Week-3
A Proposed Infrastructural Model for the Establishment of Organizational Ethical Systems
Louis P. Wliite Long W. Lam
ABSTRACT. We define ethical system infrastructure as being composed of three major factors — means, motivation, and opportimity. Means are defined as organizational rules, policies, and procedures. Motivation focuses upon the values and the interests being pursued by the position occupant and the orga- nizational value system, while opportunity is discussed in terms of the environment in which the dilemma occurs, proposing that position in the hierarchy presents its own unique set of ethical dilemmas. Ethical breeches are discussed in terms of the inter- actional processes among means, motivation, and opportunity. Finally, a sequential process is suggested to use the infrastructural components to institution- alize organizational ethics training and subsequent behavior.
KEY WORDS: ethical dilemmas, ethical systems, training on ethics
"Ethics" constitutes a discipline concerned with moral judgments, the goodness or badness of behavior, the rightness or wrongness of an action (Ferrel and Fraedrich, 1994; MacKinnon, 1995; Shaw, 1991). Judgments are made by individuals, and the resulting behaviors are those of individuals. Neither a group nor an organiza- tion "judges" or "behaves." Instead, groups and
Louis P. White is Professor of Management at the University of Houston — Clear Lake. His research inter- ests include the ethical considerations in organization development and the cross-cultural implications of orga- nizational development ethics.
Long W. Lam is an assistant professor of management at the University of Houston - Clear Lake. His research
focuses primarily on organizational adaptation and deter- minants of corporate performance.
organizations are composed of individuals who bring their value systems to bear when making moral judgments (Holloman, 1991).
These individual value systems, instilled during our early years, are impacted upon by environ- mental forces. Sometimes these forces are explicit, but more typically, they very subtly expand the involvement of individuals in ethical dilemmas. The following shows the expanding sphere of an ethical dilemma as a result of envi- ronmental influences:
A high school class sells candy Co students as a way to raise money for class activities. Students selling the candy are placed under no restrictions of accountability for what they sell, or the amount of money taken. They merely return the money and unsold candy to the homeroom teacher at the end of each sales period. One of the students is from a poor family and usually goes without lunch. This student sells the candy, partaking freely of the product without paying for it, and occasionally pocketing the monies from the candy sold. Nothing is said by the teacher ahout any discrep- ancies in the inventory or the monies.
It can readily be seen that the student engaged in dishonest behavior; hut less obvious, are the environmental forces in eflect. The scene suggests an absence of accounting, for either the product sold or the revenues, and notably, the teacher's silence. In effect, the teacher has created the opportunity and the means for the theft. The immediate ethical question, "was it right or wrong for the student to steal?" is thus expanded to include another ethical issue: "was it right or wrong" for the teacher to remain silent? The ahove is not so different from what occurs in many organizations, as Paine (1994) notes:
fournal of Business Ethics 28: 3 5 - 4 2 , 2000. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
36 Louis P. White and Long W. Lam
. . . unethical business practice involves the tacit, if not explicit, cooperation of others and reflects the values, attitudes, beliefs, language, and behav- ioral patterns that define organization's operating culture. Ethics, then is as much an organizational as a personal issue. Managers who fail to provide proper leadership and to institute systems that facilitate ethical conduct share responsibility with those who conceive, execute and knowingly benefit from corporate misdeeds, (p. 106)
In this paper, we investigate what may be the underlying structural factors for ethical dilemmas to occur in organizations. First, we will review the literature to explain why the mere creation of ethics codes cannot reduce the likelihood of ethical dilemmas in organizations and that most organizations rarely implement ethics training programs for their employees. We believe this is caused by the lack of understanding of how ethical dilemmas may occur and why employees may engage in unethical behavior. Second, we build an infrastructural model that describes the roots of ethical dilemmas in terms of organiza- tional rules and procedures, individual motives, and opportunities from the employee's job position. This model will then be used to illus- trate how training in ethics can be implemented effectively in organizations.
Review of the literature
The types of systems organizations have instituted in the interest of facilitating the ethical conduct of individuals are varied, as are their outcomes. Some organizations begin and end ethical systems development with the creation of an ethics code. In a 1987 survey of 2 000 U.S. companies, eighty-five percent (85%) reported having a written code of ethics (Ireland, 1991). In another survey conducted by the Ethics Resource Center in 1997, almost three out of every four compa- nies reported they had written standards of ethical business conduct. These surveys suggested that the creation of an ethics code is a very typical approach to ethical systems infusion. However further analyses offer doubts as to the effectiveness of such approaches. In the same 1987 survey, results indicated that only 50% of
the ethics code were actually distributed to all employees and 38% of companies restricted dis- tribution to management only (Ireland, 1991). In the 1997 survey by the Ethics Resource Center, 57% of the executives interviewed had observed actual instances of business misconduct within the previous year. In another study of 350 firms who had written ethics codes, it was found that those companies with written policies were more often charged with wrongdoing than those without pohcies (Mathews, 1988).
Bohren (1992) and Hyman et al. (1990) are among those who have argiied that the existence of an ethics code is a necessary, but not suffi- cient condition for creating an ethical organiza- tional chniate (Bernheim, 1987; Dean, 1992; Robin et al., 1989). Whereas Borhen suggests that a code of ethics needs to be combined with effective management and employee education, Hynian et al. (1990) have suggested the use of a checklist, a series of questions a manager should ask to determine if a decision is or is not ethical.
There are numerous case studies and anecdotal reports suggesting that many companies agree with Borhen and the other researchers, and employ some form of management education as a strategy for creating an ethical climate. However, a study conducted by the Ethics Resource Center suggests that only 28% of the firms responding to a 1988 survey provided ethics training. A 1991 study conducted by Training magazine reported a higher percentage of firms offering training to employees, 37% of 1 649 firms. A Price Waterhouse survey also offered a similar conclusion. Among the sixty Fortune 250 companies surveyed, only 21% provided educa- tion and training to all employees in the company (Price Waterhouse, 1994). These results suggest that the educational efforts are not as widespread as one would think, given the volumes written about organizational ethics.
A review of the case studies and anecdotal reports suggests that the nature of these training programs is also quite variable, implying that the effectiveness of ethics training may be equally varied. For example, Citicorp developed a game intended to teach ethics by asking employees to confront difficult scenarios (Ireland, 1991). This approach differs from the nature of the
A Proposed Injrastructural Model 37
ethics training received by the management of Pharmacia Company, who was exposed to autonomous cognitive ability training rather than moral content (Kavathatzopoulos, 1994).
Empirical evidence of the success of these varying types of ethics training programs is scant, and for the most part, focuses on the nature and dehvery of the programs rather than effectiveness (Thompson, 1990). For instance, in a 1994 survey by Price Waterhouse, only 17% of the surveyed companies formally assessed the effec- tiveness of their training programs. One source of empirical evidence includes a survey con- ducted by Working Women which indicated that eleven percent (11%) of the readers had received ethics training, but only one percent (1%) believed that it made a difference. Delaney and Sockell (1992) suggest that there is room for cautious optimism that ethics training has value. They cited a study by Vitell and Davis (1990) which indicated that top management attention to ethics has been reported to increase employees' job satisfaction. Another study also suggests that training reduces the occurrence of opportunistic behavior among members of corporate research departments (Kelley et al., 1989). Further, a survey conducted by Delaney and Sockell (1992) of Columbia University alumni revealed that training does have a "positive effect, but that rel- atively few firms provide such programs (about one third)" (p. 719).
The preceding suggests two important ques- tions: (1) Why have not more organizations adopted ethics training, given that individuals make moral judgments and that these judgments, when ignored, can expand the sphere of an ethical dilemma? (2) Why is there so little effort aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of ethics training programs among those who do offer them? We believe there are three plausible expla- nations behind this lack of attention.
First, the answers to these questions may be found in the attitudes of management toward ethics infusion. For example Paine (1994, p. 105) believes that "many managers think of ethics as a question of personal scruples, a confidential matter between individuals and their con- sciences." As indicated earlier, ethical judgments, as is typical of all judgments, are made by
individuals; but as also pointed out earlier, these individual judgments are influenced by the orga- nizational environment. Thus, the decision not to invest in training may be attributable to a trun- cated perspective regarding the factors which bear on ethical judgments. At the very least, the organization creates the type of climate which can either expand the sphere of ethical dilemmas or contain them (as exemplified by the teacher's lack of action in our previous example).
Ferguson (1993), the chairman and chief executive officer of NYNEX, provides alterna- tive reasons for reluctance of managers to recog- nize the importance of ethics infusion:
Most managers saw bottom line, hard business issues as priorities and ethics didn't make the short list. Other people felt that ethics training was unnecessary for them, and some even felt that it was a personal affront, (p. 32)
The preceding quotes suggest that the absence of organizational efforts aimed at evaluating ethics programs, including the effectiveness of codes and training, can be attributed to management attitudes.
Second, the absence of pro-active reasoning suggests another reason why effectiveness of ethics training program is rarely measured. Ireland (1991, p. 75) found that motivations influencing the introduction of ethics codes were: company growth (53%)); diversification (29%); industry trends (26%) and; prompting by the board of directors (23%i).Notably absent from this list is pro-active reasoning, i.e. the introduction of ethics codes or training as a strategy for resolving and containing ethical dilemmas before they become high profile, media cases. When companies institute ethics training as a reaction to the bad news of an ethical violation, the efforts may be the band-aid that gives an appearance of problem resolution, but not the cure. In effect, despite the volumes published on ethics in orga- nizations, the ethics program is not considered strategically important enough to measure effec- tiveness.
Third, another reason for the absence of wide- spread ethics training and the lack of evaluative efforts, may be found in an argument proffered by Delaney and Sockell (1992). They contend
38 Louis P. W}nte and Long W. Lam
that there is an absence of a link between moral reasoning, which constitutes most ethics training programs and organizational decision making (Kavathatzopoulos, 1994). Delaney and Scokell (1992) suggest that "there is a gap in our knowl- edge of work place ethical behavior and the factors that influence it (p. 720)." The same gap is also evident from both of Paine's preceding quotes concerning the influence of organizational climate on ethical decision making.
A model of ethical behavior
We propose a model of ethical behavior that may fill the gap proposed by Delaney and Sockell (1992). The same model is also intended to clarify the role and scope of the individual and the organization in creating and resolving ethical issues. The clarification of the role and scope of both, we beheve, is needed as a pre-requisite for demonstrating and evaluating the strategic impor- tance of ethics training. The conceptual frame- work for doing so is provided in Figure 1. Addressed in this model are macro level compo- nents of the factors bearing on ethical behavior in the workplace. These factors include: means, motivation and opportunity for engaging in unethical behavior. In short, we suggest that indi- viduals are more likely to face an ethical dilemma if (1) Organizations do not provide the "means" to prevent unethical behavior; (2) Individuals have personal "motivation" to be benefited from
Figure 1. Components of ethical dilemmas.
behaving unethically; and (3) Job positions provide the "opportunity" to engage in uneth- ical practices.
Means
The "Means" presented in Figure 1 are the rules, policies and procedures in an organization, and not limited only to those which refer specifically to "ethics." In this paper, however, we are pri- marily concerned with whether organizations have provided clear rules and policies that safe- guard unethical behavior. We also propose that it is the organizational climate that determines whether ethical rules and procedures will be created and will actually be implemented. As Hyman et al. (1990) suggested, organizational climates are composed of the countless, every day events, attitudes, policies, beliefs and culture no matter. Organizational climate shapes individual actions by providing exphcit and implicit guide- hnes of acceptable behavior. In effect, the nature of the organization's climate provides the "means" for the emergence of an ethical dilemma, and the blueprint for resolving any emergent dilemmas.
Thus, while ethics is a question of an indi- vidual's judgment and behavior, the host orga- nization must accept primary responsibility for the "means" component of an ethical system. Because the means are composed of all organi- zational policies, procedures and practices con- sidered collectively, it is incumbent upon managers to set clear expectations and standards for the ethical conduct of every organizational member and to model the highest ethical prac- tices. Modeling ethical practices is not limited to the exercise of moral judgment in areas where there are obvious potential conflicts of interest. It includes a proactive and continuous reassess- ment of all aspects of organizational life.
Motivation
Even in those organizations where management models ethical behavior in all aspects of organi- zation life, there may exist ethical violations
A Proposed Infrastructi4ral Model 39
attributable to individual motivations. Referring back to the earlier scenario, it may be recafled that the child's motivation for stealing candy and money was hunger and poverty. The interplay between means and motivation is now obvious: Had the child known that the teacher would account for every penny of the candy sold and the inventory, even the most basic motivation may have been averted by the child's cognizance of penalties. Yet, had the dishonesty occurred anyway, the "means" for determining that an ethical violation had occurred would have been available to the teacher. This notion fits with Paine's argument, that "creating a climate that encourages exemplary conduct may be the best way to prevent damaging misconduct" (p. 117).
Every individual brings to the organization his or her own motivations, the need to achieve, the need to affiliate, and the need for power and dominance. These motivations are mirrors of our value systems, and as Rokeach (1973) has noted, the social environment can influence thi-s system. Similarly, the social environment can be influenced by individuals who, through aware- ness of a company's ethical policies and beliefs, can affect the nature and extent of ethical violations incurred by others. The process is cychcal because an organization is composed of the unique constellation of all of its members' values or motivational systems, or what many researchers call, "the organizational value system."
Opportunity
Opportunity plays a unique role in the frame- work depicted in Figure 1 when compared to the majority of discussions about organizational ethics. This departure is highlighted by the proposition that categories of ethical dilemmas operate as a function of job position in the hier- archy. Specifically, different job positions create their own unique sets of opportunities to engage in ethical or unethical behavior. A corollary to this proposition is that, given the heterogeneity of job classifications and accompanying ethical scenarios, effective ethics training would vary as a function of job classification.
This notion is grounded in the state of pro- fessional ethics and unique sets of standards. Attorneys have a code of ethics geared to situa- tions that confront the legal profession as do psychologists and physicians. The same pattern prevails in the model shown in Figure 1. The CEO of an organization faces ethical dilemmas unique to that position as does the human resource employee and other job classes within the organization. In a 1994 survey conducted by the Ethics Resource Center, employees in tech- nical positions, such as manufacturing and quality control, felt the strongest pressure to commit business misconduct. The prevailing method of ethics training, however, assumes homogeneity of" ethical confrontations as reflected by ethics training programs.
The literature also suggests that "opportunity" for engagement in unethical conduct is a function of occupational category, bernheim (1992), in a study of how MBA candidates and executives view ethical situations, concluded that; "it appears that ethical priorities depend on where you sit" (p. 46). Further, a study by KroU, Wright and Theerathorn (1993) of insurers and top managers found that "when managers have discretionary control . . . they are more likely to absorb greater pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefit and shirk responsibilities" (p. 145). As Cyriac (1992) has stated.
ethics therefore should be integrated into the flitic- tional and technical specialties of management. Each function of management and each area of business education should discuss extensively and debate seriously on related ethical issues (p. 12).
Inferred from Cyriac's statement is the notion that "related ethical issues" is specific to a given discipline.
Figure 1 can be summarized, then, as an infrastructural model for integrating the shared interaction between the individual and the orga- nization in the emergence of an ethical dilemma. Dilemmas operate as a function of the interac- tive qualities of means and motivation which, in turn, are influenced by opportunity provided by position or job classification. In other words, we suggest ethical dilemmas as an interactive product of means, motivation, and opportunity:
40 Louis P. Wiiite and Long W. Lam
Ethical Dilemmas = (Means X Motivation X Opportunity). Ethical dilemmas are much less likely to occur if one of the interactive compo- nents is absent.
Institutionalizing organizational ethics
How can our n)odel be applied in ethical training in organizations? The analysis so far has focused on the components as forming the infrastructure of ethical dilemmas. It follows then that the establishment of viable organizational ethical systems should be grounded in this infrastructure. To do so organizations need to look at each of the components as an individual contributor to the total ethical milieu existing at the organi- zation.
We have defined means as the rules, policies, and procedures of organizations. Ethical behavior or being ethical connotes pro-activity from the organization by formulating policy that sets the tone for acceptable behavior. A well-publicized indictment of an aerospace contractor in 198O's was tainted by its reactivity; that is, unethical behavior was terminated as a result of getting caught (Hartley. 1993). While the result may be more acceptable business practices, this kind of situation does not set what would appear to be the right tone. Paine (1994) appears to support organizational pro-activity by arguing that management has the responsibility for ethical behavior and that through integrity strategies, ethical lapses can be prevented. Management should set the tone and provide the leadership for a viable ethical system (Hartley, 1993). The organization's leadership should state publicly that ethical behavior is a top priority. To accomplish this, representatives for all job classifications or levels of the organizational hierarchy should take part in the formulation of a company pohcy on ethical behavior (Bernheim, 1992; Kroll et a l , 1993; Cyriac. 1992). The formulation and sub- sequent publication through this inclusionary process contributes to ethical behavior and is linked to the means component of" the infra- structural model (Shaw, 1991; De George, 1995).
Motivation focuses upon the resultant behavior of the interactional processes between the values
of the individual and organizational values that manifest themselves through the organizational culture or chmate. Motivation to behave ethically can be increased by making ethical behavior a part of the performance evaluation of each position holder. In doing so, the valence for ethical behavior becomes very positive and the causal link between behavior and outcome is estabhshed. Moreover, the organization demon- strates the value placed on ethical behavior, thereby influencing and enhancing organizational culture.
While means and motivation are seen as interacting to direct the j o b occupant toward ethical behavior, opportunity is seen as the milieu in which the behavior occurs. A key proposi- tion of our analysis is that the type of ethical dilemma occurs as a part of, and is unique to, position in the organizational structure. Employees throughout the organization, from C E O to mail room clerk, confront dilemmas relating to his/her job. Recognition of this posi- tional difference is fundamental to a viable ethical system.
In Table I, we propose a list of organizational activities that can be done to manipulate the means, motivation, and opportunity variable in the infrastructural model.
Summary and conclusions
Paine (1994) and Hyman et al. (1990) are among those who argue for a comprehensive approach to the infusion of ethics in an organization. A comprehensive approach contrasts with the pre- dominant practice of relying principally on ethical codes as a means of influencing individual moral judgments. The perception of some managers, that these individual judgments are impervious to organizational influences, may be one of the reasons organizations do not move beyond ethical codes. However, as indicated, the scope of an ethical dilemma can expand when the ethical milieu is included.
Even in the minority of companies who do move beyond ethical codes by implementing training programs, there are some questions regarding their effectiveness. The minimal
A Proposed infrastructural Model 41
TABLE I Proposed activities on using the infrastrucEural model of organizational ethics
Means 1. Lead by examples. To foster a positive organizational climate, top management should set the tone and serve
as role models of acceptable ethical behavior. 2. liiuoli^e employees of all levels. Include members from different job levels to formulate a company's rules and
procedures on ethical behavior.
Mosiuafion 1. Restructure performance evaluatioti. Part of the evaluation criteria on employees should include adherence to
rules and procedures on ethical behavior. 2. Compensating for the right behavior. Pay and salary systems should tie monetary values to ethical performance
of employees.
Opportunity 1. Group ethical scenarios by Job types. This activity can be accomplished by asking job occupants to describe the
types of ethical questions they confront. 2. Develop simulations from these critical incidents. These simulations will be used in subsequent ethics training
workshops. 3. Develop resolution strategies. These resolution strategies should include input and participation by employees
who experience the set of ethical situations that are part of a particular milieu. 4. Develop training programs. Design training programs based upon the information from these incidents and
simulation.
evidence which does exist is not overwhelming, and the absence of training evaluation implies that there may be discrepancies between expressed commitment to infusing ethics in the organization and reality. Further, much of ethics training focuses on moral content rather than the factors which affect ethical behavior, suggesting that the training may not be regarded as relevant, or relevant only to the extent that the organiza- tion is reacting to externally imposed sanctions.
The model we have suggested provides orga- nizations with a tool for overcoming some of the previously cited barriers to ethical infusion. By proposing the model, we anticipate that managers who believe ethics are personal decisions will also come to understand that there is an interplay between an ethical organizational environment and individual ethical judgments. The organiza- tional environment can also avert motivations contrary to an ethical spirit and reinforce those which support the ethical organization. Finally, the nature of the ethical judgments confronted by individuals will also vary according to the job.
In practical terms, the model points to the need for "ethics audits," not merely of existing
ethics codes, but of all the organization's prac- tices. When discussing social responsibility of organizations, De George (1995, p. 13) empha- sized the need for social and moral audits such that corporations are able to "inform the public as to where they stand on some social issues, and to explain their policies and their impact on society." The same principle can be applied to ethics audits. This is inferred from the notion that organizational practices serve as the means for the emergence of ethical dilemmas, and the existence of ethics audits can enhance or retard the indi- vidual's motivation to behave in an ethical manner. In other words, organizations can imple- ment ethics audits to determine if there are clear rules and procedures that prevent unethical behavior of employees.
Finally, the model points to the need tor training tailored to individual job classes. Such a design may make ethics training more relevant and effective than what has been practiced by most organizations. We suggest that since opportunity to commit unethical behavior differs among job positions, organizations should provide different training programs to employees
42 Louis P. Wliite and Long W. Lam
of various positions. In other words, the ethical training a vice president of finance receives should be drastically different from that of a sales- person. We have also proposed a list of training activities that organizations can develop to create ethical scenarios and resolution strategics by various job categories.
References
Berheim. J. B.: 1992. 'Bad Judgment or Bad Experi- ence', Across the Board (October), pp. 45-48.
Bohren, J.: 1992. 'Reinforcing Ethics at Work', The Human Resource Professional 4{2). pp. 55-58.
Cyriac. Fr. K.: 1992, 'The Ethics Wave in Manage- ment Education', Management and Labour Studies, pp. 5-12.
De George, R . T.; 1995, Business Ethics (Prentice Hall, Englewood CHfFs. NJ).
Dean, P. J.: 1992, 'Making Codes of Ethics Real', Journal of Business Ethics 11(4), pp. 285-290.
Delaney, J. T. and D. Sockell: 1992, 'Do Company Ethics Training Programs Make a Difference? An Empirical AirA\ysh\ Journal of Business Ethics 11(9), pp. 719-727.
Ferrell, O. C. and J. Fraedrich: 1994, Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA).
Ferguson, W. C : 1993, 'Solving a Crisis of Confi- dence and Trust', Across The Board (July/August), pp. 56-57.
Hartley. R. E.; 1993. Business Ethics: Violations of the Public Trust (John Wiley & Sons, New- York).
Holloman, R.: 1991, 'Improving our Ethical Climate: Part One', Industrial Managemetit (July/August), pp. 115-121.
Hyman, H. R., R. Skipper and R. Tansey: 1990, 'Ethical Codes are Not Enough', Business Horizons 33(2). pp. 15-22.
Ireland, K.: 1991, 'The Ethics Game'. Personnel Journal 70(3), pp. 72-75.
Kavathatzopoulos. I.: 1994, 'Training Professional Managers in Decision-making about Real Life Business Ethics Problems: The Acquisition of the Autonomous Problem-solving Skill', Journal of Business Ethics 13(5), pp. 379-386.
Kelley, S. W . S. j . Skinner and O. C. Ferrell: 1989, 'Opportunistic Behavior in Marketing Research Organizations'. JoMrMd/ of Business Research 18, pp. 327-340.
Kroll, T. W. and S. J. Theerathorn: 1993. 'Whose Interests Do Hired Top Managers Pursue? An Examination of Select Mutual and Stock Life Insurers', Journal of Business Research 26. pp. 133-148.
MacKinnon, B.: 1995, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA).
Mathews, M. C : 1988, Strategic Intervention in Organizations: Resohing Ethical Dilemmas in Corporations (Sage Publications. Newbury Park, CA).
Paine, L. S.: 1994, 'Managing for Organizational Integrity', Harvard Business Review (March-April), pp. 106-117.
Price Waterhouse: 1994, Corporate Compliance Programs: Leading Edge Practices.
Robin, D , M. Giallourakis. F R. David and T. E. Mortiz: 1989, 'A Different Look at Codes of Ethics', Business Horizons 32, pp. 66-73.
Rokeach, M.: 1973, The Nature of Haman Values {Frei; Press. New York).
Shaw, W. H.: 1991. Business Ethics (Wadsworth. Belmont, CA).
Thompson, B. L.: 1990, 'Ethics Training Enters the Rea! World', Training (October), pp. 82-94.
Vitell, S. J. and D. L. Davis: 1990. 'The Relationship between Ethics and Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Investigation'. Journal of Business Ethics 9. pp. 484-494.
University of Houston - Clear Lake, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Houston, TX 77058,
U.S. A.