost
always deal with very complex issues, where ethical choices are rarely clear,
and it is often difficult to determine if a policy is right or wrong. For
example, many public policies deal with the distribution of limited resources.
Is it right or wrong to slash funding for one program, or to increase funding
for another? In almost any decision, there will be winners and losers, and
there will be some benefit for some and cost to others. "Right" and
"wrong" may not apply. Equity and fairness are important
considerations, but not always easy to discern. The determination of how much
funding to provide for national security, and which social programs to fund,
involves ethical choices of the most difficult type. What is the difference
between equality and equity? Consider the controversy around affirmative action
programs: are they examples of moral public policies?
THE ETHIC OF COMPROMISE AND SOCIAL
INTEGRATION. This final level deals with an area
not as salient as some of the others. It deals with the necessity for
compromise in a society. A society with irreconcilable differences on fundamental
issues will be torn apart. Hence, it becomes a moral obligation of public
officials to engage in give and take, working toward compromise in the policies
they develop. One often sees legislators in our political system establishing
positions where they may not get all they want from particular legislation, but
will settle for some of what they want. Willbern contends that compromise,
rather than standing on principle, is moral, because without compromise there
will be discord and conflict, and disintegration rather than integration of the
society.
Public officials are given the trust
of the public to develop and carry out policies that are in the public's best
interest. Living up to this trust has a significant impact on the national
will; public confidence is essential to the exercise of national power. Public
officials have a moral duty to act in a trustworthy manner.
Why, then, do individuals behave unethically?
One reason is the complexity of the issues leaders deal with, and the
difficulty in many instances of determining which is the most ethical
alternative. There are several systemic factors. One is the competition for
scarce resources. It is easy to slip into unethical acts to gain a competitive
advantage in the race for position or power. A second is conflicting loyalties,
which Johns labels "the most troublesome ethical dilemma facing public
officials." The Iran Contra affair is a case of unethical behavior on the
part of North, Poindexter, Secord, and McFarlane because of misplaced loyalty
to the executive chain of command.
Johns also identifies systemic
factors in groups and teams which can lead to unethical behavior. One is groupthink,
which can occur in a homogeneous group with a strong leader. A second is the
presence of idealogues: individuals who view their own extreme positions as
"right" and any opposing positions as "wrong." A third is
the organization's response to dissent. There are few incentives for "whistleblowers"
or those who try to expose unethical behavior in organizations. Organizational
norms encourage "going along" and discourage questioning the unethical
actions of others. This can quickly compromise ethical standards in any organization.
CAUSES
OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
INDIVIDUAL
COMPLEXITY OF STRATEGIC ISSUES OBSCURES ETHICS
COMPETITION FOR SCARCE RESOURCES/ POWER/POSITION
CONFLICTING LOYALTIES
GROUP
GROUPTHINK
PRESENCE OF IDEALOGUES
NEGATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSE TO DISSENT
ETHICS IN PRACTICE
Kenneth R. Andrews, in "Ethics
in Practice," contends that there are three aspects to ethical behavior in
organizations: the development of the individual as an ethical person, the
effect of the organization as an ethical or unethical environment, and the
actions or procedures developed by the organization to encourage ethical
behavior and discourage unethical behavior.
INFLUENCES ON ETHICAL BEHAVIOR
PRIOR DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL AS ETHICAL PERSON.
THE ORGANIZATION AS AN ETHICAL ENVIRONMENT.
PROCEDURES THAT ENCOURAGE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
Most of an individual's ethical
development occurs before entering an organization. The influence of family,
church, community, and school will determine individual values. The
organization, to a large extent, is dealing with individuals whose value base
has been established. This might imply that ethical organizations are those
fortunate enough to bring in ethical individuals, while unethical organizations
brought in unethical people. But it is not that simple. While the internalized
values of individuals are important, the organization has a major impact on the
behavior of its members, and can have a positive or negative influence on their
values. One example of the development of ethical individuals is the service
academies. In their admissions processes, the academies attempt to get individuals
of good character with the values integral to the military profession. However,
the academies also recognize that their core values may be different than those
prevalent in society, and they devote considerable effort to the development
and internalization of their core values. As is evident from periodic breaches
of integrity at the academies, e.g., cheating scandals, these attempts to
instill core values do not always succeed.
There are three qualities
individuals must possess to make ethical decisions. The first is the ability to
recognize ethical issues and to reason through the ethical consequences of
decisions. The ability to see second and third order effects, one of the
elements of strategic thinking, is very important. The second is the ability to
look at alternative points of view, deciding what is right in a particular set
of circumstances. This is similar to the ability to reframe. And the third is
the ability to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty; making a decision on the
best information available.
ATTRIBUTES
FOR ETHICAL DECISIONS
SEEING SECOND- AND THIRD-ORDER
CONSEQUENCES-"WARGAMING" ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES OF DECISIONS
SEEING ALTERNATIVE POINTS OF VIEW-REFRAMING
DEALING WITH AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY-MAKING DECISIONS
WITH BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE
As important as these individual
characteristics are, the influence of the organization is equally important.
The ethical standards that one observes in the organization will have a
significant effect on individual behavior. "People will do what they are
rewarded for doing" (Andrews). The organization has its greatest impact in
the standards it establishes for ethical and unethical conduct in its formal
reward systems. Informal norms also have a strong influence on individuals'
behavior as do the actions of the leaders of the organization. Strategic
leaders must understand that their actions, more than words alone, will
determine the operating values in the organization.
The influence of the organizational
context is underscored in "Why Be Honest If Honesty Doesn't Pay?" In
this article, Bhide and Stevenson note that there often are no economic or
other incentives to encourage ethical behavior and discourage unethical
behavior. They contend that it most often is the dishonest individual who gets
ahead, and that cases where unethical behavior was punished are far outweighed
by those in which there either were no consequences or unethical behavior was
rewarded. The Gordon Ghekkos of the world (the unethical corporate executive
played by Michael Douglas in the movie "Wall Street") often get
ahead, because they rarely are held to account for their actions.
While these observations might lead
one to a cynical view of ethics in organizations, Bhide and Stevenson come to a
different conclusion. They see room for optimism despite the lack of financial
gain for ethical behavior, or the absence of negative consequences for
unethical behavior. Their reasoning is based in the fact that so many people do
behave ethically, in spite of the apparent lack of gain. Ethical behavior must
be intrinsically rewarding; and most people behave ethically because it's the
right thing to do. People are guided by their personal value systems. They
often "choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong"
specifically because of their intrinsic values of what is right.
Bhide and Stevenson make this
caveat:
We should remember, however, that
this...works only as long as most of us live by an honorable moral compass.
Since our trust isn't grounded in self-interest, it is fragile. And, indeed, we
all know of organizations, industries, and even whole societies in which trust
has given way either to a destructive free-for-all or to inflexible rules and
bureaucracy. Only our individual wills, our determination to do what is right,
whether or not it is profitable, save us from choosing between chaos and
stagnation.
ETHICAL RESPONSES
Chaloupka, in "Ethical
Responses: How to Influence One's Organization," asserts that organization
members have only three choices when confronted with unethical behavior: exit,
voice, or loyalty.
Exit is the most direct response: if you can't live with
behavior that does not meet your own ethical standards, leave. However, exit is
not only a direct response, it is a final one, so the personal and
organizational consequences must be considered. The most important personal
consequences are the costs. Where do you go from there? What other options are
available? How marketable are you? Can you afford the financial loss?
There are specific organizational
consequences as well. Will the ethics of the organization's leaders change?
Will they do business with someone else who doesn't have the high standards you
do? In leaving, one gives up the ability to influence the organization
directly. When considering exit, one must ask, "Could I have had more of
an impact by remaining in the organization and trying to change it from
within?"
Voice. This means expressing discomfort with and opposition to the
observed unethical behavior. To whom do you voice your objections? The obvious
choice is your supervisor. But what if your supervisor condones the unethical
behavior, or worse, is its source? You may be jeopardizing your position, and
maybe your membership in the organization. A second choice is to go to senior
management. This also has potential risk. The senior leadership may be
condoning or even directing the unethical behavior. This action may bring your
loyalty into question. If so, your objections may be covered up or ignored, and
you may end up being forced out of the organization.
On the other hand, it may be that
the senior leadership is unaware of the unethical behavior, and you may have
initiated an organizational response eliminating unethical behavior and
restoring ethical standards. A third option is to go public, to engage in
"whistleblowing." This is also risky, because it can lead to
reprisals with negative consequences. The level of risk depends on the commitment
of the organization to high ethical standards and on its willingness to
encourage whistleblowing in its own best interests. Many organizations have
shown commitment to ferreting out unethical individuals and maintaining high
ethical standards by establishing procedures for anonymous reporting of ethical
breaches and safeguards to protect whistleblowers.
Exit and voice may be combined. An
individual resigns in protest and goes public with his or her reasons for
leaving. This leaves the individual vulnerable to the label of an employee who
quit before being fired, but it also can lead to increased credibility as
someone acting on conviction in spite of personal cost. Exit combined with
voice is most effective if taken by someone at the upper levels of the
organization. An organization can more easily ignore the "exit +
voice" of a lower level employee than it can the resignation of a
strategic leader, followed immediately by a press conference. The widely
publicized resignation of former President Bush from the National Rifle
Association over what he viewed as extreme actions is an example of exit
combined with voice. It undoubtedly had a much greater effect on the NRA than
the resignation of someone less well known and respected. The resignation of James
Webb as Secretary of the Navy is another example of effective exit combined
with voice.
Loyalty. The final response to unethical behavior in an organization
is loyalty. This is the alternative to exit. Instead of leaving, the individual
remains and tries to change the organization from within. Loyalty thus
discourages or delays exit. Loyalty also may discourage public voice, since
being loyal to the organization means trying to solve problems from within
without causing public embarrassment or damage. Loyalty can also encourage
unethical behavior, particularly in organizations which promote loyalty above
all. These organizations discourage exit and voice, and basically want their
members to "go along" with organizational practices. An interesting
question is, "Can an individual be loyal to an organization by engaging in
exit or voice as a response to unethical behavior?"
Chaloupka maintains that both exit
and voice must exist for continued organizational effectiveness. Additionally,
an organization cannot maintain high ethical standards without mechanisms for
eliminating unethical behavior. Also, loyalty is not always a virtue. Loyalty
should be predicated on the organization's ethical demonstration that it is
worthy of loyalty. If the organization condones unethical behavior, it relieves
the individual of any responsibility to be loyal.
BUILDING AN ETHICAL CLIMATE
How can the strategic leaders of an
organization build an ethical climate? Andrews suggests a number of steps that
foster corporate ethics. First are the actions of the strategic leadership and
the way they deal with ethical issues. The pattern of top leaders' behavior
determines organizational values. A second step is to make explicit ethics
policies. Ethical codes are one common example. The next step is to increase
awareness of how to apply those ethical codes. Training on how to deal with
situations with an ethical dimension, and how to anticipate situations that
involve ethical choices, can go a long way toward ethical institutional
practices.
Another step to increase the
salience of ethics is to expand the information system to focus on areas where
ethics may come into play.
Knowing what actually is going on in
the organization is essential to understanding the ethical principles which
govern behavior.
The information system should also
support ethical behavior, and allow the strategic leader to know when or where
there are potential ethical breaches so that corrective action can be taken.
The real danger is that when
unethical behavior is unnoticed, or not punished, members will assume it is
condoned by the organization's leadership.
CONCLUSION
Establishing moral principles means
determining the core values which should guide the organization.
O'Brien suggests four for
consideration: localness, merit, openness, and leanness. By localness, he means
adopting a philosophy of pushing power down to the lowest level possible, and
encouraging initiative and autonomy. By merit, he means directing actions
toward the overall goals of the organization, and what is best for all. By
openness, he means being forthright and honest in all dealings. And by
leanness, he means efficient use of resources and economies when possible.
ULTIMATELY, THE QUEST FOR
ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATION MUST BEGIN WITH A PERSONAL COMMITMENT WITHIN EACH
INDIVIDUAL TO PURSUE MORAL EXCELLENCE.
O'BRIEN
Encouraging leaders to pursue their
own moral development is critical at higher levels because strategic leaders
set the moral climate for the organization. O'Brien believes that moral
development is even more important than professional development.
"Creating a culture based on moral excellence requires a commitment among
managers to embody and develop two qualities in their leadership: virtue and
wisdom." However, creating an organization characterized by moral excellence
is a lengthy process. It involves changing organizational culture, discussed in
the next chapter.
