• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Ethical Action:

Real and perceived

by Simon Longstaff

One of the enduring choices to be faced by individuals and organisations is between acting ethically and merely appearing to do so. This has been attested to for millennia.

Marx (Groucho) opined that if you can fake sincerity, then you've got it made! Machiavelli advised the Prince that his interests would best be served by seeming to be virtuous without necessarily having his hands tied by being so. Even Plato takes up the issue in the Republic. For example, here is Adeimantus, one of the characters in the dialogue, making out the case for appearances:

For what men say is that, if I am really just and am not also thought just, profit there is none, but the pain and the loss on the other hand are unmistakable. But if, though unjust, I acquire the reputation of justice, a heavenly life is promised to me. Since then, as philosophers prove, appearance tyrannises over truth and is lord of happiness, to appearance I must devote myself. I will describe around me a picture and shadow of virtue to be the vestibule and exterior of my house; behind I will trail the subtle and crafty fox, as Archilochus, greatest of sages, recommends. But I hear some one exclaiming that the concealment of wickedness is often difficult; to which I answer, Nothing great is easy.

We live in a time of heightened awareness of ethical issues. Whatever the reasons for this being so (and they are varied and complex), the evidence suggests a renewed and growing interest in the character of our institutions and their actions. Some might see all of this as providing a challenge for the image-makers. There must be a temptation to turn the problem over to specialists offering the prospect of manufacturing a face that fits the fashion of the times. The trouble is that the image-makers now have to contend with a highly cynical public that has re-defined the terms of debate.

The key to understanding the change can be found in Hugh Mackay's research into public perception of corporate ethics. Mackay's research indicates that members of the community tend to think that people in business regard ethics as an ‘optional extra’ . Furthermore, he reports that the level of scepticism about the ethics of business is so high that people automatically ‘discount’ public claims made about the importance of values to a corporation.

Instead of being swayed by images dreamed up by advertising executives, or by glossy codes of conduct, people apply a simple two-part test when trying to assess the ethics of an organisation.

The first question to be asked is by a person is: How do members of this organisation treat me?

Am I treated as if I really matter? Is trouble taken to assess my individual needs and preferences? Or, am I treated according to some sort of stereotype? Am I looked upon as nothing more than a consumer, a convenient source of income?

The second question to be asked is by a person is: How do members of this organisation treat each other?

Do they treat each other with courtesy? Is there an air of mutual respect? Do people seem to be happy in their place of work? Or, is there evidence of low morale, of strained relationships and so on?

Mackay's research confirms that the quality of relationships lies at the heart of perceptions about the ethics of organisations. Because we live at a time when there is increasing emphasis on the importance of customer service, the first, fairly obvious, test is being addressed. However, surprisingly few managers seem to understand the importance of the second test.

Beyond being a foundation for sound management practice and harmonious relationship in the workplace, a climate of respect for one's colleagues will be noted by one's customers and help to reassure them that the industry or company is really serious about its commitment to an ethical approach.

Underlying these findings is a fundamental ethical principle that still seems to inform majority opinion. It might not be expressed in these terms, but I believe that Australians are still in tune with the notion of ‘respect for persons’ . More specifically, Australians have a history of identifying with two important virtues; namely those of benevolence and justice. In Australia, these virtues achieve a distinctive expression as the ideas of ‘mateship’ and giving the other person ‘a fair go".

While being amongst the first to admit that these concepts are frequently abused and that they have lost some of their force, I would argue that the residue of their original meaning still has an effect. What is more, these concepts may still offer Australians a distinctive ‘handle’ on which to hang an indigenous response to the problem of navigating across a difficult and uncertain ethical landscape.

In order for this to happen, there needs to be some fundamental framework of commitment and concerns on which to build. So it is that organisations need to take time to ask some deceptively simple questions about what it is that they really value. Such questions are ‘deceptively’ simple because a serious commitment to answering them will lead to some fairly rigorous self-examination: “What do we measure? What do we reward? What does this say about our real priorities?”.

Questions such as these are ultimately about examining the integrity of an organisation; about determining whether or not there is a match between what it says and does. A close look at such matters may reveal some cracks in the foundations. Only an Adeimantus would be foolish enough to repair them with paint and plaster!

discuss this article

---