MGT422 Business Ethics and Social Responsibility

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 37

S E C T I O N II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

37

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 38

C H A P T E R2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH

INTRODUCTION

This chapter begins the part of the book that focuses on ethical decision making as something that individuals do. Many, if not most ethical decisions in business organi- zations are made by individuals like you. In later chapters, we will address how the organizational context and the broader business environment also affect individual ethical decision making.

There are two ways to think about individual ethical decision making—the pre- scriptive approach and the descriptive approach. This chapter covers the prescriptive approach. It is derived from ethical theories in philosophy and offers decision- making tools (ways of thinking about ethical choices) that help you decide what deci- sion you should make as a ‘‘conscientious moral agent’’ who thinks carefully about ethical choices1 and who wants to make the ethically ‘‘right’’ decision. Our assump- tion is that your intentions are good and that your goal is to do the right thing. So in this chapter we introduce ethical decision-making tools that can help you do just that, and we’ll explain how you can integrate them and use them in a practical way.

We know, however, that people don’t always make the best decision. Prescrip- tions aren’t always followed. So it’s helpful to understand how people’s minds work— how people really make decisions. The descriptive approach, discussed in Chapter 3, relies on psychological research to describe how people actually make ethical decisions (rather than how they should make them). It focuses in particular on individual characteristics that influence how individuals think and on cognitive limi- tations that often keep people from making the best possible ethical decisions. Hope- fully, if we understand both approaches, we can improve our ethical decision making. Now let’s learn about the prescriptive approach.

ETHICAL DILEMMAS

Many ethical choices are clear-cut enough that we can decide what to do rather easily because they pit ‘‘right’’ against ‘‘wrong.’’ Is deciding whether to embezzle corporate funds a tough ethical dilemma? Not really, because embezzling is stealing and it’s

38

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 39

wrong, period. There’s not much of a ‘‘dilemma’’ there. But things can get pretty murky in situations where two or more important values, rights, or responsibilities conflict and we have to choose between equally unpleasant alternatives. We define an ethical dilemma as a situation where two or more ‘‘right’’ values are in conflict. Consider the following ethical dilemma.

THE LAYOFF

Pat is the plant manager in one of ABC Company’s five plants. She’s worked for the company for 15 years, working her way up from the factory floor after the company sent her to college. Her boss just told her in complete confi- dence that the company will have to lay off 200 workers. Luckily, her job won’t be affected. But a rumor is now circulating in the plant, and one of her workers (an old friend who now works for her) asks the question, ‘‘Well, Pat, what’s the word? Is the plant closing? Am I going to lose my job? The clos- ing on our new house is scheduled for next week. I need to know!’’ What should she say? What would you say?

This is a true ethical dilemma because two values are in conflict. Two ‘‘right’’ values that can create significant conflict are truthfulness and loyalty. As illustrated in the case, telling the truth to your friend would mean being disloyal to the com- pany that has treated you so well. The value of loyalty can even be in conflict with itself as you weigh loyalty to your friend against loyalty to your boss and company. In this chapter, we introduce conceptual tools drawn from philosophical approaches to ethical decision making that are designed to help you think through these tough ethical dilemmas from multiple perspectives. None of the approaches are perfect. In fact, they may lead to different conclusions. The point of using mul- tiple ones is to get you to think carefully and comprehensively about ethical dilem- mas and to avoid falling into a solution by accident. At the very least, you can feel good because you’ve thought about the issue thoroughly, you’ve analyzed it from every available angle, and you can explain your decision-making process to others if asked to do so.

PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACHES TO ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN BUSINESS

Philosophers have been wrestling with ethical decision making for centuries. We certainly don’t intend to provide a philosophy course here, but we can distill some important and practical principles that can guide you toward making the best ethical decisions. In this section, we outline some of the major contempo- rary approaches that we think can provide you with the most practical assist- ance.

2 We then incorporate them into a series of steps that you can use to

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 39

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 40

evaluate ethical dilemmas, and along the way, we apply these steps to the short layoff case as well as other examples.

Focus on Consequences (Consequentialist Theories)

One set of philosophical theories is categorized as consequentialist (sometimes referred to as teleological, from the Greek telos). When you’re attempting to decide what’s right or wrong, consequentialist theories focus attention on the results or con- sequences of the decision or action.

Utilitarianism is probably the best-known consequentialist theory. According to the principle of utility, an ethical decision should maximize benefits to society and minimize harms. What matters is the net balance of good consequences over bad for society overall.

A utilitarian would approach an ethical dilemma by systematically identifying the stakeholders in a particular situation as well as the alternative actions and their consequences (harms and/or benefits) for each. A stakeholder is any person or group with a stake in the issue at hand. So who are the stakeholders in the layoff situation? Key stakeholders would include Pat’s friend, her friend’s family, Pat’s boss, Pat, her family, other workers, and the company—quite a list! And, what would be the conse- quences (societal harms and benefits) for each stakeholder of a decision to tell or not tell? The consequentialist approach requires you to do a mental calculation of all the harms and benefits of these consequences, stakeholder by stakeholder. What would be the consequences if Pat tells her friend what she knows about the layoff? What would be the consequences (societal harms and benefits) if Pat doesn’t share what she knows? A potential harm of telling her friend would be that he or she might tell other workers and send the plant into chaos. Perhaps more people would lose their jobs as a result. Another potential harm might be that Pat could lose the trust of her boss (another stakeholder), who provided information to her in confidence. Pat might even lose her job, which has consequences for her family. A potential ben- efit might be that Pat would retain the trust of a valued friend. Another potential benefit might be that her friend could use the information to make a decision about going through with buying the new house. After Pat conducts a thorough analysis that estimates these harms and benefits, the ‘‘best’’ ethical decision is the one that yields the greatest net benefits for society, and the ‘‘worst’’ decision is the one that yields the greatest net harms for society. So if more people would be ultimately hurt than helped if Pat were to inform her friend of the impending layoff, a utilitarian would conclude that Pat shouldn’t tell. Keep in mind that this perspective requires you to think broadly about the consequences for ‘‘society,’’ not just for yourself and those close to you, as we are often inclined to do. When conducting such an analysis, you may want to create a table for yourself like the one below that can help you sort out the complexities by identifying the stakeholders and the anticipated harms and bene- fits. But arriving at a bottom-line conclusion about the action that will serve the greater good of society is easier said than done.

40 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 41

Consequentialist Analysis

Stakeholder Tell—Harms Tell—Benefits Don’t Tell—Harms Don’t Tell—Benefits

1

2

3

4

etc.

Bottom line: best decision or action is the one that produces the greatest net good and the least net harm for society overall.

In 2005, Mark Felt, also known as ‘‘Deep Throat,’’ revealed his identity as the source who secretly fed information to Washington Post investigative reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The information ultimately led to the 1974 resigna- tion of President Richard Nixon over his involvement in the cover-up of the 1972 burglary at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building. Woodward and Bern- stein turned the story into a book and later a film, All the President’s Men. We can’t get inside Felt’s head to understand his ethical decision-making process at the time. We will never know his true motivation, because Felt became cognitively impaired in his later years. But we can imagine that, as the number two person at the FBI, he may have weighed the harms and benefits of leaking information about the Watergate break-in and the involvement of Nixon and his aides in criminal wrongdoing. Felt certainly took a huge personal risk and may have considered the costs to others. Sev- eral individuals went to prison as a result of the investigation, and their families suf- fered as a result. A president also resigned in disgrace. If Felt had been discovered, his career would probably have been ruined, and his family would have experienced the rippling effects. But those who believe that he did the right thing would say that Felt’s decision served the long-term greater good of American society and ultimately helped preserve democracy in the United States.

The consequentialist approach can be extremely practical and helpful in thinking through an ethical dilemma. Don’t we generally look at the consequences of our own and others’ actions in trying to decide what’s right? And don’t we consider who will benefit and who will be harmed? When the state decides to build a new highway through your property, aren’t they using a utilitarian rationale when they argue that the benefits to the greater community (increased development and jobs, reduced traf- fic, fewer accidents, etc.) outweigh the harm to the few property holders who will be inconvenienced by an eyesore in their backyard?

However, a challenge involved in using a strictly consequentialist approach is that it is often difficult to obtain the information required to evaluate all of the conse- quences for all stakeholders who may be directly or indirectly affected by an action or decision. In business (or in life for that matter), when do you have all of the facts? Could Deep Throat have known what the outcomes of his decision would be? And even if you have all of the information, it can be extremely cumbersome to calculate

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 41

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 42

all of the harms and benefits every time you encounter a new ethical dilemma. Try it. Can you list all of the potential harms and benefits for everyone who may be directly or indirectly involved in the layoff situation described above? It’s relatively easy for Pat to list the potential harms and benefits to herself and those close to her. But can you envision all of the potential harms and benefits to all of the other people who may be involved? If you don’t have a crystal ball that allows you to foretell the future (and most of us don’t), you’re unlikely to arrive at a completely accurate assessment of all future consequences. Nevertheless, with this approach, it’s important to do your best to accurately assess the potential consequences. You have a responsibility to gather and use the best, most up-to-date information available. Remember, according to this approach, the most ethical decision maximizes benefits and minimizes harm to society. The challenge of making the best ethical decision is to step outside of oneself and think as broadly as possible about all of the consequences for all of those affected. Taking this step is guaranteed to widen your decision making lens and allow you to take into account consequences that you otherwise might not consider.

Another difficulty with this type of approach is that the rights of a minority group can easily be sacrificed for the benefit of the majority. For example, slaveholders in the Old South argued that the greatest good for the greatest number would be served by maintaining the system of slavery. But hopefully we all agree that such a system did not respect the rights of the human beings who were enslaved (a deontological perspective we discuss next).

The consequentialist approach remains particularly important to ethical decision making in business for a variety of reasons. First, utilitarian thinking—through its descendant, utility theory—underlies much of the business and economics literature. Second, on the face of it, most of us would admit that considering the consequences of one’s decisions or actions for society is extremely important to good ethical deci- sion making. In fact, studies of ethical decision making in business have found that business managers generally rely on such an approach.

3 As we’ll see, though, other

kinds of considerations are also important.

Focus on Duties, Obligations, and Principles (Deontological Theories)

The word deontological comes from the Greek deon, meaning ‘‘duty.’’ Rather than focusing on consequences, a deontological approach would ask, ‘‘What is Pat’s ethi- cal duty now that she knows about the layoff?’’ Deontologists base their decisions about what’s right on broad, abstract universal ethical principles or values such as honesty, promise keeping, fairness, loyalty, rights (to safety, privacy, etc.), justice, responsibility, compassion, and respect for human beings and property.

According to some deontological approaches, certain moral principles are binding, regardless of the consequences. Therefore some actions would be consid- ered wrong even if the consequences of the actions were good. In other words, a deontologist focuses on doing what is ‘‘right’’ (based on moral principles or values such as honesty), whereas a consequentialist focuses on doing what will

42 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 43

maximize societal welfare. An auditor taking a deontological approach would likely insist on telling the truth about a company’s financial difficulties even if doing so might risk putting the company out of business and many people out of work. A consequentialist auditor would weigh the societal harms and benefits before deciding what to do. If convinced that by lying now he or she could save a good company in the long term, the consequentialist auditor would be more will- ing to compromise the truth.

Knowing what values are important to you and how you prioritize them is an important first step toward understanding and applying this approach in your own life (now is a good time to complete the end-of-chapter exercise, ‘‘Clarifying Your Val- ues’’). Which values are most important to you? Which ones are you willing to adhere to consistently, and how do you prioritize them if they conflict? Try to keep your list of values to just a few that you believe are truly the most important ones. In attempting to decide which values are most important to you, it’s helpful to think back to recent ethical dilemmas you have faced. Which ones guided your behavior? Which ones trumped other conflicting values? Think carefully when selecting your ethical values. For example, students often select promise keeping as a value. But what if keeping a promise requires you to breach another more important value such as honesty or jus- tice? If promise keeping is important to you, be careful what you promise. Should you promise to lie to authorities for a friend who has broken the law and harmed others? If you select loyalty, you’ll need to think about ‘‘loyalty to whom,’’ because multiple loyalties can conflict as they do in the layoff situation we’ve been discussing.

Some deontological theories focus on rights rather than duties, values, or princi- ples. The concept of rights goes back to classical Greek notions of ‘‘natural rights’’ that emerge from ‘‘natural law.’’ Rights can be thought of as ‘‘negative rights,’’ such as the limits on government interference with citizens’ right to privacy or the pursuit of happiness. Or rights can be thought of in more positive terms, such as the individ- ual’s rights to health and safety. The rights of one party can conflict with the rights of another party, as when the rights of a company to seek profits for its shareholders conflict with the rights of a community to clean air or water or the rights of a con- sumer to buy a safe product. Furthermore, the rights of one party are generally related to the duties of another. So, if we agreed that communities have the right to clean water, businesses would have the duty to protect that right.

How does a deontologist determine what rule, principle, or right to follow? One way is to rely on moral rules that have their roots in Western biblical tradition. For example, the Golden Rule, a basic moral rule found in every major religion, is famil- iar to most of us and provides an important deontological guide: The most familiar version tells us to ‘‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’’ In our layoff situation, the Golden Rule would suggest that Pat should tell her friend what she knows because she would want her friend to do the same for her if the situation were reversed. But note that the Golden Rule leads you to the best decision only if you’re highly ethical. For example, do you think that the Golden Rule would expect you to lie for a friend who has broken the law because you would want the friend to do that for you? No, because a highly ethical person wouldn’t ask a friend to lie. The

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 43

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 44

ethical person would be responsible and would accept the consequences of his or her illegal actions.

The German philosopher Emmanuel Kant provided another useful moral rule with his categorical imperative: ‘‘Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.’’ This rule asks you to consider whether the rationale for your action is suitable to become a universal law or principle for every- one to follow. For example, if you break a promise, the categorical imperative asks, ‘‘Is promise breaking a principle everyone should follow?’’ The answer is no; if everyone did this, promises would become meaningless. In fact, they would cease to exist.

A practical deontological question to ask might be, ‘‘What kind of world would this be if everyone behaved this way or made this kind of decision in this type of situation?’’ What kind of world would this be if everyone broke promises at will? Consider the following example:

A DRUG STUDY

A number of physicians are recruited to participate in a large-scale, multi- center study to investigate the survival rates of breast cancer victims who are being treated with a new drug. Strict rules are developed regarding inclusion of patients in the study. Only those who have had surgery within the last three months can be included. Dr. Smith has a patient who hears about the study and wants very much to participate. Because Dr. Smith thinks the drug could really help this patient, he agrees to include her even though her surgery took place six months ago. He changes the dates on her charts to conform with the study requirements and reasons that this one little change shouldn’t affect the study results.

According to the categorical imperative, we must ask whether the rationale for Dr. Smith’s action (helping his patient by breaking the study rules) is suitable to become a principle for all to follow. The answer is clearly no. What if other doctors did the same thing as Dr. Smith? What if those involved in medical research followed their own preferences or motives rather than the rules guiding the study? Society would be unable to rely on the results of medical research. What kind of a world would it be if researchers were routinely dishonest? It would be one where we simply couldn’t depend on the integrity of scientific research, and most of us would deem that kind of world unacceptable. Interestingly, given the potential for societal harm of a decision to be dishonest and enroll the patient in the study, consequentialist thinking would lead to the same decision. Only the patient would potentially benefit, and society as a whole would be harmed.

Additional moral rules come from the work of the highly regarded American political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls proposed that decision makers use a veil of ignorance exercise to arrive at fundamental principles of justice that should guide ethical decision making. In his approach, imaginary people come together behind a

44 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 45

hypothetical veil of ignorance. These imaginary people do not know anything about themselves, their identities, or their status. They don’t know if they are male or female, young or old, rich or poor, black or white, the CEO or a janitor, intelligent or mentally retarded, physically fit or disabled, sick or healthy, patient or doctor. According to Rawls, rational people who use this veil of ignorance principle will be more likely to develop ethical rules that do not unfairly advantage or disadvantage any particular group.4 Because humans are fundamentally risk averse and wary of being the worst off, such neutral people would arrive at fair principles that grant all individuals equal rights to basic liberties and equality of opportunity and that benefit the least advantaged in society. This approach was designed to be used as a guide in any ethical decision, but it may be most useful when fairness concerns are central to the decision at hand. It offers yet another way to broaden your view and urges you to consider the needs of those who are less advantaged than yourself. So, following Rawls, if a business needs to downsize, what kind of process would the group of imaginary people behind the veil of ignorance devise for deciding whom to lay off and when to tell employees? How should doctors decide who will be included in drug studies? How should lifesaving prescription drugs be priced? Would sweatshop working conditions ever be acceptable?

A major challenge of deontological approaches is deciding which duty, obliga- tion, right, or principle takes precedence because, as we said earlier, ethical dilem- mas often pit these against each other. What does the deontologist do if one binding moral rule clashes with another? Can it be determined which is the more important right or principle? Because the U.S. Constitution is based on a rights approach, many U.S. public policy debates revolve around questions such as these. For exam- ple, the abortion debate rests on the question of whether the rights of the mother or the fetus should take precedence. In ethical dilemmas at work, loyalty to your boss or organization can easily clash with other strongly held values such as compassion or fairness. What if your boss tells you that you must lay off a subordinate—an excellent performer—because he was hired last, and the principle guiding the layoff is ‘‘the last hired is the first fired’’? But imagine that this subordinate will lose his health insurance with the layoff, and you know that his child is seriously ill. Another subordinate who has been with the company somewhat longer is also a good performer but is single and has no family obligations. What is the most ethical decision here?

Another difficulty of deontological approaches arises when they conflict with consequentialist reasoning. First, what happens when following a rule will have dev- astating consequences? For example, in World War II Germany, telling the truth to the Nazis about whether Jews were hiding in your attic would have devastating consequences—the Jews would be taken and killed. In response to such concerns, some philosophers argue that deontological principles (i.e., truth telling, promise keeping) don’t have to be regarded as absolute. For example, one could violate a rule or principle for a good reason (according to Kant, a reason that you would be willing to accept for anyone in the same position).

5 In the Nazi scenario, Kant’s categorical imperative would be helpful because most of us would not want to live in a world

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 45

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 46

where people are expected to tell the truth when doing so means the death of an inno- cent human being. Respect for human life trumps honesty.

Consider yet another example of conflict between a consequences and a princi- ples approach. In 2009, the owner of a shipping company had to decide whether to pay ransom to pirates who were holding his ship and its crew hostage and who threat- ened to kill everyone if the ransom were not paid. This business owner acknowledged that paying the ransom would reinforce the pirates’ behavior and would likely lead to more kidnappings and hostage takings, an outcome that is clearly to the detriment of society overall. However, having considered this, he nevertheless concluded that he would pay the ransom because he felt strongly that his primary responsibility as an employer was to his people. His values of respect for human life and compassion for the employees’ families were more important to him in this situation than the poten- tial longer-term broader harm.

Sometimes, a decision with good consequences contradicts an important ethical principle. For example, the state of Virginia developed a method for sentencing crim- inals that incorporates risk of recidivism. Using factors such as gender, age, employ- ment status, and prior criminal record, the state learned that it can predict the likelihood of an individual’s committing another crime. This calculation is designed to protect the public and save taxpayer money, and many felons are being released from jail and returned to the community successfully. The system works; and one could argue, based on consequentialist thinking, that it benefits most people. But some argue, based on principle, that those who commit crime deserve to be punished and that it is unfair to treat offenders who committed the same crime differently. Under the system, a young, unemployed male is more likely to go to jail than an older woman who has a job.

6 The consequences are good for society, but is the system fair?

Focus on Integrity (Virtue Ethics)

The virtue ethics approach focuses more on the integrity of the moral actor (the per- son) than on the moral act itself (the decision or behavior). The goal here is to be a good person because that is the type of person you wish to be. Although virtue ethics as a philosophical tradition began with Aristotle, a number of contemporary ethicists (including business ethicists) have returned it to the forefront of ethical thinking.7

A virtue ethics perspective considers the actor’s character, motivations, and intentions (something we didn’t discuss at all under the other two perspectives). According to virtue ethics, it is important that the individual intends to be a good person and exerts effort to develop him or herself as a moral agent, to associate with others who do the same, and to contribute to creating an organizational context that supports ethical behavior.8 This doesn’t mean that principles, rules, or consequences aren’t considered, just that they’re considered in the context of assessing the actor’s character and integrity. One’s character may be assessed in terms of principles such as honesty, in terms of rule following (did this actor follow his profession’s ethics code?) or in terms of consequences (as in the physician’s agreement to, above all, do no harm).

46 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 47

Motivations and intentions are important to ethical decision making, as the law acknowledges. If a person harms another, society judges that person less harshly if he or she did not intend to do so, if it was an accident. In thinking about Mark Felt’s deci- sion to provide information to Woodward and Bernstein in the Watergate affair, virtue ethics would ask us to think about his intentions and motivation. Was he motivated by revenge because he was passed over for the top job at the FBI (as some have suggested), or was he guided by broader concerns about doing the right thing as a conscientious moral agent who was concerned about sustaining the American system of government?

In virtue ethics, one’s character may be defined by a relevant moral community, a community that holds you to the highest ethical standards. Therefore it’s important to think about the community or communities the decision maker operates within. Mark Felt was an FBI man who was sworn to keep confidences. That makes it hard for some in the FBI community to accept his talking to journalists, even if the long- term consequences contributed to the greater good of the country. But the broader community, the U.S. public at large, likely judges Felt more kindly if they think of him as someone who took a great personal risk to do what he thought was right. Think about yourself. What community or communities do you look to for guidance in deciding whether you acted as a person of integrity? Are you guided by the stan- dards of your professional association, the regulatory community, your religious community, your family, your company’s ethics office, the broader public? Note that unless you work in a highly ethical organizational context, the relevant moral com- munity is not your own work group or your organization. A virtue ethics perspective requires that you look to the community that will hold you to the highest ethical stan- dard and support your intention to be a virtuous person.

A virtue ethics approach is particularly useful for individuals who work within a professional community that has developed high standards of ethical conduct for community members. For example, the accounting profession has developed a code of conduct for professional accountants. Being a virtuous accountant would mean abiding by that code of professional responsibility. The same goes for certified finan- cial consultants, engineers, lawyers, physicians, and psychologists who all agree to abide by their profession’s rules and standards. Such professional codes are generally living documents that evolve with changing times. For example, building on 20 years of thinking about ethics and torture, a committee of the American Psychological Association (APA) developed new standards in 2009, consistent with its ‘‘do no harm’’ principle: without exception, the new APA standards prohibit professional psychologists from participating in torture. Psychologists are required to disobey orders to torture, intervene to stop torture, and report torture if they become aware of it.

9 A decision maker can often rely on such relevant community standards to guide decisions and actions. The assumption is that the professional community has already done this type of thinking and has done it carefully.

Consider this fascinating example from the U.S. legal profession. The rule of attorney-client privilege requires criminal defense lawyers to keep information shared by their clients completely confidential. This rule is based on the idea that, in order for defendants to get the best possible defense, they must feel free to be

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 47

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 48

completely truthful with their lawyers. The underlying principle of the U.S. system of justice says that everyone deserves a vigorous defense and that defense lawyers must act in the interests of their clients. Then it is up to judges and juries to decide guilt and innocence. That all makes a lot of sense in the abstract. But a recent case in Illinois (profiled on 60 Minutes)10 was particularly challenging for nonlawyers to understand. Here’s what happened. Two criminal defense lawyers went public to share information that their client had committed a murder for which another man, Alton Logan, was erroneously convicted. When the lawyers went public, Logan had already served 26 years in prison for a crime he did not commit! Most observers’ immediate reaction was to say that the lawyers should have spoken up right away because it just isn’t fair for someone to go to jail for a crime he didn’t commit, and they could and should have stopped it. But because of attorney-client privilege, a central ethical principle in the legal profession, the lawyers were not allowed to share this private information. As lawyers, they understand that the larger system of justice depends on that principle, even if some individuals are harmed in the process of upholding it. Interestingly, they also noted that if they had shared the information, it would not have been admissible in court and could not have helped Alton Logan. The lawyers were able to finally come forward only because, years before, they had con- vinced their client to sign an affidavit saying that they could share the information about his admission of guilt after he died. That’s what they did when their client died in prison (where he was serving a life sentence for committing a different crime), and Alton Logan was finally released. Interviews with the lawyers suggested that they understood and were guided by the ethics of the legal profession. However, impor- tantly, they also went beyond professional community expectations when they asked their client to sign the affidavit that ultimately allowed them to share the information. So from a virtue ethics perspective, they followed their community’s guidance. But as thoughtful moral agents who were motivated to do the right thing, they didn’t completely surrender to legal community standards. They used their own thinking to devise a plan that ultimately resulted in Logan’s release (although a deontologist might say that it was 26 years too late).

It’s important to do your own thinking because some professional communities pro- vide limited guidance or none at all. For example, management is not a ‘‘profession’’ with explicit ethical standards and acknowledged responsibilities to society (although some influential thinkers believe and argue that it could and should be).

11 In fact, the authors of a 2008 Harvard Business Review article12 offer ‘‘A Hippocratic Oath for Man- agers’’ that calls on managers to commit to the following (adapted from the original):

1. Service to the Public and Society. Recognize the manager’s responsibility to serve the public interest by creating sustainable value for society in the long term.

2. Balance Multiple Stakeholders’ Interests. Recognize that managers must balance the often-conflicting needs of many stakeholders to enhance enter- prise value in a way that is consistent with societal well-being. The authors

48 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 49

note that ‘‘this may not always mean growing or preserving the enterprise and may include such painful actions as its restructuring, discontinuation, or sale if these actions preserve or increase value.’’

3. Acting with Integrity in the Enterprise’s Interest. Put the interests of the enterprise ahead of personal interests while behaving as a person of integ- rity, consistent with personal values, and leading others to do the same. This means avoiding behavior that advances personal ambitions that harm either the business or society. It also means reporting the ethical or legal violations of others.

4. Adherence to the Law. Make a commitment to adhere to the spirit and the letter of the law and contracts in personal and enterprise action.

5. Accurate and Transparent Reporting. Report enterprise performance accu- rately and transparently to all relevant stakeholders (e.g., investors, consum- ers, the public, etc.) so that they can make informed decisions.

6. Respectful and Unbiased Decision Making. Make decisions in an unbiased and respectful manner without considering race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, politics, or social status. The goal is to protect the inter- ests of the less powerful who are affected by these decisions.

7. Professional Development. Commit to continuous professional develop- ment for the self and others with the goal of always using the best and most current available knowledge to make informed decisions.

8. Responsibility to Protect the Profession. Recognize that being considered a professional has privileges that come with responsibilities to uphold and protect the standards, and continue to develop them in a way that contributes to the trust, respect, and honor associated with them and with the profession.

Interestingly, if you study these principles carefully, you can find evidence of all three ethical decision-making approaches. Can you identify consequentialist think- ing, deontological thinking, or virtue ethics thinking? Do you think management is ready to become a profession that requires its members to adhere to such a code? Should it?

Whether or not your own professional community provides guidance, it remains essential that you think for yourself because a professional community can be wrong. For example, auditors are professional accountants with a fiduciary responsibility to the public. Their audits provide investors with assurance that public companies’ financial statements can be trusted. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) is the national, professional organization for all certified pub- lic accountants (www.aicpa.org). It has a code of conduct for members and a mission that includes establishing and enforcing conduct standards. But the institute also acts as a lobbying organization. During the 1990s, auditing firms got into the business of providing consulting to their audit clients; this was an ethically dangerous practice

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 49

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 50

because of its potential for conflict of interest. However, because consulting was more lucrative than auditing, firms lobbied hard to protect their relationships with these clients and their rights to both consult and provide audit services to the same firms. As a result, the AICPA was blamed for contributing to an environment that led to financial scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and other companies.13 So if you’re look- ing for solid ethical guidance, it’s important to scrutinize the source and make sure that it is free of conflicts of interest.

When a professional community isn’t available, doesn’t provide good guidance, or seems wrong, it can be wise to turn to the broader community and societal stan- dards for guidance. A useful decision-making shortcut based on the broader commu- nity as a guide is known as the disclosure rule. This practical shortcut is widely used by managers and executives. The disclosure rule asks, ‘‘How would you feel if your behavior appeared on ___? You fill in the blank of a particular media outlet. Is it the front page of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, your hometown news- paper, 60 Minutes, CNN? The assumption behind the disclosure rule is that commu- nity standards do exist for most situations, and at a gut level, most of us know what those are. If our gut tells us it wouldn’t look good to have our behavior appear in one of these media outlets, we simply shouldn’t be doing it because it means that if we did, we wouldn’t be considered persons of integrity in society’s view.

If your goal is to be considered a person of integrity, another useful question to ask yourself is how your harshest moral critic or ethical role model would advise you. Who serves in that role for you? Is it someone in your family or a respected teacher, coach, or spiritual adviser? Identify your strongest ethical role model or harshest moral critic and consider what this individual would think of the behavior you’re contemplating. Most of us have people in our lives whose integrity we respect and whose moral judgment of us we value.

Finally, a virtue ethics perspective assumes that your identity as a moral actor is important to you and that you are devoted to continuously developing that aspect of yourself. Being an ethical person is just an important part of who you are. Those of us who have made such a commitment know that life and career present ongoing ethical challenges and opportunities to work on the ethical aspect of ourselves. Are you following an ethical fitness program by practicing good behavior over time and developing good habits? Just as an exercise program challenges your muscles, balance, and coordination, an ethical fitness program challenges your ethical thinking and leads to improvement. Such an ethical fitness program can help you develop your comfort with speaking up on behalf of your values. It can also reinforce your view of yourself as a person of integrity and contribute to improving your ethical fitness over time. Identifying ethical role models in your life, choosing to interact with people of integrity, and choosing to work in an ethical environment can all be ways to support this aspect of your personal development.

14

We’ve now considered consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethics approaches. These are just a few of the philosophical approaches that may be applied in ethical dilemma situations. We’ve introduced the approaches we believe have the most practical benefit to business managers, and, admittedly, we’ve introduced them

50 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 51

in a rather general way, without many of the nuances developed by philosophers over the years. We’ve suggested that all of the approaches have limitations. No one of them, by itself, provides perfect guidance in every situation. Obviously, if all of the approaches lead to the same solution, the decision is a relatively easy one. The tough ones arise when the approaches conflict. When that happens, it will be up to you to consider the situation as comprehensively as possible and make the best decision you can based upon societal good, your most important values and principles, and consid- erations of what a person of integrity would do. Stuart Youngblood, professor of management at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, suggested the following example that he has used in his business ethics class:

THE BURNING BUILDING

Assume you approach a burning building and hear voices coming from both ends, each seeking help. Assume the fire is burning so rapidly you only have time to go to one or the other end of the building. Initially, you hear multiple voices at one end and a sole voice at the other end. Which way do you go? Why? Now include some additional information. The sole voice is that of your daughter (father, mother, etc.). Do you still choose to go to the end with multiple voices (to do the greatest good for society)? If not, why not? What has changed? What will the different approaches advise?

We certainly won’t resolve the academic controversies over the ‘‘best’’ philo- sophical approach here. Even so, we believe that the approaches we’ve presented incorporate important factors that should guide ethical business decisions. All of them would have provided excellent ethical guidance to those whose actions contrib- uted to the recent U.S. financial crisis, during which mortgage brokers sold NINJA (no income, no job or assets) loans to people who clearly couldn’t afford the homes they were buying, investment bankers packaged these risky mortgages into securities they touted as safe, and rating agency employees rated the securities AAA (without fully addressing the underlying risks). A consequentialist perspective would have focused attention on the potential harms to multiple stakeholders (customers, society) of these risky mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. A deontological approach would have focused attention on the importance of responsibility, honesty, and trans- parency with customers about these products. A virtue ethics approach would have asked whether a person of integrity would sell mortgages to people with little or no income or rate these securities highly despite the lack of experience with them. A serious consideration of these factors by the actors involved could have averted a systemic crisis that has harmed all of us.

Next, we offer eight steps that aim to integrate the three types of analysis just discussed.

15 Before presenting them, we’d like to offer a caveat. The eight steps sug- gest a linear decision-making process that is necessarily inaccurate. Ethical decision making is often not linear. Still, it’s helpful to cover all of these points, even if they don’t always occur in this particular sequence.

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 51

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 52

EIGHT STEPS TO SOUND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN BUSINESS

Step One: Gather the Facts

The philosophical approaches don’t tell us explicitly to gather the facts. But they seem to assume that we’ll complete this important step. You might be surprised at how many people jump to solutions without having the facts. Ask yourself, ‘‘How did the situation occur? Are there historical facts that I should know? Are there facts concerning the current situation that I should know?’’16

Fact gathering is often easier said than done. Many ethical choices are particu- larly difficult because of the uncertainty involved in them. Facts may simply be un- available. For example, in our layoff case, Pat may not have good information about the legal requirements on informing workers about layoffs. Also, she may not have enough information to determine how long it would take these 200 workers to find new jobs. It’s important to recognize these limitations as you do your best to assem- ble the facts that are available to you.

In the financial crisis, decision makers not only failed to gather good informa- tion, but it appears that they may have explicitly avoided getting the facts. For exam- ple, mortgage lenders processed mortgages for unemployed people because they required no documentation to prove employment (as lenders had always done in the past). All the person had to do was claim to have a job, and the mortgage would be processed. The mortgage lender earned fees for creating and processing the loan and then sold it off in the secondary mortgage market, where it was packaged with other mortgages and sold to investors. The ‘‘fact’’ that the person with the mortgage was unemployed and would likely not be able to sustain payments was first ignored and then lost as the mortgage made its way through the mortgage market system.

Step Two: Define the Ethical Issues

Many of us have knee-jerk responses to ethical dilemmas. We jump to a solution without really thinking through the ethical issues and the reasons for our response. For example, in the layoff case, one person might say, ‘‘Oh, that’s easy; promise keeping is the ethical issue. Pat has to keep her promise to her boss and protect her job.’’ Another person might say that honesty is the key ethical issue: ‘‘Pat just has to tell the truth to her friend.’’

Don’t jump to solutions without first identifying the ethical issues or points of values conflict in the dilemma. Also recognize that the toughest situations usually involve multiple ethical issues that go back to the philosophical approaches we just discussed. For example, in the layoff case, one ethical issue has to do with the rights of both the workers and the company. How would you define the workers’ right to know about the plant closing in advance? How much advance notice is appropriate? What does the law say? Another ethical issue has to do with the company’s right to

52 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 53

keep the information private. Furthermore, what is the company’s obligation to its workers in this regard? At a more personal level, there are the ethical issues related to principles such as honesty, loyalty, and promise keeping. Is it more important to be honest with a friend or to keep a promise to one’s boss? Who is owed more loyalty? Think about the situation from a justice or fairness perspective: What would be fair to the company and to those who would be laid off?

Points of ethical conflict may go back to the conflict between consequentialist and deontological approaches. For example, if I tell the truth (consistent with the principle of promise keeping), bad things may happen (negative consequences). A consequentialist would think about the ethical issues in terms of harms or benefits. Who is likely to be harmed? Who is likely to benefit from a particular decision or action? And what is the bottom line for society overall? A virtue ethics approach would suggest thinking about the ethical issues in terms of community standards. Does your relevant moral community (the one that would hold you to the highest ethical standards) identify a particular action as wrong? Why or why not?

Especially when we’re under pressure or in a rush, our inclination is to stop with the first ethical issue that comes to mind. For example, in our layoff case, we might be inclined to stop with the issue of loyalty to a friend. Challenge yourself to think of as many issues as you possibly can. Here’s where talking about the problem with others can help. Present the dilemma to coworkers, to your spouse, or to friends you respect. Ask them whether they see other issues that you may have missed.

Step Three: Identify the Affected Parties (the Stakeholders)

Both consequentialist and deontological thinking involve the ability to identify the parties affected by the decision. The consequentialist will want to identify all those stakeholders who are going to experience harm and benefits. The deontologist might want to know whose rights are involved and who has a duty to act in the situation.

Being able to see the situation through others’ eyes is a key moral reasoning skill. Lawrence Kohlberg, developer of a key theory of moral reasoning, called this skill role taking. It means putting yourself in others’ shoes and being sensitive to their needs and concerns. Rawls’s veil of ignorance exercise asks you to do this as well. Frequently, you have to think beyond the facts provided in a case in order to identify all affected parties. It often helps to begin with the individuals in the case who are immediately affected (e.g., in the layoff case, it would be Pat, the worker, Pat’s boss) and then progressively broaden your thinking to incorporate larger groups. For exam- ple, in this case, you might include the other workers, the rest of the company, the local community, and society in general. As you think of more and more affected parties, additional issues will probably come to mind. For example, think about the local community. If this is a small town with few other employers, fairness to the entire community becomes an important issue. Shouldn’t they have as much time as possible to plan for the impact of this plant closing? Try to put yourself in their shoes. How would they argue their case? How would they feel?

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 53

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 54

Earlier, we introduced the concept of stakeholders, all of those individuals or groups who have a stake in the particular decision or action. In the context of ethical decision making in business, we should identify the stakeholders affected by the decision and ask how they are affected. Try to make your thinking as broad as possible here. Some of the stakeholders affected by the decision may not even be born yet. The best concrete example of unborn stakeholders might be ‘‘DES daughters.’’ In the 1940s, DES, a synthetic estrogen, was prescribed for pregnant women who seemed to be in danger of miscarrying. By 1971, it became clear that DES produced a birth defect in the daughters of these women. Because of the birth defect, DES daughters were more likely to develop vaginal cancer, espe- cially between the ages of 15 and 22. They also had a higher than normal rate of cervical cancer.

17

Once stakeholders are identified, role-playing can help you see the issue from different stakeholder perspectives. In your classroom or your department, get individ- uals to seriously play the relevant roles. You may be surprised at how perspectives change based on this simple exercise. What decision would you reach if you were someone else in the situation? This step incorporates the Golden Rule to treat others as you would like others to treat you. Imagine yourself as each of the players in a decision situation. What decision would they reach, and why?

Another consideration may be to ask whether you can ‘‘test’’ a potential decision with affected parties before your prospective course of action is made final. The objective is to gauge how various audiences will react, so that you can adjust or fine- tune a decision along the way.18 One question you could ask yourself is, how would this or that stakeholder react if this decision were made public? For example, imagine that ABC Co. (in our layoff case) had another thriving plant in another location. However, in the decision-making process, it was assumed that employees wouldn’t want to relocate because of their ties to the local community. Wouldn’t it be better to ask them their preferences than to assume what they would want to do?

Step Four: Identify the Consequences

After identifying the affected parties, think about the potential consequences for each party. This step is obviously derived from the consequentialist approaches. It isn’t necessary to identify every possible consequence. You should, however, try to identify consequences that have a relatively high probability of occurring and those that would have particularly negative consequences if they did occur (even if the probability of occurrence is low). Who would be harmed by a particular decision or action? For example, in our layoff case, telling the truth to the worker might cause Pat to lose her job, which would have negative consequences for Pat and her entire family (especially if she’s a major breadwinner in her family). However, it would give her worker (and presumably others who would be told) the benefit of more time to look for a new job and perhaps save many families from negative financial consequences. Can you determine which solution would accomplish the most net good and the least net harm for society?

54 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 55

Think about the drug thalidomide. It was prescribed to women in the late 1950s to treat morning sickness and produced devastating birth defects in 12,000 babies in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan (the Food and Drug Administration never approved it for use in the United States). Many of the babies died, but others were left to live with severe deformities. Randy Warren, a Canadian born in 1961, is the founder of the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada. His mother took just two doses of thalidomide, but Warren is only a little over 3 feet tall and has no thumbs, arms that are 2 inches too short, and stumps for legs. The consequences of this drug when prescribed to pregnant women were obviously devastating; and shortly after Warren was born, the drug was banned in most places. But continued research pro- duced renewed interest in thalidomide as an effective treatment for Hansen’s disease (a painful skin condition associated with leprosy) as well as for ‘‘wasting’’ disease in AIDS patients, arthritis, blindness, leukemia, and other forms of cancer. This drug that had such terrible consequences for so many was being considered for approval because it also had the potential to help many people who were dealing with other devastating illnesses. As Warren put it, ‘‘When I heard . . . that thalidomide takes people out of wheelchairs and I think of myself and others that were put in wheel- chairs . . . tell me we don’t have the moral quandary of the century.’’

In the end, Warren was consulted and became involved in the decision to return the drug to the marketplace. In 1998, the FDA approved the drug to treat Hansen’s disease under the highest level of restriction ever given to a drug. Doctors, pharma- cists, and patients all must be registered with the manufacturer, Celgene. Two forms of birth control are required to prevent the possibility of pregnancy and resulting birth defects. Male patients are required to use condoms. No automatic refills of the drug are allowed. And Warren has become ‘‘something of a company conscience.’’ Although extremely difficult, the decision to market thalidomide in the United States was made with input from those stakeholders most familiar with its potential for both devastating consequences and remarkable benefits. Regulators at the FDA and com- pany officials got to know Randy Warren as a real person who continues to suffer consequences that they might not have been able to imagine just by reading reports and statistics.

19

LONG-TERM VERSUS SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES In business decisions, it’s particularly important to think about short-term and long-term consequences. Are you confident that your behavior will be considered ethical over a long period of time, even if circumstances or people change? In the layoff case, is the long-term health of the company and the people who will remain employed more important than the short-term consequences to the 200 workers who will be laid off? In the U.S. financial crisis, if people had been thinking about long-term consequences, they would have been much more likely to question behaviors that focused primarily on short-term profits.

SYMBOLIC CONSEQUENCES In business, it’s also extremely important to think about the potential symbolic consequences of an action. Every decision and action

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 55

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 56

sends a message; it stands for something. What message will a particular decision or action send? What will it mean if it is misunderstood? For example, if Pat doesn’t tell her worker the truth, and he finds out later that she knew, what will the symbolic message be to this worker and the others who work for Pat—that she’s more inter- ested in saving her own hide than in taking care of them? From a leader’s perspective, what are the symbolic consequences of accepting tickets to a football game from a valued client when your organization has a rule against accepting gifts from clients? Although the leader may see going to the game as important for getting the big sale, the symbolic message it will likely convey to employees is that the rule doesn’t apply to senior leaders. Such a symbolic message can have dire consequences for the orga- nization because employees may then feel that the rule shouldn’t apply to them either.

CONSEQUENCES OF SECRECY If a decision is made in private in order to avoid some negative reaction, think about the potential consequences if the decision were to become public. Think about the disclosure rule here. If you’re inclined to keep it a secret, that should be a clue that something isn’t right. For example, the public has been outraged by the fact that tobacco executives secretly knew about the negative health effects of cigarette smoking and lied about it to the American people in testi- mony before Congress.20

Step Five: Identify the Obligations

Identify the obligations involved and the reasons for each one. For example, in the layoff case, consider Pat’s obligations toward the affected parties. When identifying Pat’s various obligations, be sure to state the reasons why she has this duty or obliga- tion. Think in terms of values, principles, character, or outcomes. For example, if you’re considering Pat’s obligation to keep her promise to her boss, your reasoning might go like this: ‘‘Pat shouldn’t break her promise to her boss. If she does, the trust between them will be broken. Promise keeping and trust are important values in superior-subordinate relationships.’’

The obligations you identify will vary depending on the people involved and the roles they play. For example, our faith in our financial system depends in part on auditors’ obligation to tell the truth about a company’s financial difficulties and our faith in rating agencies to accurately grade financial instruments. Similarly, our faith in science as an institution depends on the integrity of the scientific data and how scien- tists report it. Individuals in these roles have a particularly strong obligation to tell the truth; and if they see themselves as moral actors, they will be motivated to do so.

Step Six: Consider Your Character and Integrity

Here, think about yourself as a person of integrity. Ask yourself what a person of integrity would do in this situation. In attempting to answer this question, you may find it useful to identify the relevant moral community and consider what that com- munity would advise. Begin by identifying the relevant professional or societal

56 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 57

community. Then, determine how community members would evaluate the decision or action you’re considering.

Remember the disclosure rule. It asks whether you would feel comfortable if your activities were disclosed in the light of day in a public forum like the New York Times or some other news media. In general, if you don’t want to read about it in the New York Times, you shouldn’t be doing it. If you would be uncomfortable telling your parents, children, spouse, clergy, or ethical role model about your decision, you should rethink it.

Boris Yavitz, the former dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Business, offered another version of the test for New Yorkers: ‘‘Unless you would do it in Macy’s department store window at high noon, don’t do it.’’ And Thomas Jeffer- son expressed it like this: ‘‘Never suffer a thought to be harbored in your mind which you would not avow openly. When tempted to do anything in secret, ask yourself if you would do it in public. If you would not, be sure it is wrong.’’

This kind of approach can be especially valuable when a decision needs to be made quickly. Suppose someone in your organization asks you to misrepresent the effectiveness of one of your company’s products to a customer. You can immediately imagine how a story reporting the details of your conversation with the customer would appear in tomorrow’s paper. Would you be comfortable having others read the details of that conversation? The ideal is to conduct business in such a way that your activities and conversations could be disclosed without your feeling embarrassed.

Another method might be to ask a question asked by the Seneca people (one of the five original nations of the great Iroquois Confederacy located in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada) in their guidelines for self-discipline: ‘‘How will I be remembered when I’m gone?’’

21 Many people don’t often think about this question, but it’s a good one. Will you be remembered as an individual of integrity? Students often don’t realize how small professional communities can be. This is especially true in today’s world of social networking. Although you’ll likely change jobs and organizations multiple times over the years, many people remain in a single industry where they have developed industry-specific expertise. A reputation for trustworthiness, respectful interaction, and integrity will open doors to new clients and career opportunities. But the opposite is true as well. A stained reputation is extremely difficult to overcome.

Step Seven: Think Creatively about Potential Actions

Perhaps this should be Step One. Before making any decision, be sure that you haven’t unnecessarily forced yourself into a corner. Are you assuming that you have only two choices, either A or B? It’s important to look for creative alternatives. Per- haps if you’ve been focusing on A or B, there’s another answer: C. In our layoff case, perhaps Pat could work with management to devise a fair system for alerting employ- ees sooner; or at least she could advise them that information is forthcoming soon, and they should not make big financial commitments until the announcement is made. As another example, what if you received an extravagant gift from a foreign

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 57

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 58

supplier? This situation could easily be conceptualized as an A or B quandary. Should you accept the gift (which is against company policy), or should you refuse it (which could be interpreted as a slap in the face by this important supplier, who is from a culture where gift giving is a valued part of business relationships)? A poten- tial C solution might be to accept the item as a gift to the company that would be displayed in the headquarters entrance, explaining that large personal gifts are against company policy. Obviously, you would have to check with your company about the acceptability of this C solution. The idea here is to think outside the box.

Here is yet another example. In an overseas location, Cummins Engine Company was having difficulty with local children cutting through a wire fence and stealing valuable electronic components. The A or B solution was to arrest or not arrest these young children when they were caught. After involving the community, the managers were able to arrive at a C solution. They discovered that the children were stealing because there weren’t enough classrooms at the local school, thus leaving the chil- dren with little to do but get into trouble. Cummins made classrooms available on their site. The mayor provided accreditation, books, and teachers. This C solution cost the company very little and accomplished a great deal. A total of 350 students were accommodated, the stealing problem disappeared, and Cummins became a valued corporate citizen.

Step Eight: Check Your Gut

The emphasis in these steps has been on using a highly rational fact-gathering and evaluation process once you know that you’re faced with an ethical dilemma. But don’t forget your gut. We are all hardwired to be empathetic and to desire fairness Empathy is an important emotion that can signal awareness that someone might be harmed. And intuition is gaining credibility as a source for good business decision making. We can’t always say exactly why we’re uncomfortable in a situation. But years of socialization have likely made us sensitive to situations where something just doesn’t feel quite right. So if your gut is sending up red flags, give the situation more thought. In fact, this may be your only clue that you’re facing an ethical dilemma to begin with. Pay attention to your gut, but don’t let it make your decision for you. Once you recognize that you’re facing an ethical dilemma, use the rational decision-making tools developed here to help guide your decision making.

PRACTICAL PREVENTIVE MEDICINE

Doing Your Homework

There’s no doubt that you’ll encounter ethical dilemmas—every employee probably encounters hundreds of them during a career; the only thing in doubt is when. Your mission is to be as prepared as possible before you run into a problem. The more informed you are, the more effective you’ll be in protecting yourself and your employer. The best ways to do that are to learn the rules of your organization

58 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 59

and your profession, and to develop relationships that can help you if and when the need arises.

You can learn the rules in various ways. First, read your company’s code of ethics (if it has one) and policy manual. Since most policy manuals are huge, you obviously can’t memorize one. If you skim the contents, some of the rules will sink in—you may not remember the exact policy, but at least you’ll probably remember that one exists and where to find it.

Second, ask questions. Managers, executives, and peers will admire your initia- tive when you ask what they think is ‘‘important around here.’’ Since many organiza- tional standards are unwritten, and they differ from company to company, the best way to find out about them is by asking. Query your coworkers (including manage- ment) about what kinds of ethical situations are most common in your organization and how your organization generally handles those issues. Ask your manager how to raise ethical issues within your organization. Since he or she will certainly tell you to raise an issue with him or her first, be sure to find out how you raise an issue in your manager’s absence. This not only gives you a road map for raising issues, but it also sends a signal to your manager that ethics are important to you.

Finally, develop relationships with people outside of your chain of command. Get to know people in human resources, legal, audit, and other departments; they might be able to provide information, help you raise an issue or determine if some- thing even is an issue, or vouch for your credibility in a crisis. You might also want to join a professional group or association. Many professions have developed ethical standards apart from those that may exist in your company, and it can be helpful to know other people in your profession who can advise you if a crisis arises in your company. Some may say this is being political, but we think it’s just plain smart to network with people outside of your immediate job and company. It’s the difference between being a victim of circumstance and having the power, the knowledge, and the network to help manage circumstances.

After you’ve done your homework and learned about your company’s standards and values, you may find that your values and your employer’s values are in conflict. If the conflict is substantial, you may have no choice but to look for work in another organization. We’ll be addressing issues of company values and codes more in Chap- ters 5 and 6.

When You’re Asked to Make a Snap Decision

Many businesspeople place value on the ability to make decisions quickly; and, as a result, many of us can feel pressure to make up our minds in a hurry. This can be a particular issue when people are inexperienced for whatever reason—this may be their first job or a new company or industry—and they may feel a need to prove their competence by making decisions quickly. Obviously, that can be dangerous. The ethical decision-making tools described earlier in the chapter assume that you’ll have some time to devote to the decision—to consider multiple sides of the issue and the inherent conflicts with any one course of action. Do your best to get the time to

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 59

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 60

assess, think through, and gather more information. Also consider the following guidelines when a quick decision seems called for:

1. Don’t underestimate the importance of a hunch to alert you that you’re facing an ethical dilemma. Your gut is your internal warning system. As one senior executive at a multinational computer company said, ‘‘The gut never lies.’’ When your gut tells you something’s wrong, consider it a warning siren.

2. Ask for time to think it over. Most snap decisions don’t have to be that way. Say something like, ‘‘Let me think about it, and I’ll get back to you soon.’’ Bargaining for time is a smart way to give yourself a break—then you can really think about the decision and consult with others. It’s better to take the time to make a good decision than it is to make a bad decision quickly and have lots of time to regret it. Would you rather be known as cautious or reckless?

3. Find out quickly if your organization has a policy that applies to your decision.

4. Ask your manager or your peers for advice. You should consider your man- ager the first line of defense when you encounter an ethical dilemma. Regardless of your level within the organization, never hesitate to ask for another opinion. This is where a trusted network comes in handy. If you have friends in human resources or the legal department, you can float the issue with them on a casual basis to see if there even is an issue.

5. Use the quick-check New York Times test (the disclosure rule). If you’d be embarrassed to have your decision disclosed in the media or to your family, don’t do it.

SHOULD JORDAN ACCEPT THE PRINTER DISCOUNT?

Jordan is upgrading his department’s data processing capabilities and has just placed an order for four personal computers and two laser printers with a computer company representative. When he mentions that he wishes he had a printer at home like the ones he just ordered, the representative tells him that because of his large order, she can give him a 50 percent discount on a printer for his home. Jordan feels that this is not quite right, but he’s not sure why and would like some time to think about her offer.

In this case, Jordan could have real doubt about whether or not to accept a 50 percent discount on a printer for his home. Even though he feels funny about the offer, he might be thinking that he does a lot of work at home, so accepting a discount on a personal printer could be justified. And since the computer representative made the offer after the order was placed, there’s no conflict of interest—Jordan’s decision to purchase obviously wasn’t influenced by the offer of a discount.

60 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 61

But he should listen to his gut, which is feeling that this isn’t quite right. He can first stall the computer representative by telling her he’ll get back to her later in the day or tomorrow. He can find out what his company policy says about making pur- chases. (Many companies would equate the discount with a gift and forbid accepting it unless it’s available to all employees.)

Suppose he finds nothing in the policy manual to prohibit the discount, and other workers have said ‘‘go for it.’’ Then he can use the New York Times test. How would the public react to his decision? Some people would probably think that his order was influenced by the offer of a discount. He knows that’s not true, but it might be difficult to convince other people of that. This is called an appearance of a conflict of interest, an appearance can be as damaging as an actual conflict. If someone could think your judgment has been affected by a relationship—or in this case, a discount—it could be viewed as the appearance of a conflict and should be avoided. Appearances are extremely important in business and may not be accounted for by the philosophical tools provided earlier in the chapter. Whether you appear to be fair may be as important as whether you’re really fair.

Here’s the bottom line: If you think that your decision could be misinterpreted or if someone could think the objectivity of your decision has been compromised, rethink the decision. In the example, Jordan can politely refuse the representative’s offer by saying something like, ‘‘My company doesn’t allow personal discounts,’’ or ‘‘I just don’t feel right about it.’’

If you ever feel that accepting a favor from a vendor will place you under an obligation to the vendor in the future, be very careful. For example, a public relations manager, Mary, described an incident with a printing company (we’ll call it Type Co.) sales representative who was trying to get her business. Type Co. already did business with a number of departments within her company, but Mary was satisfied with her current printer and saw no reason to switch. Just before the holidays, Type Co. sent a popular electronic device (worth about $250) to Mary and to all of its customers in her company. Mary immediately felt that the gift was inappropriate; but to check out her judgment, she called one of Type Co.’s other customers in her com- pany. Mary’s colleague assured her that there was nothing wrong with accepting the gift and that it was simply a token of good will. (If Mary had been friendly with one of her company’s lawyers or human resources managers, she probably would have received very different advice.) Mary listened to her internal warning system, despite what her colleague said. She sent back the gift.

When asked why she returned the gift, Mary said, ‘‘I felt like I was being bribed to do business with Type Co.’’ A reader of the New York Times would probably agree.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has presented a prescriptive approach to individual ethical decision making. When you’re confronted with an ethical dilemma, you should find it helpful to inform your choice by considering the ideas and steps offered in this chapter. The

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 61

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 62

end-of-chapter questions and case should give you some practice in applying these ideas and steps to real ethical dilemmas.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. If you had to choose just one of the philosophical approaches discussed in this chapter to guide your decision making, which would you choose? Why? Or, if you had to rank them from most to least helpful, how would you rank them?

2. Some of the steps in the eight-step model might suggest very different courses of action for resolving your dilemma. How would you choose among these dis- tinct courses of action? Why?

3. Think about situations where your values have been in conflict. How have you resolved those conflicts? Now that you have studied the ethical decision-mak- ing frameworks in this chapter, what should you have done?

4. Think about an ethical dilemma situation that you’ve faced. Apply the three approaches and the eight steps recommended in this chapter. Does it change your thinking about the situation? Would it change your action?

5. Some corporations and other organizations have designed ethical decision- making tests that incorporate some of the principles and systems described in this chapter. For example, Carl Skooglund, former vice president and ethics director at Texas Instruments, outlined the following Ethics Quick Test recom- mended for use by Texas Instrument employees:22

& Is the action legal?

& Does it comply with your best understanding of our values and principles?

& If you do it, will you feel bad?

& How will it look in the newspaper?

& If you know it’s wrong, don’t do it, period!

& If you’re not sure, ask.

& Keep asking until you get an answer.

Think about this list in terms of the decision-making guides discussed in the chapter. Which ones are being used here? Which are not? What recommendations, if any, would you make to alter this list? If you had to make up a list for your company, what would be on it? Why?

Do the same with the Rotary International Four-Way Test:

& Is it the truth?

& Is it fair to all concerned?

& Will it build goodwill and better relationships?

& Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

62 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 63

The Seneca (one of the five tribes of the Iroquois Nation) people’s guidelines for self- discipline also include these questions:23

& Am I happy in what I’m doing?

& Is what I’m doing adding to the confusion?

& What am I doing to bring about peace and contentment?

& How will I be remembered when I am gone?

Could these tests serve as guides for ethical decision making in business? Why or why not?

6. The last question leads us to a useful exercise. If you had to write your own epitaph, what would it say? How would you like to be remembered? What kind of life do you hope to lead?

7. Albert Schweitzer (the philosopher and mission doctor) said, ‘‘Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful.’’ What do you think? How does this relate to the prescriptive approaches discussed in the chapter?

8. What do you think of the proposed Hippocratic oath for managers?24

9. What limitations, if any, can you think of to the prescriptions provided in this chapter? Can you think of reasons why they might not work?

10. If you were to design an ethical fitness program for yourself, what would you include?

EXERCISE

Clarifying Your Values

If you wish to be better prepared to make tough ethical decisions at work or else- where in your life, it can be extremely helpful to clarify your personal ethical values before they’re seriously challenged. Following is a selected list of values (in alphabetical order). Feel free to add one or more if you have a deeply held value that is not represented on this list (it is not meant to be exhaustive). In priority order (with 1 being the most important value), list from three to six val- ues that are most important to you personally in making decisions. That’s the easy part. Next, think seriously about what happens when two or more of these values conflict. For example, what happens if you value both honesty and success and they come into conflict? Are you willing to forgo financial success in order to be completely honest with customers or suppliers? Next, if you’re working, think about the values of your organization and how those are prioritized. Are there serious conflicts between your personal values and the organization’s values? Finally, list those values that you would choose to serve as the basis for business dealings in an ideal society. Be prepared to discuss.

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 63

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 64

Action orientation Freedom Altruism Harmony

Responsibility

Authority Helpfulness Risk taking

Compassion Honesty/Integrity Security

Competence Honor Self-discipline

Conformity Humility Status

Creativity Initiative Success

Customer satisfaction Innovation Teamwork

Diversity Moderation Tradition

Equality Novelty Wealth

Excitement Obedience Winning

Experimentation Order Fairness/Justice Power Family well-being Promise keeping Flexibility/adaptability Respect

Introducing the Pinto Fires Case. Next, you’re going to read a case that chronicles an event that took place over 30 years ago. You may ask, why study such an old case? We study this case because it is extremely important in American business history. In 2005, Fortune Magazine called it one of the 20 business decisions that ‘‘helped create the business world as it is today’’25 According to Fortune, the case and ensuing legal battles contributed to the development of consumer activism as well as to the con- sumer protections and class action lawsuits that we now take for granted. We have also seen aspects of the case play out in product safety cases that have arisen more recently, including Ford Explorer rollovers after Firestone tire failures, a case that was settled in 2001.

CASE

PINTO FIRES

by Dennis A. Gioia (used with permission)

On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls died horribly in an automobile accident. Driving a 1973 Ford Pinto to their church volleyball practice in Goshen, Indiana, they were struck from behind by a Chevrolet van. The Pinto’s fuel tank ruptured and the car exploded in flames. Two passengers, Lynn Marie Ulrich, 16, and her cousin, Donna Ulrich, 18, were trapped inside the inferno and burned to death. After three attempts, Lynn Marie’s sister, 18-year-old Judy Ann, was dragged out alive from the driver’s seat, but died in agony hours later in the hospital.

They were merely the latest in a long list of people to burn to death in accidents involving the Pinto, which Ford had begun selling in 1970. By the time of the acci- dent, the car had been the subject of a great deal of public outcry and debate about its

64 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 65

safety, especially its susceptibility to fire in low-speed rear-end collisions. This par- ticular accident, however, resulted in more media attention than any other auto acci- dent in U.S. history. Why? Because it led to an unprecedented court case in which the prosecution brought charges of reckless homicide against the Ford Motor Co.—the first time that a corporation had been charged with criminal conduct, and the charge was not negligence but murder. At stake was much more than the maximum penalty of $30,000 in fines. Of immediate concern, a guilty verdict could have affected 40 pending civil cases nationwide and resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in punitive damage awards. Of perhaps greater concern, however, were larger issues involving corporate social responsibility, ethical decision making by individuals within corporations, and ultimately, the proper conduct of business in the modern era.

How did Ford get into this situation? The chronology begins in early 1968 when the decision was made to battle the foreign competition in the small car market, spe- cifically the Germans, but also the growing threat from the Japanese. This decision came after a hard-fought, two-year internal struggle between then-president Semon ‘‘Bunky’’ Knudsen and Lee Iacocca, who had risen quickly within the company because of his success with the Mustang. Iacocca strongly supported fighting the competition at their own game, while Knudsen argued instead for letting them have the small car market so Ford could concentrate on the more profitable medium and large models. The final decision ultimately was in the hands of then-CEO Henry Ford II, who not only agreed with Iacocca but also promoted him to president after Knudsen’s subsequent forced resignation.

Iacocca wanted the Pinto in the showrooms by the 1971 model introductions, which would require the shortest production planning period in automotive history to that time. The typical time span from conception to production of a new car was more than three and a half years; Iacocca, however, wanted to launch the Pinto in just over two years. Under normal conditions, chassis design, styling, product planning, advance engineering, component testing, and so on were all either completed or nearly completed prior to tooling of the production factories. Yet, because tooling had a fixed time frame of about 18 months, some of these other processes were done more or less concurrently. As a consequence, when it was discovered through crash testing that the Pinto’s fuel tank often ruptured during rear-end impact, it was too late (in other words, too costly) to do much about it in terms of redesign.

A closer look at the crash-test reports reveals that Ford was aware of faulty fuel tank design. Eleven Pintos were subjected to rear-end collisions with a barrier at av- erage speeds of 31 miles per hour to determine if any fuel would be lost after impact. All eight of the Pintos equipped with the standard fuel tank failed. The three remain- ing cars, however, survived the test because special measures had been taken to pre- vent tank rupture or fuel leakage. These measures included a plastic baffle placed between the axle housing and the gas tank, a steel plate between the tank and the rear bumper, and a rubber lining in the gas tank.

It should be noted that these tests were done under guidelines established by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, which was proposed in 1968 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), but not officially adopted

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 65

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 66

until the 1977 model year. Therefore, at the time of the tests, the Pinto met the required standards. Standard 301 had been strenuously opposed by the auto industry, and specifically Ford Motor Co. In fact, the lobbying efforts were so strong that nego- tiations continued until 1976, despite studies showing that hundreds of thousands of cars burned every year, taking 3,000 lives annually; the adoption of the standard was projected to reduce the death rate by 40 percent. Upon approval of Standard 301 in 1977, all Pintos were provided with a rupture-proof fuel tank design.

But for the Pinto’s 1971 debut, Ford decided to go with its original gas tank design despite the crash-test results. Because the typical Pinto buyer was assumed to be extremely price conscious, Iacocca set an important goal known as ‘‘the limits of 2,000’’: the Pinto could not cost more than $2,000 and could not weigh more than 2,000 pounds. Thus, to be competitive with foreign manufacturers, Ford felt it could not spend any money on improving the gas tank. Besides, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, American consumers demonstrated little concern for safety, so it was not considered good business sense to promote it. Iacocca echoed these sentiments when he said time and time again ‘‘Safety doesn’t sell,’’ a lesson he had learned after a failed attempt to add costly safety features to 1950s Fords.

Ford had experimented with placing the gas tank in different locations, but all alternatives reduced usable trunk space. A design similar to that of the Ford Capri was successful in many crash tests at speeds over 50 miles per hour, but Ford felt that lost trunk space would hurt sales too much. One Ford engineer, when asked about the dangerous gas tank said, ‘‘Safety isn’t the issue, trunk space is. You have no idea how stiff the competition is over trunk space. Do you realize that if we put a Capri-type tank in the Pinto, you could only get one set of golf clubs in the trunk?’’

The last of Ford’s reasons for not making adjustments to the fuel tank design, how- ever, was unquestionably the most controversial. After strong lobbying efforts, Ford and the auto industry in general convinced NHTSA regulators that cost/benefit analysis would be an appropriate basis for determining the feasibility of safety design standards. Such an analysis, however, required the assignment of a value for a human life. A prior study had concluded that every time someone died in an auto accident there was an esti- mated ‘‘cost to society’’ of $200,725 (detailed in Table 1: What’s Your Life Worth?).

1

Having this value in hand, Ford calculated the cost of adding an $11 gas tank improvement versus the benefits of the projected 180 lives that would be saved (via an internal memo entitled ‘‘Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires’’). This is presented in Table 2: The Cost of Dying in a Pinto.2 As is dem- onstrated, the costs outweigh the benefits by almost three times. Thus, the cost/bene- fit analysis indicated that no improvements to the gas tanks were warranted.

Ford decided to go ahead with normal production plans, but the Pinto’s problems soon surfaced. By early 1973, Ford’s recall coordinator received field reports

1 M. Dowie, ‘‘How Ford Put Two Million Fire Traps on Wheels,’’ Business and Society Review 23 (1977): 51–55.

2 Ibid.

66 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 67

suggesting that Pintos were susceptible to ‘‘exploding’’ in rear-end collisions at very low speeds (under 25 miles per hour). Reports continued to indicate a similar trend in subsequent years, but no recall was initiated despite the mounting evidence. At every internal review, those responsible decided not to recall the Pinto.

Prior to the Indiana accident, the most publicized case concerning the Pinto’s gas tank was that of Richard Grimshaw. In 1972, Richard, then 13, was riding with a

Table 1 What’s Your Life Worth?

The chart below, from a 1971 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is a breakdown of the estimated cost to society every time someone is killed in a car accident. The Ford Motor Company used the $200,725 total figure in its own cost-benefit analysis.

Component 1971 Costs

Future productivity losses

Direct $132,300

Indirect 41,000

Medical costs

Hospital 700

Other 425

Property damage 1,500

Insurance administration 4,700

Legal and court 3,000

Employer losses 1,000

Victim’s pain and suffering 10,000

Funeral 900

Assets (lost consumption) 5,000

Miscellaneous accident cost 200

Total per fatality $200,725

Table 2 The Cost of Dying in a Pinto

These figures are from a Ford Motor Co. internal memorandum on the benefits and costs of an $11 safety improvement (applicable to all vehicles with similar gas tank designs) that would have made the Pinto less likely to burn.

Benefits

Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles

Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle

Total Benefit: (180 ! $200,000) + (180 ! $67,000) + (2,100 ! $700) = $49.5 million Costs

Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks

Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck

Total Cost: (11,000,000 ! $11) + (1,500,000 ! $11) = $137.5 million

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 67

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 68

neighbor on a road near San Bernardino, California, when they were hit from the rear. The Pinto’s gas tank ruptured, causing the car to burst into flames. The neighbor was burned to death in a crash that would have been survivable if there had been no fire. Richard suffered third-degree burns over 90 percent of his body and subsequently underwent more than 60 operations, with only limited success. A civil suit was settled in February 1978, when a jury awarded a judgment of over $125 million against Ford, most of which consisted of punitive damages (later reduced to $6 million by a judge who nonetheless accused Ford of ‘‘callous indifference to human life’’). This judgment was based on convincing evidence that Ford chose not to spend the $11 per car to correct the faults in the Pinto gas tanks that its own crash testing had revealed.

The Pinto sold well until the media called special attention to the Pinto fuel tank story. As a consequence, in June 1978, in the face of pressure from the media, the gov- ernment, pending court cases, and the potential loss of future sales, Ford ordered a com- plete recall of all 1.5 million Pintos built between 1970 and 1976. During the 1980 Indiana trial that resulted from the fatal accident of 1978, differing views continued to be expressed about the Pinto fires case. Ford representatives argued that companies must make cost/benefit decisions all the time. They claimed that it is an essential part of busi- ness, and even though everyone knows that some people will die in auto accidents, buy- ers want costs held down; therefore, people implicitly accept risks when buying cars.

In a scathing article accusing Ford of criminally mismanaging the Pinto problem, investigative reporter Mark Dowie framed the case in a different and rather more sensational way, with this often-quoted speculation: ‘‘One wonders how long the Ford Motor Company would continue to market lethal cars were Henry Ford II and Lee Iacocca serving twenty-year terms in Leavenworth for consumer homicide.’’

3

Case Questions

1. Put yourself in the role of the recall coordinator for Ford Motor Co. It’s 1973, and field reports have been coming in about rear-end collisions, fires, and fatali- ties. You must decide whether to recall the automobile.

a. Identify the relevant facts.

b. Identify the pertinent ethical issues and points of ethical conflict.

c. Identify the relevant affected parties.

d. Identify the possible consequences of alternative courses of action.

e. Identify relevant obligations.

f. Identify your relevant community standards that should guide you as a person of integrity.

g. Check your gut.

What will you decide?

3 M. Dowie, ‘‘How Ford Put Two Million Fire Traps on Wheels,’’ Business and Society Review 23 (1977): 51–55.

68 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 69

NOTES 1. J. Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983). 2. L. Peach, ‘‘An Introduction to Ethical Theory,’’ in Research Ethics: Cases and Materials, ed. R. L.

Penslar (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994).

3. D. J. Fritsche and H. Becke, ‘‘Linking Management Behavior to Ethical Philosophy: An Empirical

Investigation,’’ Academy of Management Journal 27 (1984): 166–75. 4. J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). 5. Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 6. E. Bazelon, ‘‘Sentencing by the Numbers,’’ New York Times Magazine, 2 January 2005, 18. 7. R. C. Solomon, Ethics and Excellence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). 8. G. R. Weaver, ‘‘Virtue in Organizations: Moral Identity as a Foundation for Moral Agency,’’ Organi-

zation Studies 17 (2006): 341–68.

SHORT CASES

As a counselor in an outplacement firm, you’ve been working with Irwin for six months to find him a new position. During that time, he has completed extensive assessment work to determine if he’s in an appropriate profession or if he might ben- efit from a career change. The results of the assessment indicate that Irwin has low self-esteem, probably could benefit from psychotherapy, and is most likely ill suited for his current profession. Irwin has been actively interviewing for a position that’s very similar to two others he has held and lost. He desperately wants and needs this job. The company where he’s interviewing happens to be one of your most important clients. You receive a call from the head of human resources at the company, who tells you that Irwin suggested she call you for information about his abilities, inter- ests, and personality style as measured by the assessment process. She also asks you for a reference for Irwin. Since he has, in effect, asked that you share information with this woman, is it okay for you to give her an honest assessment of Irwin? What are your obligations to Irwin, who is your client in this case? Is there a way for you to be honest, yet not hurt Irwin’s chances to obtain this job? Or is that important? What will you do?

You have worked in business for several years and you’re now ready for some further education. You have applied to multiple prestigious MBA programs via a website called ApplyYourself.com that handles the application process for many of these pro- grams. You’re anxiously awaiting replies and expect to receive them in about a month. You’re up late one night and, while surfing the Web, you discover instruc- tions for a ‘‘back door’’ way to take advantage of a technical glitch on the website that would allow you to check the status of your application and find out if you’ve been accepted or rejected. Multiple steps are involved, but the instructions provide clear guidance. Would it be right to take advantage of this information? Why or why not? If you were the admissions director or dean of one of these schools and you learned that some applicants had taken advantage of the glitch, what would be the right thing to do?

CHAPTER 2 DECIDING WHAT’S RIGHT: A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH 69

E1C02 07/09/2010 Page 70

9. ‘‘Saying It Again: Psychologists May Never Participate in Torture,’’ American Psychological Associ- ation (APA) Press Release, 22 April 2009.

10. ‘‘26-Year Secret,’’ CBS News.com (June 16, 2009), at www.cbsnews.com.

11. R. Khurana, From Higher Aims to Hired Hands (Cambridge, MA: Princeton University Press, 2007). 12. R. Khurana and N. Nohria, ‘‘It’s Time to Make Management a True Profession,’’ Harvard Business

Review 86, no. 10 (2008): 1–8. 13. ‘‘Bloodied and Bowed,’’ Business Week, 20 January 2003, 56–57. 14. Weaver, ‘‘Virtue in Organizations.’’

15. M. Bebeau, ‘‘Developing a Well-Reasoned Moral Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research Ethics,’’ Paper distributed at the Teaching Research Ethics conference, Poynter Research

Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana,

May 1994. 16. L. Nash, ‘‘Ethics without the Sermon,’’ in Ethics in Practice, ed. K. R. Andres (Boston: Harvard

Business School Press, 1989).

17. D. E. Larson, Mayo Clinic Family Health Book (New York: William Morrow, 1990). 18. Nash, ‘‘Ethics without the Sermon.’’ 19. S. G. Stolberg, ‘‘Their Devil’s Advocates: Thalidomide Returns with an Unlikely Ally: A Group of

Its Original Victims.’’ New York Times Magazine, 25 January 1998, 20–25. 20. D. M. Messick and B. Bazerman, Ethics for the 21st Century: A Decision Making Perspective.

Unpublished manuscript. 21. B. Steiger, Indian Medicine Power (Atglen, PA: Whitford Press, 1984), 92. 22. C. Skooglund, ‘‘Ethics in the Face of Competitive Pressures,’’ Business Ethics Resource (Fall

1992): 4.

23. Steiger, Indian Medicine Power. 24. Khurana and Nohria, ‘‘It’s Time to Make Management a True Profession.’’

25. J. Useem, K. Bonamici, N. D. Schwartz, and C. Murphy, ‘‘20 That Made History,’’ Fortune, 27 June 2005, 58 (14 pages).

70 SECTION II ETHICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL