Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situation

Ethical Decision Making
in
Everyday Work
Situations
Recent Titles from Quorum Books
Global Corporate Intelligence: Opportunities, Technologies, and Threats in

the 1990s
George S. Roukis, Hugh Conway, and Bruce Charnov, editors
The Process of Change in American Banking: Political Economy and the
Public Purpose
Jeremy F. Taylor
Drop Shipping as a Marketing Function: A Handbook of Methods and Policies
Nicholas T. Scheel
Manufacturing for the Security of the United States: Reviving Competitiveness
and Reducing Deficits
Robert £. McGarrah
Employee Complaint Handling: Tested Techniques for Human Resource
Managers
D. Keith Denton and Charles Boyd
Alcohol Problem Intervention in the Workplace: Employee Assistance
Programs and Strategic Alternatives
Paul M. Roman, editor
Problem Employee Management: Proactive Strategies for Human Resource
Managers
Willa M. Bruce
Electronic Data Interchange in Finance and Accounting
Robert J. Thierauf
Accounting Ethics: A Practical Guide for Professionals
Philip G. Cottell, Jr., and Terry M. Perlin
Privatization and Deregulation in Global Perspective
Dennis J. Gayle and Jonathan N. Goodrich, editors
The Deregulation of the World Financial Markets: Myths, Realities, and Impact
SarkisJ. Khoury
Social Change Philanthropy in America
Alan Rabinowitz
in
Everyday Work
Situations
MARY E. GUY
QUORUM BOOKS
Westport, Connecticut • London
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Guy, Mary E.
Ethical decision making in everyday work situations / Mary E. Guy.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-89930-418-4 (lib. bdg. : alk. paper)
1. Business ethics. 2. Decision-making—Moral and ethical
aspects. I. Title.
HF5387.G89 1990
174'.4-dc20 89-24348
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available.

Copyright © 1990 by Mary E. Guy
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be
reproduced, by any process or technique, without the
express written consent of the publisher.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 89-24348
ISBN: 0-89930-418-4
First published in 1990 by Quorum Books
Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881
An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Printed in the United States of America
The paper used in this book complies with the

Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National
Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984).
P
In order to keep this title in print and available to the academic community, this edition
was produced using digital reprint technology in a relatively short print run. This would
not have been attainable using traditional methods. Although the cover has been changed
from its original appearance, the text remains the same and all materials and methods
used still conform to the highest book-making standards.
Dedicated to
those
who have the courage
to
make tough choices
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Cases xi
Illustrations xiii
Preface xv
Acknowledgments xix
PART I INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS AND

DECISION MAKING 1
Chapter 1 Values, Ethics, and Personal
Responsibility 3
Relationship between Values, Ethics, and
Morals 5
Actions Speak Louder than Words 7
Business versus Government Ethics 11
Philosophical Foundations of Ethics 11
Administrative Ethics 13
Values as Guideposts for Ethical Decision
Making 14
viii CONTENTS
Codes of Ethics and the Role They Play in

Work Settings 19
SUMMARY 22
Chapter 2 Decision Making 25
The Decision Calculus 25
The Context of Decisions 27
Theoretical Framework for Rational Decision
Making 28
Rational Decision Making in Real Life 30
Bounded Rationality 33
Ethical Satisficing 34
Applying Ethical Analysis to Decision Making 37
Definition of Ethical Decision Making 39
SUMMARY 43
PART II APPLYING ETHICAL DECISION

MAKING 45
Chapter 3 Interpersonal Relationships 47

Contradictory Norms 48
Interpersonal Ethical Dilemmas 50
Counseling the Problem Employee 59
Dealing with Claims of Sexual Harassment 63
Firing Employees 65
Giving References 67
SUMMARY 71
Chapter 4 Conflicts of Interest 73

Conflicting Commitments and Obligations 73
Examples of Conflicts of Interest 75
Looking Out for Friends and Family 89
CONTENTS IX
He Who Pays the Fiddler Calls the Tune 90

SUMMARY 94
Chapter 5 Adapting to Company Norms 97
Socialization to an Organization*s Culture 97
Culture as Control 98
Ethical Cultures 100
Contradictory Norms 100
Performance Evaluation and Salary Decisions 110
Determining Priorities 114
Swimming Upstream 117
SUMMARY 124
Chapter 6 Good Citizenship 127
Individual versus Community Interests 127
Promoting Democratic Values in the
Workplace 135
Privacy Rights 138
Political Games versus Managerial Excellence 139
Whistle-Blowing 141
SUMMARY 152
Chapter 7 Guidelines for Ethical Decision Making 155
CHAPELFIRZ 155
Ethical Decision Making 156
Ethical Satisficing 156
Creating an Ethical Culture 159
Strategic Ethical Response 164
Guidelines for Making Ethical Decisions 165
SUMMARY 166
Bibliography 169
Index 177
Cases
Ethical Decision Making amidst Contrasting

Cultural Norms 40
The Incompetent Supervisor 51
Dealing with an Inept Colleague and an Ineffectual
Supervisor 54
Transferring Staff against Their Will 55
Personal Needs versus Organizational Needs 57
Supervising Friends 60
Handling Sexual Harassment 63
A Problem of Accountability when Firing Occurs 65
The Problem of Promise Keeping 68
The Problem of Integrity 69
Saying No to a Superior 77
Accepting Gifts 80
The Dual Roles of Coroner and Funeral Director 84
The Supervisor as Landlord 85
Padding Expense Vouchers 86
Xll CASES
Which Boss to Listen To? 92

Fraudulent Reporting 101
Coopted by the Company 106
Managing by the Book versus by Practicality 108
The Problem of Fairness 111
When Budget Cuts Interfere with Rewarding Good
Performance 112
Charging for Overtime 115
Student Affairs versus Political Affairs 119
Social Worker Turned Prosecutor 122
Getting a Land Permit 129
The Adoption Decision 131
Counteracting Biases 136
Shutting Federal Offices 140
Flawed Construction 147
The Art Gallery 149
Illustrations
TABLES
Table 1.1 Survey of Business Ethics 9
Table 1.2 Ten Core Values 14
Table 2.1 Outline for Solving Complex Problems 29
Table 3.1 Norms and Counternorms 49
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The Context of Decisions 28
Figure 7.1 Ethical Decision Making 157
Preface
Making ethical decisions is easier said than done. Few people inten-
tionally set out to be unethical. Yet often day-to-day activities lead
people to succumb to expedient decisions which have less than ethical
consequences. Many practical pressures make it difficult to perceive or
adequately consider the ethical implications of conduct. By necessity,
competent, successful managers must plant their feetfirmlyin the prac-
tical world of compromise and expediency. This book is written to help
managers learn to practice, as well as to promote, ethical and expedient
decision making in their work.
The 1980s brought to light an egregious disregard for ethics at the
highest levels of government and business. In the wake of the arms-
for-hostages deal between the United States and Iran, scandals within
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, procurement
deals between arms manufacturers and the Pentagon, insider trading on
Wall Street, the forced resignation of House Speaker Jim Wright, and
a plethora of leveraged buyouts, comes a renewed emphasis on the need
to be sensitive to ethical concerns.
Although there are many conflict-of-interest laws, corporate policy
statements, and administrative regulations that direct choices in the
workplace, these are only briefly alluded to in this book. This is because
laws, policies, regulations, and other forms of rules are external controls
and, being so, it is fairly easy to make personnel aware of them. This
xvi PREFACE
book covers the exceptions to the rule, either because the problem under
consideration is too unique or complex to be covered, or too routine to
warrant a regulation. In other words, this book is about judgment.
The chapters that follow focus on actual situations and explain how
ethical considerations come into play. Organizations shape a person's
view of work-related situations. One's characteristic habits for relating
to peers, customers, suppliers, clients, superiors, and subordinates are
a blend of personal style, ethical choices, and organizational norms.
To separate the discussion of ethics from the discussion of organizational
behavior is to ignore the very important interaction between the em-
ployee and the company.
Some of the most common ethical dilemmas emanate from hierar-
chical relationships that produce a clash between administrative rou-
tines and professional, personal, or democratic values. Should a
secretary keep quiet when a supervisor adds personal expenses to
business-expense reimbursement claims? Should a salesperson push
an inferior product just to meet a quota? Day-to-day decisions high-
light the fact that even apparently routine decisions about budgeting
and financial issues, personnel procedures, marketing strategies, su-
pervisory styles, and reporting functions involve ethical issues and
consequences.
Cost/benefit ratios, hierarchical chains of command, assembly lines,
and budgets do not have to give way in order to ensure ethical decisions.
Decision makers need to be aware, though, of the ethical considerations
that are involved. There are always ethical implications to decisions
about how to calculate costs and benefits, how to organize a work force,
how to monitor assembly line production, and how to allocate resources.
Many people deal with ethical issues every day even though they do
not realize it. Ethics is not a weighty subject restricted to the province
of high-minded philosophical debates. Ethics is an everyday application
of a standard of relating to others. Ethical considerations are called into
play when an employer is asked to provide a reference on an employee
who is known to have a drinking problem or an attendance problem,
or any other counterproductive work habit. If the person providing the
reference withholds information, the next employer is misled as to the
new employee's work habits. If the person providing the reference gives
the information, the employee's right to privacy is violated. A balancing
act must be mastered between the competing values of honesty, promise
keeping, integrity, and loyalty.
PREFACE xvn
This book attempts to bring the philosophical discussion of ethics

down to earth and show the reader how to use personal judgment to
make ethical decisions. It is neither a book about philosophy nor a book
about decision making. Other authors have already covered both those
domains far better than I. My contribution is to meld philosophy with
decision making and translate from the esoteric literature to the reader
who wants a commonsense approach to making ethical decisions. This
book targets the interface of decision making and ethics, showing the
considerations that must be brought to bear for a decision to be an
ethical one. It merges the philosophy of ethics with the management
science of decision making and applies the result to daily decision
problems confronting managers.
By no means is this work to be a preaching to the reader. Neither I,
nor anyone else I know, has a pipeline to the Truth (at least one that
is acceptable to enough people to make it worth printing). Rather, the
book sets forth the topic under consideration, shows the values that
relate to it, presents alternative solutions, explains their consequences
if adopted, and then examines the ethical implications of each alter-
native.
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the subject matter, showing how daily
decisions are based on each person's values, whether or not the decision
maker is aware of this fact. Ethics is defined and the relationship between
ethical behavior and morality is clarified. The definition is followed
with a discussion of what "ethics" is about, and why it is important
to be sensitive to the ethical dimension of work-related decisions. Ten
guiding values that serve as the foundation for ethical decisions are
explored: caring, honesty, accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of
excellence, loyalty, fairness, integrity, respect for others, and respon-
sible citizenship.
Chapter 2 focuses on decision making. Differences in people's pref-
erences result from differences in their priorities. And priorities are
based on values. For this reason, it is impossible for complex decision
making to be value neutral. A rational decision is one that maximizes
a value, which may be efficiency, efficacy, reliability, controllability,
marketability, or any of many other values. At the root of any of these
are basic assumptions about the importance of accountability, pursuit
of excellence, and responsible citizenship. Promoting one alternative
over another involves trading off one value for another.
Many people are expressing a renewed interest in intuitive decision
xvui PREFACE
making as an adjunct to rational decision making. Right-brain thinking

involves the decision maker's accepting subliminal cues as acceptable
data in addition to facts and figures. Both rational and intuitive decision
making can be appropriate for approaching a decision problem. These,
or any other models of decision making, are based on a conglomeration
of values held by the individual decision maker. Chapter 2 closes with
a definition of ethical decision making and an example of a decision
problem to show how ethical calculations enter the picture.
Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 break ethical decision making into four
categories: those that involve interpersonal relationships, those that in-
volve differentiating between personal gain and loyalty to one's em-
ployer, those that involve getting along in the context of company
norms, and those that involve good citizenship in the organization as
well as in the community. The cases presented in these chapters take
a proactive approach to ethical inquiry by presenting situations, teasing
out the ethical issues that are involved, and applying various scenarios
for reaching an ethical decision. The situations demonstrate the tension
that exists between ethical decision making, coping with daily exigen-
cies, and accommodating the preferences of stakeholders. Each case
depicts ordinary circumstances that personnel often encounter. The rel-
evant values in each case are identified and alternative solutions are
explored.
Chapter 7 summarizes the relationship between ethics and decision
making and gives a prescription for ensuring ethical decision making.
The book closes by emphasizing that the best position executives can
be in is one that promotes ethical decision making and the behavior
that follows, rather than one that results in the predicament of having
to put out fires caused by someone's failure to realize the ethical di-
mensions to a problem.
Acknowledgments
The development of this book would not have been possible without
hours of thoughtful discussion afforded to me by scores of employees,
ranging in rank from chief executive officers to vice presidents, to
midlevel managers, to supervisors, to line personnel. They have been
employed or have served in a variety of organizations, ranging from
federal, state, and local agencies; to large corporations and small en-
trepreneurial firms; to banks and utility companies; to universities and
schools; and to not-for-profit commissions and boards. To all of you,
your insights have been invaluable, and I thank you for the opportunities
you have given me to walk beside you as you struggled to choose the
right answers to your dilemmas.
My able research asssistants, Sara Bradley and Rita Macon, devoted
many hours to researching materials and handling the technical aspects
of producing this manuscript. I extend to them my warmest wishes for
their budding careers, and trust that the right solutions will come easily.
I am grateful to my teachers, disguised as my students, who have
wrangled with me and with one another as we explored the nuances to
ethical decision making. Some of their own experiences are included
as cases in the chapters of this book. The names have been changed in
most instances, as have the details of the circumstances, in order to
protect the confidentiality of everyone involved.
I owe special words of thanks to Cindy Michelson, Alva Brownfield,
XX ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Reata Busby, Harris Cornett, Norma Ann Dodd, John Donohue, Jay
Glass, Daphine Jackson, Donna Miranda, Brenda Lee Rice, Patricia
Todd, Cecil Usher, and Lynne Windham. And last, but by no means
least, I thank Eric Valentine for his editorial insight and helpful sug-
gestions in the preparation of this manuscript.
Parti
Introduction to Ethics
and Decision Making
1
Values, Ethics, and Personal
Responsibility
An inclination is where virtue must begin, and no one need despair

because, say, his courage lags behind his temperance. Just being aware
of it is a sign of a desire to do something about it, though no one should
expect total conversion overnight. For no less than in any other human
endeavor, in our quest for moral virtues the law of progress is one of
gradual perfection.
—Yves Simon
The search for excellence begins with ethics. Every time a person
chooses between alternatives, the choice is based on assumptions that
lie at the heart of a moral code. The code is grounded in values that
provide the framework for principled reasoning and ethical decisions.
Commerce depends for its very existence on the ethical behavior of
the vast majority of participants. It requires that contracts are honored,
private property is respected, and promises are kept. It relies upon the
unspoken sentiments of fair play and camaraderie. Ethical practices
make good business sense, because ethical companies suffer less re-
sentment, less litigation, and less regulatory oversight (Solomon and
Hanson, 1985). Furthermore, ethical managers and ethical businesses
tend to be more trusted and better treated by employees, suppliers,
stockholders, and consumers.
4 ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
Organizations are a reflection of society; they are the method by

which individuals unite to form a network of common interest. And
each organization is a fluid enterprise. At its center are the managers
and executives responsible for directing the resources of the company.
Shareholders own the capital and expect a return on their investment.
Workers produce the goods and expect a decent wage and safe working
conditions. To have a successful enterprise, each group must be re-
sponsive to the others and balance its interest against the interests of
the others. When the balance is upset or when the interests pull too
hard against each other, the ethical system is damaged. For an enterprise
to continually give value to human effort and to encourage creative
achievements, a balance of all interests is required (Parry, 1985).
Administrative actions are shaped by three domains: legality, free
choice, and integrity (Mueller, 1977). The law defines and constrains
the limits of potential actions, specifying the bounds of lawful behavior.
What is legal is not necessarily moral; what is not prohibited by law is
not necessarily ethical; and what minimally meets the law is not nec-
essarily proper. While the law codifies customs, ideals, beliefs, and
moral values of a society, it cannot possibly cover all possible human
actions.
Free choice represents complete freedom of personal choice to do
anything one desires. But, paraphrasing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
the right to swing your fist stops where the other person's nose begins.
In other words, people have a right to do whatever they want as long
as their actions do not negatively affect others. Ethical behavior is more
constrained than this, however. Ethical behavior is that behavior which
is the right thing to do, given the circumstances.
The lightness of actions is constrained by the third domain, integrity,
which is obedience to the unenforceable. This represents unwritten,
often unspoken, guidelines for behavior for which no legal mandates
or prohibitions exist. It is the grey area where neither law nor free choice
prevail. This is the realm of integrity, the necessary foundation for
ethical decision making.
Ethics is different from law because it involves no formal sanctions.
It is different from etiquette because it goes beyond mere social con-
vention. It is different from religion because it makes no theological
assumptions. It is different from aesthetics because it is aimed at conduct
and character rather than objects. It is different from prudence because
it goes beyond self-interest to include the interests of others. It is dif-
VALUES, ETHICS, AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY 5
ferent from finance and marketing and governing and parenting and
carpentry, in that it does not involve a special purpose or special role
as its point of departure. Ethics is both a process of inquiry and a code
of conduct. Ethical inquiry consists of asking the questions of what is
good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. As a code of
conduct, it is a sort of inner eye that enables people to see the lightness
or wrongness of their actions.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUES, ETHICS, AND

MORALS
Values are core beliefs about what is intrinsically desirable. They
underly the choices made in work decisions just as they underlie the
choices made in one's private life. They give rise to ideals that are
called ethics or morals. The two terms are sometimes confused. Ac-
tually, ethics and morals are synonymous. While ethics is derived from
Greek, morals is derived from Latin. They are interchangeable terms
referring to ideals of character and conduct. These ideals, in the form
of codes of conduct, furnish criteria for distinguishing between right
and wrong.
Ethical inquiry requires the decision maker to consider facts in light
of important values. The conclusions reached are often stated as judg-
ments, such as "he is a good person"; "bribery is wrong, even though
it may be profitable"; "caring about others is the essence of virtue";
"the act was irresponsible"; "her character, and the character of her
firm, is admirable"; or, "the key to doing right by Jones is doing what
is for his own good." This is to say that moral judgments and problems
are couched in a certain kind of language. Terms like good, bad, right,
wrong, obligation, duty, ought, should, rights, and virtue are the char-
acteristic coinage of moral discourse and invoke a moral frame of ref-
erence.
Contradictory values contribute to the complexity of ethical inquiry.
To maximize one value often requires diminishing others. For example,
while an organization's dedication to producing quality products or
services is laudable, an emphasis on quality may deemphasize quantity,
or in some circumstances, efficiency. Or, while objectivity and imper-
sonal procedures and actions are seen as good, they preclude taking
individual circumstances into account. Or, while friendship on the job
is good, in some cases it makes it more difficult to promote other

important values, such as efficiency or fairness.
Everyone who makes decisions relies on a moral code, shifting though
it may be. Decision makers may be only partially sensitive to the cross-
cutting loyalties, interests, and preconceptions that actually shape their
choices. Individual thoughtfulness is the key to ethical decision making.
A moral code must be conscientiously applied to the issue at hand such
that any decision maximizes the most important values and minimizes
the less important values.
A corporation is made up of individual employees. When they go to
work each day they take their respective moral codes with them. To a
great extent, it is true that to have ethical employees, a company must
hire ethical applicants. But there is no guarantee that people with high
scores on a test of moral values will necessarily behave ethically. Know-
ing what is right and good is one thing, but what really matters is
whether or not people put their values into practice in the workplace.
Ethics refers to standards by which individuals evaluate their own
conduct and the conduct of others. Most ethical decisions do not hold
one's life in the balance. They are day-to-day decisions that people
make and often take for granted in the world of work: treating others
with respect, keeping promises, making personnel decisions, looking
out for friends, giving and accepting gifts, padding expense vouchers,
or reporting wrongdoing. On a greater scale of wrongdoing are failure
to respect confidential information, failure to report important infor-
mation, invasions of privacy, unnecessary secrecy, conflicts of interest,
kickbacks, taking advantage of insider information, theft of company
funds, bribery, and commercial espionage.
Employees engage in some behaviors because they assume that as
long as they are the only persons doing it, little harm can come of it.
Ethical problems mushroom when several people follow the same logic.
Before long, what started as inattentiveness to complaints, failure to
evaluate inefficiency and waste, and failure to keep abreast of what is
going on in the company results in secrecy, doing less than the best,
corruption, and ultimately ineffectiveness.
Being sensitive to ethical issues and incorporating them into decision
making decreases the likelihood of costly mistakes. Ethical wrongdoing
affects morale within the company and has the potential to damage
relations with the company's major constituents, including customers,
clients, shareholders, and suppliers, as well as the general public. The
way executives handle sticky issues can fundamentally alter their ef-
fectiveness and credibility because their decisions reflect their personal
integrity and courage, influence the trust others are willing to place in
them, and communicate conviction or vacillation on issues that matter
deeply to many others. Some corporations create a moral environment
by specifying a distinct set of values and standards to which they hold
their people accountable. A corporation that is serious about maintaining
high ethical standards may shut down a plant when it fails to meet
internal quality standards, remove controversial products from the mar-
ket, and fire individuals who cross ethical lines.
Unethical acts are usually not so much a product of greed or im-
morality as they are of ethical naivete. Unwitting employees may have
done what they were told to do and, in the process, become scapegoats
for someone else's indiscretion. A midlevel manager, pressed from
above, may mistakenly believe that in business, you do whatever you
have to do to survive. When upper management is not clear about
standards, priorities, or limits, the manager is left to his or her as-
sumptions about what actions to take. Or, employees hidden in the
anonymity of a large organization think that their actions will remain
undiscovered regardless of the lightness or wrongness of their behavior.
Employment involves an exchange relationship between people. Em-
ployees exchange their time and effort not only for the job and the
salary but also for all the position brings: career; self-esteem; and the
quality of life defined with and by other people in terms of respect,
status, recognition, admiration, and friendship. The good life is not
only what money can buy, but what relationships and rewards are gained
from one's daily activities.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

In ethics, actions speak louder than words. While codes of ethics
may be public relations niceties, they do not adequately stem unethical
behavior in business and government. Ethical behavior on the job means
staying close to peers, subordinates, superiors, and customers, and
retaining a realistic view of what is good and just in the world. Ethical
behavior on the job is not separable from that in other parts of people's
lives.
No organization is a moral sanctuary, absolved of moral responsi-
bility. Institutions are created by people to serve people's ends (An-

derson, 1954).
Unwritten but tacitly understood codes of conduct that are taken for
granted in small, family-owned businesses are not as effective in large,
impersonal organizations. Although the same rules may apply in large
organizations as in small businesses, they often disappear in the ano-
nymity. The personal touch and informal controls that are as meaningful
in a small shop as they are in a family become vague, if not lost, in
vast, impersonal bureaucracies. This does not absolve large corporations
and agencies of ethical responsibilities, however. Organizations are not
like machines that have no thinking parts. The means and ends of any
organization do not come out of thin air, nor once adopted are they
fixed in stone. They are formulated by people and can be modified by
people.
In 1986, the U.S. Bureau of Justice reported that, in federal cases
alone, almost eleven thousand people were convicted and sentenced for
fraud, forgery, and embezzlement. In that same year, the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce estimated loss due to white-collar crime to be between
twenty billion and forty billion dollars (Lippman Report, 1987). The
total loss is far greater, however. What cannot be measured by numbers
is the loss of trust between government and business leaders in the flurry
of dishonest activity.
The growing cohort of middle-aged and older participants in the work
force has become noticeably impatient with ethical breaches. Respon-
dents to a survey conducted in the mid-1980s were asked to rate the
following crimes: falsifying an income tax return, cheating on an exam,
accepting money for their vote in an election, and setting a vacant
building on fire that an owner cannot rent in order to collect insurance
(Wright, 1985). When categorized by age, it was clear that older sub-
jects, those ages 36-66, had recorded a significantly higher aversion to
unethical practices than did younger respondents, ages 22-35. Unfor-
tunately, it is impossible to tell whether older respondents had become
less tolerant of ethical violations as they matured or whether they were
always less tolerant than younger respondents.
The lead story in a 1987 issue of Crain's Chicago Business included
the report of a survey of 452 readers who had responded to a survey
on business ethics (Hornung, 1987). Bribery, kickbacks, payoffs, de-
ception, and lying were frequently mentioned among the standard busi-
Table 1.1
Survey of Business Ethics
Question Yes No
Generally speaking, good ethics is good business. 99% 1%

Are most corporate executives honest? 82% 18%
In your industry are there practices that you 73% 27%
consider unethical?
Does the rhetoric of business ethics exceed 73% 27%
the reality for most companies?
Should business schools make courses in business 95% 5%
ethics available to all business students?
Should ethics of the business world be different 11% 89%
from personal ethics?
Should companies provide employees with training 93% 7%
on the ethical standards of the company and
the repercussions for violations?
ness practices that respondents wished to see eliminated in their

industries. Table 1.1 presents a summary of the responses.
When respondents were asked how their ethics compared with those
of their peers, only 1 percent said their ethics were lower, 20 percent
said their ethics were about the same, 53 percent said their ethics were
higher, and 26 percent said their ethics were much higher. In other
words, over three-fourths of the respondents rated their ethics as being
higher than those of their peers (Hornung, 1987, p. 63).
The report evokes the notion that competitive pressures force perfectly
decent people to act unethically. The dissonance between how people
would like to act and how they actually act is reflected in this disparity.
When corporate executives are making decisions, 82 percent of the
respondents said that they ought to weigh claims of corporate consti-
tuencies other than shareholders. This includes those with competing
interests, such as labor, consumer, and community groups (Hornung,
1987). Only one-third of all respondents said their company had a formal
procedure other than the ordinary chain of command for employees to
make complaints about such things as hazardous or unfair company

practices.
Crain's also asked its readers to list the most difficult ethical dilemmas
they had confronted in their business activities. Respondents listed a
number of incidents, including the following:
• One person received an order from his general manager to falsify year-end
financial information. The preliminary figures were nowhere near budget. He
refused to do it and was fired.
• The president of the company where one respondent worked had asked her
to issue false progress billings to a customer.
• A respondent had to decide whether to fire two people for falsifying time
reports. It was such a common thing in her business that the employees were
shocked that she took the falsification seriously.
• One respondent felt ethically bound to report accurate information to a client
even though his company had ordered him not to do so.
• A respondent's advertising firm was unwilling to meet the gift giving of the
competition. The firm lost a major corporate account because five marketing
managers from the client firm sent them a list of gifts they wanted for Christ-
mas. One even listed a color television. The advertisingfirmtold the marketing
managers to forget it, and lost the account because of their refusal not to
"play the game."
When asked to list the worst ethical dilemmas facing business, here
is what Chicago respondents said: fair treatment of all employees; cheat-
ing to get ahead; under-the-table deals; kickbacks; payoffs; government
corruption; being driven by self-interest; trying to improve the bottom
line, no matter how; and a lack of ethical leadership at the top (Hornung,
1987). These problems are not unique to the Chicago area. The drive
for short-term profits is a threat to American business ethics. When next
quarter's bottom line outweighs all other considerations, ethical short-
cuts are the inevitable result.
Government as well as business has been grappling with ethical di-
lemmas. Public administration issued a call twenty years ago for more
attention to be paid to the values that serve as the foundation for gov-
ernment action (Marini, 1971). But as we head toward the twenty-first
century, there is a suspicion that money has replaced intelligence and
hard work as the way to get things done. Some even say that Wash-
ington's atmosphere during the 1980s was reminiscent of what city halls
must have been like in the days of Boss Tweed, but in the 1980s the
bagmen had fancy college degrees and five-hundred-dollar suits. Gov-
ernment as well as business had gone beyond the bounds of individual
conscience and common sense.
BUSINESS VERSUS GOVERNMENT ETHICS

Ethical decision making is as important, if not more important, in
public agencies as it is in private companies. Some writers treat business
and public agencies as two different enterprises so unrelated as to be
incomparable. Such a dichotomy between public and private organi-
zations artificially divides organizations and the discussion of what goes
on within them. Barry Bozeman (1987) argues that there are two funda-
mental sources of authority upon which all organizations are based:
economic authority and political authority, each of which exists as a
unique dimension. Bozeman argues that it is the authority mix that has
a pervasive influence on the organization as a whole, its constraints,
and its operations, not the mere fact of whether the organization is
chartered by government or private enterprise. So, rather than being
wholly public or private, organizations are more or less public or private.
As the argument goes, organizations may be more public in some re-
spects and more private in other respects. Thus, an organization lies
somewhere on a publicness dimension. Whether or not you accept
Bozeman's argument, at least it should be obvious that human behavior
is much the same whether people are working in a government agency,
a not-for-profit agency, or a for-profit business. At the heart of the
enterprise, whether it is business, government, or not-for-profit, there
must be a guiding philosophy that generates a fundamental set of beliefs
or assumptions upon which to operate and to guide decisions.
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ETHICS

Ethics has been a subject of systematic investigation for over twenty-
five hundred years (Leys, 1968). From as far back as Plato's Republic
to Immanuel Kant's eighteenth-century Critique ofJudgment (Cornford,
1945) to John Rawls's twentieth-century Theory ofJustice, philosophers
have struggled with defining what is right and good and just. Kant and
Plato were concerned with the same problems even though they did not
uphold the same ideals. "Kant, for example, disapproved of absolute
governments, and he declared that lying is never justified; Plato on the

other hand, longed for a benevolent dictatorship and defended what he
called 'medicinal myths' " (Leys, 1968, p. 70). Both philosophers were
aspiring to consistency in conduct, and each in his own way was reaching
for that community of attitudes that makes rational discussion possible.
Kant justified doing the morally right thing by invoking the "cate-
gorical imperative," meaning a universal unconditional obligation (Pa-
ton, 1947). Kant's categorical imperative is that "one ought never to
act except in such a way that one can also will that one's maxim should
become a universal law" (Beauchamp and Bowie, 1979, p. 20). This
means that people should behave in such a manner that if everyone else
acted the same way, everyone would benefit. Put in everyday language,
this means that making promises with the intention of breaking them
when they no longer suit the promisor's purposes is to disobey the
categorical imperative. More recently the contemporary philosopher
John Rawls focused on the best way to achieve equal amounts of liberty
for everyone and, in the face of inevitable inequalities, sought a principle
which would maximize the condition of the least advantaged. His work
focuses on the distribution of justice to achieve this end.
Philosophical approaches that seek universal truths, such as those
discussed by Plato, Kant, and Rawls, are deontological. A functional
code of ethics usually draws from two philosophical frameworks, one
deontological and one teleological. Deontology is a view that holds that
there are universal rules that serve as moral guides, such as those put
forth by Plato, Kant, and Rawls. A deontological approach to ethics
maintains that the concept of duty is independent of the concept of good.
That is, acts have significance regardless of whether or not good comes
of them. A belief in obligations, such as promise keeping and keeping
contracts, for example, is a deontological notion that someone should
do something because they said they would, regardless of whether a
good is associated with it.
A teleological approach to ethics is utilitarian. It assumes that the
moral worth of actions is determined solely by the consequences of the
actions. Utility refers to social happiness, based on the states of mind
of the individuals involved. The principle of utility is an important part
of American moral thinking. But because it is, it is not unusual to have
simultaneously contradictory implications. What looks good from a
personal, social, environmental, business, or religious point of view
may not look good from another point of view. What looks right from
a business perspective often looks wrong from a government perspective

and vice versa. And what looks right from a personal point of view
may look wrong from a business or governmental perspective.
There are three alternative routes to a teleological perspective. The
first is egoism, which is pure self-interest. The second is act utilitar-
ianism, which means actions are ethical when they produce pleasure.
The third is rule utilitarianism, which means that generalizable codes
of conduct can be established, but they are not universal.
Rule utilitarianism is sort of a bounded deontological approach in
which there is an agreed-upon moral code, but that code is subject to
ongoing revision rather than accepted as lasting or universal. For ex-
ample, if confronted with the choice of giving fifty dollars to charity
or to a friend, this approach dictates that the choice should be based
on that which would lead to the best consequences for all affected, that
is, the greatest good for the greatest number. In business, efficiency is
a means to higher profits and to lower prices, so it is the greatest good
for the greatest number. Likewise, in government, efficiency means
being able to provide more services for the same tax dollars. Business
is founded on a utilitarian conception of the good society (Beauchamp
and Bowie, 1979). In the United States, government services are also
grounded in a utilitarian concept but guided by the deontological notion
of equality, freedom, and the right to property.
ADMINISTRATIVE ETHICS
The beauty and the challenge of ethics is that it provides a framework
for decision making. Kathryn Denhardt (1988) captured this dilemma
when she defined administrative ethics as a process of independently
critiquing alternatives, based on core social values within the context
of the organization, subject to personal and professional accountability.
There are three fundamental questions of ethics which require an
unequivocal positive response (Baier, 1958):
• Should anyone do what is right when doing so is not to that person's ad-
vantage?
• Does anyone do what is right when doing so is not to that person's advantage?
• Can anyone know what is right?
Table 1.2
Ten Core Values
Caring Loyalty
Honesty Fairness
Accountability Integrity
Promise Keeping Respect for Others
Pursuit of Excellence Responsible Citizenship
Answering "Yes" to these questions commits one to ethical inquiry

and ethical decision making.
VALUES AS GUIDEPOSTS FOR ETHICAL DECISION

MAKING
A general consensus has developed around ten essential values that
are central to relations between people (Barry, 1979; Beauchamp and
Bowie, 1979; Josephson, 1988; Solomon and Hanson, 1985). Although
they overlap to some degree, they provide a means for judging inter-
personal choices and behaviors. By evaluating how these values relate
to an issue under consideration, and by analyzing who the stakeholders
are in the decision, the ethical implications of an action become clearer.
Table 1.2 lists them.
Caring means treating people as ends in themselves, not means to
an end. It means having compassion, treating people courteously and
with dignity, helping those in need, and avoiding harm to others.
The difficulty with this value in work settings is that organizations
use people as ends by virtue of the employment contract. To an em-
ployer, an employee is both an end and a means to an end (productivity),
so there is an inevitable trade-off. Working is an exchange relationship.
Although the balance is fairly close to level, it is nevertheless an unequal
relationship, with the employer having more weight than the employee.
This principle also applies to colleagues who may be tempted to curry
favor with someone not for the value of the relationship, but for the value
of what that person can do to help them achieve their ends.
Honesty means being truthful and not deceiving or distorting. In the
long run, there is usually less advantage and more harm to being dis-
honest than to being honest. One by one, deceptions undermine the
capacity for open exchange and erode credibility. Individuals who lose
their reputation for truthfulness usually cannot accomplish very much.
The people who want to be lied to nevertheless resent it when the
lies are discovered. To prevent embarrassment, telling ''little white lies''
or "medicinal myths" as Plato called them, to oneself or one's friends
is common. But privacy can be protected just as well by silence. De-
ception is always discoverable, and if it is about something interesting
or someone important, it is more than likely to be discovered.
Indirect deceptions, such as withholding needed information from
opponents or allowing misinterpretations of one's works to stand without
correction may be as tempting as lies. But business is not the same as
a poker game, where bluffing is part of the skill. Everyone involved in
a poker game knows the rules. But business activity is not isolated from
the rest of society. It is not something relegated to the back rooms of
society, played for the amusement of a privileged few. Many nonbusi-
ness people are involved with business activities, whether as customers,
as neighbors sharing or competing for the same resources, or as citizens
affected by large government contracts with business.
Accountability means accepting the consequences of one's actions
and accepting the responsibility for one's decisions and their conse-
quences. This means setting an example for others and avoiding even
the appearance of impropriety. Asking such questions as How would
this be interpreted if it appeared in the newspaper? or What sort of
person would do such a thing? bring accountability dilemmas into focus.
Promise keeping means keeping one's commitments. When promises
have been made, they are supported by the fact that the obligation to
keep promises is among the most important of generally accepted ob-
ligations. To be worthy of trust, promises must be kept and commitments
fulfilled. There are many stakeholders in organizational decisions, in-
cluding employees, clients, shareholders, dealers, suppliers, unions,
local communities, competitors, and customers. Promises and agree-
ments to and among stakeholders create expectations of performance
and establish obligations.
Pursuit of excellence means striving to be as good as one can be. It
means being diligent, industrious, and committed. It means being well
informed and well prepared. It is not enough to be content with me-
diocrity, but it is also notrightto win "at any cost." Many companies
explicitly state that the ends will not justify illegal means. Results are
stressed, but so is the manner and the method of achievement. A sizeable
number of firms stress that managers and top officials who know about
misconduct and who either endorse it or avoid taking steps to correct
the situation are liable in the same way as the offender.
Loyalty means being faithful and loyal to those with whom one has
dealings. In a business context, this means safeguarding the ability to
make independent professional judgments by scrupulously avoiding un-
due influence and conflicts of interest. Every organization is dependent
upon cohesion and demands loyalty from its members. Loyalty becomes
an institutional good. It is the oil that keeps an organization from grind-
ing with dissension. But loyalty is not an unmitigated good. It depends
upon to whom and for what purpose the loyalty is given. If loyalty
means blind, unquestioning obedience, inevitably the values of the
organization clash with broader social and political values. Blind obe-
dience is thoughtless and does not prepare a decision maker to weigh
values in question and make the best decision. For example, public
relations professionals must walk a thin line between sometimes incom-
patible moral values of economic dealings, political activity, education
issues, and environmental matters (Wright, 1985). A public relations
expert cannot excel for long without having developed the skill to
evaluate the values in question and develop a principled compromise.
Fairness means being open-minded, willing to admit error, and not
overreaching or taking undue advantage of another's adversities, and it
means avoiding arbitrary or capricious favoritism. It means treating
people equally and making decisions based on notions of justice.
Integrity means using independent judgment and avoiding conflicts
of interest, restraining from self-aggrandizement, and resisting eco-
nomic pressure. It means being faithful to one's deepest beliefs, acting
on one's conviction, and not adopting an end-justifies-the-means phi-
losophy that ignores principle.
Examining the extent to which self-interest is present in a decision
helps to clarify and resolve conflicts among obligations. Of course it is
appropriate to consider one's personal needs, desires, and personal
ambitions. The appropriateness is bounded by obligations, however.
The proper place of one's own interests, whether or not in collision
with one's duties, arises when choosing whether to accept, or impose,
an obligation. It is generally agreed that moral reasons are superior to
reasons of self-interest, reasons of long-range interest superior to reasons
of short-range interest, and reasons of self-interest superior to caprice
(Baier, 1958).
Respect for others means recognizing each person's right to privacy

and self-determination and having respect for human dignity. It means
being courteous, prompt, and decent, and providing others with infor-
mation that they need to make informed decisions.
Responsible citizenship means that actions should be in accord with
societal values. All high officials, whether in government or business,
have some degree of discretion, and many have a great deal. Appropriate
standards for the exercise of this discretion must be practiced. Within
government, both legislative and executive judgment ought to reflect
the will of the people in accord with democratic values. Public servants
have a special obligation to lead by example, to safeguard and advance
the integrity and reputation of the legislative process, and to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety. John Rohr (1989) argues that career civil
servants must base their ethical behavior in public administration on
three regime values: equality, property, and freedom.
In both government and business it is important to obey just laws.
If a law is unjust, it should be protested through accepted means.
Democratic rights and privileges should be exercised by voting and
expressing informed views. When in a position of leadership or au-
thority, one must respect democratic processes of decision making.
These ten values are at the core of ethical standards that have survived
the ages. They may be remembered by the acronym CHAPELFIRZ:
caring, Zionesty, accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of excellence,
/oyalty,/airness, integrity, respect for others, and responsible citizen-
ship. When put into practice, these values generate widely recognized
virtues that provide benchmarks for ethical decision making. These
virtues are, for example, moderation, order, resolution, industriousness,
sincerity, and humility. Principles such as the following are based on
various combinations of the ten core values and virtues that are generated
by them:
Treat all human beings with fairness. This principle emphasizes the
importance of fairness.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This principle
has been a prominent ethical force in Buddhism, ancient Greek philos-
ophy, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity. It emphasizes caring, hon-
esty, accountability, promise keeping, loyalty, fairness, integrity, and
respect for others.
Act that your act will produce, over the long range, maximum good.
For example, breaking a promise might be expedient in the present
situation but greatly risks a bad reputation and consequent failure in the
long term, and is therefore judged to be unethical. An ethical person
must often forego short-time benefits for long-term advantages. This
emphasizes accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of excellence, in-
tegrity, and responsible citizenship.
Act that your act could be made a general law that could be proved
from human experience to work toward general human and social suc-
cess. This emphasizes caring, honesty, accountability, pursuit of ex-
cellence, promise keeping, fairness, integrity, respect for others, and
responsible citizenship. The question to ask related to this rule is, Would
it still be ethical if everybody did this? For example, if stockbrokers
were to sell poor-quality stocks, investors would soon stop using all
stockbrokers. Therefore, promoting poor-quality stocks is wrong ac-
cording to this rule. Consistency is within a moral code. This means
not making exceptions of yourself that you are unwilling to make for
others, such as breaking in line to buy movie tickets, cheating on exams,
and giving kickbacks and bribes.
In addition to principles that guide ethical decisions, the notion of
distributive justice also serves as a guide. There are alternative rules of
distributive justice, meaning that one can apply different principles in
different contexts. Five alternatives are:
1. to each person an equal share

2. to each person according to individual need
3. to each person according to individual effort
4. to each person according to societal contribution
5. to each person according to merit.
These rules maximize different values. The first maximizes fairness.

The second maximizes caring for others. The third and fifth maximize
the pursuit of excellence. The fourth maximizes responsible citizenship.
Another approach to codifying ethical decision making is to follow
rules based on ethical premises:
Rule 1. Consider the well-being of others, including nonparticipants. This

rule emphasizes caring and respect for others.
Rule 2. Think as a member of the community, not as an isolated individual.
This emphasizes loyalty, integrity, respect for others, and responsible citizenship.
Rule 3. Obey, but do not depend solely on the law. This emphasizes integrity
and responsible citizenship.
Rule 4. Ask, What sort of person would do such a thing? This emphasizes
all the values by calling each into question.
Rule 5. Respect the customs of others, but not at the expense of your own
ethics. This emphasizes accountability, fairness, integrity, and respect for oth-
ers.
A decision maker should not proceed with the notion that there is
one, and only one, right answer to an ethical dilemma. In most situations
there will be several answers, perhaps each quite different from one
another. The first task is to distinguish what values are at stake. The
second task is to select alternatives that will maximize the important
values. The third task is to select the best of the available alternatives.
Some alternatives will be more ethical than others, or, among a set of
equally ethical alternatives, some will be more consistent with one's
personal goals and value system than others.
Foregoing one alternative for another means that some values are
exchanged in favor of other, more important values. This leads to the
importance of distinguishing between the principle of compromise and
the compromise of principle. Compromise is frequently necessary, not
only to find a common ground among decision makers, but to find one
optimal alternative. But willingness to compromise in order to reach an
agreeable, ethical solution is very different from a willingness to jettison
ethics altogether in a compromise of principle.
Choices are not made directly between values, but rather between
options that differ in the extent to which they embody particular values
or in the emphasis some values receive in relation to others. Values
shape the way problems are perceived. They are crucial to the realization
that something is a problem to be solved rather than a condition to be
accepted. And they are crucial to determining the focus of the problem.
It is the task of ethical reasoning to discern ways of achieving decisions
or of managing enduring conflict that will maximize the most important
values while minimizing only those of less importance.
CODES OF ETHICS AND THE ROLE THEY PLAY IN

WORK SETTINGS
An ethical code is a statement of aspirations and a code of commitment
to stakeholders. A code of ethics should describe a standard of integrity
and competence beyond that required by law—which is the bare min-
imum. Codes typically cover the highest ideals of caring, honesty,

accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of excellence, loyalty, fairness,
integrity, respect for others, and responsible citizenship as these values
are applied to the work context, but they do so in general, sometimes
vague terms. In short, they address the ten core values as applied to
the work setting. They legitimate organizational values and may help
provide guidance, especially if they involve implementation guidelines,
such as the code of the International City Management Association,
which adopted a code of ethics in 1924 and has updated it periodically
since then (Public Management, 1987).
Codes of ethics are intended to help people make ethical decisions
when there are no clear-cutrightor wrong answers to guide them. There
are standards of business practices often built into codes of ethics. These
include statements warning against conflicts of interest and conflicts of
obligation. Conflicts of obligation occur when people's principles or
commitments demand that they fulfill two or more obligations simul-
taneously, though only one can be fulfilled at a time. Conflicts of interest
occur when an individual has two or more interests such that if both
are pursued, there may result an unjustified effect on one's work.
Codes of ethics make those who write them feel good—but they may
do little else than spell out a few unequivocally forbidden behaviors.
Chatov (1980) lists what he says are the fourteen most frequently pro-
hibited employee behaviors regarding organizational activities: extor-
tion, gifts, and kickbacks; conflict of interest; illegal political payments;
violation of laws in general; use of insider information; bribery; falsi-
fication of corporate accounts; violation of antitrust laws; moonlighting;
violation of secrecy agreements; ignorance of work-related laws; fraud
and deception; and using ends to justify questionable means.
Even though codes may be honored in the breach more often than
not, the absence of a written code says the organization has no coherent
statement of what its ethical core is. Responses to a survey of 1,082
business leaders, business school deans, and members of Congress say
the adoption of a corporate code of ethics is the most effective way to
encourage ethical behavior. Respondents said the least effective was
legislation (Andriacco, 1988).
Codes of ethics should be more than a negative statement of how to
stay out of trouble (Rohr, 1989). Ethical statements should guide pos-
itive behavior. Lists of ethical no-nos promote an office-boy mentality
that is destructive of the self-respect so necessary for mature moral
growth of employees. When codes focus on the negative, they risk

missing the big ethical issues. In other words, codes listing prohibited
behaviors can "strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" because manuals
of dos and don'ts fail to appreciate that not all values are equal. Some
are more important than others.
Within government, codes of ethics are in force at the national and
state levels. In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed an Ethics in Government
Act. The purpose of the legislation was to preserve and promote the
accountability and integrity of public officials. It established the Office
of Government Ethics, which deals primarily with conflicts of interest
at the federal level. Furthermore, several federal statutes impose re-
strictions on the activities of former federal employees and prohibit
current federal employees from participating in matters in which they
have a financial interest. One provision permanently bars a former
federal employee from representing anyone other than the United States
before the government in connection with any matter involving a specific
party or parties if he or she participated personally and substantially in
that same matter as a government employee. Also, a former employee
is barred for two years from representing anyone with respect to any
matter pending under his or her official responsibility within one year
prior to termination of the employee's service in the area in question
(U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO], 1987). Also, federal em-
ployees are prohibited from leaving government employment and going
to work for contractors with whom they worked closely in their former
position.
There is great difficulty in prosecuting conflict-of-interest cases as
felonies, however, even though it is required in most conflict of interest
statutes. Because juries rarely return felony convictions on most conflict-
of-interest cases, prosecutors in both the Public Integrity Section and
the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia are reluctant
to accept such cases for prosecution. This reluctance discourages in-
spector generals in federal agencies from investigating allegations and
referring them for prosecution to the Justice Department (U.S. GAO,
1987).
Most state governments have adopted codes of ethics for public of-
ficials and employees. The provisions of the codes usually prohibit using
one's official position or office for personal gain, offering or receiving
gifts, soliciting or receiving money for advice or assistance, and using
or disclosing confidential information for private financial gain. They
stipulate conditions for financial disclosure statements, service on reg-

ulatory boards and commissions regulating business with which a person
is associated, representation of clients or constituents before state agen-
cies, entering into contracts with state agencies, promises of future
employment or favors for members of governmental regulatory agen-
cies, notice of lobbying by former officials or employees before bodies
of which such persons were members or employees, and filing of com-
plaints by citizens.
SUMMARY
It is important that each individual feel personally ethically respon-
sible. It is insufficient to blame someone else or some other department
for one's own unethical behavior. It is not unusual for people to try to
blame "them" somewhere else in the organization for breaches of
ethics. But accountability requires a sense of personal responsibility.
How an individual treats others, including customers, peers, subor-
dinates, supervisors, and competitors is affected by the way the indi-
vidual is treated within the organization. There is no position in the
organization that affords a moral holiday. At best, ethical standards are
just plain, good common sense. It is tempting to yield to expediency
when confronted with a problem, leaving the ethical struggle to someone
else. But each time an ethical dilemma is presented, coworkers, su-
periors, and clients are watching and will note the example provided.
Taking ethics into consideration can be burdensome in the short run.
But in the long run, it pays off. Dealing honestly with fellow workers
and clients creates a feeling of trust that eventually builds stronger
relationships between people, regardless of the industry.
The purpose of ethical inquiry is to create a framework of general
principles of right and wrong, what one ought to do, and what one's
duties are. The ethical domain for managers focuses on the seam be-
tween morality and individual or institutional self-interest. Ethical anal-
ysis involves assessing issues and paying attention to the effects of
potential decisions on the lives of those who will be affected. Ethical
decision making is clearly relevant to the very fabric of administration
and governance.
A focus on ethics provides an internal traffic cop to guide individual
and organizational actions in a consistent manner. The question Is this
the right thing to do? will guide ethical analysis, for there is no right
way to do a wrong thing. Being able to answer this question guides the
traffic of decisions. If you do not know where you are going, you cannot
know when you get there. If you do not know what is important to
you, you have no guide for making ethical decisions.
An ethical audit is a useful way of evaluating the corporate context
in which one works, and from which one receives not only assignments
and responsibilities but expectations and a sense of self-worth. Here
are the questions to ask:
Is this the person I want to be?

Who are the heroes where I work? What are their virtues? Any notable vic
The attributes that the heroes are known and recognized for are those
which the organization values highly. The vices are those which are
openly tolerated. Then, ask yourself, Do I admire the heroes? Do I
want to be like them?
In the final analysis, ethical responsibility is everyone's individual
responsibility. To wait for "them" elsewhere in the organization to
engage in more ethical practices is to wait forever. To have an ethical
organization requires three things: having a critical mass of ethically
responsible individuals, promoting norms that encourage ethical be-
havior, and having leaders of the organization who behave ethically
and serve as ethical role models for others to emulate. Since it is very
difficult to control others' unethical behavior, it behooves all individuals
to focus on that which they can control: their own ethical behavior.
2
Decision Making
Moral deliberation, like all kinds of deliberation, is a sort of calculus, a

method of reckoning, of working out. . . which course of action is sup-
ported by the best moral reasons. . . . The procedure is very much like
weighing. One can only explain the weighing machine and check the
weights: the weighing itself has still to be done on each particular oc-
casion.
—Kurt Baier
It is the responsibility of the decision maker to inject ethical consid-

erations into the decision calculus. In the words of noted economist
Herbert Simon, reason is instrumental: it cannot tell us where to go; at
best it can only tell us how to get there. "It is a gun for hire that can
be employed in the service of whatever goals we have, good or bad"
(Simon, 1983, pp. 7-8). This chapter explores decision making to show
how ethical calculations can be built into problem solving. It closes
with a definition of ethical decision making and a case study.
THE DECISION CALCULUS

Policy statements, codes of ethics, and laws forbidding corrupt prac-
tices attempt to prevent breaches of ethics. But these cannot replace
ethical decision making; they can only supplement what is within the
individual, which is his or her own set of principles applied to each
decision made. Every time a decision is reached about an administrative
problem, it is resolved on the basis of assumptions that lie at the heart
of a philosophy of personal and social living.
Effective decision makers rely upon a fundamental set of moral values
to operate intelligently and consistently. Moral values shape the way
problems are identified, defined, and solved. For example, managers
ask themselves a number of questions as they solve problems: Am I
addressing the right problem? Who will be harmed by this decision?
What is the right thing to do? Will I regret this decision later? Will
long-term gain outweigh short-term losses? Queries such as these raise
issues relating to the ten core values: caring, honesty, accountability,
promise keeping, pursuit of excellence, loyalty, fairness, integrity, re-
spect for others, and responsible citizenship. These values belong in
the decision because they reflect the decision's ethical component.
There are multiple ethical perspectives to most problems. Each per-
spective is framed by how the problem is defined and the priorities of
the decision maker. In a group decision, a clash of values is disruptive
when conflicting parties fail to acknowledge each other's differing prior-
ities and instead assume that the other is not only mistaken but mis-
guided. Inevitably, decision makers will conflict with one another
because they differ over which values are most important to maximize.
They are disagreeing more over what values are most moral rather than
over what is immoral. While some honor obedience to time-honored
routines, others believe it is more important to keep promises that have
been made or to avoid hurting others. While some believe that loyalty
to the company always comes first, others rank integrity higher. Each
perspective stresses a different aspect of morality.
Understanding how and why people rank values differently is often
the first of several important steps for arriving at an ethical decision.
However, choices are rarely made directly between values. Most often
they are made between options that differ in the extent to which they
embody particular values or in the emphasis some values receive in one
alternative compared to the emphasis they receive in another. To some
degree, ethical values are fungible. While loyalty and fairness are both
highly valued, loyalty may be substituted for fairness in a particular
situation. Ethical choices result from choosing not between good and
evil, but between competing ''goods." This means selecting a good
DECISION MAKING 27
for the company versus a good for oneself, a good for a superior versus
a good for a peer, or a good for the company versus a good for one's
personal career.
Values penetrate all aspects of people's lives, including selection of
their careers. For example, sources of job satisfaction are influenced
by cultural and ideological values. Simcha Ronen (1978) found that
workers from a kibbutz industry, where all workers are paid the same,
report a higher level of importance attached to self-actualization values
and intrinsic job rewards than do workers employed in the private sector.
Employees in the private sector, where merit-based pay scales are used,
report a higher level of importance attached to owning personal property.
They derive job satisfaction from the extrinsic rewards of a higher salary
and more status. In both groups, personal values were found to be
directly related to job satisfaction, but because their values differed,
the rewards necessary to achieve job satisfaction differed.
THE CONTEXT OF DECISIONS

To understand ethical decision making in organizations requires an
appreciation of the contingencies that surround each decision. Figure
2.1 shows how decision makers are inextricably intertwined with their
environment. Their decisions are couched within the context of the
situation. The decision maker is in the middle, affected by stimuli from
the environment. The "right" decision is influenced by the salience of
the information and pressures coming from all sides.
Many managers are subjected to a great amount of pressure to com-
promise their personal values in order to achieve company goals (Trev-
ino, 1986). This is because they must balance competing demands from
superiors, peers, and subordinates while simultaneously pursuing or-
ganizational goals. These circumstances are "ethical moderators" be-
cause they complicate and temper the quality of ethical decision making.
The constellation of influential people combined with the demand for
responsibility and accountability moderates the quality of ethical anal-
ysis and encourages expediency. This is why a person may make a
work-related decision that is quite different from a decision made in
one's living room unaffected by job concerns. The more complex the
situation, the more variables there are to include in the decision calculus
in the form of stakeholders, opportunity costs, and personal factors.
Figure 2.1
The Context of Decisions
Individual factors:
(knowledge, values, intentions, interests)
Problem Decision Maker Decision
Stakeholders: Opportunity considerations:

(self, superiors, (costs, difficulty,
peers, subordinates, customary policy,
family, community) potential consequences)
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RATIONAL

DECISION MAKING
In the Western world, we applaud rationality. A rational decision is
one that occurs in ordered steps and maximizes a value, whether it is
honesty, efficiency, reliability, controllability, marketability, or any of
many other values. Adherence to any value involves promoting one
alternative over another. There are six steps to achieving a rational
decision. The journey is as important as the final decision, because each
step provides an opportunity to reconsider the values that are being
maximized and minimized.
1. Define the problem.
This involves isolating the key factors in question and diagnosing the
situation to define the basic problem and to identify the limits of the situation.
This first step is critical because it prevents solving the wrong problem.
2. Identify the goal to be achieved.
If you do not know where you are going, you will never know when you
get there. For this reason, it is essential that a goal is clearly declared.
3. List all possible solutions to the problem.
All alternatives that will address the problem and achieve the goal are
placed under consideration.
4. Evaluate each alternative to detennine which one best meets the requirements
of the situation.
DECISION MAKING 29
Table 2.1
Outline for Solving Complex Problems
I. Define the problem.

II. Identify the goal to be achieved.
III. Specify all dimensions of the problem.
IV. List all possible solutions to each dimension.
V. Evaluate alternative solutions to each dimension
regarding the likelihood of each to maximize the
important values at stake.
VI. Eliminate alternatives which are too costly, not
feasible, or maximize the wrong values when combined
with solutions to other dimensions.
VII. Rank the alternatives to each dimension according to
which are most likely to maximize the most important
values.
VIII. Select the alternative to each dimension that is
most likely to work in the context of the problem
while maximizing the important values at stake.
IX. Combine the top ranking alternatives for each
dimension of the problem in order to develop a
solution to the problem as a whole.
X. Make a commitment to the choice and implement it.
This step requires a thorough analysis of each alternative. The analysis

involves measuring the benefits, costs, and risks of each, as well as iden-
tifying the likely intended and unintended consequences of each. This step
provides information about the utility of each alternative in terms of the
efficiency with which it maximizes desired values and still achieves the goal.
5. Identify the one course of action that is most likely to produce the desired
consequences within the constraints of the situation.
This step requires selecting the alternative that maximizes the most im-
portant values and holds the most promise of achieving the goal, while
solving the problem as effectively as possible.
6. Make a commitment to the choice and implement it.

This step requires converting the decision into action.
As time-consuming as these six steps are for solving simple one-

dimensional problems, they become far more complex when the problem
involves multiple dimensions—as most problems do. Each dimension
becomes a problem in itself. The outline in Table 2.1 depicts how
multiple dimensions of a problem are teased apart, analyzed, then com-
bined in a ranked fashion. It goes without saying that the task of iden-
tifying all dimensions of the problem and specifying the values to be
maximized is complicated.
A systematic method for identifying and ranking alternatives is the
bottom-up approach. It is appropriate for situations in which the decision
maker has a clear grasp of both the problem and the alternatives for
solving it. In this case the primary objective of a decision analysis is
to clarify the differences between the alternatives so that an informed,
logical, and ethical decision can be made. Under these conditions the
bottom-up, or alternative-driven, approach to value structuring has the
appeal of providing a focused, efficient analysis. Once the different
degree to which each alternative maximizes the important values is
known, the decision maker ranks the alternatives hierarchically. This
hierarchical structuring is accomplished by combining like items into
categories, such as cost and quality. For example, objectives may be
decreasing costs, increasing quality, and promoting a positive corporate
image. Each alternative is then categorized into subparts such as start-
up and ongoing costs, quality control criteria, and public relations at-
tributes. After this process, some attributes can be dropped because it
is apparent that they are redundant or that they insufficiently discriminate
between alternatives. Elements can be combined or repositioned to
reflect further thinking of the problem as the analysis proceeds (Buede,
1986).
RATIONAL DECISION MAKING IN REAL LIFE

The fallacy of ideal models of rational decision making is the as-
sumption upon which they are based. They assume that tastes are ab-
solute, relevant to the issues, consistent, and precise, when in fact none
of these conditions are guaranteed (Elster, 1986). Furthermore, theo-
retical models assume that decision makers will take the time and energy
DECISION MAKING 31
to thoroughly investigate all dimensions of the problem. The inevitable

truth is that humans fall short of perfect rationality, for it is impossible
to know everything there is to know about all situations and alternatives.
Moreover, personal biases and sensitivities block objective review of
all aspects. Herbert Simon, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his
work on what he called * 'bounded rationality," says the evidence is
overwhelming that the theoretical model of rational decision making
does not reflect actual decision making processes. In fact, he believes
the theory of decision making based solely on individual utility scales
and preference ordering, without regard to the context of the decision,
is as useful as a one-bladed scissors (Simon, 1987).
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1986) argue that the most
basic rules of the normative rational model are violated routinely by
decision makers. They argue that the framing of decisions depends on
the language of presentation, on the context of choice, and on the nature
of the display, so that the treatment of the decision making process is
necessarily informal and incomplete. For example, there is a significant
difference in how price is framed. It is easier for a consumer to forego
a discount than to accept a surcharge, because the same price difference
is valued as a gain in the former case and as a loss in the latter. The
credit card industry makes use of this irony by insisting that any price
difference between cash and card purchases should be labeled a cash
discount rather than a credit surcharge. People prefer the cup half full
over the cup half empty.
Only when decision makers know the stakes are great do they invest
time in more thorough analyses. Experiments show that as the benefit
of making a correct decision increases, problem solvers take more time
to reach a solution and are more confident in their answers (Christensen-
Szalanski, 1978). A problem solver's confidence in the accuracy of his
or her decision appears to be related to the fact that more important
problems make potentially more accurate, complex, and costly strategies
worth using.
People act rationally only if the expected outcome of their actions
affords them a utility at least as great as that from any other action
possible for them in the situation. The truth is that continuous or repeated
choices, when they are easily visible and there are no costs in switching,
allow easy, continuous adjustment to what others are doing. Thus,
incremental decision making is preferred more often than the pure model
of rational decision making. Successive approximations to an optimal
solution are made, in contrast to ideal rationality in which a compre-

hensive analysis of the problem is performed and the one optimal al-
ternative is selected once and for all.
Work decisions often fail to meet the requirements of rational decision
making. Executives follow each other's lead rather than independently
analyze each new problem. They acquire information through hearsay.
Since beliefs and values are contagious from one person to another, most
beliefs gain their credibility not from direct experience and rational analysis,
but from their acceptance by credible sources in society (Simon, 1983).
Humans are intuitive statisticians and experts in efficiency when it
comes to making decisions. They consider the potential payoffs and
costs of engaging in various acts, but they do so pragmatically. Instead
of using the ideal rational model to guide their analyses, they use
approximations to the rational model. This is why people may * 'ra-
tionally' ' select a strategy for decision making that, from an outsider's
point of view, appears to be capricious.
When a decision must be made hurriedly, less information is sought
in the problem-solving process than if the decision maker has sufficient
time to analyze the problem thoroughly. Howard Rothstein (1986) re-
ports that time-pressured individuals tend to be more erratic than those
who are not hurried. He explains that time pressure has a significant
effect on human judgment, because when the time frame is too limited,
some pieces of the problem are only partially evaluated.
When presented the choice, people will rely on an easy-to-understand
decision rule rather than reevaluate a situation from the beginning and
look for nuances not immediately noticeable (Arrow and Raynaud,
1986). John Payne, Myron Braunstein, and John Carroll (1978) found
that an increased use of heuristic strategies (rules of thumb) accompany
an increasing number of alternatives. Heuristics are a convenient and
quick means for reducing the number of alternatives that must be eval-
uated.
Even purely individual decisions involve costs. Because of this, peo-
ple typically routinize many everyday choices. Routines allow people
to adopt a rule that dictates the solution to many questions. This reduces
the costs of decision making since it requires conscious effort only when
an existing rule is to be broken or modified. Most people gladly exchange
complete information in favor of simple rules of thumb that help to
assess probabilities.
When heuristics are triggered, people let themselves ignore infor-
DECISION MAKING 33
mation that may be far more important but less interesting or under-
standable. People make mistakes even when they know what they value.
They will strongly prefer a price of $99 to $101, but they will say the
difference between $76 and $78 is negligible. In fact, the value of $2
is the same, regardless of what two amounts it falls between.
Even though common sense tells us that people do not behave in an
ideally rational manner, we cannot understand a person's behavior un-
less we can interpret it either as rational or as an understandable deviation
from rational behavior, such as an understandable mistake, an under-
standable emotional reaction, or an understandable but unusual re-
sponse. Irrationality is excused as an inevitable by-product of the
complexity that confronts us.
Communication and discussion rest on the tacit premise that each
person believes in the rationality of the others. Otherwise there would
be no point to the exchange. The realistic value of a clear normative
concept of rational behavior lies in the fact that it provides a guide for
explaining why people deviate from this concept of rationality. In fact,
the theory of rationality provides its own heuristic.
BOUNDED RATIONALITY
Researchers aware of the breach between theory and practicality have
developed models that fill in where formal models of rationality are
unrealistic. These models acknowledge the extent to which individuals
and groups simplify a decision problem because of the difficulties of
anticipating or considering all alternatives and all information. These
more practical models introduce simple search and decision rules, work-
ing backward, incrementalism, uncertainty avoidance, and reliance on
standard operating procedures. "Since the organism, like those of the
real world, has neither the senses nor the wits to discover an 'optimal'
path—even assuming the concept of optimal to be clearly defined—we
are concerned only with finding a choice mechanism that will lead it
to pursue a 'satisficing' path, a path that will permit satisfaction at some
specified level of all of its needs" (Simon, 1957, pp. 270-71).
Bounded rationality is a term used to explain rational decision making
applied to real-world situations. It occurs when a decision maker is
subjected to information overload such that the information demands
of the decision environment exceed one's information-processing ca-
pacity (Taylor, 1975). Limited ability causes the decision maker to
formulate the problem in a simplistic manner. For example, one of the

least demanding techniques for making decisions on multidimensional
problems is for the decision maker to specify preference constraints and
to satisfice by attempting to find a decision alternative that just meets,
but not necessarily surpasses, the constraints. Charles Lindblom (1959)
describes successive limited comparisons. It is a decision-making pro-
cess that more nearly reflects decision making in real life.
1. Selection of goals and needed actions are not distinct, but closely intertwined.
2. Since means and ends are not distinct, means-end analysis is limited.
3. The test of a good decision is that analystsfindthemselves directly agreeing
on a policy without their agreeing that it is the most appropriate means to
an agreed objective.
4. Analysis is limited and important possible outcomes are neglected.
5. Important alternatives are neglected.
6. Important values are neglected.
Successive comparisons of alternatives involving only incremental

changes from that which is already in place result in selection of the
least noxious alternative. In its purest sense rationality requires a choice
among all possible alternatives, but in actuality only a very few of them
ever come to mind.
Since decision making is a dynamic process, it cannot be understood
outside the context in which it occurs. It is affected by considerations
about uncertainty, risk, people, materials, machines, resources, and any
other issues present, or perceived to be present, at the time the decision
is to be made. Ordinary models of rationality are inadequate to describe
decision making in complex organizations, for such models fail to in-
corporate the context in which the decision is made. Instead, contextual
rationality is a term that describes decision making in the real world.
The term emphasizes the extent to which the generation and selection
of alternatives is embedded in a complex of other claims on the attention
of those making the decision.
ETHICAL SATISFICING
Human beings satisfice because they have not the wits to maximize
(Simon, 1976). This is true in terms of decisions heavily laden with
ethical components as well as decisions involving few ethical consid-
erations, such as what make of car to buy. This is why decision makers
DECISION MAKING 35
ethically satisfice, just as they rationally satisfice. They come to the

best decision they can given the constraints of the situation.
Complex ethical decisions have four characteristics:
a. Two or more values are affected by the decision.

b. A comparison between the values is inevitable, such that a greater return to
one can be obtained only at a loss to the other.
c. Uncertainty prevails, meaning that not everything is known about the situ-
ation and anticipated consequences cannot be predicted with certainty.
d. The power to make the decision is dispersed over a multitude of individual
actors and/or organizational units.
Executives are often disgruntled when they learn that decisions made
farther down the chain of command fail to maximize the values they
consider most important. One reason less-than-best decisions occur is
that those making the decisions are concerned not so much with the
optimality of the decision as with its acceptability to their boss, peers,
or subordinates. The advantage of many suboptimal decisions is that
they have the least uncertainty and generate the least amount of inter-
personal friction (Johnson, 1974). The disadvantage is that they rep-
resent the lowest common denominator of all the stakeholders'
preferences. The decision avoids conflict but also fails to maximize any
important value other than an innocuous compromise.
The decisions and behavior of upper-level managers have a strong
influence on subordinate performance. Actions speak louder than words.
Terry Cooper (1986) argues that an organization's members learn to
read its values and ethical standards through the conduct of its upper
echelons and through the way it allocates resources. The entire process
is fragile, with one instance of an employee experiencing retribution
from a resentful boss for engaging in courageous ethical conduct ob-
literating ten instances of rewards. This drives the real moral heroes
into whistle-blowing outside the organization.
Fundamental values, principles, and goals must be clarified and un-
ambiguously communicated before those with decision-making respon-
sibilities understand the values to maximize. Because of the proclivity
for people to "satisfice," they will seek rules of thumb regarding which
values are most important. In an ideal world a decision maker will
determine the fundamental values to be fostered by a decision and then
weigh the probable impact of each alternative. In reality, the decision
maker will analyze the most obvious values involved and determine
which of several alternatives will maximize the value that is understood
to be most important. A full consideration of all dimensions of the
problem will not occur. This is why the most important values must be
clearly communicated, so at least these will be maximized.
Studies that investigate ethical decision making conclude that a per-
ceived sense of responsibility for behaving ethically significantly in-
creases the quality of ethical decision making. Research on group
decision making also shows that accountability enhances the likelihood
of ethical decision making. Effective problem solving and friendly co-
operation are especially likely to accrue to negotiators who have a deep
concern about their own side's welfare and yet who also have, or desire
to establish, a positive relationship with each other. Orly Ben-Yoav and
Dean Pruitt (1984) explain this. They studied expectation of cooperative
future interaction and concluded that expectations build accountability
into the decision-making process. When there was no expectation of
cooperative future interaction, negotiators were contentious and adver-
sarial. But when the expectation for cooperative future interaction was
present, negotiators were more conciliatory and generated an amicable
compromise. These results suggest that decision-making behavior is a
function of both a concern for personal goals and a concern for the
relationship with the other party.
Because most work-related decisions that involve significant moral
components are decided by a group rather than an individual, Mary
Nichols and Victoria Day (1982) compared decision-making styles in
groups. They compared an interacting group to a nominal group and
found the level of moral judgment to be higher in the interacting group.
The data suggested that the higher-scoring individuals shifted their po-
sitions less and presumably influenced group decisions more, persuading
those who relied on lower levels of moral judgment to rise to the occasion
and espouse a more ethical solution.
Another study focused on the effect of accountability on decision-
making effort. Kenneth Price (1987) found that individuals who were
held responsible for the quality of the decision making task, either
individually or as a group, exerted more effort than those who partic-
ipated anonymously and knew they would not be held accountable.
Elizabeth Weldon and Gina Gargano (1985) studied decision making
in groups in which responsibility for the quality of complex judgments
was shared. They found that those who believed that responsibility for
DECISION MAKING 37
the task was shared produced fewer evaluations and used less complex
decision-making strategies than individual evaluators. These findings,
as well as Price's (1987), indicate that decision makers tend to loaf
when responsibility for information processing is shared.
Having to justify one's decisions also leads to higher consistency.
Roger Hagafors and Berndt Brehmer (1983) found that having to justify
one's judgments to others leads to higher consistency in the logic used
to explain the judgment, especially when there is a high degree of
uncertainty in the decision problem.
APPLYING ETHICAL ANALYSIS TO DECISION

MAKING
Openness and ethics go together. Actions that are unethical will often
not withstand scrutiny. Openness in arriving at decisions reflects the
same logic. It gives those with an interest in a particular decision the
chance to make their views known and opens to argument the basis on
which the decision is finally made. Disclosure is not a panacea for
improving the quality of ethical decisions, but the willingness to operate
an open system is the foundation for promoting ethics in everyday
decisions (Cadbury, 1987).
Ethical decision making, like economics, deals with the decision-
making concepts of preferences, utilities, costs, benefits, goals, and
objectives. The decision maker's challenge is to operationalize and
quantify moral values and liken the process to nonmoral decision mak-
ing. Cost/benefit analysis is the notion that one can measure costs and
benefits by reducing everything to a dollar value. This is its ease but
also its drawback. Even its most enthusiastic partisans admit that cost/
benefit analysis needs to be supplemented by consideration of additional
values, such as judgments about equity. Social life is rarely captured
in static situations where the costs and benefits of an alternative are
unrelated to any other. To maximize one value is to minimize another.
Plato conceived of the ultimate Good as a concept encompassing a
hierarchy of values (Leys, 1968). Plato never indicated that the final
Good can be defined, but the vague notion of an ultimate, ordering
principle justified all of his efforts to resolve particular conflicts. On a
scale of values, particular objectives comprise the lowest level of a
Platonic value scale, and above that level appear more abstract criteria
for choosing among objectives. A Platonic value scale in terms of the
ten core values applied to the world of work might look something like
this:
1. The idea of the Good

2. Organizational standards
a. Responsible citizenship
b. Pursuit of excellence
c. Accountability
3. Interpersonal standards
a. Fairness
b. Promise keeping
c. Loyalty
d. Caring for others
e. Respect for others
4. Personal standards
a. Honesty
b. Integrity
The construction of an inflexible value scale is an absurdity, since

such a scale would have to include values in a rigid ordering and yet
be applicable to all situations. In a given circumstance, however, and
for a limited period of time, there is no absurdity in supposing that a
rank ordering of values can be established by thoughtful deliberation.
What is helpful about a value scale is that it forces people to think about
everything that they value instead of focusing on one or two values to
the exclusion of others. Even though value scales can be useful, the
fact remains that during the actual decision-making task, people are
cognitively capable of seriously evaluating only two or three values at
a time.
Facet Analysis
Facet analysis is a methodology in which the facets of a problem are
identified and agreed upon by decision makers, based on their common
definition of the problem (Shapira and Zevulun, 1979). Once all facets
are identified, then each alternative is evaluated according to its capacity
to respond to the facets of the problem and still achieve the goal.
Uncovering the ethical nuances of a problem can be made easier by
using the concept of facets. Ethical considerations are one facet of a
DECISION MAKING 39
decision problem, just as costs and quality control are facets. A problem
can be approached by identifying its many facets.
Dialectical Inquiry
Dialectical inquiry is an approach to decision making that involves
examining a decision completely and logically from two different and
opposing points of view (Schwenk, 1984). First, a prevailing or rec-
ommended plan is identified, along with the data that were used to
derive it. Then an attempt is made to identify the assumptions underlying
the plan. A counterplan is developed that is feasible, politically viable,
and generally credible but which rests on assumptions opposite to those
that support the plan. Next a structured debate is conducted in which
those responsible for making the decision hear arguments in support of
both the plan and the counterplan. This debate, in contrast to a traditional
management briefing, consists of a forceful presentation of two opposing
plans, each of which rests on different interpretations of the same in-
formation.
The dialectical-inquiry approach is superior to an expert approach
because with the latter, recommendations contain hidden assumptions
that frequently are not communicated to management. It is superior to
devil's advocacy because it explores assumptions on both sides of the
question, not just those that oppose the plan. Dialectical inquiry intro-
duces a healthy dose of conflict into the calculus. Conflict serves to
provide a deeper analysis of assumptions, interpretations, possible op-
tions, and evaluations of alternatives. The result is that examination of
the problem with its varied facets and possible solutions is improved
(Rose, Menasco, and Curry, 1982).
DEFINITION OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Ethical decision making is the process of identifying a problem,
generating alternatives, and choosing among them so that the alterna-
tives selected maximize the most important ethical values while also
achieving the intended goal. Implicit within this definition is the ac-
knowledgment that not all values can be maximized simultaneously.
Some must be compromised in order for others to be maximized. This
compromise is ethical satisficing, that is, pursuing a decision path that
will permit satisfaction at some specified level of ethical need. The
strategic ethical response is simply the best response under the circum-
stances. To evaluate the best response, a manager must take into account
not just immediate profitability but the company's reputation, its long-
term survival, the happiness and well-being of those affected, and the
integrity of the pursuit itself.
Decisions that combine ethical and work-related judgments are chal-
lenging. The first step is to determine as precisely as possible what
one's personal rules of conduct are. The second step is to decide who
else will be affected by the decision and how much weight to assign to
their interests. It is easier to judge the morality of decisions if one
ignores the context in which the decision had to be made. The evaluation
is not worthwhile, however, unless it takes the context into consider-
ation. If what would be considered corruption in the company's home
territory is an accepted business practice elsewhere, how are local man-
agers expected to act? The following case shows the dilemma one man
faced when he was assigned to work in a culture different from that to
which he was accustomed and different from what the organization's
standard operating procedures prescribed.
Case: Ethical Decision Making amidst Contrasting

Cultural Norms
Military officers assigned as advisors to foreign armies have no "com-
mand authority" over the units to which they are assigned. Their ability
to effect positive changes is contingent on their personal rapport with
their host country counterpart. In the early 1970s, John Donohue was
assigned as an advisor to a Korean military police unit.
Public ethics in Korea are (or at least were at that time) very different
from those of the United States. Public servants were paid very low
wages. In many cases, a midlevel bureaucrat would earn less than a
day laborer. It was expected that a Korean official would make most
of his income from tips or gifts provided by individuals who needed
his assistance.
Officials of the United States, including military advisors, received
American-made goods through special commissaries that did not have
to pay the very high Korean import taxes (often over 200 percent), and
so paid much less than Koreans had to pay for similar items in the local
markets. U.S. personnel were prohibited by treaty from selling or giving
duty-free goods to any Korean.
DECISION MAKING 41
One day, Donohue's interpreter reminded him that the lunar New
Year was coming up. This is a big holiday in Asian countries, a time
when gift giving is traditional. His predecessors, he was informed, had
always given each Korean officer a bottle of a very expensive Scotch
whisky as a New Year's present. When he reminded his interpreter that
this was illegal, the interpreter admitted that it was, but pointed out
that the Koreans always gave the advisors a very nice gift on the Fourth
of July, so they would be angry if the advisors did not reciprocate.
Besides, the interpreter added, the advisors could easily forge documents
to indicate that the liquor was consumed at an official function held at
a U.S. facility. That way Donohue could use government funds to pay
for the gifts and, also, he would not have to use any of his limited
liquor ration to secure the gifts.
Ethical Issues
He was caught in a dilemma. He did not want to compromise his
excellent relationship with his counterparts, because then he would not
be able to do his job. On the other hand, he did not want to violate the
law on duty-free goods. Even less did he want to falsify records to
cover the diversion of liquor. Finally, since his predecessors had ac-
cepted substantial gifts for doing their job, his conscience told him that
he should officially report the whole matter as a violation of the army's
conflict-of-interest regulations.
The competing values were pursuit of excellence (getting the job
done) and loyalty (to his fellow officers and organization) versus hon-
esty, promise keeping (obeying his oath to uphold laws and regulations),
accountability (reporting violations), and integrity.
Alternatives
No matter what he did, someone was going to be angry. As a result,
he was angry over being placed in that position. His initial reaction was
to say "to hell with it," and go along with the established practice.
However, if he did so, then any of the Koreans who knew that he had
violated the law, and there would be many, might use that information
as leverage to make him lean toward their interpretation of policies
when there was a conflict between what they wanted and what Dono-
hue's American superiors wanted.
Resolution
In the end, Donohue decided that he would not report the conflict-of-
interest violations by his predecessors, because it was unlikely that any
disciplinary or criminal action would be taken. The violators were al-
ready back in the United States, and hard evidence to back up a charge
would be difficult to produce. If he filed an official complaint, there would
be a lot of hard feelings, and little good would be accomplished.
On the other hand, he realized that much could be done, unofficially,
to eliminate the problem in the future. He went to his boss to explain
the situation. He explained that he was not willing to covertly divert
liquor to be used as gifts, nor was he willing to falsify the records to
cover it up. Donohue's superior was not happy about his having raised
the issue. After debating the merits of giving gifts to the Koreans,
Donohue and his boss worked out the following compromise: Donohue
would give the gifts using his own money to buy the liquor; he would
officially document the gifts using a memorandum for record, which
he would forward to his boss. The boss would forward the memorandum
to headquarters with a recommendation that some adjustment to the
regulations be made to cover the provision of gifts. Donohue also asked
his interpreters to explain to his Korean counterparts that he would not
accept any gifts.
Donohue could live with the compromise. His superior was satisfied
because Donohue's relationship with his counterparts was not damaged
and the boss was off the hook as far as sanctioning the gifts. Donohue's
superior passed the buck to his boss. Headquarters, however, refused
to change the regulations to sanction the gifts.
Donohue's counterparts were puzzled, but not angry, at his refusal
to accept gifts. For occasions when they had traditionally sent gifts,
they would send Donohue a letter of appreciation instead. He continued
to document the purchases of liquor for gifts and pay for it himself for
the rest of his tour. The gifts were always made a matter of public
record, but no one ever censured him for violating the regulations on
disposition of duty-free goods (Donohue, 1988).
Identifying the ethical issues in this decision-making process involves
outlining the overall decision-making process and the context within
which it occurred. Donohue's goal was to maintain rapport with his
counterparts and yet not violate army regulations. He wanted to maintain
his integrity by not lying about gift giving and yet he realized that gift
DECISION MAKING 43
giving was an expected custom. Cultural differences built ethical mod-

erators into the decision calculus.
Six of the ten values in CHAPELFIRZ are called into play in this
dilemma: honesty, accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of excel-
lence, loyalty, and integrity. Donohue chose to maximize pursuit of
excellence when he decided it was critical to maintain a positive rapport
with his Korean counterparts in order to fulfill his duty assignment. He
maximized loyalty by deciding not to report his predecessors for gift
giving. He maximized honesty by carefully documenting his violation
of the regulation prohibiting gift giving and receiving. He maximized
integrity by remaining true to his personal value by avoiding a conflict
of interest. He maximized accountability by publicly documenting his
activities and being open and public about his decision. In order to
maximize these values, his compromise minimized the values of promise
keeping by violating his oath to uphold all regulations, even those
prohibiting giving and receiving gifts.
It is up to you to determine if this compromise was the best that could
be accomplished given these circumstances. In summary, and very
simply, the operational choices that Donohue made in the face of the
issues presented in this situation allowed him to sleep well at night, a
simple test not without its merits as a device for reviewing one's ethical
4
'inventory." Remember, the decisions, however painful, that leave
one feeling like a whole person are usually best.
SUMMARY
Notwithstanding the complexity of rational decision making, loading
a problem with ethical considerations makes it even more challenging.
Just as the model for rational decision making prescribes, arriving at
an ethical decision requires the decision maker to bring ethical values
into the decision calculus, along with all other components of the prob-
lem to be solved. Because a thorough analysis of all possible alternative
solutions to the problem is beyond the capacity of the human mind,
especially when beset by a conglomeration of other pressures on the
job, "satisficing" occurs with ethical decision making just as it does
with simpler decisions that have no ethical component. The more facets
there are to consider, the more complex it becomes.
Realistic decision making maximizes the most important values while
acknowledging that trade-offs are inevitable. Lest a paralysis of analysis
were to set in, it is incumbent on the decision maker to determine which

values are most important, see that they are maximized without unduly
minimizing other positive values, and move forward with the decision.
The courage to act on one's decisions is as much a part of the decision-
making process as is the analytic step of assessing alternatives.
Part II
Applying Ethical
Decision Making
3
Interpersonal Relationships
Ethics should not be perceived as a moral guideline but as a cooperative,

basic working social principle.
—Ivan Hill
The work of the manager involves planning, organizing, staffing, di-

recting, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. All of these managerial
functions require interacting with other people in order for them to be
performed well. Interactions are necessary across hierarchical ranks and
departmental lines. They involve relations with peers, with superiors,
and with subordinates. The standards practiced by management during
these interactions become the touchstone of an organization's culture.
Employees' moral judgments reflect the norms of the organization.
Company guidelines, traditions, and expectations creep into their own
normative judgments, such that ambience and ethics often become one.
A company that is good to be with inspires goodness, too. But being
a company that is good to be with and one that inspires goodness is
easier said than done. H. R. Smith and Archie Carroll (1984) argue
that the deck is stacked against ethical decision making in organizations.
As a result of superiors using hierarchical leverage to take the ethical
dimension of decision making away from subordinates, the stage is set
for a "they-made-me-do-it" defense by lower-level employees when
violations of ethical norms come to light. There is also the "I-made-

them-do-it" situation in which those lower in the hierarchy prefer to
nest in the technical aspects of their work and delegate tough choices
upward.
Employees who look to their superiors for ethical guidance often
complain that pressure for improper conduct comes from above. Pres-
sure comes to support incorrect viewpoints, to purposefully underesti-
mate costs in a bid, to falsify lists of achievements, to overlook wrongful
acts by superiors, or to conduct business with friends of superiors (Rein,
1980). These ethical trespasses emphasize the importance of including
the ethical dimension in individual as well as group decisions. At least
some, if not all, of the values in CHAPELFIRZ enter into most of these
decisions, and they often do so in a "messy" fashion. "Messy" prob-
lems are those that are accompanied by ambiguity, uncertainty, and no
explicitly happy ending for all stakeholders. Instead, any solution to
the problem results in sharply contrasting outcomes, with benefits for
some and harm for others.
CONTRADICTORY NORMS
Contradictory norms often compete with one another. The combi-
nation of social and political forces creates a tension in the workplace.
Workers expect equality in a capitalist marketplace that is inherently
unequal. Democracy and the free market do not function in a simple,
cooperative arrangement. It is difficult to reconcile the values of a free
market, which implies inequality, with democracy, which implies equal-
ity. The interaction of American-style democracy and American-style
capitalism produces a unique business climate comprising a truncated
free-market economy operating within a truncated democracy. The con-
flicts in this curious blend are brought to light in the various roles that
employers and employees fill. While some roles require democratic
priorities, others require market priorities. The oscillation between roles
and subroles, accompanied by respective norms and counternorms, chal-
lenges a person's ability to make consistent ethical choices, since that
which is most important differs according to the exigencies encountered
by different roles.
Openness, honesty, and candor are juxtaposed against distrust of
one's competition. Win-lose competition exists between personnel, and
people engage in defensive routines to protect themselves. For example,
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 49
Table 3.1
Norms and Counternorms
Norms Counternorm
Be open Play your cards close to your vest

Be objective Get emotionally involved
Follow the rules Get the job done -- any way you can
Be cost efficient Spend it or burn it
Be a team player Look out for Number One
Take responsibility Pass the Buck
Do it now Never do today what you can do
tomorrow
assume that a colleague, Joseph, is an on-the-way-to-the-top, stop-at-

nothing sort of person who has the reputation of being ruthless in dealing
with other employees. Assume Joseph sidles up to you one day, is warm
and friendly for the first time since you have known him, and then asks
you for a favor. You will process what he has said defensively. Anyone
who knows Joseph would. Past experience and treatment say be wary.
This is normal defensiveness. On the other hand, consider those who
always process what is said to them defensively. Not being able to trust
others hampers the flow of ideas that is vital to organizations as well
as to interpersonal relationships. The climate within an organization
either encourages or discourages defensive encounters. When interper-
sonal communication within a company is characterized by defensive-
ness, the company reflects that same degree of defensiveness.
Table 3.1 lists norms and counternorms. Instilling a sense of personal
responsibility and adherence to constructive norms is challenging be-
cause adherence to the countervailing norms often represents the easier
way to do things (Jansen and Von Glinow, 1985). In some situations
the counternorm is more productive than the norm. The challenge is
knowing when to invoke one over the other.
Objectivity is juxtaposed against emotional involvement. People are
urged to be objective, as if they have no personal stake in an issue. On
the other hand, the best way to motivate personnel to do a job well is
to convince them that they have a personal stake in the effort. One must
be responsible for one's own success in order to feel the intrinsic reward
of pride in one's work and achievements. When people are responsible
for their own failure, the absence of rewards is keenly felt. Research
shows that when people do not control their level of performance, they
exhibit only low levels of motivation (Fisher, 1978). Success is rarely
meaningful unless it is brought about by one's own efforts.
Following the rules is juxtaposed against breaking the rules to get
the job done. There is a tacit understanding in most companies that an
organization would come to a grinding halt if everyone narrowly fol-
lowed the rules to the letter. Some degree of maneuvering room has to
be left open to circumvent standard procedures so that important matters
can be expedited. Although maneuvering room is essential, slippage is
a threat. When Jeb Magruder referred to his involvement in the Wa-
tergate scandal as a matter of *'slippage" he was referring to uninten-
tional deviations from acceptable conduct that occur because certain
actions are justified in the name of some acceptable goal—such as profits
or political gain. Once a goal is established, the means to achieve it
can become a secondary matter, and such slippage becomes a possibility.
Slippage starts as a small misrepresentation, perhaps mislabeling a prod-
uct or withholding communications from employees. The next slip oc-
curs more easily and leads to a more serious problem (Rein, 1980).
INTERPERSONAL ETHICAL DILEMMAS

Interpersonal dilemmas are best approached by first answering the
two questions, Who counts? and How to measure worth? (Pastin, 1984).
Who counts? refers to who the stakeholders are and, among them, whose
interests have priority. The question How to measure worth? refers to
calculating the utility of the values that are included in the decision
calculus. Before too many dilemmas have been addressed, all ten core
values will have been drawn upon. Concerns about caring, honesty,
accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of excellence, loyalty, fairness,
integrity, respect for others, and responsible citizenship influence de-
cisions that affect the well-being of others. The situations explored in
this chapter present examples of dilemmas met frequently on the job.
The analysis accompanying each case includes an evaluation of the
values involved and the impact of the situation on the stakeholders.
The cases that follow touch on various aspects of interpersonal re-
lationships. "The Incompetent Supervisor" deals with a subordinate's
quandary about how to improve the work of the person who supervised
her. "Dealing with an Inept Colleague and an Ineffectual Supervisor"
explores a situation that a group of teachers found themselves in when

one of their colleagues was inept and the principal would not remedy
the problem. "Transferring Staff against Their Will" addresses what
happens when personnel are reassigned against their will. "Personal
Needs versus Organizational Needs" focuses on the choice a superior
must make about whether to put the best interest of the organization
ahead of an employee's best interest. "Supervising Friends" targets
those touchy situations in which a newly promoted supervisor must
discipline a subordinate who, until recently, had been the new super-
visor's personal friend. "Handling Sexual Harassment" reports the
awkwardness a new employee experienced when confronted with un-
wanted sexual innuendoes from her new boss. "A Problem of Ac-
countability when Firing Occurs" focuses on the dilemma that arose
when a superior had given an alcoholic employee an opportunity to
rehabilitate himself, only to find that the effort had failed. "The Problem
of Promise Keeping" demonstrates the choice an employer must make
when deciding how honest to be when asked for an employment ref-
erence on a former employee. "The Problem of Integrity" is a closely
related case. It details the problems that occur when personal obligations
threaten to compromise one's honest appraisal of a former employee.
Case: The Incompetent Supervisor

This is the case of Rebecca Smalley, a bookkeeper in a small not-
for-profit human service agency. She was supervised by the business
manager and was responsible for keeping the books and billing clients.
Claims were being filed promptly and the revenue base was increasing
until the business manager started having personal problems. Smalley
knew that the business manager and his wife were on the verge of
separating. When his marital problems began, he started missing dead-
lines, and the quality of his work deteriorated. He took numerous annual
leave days, was late processing vouchers for reimbursement, and almost
caused the agency to miss meeting a payroll on time. Filing of insurance
claims fell behind schedule. When Smalley saw that her supervisor's
personal problems were jeopardizing the good of the agency, she talked
to him to let him know that even though he was the supervisor, he was
jeopardizing the welfare of the agency by his inaction. He thanked her
for the talk, expressed agreement with her assessment, and promised
to get back on schedule. However, his work only became worse. This
made Smalley, who took pride in keeping her work up-to-date, fall
behind. But she was uneasy about going over the business manager's
head to report his deteriorating work to the executive director. So she
waited until directly confronted by the executive director to explain the
problem.
Ethical Issues
Smalley felt the business manager was violating promise keeping.
He was being neither true to his word nor trustworthy. By not performing
his job duties he was causing those whose job performance was de-
pendent on his output to fail. He violated caring and respect for others
as well as disregarding the pursuit of excellence. On the other hand,
Smalley was caught between loyalty to her supervisor and loyalty to
the well-being of the organization. If she showed respect for others by
not going over his head to report the situation, then she would minimize
the values of loyalty, pursuit of excellence, and honesty regarding the
organization.
The dilemma in this case was that Smalley took pride in doing good
work, but her performance was solely dependent on her receiving work
from the business manager before she could act on it. When he per-
formed poorly, so did she, and this had a negative effect on her output
and jeopardized other personnel when the payroll was late or the cash
flow was too low to meet the payroll. Because of her loyalty to the
business manager, Smalley was reluctant to go over his head and report
the difficulty to the director. She cared for her supervisor and did not
want to call unnecessary attention to his personal problems. But she
took pride in the pursuit of excellence and in the agency's excellent
performance.
Alternatives
Several alternatives were available to Smalley. She could have gone
directly to the executive director and reported her supervisor's problems,
but this would have violated her respect for him, her loyalty to him,
and her desire not to bring his personal problems to the attention of the
executive director. She could have ignored the problems altogether, but
this would have violated the pursuit of excellence.
If she covered for her supervisor, she would not have been encour-
aging him to be accountable for his actions. By allowing his performance
to influence her job performance, she would have compromised her

personal commitment to the pursuit of excellence.
She could have responded indignantly to the director's inquiry, de-
fending her supervisor and admonishing the agency for not being more
caring about her supervisor's personal problems. She could have then
suggested that her supervisor be given special assistance until he got
his personal problems straightened out. This approach would have max-
imized caring, loyalty to her supervisor, and respect for her supervisor.
It would have minimized any responsibility on the supervisor's part to
keep his promise to do better work, it would have jeopardized fairness
in terms of his being treated differently from other employees, and it
would have threatened the executive director's faith in Smalley's in-
tegrity.
Or Smalley could have explained to the director about the discussions
she had already had with her supervisor in which she pointed out to
him how deficient his work had become. She could have reminded the
director of the stress the supervisor was under and asked that provisions
be made to help her department return to its normal rate of productivity.
This response would have maximized caring, honesty, accountability,
pursuit of excellence, loyalty, fairness, integrity, and respect for others.
The only value it would have minimized to a significant degree is that
of the implied promise to her supervisor not to disclose the nature of
his problems to anyone else.
Resolution
In the actual case, she chose to talk with the business manager and
wait to see if his work improved. When it did not, out of loyalty to her
supervisor she chose to wait until the director came to her to ask about
the problems. This solution minimized the pursuit of excellence from
an agency standpoint but maximized loyalty to her immediate supervisor
and caring and respect for him.
Winning supervisors make winning teams. If a supervisor commu-
nicates high expectations to subordinates and rewards achievements,
subordinates tend to perform to expectation. On the other hand, when
supervisors fail to reward productive behavior and fail to sanction poor
performers, then everyone suffers—except the poor performers. The
next case demonstrates this dilemma.
Case: Dealing with an Inept Colleague and an

Ineffectual Supervisor
In this example a newly hired public school teacher, Jim Williams,
joined the high school faculty appearing unusually insecure in his po-
sition. The experienced teachers took him under their wing and helped
him as much as they could until each, one by one, gave up upon realizing
that Williams's insecurities and ineptitude went far deeper than they
had first assumed. He had come to the job with a previous year's
experience at another school in the district, and the experienced teachers
began to wonder how the principal could have brought on such a bad
hire if she had done a thorough reference check. Williams was inept at
teaching, record keeping, collegiality, and virtually everything else that
a teacher should be able to do well. When it became obvious that the
new teacher was not working out, the principal did not counsel him.
Instead, she ignored the problems. When the problems did not disappear,
she reacted with disgust and anger, making threats right and left. She
began keeping meticulous records. She "tightened the thumbscrews"
in every way possible, hoping he would quit. So as not to be accused
of discrimination, she tightened up on everyone, good and bad alike.
The teachers went to the principal and tried to persuade her to relieve
Williams of his duties for his sake and the sake of the students. But
the principal refused to do so. Finally, in order to appease the complaints
from Williams's students, the other teachers volunteered to take over
most of the poor teacher's duties.
Ethical Issues
Although the principal was responsible for maintaining equitable
work loads, she failed to be accountable for her inaction and the effect
it had on the other teachers. This case involves accountability for one's
decisions, in that the principal had made a bad decision to hire Williams.
The situation worsened when she refused to reverse her decision as
Williams's problems became obvious to his colleagues and his students.
The principal allowed the work to be unfairly distributed among Wil-
liams's colleagues, who then had to perform their own work plus his.
This was a failure to pursue excellence on the principal's part, countered
by a desire to maintain excellence on the part of the teachers who filled
in where Williams failed.
Alternatives
Several alternatives were available to the teachers. They could have
totally ignored the situation and told the complaining students it was
not the teachers' responsibility to compensate for Williams's failings.
They could have carried their demands over the principal's head to the
district school superintendent and reported not only the teacher but the
principal, or they could have continued to coach Williams and deny
that he had any serious problems.
Resolution
The teachers chose to compensate for Williams's failing by taking
on added responsibilities. That is, they chose to pursue excellence even
at the expense of the time it took out of their already full day. They
chose to remain loyal to the principal and not go over her head to report
the problems to the district superintendent. Their solution minimized
accountability on the part of the principal and maximized loyalty to her
and pursuit of excellence in spite of Williams's inadequacy. To a large
degree their solution perpetuated Williams's problems, because he was
allowed to stay on the job even though his performance was below
minimal standards. Rather, he was learning that others would take over
his duties for him and he could still retain his job.
Supervisors must deal with the behaviors of individuals in a social
context, not the isolated behavior of a single person. Individuals in
groups look to others to learn appropriate behaviors and attitudes. Stan-
dards become institutionalized through the adoption of roles, standard
operating procedures, and group norms. When any one employee fla-
grantly violates these standards,the others feel as if they are being treated
unfairly. Group cohesion is threatened. When a supervisor tolerates
violations of accepted norms, it threatens the entire group because they
wonder whether new rules have come into play.
The issue of fairness comes up often for supervisors as they struggle
with the best way to reassign staff. The following case demonstrates
this.
Case: Transferring Staff against Their Will

Due to staffing imbalances caused by extraordinary attrition in the
southern branch office of a large federal agency, Ed Rush's northern
branch office was now overstaffed while the southern office was sig-
nificantly understaffed. As a result, Rush had to transfer personnel from
the overstaffed office to the understaffed office, which was over three
hundred miles away. Other alternatives, such as allowing attrition in
the overstaffed area while hiring at the understaffed area or using tem-
porary assignments and overtime were prevented by budgetary restric-
tions. After an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the problem through
voluntary transfers, the only option available was involuntary assign-
ment. As defined in the union contract, the method of selection required
selecting those employees with least agency seniority. After consulting
with the union, the first transfers were made according to the required
procedure: they were randomly selected from among those employees
who had the least length of service. As a result of those selections, one
of the best employees to be reassigned resigned from the agency rather
than relocate. The second round of reassignments required two more
transfers. It was made clear to all employees that there might need to
be even more transfers in the future.
Ed Rush did not like to force transfers because of the negative effect
that reassignments had on morale and productivity. But he was also
frustrated because employees had been hired with the warning that they
might have to relocate. He felt that those who threatened to resign if
they were reassigned had been less than truthful when they accepted
such a condition of employment.
Ethical Issues
The dilemma was one of honesty, in terms of whether job applicants
had been honest when they said during the job interview that they would
be willing to relocate; fairness, in terms of Rush's being evenhanded
in selecting who would have to be reassigned; respect for others, in
terms of understanding the different situations of each employee and
the different hardships that a relocation would bring; caring, in terms
of appreciating how the reassignment would affect the personnel; ac-
countability, in that Ed Rush was responsible for seeing that the un-
derstaffed office kept running smoothly; and pursuit of excellence, in
that Rush wanted to keep productivity up in both offices. An additional
value at stake was Rush's integrity. He had to resist pressure from his
employees and make an independent judgment as to the best way to
institute the transfers. At the same time, he had to respect the plight of
those who were already working in the understaffed office. For them
to maintain the required level of productivity, they had to have more

employees.
Alternatives
Unfortunately Rush had no alternatives. He was bound by the con-
ditions of the union contract. He could not choose another method for
reassigning staff. And to maintain proper service levels, the southern
branch office had to be adequately staffed.
Resolution
Rush's resolution was not an easy one. Although he relied on standard
procedures for reassigning staff, this was not seen as equitable by the
personnel. Rather than move, some employees resigned. The resolution
taken had been prescribed by a labor-management agreement in the
union contract. It maximized fairness if one agrees with the rule that
those with least seniority must bear the brunt of such reassignments.
While it minimized caring for others and taking their individual cir-
cumstances into consideration, it maximized honesty, since it required
personnel to live up to their employment agreement to accept reassign-
ment.
Implicit in any employment contract is the mutual understanding that
the employee will contribute toward the goals of the organization in
exchange for inducements, such as salary, position, and status. When
a person's needs and an organization's needs are mutually exclusive,
ethical problems arise. The next case shows how.
Case: Personal Needs versus Organizational Needs

This is a case of promise keeping and using personnel as means to
the organization's ends. The promotion system for army officers was
very competitive in the mid-1970s. The two most important factors
used to determine which officers would be promoted were demonstrated
performance and past job assignments. In order for captains to be pro-
moted, it was important that they demonstrated competence serving as
a company commander. Captain Johnson had served for a year in Korea,
without his family, and was eagerly awaiting his return to the United
States in one more month. The captain was coming up for consideration
for promotion to major, but he had not yet served as a company com-
mander. His battalion commander promised Johnson that he would be
assigned to command a company if he would extend his tour in Korea

for another year. He accepted, over the objections of his wife and
children. Before the captain had assumed his new duties, the battalion
underwent an evaluation and the personnel office failed miserably. It
was clear that an experienced personnel officer was needed. Since the
captain had previous experience as a personnel officer, the battalion
commander assigned Johnson as the personnel officer rather than as the
company commander.
Ethical Issues
The dilemma for the battalion commander was this: He had already
promised the captain the opportunity to be a company commander. He
was caught between breaking his promise to the captain and seriously
jeopardizing Johnson's chances for promotion or disregarding Johnson's
career goals and making Johnson sacrifice still more by spending another
year in a foreign-duty station. The battalion commander was responsible
for insuring that his organization operated at peak efficiency. Pursuit
of excellence, accountability, and loyalty to his superiors demanded that
he use his resources optimally to insure that the battalion was combat-
ready, and it was clear to him that he would not be able to do this
without assigning Johnson as personnel officer. Since the battalion com-
mander believed that accomplishing the mission took priority over all
other considerations, including the welfare of the troops, he assigned
Johnson to the personnel office. Captain Johnson was not happy about
the arrangement but accepted it and did good work. Ultimately, the
assignment caused Johnson to be denied further promotion since he had
never served as a company commander.
This dilemma juxtaposes the pursuit of excellence and loyalty to the
organization against caring for others and promise keeping. It was
important that the battalion worked at peak efficiency. On the other
hand, it was important to develop one's good staff and see that they
received promotions. The battalion commander was promoting the wel-
fare of the personnel office by putting Captain Johnson in charge of it.
Although the organization would benefit from this placement, Johnson
would not benefit and would have to go through personal hardships
while in that position. The battalion commander had to balance his
loyalty to the army with his loyalty to the personnel under him.
Alternatives
One alternative resolution was for the commander to have found
someone else to fill the personnel officer slot. This would have taken
time and sacrificed excellence, but maximized caring and respect for
Johnson, as well as promise keeping. Another alternative was for John-
son to have accepted the assignment as personnel officer. To do this
would have maximized promise keeping, loyalty to the army, pursuit
of excellence, responsible citizenship, and accountability to the army.
But it would have minimized loyalty to and caring for his family. A
third alternative was for both the battalion commander and Captain
Johnson to have compromised. They could have come to an agreement
to let Johnson take the assignment as personnel officer for a specified
period of time until a new officer could be trained. The time in which
Johnson was to serve in this temporary position would be limited, to
allow him the opportunity to move up to a company-commander position
elsewhere very soon. This compromise would have ensured that the
problems in the personnel office were cleaned up and would also have
preserved Johnson's career mobility.
Resolution
In actuality, when Johnson agreed to stay on as personnel officer,
excellence and loyalty to the organization were maximized and Johnson
paid the price with his career reaching a stalemate. This decision marks
loyalty to the organization higher than caring for individual officers.
The battalion commander had a tough choice to make, and Johnson's
career was at stake. Ethical problems "come with the territory" of
managing people. When people are harmed in some way, when their
jobs are lost or their careers stymied, when reductions in force must be
made, the right way to do it must be decided. And the way that serves
the interest of the organization may not serve the best interests of the
individual employee. The rights of the employees and those of the
employer must be balanced against each other.
COUNSELING THE PROBLEM EMPLOYEE

Research indicates that supervisors vary in their perceptions of em-
ployee problems and in their responses to marginal employees. Findings
show that supervisors who are unafraid to use sanctions have higher
performance ratings than those who use them less often. Findings also
indicate that sanctions are not used frequently or against a wide range
of subordinates, but are typically concentrated on the occasional difficult
employee (O'Reilly and Weitz, 198D). The problem of marginal em-
ployees is exaggerated when they are the supervisor's friends, as the
next case shows.
Case: Supervising Friends

Being promoted above one's peers with the sudden responsibility to
supervise former friends is tough enough. But when one of the friends
becomes a problem employee, the problem is even worse. This is a
case of an employee in the accounting department of a large retail store.
Sheila Ranton was an employee in the accounting department along
with four other employees. She had developed both a personal and a
professional relationship with most of them. They were friends as well
as coworkers. There was a major reorganization and the accounting
department was affected. Ranton was promoted to supervisor of the
department and reported to the director of administrative services. After
she was promoted, several changes took place. She was now her former
coworkers' supervisor rather than just being "one of them." She now
had to supervise their work. She had to distance herself enough to be
respected yet still maintain a personal relationship with them. Shortly
after being promoted, she encountered a situation in which one of the
employees was not doing her job. She was having several personal
problems that were beginning to affect her work performance. She began
coming in late and using the phone too much for her personal use.
Deadlines were not being met. Errors were showing up in her work,
one of which was costly to the company. Ranton had to take action.
This employee expected Ranton to go easy on her because they were
friends. According to personnel policies, the employee was to be given
an oral warning about her work performance, thereby giving the em-
ployee a chance to correct her deficiencies. Ranton talked to the em-
ployee, who promised to improve. Things improved for about a week,
but then the employee reverted to her old habits. The next step was a
written warning that was placed in her personnel file. This warning
spelled out the nature of the offenses. It explained that if the employee's
job performance could not be brought up to an acceptable level, the
employee would be terminated. The employee had to decide whether

or not she was willing to bring her performance up to par.
Ethical Issues
A number of values were called into play in this case. Ranton cared
for the employee both as a subordinate and as a friend. She wanted to
be accountable for the employee's work to the other employees as well
as to her superiors. The employee failed at promise keeping when she
promised Ranton she would do better and then did not. Ranton had to
keep the excellence of her department in mind. Ranton had to be loyal
to her employer and her position of responsibility as well as to the other
employees in her department. She had to decide what was fair to the
problem employee as well as to the other employees, to herself, and to
her employer. Ranton's integrity would be questioned if she were to
show favoritism by bending any rules to favor a particular employee.
If she did not address misconduct of this employee, her credibility would
suffer in the eyes of all the other employees. Ranton's choice had to
demonstrate respect for the problem employee's personal problems,
respect for those workers who continued to perform well, and respect
for those citizens who were suffering because of decline in services due
to the problem employee. This was a dilemma of caring, accountability,
loyalty, integrity, and fairness. Ranton cared for her friend but could
not let the friendship override the need to be accountable to her superior.
Alternatives
Ranton was torn between loyalty to her friend and loyalty to her
supervisor. The employee felt as though Ranton was the friend who
had turned into the enemy. She felt that Ranton should not have reported
her. However, if Ranton had not reported the poor job performance and
the friend had kept making costly errors, then Ranton's job would also
have been in jeopardy.
Several alternative actions were possible. Ranton could have looked
the other way until another costly mistake occurred, merely delaying
formal written action against the employee. If the other employees
realized this favoritism was occurring, their morale would have been
negatively affected. On the other hand, if Ranton had carried through
with written action against the employee, an air of distrust could have
arisen among the other employees, which would also have affected
morale negatively. This alternative would have maximized caring, loy-
alty to the problem employee, and promise keeping as was inferred by

the problem employee because of the friendship. But this alternative
would have minimized fairness to the other employees and Ranton's
integrity, accountability, pursuit of excellence, and honesty.
Another alternative was for Ranton to have covered for the employee
until her personal problems were solved. Not only would this have
meant more work for her, but the other employees would have expected
her to do the same for them. Ranton's position would eventually have
become a dumping ground for employees' personal problems. Not only
would Ranton have overworked herself, but her superiors would have
viewed her as a poor manager with little ability to delegate and supervise
workers. This alternative would have maximized caring, loyalty, and
promise keeping to the problem employee but minimized honesty, fair-
ness, and integrity on Ranton's part.
A third alternative was for Ranton to have continued on her present
course of action. She could havefileda written complaint and terminated
the employee if an acceptable level of performance was not achieved.
This maneuver would have maximized honesty, accountability, pursuit
of excellence, fairness, and integrity. It would have minimized caring,
promise keeping, and loyalty.
A fourth alternative was for Ranton to have requested that the em-
ployee's hours and pay be reduced by five hours a week and that this
cut continue until the employee resolved her problems and improved
her work performance. If the employee's performance still did not
improve by a designated time, she would be terminated. This alternative
would have maximized caring, honesty, accountability, promise keep-
ing, pursuit of excellence, loyalty, integrity, and respect for others. It
would have minimized fairness to other employees as they took up the
slack for the work not completed by the problem employee.
Resolution
Ranton was caught in the middle between being loyal to the orga-
nization versus being loyal to a friend. However, Ranton felt that her
loyalty rested with the agency. The agency had employed her to do a
job for them and she believed she would be doing less than her best by
letting this employee not do what was expected of her. She tried to be
understanding regarding the employee's personal situation. However,
there came a point at which she had to separate her personal life from
her job. And Ranton feared she would be setting a precedent she would
later regret if she began making exceptions for this one employee. She
did not want to harm her friendship but found that when it got in the
way, she was willing to jeopardize it. She chose the fourth alternative
on the grounds that it preserved as many values as possible yet still
demanded better work from the employee. Ranton believed that ter-
mination for a long-standing employee was too severe a punishment
for her misconduct and that written reprimands did not have the impact
that economic sanctions had. This alternative, while sending a message
to the problem employee, also told the other employees that misconduct
would not be tolerated.
DEALING WITH CLAIMS OF SEXUAL

HARASSMENT
Although there are legal remedies for provable charges of sexual
harassment, there are far more gray areas surrounding the subject than
there are black-and-white (Leap, Holley, and Feild, 1980). That which
constitutes sexual harassment ranges from petty innuendoes to sexual
insults to unwanted physical contact. Most harassment never reaches
the point that it is provable in a court of law. It occurs at times and in
ways that are not subject to witnesses who can verify the victim's
complaints. The next case demonstrates this.
Case: Handling Sexual Harassment

This is a case of Judy Miller, a newly graduated MBA student on
her first job, working directly for the chief operating officer (COO). He
took a special liking to the new employee, calling her in for morning
chats, pulling his chair close to hers, grabbing her hand, putting his
arm around her shoulder, walking snugly by her side, and rubbing
against her. She ignored his advances and innuendoes. One day he
asked her to drive to a local car repair shop so he could leave his car
for repairs and get a ride back to the office with Miller. As she was
driving him back to the office, he sat close and kept rubbing her shoulder.
When she and he walked into the office together, his shirt was untucked,
and when someone made a comment about his appearance and their
walking into the office together, he simply grinned and said, "You
know how it is."
Ethical Issues
Her ethical dilemma was one of integrity and respect. By not re-
sponding to the COO's "You know how it is" comment, she felt she
was giving tacit approval of his behavior. The implied sexual liaison
revolved around the COO's lack of respect for the new employee as a
competent human being with self-respect. Judy Miller was afraid to
anger her new boss, and there was no one higher in the organization
to whom she could explain her dilemma.
Alternatives
Miller felt that the COO was taking advantage of her junior status
with his sexual innuendoes. She did not know what action she could
take without jeopardizing her job or hopes for promotion. She did not
want to be labeled as a troublemaker even though she was being asked
to work for someone whose behavior bordered on sexual harassment
and whom she felt treated her with no respect.
One alternative for Miller was to directly confront her boss. Because
she had ignored his advances in the past, he assumed that she did not
object to his behavior. If she had quickly stopped the unpleasant inter-
changes, she might have been able to sustain a working relationship
with him. She would have maximized her integrity by standing up for
her rights to be respected as an employee and not be seen as a sex
object. She would have maximized fairness by giving her boss a chance
to resolve the problem without any outside interference. And she would
have maximized accountability by being willing to accept the conse-
quences of her actions. However, this alternative carried with it a threat,
because Miller had no way of knowing how her boss would react to
her confrontation. If he became angry and gave her bad performance
evaluations, her record would have been smeared, and it would only
have been her word against his about the actual truth behind the negative
ratings.
Resolution
Judy Miller's solution was to do nothing about the situation. She was
the most junior person on the staff, she had no idea how a complaint
would be received or even if any attention would be paid to it, she felt
the COO would deny any allegations of making sexual innuendoes, and
she did not want to cause trouble for herself this early in her career.
She sacrificed her integrity in exchange for job security.
FIRING EMPLOYEES
Firing involves a paradox. It requires caring for and respecting some-
one while simultaneously taking away their livelihood. Managers typ-
ically have little training in how to fire people, and it is one of the most
emotionally trying actions the manager will take (Walker, 1987). Good
cause for firing is defined as reasonable, job-related grounds for dis-
missal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption
of the employer' s operation, or other legitimate business reasons. Before
a firing is warranted, progressive discipline is recommended with rig-
orous adherence to formal, written guidelines (Howard, 1988). This
gives errant employees the opportunity to correct their deficiencies and
save their jobs. Additionally, the performance evaluation process should
give the employee fair warning that the performance was below ac-
ceptable levels. Often it is useful for a third party to review all the facts
before a decision to terminate is made in order to make sure the firing
is as free of bias as possible.
Case: A Problem of Accountability when Firing

Occurs
The case of the liverwurst sandwich serves as an example (Stevens,
1984). When Stevens flew from corporate headquarters to check on Mr.
Summers, a district salesman, he arrived at Summers's office at 2 P.M.
Stevens was told that Summers was out to lunch. His desk was piled
high with papers and unanswered telephone messages. After about thirty
minutes, Mr. Summers's secretary informed Stevens that Summers had
gone home to care for a sick wife. By talking to a few people, Stevens
soon learned that Mr. Summers's problem was not a sick wife, but
having three or four martinis at lunch. Upon returning to the office after
his prolonged lunches, Summers would turn the place into an uproar,
insulting the clerical staff and refusing to talk about business. The only
positive factor was that clients really liked him and thought he did an
excellent job. When Stevens confronted Summers, he agreed he had a
drinking problem. He promised he would reform—and for the next few
months he showed he had meant it. Stevens submitted a report stating
that although Summers had a problem, the clients thought highly of

him, he had excellent experience, and he showed promise of rehabili-
tating himself quickly. Stevens thought he was salvageable.
Strong supervisors act as a linking pin, tying their subordinates to
the rest of the organization. Stevens believed that he was playing a
constructive role by being loyal to Summers while he gave him a chance
to overcome his drinking problem. All went well for several months
until Mr. Summers reverted to his old ways. One day he had several
martinis at lunch with two members of the staff. He then told his
subordinate, Harry Conners, who had only been with him for a few
weeks, that instead of returning to the office, the three of them were
going to play cards at Conners's house. At Conners's house Summers
decided he was hungry for a Hverwurst sandwich and told Conners's
wife to fix him one. When she replied that she had no Hverwurst on
hand, he told her to go out and buy some. She told him that would be
too much trouble, but offered to make a ham sandwich instead. Summers
turned to Conners and said, "In that case, Conners, you are fired."
That night the president of the company received a phone call from
Conners's wife saying that she did not think it was fair for her husband
to be fired because she did not have Hverwurst on hand to make a
sandwich for Summers. Summers was fired the next day.
Ethical Issues
In an attempt to be fair to Summers, Stevens had given him the
chance to rid himself of his drinking problems. This was in the best
interest of the organization since Summers had a positive rapport with
clients and a good knowledge of his work, and wanted to stay with the
company. But the gamble on honesty, accountability, and pursuit of
excellence did not pay off. Summers reverted to his old ways and caused
problems that ultimately resulted in his dismissal.
Alternatives
Stevens could have chosen to give Summers another chance by de-
manding an apology for having erroneously fired Conners and/or he
could have chosen to give Summers a prolonged suspension without
pay while he underwent rehabilitation. These actions would have pro-
moted caring for Summers but minimized the honesty that Stevens
expected from Summers.
Resolution
Caring for others was maximized by giving Summers the benefit of
the doubt and allowing him the time to rid himself of his drinking
problem. Excellence was forsaken temporarily because customer reports
showed that when Summers worked, his performance was good. It
originally seemed to Stevens that it was a fair trade-off to exchange
suboptimal performance for a short while, trusting that Summers would
overcome his problems and become productive again. The gamble did
not work, though.
GIVING REFERENCES
Giving references involves questions of honesty and sometimes prom-
ise keeping. The reference-checking system in the United States has
become dangerously close to worthless because more and more em-
ployers are reluctant to give honest information about prior employees.
Often the only meaningful information is whether the candidate is el-
igible for rehire. If told no, and the company does not have a policy
that prohibits rehiring people, then the chances are good that there has
been a problem with this person. This may protect the employee who
has a bad record, but it punishes those who are good because no one
is allowed to tell his or her story.
Protecting the privacy of job applicants, employees, and former em-
ployees is important. The collection, maintenance, and dissemination
of information to assist the selection and training of employees and to
determine promotions and layoffs can endanger employees when used
by those who do not have the best interests of the employee in mind.
When an employer who knows a former employee well is asked for a
personal reference, a decision must be made about how much to divulge.
There is a conflict of interest between the individual's right to privacy
and the employer's knowledge of the person and his or her responsibility
to be honest. Withholding information from others or distorting infor-
mation betrays those who are expecting an honest response. There are
multiple stakeholders in the results of any decision, and it is important
to consider all of them. If one prides oneself on integrity, then one
must be true to one's beliefs. If one values honesty, then it is wrong
to give misleading information about someone or to withhold infor-
mation. If one values promise keeping, then one is obligated not to

divulge information one has promised to withhold.
Case: The Problem of Promise Keeping

Dan Katchet, a small business owner, learned that one of his former
employees was applying for a job with a nearby firm. Katchet received
a call asking for information about the job applicant from the firm's
owner, who was a good friend and golfing buddy of Katchet's.
The job applicant, Sue Hardy, was a conscientious employee who
had always been on time and done good work for the first five years
she worked for Katchet. During the past year, however, she had started
calling in sick on Mondays, and her error rate had increased phenom-
enally. Additionally, those who had worked close to her reported that
she had become moody and difficult to be around. When Katchet had
counseled her about the problems with her work, she had confided in
him that she was undergoing serious marital problems stemming from
a drinking problem she had developed following the death of her child
two years earlier. (This employee had only confided in Katchet after
he had given her his word he would not tell anyone about her problems.)
The employee's behavior deteriorated so badly that Katchet finally asked
her to resign rather than be fired.
Ethical Issues
This was a dilemma concerning Katchet's keeping his promise to the
employee not to tell anyone about her problems and at the same time
being accountable to a fellow employer and a personal friend. If he
lied and reported that the employee's performance had been satisfactory,
his golfing buddy would have had cause to accuse him of not being
honest. To tell the truth to the inquirer was to betray a promise Katchet
had made to his former employee. To say nothing except that the
employee left of her own volition was to mislead the inquirer.
There are two commitments and two levels of commitment here.
Katchet's friend might not have been able to satisfy his own pursuit of
excellence if Katchet withheld information about Hardy's weak work
performance over the past year. Retaining his loyalty to Hardy might
have affected his personal friendship with his golfing buddy and betrayed
the trust they had in one another.
Alternatives
There is not a clear-cut solution to this dilemma. Katchet had to
forsake either honesty or accountability. One compromise was to tell
the friend that the employee had not been as productive in the last year
of her employment as in the earlier years. But that is the same thing
as saying she was not a productive worker, and would have led to more
questions or damning her with faint praise.
Katchet could have followed a standard protective practice and asked
that his friend provide a signed release from Hardy before he divulged
information pertaining to her work performance. The release would
have given Katchet permission to give a frank description of her work
performance and alleviated the problem of his violating his promise to
Hardy. If Katchet kept his promise to Hardy and did not discuss her
problems and termination, he would have violated his commitments to
his friend.
Resolution
Katchet decided to betray his promises to the former employee and
explain her work history while she was employed by his firm. This
compromised his promise to the former employee in exchange for being
honest with his friend.
The dilemma in the prior case is compounded when personal obli-
gations are included in the decision calculus. With a few hypothetical
twists, the next case shows how.
Case: The Problem of Integrity

In this case the caller, rather than being a personal friend of Katchet's,
was someone he detested. In fact, the caller, Joe Dotson, had beaten
Katchet for the job Dotson now had, even though Katchet was still sure
he could have been doing a better job of running Dotson's office than
Dotson was. And the circumstances of the ex-employee were somewhat
different. Marge Keller had worked in Katchet's office for six years
and, in many peoples' minds, had not done an honest day's work even
on those days when she was at her desk all day, which were rare. She
had always received marginal performance evaluations from her im-
mediate supervisor. Her supervisor had counseled her repeatedly, and
Katchet had gone so far as to give Keller days off without docking her
vacation or sick leave while she received drug rehabilitation on several

different occasions. Katchet had always defended her work to her im-
mediate supervisors and insisted that her work could improve if she
were to receive proper supervisory guidance. Unbeknownst to the others
in the office (although suspected), Katchet had had an affair with this
employee that lasted for thefirstfiveand a half years of her employment.
Only when Katchet refused to leave his wife to marry the employee
did she decide to leave the agency. Katchet felt guilty about having led
her on for so long, but he simply could not bring himself to leave his
wife. When the employee (and ex-lover) submitted her resignation, she
told Katchet privately that if he gave her a bad recommendation, she
would make sure that his wife learned of the affair in sordid detail. He
had to decide how to describe the kind of employee this person was
and whether he would recommend that Dotson hire her.
Ethical Issues
Now the dilemma takes on questions of personal integrity. This is
an example of how slippage muddies already murky ethical waters.
Once an ethical breach occurs, in this case the office affair, acts that
follow slip further and further away from the behavior of which one
can be proudest.
Alternatives
It was tempting for Katchet to tell Dotson that Ms. Keller was an
excellent performer. This would have pleased the ex-lover and saved
Katchet from the threat of his wife's learning about the affair, and if
Dotson hired the applicant, it would probably have caused Dotson's
judgment to look as bad as Katchet thought it was anyway. On the other
hand, to have told the truth to Dotson would have helped out someone
he detested and caused Katchet to fall prey to the blackmail threat.
Resolution
Katchet decided to mislead Dotson. He said Ms. Keller had been a
satisfactory employee and was eligible for rehire. He also decided to
tell his wife about the affair in order to prevent further blackmail threats.
He exchanged honesty and accountability with Dotson for an attempt
to maintain his integrity by admitting the secret affair to his wife.
SUMMARY
Most interpersonal issues do not involve the sensational and the pop-
ular. They involve the everyday decisions that affect others in fairly
ordinary, but important, ways. Mandatory drug testing and lie detector
tests receive a lot of attention because they appear to be direct infringe-
ments on personal liberty. As problematic as these questions are from
a constitutional standpoint, they are not nearly as pervasive as the kinds
of routine situations that have been described in the cases in this chapter.
The cases presented covered a sampling of the dilemmas that arise
in the workplace as people interact with one another. These interactions
involve informal conversations, hiring and firing, performance ap-
praisal, sexual harassment, supervising, and dealing with peers, sub-
ordinates, and superiors. All ten core values are covered by the scenarios
presented in the cases. In no case could the resolution maximize all the
ethical values included in the problem. Compromises were required.
Ethical decision making is difficult because it requires one to weigh all
the values at stake and then decide which to promote and which to
overlook. Giving up a "good" is hard to do—that is why ethical de-
cisions are not easily made.
4
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest are problematic not because they are themselves

unethical, but because they may lead to conduct that is unethical. It
may be difficult to do what obligation requires when important personal
interests seem to point in a different direction.
—Robert F. Bruner and Lynn S. Paine
CONFLICTING COMMITMENTS AND

OBLIGATIONS
Conflicts of interest manifest themselves as conflicts of commitment or
conflicts of obligation. Conflicts of commitment result from internally
motivated dedication, or commitment, to a particular party. Conflicts
of obligation result from externally motivated dedication, or obligation,
to a particular party. Inherent within conflicts of interest is the acknowl-
edgment that one is committed to promoting the interests of one party
over another.
Conflicts of commitment force people to choose between promoting
the interests of the employer or promoting someone else's interests.
They give rise to padding expense vouchers or otherwise showing com-
mitment not to one's employer but to someone else, including oneself.
Conflicts of commitment are problematic because they imply that one
will choose between the best interests of one party over those of another.
Conflicts of obligation emphasize the fidelity that one party owes to

another above and beyond any other consideration. They are conflicts
that force people to choose between loyalty to their employer or loyalty
to someone else, such as their family, friends, or themselves.
There is only afineline between conflicts of commitment and conflicts
of obligation. Functionally, they produce the same ethical bind, so they
are treated as one class and called conflicts of interest. The conflict is
over one's looking out for the best interest of one party at the expense
of another party. Conflicts of interest pose a threat to one's integrity
by leading to decisions in which there exists the possibility that an abuse
of trust will occur.
Conflicts of interest are situations in which there is no middle ground
that allows a person to compromise both extremes of interest. There is
a substantial difference between conflicting interests and conflicts of
interest. Conflicting interests connotes the fact that those who are in-
terested in a situation have different viewpoints and different things to
gain from whichever action is taken. To this extent, it is synonymous
with conflict of interest. But conflicting interests connotes further that
there is a possibility of reconciling the differences on some common
ground. Conflicts of interest refer to those dilemmas that force a person
to choose between diametrically opposed interests, whether the interests
are related to personal, employment, or social affairs. There is no
common ground that will satisfy both simultaneously.
There is a general consensus about what kinds of situations constitute
conflicts of interest. The following three are usually cited by employers
as conflicts of interest on the part of employees: (1) any financial in-
vestment in a concern with which the company does business, such as
a supplier, customer, or distributor, when the investment is made by,
or on behalf of, an individual who may stand to gain personally from
the action by influencing the nature or volume of the organization's
transactions with that concern; (2) the acceptance of gifts, entertainment,
or other favors that might place an individual under obligation to some-
one with whom the company does business; (3) the use of one's official
position or of privileged information in a way that might result in
personal gain (Adam, 1963).
Conflicts of interest are easier to discuss in general than they are to
identify specifically. Within the same organization, there are actions
that a purchasing agent may not take that a research director, for ex-
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 75
ample, might very properly take. Several actions on the part of the
employer help to prevent serious conflict of interest dilemmas:
a. Develop a corporate policy that is easy to understand and put it in writing.

b. Appoint a company "ethicist" who will serve as a resource person to answer
specific questions as they relate to ethical dilemmas.
c. Keep everyone in the company informed and up-to-date about the company
ethics policy as it relates to specific cases.
d. Monitor competitive bidding.
e. Study the pattern of purchases and conduct regular internal audits.
f. Rotate people in sensitive areas where conflicts of interest are likely to occur.
g. Enforce the established policies.
EXAMPLES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The cases presented in this chapter focus not on those conflicts that
are unlawful and therefore receive the most attention in the public eye,
such as embezzlement, bribes, and payoffs. Nor do they focus on cor-
ruption, which is official wrongdoing for private advantage for oneself
or one's family or friends. These actions are violations of law. Laws
are legal sanctions that have been developed, agreed upon, and officially
legislated after serious breaches have been identified enough times that
elected officials agree such actions should be categorically prevented.
Laws mark the fact that a breakdown of ethics occurred, rather than
representing the highest manifestation of ethics (Hanson and Solomon,
1982).
This chapter focuses on those conflicts that are within the gray area
of ethical behavior, that is, neither unlawful nor ethically obvious. The
following behaviors fall into this category: padding expense vouchers;
giving and accepting gifts; and being loyal to self, family, or friends
at the expense of one's employer or vice versa. That is, they deal with
the types of questions that busy people often confront. For example,
the following dilemma often confronts salespeople: Evidence is clear
that as competition increases, questionable business practices such as
giving gifts and offering kickbacks seems to be a necessary component
for doing business (Dubinsky and Ingram, 1984). A company may have
a policy of not giving customers free gifts in order to curry favor. But
if competition is fierce, the sales representative may feel forced to give

a gift to gain favor with the customer and play the game by the same
rules competitors use. If it is the only way to close a sale, sales rep-
resentatives feel forced to engage in a behavior that under other con-
ditions would be forbidden. The sales representatives must choose
between upholding company policy and losing a sale, or gaining the
upper hand in a race with the competition in order to land a sale. To
use gifts to gain a deal benefits the companies in the short run but begins
a policy that can become quite costly in the long run in terms of long-
term business relationships.
To borrow again from sales examples, should a salesperson ignore
a present customer's request for assistance so that time can be saved
for calling on a potentially large account? The payoff for landing a new,
large account is the immediate benefit of the commission. The payoff
for servicing a standing account is to forego the short-term boost of a
higher commission in order to earn the long-term gain from maintaining
a satisfied customer. As in all conflict-of-interest dilemmas, the person
in the center of the conflict is in a win-lose situation in which either
choice results in maximizing the interests of one party at the expense
of the other party.
If a salesperson is below quota toward the end of the year and has
several irate customers requiring service calls that involve extensive
time and effort, should he or she service the irate customers and probably
not achieve quota? At least the customers would be satisfied and prob-
ably retain their loyalty to the company. On the other hand, if the
salesperson ignores the angry customers and seeks additional sales to
achieve quota, management will be satisfied in the short run, but cus-
tomers' demands will not, and management's long-range goals will not
be met because customer retention will decrease.
People choose to behave as ethically as they can while promoting
their personal interests as much as possible. Ethical decision making
requires that people evaluate the situation, determine the values to max-
imize, and then do so. Self-interest plays a big part in dilemmas such
as these. At stake are higher sales commissions by recruiting new cus-
tomers plus the contradictory demand to retain satisfied customers. To
the disgruntled customer who had been promised service after sales,
the salesperson seems to violate promise keeping.
The following case demonstrates the tension between individual con-
viction and company goals. A congruence of purpose between the em-
ployee and the corporation is impossible to force. Ethical behavior must

come not only from the top down, but also from the bottom up, be-
ginning with each individual learning to analyze issues and being willing
to make tough choices.
Case: Saying No to a Superior

Jane Bledsoe, a printer, worked for a large manufacturing firm. She
was classified as management, not labor. Although in sympathy with
unions, she did not belong to one. Her supervisor, an old family friend,
had encouraged Bledsoe to apply for the job. He was in charge of the
office support services, which included the print shop. He was also very
involved in the company's political action committee. The PAC supplied
campaign funds to political candidates who supported management's
concerns. The PAC was staunchly antiunion, while Bledsoe was ada-
mantly in favor of unions. In fact, during her off-duty hours she worked
on political campaigns that actively endorsed unionism. One afternoon
the supervisor asked Bledsoe to print some material for the company
president. The material to be printed was a flyer for the PAC. It en-
couraged members to vote for a political candidate in an upcoming
political race who opposed everything that Bledsoe supported. She felt
she could not, in good conscience, print the material. The supervisor
knew what was in the material he had asked Bledsoe to print, and he
knew her opinions about the subject matter. Bledsoe was indignant that
the supervisor apparently did not respect her convictions. She felt be-
trayed by him. She realized that he was just doing his job, but she still
felt she could not print the material. When she broached the subject
with her supervisor, he explained that he had felt that her loyalty to the
company and her desire to please others would override her political
views.
Ethical Issues
Bledsoe was in a difficult situation because she was faced with the
dilemma of being loyal to her convictions or being loyal to the firm
that employed her. Competing values were at the forefront of the prob-
lem. Promise keeping was involved because she was expected to do the
work the firm paid her to do unless it was illegal or immoral, and this
request was neither. She owed loyalty to the firm and her superiors but
also to her union friends. Bledsoe's integrity was called into question
because she wanted to be true to her beliefs. She felt that her supervisor
lacked respect for her firmly held convictions, yet she understood her
supervisor's need to be accountable to his boss for getting the work
done that he had been asked to do. She wanted to be honest about her
support of the union yet she realized she should respect other's views
and that others had a right to make informed decisions about all can-
didates regardless of whether she agreed with the candidates' political
views.
Alternatives
Bledsoe had to decide whether refusing to print the material would
compromise her loyalty to the firm or whether printing it would com-
promise her integrity. Bledsoe's alternatives were (1) to print the ma-
terial and keep quiet at the expense of her integrity; (2) to print the
material and express her concern about it when she delivered it to the
supervisor, which would have threatened her integrity but at least al-
lowed her to vent her feelings about it; (3) to express her concerns to
the supervisor up front and refuse to print the material, which would
have protected her integrity and confronted her supervisor's lack of
respect for her convictions but hindered her supervisor's accountability;
or (4) to express her concerns and ask the supervisor to get someone
else to print the material.
She realized that if she refused to print the work she stood the risk
of losing her job. The values that would be maximized by this approach
would be her integrity and her loyalty to the union cause. However,
she would minimize accountability to her employer by refusing to per-
form the job requested of her.
Resolution
She chose the fourth alternative, which allowed her to retain her
integrity, allowed the supervisor to learn how strongly she felt about
printing the material, and still allowed the supervisor time tofindsome-
one else to get the job done, thus protecting his accountability. Although
the supervisor was not happy about the printer's decision, he accepted
it and found someone else to do the work. After a few months, the
supervisor began to give Bledsoe additional responsibilities. The su-
pervisor realized her potential and knew that she was loyal to the com-
pany, as long as that loyalty did not mandate that she compromise her
self-respect.
Accepting a job carries with it an implied consent to promote the

purposes of the organization. There is an appropriate space for personal
self-interest, but it is a space bounded by job-related obligations. Self-
interest includes one's own interests and ambitions. Bledsoe pressed
for what she wanted to do and communicated it to her supervisor in a
constructive fashion, demonstrating concern for her own integrity and
yet communicating respect for her supervisor's need to be accountable.
The appropriateness of management buyouts of investor-owned cor-
porations is often couched in terms of its ethical implications. A man-
agement buyout occurs when the management of an investor-owned
corporation buys the company from the public (Bruner and Paine, 1988).
The ethical dilemma results from the fact that the manager's personal
interests are pitted against his or herfiduciaryduties to shareholders.
Such a buyout offers a manager the opportunity to get rich or, at the
least, move from being a salaried employee to an owner. Buyouts offer
management the opportunity to increase their salaries by thousands of
dollars and their equity stakes by significant proportions (Bruner and
Paine, 1988). The ethical dilemma arises from the fact that it is difficult
to see how managers who are interested in buying out shareholders will
simultaneously serve as fiduciaries of selling shareholders while ne-
gotiating on their own behalf as buyers. Shareholders lack confidence
in the fairness of the prices they are offered, for they realize that the
price is also one that the buyers see as advantageous to their interest.
Conflicts of obligation are often played out when the subject of in-
tellectual property arises. Trade secrets are a common form of intel-
lectual property. Secrecy is the most natural and the earliest known
method of protecting the fruits of one's intellectual labors. Contractual
restraints, internal policies, and external procedures can protect pro-
prietary data and safeguard the right of key employees to depart for
greener pastures (Baram, 1968). Contractual restraints involve employ-
ment contracts prior to employment, and restraints against unauthorized
disclosure. Internal policies involve formulating company policies for
handling intellectual property with trade secret potential, and prohibiting
moonlighting and consulting. External procedures include agreements
with competitors not to hire each other's key employees, although this
has doubtful legal standing.
To resolve conflicts of interest requires drawing the line between
personal self-interest and obligation to others. A shorthand way of saying
this is that resolving conflicts of interest requires drawing the line be-
tween one party and another. Accepting and giving gifts involves such
a consideration. Gift giving is a time-honored tradition in many settings,
from state visits at the White House to exchanges between local offices.
Neither the law nor individual organizations provide clear guidelines.
The problem is that giving a gift may be, or may appear to be, an
improper attempt to influence another party. Or, it may be simply a
gesture of goodwill with no strings attached. The following case dem-
onstrates this quandary.
Case: Accepting Gifts

Bill Trumplit was head of a state employment office. The office space
was leased from John Blower, a prominent real estate developer in the
city where the office was located. Each Christmas, Mr. Blower would
send Bill Trumplit a $100 gift certificate from a local department store.
Trumplit liked Blower personally, although he would not count himself
among Blower's personal friends. He did not want to offend Blower
by refusing to accept the gift certificates when he was unsure himself
about the propriety of such action. Trumplit routinely accepted the gift
certificates and avoided ethical dilemmas in his own mind by simply
throwing the certificates away rather than redeeming them.
As the years progressed, Trumplit began to be concerned about
whether he had taken the right action in accepting the first gift. He felt
he could not stop accepting each year's gift since he had accepted it in
preceding years. He also wondered if the other shoe would fall and Mr.
Blower would come into his office one day expecting a favor that
Trumplit would feel obligated to fulfill. After all, in Blower's mind,
he had been giving, and had been thanked for, each gift certificate he
gave to Trumplit. Blower had spent the money for the certificate and
whether or not Trumplit redeemed it was Trumplit's choice. Trumplit's
concern was that he was beginning to feel that he had unwittingly
indebted himself to Mr. Blower.
Ethical Issues
As a public servant, Trumplit was obligated to avoid even the ap-
pearance of a conflict of interest between the best interests of the agency
and a private landlord. Loyalty to the agency, Trumplit's integrity, and
responsible citizenship in terms of guarding the public trust are important
values. Trumplit owed loyalty to the agency that employed him and
was obligated not to diminish that by developing a personal loyalty to

the landowner from whom the agency leased office space. Trumplit
wanted to avoid questions of his integrity.
Alternatives
Trumplit had several alternatives. He could have decided to stop
accepting gifts from Blower and explained that he was uncomfortable
because he felt he was compromising his judgment. To take this action
would have maximized responsible citizenship but drawn attention to
a conflict that Trumplit did not believe occurred, and he feared it would
question Blower's honesty and integrity unnecessarily. He could have
continued as he had done for years. This alternative would have pre-
vented *'rocking the boat" in the relationship with Blower and would
not have questioned his integrity, but it would not have resolved the
conflict. Or Trumplit could have continued receiving the certificates
and proceeded to exchange them for gifts, as they had been intended
all along. Just as with the last alternative, this action would have pre-
vented changing the relationship that had existed between Trumplit and
Blower for years, but it would not have resolved the conflict.
Resolution
This is the sort of case in which, when all other analyses failed,
Trumplit simply could have asked himself the question: How would
this look if it were to be printed on the front page of the newspaper?
Most likely, he would have said that it would appear to be a conflict
of interest and the certificates should not have been accepted. Respon-
sible citizenship is more important than offending a real estate developer.
In reality, Trumplit chose to continue accepting gifts because it was
more expedient than trying to explain to Blower that he no longer felt
comfortable accepting the gift certificates. He maximized respect for
Blower, but minimized responsible citizenship. Did any harm come of
it? No. Blower never called upon Trumplit for a favor, and Trumplit
never offered a favor. However, Trumplit was promoted a few years
later and placed in charge of agency operations. His new duties included
leasing office space from property owners around the state. At this
point, all he could do was hope it was never revealed that he had accepted
gifts from Blower in the past.
This case is reminiscent of the gift-giving problem described in chap-
ter 2. The question in that case was whether cultural differences or
practices should be taken into consideration when evaluating ethical

implications of a specific interaction. Reminiscent of the case of John
Donohue and gift giving and receiving among U.S. military advisors
in Korea and their Korean counterparts, customs that are taken for
granted in one culture are viewed as unethical in another. Even within
the same culture, customs that are taken for granted and have become
tradition but which give the appearance of engendering a conflict of
interest are problematic. To change the tradition that has become an
institutionalized routine may engender more disharmony than continuing
the harmless practice, despite its appearance. On the other hand, to
continue it despite the obviousness of the conflict gives the appearance
of being inattentive to ethical standards. This is the point where all
values must be compared. Is caring for others, and caring about what
is important to them, more important than rigidly adhering to policies
that have been honored in the breach for some time? There is not one
right answer to this question. All sides of the issue must be weighed
and balanced against one another.
Expectations of governmental employees at the federal, state, or local
levels are more stringent than for those engaged in private business.
This is because public employees are expected to be exemplars of
responsible citizenship. Public employees are expected to avoid even
the appearance of impropriety. Their behavior must withstand the scru-
tiny of any citizen who inquires into it, unlike that of private sector
employees, who have the right to have their privacy respected unless
they have breached a law. In fact, many communities print the salaries
of public employees annually in the local newspaper. Openness of all
transactions are required by law to ensure accountability for actions.
Laws promoting ethics in government focus primarily on conflict of
interest, to the exclusion of other ethical breaches, since conflicts of
interest can be defined in terms of potentialfinancialgain for the suspect.
Two federal conflict-of-interest statutes impose restrictions on the
activities of former federal employees (18 U.S.C. 207) and prohibit
current federal employees from participating in matters in which they
have a financial interest (18 U.S.C. 208). These laws provide for a
lifetime restriction on representing anyone before the government on
matters in which the former employee had been "personally and sub-
stantially" involved; a two-year restriction on representing anyone in
connection with a matter that was actually pending under a former
employee's official responsibility within one year before the employee

left that job; and a two-year restriction on a former senior official's
personal presence before the federal government on a matter in which
he had been "personally and substantially involved." There is also a
one-year restriction on a senior official's representation of anyone on
any matter pending before his former agency or on any matter in which
his former agency had a direct and substantial interest (Tolchin, 1986).
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 1988
stiffened prohibitions against federal employees leaving government
employment and going to work for suppliers and contractors. The pro-
hibitions became so strict that many employees left their government
jobs prior to the bill's enactment to avoid having to adhere to such rigid
postemployment restrictions.
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report in 1988
of ten Office of Inspector Generals (OIGs). The offices reviewed were
the Department of Veterans Affairs; U.S. Postal Service; Small Business
Administration; Departments of Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, and Commerce; Agency for International Development;
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; General Services Admin-
istration; and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Of 304 reports received
by these OIGs, 270 resulted in an investigation being completed, 114
were believed to involve a crime, 124 were referred to the Justice
Department, 2 were prosecuted by the Justice Department, 1 was con-
victed, and 22 involved cases in which the agency took administrative
action. The allegations most commonly involved possible violations of
18 U.S.C. 208, which essentially prohibits federal employees from
acting in any matter in which they have afinancialinterest.
In its report the GAO explained that there is great difficulty in pros-
ecuting conflict-of-interest cases as felonies, as is required by most
statutes (U.S. GAO, 1987). Officials responsible for investigating
charges of ethics violations believe that juries will not return felony
convictions on most conflict-of-interest cases. Because of this, prose-
cutors in both the Public Integrity Section and the Office of the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia are reluctant to accept such cases
for prosecution, even though they recognize that their reluctance to
prosecute deters inspector generals from fully investigating such alle-
gations and referring them to the Justice Department.
Regardless of legal prohibitions, the opportunity to enjoy financial
gain is tempting. Some employees find themselves in a conflict of

interest as a result of activities related to dual job duties. The next case
demonstrates this.
Case: The Dual Roles of Coroner and Funeral Director

This is a case for which the Alabama State Ethics Commission was
asked to issue an opinion. It deals with the practice of a county coroner
(Alabama State Ethics Commission, 1983). The coroner was part-owner
of a funeral home. When called to the scene of a death, he used a
funeral home van clearly marked with the funeral home name plates,
but the van had a stick-on sign marked Coroner that was attached to
the side of the van. After loading the remains of the deceased in the
van, the coroner transported the body to the funeral home rather than
to the county hospital, which operated a morgue. Upon determining the
identity of the deceased, the coroner informed the next of kin and
recommended that the family members permit his funeral home to handle
the final arrangements. The wife of the police chief was employed as
a secretary in the funeral home with which the coroner was associated.
Ambulance service in this town was provided by the city police de-
partment under the control of the police chief. Often, the city ambulance
arrived at the death scene and transported the body to the funeral home
of the coroner.
Ethical Issues
The decision reached by the Alabama Ethics Commission was that
the coroner should be prohibited from directing that all bodies be handled
by his funeral home or transported in his ambulance. Neither the funeral
home manager nor ambulance service operator should use the office of
coroner to increase the financial gain of their companies. The actions
of the coroner resulted in direct financial gain to a business with which
he was associated and created a conflict between his private interests
and his public duties. Responsible citizenship overrides pursuit of ex-
cellence in terms of trying to achieve more business revenue and higher
profits. Furthermore, loyalty to the public overrides loyalty to one's
own business.
Alternatives
An alternative is necessary to the usual procedure in small towns of
the coroner also being a funeral director. A coroner could be prohibited
from gaining financially in the funeral business. Or a coroner could be

required to travel in a vehicle separate from that owned by his place of
business. It could be required that all bodies be carried to the morgue
at the local hospital, and that a person not connected to the local funeral
home be required to contact the next of kin and ask about preferred
funeral arrangements.
Resolution
All governmental officials have some discretion. The question is,
what are the appropriate standards for the exercise of this discretion?
Both legislative and executive judgment ought to reflect the will of the
people in accord with democratic values that promote equality, partic-
ipation, and accountability of officials who hold the public trust.
The next case is a variation on a similar theme. A public employee
owns rental property and must decide whether or not to lease it to a
subordinate.
Case: The Supervisor as Landlord

Al Small was the director of the city public works department. He
owned several rental homes in the city as a personal investment. When
one of them became vacant, one of Small's staff members expressed a
desire to rent it. The city attorney advised Small that a conflict of interest
would not exist according to the city's ordinances or state statutes.
Small was concerned about the appearance of impropriety, however.
Ethical Issues
In fact, Small was right to worry. If the employee were late in making
payment or damaged the property through carelessness, Small would
have had difficulty evaluating him on his job performance without regard
for his poor performance as a tenant. Furthermore, Small would have
benefited from the connections he developed as a public employee in
a way that would help him personally. Responsible citizenship holds
public employees to a moral standard higher than that to which em-
ployees in private business are held. While not violating any legal
requirements of the city or state, Small could have been viewed by
others in his community or agency as being in a conflict of interest
because he would have been deriving an economic benefit from the rent
payments made by one of his subordinates.
If Small had rented the property to a subordinate, he would have

taken the risk of not remaining impartial in his decisions regarding that
employee, which is not fair to that employee or any of the others whom
Small supervised. From the perspective of the subordinate, pursuit of
excellence and loyalty enter the picture. If a difficult decision arose, the
subordinate might have felt unduly pressured to agree with his boss/
landlord when, under other circumstances, the decision would have
been otherwise. On the other hand, under fair housing regulations, the
subordinate might have felt that he was treated unfairly if he were not
allowed to rent from his boss.
Alternatives
One alternative is that the supervisor could have distanced himself
from the rental business by placing his rental property with a realty
company that would handle all rental transactions. By distancing himself
from the rental business, he would have had only an arm's length
transaction with renters. This would have allowed him to continue his
financial interests in the property but removed him from interacting
directly with renters. It would not have removed the appearance of a
conflict of interest, however. Another alternative would have been to
refuse to rent to anyone working under his supervision or likely to work
under his supervision. This would have removed even the appearance
of a conflict of interest but also cut down on the number of potential
renters interested in his property.
Resolution
The supervisor chose to refuse to rent to anyone who worked within
the same agency he did. Although he lost some rental business by this
solution, he removed any threat of a conflict of interest or even the
appearance of a conflict of interest.
The following case presents a dilemma that is frequently encountered
by those who travel on business. Per diem reimbursement rates often
fail to cover all incurred expenses in some locales, while it overcom-
pensates for costs in less expensive areas.
Case: Padding Expense Vouchers

The following situation occurred in a military organization whose
primary function was to advise Army Reserve and National Guard units.
The advisors assigned to the organization spent approximately four days

each week visiting client units. Travel expenses were reimbursed based
on vouchers filed by the advisor after each trip. By regulation, expenses
were limited to those actually incurred on the specific trip covered by
the voucher. However, there was a maximum daily limit that varied
with the city that was visited, so that one might have a daily limit of
$65 in one city and $95 in another city.
The situation involved two officers of equal rank. They were assigned
to the same team and often traveled together. For Major Jones, rules
were rules and he believed it was one's duty to follow them to the letter.
Major Britton considered himself to be a loyal and law-abiding citizen,
but he saw no harm in following the spirit of the law rather than the
letter if it was to his advantage to do so and no significant harm would
come to anyone.
In contrast, Major Jones's travel vouchers were always precisely
accurate. If the limit for a city was $85, and his expenses were $76,
he filed for $76. This meant that over the long run, he was reimbursed
for less than his actual travel expenses, because in some cities the daily
limit was too low to cover actual expenses. It also meant that to minimize
losses, Major Jones often stayed at hotels that were located far away
from the client unit because they charged less than the hotels that were
located nearby. This, of course, consumed some additional travel time
and reduced the time Major Jones could actually spend with his client.
Major Britton's approach was different. He always documented ex-
penses that came close to the maximum daily amount permitted for the
particular city he was visiting. Sometimes he inflated meal costs to bring
his expenses up to the limit. Also, he routinely stayed at hotels that
were next to the client unit so that he could spend the maximum amount
of time with them. His justification for these actions was that the army
did not expect its officers to have to pay for work-related travel expenses
out of their own pockets. He argued that it was acceptable to exaggerate
the expenses in "high-limit" areas to make up for expenses from other
trips that could not be reimbursed because of lower daily limits else-
where. He believed that the most important objective was to get the
job done.
Ethical Issues
Respect for others, resulting from trust and honesty, is violated when
conflict-of-interest allegations arise. When one is accused of dishonesty,
the news travels fast and strong emotions emerge. Like accusing one
of cheating, there is no way to repair the damage done to one's claim
of integrity. Jones and Britton had to deal with the question of whether
it is ever honest to overstate expenses on one trip to compensate for
underpayment of expenses on another. Jones believed that strict obe-
dience to the law was the only honest route, while Britton believed that
one could still be honest even when the facts were altered at appropriate
times.
Alternatives
Major Jones could have disregarded the way Britton filed for reim-
bursement of expenses. This would have avoided drawing attention to
the issue, but it would have sacrificed Jones's belief that pursuit of
excellence on the job and honesty and accountability were being sac-
rificed by Britton. Jones could have filed a complaint against Britton.
This would have maximized his interpretation of honesty, accountabil-
ity, and pursuit of excellence. Or he could have asked for a formal
meeting at which clarification would be developed on the correct way
to claim expenses. This would have maximized respect for Britton's
views but also brought the issues of accountability and honesty before
everyone.
Resolution
After one trip together, Major Jonesfileda criminal complaint against
Major Britton for fraud. Jones alleged that Britton had defrauded the
government by filing travel expense vouchers for amounts greater than
actual expenses. Major Britton was outraged by this attack on his in-
tegrity. He did not consider himself to have done anything wrong. He
had not tried to make a profit from his trips. He just insured that he
did not lose any money on the 4iow-limit" trips.
Since the advisor team had only fifteen men, it did not take long for
the rumor mill to leak the fact that a charge had been made. Tension
grew rapidly. The team became polarized between those who felt that
Jones was wrong to press charges and those who shared his conviction
that any rule breaking should be reported. Some people who admitted
that Britton may have broken the rules still thought Jones was wrong
in reporting the fact. They maintained that loyalty to the team should
have taken precedence over Jones's inclination to report a minor in-
fraction. Others thought that a less drastic response should have been
made. Rather than turning Britton in to the Criminal Investigations

Division, they thought Major Jones could have reported his suspicions
to the team chief.
The criminal investigation into the incident could not prove that the
travel expense had been inflated. It was one person's word against
another's, and the hotels and restaurants where the meals were purchased
could not identify the specific items ordered by Major Britton and so
could neither confirm or disprove that the voucher was in error.
In the end, charges were dropped, but lasting damage was done to
the team. The goodwill and spirit of cooperation, which had done so
much to make the operations effective, was shattered. It was reestab-
lished only after the two majors were reassigned to other organizations.
Work-related incidents such as this do not occur in a vacuum. They
involve other people and the trust that is shared, or abused, by col-
leagues. Productivity of the work group is threatened by problems such
as these as people grow leery of working closely with one another,
whether or not one is on the "right" side of the ethical issue.
LOOKING OUT FOR FRIENDS AND FAMILY

As a greater number of women pursue business and professional
careers, more companies are finding they employ people whose steady
date or mate works for suppliers, competitors, clients, or government
regulators. The result is that companies and couples face potential con-
flicts of commitment. The situation has developed so rapidly that few
companies have framed formal rules for dealing with it.
Office romances have the potential for presenting multiple conflicts
of commitment. Several actions are possible. One is to ignore the re-
lationship and hope it will have no effect on the work atmosphere. A
second is to treat the relationship as a conflict of interest and persuade
the couple that either the person least essential to the company or both
have to leave. A third is to acknowledge the relationship and hope it
does not cause problems.
In a case in which a female vice president became involved with the
company's chief executive officer (CEO), her friends grew leery of
discussing company matters around her. People did not talk to one
another because they did not know whom to trust. The female vice
president had been one of a group that met regularly to air complaints
by grousing to one another at lunch. Whereas before the group could
openly complain that "we can't figure this out because the old man
doesn't know what the hell he wants," now they fell silent. In the
silence, they withheld other information as well, and the organization's
informal communications network started going awry (Collins, 1983).
The subject of nepotism is similar to office romances because it
interjects favoritism into the work environment. Nepotism must be con-
sidered in the light of the company's general policy, the directness or
remoteness of the relationship, opportunities for and restriction on ad-
vancement as affected by the relationship, and employee relations and
company morale in the midst of whispered charges of favoritism. Nep-
otism results in problems of fidelity. The bottom-line question is to
whom the employee will owe loyalty: a family member or the employer?
Few employers are convinced the employee will choose them rather
than a family member.
Socioeconomic nepotism represents a conflict of interest regarding
hiring or promoting someone different who otherwise would be excluded
from the position because he or she is "different" from the usual
candidates for the position. The conflict is that most people like to be
around, and feel most comfortable with, those with whom they have
much in common. But this desire runs counter to affirmative action,
which encourages hiring job applicants who are of backgrounds that
differ from the traditional white male employee. This includes varied
ethnic and racial backgrounds, as well as more women. Diverse work
forces are difficult to develop because people tend to like to hire people
whom they judge to be like themselves.
HE WHO PAYS THE FIDDLER CALLS THE TUNE

Submitting reports as a hired consultant often presents a conflict of
obligation. An accountant has several audiences interested in any one
audit (Bowie, 1987/88). Although the firm is the client, the firm is
composed of multiple audiences, especially the managers and the board
of directors. The other major audience is the investing public. If the
news is bad, the managers want neither the board nor the public to
know; the board wants to know but the board does not want the public
to know; and of course the investing public does want to know. And
if the bad news cannot be kept secret, the managers want the least
disclosure, while the investing public wants the most. How much should
the accountant disclose and to whom? The report provides information

to the stockholders on how well management is doing. It also provides
information to the investing public on how the company as a whole is
doing. The interests of the current stockholders and the investing public
may or may not coincide. So the interests of the various audiences must
be kept in mind.
Accountants must issue report cards on the people and institutions
who pay them. The certified public accountant (CPA) is to serve the
management, the stockholders, and the general public. Since the inter-
ests of at least the general public and the corporation often conflict, the
attempt to serve two masters puts the CPA in a conflict of interest. If
the news is bad, the managers want neither the board nor the public to
know. The board wants to know but does not want the public to know,
while the public wants to know. The old adage "he who pays the fiddler
calls the tune" is relevant to the situation of the auditor's dilemma.
The latter, acting as the fiddler, must still represent the interest of the
larger community. If accountants are to perform a public watchdog
function, then the CPA must maintain total independence from the client
at all times and hold fidelity to the public trust (Bowie, 1987/88).
For example, if the auditor overhears that management is thinking
of doing something that might be relevant to the report, but the controller
says not to include the information, what should the auditor report? If
the auditor insists on putting the information in the report and the deal
falls through, management has grounds to sue. If the auditor excludes
the information, and if the courts determine that the omitted information
was a relevant fact of which the auditor had knowledge, then the auditor
can be held personally liable. This is a professional catch-22 in which
the auditor must determine to whom loyalty is owed: thefirmfor which
the audit is conducted, the auditor's profession, or the shareholders in
the company.
In the past it has been believed that society is better off if the profes-
sional-client confidentiality rule is given precedence over society's right
to know. Recently we have been rethinking this rule. There is increasing
pressure to force psychiatrists to inform authorities if they believe their
clients intend to harm someone. Even in the professions where confi-
dentiality has been given priority, there are pressures for change. The
questions for auditors are: How hard should you search? What should
you disclose? To whom should you disclose it?
Occasionally conflicts of interest arise when an employee is asked to
perform two tasks by two coequal bosses and their orders contradict
one another. Answering to two masters is a conflict of obligation, and
organizations sometimes place employees in the middle of such a con-
flict. Although matrix structures are excellent for promoting flexibility
and interchange of ideas among employees, they often produce severe
conflicts for employees who find themselves having to respond to con-
tradictory demands of superiors who are coequal and unyielding. The
following case demonstrates this perplexing situation.
Case: Which Boss to Listen To?

The hospital where Betty Friedman was employed has a firm policy
for dealing with employees who are caught taking hospital property
from the premises. Whether it is the kitchen help taking home leftover
food, central supply workers taking home wornout scrubsuits, or nurses
taking home medical supplies, the consequences have unfailingly been
the same: immediate dismissal for the employee. This same hospital
has a very lenient attitude toward the doctors on staff and their actions
and desires. The doctors are catered to in a grand fashion because they,
of course, supply the hospital with patients.
One Sunday evening Ms. Friedman was alone in the nurses' station
on the unit where she was assigned. Everyone else was a few doors
down in the conference room having their dinner break. Dr. Dodd, who
was a prominent internist and the attending physician for almost half
of the patients on Ms. Friedman's unit at any given time, suddenly
appeared with a large shopping bag and asked if he could see Ms.
Friedman in the storage room where supplies were kept. Once in the
room, Dr. Dodd proceeded to tell Ms. Friedman that his mother was
ill and incontinent, his wife was upset about the mess in his mother's
bedroom, and that he had to get some control over the situation for the
night until the next morning when he would see about hiring a home
health nurse for his mother. Dr. Dodd asked for a catheter, several
packs of mattress pads, and all the adult diapers in the room. Although
she hesitated, Ms. Friedman filled the shopping bag for him. When she
finished, he told Ms. Friedman that he appreciated her understanding
and kindness and that he and his family were indebted for her help.
The entire interaction lasted ten minutes. Ms. Friedman felt that Dr.
Dodd used her to steal the supplies he needed for his mother from the
hospital. He acted on the assumption, Ms. Friedman felt, that she would
not object to his taking supplies from the storage room for personal use
and that she would not alter their usual physician-nurse relationship, in
which she was to be the willing assistant to him when he visited his
patients on the unit.
Ms. Friedman was stuck in a no-win situation: when there was discord
between a physician and nurse at this hospital and the physician chose
to complain, the nurse often found herself without a job or with a lesser
position than she previously occupied. She also was not sure how the
hospital administration would see the issue. Since physicians, including
Dr. Dodd, always donated items to the nursing units, like microwave
ovens and coffee makers, she knew there was a chance that, had he
wanted the whole supply room, her superiors may have expected her
to help him carry it to the car. Third, she knew that the supplies would
be inventoried against what had been used and an unexplained shortage
would show up. The dilemma left Ms. Friedman wanting to do the right
thing and having no clue as to what that was. She felt she had done
something dishonest but did not see any alternative.
Ethical Issues
The values in question in this case are caring for others, in that Ms.
Friedman was concerned about Dr. Dodd's dilemma with his mother.
Dr. Dodd's honesty at requesting the supplies was questionable. Ms.
Friedman knew she, not Dr. Dodd, would be held accountable for the
missing supplies. She was also concerned about pursuit of excellence,
since she took pride in being efficient and managing the nursing unit
well. She was concerned about whether she should remain loyal to Dr.
Dodd or to hospital administration.
Alternatives
Ms. Friedman could not be sure whether, if she chose to report Dr.
Dodd's request for supplies, hospital administration would retain loyalty
to Dodd or to her. If the former were the case, she would forfeit her
work assignment, which she enjoyed. She wanted to be fair to Dodd,
but expected him to adhere to the same work principles as the nonphy-
sician staff. She did not want to find herself in a situation where her
integrity would be questioned and she would be accused of stealing the
supplies or allowing them to be stolen.
Resolution
Ms. Friedman chose not to report Dr. Dodd's stealing because she
feared he would deny it and she would be the one to suffer punitive
action. Instead, she decided that the next time he asked her to give him
supplies, she would simply report that she could not do that. If he still
chose to take them, he would have to remove them himself.
SUMMARY
The cases in this chapter range from receiving seemingly innocuous
gifts to moonlighting as a landlord to padding expense vouchers to
having to answer to two bosses' contradictory demands. Each of the
cases involves a different situation, but they all hold in common one
fact: the situations posed demonstrate a conflict of interest between at
least two parties' interests. The resolutions varied from doing nothing
to changing procedures altogether to making small adjustments in pro-
cedures.
Sorting out what is a conflict of interest can be difficult when one is
unaware of how one's personal interests conflict with those of other
parties. Self-awareness and being attentive to one's own motives are
essential elements in ethical decision making. The great number of
conflict-of-interest statutes around the country are examples of the at-
tempt to legislate ethical decision making. It is more effective for in-
dividuals to govern themselves and their own behavior than for imprecise
laws to govern them. Harsh rules and investigative procedures may
cause irreparable damage to company morale and efficiency but still
may not instill the quality of decision making necessary to equip staff
to independently evaluate conflicts of interest and take the appropriate
action.
Policies can be developed, however, and the typical guidelines are
to prepare an administrative policy manual; prepare departmental pro-
cedure manuals; define limits of authority regarding who may authorize
$100 expenditures, who higher, and so forth; and reissue policy state-
ments periodically to emphasize and remind people. Rotation of quality-
control inspectors and receiving clerks can also be instituted wherever
practical as an added check (Regazzi, 1961).
But in the end, no codes of conduct can foresee all the conflicts of
interest personnel will encounter. Equipping staff with the analytic skills
to recognize conflicts and assess them in terms of the values involved
is the only way to actively promote a meaningful program to ward off
potential conflicts of interest throughout the work force.
5
Adapting to Company Norms
Corporate culture is the shared understanding of an organization's em-

ployees—how we do things around here. These beliefs, values, norms
and philosophies determine how things work. They define expected stan-
dards of behavior, speech, presentation of self and "shoulds."
—Ellen J. Wallach
Often, personal values are only partially consistent with company val-
ues. Adapting to an organization's culture involves reconciling the dis-
parities that exist. The ethical challenge lies in determining the amount
of common ground necessary for both employee and employer to be
able to maximize the values they agree are important without sacrificing
values over which they disagree but which each holds dear.
SOCIALIZATION TO AN ORGANIZATION'S
CULTURE
The culture of an organization is defined by its norms, values, and
beliefs. Socialization to the culture is the process of learning about and
internalizing the norms, expectations, and behaviors that are rewarded.
Anticipatory socialization is the term used to describe how people adjust
their beliefs, dress, and personal appearance to accommodate to new
settings even before they enter them.
When a newly hired employee starts work, the other employees de-
termine whether or not the new employee will "fit in." This is not a
snap judgment, and they forgive minor indiscretions, attributing them
to the fact that the newcomer did not know "the way we do things
around here." They wait and give the new employee time to "fit in."
Some employees will try to offer a hand in helping the newcomer learn
to fit in, without overstepping their understood but unstated boundaries.
When newcomers do not adapt after a reasonable length of time, how-
ever, they become known as misfits and usually do not stay long.
Culture is communicated through selective recruitment, socialization,
training and development, and formal and informal communication
channels. The culture establishes a system of norms and informal rules
that define how people are to behave and allow personnel to generalize
to new situations and act quickly. Even if the situation is new, expec-
tations are clear. Additionally, the culture dictates how employees
should interact with one another, how competitors should be treated,
and how various departments should relate to one another.
CULTURE AS CONTROL
There are different ways of conceptualizing the function of organi-
zational culture (Lucas, 1987). One way of seeing it is as a negotiated
order in which perceptions are framed according to a common under-
standing. Culture is "order" in the face of turbulence. Structured per-
ceptions provide operational definitions of reality and are used by
employees to interpret their situation and act within that definition of
the situation. When objectives, rules, procedures, and roles become
internalized, the organization can rely on its culture as a control mech-
anism.
Structured perceptions are models of the real world which ignore
much more than they perceive. A company's culture represents a dis-
continuity from the rest of employees' lives. A company's myths and
traditions simplify an unintelligible complexity into an understandable
complexity. They provide the illusion of understandability as well as a
self-regulatory function for the group.
The higher in rank a person moves, the closer the fit must be between
the person and the culture. A hierarchy can be conceptualized as a cone.
The higher personnel move up, the closer they come to the apex of
power at the top and core of the cone. The lower one is, the more
ADAPTING TO COMPANY NORMS 99
latitude the employee has between behavior that is acceptable and be-
havior that reflects the core values of the organization. The stronger a
culture is, the more it reinforces the values and goals of the organization
and extends this understanding to the periphery and base of the cone.
The weaker a culture is, the less it defines the values and goals of the
organization and the less it serves to guide acceptable behavior at the
lower levels of the organization.
For consistent values to be incorporated into the decision-making
processes, they must be institutionalized within an organization's cul-
ture. Decision makers choose from among competing norms in order
to put into effect an explicit or implicit set of organizational standards.
A company's history and traditions, its organizational culture and ethos,
its operating and competitive environment, and the preferences of its
key decision makers determine which norms are promoted. These norms
are also incorporated into the decisions of the employees, fused with
standard business practices, and in the case of responsible organizations,
consistent with community standards.
Friends in the company social network provide one another with
comforting explanations of uncomfortable decisions. Those definitions
go unchallenged by those who buy in to the culture. And when un-
questioning subordinates have limited contacts with critics outside the
company, they may never be exposed to critical questioning of the
company's customary values and operating procedures. For example,
some cultures treat legal requirements to retain meeting records, to
document files accurately, and to comply with regulations within strict
guidelines as externally mandated annoyances to be obeyed minimally.
Other cultures treat such requirements seriously and demand full-fledged
adherence to them. Since socialization to a culture usually leads to an
unquestioning acceptance of standard practices, employees may find
themselves engaging in activities that they would never agree to outside
the work environment.
An example of how one's work behavior is separate from one's leisure
activities is provided by the difference between lying and bluffing.
Bluffing in negotiations can be a company norm. The important question
is, When is bluffing lying and when is it an acceptable practice? Thomas
Carson, Richard Wokutch, and Kent Murrmann (1982) contend that
presenting false information is lying, not bluffing. But exaggerating
one's position during negotiations is bluffing, not lying. For example,
they contend that bluffing about issues not subject to negotiation, such
as a group's ability to withstand a strike or the union membership's

vote on whether or not to go out on strike, is allowable. Presenting
false information about issues subject to bargaining such as wages,
hours, and conditions of employment, however, is a violation.
ETHICAL CULTURES
An ethical culture is one in which core values are acknowledged and
readily discussed in the context of the organization's actions. Caring,
honesty, accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of excellence, loyalty,
fairness, integrity, respect for others, and responsible citizenship all
prevail as much as possible. And yet in the midst of these values is the
flexibility and pragmatism to understand that, at any given time, some
values must be minimized in order to maximize others.
Corporate social responsibility revolves around the correctness of
corporate action, in terms of its products as well as its by-products.
The unintended consequences of a corporation's actions are as important
as their intended consequences. And responsible citizenship is reflected
by making organizational decisions that anticipate and respond to the
needs of the community. Ethical cultures are manifested by the rela-
tionships and interactions fostered both inside and outside the organi-
zation, issues or policy concerns addressed, goals and decision-making
processes, and the way organizations conduct their activities.
CONTRADICTORY NORMS
When contradictory messages are given by top management, em-
ployees identify double messages and respond to the portion of the
message that they assume is more important. Executives may uninten-
tionally encourage their subordinates to commit crimes on the job by
price fixing, illegally dumping chemicals, offering bribes and kickbacks,
or padding bills. Subordinates do these things because they misinterpret
their superiors' instructions and assume they will be protected if caught.
People tend to believe that business norms are different from everyday
norms, so when they are asked to do something that goes against their
personal beliefs, they assume that this must be a normal business prac-
tice. And they may believe that if they do not do what is asked of them,
they may lose their jobs. M. David Ermann (1986) lists several ways
that a manager can avoid even unintentionally encouraging ethical
breaches:
1. Remind employees that not just profit making, but making a profit the right
way is the most important goal.
2. Make sure the employee comes into contact with the people whom they
might injure by being unethical. An employee who relocates frequently may
not be as hesitant about dumping chemicals in a river as one who lives in
the area and plans to enjoy the river for family outings.
3. Establish moderate punishments. These, if they are applied consistently,
will have a greater effect than extremely harsh but rarely used punishments.
If company enforcement of policies is not likely, strongly worded

policy statements that condemn violations and promise punishment are
interpreted by employees in the same way that driver's license applicants
answer speed limit questions correctly, but then drive with the knowl-
edge that highway patrol officers allow five or ten miles per hour above
the official limit. *'Since a typical firm has elaborate auditing procedures
to prevent embezzlement, theft, and other offenses against itself, how-
ever, but none to deal with crimes that benefit it, subordinates draw the
reasonable inference that superiors rarely will seek or discover the lat-
ter" (Ermann, 1986, p. 34). The following case demonstrates how
double messages are interpreted to the benefit of the company in the
short run but to the detriment of the company as well as its employees
in the long run.
Case: Fraudulent Reporting

Two managers in the Medicare Claims Division of a large health
insurance company were terminated after admitting to falsifying statis-
tical data used in the Medicare reporting requirement for the Contractor
Performance Evaluation Program (CPEP). CPEP is used by the federal
government to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of Medicare
carriers. The Medicare contract was in jeopardy, and its cancellation
was averted by the company's termination of the two individuals. The
falsification was discovered when two things happened. First, an em-
ployee filed a grievance against one manager for harassing clerical
employees in order to induce them to "voluntarily" work overtime
hours without pay to reduce a backlog of unprocessed claims. Second,
during a routine review, Medicare auditors detected efforts on the part
of both managers to hide documents that reflected unfavorably on the
company.
Both of these individuals had held responsible midlevel management
positions for a number of years. One had received recognition for her
work the previous year when she won the Creative Management Award.
She had been selected on the recommendation of the executive vice
presidents, and the final selection was made by the chief executive
officer of the company. The other manager had only recently been
promoted to his current position. His previous position had been in the
utilization review area, which investigated fraudulent activities on the
part of health care providers as they filed claims for reimbursement.
The company had set an ambitious goal the year prior, saying it
would comply with governmental standards during year one and exceed
those standards in year two. The ambitiousness of the goal led to a
rationalization on the part of the managers that if their misconduct helped
the company, then the company would condone it and even protect
them if their actions were revealed. However, their ambitions and com-
pany loyalty resulted ultimately in their dismissal.
As people throughout the company whispered with one another about
the dismissals, a former manager in the Medicare area was overheard
to say, "Everyone cheats on the CPEP reports, and anyone who tells
you they don't is a liar." Someone else said, "We don't cheat as much
as other Medicare carriers, and they are always laughing at us for not
cheating."
Ethical Issues
The values involved are accountability, honesty, pursuit of excel-
lence, loyalty, and integrity. More generally, responsible citizenship
enters the picture since Medicare is a federally sponsored program paid
for by tax dollars. Accountability is relevant because the insurance
carrier as well as the managers should be truthfully answerable for any
action taken in regard to the contract. Honesty relates to the fact that
managers hid materials and falsified statistical data. Pursuit of excellence
enters the case because of the insurance company's attempt to meet
high goals and maintain high standards. The manager's efforts came to
light because of their attempts to be loyal to the company and meet the
goals at any cost. The integrity of the managers was at stake because
one had falsified the data and the other had made unrealistic demands
on employees to work overtime without pay to meet the goal.
Alternatives
The two managers were responding to the goals that had been set by
the company. They had a choice of trying to revise the goals downward
so they could meet them honestly, choosing simply not to meet them,
or lying in order to appear to be meeting the goals. To revise the goals
downward would have seemed to threaten the pursuit of excellence, but
maximized caring for employees, who would otherwise have had to
work overtime against their will and without pay. Simply not meeting
the goal would have minimized loyalty to the company and, in the
managers' eyes, the pursuit of excellence. On the other hand, it would
have maximized honesty. Lying about the data and pushing people to
work overtime maximized loyalty to the company but minimized caring
for others, integrity, and responsible citizenship.
Resolution
Although it would be easier to condemn the two managers for their
actions, the responsibility of their acts has to be shared by higher man-
agement, whose subtle double messages created an unfair pressure on
personnel. The section manager admitted to the misconduct with the
explanation that she had been told by her supervisor to falsify evaluation
data that was below par if necessary. She did and attempted to support
her fallacious entry by hiding documents from the auditors.
It may be that this apparent fraudulent practice of falsifying records
is an industry-wide practice. Regardless, the actions of the employees
could result in civil and/or criminal legal sanctions in the future. In
order to minimize the likelihood of such sanctions and send a signal
that the company would not tolerate such behavior, it chose to dismiss
the managers rather than merely reprimand them or demote them. By
doing so, the company maximized accountability for its wrongdoing.
The department manager was driven to succeed, and this drive had
surfaced in harassment of employees and dishonesty. An alternative
should have been available to the manager to secure more employees
in order to meet the goals that the company had set or secure reason-
able compensation for those hourly employees who were expected to
work overtime in order that the company could meet the goals. This
would have maximized respect for and fairness to the employees as
well as maximized integrity and honesty by meeting the goals that
had been set.
Contradictory messages cause problems whether they occur in claims
processing departments of insurance companies or in college admissions
offices. The discussion that follows shows the dilemma that college
admissions officers encounter when they receive mixed messages from
college administration on the importance of maintaining high enroll-

ments. The situation explains why good admissions officers sometimes
make bad decisions.
The world of college admissions has gone through major changes in
recent years. Rather than being inundated with applicants as in the past,
colleges are now threatened by declining enrollments. This change has
placed strong pressures on admissions officers in the competition for
students. One question that each college admissions officer must ask
when recruiting prospective students is, What type student "fits in"
with the current student body? When recruiting, colleges are in the
unusual position of marketing their institutions to persons who are both
potential consumers as well as products. For this reason, they must be
doubly cautious about recruiting students who may not have the qualities
needed to do well. When admissions officers are sent to high schools
and simply told to "recruit students," this generic instruction may lead
to the recruitment of students who are not compatible with the rest of
the student body.
Admissions officers must decide whether to lower admission require-
ments when there is a decline in the number of applications. By ad-
mitting less qualified students, the size of the freshman class remains
the same and the admissions office does not have to face the wrath of
an angry dean or president. But the short-term gains of having the
correct number of new students may cause long-term problems. High
school guidance counselors will notice the institution is accepting stu-
dents with weaker academic credentials than in previous years and may
advise stronger academic students to seek admission elsewhere. The
faculty will notice the drop in academic performance among the new
students and complain. A higher than normal attrition rate will occur
as the less capable students do poorly in class and drop out. The short-
term gain of admitting students with weaker credentials is more than
offset by the decline in perceived quality by high school guidance
counselors, a frustrated faculty, and a high attrition rate.
Another decision chief admissions officers must make comes when
selecting personnel to serve as recruiters. Recruiters who zealously
pursue numbers will disregard the student's individual needs in their
well-rehearsed sales pitch. It is important for them to show the institution
in the best possible light and not deliberately expose weaknesses. The
salesperson-recruiter is concerned with the product aspect of prospective
students, whereas the educator is concerned with the student as consumer
as well as product. But those who are too concerned about individual
needs disregard the institution's need for numbers, and recruit too few
new students.
All three of the above approaches have negative consequences: re-
cruiting students not consistent with the current student body, selling
the institution rather than educating the student, or recruiting too few
new students. Admissions officers explain their recruitment preferences
by developing a logic that justifies the actions. Three frequent ration-
alizations for these decisions are that the activity is within reasonable
ethical and legal limits, that is, it is not "really" illegal or unethical;
that the activity is in the school's best interests, that is, that the ad-
missions counselor would somehow be expected to undertake the ac-
tivity; or that because the activity helps the school, the school will
condone it and even protect the person who engages in it (Gellerman,
1986).
The example of admitting students with inferior academic credentials
to help meet the yearly admission goals creates significant problems
and involves some very serious ethical questions. An admissions officer
may feel that it is ethical to lower standards in order to recruit enough
students for the freshman class. What this admissions officer sees is the
short-term gain of the student and not the agony the student will face
in trying to make passing grades.
Second, the admissions officer may believe that admitting weaker
academic students is good for the institution because the student's tuition
and fees make up a large portion of the school's operating budget. In
other words, the admissions officer may feel that by getting the necessary
number of students to enroll, the school will stay on sound financial
footing. The admissions officer may believe the school set an admissions
goal not as a magical number but as a business decision, and that this
number must be met in order to keep the school's doors open.
These two situations, insurance claims processing and college ad-
missions, show what happens when values collide (Brown, 1986a).
Institutional officers give lip service to fair standards, but the various
demands placed on workers to produce outweigh doing what is fair or
ethical. Actions speak louder than words, and when employees see the
action condoned, they feel protected from any problems their actions
may create. It is up to top management to send a clear message to all
employees about which values are most important to maximize. Without
this understanding on the part of admissions counselors, insurance
claims processors, or anyone else in any organization, employees are

left to assume what priorities may be.
The next case shows how conflicts of interest can be intertwined, or
even produced by, the norms and expectations of a culture.
Case: Coopted by the Company

Here is a situation in which the subject was coopted by the gift of a
car loan. It was a conflict of interest with organizational norms in the
center of the conflict. The dilemma revolves around a young college
graduate, Tim Jenkins, who had been employed with a consulting firm
for two years. When he graduated from college he took a job with the
firm as a personnel consultant. The firm's largest client was a federal
defense agency. Throughout the contract period, the young man noticed
that his superior padded his expense account and billed for work that
was not completed or, in some cases, not even started. Jenkins had
been told that the firm had been given a contract on a noncompetitive
basis because it was known to be very good. However, he found a tape
in a desk that recorded a conversation between the agency and the firm,
telling the firm how to write its proposal to win the contract.
Turnover was high in the firm because staff received little training and
were given assignments they did not know how to do, and when they
made mistakes they were fired. Jenkins came to see that the firm did poor
work, treated its employees miserably, and billed and took money for
work not completed. Although he wanted to leave within a few months
after he had started, Jenkins stayed at the firm. He had made plans to
enter graduate school after he had worked for two years and saved some
money. The job paid well, and his boss liked him and often compli-
mented his work. Three months before Jenkins was to resign to go back
to school he was in a serious auto accident. His car was demolished and
he was badly injured. During his six-week recuperation, his boss and
peers visited him often, brought him gifts, and seemed sincerely inter-
ested in him. When he was able to return to work, his boss lent him a
company car so he would not have to spend his savings on a new car. On
Jenkins's last days with the firm, the boss let him know that he viewed
Jenkins as an excellent employee and that he would be pleased to give
strong recommendations to his future employers.
Jenkins's dilemma came shortly after leaving the firm, when the
investigator general from the firm's largest client called to say he was
coming to ask him a few questions about his prior employer. The
employee knew the firm was unethical and, although glad he had quit
to return to school when he did, had made friends at the firm he did
not want to "rat" on. He asked himself what he should do.
Ethical Issues
Two of the values at stake are honesty and loyalty, since Jenkins had
to ask himself whether to respond honestly to the investigator's ques-
tions. He felt a desire to be loyal to the firm since his colleagues there
had been so kind to him during his convalescence. His integrity was at
stake because he had to choose between telling the truth and forfeiting
the good references he had been promised by his former boss. He cared
about the pursuit of excellence in government contracting and wanted
to be a responsible citizen. Ultimately he had to decide whether loyalty
was more important than telling the truth.
Alternatives
If he told the truth about all he had learned about the firm, he was
sure the agency would have discontinued its contracts, and the firm
would probably have gone out of business. His friends would have been
out of work. On the other hand, if he lied, more dollars would have
been spent on slipshod consulting services.
Resolution
He told himself he would answer questions honestly but not provide
any more information than absolutely essential. He also decided to call
his friends at the firm and tell them of the investigation so they could
be forewarned. His resolution was a compromise in which he intended
to be moderately honest, forfeit the promised recommendations, and be
a responsible citizen. On the other hand, his loyalty to his friends at
thefirmcaused him to contact them and warn them of the investigation
and its likely repercussions.
Ethical ambivalence exists when the behaviors, attitudes, and norms
that are shaped and maintained by the organization's reward system
conflict with the behaviors, attitudes, and norms of individual employees
or with the long-term interests of the organization (Jansen and Von
Glinow, 1985). Reward systems may inadvertently shape and maintain
behaviors that the organization is trying to discourage while punishing
or ignoring desired behaviors. Ethical ambivalence typically results from
the dialectical interplay between norms and counternorms as discussed

in chapter 3. For example, to the norm of openness and candor is the
counternorm of stonewalling, keeping secrets, and "playing your cards
close to your vest." Tension also develops between some of the dom-
inant norms; for example, openness, honesty, and candor are counter-
manded by maintaining corporate loyalty. Yet loyalty is challenged
when employees circumvent the rules to get the job done (Jansen and
Von Glinow, 1985). The irony is that an organization would come to
a grinding halt if everyone narrowly followed the rules. There is a need
for inconsistency and maneuvering room provided by counternorms.
The following case demonstrates this.
Case: Managing by the Book versus by Practicality

A trademark of most bureaucratic organizations is their ability to
produce rules and regulations for the workers to follow. The Internal
Revenue Service is no different in that respect, for there is no limit
to the forms that must be filled out and procedures to be followed.
Rod Towlski was a manager in the enforcement division who knew
that the trouble with "going by the book" was that he would waste
a tremendous amount of time in developing cases for prosecution if
he did not use discretion in applying these rules. Not only would his
time be wasted but so would his agents' time. This time factor be-
came critical when he was working cases with statute deadlines that
if not met would require the closing of criminal investigations. One
investigation required documentation of a transaction that had oc-
curred outside of the state. The case was old and already had taken
an excessive amount of time. The division attorney had notified
Towlski that if the investigation on the case was not completed very
soon, the legal department would refuse to handle the case. The rea-
son the attorney had a set deadline was that sufficient time had to be
available for the case to be reviewed at all levels and submitted to
the United States Attorney's office for indictment prior to when the
statute of limitations took effect. The case could not be turned in,
though, without this information relating to the transaction.
The procedure manual stated that a formal written request had to be
sent to that district where the transaction occurred and officials there
would obtain the required information and mail it back. This procedure
usually took between thirty and sixty days. If Towlski had followed the
required procedure, he stood a good chance of not having the case to

counsel by the deadline date. Based on this he contacted the manager
in the district where the work needed to be done and arranged to have
an agent obtain the required documentation. This was followed up with
the formal written request to cover their time spent. Towlski believed
his actions were justified even though they violated agency rules because
it was in the government's best interest to be able to recommend pros-
ecution on this individual, and no harm would come of the violation.
Ethical Issues
The values involved in this case are honesty, accountability, pursuit
of excellence, loyalty, integrity, and responsible citizenship. Towlski
wanted to behave honestly and be accountable for his actions. For this
reason, he contacted the investigating jurisdiction by telephone to ask
for their cooperation and then sent the paperwork after the fact. He
cared about the ultimate goal of his division, which was to identify and
catch income tax evaders. He wanted to maintain his integrity and yet
do an end run around time-consuming procedures. He wanted to be
loyal to the agency's policies and procedures, so he secured the required
authorization, although it was only a pro forma gesture since he had
already received the information he needed. Because Towlski worked
for a governmental agency, responsible citizenship was involved; his
job was to protect the interests of taxpayers as well as the government.
Alternatives
The consequences of having to follow all rules and regulations is
clearly not always in the best interest of the agency or the general
public. Workers benefit from parameters to work within so they can
treat individual situations as similarly as possible, within reason. These
parameters are needed to reduce discriminatory practices that might
occur accidentally or intentionally. It is important to realize that no
system can establish rules to cover all situations. Employees, whether
at the managerial level or below, must have the ability to use discretion
when the need arises. At times the stated goals of the bureaucratic
organization cannot be reached using the tools that are provided.
If Towlski had chosen to follow the rules exactly as they were written,
he would have maximized loyalty to the agency, accountability, and
integrity, but minimized the pursuit of excellence and perhaps even
responsible citizenship.
Resolution
Towlski's decision not to follow the manual was based on his belief
that he had a responsibility to the government and the public to insure
that the case was turned in on time. Not following the rules resulted in
his being able to accomplish this. The rules he failed to follow were
just that: rules, not legal requirements. He made a value decision that
outweighed the "correct" decision which, in theory, should have been
made.
Towlski had learned that, as long as he could justify his actions, in
most cases he would receive the backing of upper management. In this
situation he felt that he was successful in handling the situation and felt
good that he had not followed the lockstep procedures prescribed in the
procedure manual. He would have felt worse about a case lost over an
administrative technicality, and he was willing to accept criticism for
not following prescribed procedures if it were to come to that. Ironically,
situations of this kind happen quite often and become part of the job.
One of the keys to being a competent manager is being able to evaluate
a set of facts and come to a decision on the best action to take.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SALARY

DECISIONS
Performance appraisal is the process by which an employee's behavior
and/or accomplishments for a finite time period are measured and eval-
uated (Banner and Cooke, 1984). Employees have the right to know
what the performance standards are. They need to know what it takes
to please the boss, by what criteria they are to be judged, and who will
be judging them. It is only fair that employees be informed about which
values are most important. If loyalty to the company is more important
than being a high performer, then they have a right to know this.
The exchange relationship between employee and employer is bal-
anced when the inducements that the employer offers and the contri-
butions the employee makes are perceived to be equal in value. In an
unbalanced exchange, employees see themselves receiving low pay in
return for long hours and hard work. In a balanced exchange, employees
feel they are receiving inducements that are equal to the contributions
they are making to the employer. The importance of assessing balance
in exchange relations is that individuals and organizations typically seek
equity in exchanges and, other factors being equal, they will withdraw
from or renegotiate exchanges that are unbalanced.
The following two cases depict problems that arise when employees'
understanding of the norms of the firm differ from the understanding
of those who evaluate their performance. "The Problem of Fairness"
is a problem that arises when supervisors make arbitrary decisions about
performance ratings. "When Budget Cuts Interfere with Rewarding
Good Performance" shows another variation of the many difficulties
with evaluating employees fairly.
Employee perceptions of equitable treatment have been found to be
stronger predictors of absence and turnover than job satisfaction vari-
ables (Dittrich and Carrell, 1979). A survey of 158 clerical employees
in twenty departments of a large metropolitan-area office was used to
obtain perceptions of equity and feelings of job satisfaction. Pay rules
and work pace were the most significant fairness elements affecting the
expressed satisfaction of employees. Pay rules relate to the fairness of
the rules for granting pay increases, and work pace relates to the fairness
of the supervisor in maintaining a fair pace of work activity.
Case: The Problem of Fairness

This is the case of Jim Hooker, who was assigned to the telephone
unit. In the office where he worked, it was customary to rotate assign-
ments periodically. This resulted in Hooker's assignment to the tele-
phone unit. The unit receives incoming telephone calls and usually
involves client complaints and questions. After four months with this
unit it was time for his quarterly evaluation. The review would determine
the amount of his merit pay increase. As his supervisor went over the
various sections of the review sheet, he agreed with her evaluation of
his performance until they reached the subject of productivity. Having
received high marks in every area so far, he was surprised when he
received an average mark in productivity. Hooker questioned his su-
pervisor as to why this mark was given, but her explanation was un-
acceptable to him. Her explanation was that it was hard to measure
productivity in a telephone unit and supervisors had decided to give all
workers in this unit an average rating.
It was unacceptable to Hooker that the supervisors used a standard
rating for all workers in the unit regardless of their actual production
level. If the best rating they could receive was average, where was the
incentive to perform better? Word soon reached the other workers in

the unit, and they decided to write a letter to the main office to protest
this action.
The supervisors responded to the ensuing investigation from the main
office by requiring that phone workers do additional paperwork while
taking incoming calls. Besides being physically impossible, it was per-
sonally insulting to Hooker. The supervisors' action seemed to be in
retaliation for protesting to a higher authority. Relations with the su-
pervisors had never really been warm, but this incident created tension
between the two sides.
Ethical Issues
This is a dilemma of honesty and fairness. Hooker and his coworkers
felt their work was not evaluated fairly. And they interpreted the added
requirement to document their work as a retaliatory move rather than
as an honest necessity.
Alternatives
Hooker could have chosen to accept his supervisor's rating on pro-
ductivity. But he strongly believed that the supervisor was not being
honest or fair in the evaluation of his productivity. Instead, he insisted
on what he thought would be a fair rating. What followed, however,
was more unfairness on the part of the supervisor.
Resolution
Hooker's resolution to protest the rating created more unfairness, at
least in his mind, than there had been before he protested. Hooker's
perception of the performance appraisal process was that it was based
on merit. In other words, he believed there should be a direct correlation
between the quality of his work and the score on his evaluation. The
supervisor believed, on the other hand, that all employees doing the
same work should receive the same rating, regardless of the quality of
each individual employee's work.
The following case demonstrates how the exigencies of a budget
crunch influence performance ratings.
Case: When Budget Cuts Interfere with Rewarding

Good Performance
Division Director John Adams was required to complete the perfor-
mance evaluations of the eight managers who reported directly to him.
These evaluations were due by late December and reflected the perfor-
mance of the managers as compared to a set of expectations given out
at the beginning of the year. Expectations had been jointly discussed
and prepared, and periodic performance status reports were given to
each manager to provide continuous feedback so they could monitor
their progress. Two of the eight managers, Sally Martin and James
Bobbert, had done outstanding work and had exceeded their goals.
Adams rated them distinguished, which meant they would each receive
a bonus in addition to their merit raise. Both were aware of their per-
formance and expected the ratings, along with the salary increase and
bonus money. The other managers were fully satisfactory, and would
receive pay increases, but no bonus. After the evaluations were com-
pleted, Adams was advised by his superior that, because of a budget
shortage, the bonus pool had been limited and he would be allowed to
give only one bonus, even though he had already rated both Martin and
Bobbert as eligible. Adams was instructed to reduce the lower rated of
his two distinguished subordinates to the highest level of the fully
acceptable rating. Bobbert had been rated slightly lower than Martin,
so Adams notified Bobbert of the reduced rating. Bobbert became very
angry.
Ethical Issues
This is a dilemma of accountability, honesty, fairness, promise keep-
ing, and pursuit of excellence. Adams was expected to be accountable
for his assessment, and yet when it really mattered, he was informed
he could not be. His ratings, which were based on objective performance
standards, had to be arbitrarily lowered on Bobbert's record. During
the year, the evaluation of performance objectives was explicit and fair
and reliable, yet the ultimate rating was capricious.
Alternatives
Since Adams had no recourse for securing adequate bonus monies,
he felt he had no alternative. He considered asking the two employees
to share the one bonus allotment that was budgeted, but feared that then
not only Bobbert but also Martin would feel cheated out of something
both felt they deserved. And this would have minimized the pursuit of
excellence.
He could have changed the rating to what it was originally and split
the bonus between Martin and Bobbert without authorization. This
would have maximized caring, promise keeping to subordinates, loy-

alty, and fairness. But it would have minimized fairness to Martin, who
under the superior's order would receive a larger bonus.
He could have simply explained to Bobbert why his rating was low-
ered, hoping he would understand budget cuts and the need for Adams
to follow directives from his superior, which would have maximized
caring and honesty to Bobbert. This would have minimized all other
values, however.
Another alternative was to have told the superior that he thought an
injustice had been done to Bobbert by his having to give him an in-
accurate performance rating. He could have sought permission to divide
the bonus between Martin and Bobbert in amounts proportional to their
original rating. This would have maximized caring, by seeking to correct
the injustice; honesty; accountability; promise keeping, in that evalu-
ations would have kept their credibility as reflecting true performance;
pursuit of excellence; loyalty; fairness; integrity, by resisting unethical
pressures from his superior; and respect for others. It would have min-
imized fairness to Martin if she had expected a larger bonus, although
she may have been willing to share the bonus earmarked for her. This
would have maximized caring, loyalty to a coworker, fairness, and
respect for others and still not significantly have minimized other values.
Resolution
Adams chose to follow the rules of his superior and give only one
bonus award, even though he had already told both Martin and Bobbert
that they would receive bonuses. This maximized loyalty to the orga-
nization on Adams's part, while it minimized a sense of fairness in the
performance appraisal process. It denied the implied promise he had
made that they would each receive a bonus, and it denied pursuit of
excellence in the long run.
As soon as employees realize that there actually is no payoff for
working above and beyond the level of one's peers, or that the rewards
promised may not be actually given, morale plummets and productivity
goes down.
DETERMINING PRIORITIES
How an organization should work and how it does work are two very
different subjects. Broad organizational values are potent only if some-
body transforms them into reality. Lofty, abstract principles do not

guarantee that managers and employees will agree on how to behave
in any given situation. Brown (1986a) says managers' priorities can be
learned not by reading the company's code of ethics or policy statements
but by observing how they use their time, how they utilize their staff,
how they allocate their budget, and how they demonstrate their personal
energy.
Values determine what a person considers important while performing
the job. Differing sets of priorities highlight value gaps. The first job
of managers is to forge a consistency between employees' values and
the values of the company. Serious disagreements over priorities
threaten morale and cause productivity to plummet. People become more
concerned with trying to get along or trying to guess how the manager
feels than trying to get their work done. There are three things managers
can do to close these value gaps and make sure everyone in the orga-
nization is striving for the common goal of achieving the mission of
the organization (Brown, 1986b).
1. They can take the official path by quoting policy manuals.

2. They can take the unofficial path by improving policies or using personal
discretion for certain policies. This method applies standards on a case-by-
case basis.
3. They can take the interpersonal path by utilizing their interpersonal rela-
tionships with employees to resolve problems that cannot be solved any
other way.
The next case is about charging for overtime when rules are unclear
or easily ignored and supervision is slack. A double message is received
from the boss: "Do not lie on the overtime report, but we will not look
if you do."
Case: Charging for Overtime

At the law firm where Lauren Singleton worked, paralegals received
overtime after forty hours had been worked in one week. To receive
this overtime, each paralegal had to fill out an overtime slip that reported
the amount of overtime worked and have it signed by an attorney. The
attorney asked to sign the slip would routinely sign without question.
The slip was then submitted to the bookkeeping department and the
overtime pay would show up on the next paycheck. It was up to the
individual paralegals to see that overtime was charged properly, because

no one monitored their time.
When Singleton had started working at the firm, there had been a lot
of confusion as to when one was entitled to overtime. The belief among
many of the paralegals was that they were entitled to overtime when
they had worked longer than eight hours in one day. Singleton remem-
bered when the head of the paralegal committee had told the group that
overtime should be billed only after working forty hours in one week.
This was the only statement the attorney had made, and he had not
provided concrete examples. There was an unstated belief that if the
attorney was not going to take the time to clarify this, he could not be
serious about it.
Singleton was new to thefirmwhen the "forty hours first" statement
had been made. She assumed the statement was a rule and took it more
seriously than others did. Therefore, she only billed overtime when she
worked more than forty hours in one week, excluding sick days or
vacation time. She later discovered that other paralegals were submitting
overtime slips for weeks that included a holiday. They may have worked
only two hours late on one day of the Fourth of July holiday week, but
they would submit an overtime slip for that two hours. Or, they may
have taken two hours for a dental appointment on one day, but if they
worked ten hours the next day, they would charge two hours to overtime.
Singleton wanted to benefit from her peers' more generous interpretation
of the overtime rule but did not want to do so until the rule had been
clarified by the firm.
Ethical Issues
There were several ethical considerations in this situation. Because
the system of submitting overtime did not include anyone checking to
make sure that overtime was being correctly charged, the firm had
established a system over which paralegals had almost complete control.
By not making clear what the policy was for collecting overtime, the
firm had created a situation in which paralegals could act in their self-
interest by charging more overtime at the expense of the firm. The firm
gave the paralegals no incentive to act in the interest of the organization.
The values involved are honesty, accountability, loyalty, and fairness.
Singleton wanted to be personally accountable for any claims she made
for overtime. And she wanted to file truthful overtime reports. Yet she
wanted to benefit from the overtime reimbursement policy if her peers

were benefiting also.
Alternatives
Singleton saw three alternatives. She could take the high road and
only file for overtime when she knew it was appropriate. This would
maximize her honesty and accountability but would mean she was sac-
rificing overtime income she saw her peers receiving. Or she could join
the ranks of her peers and file for overtime even when she knew it was
uncalled for. This would minimize honesty and accountability but max-
imize fairness. Or she could do something about the situation to make
the policy consistent for everyone and also have it serve the best interests
of the firm as well as the paralegals.
Resolution
Singleton asked one of the attorneys what the rule was about overtime.
Singleton's reasoning was, Why should I work forty hours in one week
before charging overtime if no one else does? The attorney advised that
although sick days and personal leave did not count toward a forty-hour
week, vacation time and holidays did count toward a forty-hour week.
It took a while for the attorneys to convince all the members of the
paralegal committee what the policy should be. It was only at a paralegal
meeting several months later that those on the paralegal committee
understood the policy well enough to explain it so everyone would know
exactly what was expected of them. It was after this meeting that the
head of the paralegal committee put the policy in writing. Consistency
and fairness were achieved, and everyone understood exactly what con-
stituted rightful claims for overtime and what did not.
SWIMMING UPSTREAM
Many believe that ethical decay has produced a climate ripe for
corruption. Competitive economic arrangements do not cause people to
become dishonest or treacherous. But they breathe life into preexisting
dispositions to act dishonestly or treacherously. Ethically, "we're all
too close to the edge," one congressional defense aide remarked, ex-
plaining that congressional members and defense contractors are in many
ways letting the ethics of contracting slide (Aviation Week & Space
Technology, 1988). Contractors have engaged in practices such as bid
rigging and engaging in illicit trade in government-owned documents.

Some contractors need certain information and do not seem to care how
they get it. On the other hand, members of Congress are known to have
called contractors and asked them to pick up the bill for dinner on the
town for themselves and their constituents. The constituent believes the
member paid for the dinner, but it is really being paid for by a defense
contractor. These faults have occurred for several reasons: a huge
amount of money and power is associated with weapons buying, con-
tractors are pressured to make campaign contributions to elected offi-
cials, the industry often pays honoraria for members of Congress,
consulting retainers are paid by contractors, and companies treat certain
members to weekends at exotic resorts. Basically both contractors and
congressional members are to blame, and the corruption comes from
all sides. "Everyone does it," is the common refrain. How can you
change organizational norms in an atmosphere of tolerance? Though
stakeholders require honest, open reporting, stonewalling and falsifi-
cation of data may be rewarded. Norms and counternorms are devel-
oped. While norms should be ethical and counternorms aberrant, the
opposite sometimes develops in organizations.
Organizations are judged by their actions, not their mission state-
ments. Individuals are judged by their decisions, not their shining state-
ments of principle (Cadbury, 1987). Nani Ranken (1987/88) says our
actions as managers or workers are still our actions as responsible
people. Even a detailed job description does not turn employees into
robots. She says the disclaimer used at all levels, "I have to do it this
way because it is established policy, but I think it is a bad one and I'm
trying to get the higher-ups to change it," illustrates the frequency with
which employees at all levels dissociate themselves by verbal disclaimer
from policies they consider wrong or foolish.
Being ethical is easier said than done. When one sees a colleague
blow the whistle and be reassigned or demoted as a result of having
rocked the boat, tough choices remain for thoughtful onlookers. They
wonder if they could have mustered the courage to speak up to the
power and tradition, which they saw their colleague choose to do. And,
even if they could, they wonder if their satisfaction would outweigh the
penalties that would befall them. They know that part of their respon-
sibilities involve promise keeping. They wonder if they would have
been as responsible a citizen in attempting to uphold important values
or whether they have succumbed to local culture, values, and traditions
by silence, "looking the other way," or rationalizing wrong acts as

being ' 'for the good of the organization and its customers.'' The burden
of accountability, integrity, and peer pressure puts one's ethics to the
acid test when faced with cries to "go along with the group," not "be
square," or not "fight city hall."
Deciding when personal values clash with corporate norms is a prob-
lem many people deal with every day (Wilson, 1983). What does a
person do when getting on the fast track to the top of the corporate
ladder involves disobeying antitrust laws to improve profit margins?
Sometimes compliance with what is right can be counterproductive to
the company and going along with what is wrong, if not detected, can
profit the company. In each situation, the individual must weigh the
options available and determine who will be hurt and who would be
helped if a certain option is chosen.
Although quality-control inspectors may want to do excellent work,
their performance may be discouraged. For example, pressures to meet
production quotas may be transmitted to the quality inspector in the
form of orders to relax standards. When there is strong pressure from
top management for short-term results, or when a problem is a sleeper
that only becomes apparent after prolonged customer use, such as metal
fatigue or slow internal corrosion, a question arises about whether to
prolong sunken costs or try to address the problem. The ethical problem
involves a clash of loyalties between the long-run interests of the com-
pany versus short-term profits.
Reconciling incompatible values is one of the most difficult challenges
employees meet. When their view of the right concerns and the right
way to do a job are incompatible with the generally accepted norms of
the culture, the employee can choose to remain and try to change the
system, remain and buy in to the predominant values, or leave. The
next two cases demonstrate this.
Case: Student Affairs versus Political Affairs

The educational institution where Donald Jones worked was a pres-
tigious state-subsidized military high school and junior college. It ob-
tained more of its budget from tuition and board fees and alumni and
private endowment contributions than from state monies. As Jones, the
newly arrived dean of students, became more knowledgeable about the
inner workings of the institution, particularly the hierarchy, the inter-
personal politics, the fiscal base, and the power struggles within and
among personalities and groups, he became uncomfortable. Jones's
dilemma ultimately involved his having to face the fact that the school
routinely engaged in racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination. As an
employee of the school, he was as guilty of the violations as anyone
else.
As the dean of students, Jones had administrative responsibilities to
the state and to the institution that were, for the most part, compatible.
As he became more trusted within the circles of power, he eventually
realized the divisions between camps. There was dissension between
military staff, academic faculty, and the administration. Confusion
flourished between the physical education staff and faculty over which
office actually controlled the athletic department. These operational
quandaries caused concern among the alumni, the friends and loyalists
of the school, and, of course, the employees and their families, who
had much at stake and who were directly and emotionally involved in
the issues at hand.
Jones gradually realized there was active discrimination against fe-
male and minority students unless they were from wealthy families who
would make generous donations to the school. Jones came to learn that
the civilian directors of the institution were actively giving monetary
support to political candidates through both legal and illegal channels.
As far as he could prove, no public monies were directly channeled
from administrators, staff, or faculty. Indirectly, however, such funding
as administrative slush funds and personal expense funds, which were
supported by public money, were used to sponsor such political and
discriminatory functions.
There were other such incidents in which it became obvious to Jones
that the long-term political popularity of the school was seen as more
important than the services provided to the students. For example, there
were discriminatory policies surrounding the selection criteria for honors
students and student government positions.
Ethical Issues
The values involved in this case are pursuit of excellence, loyalty,
integrity, and responsible citizenship. Jones was directly involved with
shaping and influencing young people's lives, yet he had to operate for
their cooperative education and daily living standards amongst the pres-
sures and headwinds of numerous ethical violations and almost certain
although not provable corruption. He was searching for the tenable

position and solutions with which he could live. He felt he was com-
promising his integrity to work in such a system. He wanted to do a
good job but could not be satisfied with the criteria the school used to
measure his performance. At the same time, he had worked hard to
gain his post at this prestigious school and he felt loyal to it and wanted
to clean up its operations.
Alternatives
Jones had to determine whether to conform to the school's norms.
He decided he had three choices. He could learn to accept the contra-
dictions and work within the system. Or he could remain on the job
and try to persuade those in a position of influence to change. Or he
could resign. He was caught in a classic exit, voice, or loyalty dilemma.
In other words, he had to choose between exiting, voicing his concerns,
or remaining loyal to the status quo.
If he had conformed to the status quo, he would have been accepting
the school's practices as they were. The only core value he would have
been maximizing was loyalty to the school's current administrative
practices. The second alternative was to speak up against the injustices.
If he were to do this, the school itself would have been harmed because
as the problems surfaced in the media, the school's reputation would
have been marred. Its graduates would have suffered, its current students
would have suffered, and the school would have suffered from smaller
enrollments in the future until the furor died down. Jones might also
have lost his job if he had brought the problems to the attention of the
public. Or he could have resigned his position with the school. This
alternative would have maximized his integrity and honesty while min-
imizing his caring for those who were being discriminated against.
Resolution
Jones coped as well as he could for six years, until the varying and
divergent goals simply could no longer coexist on the same campus.
He then resigned.
Swimming upstream against the accepted norms of an organization
is slow and frustrating, and sometimes even debilitating. And holding
values that are contrary to those which one's position requires is frus-
trating, as the next case attests.
Case: Social Worker Turned Prosecutor

For two years Shirley Wattson was employed by the state's Depart-
ment of Public Assistance as a social worker in the food stamp program.
After the first year, Wattson was promoted to be an agency represent-
ative in administrative fraud hearings. This position is similar to that
of prosecutor in a criminal proceeding. Proud of her new position, she
prepared to present the first case very thoroughly, carefully reviewing
the case file and all related documents. Wattson arrived at the hearing
to find a frail, elderly woman who was confused as to the nature of the
proceedings. During the hearing it was quite apparent that the woman
had not committed fraud but rather was a victim of agency incompet-
ence. At the completion of the hearing, Wattson left the office with
very mixed emotions. On the one hand, she felt she must remain loyal
to the agency; on the other hand, she felt this woman had been victimized
by the agency. It was clear that the elderly, frail woman had no intention
of committing fraud, but because of Wattson's action, was faced with
the possibility of being disqualified from the program for a year. She
was in need of food assistance, and her disqualification would be an
obvious hardship. Wattson left work that day in emotional turmoil. It
was as if the new position that she had dearly wanted forced her to
deny her basic value system.
Ethical Issues
The values in this case are caring, accountability, pursuit of excel-
lence, loyalty, fairness, integrity, and responsible citizenship. Wattson
cared about the clients and believed that the agency should do everything
it could to provide them with the services for which they were eligible.
She also cared about doing a good job, but by being accountable for
prosecuting fraud she bore the onus of responsibility for taking away
services to clients she believed to be eligible. She wanted to be loyal
to the agency and yet fair to clients. In her capacity as an employee of
a public agency, she wanted to serve the public as well as possible.
She felt she was jeopardizing her integrity when asked to prosecute
cases that resulted from apparent misunderstanding rather than pur-
poseful fraud. On the other hand, she had apparently failed to review
all the facts in the case prior to the hearing. She had been so proud of
her new position that she had failed to make a thorough investigation
prior to the hearing. If she had done so, the case could have been
dismissed as an agency error.
Alternatives
She felt at odds with the philosophy of the agency. Even though she
efficiently carried out the agency's policies, she had very little control
over her work. In other words, she felt limited in how much she could
assist clients. Wattson felt the actions of the agency were motivated by
a draconic pressure from the public and politicians to crack down on
fraud. In cases such as these, she felt politics and administration should
be kept separate.
If Wattson prosecuted to the letter of the law, she would have min-
imized caring and integrity but maximized loyalty to the agency. A
second alternative was to request reassignment back into the food stamp
program as a social worker. This would have minimized her pursuit of
excellence in regard to her career aspirations but maximized her caring
for clients and her integrity. A third alternative was to seek advice from
a supervisor and point out that if this client were found guilty and
disqualified from the program for a year, the case could create adverse
publicity about the agency and its uncaring practices.
Wattson had brought to the agency a set of social casework values
that she was expected to discard in favor of executing "policy." She
felt it was wrong to use this woman as a political scapegoat when, in
her views at least, the agency had failed in its responsibility to properly
explain its regulations. From her vantage point, she believed the agency
failed to view clients as individuals with needs and feelings. After this
incident Wattson began to look for loopholes in policy, and refused to
prosecute many cases the agency believed should have been. The agency
began to view her as disloyal, while she believed she was helping the
people the agency was charged to serve. In preparing cases for fraud,
she started to take the attitude that the agency may have been responsible
for its own losses. She began to view her work as unpleasant and the
agency as the "bad guy."
Although her empathy for the plight of the elderly woman was gen-
uine, what disturbed her most was her own visibility to the public. As
an agency representative she became accountable to the public for the
actions of the agency. Her value system became subordinate to agency
policy. Executing policy was never a problem when she was relatively
anonymous and the client was a case file. But all that changed when
she came face-to-face with people she was expected to prosecute.
Resolution
She soon resigned her position and left the agency. She concluded
that the norms within the agency were so incompatible with what she
thought they should be that she did not want to be affiliated with it in
any way.
Professionals who must work together on interdisciplinary teams en-
counter conflicts not only between themselves and the organization but
also between themselves and their teammates who were trained in other
disciplines. For example, forensic scientists function within an adver-
sarial system of justice that places a high premium on winning cases.
But the professions of science, medicine, and the law make for strange
bedfellows. The scientist, as a scientist, is expected to obtain the "right"
answer from performing unbiased scientific tests. To the police officer,
the only "right" answer is the one that points to the guilt of the de-
fendant. The conflict is made worse by the fact that attorneys are free
to interpret scientific evidence in a way that supports their client. Sci-
entists, however, are not supposed to tolerate the arbitrary presentation
of data or the deliberate concealment of unfavorable experimental out-
comes. For the scientist hired by counsel as an expert witness, com-
promises are made in what evidence is solicited from the witness at the
discretion of the attorney, and this mitigates the scientific purity of the
scientist's work (Frankel, 1989; Lucas, 1989; Peterson, 1989). To some
who work in forensics, such conflicts are so severe that they choose to
change fields of expertise rather than see their values compromised
almost daily. Others learn to reconcile their differences to a degree that
will permit them to work together. They cling tenaciously only to those
values that are absolutely essential for them to feel justified in their
work.
SUMMARY
This chapter covers the topic of corporate culture and explains how
contradictory norms give rise to unethical behavior and how individuals
adapt their personal values to make them compatible with the organi-
zation's. Some cases revealed situations in which the employee's values
were so contrary to the company's that the employee resigned rather
than try to change the system. Another case showed how using contra-
dictory norms actually furthers the responsiveness of the organization.
And another showed how, if an individual's values are not consistent
enough with those of the organization, the employee will not do well
on the job.
The greatest frustration for ethical people who find themselves in
unethical cultures is that to change particular behaviors requires chang-
ing a set of interrelated cultural norms. To do so is like trying to identify
an elephant when one is blindfolded. The trunk feels like a snake, the
side feels like a wall, and the leg feels like a tree. The behemoth is too
large to be controlled by one person's effort.
Employees come to new jobs with high hopes. Socialization to a
positive, constructive set of cultural norms is important during their
orientation period. All employees wish to be associated with a set of
values that will enhance them individually and reflect positively on their
organization (Erdlen, 1979). These norms reflect the ethical premises
of the organization. Since first impressions are lasting impressions, the
new employee should be welcomed with information that clearly sets
forth the ethical standards that are to be practiced.
Constancy is required to establish a continuity of standards. The
organization must foster individual reliance so that when an employee
says, "It's not my job," someone else immediately replies that pro-
tecting the company's reputation is everybody's job. To the statement
that "the law doesn't say we have to" must come the counterpoint that
moral obligations go beyond the law. To the point that "it's company
policy" must come the counterpoint that policies back up ethics, they
do not create them.
Organizational development can be used to address many problems
in the corporate culture. Ethical problems and dilemmas are the mutual
responsibility of both change agents and client systems. One of the
biggest stumbling blocks to effective organizational development efforts
is determining which set of values will be maximized and which will
be minimized. Organizational development must be highly integrative
and consider all perspectives to a problem. Lack of clarity concerning
goals, values, needs, and change methods can result in poorly defined
and poorly understood change effort. When value and goal conflicts are
poorly understood at the beginning, the organization development effort
will be short lived.
6
Good Citizenship
We often make the mistake of believing that what happens at the bottom
makes no difference. As a matter of fact, it is what we do at the bottom
which decides what eventually happens at the top.
—Eleanor Roosevelt
INDIVIDUAL VERSUS COMMUNITY INTERESTS

Being a good citizen requires that one choose the greater good when
confronted with questions of self-interest versus public interest. As
discussed in chapter 1, Vincent Barry (1979) argues that there are four
ethical standards that can be used to produce ethical behavior. One of
the four applies particularly well to the topic of good citizenship: act
in such a manner that if your act were to be made a general law for
everyone to follow, it would promote general human and social success.
In other words, ask what would happen if everyone did this. If the
answer is that everyone would benefit, then the act passes its ethical
test. The converse of this maxim is that if the results would not be good
for society as a whole, then the action should not be taken.
An essential element of the American way of life is the emphasis on
individual rights. But being a responsible citizen also requires promoting
the interests of the community as a whole. When ethical scrutiny is
applied to the relationship between micromotives and macrobehavior,

the tension between individual rights and community welfare becomes
obvious (Schelling, 1978). The tragedy of the commons results. This
is when each individual exercises individual rights but collectively each
person's separate action results in the group's loss. The following ex-
amples demonstrate what happens:
• If there is afirein the theater, each person tries to escape (micromotive). But
in the process, all die trying to exit since they all converge on the exit at
once and block each individual's exit.
• As people individually choose to congregate with those with whom they feel
most comfortable (micromotive), the result in the community is economic,
racial, and ethnic segregation of housing, schools, and businesses.
• As each worker wants and receives higher wages, the end result is that products
become noncompetitive in the world marketplace because they are too ex-
pensive.
• As preferential hiring is practiced to allow previously excluded groups to
enter the workplace, the traditionally favored worker ends up being discrim-
inated against.
• As U.S. taxpayers insist on paying fewer taxes but demand more services,
the national debt rises due to deficit spending.
Responsible citizenship requires people to draw the line between self-

interest and the greater interest of the community at large. The point
where people's right to do as they please stops and society's right to
inhibit individual actions begins, occurs where one more action on the
individual's part will harm more people than it helps.
Good actions by an individual are occasionally sacrificed for the sake
of consistency in applying laws the entire community must follow. Some
will argue that more flexibility should be applied when laws are being
enforced, while others argue that the ends, as good as they may be, do
not justify suspending the law. The following case provides an example
of this debate. A community-service organization would have benefited
from a county law being lifted to allow a one-time purchase of land.
But exempting one organization from the law gives rise to many more
requests for exemptions.
GOOD CITIZENSHIP 129
Case: Getting a Land Permit

Ruth Yoles was the executive director of the Youth Home for Abused
Children. After months of searching, she had finally located a suitable,
affordable site on which to build a new facility to replace the run-down
building currently in use. The land was being offered for sale far below
market value at $1,300 per acre. The tract was located off the main
road and the roads leading to the property were unpaved. However, the
price of the land was so low that even after having to pave the roads,
the cost per acre would be only $3,000, which was still below market
value.
Since the county funded the youth home, Yoles had to have all large
purchases approved through the county commission. When she informed
the commissioners of the potential purchase, they reminded her that if
she bought only a parcel of this property the seller would be responsible
for paving all access roads leading into it. A new law required sellers
to pave access roads leading into their property if they were going to
sell small tracts of land. The reason for the law was that the county
was getting stuck with paving roads because new subdivisions were
going up everywhere. The new law took a financial load off the county.
Yoles checked and found that the entire property was fifty acres. She
could not possibly purchase this much land in order to keep the owner
from having to pave all access roads. When the seller was told that he
would have to pave all access roads, he refused to sell the tract.
Yoles decided to plead her case before the county commission, county
engineer, and county attorney. She was told that the county commission
had met and discussed the law earlier in the year. The county engineer
had brought information to the commission showing how much money,
equipment, and labor were being spent on paving access roads into areas
that had become populated. They were becoming populated because
landowners were selling off five- to ten-acre tracts of large landholdings;
buyers purchasing the land were building homes and wanting their roads
paved. The county engineer had argued that it was not the county's
responsibility to pave these roads because landowners knew they would
become subdivisions and should have paved them prior to selling the
property. His arguments had been persuasive, and the commissioners
had decided to enforce the law regardless of the situation or circum-
stances involved.
Yoles was angry with the county's decision. The cost of paving the
roads would only bring the cost of the land up to $3,000 per acre. It
seemed illogical to refuse the offer when land was selling for $6,000
per acre. Yoles was frustrated because for over a year she had been
looking for land and had finally found some her budget could afford,
only to receive this response. She could not understand why the com-
mission could not make a special concession for the youth home since
all the commissioners agreed a new one should be built as soon as
possible at the lowest cost. The county knew that Yoles's present facility
flooded two or three times each year and that the house was falling
apart. They knew how long she had been looking for land and they
knew how much money she could spend. However, they chose not to
go against their original decision and make special arrangements for
the youth home.
Ethical Issues
The values involved were accountability, pursuit of excellence, fair-
ness, and responsible citizenship. Yoles was concerned about the facility
for which she was responsible. She wanted to provide the best services
possible within her budget. She felt it would be fair to waive the road-
building law because the services her facility provided were necessary
for the county and development of that one parcel would not result in
another subdivision being built. She believed the commissioners' de-
cision not to waive the rule was penny-wise and pound-foolish. On the
other hand, the commissioners believed that in order to be accountable,
they had to enforce the law uniformly and make no exceptions. They
believed they would maximize accountability, fairness, and responsible
citizenship by not wavering on their resolve.
Alternatives
The obvious alternative in this case was for the commissioners to
waive the rule that required sellers to build access roads. Since the
purchase was being made for a nonprofit organization that provided
services to the youth of the county, the argument could be made that
there was sufficient justification for setting aside the rule in this instance.
Resolution
Organizational responsiveness to the community requires that each
organization balance its needs and enterprise with the needs of the
community. In order to practice good citizenship, the individual is
occasionally called upon to subjugate personal short-term interest for

the greater good of the group, company, or agency. In this case, Yoles
was forced to locate another site for the youth home, which she did.
However, she had to pay far more for it than the original site would
have cost. In terms of dollars and cents, the county won the battle but
lost the war. In terms of setting an example for rigid enforcement of
laws, the county won both the battle and the war.
The following case is a variation of the same theme but with more
personal implications. Laws are only as just and fair as the judgment
of the person enforcing them.
Case: The Adoption Decision

When working as a social worker with the Child Welfare Department,
John Doster received a neglect complaint from a child's paternal aunt
and uncle. They stated that the child was not being fed and clothed
properly and that the mother was too sick to care for the child. The
aunt and uncle wanted the child to come and live with them. Doster
made a home investigation and found a clean, well-fed, happy child
who appeared to love his mother. But he learned that the mother had
terminal cancer and had been suffering from depression since the death
of her husband in an automobile accident a few months earlier. She
told him that the doctors had given her about a year to live and she
realized her son needed a permanent home. She had agreed for the aunt
and uncle to take custody of her child after her death but said they had
become hostile and angry because she insisted that they wait until she
died to take full custody. She explained that her brother-in-law and his
wife were unable to have children of their own and had always been
close to her son. She believed they were good people and that he would
enjoy living with them. Their unwillingness to wait, however, had led
to angry words between them. They hardly spoke to one another any-
more. After talking with all the neighbors and concluding the investi-
gation, Doster reported that the abuse complaint was unfounded.
The aunt and uncle continued to frequent Doster's office, stating that
they were going to sue for adoption the next time an incident occurred.
They complained that neighbors kept the child during the mother's
hospital stays and they believed they should be allowed to keep him
instead. Doster tried to persuade them to reestablish their relationship
with the mother, but they refused and said they would see her in court.
A few months elapsed, and the mother had a severe bout with depression
and more chemotherapy. She was hospitalized for treatment. During
this time the aunt and uncle repeated their complaint that the child was
being cared for by neighbors and that they, as living relatives, should
be keeping the child instead. The aunt hired a psychiatrist to interview
the mother in the hospital and he reported that the natural mother was
mentally incompetent. The case was presented to a judge in a special
hearing and the judge ordered Doster's agency to investigate the aunt
and uncle, since they were living relatives willing to take the child.
The agency, of course, found the aunt and uncle acceptable, and the
child was transferred immediately to their residence.
When the mother finally was released from the hospital Doster had
to tell her about the decision that had been made and that her son was
now living at her brother-in-law's house. She became upset and said,
"Well, they finally got what they wanted. Now they've left me to die."
She worried that they would not even want her to visit her son, but
Doster assured her that they had to let her visit. He arranged a visit for
the next day in his office, and the aunt and uncle brought the child.
The mother was right: they were not pleased with this visit and said it
was not good for the child to see his mother in her weakened condition
and they were going to try and get visits stopped. They began legal
proceedings to sue for adoption of the child and terminate the mother's
rights.
The mother's condition continued to deteriorate after this episode,
and more chemotherapy was required and more depression accompanied
it. At the court hearing, the aunt and uncle presented their case for
adoption. Doster recommended that the aunt and uncle be granted only
temporary custody while the mother was living, so she could continue
to see her child, but the judge ruled that the mother was unable to care
for the child and was in the hospital the majority of the time. Since the
aunt and uncle were willing to adopt the child at this time, that is what
the judge ordered. The mother's parental rights were terminated, all
contact was stopped, and the aunt and uncle gained full custody of the
child. The mother died about six months later.
Ethical Issues
The values involved in this case were caring, promise keeping, fair-
ness, respect for others, and responsible citizenship. Everyone involved
in the case cared about the child's welfare. The disagreements came
over how to protect the child's interest and yet respect the rights of the
mother. The mother had made a promise to her brother-in-law and his
wife that her son would become theirs upon her death, and she never
wavered from that promise. The child's aunt and uncle, however, felt
they were being treated unfairly when they were denied the right to
care for the child during the mother's hospitalizations.
Responsible citizenship enters into child welfare cases because so-
ciety's interests must be protected in terms of providing the best home
life for youth so they will grow up to be responsible citizens. Upholding
and interpreting the laws of the land are an essential ingredient of
citizenship. Yet protecting the rights of the mother and caring about
her agony from having lost a husband in a car accident and watching
her life dwindle away could not be ignored.
Alternatives
There were several alternatives for the aunt and uncle in this case.
They could have waited patiently for the mother to die, even though
they wanted custody of the child sooner. But in their minds, this al-
ternative would have jeopardized the welfare of the child. The judge
could have decreed that the mother have custody until her death. This
would have maximized respect for her rights as the child's natural
mother. Or the aunt and uncle could have tried to make amends with
the mother during her last months so that even though they had custody
of the child, the mother could have seen the boy frequently. This would
have maximized caring and respect for the mother.
Resolution
The judge knew how hard it was to find placements for children and
he knew the mother was very ill. He decided that the willingness of
the aunt and uncle to adopt the child provided the best alternative for
protecting the welfare of the child and for stopping the feud between
the mother and her brother-in-law and his wife. He believed that the
child needed a stable home environment regardless of the trauma the
natural mother would suffer in the process. Since the mother's days
were numbered, he decided to focus on the welfare of the child at the
expense of the mother's.
Having to decide such an issue results in a tragic choice. Much as
deciding who should receive scarce organs for transplants, such deci-
sions require that as one party benefits, the one denied forfeits virtually
everything.
Individual Rights versus Community Obligation

A community has an obligation to serve all its residents. But some-
times the obligation runs into opposition from citizens who insist on
protecting their individual rights. Providing rehabilitation facilities for
a community's handicapped citizens is an example. Finding a suitable
site for a halfway house is often a problem. A halfway house provides
a sheltered living arrangement for persons who need supervision as they
learn to cope with living on their own. Such a facility is usually used
as a transition for persons who have been accustomed to a more de-
pendent living situation in an institution or with family members. In
order to help them gain the skills necessary to live more independently,
they benefit from living for a few months in a halfway house. Many
such halfway houses provide services to the mentally ill, mentally re-
tarded, or to parolees.
When a community mental health center, psychiatric facility, or
prison tries to establish a halfway house in a neighborhood setting, it
runs into opposition from the residents who surround the planned fa-
cility. Out of fear, neighbors are afraid for their safety. They fear they
will be unable to sell their homes at a fair market price, thus they
complain that their property values will drop. Petitions and phone calls
flood the offices of elected officials, asking them to oppose the plan.
If an organization or community wants to recommend a halfway
house, then, out of respect for the fears of the neighboring residents,
it must be prepared to educate the citizens who will be affected by it.
The values of fairness, respect for others, and responsible citizenship
demand that each side have the right to express their wishes and res-
ervations and hear what others have to say. Communities do themselves
a favor when they provide for the rehabilitation of those who have been
living in institutions and are capable of reentering the community. On
the other hand, communities have an obligation to protect the rights of
citizens to own property and protect their investments. To maximize
the rights of one group over those of another implies a disregard or
minimization of the importance of the losing group's concerns.
PROMOTING DEMOCRATIC VALUES IN THE

WORKPLACE
Changes in the American marketplace are happening at a fast pace.
As the pressure for higher productivity increases, the labor force comes
under closer and closer scrutiny. As wages go up, the cost of manu-
facturing goes up, and ultimately competitiveness of the product is
diminished. Consequently, the cry for higher productivity increases,
the demand for higher wages increases, and the vicious cycle continues.
Salaries of chief executive officers of large corporations are in multi-
million-dollar sums, while the same CEOs declare that wage ceilings
for hourly workers are necessary to keep a product marketable. Short-
sighted greed threatens to overcome farsighted prudence. This is also
apparent from the spate of corporate acquisitions in recent years.
Many stakeholders are affected by mergers and buyouts, including
stockholders, creditors, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors,
government, and communities. While some stakeholders gain from ac-
quisitions, other stakeholders lose. Capitalism is built upon the as-
sumptions that some businesses will perform better than others and that
the best will survive while the poor performers will be bought out, sold,
or dissolve. While not denying this fact of life, Robert Cooke and Earl
Young (1987/88) pose questions to highlight the involvement of all
stakeholders in corporate transitions, even those not immediately in-
volved in the negotiations. They suggest that when these questions are
answered before completing a merger or other transaction, the best
interests of all stakeholders are more likely to be promoted.
— Are there ways to consolidate or merge that will not have negative con-
sequences for a large number of stakeholders?
— Will each stakeholder be treated with dignity and respect in the merger
process?
— If negative effects are unavoidable, are there mechanisms to alleviate or
lessen the impact?
— If there are negative consequences, can these be shared among the various
stakeholders, so that no individual or group bears the full brunt of the conse-
quences?
— If any stakeholders suffer loss, are there measures that can be taken to
alleviate the loss?
Human resources management includes planning, staffing, apprais-

ing, compensating, training, and development. These functions promote
democratic vaues because affirmative-action guidelines emphasize that
recruiting, selecting, compensating, and evaluating employees must be
done in a way that maximizes the relevance of job performance and
minimizes attention to non-job-related factors such as race, sex, religion,
or national origin.
Responsible citizenship requires that corporations act responsibly in
promoting the laws of the land. In terms of hiring, all applicants are to
be treated equally and fairly. However, the following case shows how
personal biases creep into otherwise objective assessment and selection
procedures.
Case: Counteracting Biases
This is the case of Linda Smith and Bill Robbins, both assessment
center evaluators in the personnel office of a large state agency. Both
were aware that prejudice slips into evaluators' judgments as hard as
they try not to let it. But neither was aware of how much their biases
affected their ratings. Smith was aware that Robbins consistently shaved
the scores of what he called "aggressive feminists," whom he believed
caused tension in the workplace. Knowing he did this, Smith gave higher
scores to this type of person in order to counteract Robbins's lower
ratings.
Ethical Issues
Smith was attempting to compensate for the prejudices of her col-
league. Was this honest? No, it was not. Was it fair? Perhaps so, as a
means to counterbalance an unwarranted low rating. But actually, nei-
ther was being fair because neither was giving honest evaluations. Was
it responsible citizenship? Yes, it was, because its goal was to promote
an unbiased assessment of work characteristics, and one evaluator's
unduly low rating was balanced by the other's unduly high rating. Was
it an effective way to ensure equal employment opportunity? No. Both
Robbins and Smith failed to be accountable to the standards provided
them as personnel officers and the inherent responsibilities of their
positions. This sacrifice, along with that of honesty, provided for a
rather shabby pursuit of excellence. Having violated fairness, account-
ability, pursuit of excellence, and honesty, there was little integrity left
in the process of making evaluations.
Alternatives
Several alternatives were possible. Smith and Robbins could have
talked over their differences to see if they could come to common
understanding of how ratings were to be applied. The department could
have developed an assessment system where ratings were protected from
the injection of personal bias. Training and development of evaluators
could have included clear-cut specifications for removing bias from the
evaluators' judgments.
Resolution
Perhaps the most important issue here is the willingness of one person
to take responsibility for correcting abusive practices within the orga-
nization. Individual responsibility is an essential ingredient if organi-
zations are to be ethical places to work. Unfortunately, in this case
Smith had to take a rather convoluted means to accomplish this. Clear-
cut standards that would prevent the injection of Robbins's personal
biases would have been a more reliable solution. By failing to insist on
unbiased scoring as soon as Smith became aware of Robbins's bias,
she compromised her ability to blow the whistle on him later. Once she
began to score applicants falsely, her scores were as faulty as Robbins's.
Two wrongs do not make a right. She could not correct Robbins's
injustice by adding her own.
Responsible citizenship in the U.S. workplace requires promoting
democracy within a hierarchy and promoting therightto self-governance
to the greatest extent possible. Organizational learning is the process
by which personnel detect errors and then correct them through changing
company policy. This learning occurs on two levels: single-loop learning
and double-loop learning. Managing effectively requires understanding
the difference between single-loop and double-loop learning. When
walking into a stuffy room, a single-loop response would be, "It is hot,
open a window." A double-loop response would be, "It is hot, open
a window to solve the immediate problem and adjust the thermostat to
solve the long-term problem." Single-loop learning occurs when per-
sonnel learn to carry out policies to achieve the organization's goals.
Double-loop learning occurs when personnel question underlying pol-
icies and goals.
Single-loop learning is practiced more often than double-loop learning
in large bureaucracies because each layer in the hierarchy and each
department has only a circumscribed set of responsibilities. Few rewards

are given to those who want to "rock the boat" by reconsidering basic
policies and procedures that have been put in place by those elsewhere
in the hierarchy.
Open discussions of policies encourage double-loop learning. Em-
ployees throughout large organizations should be encouraged to present
their points of view about procedures and objectives (Barth, 1987-88).
Otherwise, higher levels of learning do not occur, and the public suffers
in the long run.
PRIVACY RIGHTS
Most Americans equate interference in their private lives with the
loss of freedom. But modern society necessitates that information of a
personal nature be kept by government agencies, credit bureaus, in-
surance firms, schools, colleges, and the military, as well as many other
organizations. Information is needed for tax collection, lending pro-
grams, credit checks, welfare programs, retirement benefits, personnel
placement, insurance claims, and criminal investigations. Administra-
tion of these programs would be impossible without the collection,
maintenance, and retrieval of data about personal income, work history,
and personal health, and in some cases fingerprints or even individual
DNA records. The technology of the second half of the twentieth century
has brought the issue of privacy to the forefront. The tax system ac-
cumulates almost inconceivable amounts of data from individuals, em-
ployers, and banks in order to validate and audit the tax returns of some
200 million individuals and 50 million businesses annually (Internal
Revenue Service, 1986). The Social Security Administration also col-
lects information from those individuals and businesses, and maintains
additional records on payments to retirees, the disabled, and dependents,
as well as investigative files on the qualifications of claimants. The
Department of Veterans Affairs as well as several other federal agencies
collects and maintains similar records in order to administer their pro-
grams, and frequently those records duplicate information maintained
by others. Additional duplication exists on both the state and local levels.
The duplication exists in large part because the legislation that requires
each set of records also requires that the information be kept confidential.
Limits are further enforced by such legislation as the Privacy Act of
1974, the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, the Right to Financial
Privacy Act of 1978, and various pieces of state legislation (Ellis, 1985).
The key ethical question involved is not whether organizations should

maintain information on individuals. Society cannot be maintained as
we know it without doing so. The ethical question is how scrupulously
an organization will honor the confidentiality of the information.
The arguments in favor of strengthening privacy statutes are per-
suasive. They seek to prevent the intrusion of government, employers,
and regulatory bodies into people's personal lives. Tax data contains
information about salaries, bank accounts, stock holdings, business and
personal assets, and marital status. Social Security records have similar
income information, and also contain data about health and employment.
Military records contain health, education, employment, and psycho-
logical information. Any military security clearance also includes arrest
records, FBI information, fingerprints, prior addresses, and, frequently,
unsubstantiated statements made by prior neighbors, employers, and
acquaintances. Credit bureaus share information from most credit card
and consumer credit issuers. This information is shared openly with
minimal restrictions. Another frequently requested piece of information
is an employment history and references. A prior employer may have
information on lie detector tests, drug tests, and intelligence test scores,
as well as unsubstantiated allegations by disgruntled coworkers or su-
pervisors.
But the argument in favor of public disclosure of individual infor-
mation is just as compelling. The restricted use of available information
is costly. Tax records are valuable to any type of criminal prosecution
that involves the movement of money. This includes bribery, extortion,
embezzlement, theft, gambling, or selling illegal drugs, stolen property,
or pornography. The ethical issue is really more than a simple question
of privacy versus public disclosure. There is an obvious need for truly
personal information to be protected from the curious and malicious.
There is an equally compelling need to collect and maintain personal
information to administer public programs. But the cost of creating
duplicate files for each separate program is enormous. The trade-off
between privacy rights and cost-effective service delivery forces a choice
between greater privacy and higher costs, and less privacy and lower
costs.
POLITICAL GAMES VERSUS MANAGERIAL

EXCELLENCE
When administrative ethics are intertwined with political strategies,
the ethical dilemmas become incredibly complex and difficult to sep-
arate. The next case demonstrates how frustrating it is to be a midlevel

manager in a federal agency with no control over the decision to shut
down the agency for a day during a congressional budget brouhaha.
Case: Shutting Federal Offices

The federal agency for which Dennis Walbank worked was shut down
at 1:00 P.M. on October 4, 1984, for two reasons. First, Congress and
the Reagan administration had failed to agree on a budget to cover this
and most other federal agencies. Second, the Democrats and Republi-
cans in Congress were unable to agree on some alternative solution to
agency funding, such as a continuing resolution to authorize unbudgeted
spending. Under the Reagan administration this was the second time
such action had been ordered, the first being November 23, 1981. As
a result, agencies had developed the procedures to shut down operations
quickly and without confusion.
Walbank was notified by his regional office of the impending halt to
operations at about 11:00 A.M. He discussed the procedures with the
division chief and carried out the familiar procedure. He was allowed
to retain one essential person at each major office statewide, along with
two in the agency's state headquarters office. This amounted to seven
persons from a work force of approximately one hundred fifty around
the entire state. The seven who remained simply stopped service to the
public and caught up on administrative tasks until the continuing res-
olution was passed overnight and personnel were called back to work
the next day.
Ethical Issues
The values involved in this are accountability, pursuit of excellence,
and promise keeping in the case of elected officials who ran for office
promising more effective government and less waste. From the per-
spective of the public employee, loyalty to an order by the president of
the United States is at stake. Responsible citizenship is also included
in terms of elected officials' and public employees' obligations to pro-
mote the public interest.
Alternatives
Congress could reform its processes and provide a timely, mean-
ingful financial structure for government. The current process is a can-
nibalistic one where the president, in effect, eats away at parts of his
own tribe, the executive branch, in order to posture for members of
another tribe, the Congress. The taxpayer becomes both spectator and
victim.
Resolution
The closure was obviously inefficient in terms of lost workdays. Not
only did the government lose the time while the employees were fur-
loughed, but the appropriations bill contained the funds to pay the
furloughed employees, who received an unplanned, paid vacation as a
result. In addition, the planning, administration, and postfurlough ac-
tions added to the costs. No money is every saved from such political
theater, and productivity is hampered.
WHISTLE-BLOWING
It is not possible to talk about responsible citizenship for long without
talking about whistle-blowing. "Whistleblowing is the act of a man or
woman who believes that the public interest overrides the interest of
the organization he or she serves" (Mathews, 1987, p. 40). It is going
public with information regarding product safety, aiming to spotlight
neglect or abuse of the public interest, or spotlighting procedures that
run counter to company policy or public expectations.
Whistle-blowing is analogous to civil disobedience. Frederick Elliston
(1982) compares the two forms of dissent: civil disobedience is protests
by citizens against the laws or actions of their government, and whistle-
blowing is disclosure by employees of illegal, immoral, or questionable
practices by their employer or fellow employees. Civil disobedience is
defined by three criteria: (1) the action must be illegal, (2) the action
must be done for a moral reason, and (3) the action must be done in
order to change a law that is found objectionable (Elliston, 1982).
Furthermore, the person who engages in civil disobedience must be
respectful of the rule of law by accepting the punishment for the crime
committed by the disobedience. The rules of a business are usually
followed by its employees, as are the laws of governments. When a
company's rules are broken for moral reasons, it is called whistle-
blowing. When citizens break government rules, it is called civil dis-
obedience.
Many people believe that civil disobedience should be undertaken as
a last resort. They argue that letters to elected representatives, petitions

to city hall, grassroots organizing, and other active lobbying efforts
should take place before resorting to disobedience. Similar beliefs sur-
round whistle-blowing. Many people believe that the whistle-blower
should exhaust all internal channels before bringing in outside factors.
However, this approach takes precious time that may delay the im-
mediate response that may be needed.
Whistle-blowers usually belong to and feel an allegiance with the
organization they report. If they feel little allegiance they are more
likely either not to care about the problem enough to blow the whistle
or to leave the firm altogether. The fact that they are ego-invested in
the company makes the act of blowing the whistle more difficult because
it means that if they do so, they will forfeit the goodwill they enjoy on
the job. The whistle-blower must reconcile conflict between loyalty to
the employer and loyalty to the public. A whistle-blower must choose
among "goods." Allegations of misconduct have to be made only on
the basis of substantial evidence. Such allegations are a very serious
matter, and the parties involved must take measures to assure that the
rights and reputations of all individuals named in such allegations and
all individuals who in good faith report apparent misconduct are pro-
tected. When internal systems are ineffective, however, a whistle-
blower must go outside the company to the public. But this behavior
is considered insubordinate, and the person will be accused of violating
confidentiality and of being disloyal to the company. Employers do not
want employees to go to outside authorities with a complaint. When
this happens, they lose control over the situation and, if the information
is not correct, it causes needless embarrassment to the company.
Most people come forward when their accusations are well founded,
are very serious, and involve large sums of money or danger to the
public. "Most employees do not see it as their role to report wrongdoing
unless it is particularly egregious" (Near, 1989, p. 3). These people
are normal employees who have tipped the balance of their loyalty
toward the public good rather than toward the organization for which
they work.
Blowing the whistle anonymously is an option that is open to em-
ployees but is discouraged. Anonymous whistle-blowing lies somewhere
between secrecy and privacy. The primary justification for anonymity
is the seriousness of the offense and the probability of unfair retaliation.
When dissent is solely internal or is anonymous, the person reporting

the immoral actions has some degree of power over the situation, while
taking less personal risk. However, when whistle-blowers do not go
public with complaints, they cannot participate in the actual debate to
present their side and defend it.
In reality, most employees keep their feetfirmlyplanted in expediency
and choose to fight only the battles that are essential. In the face of
serious dissent, they have the choice of resigning, disagreeing openly,
or being silent. But the choice of exit, voice, or loyalty only touches
the surface of the complex results of dissent. The open airing of internal
differences can genuinely weaken organizational morale and reduce the
capacity to accomplish objectives (Fleishman and Payne, 1980).
Frequently, the person who has the courage to blow the whistle is
fired or harassed. Much corporate crime continues because of people's
willingness to look the other way when wrongdoing occurs. They know
that they may get into trouble for reporting it. When whistle-blowers
decide to "tattle" on a peer, they risk their careers and reputations to
benefit unknown and unknowing strangers. When someone tattled as a
child, everyone got in trouble. This carries into adulthood, and when
an employee blows the whistle, many people are hurt.
Should I tell on this person or not? At first glance, this seems to be
a fairly simple question. To be phrased more accurately, the question
should ask: Should Iriskmy career and get my boss or coworkers fired
in order to solve a problem? Should I ignore the chain of command and
go to higher authorities with the problem? If I am a wrong, what will
happen to me? How will everyone think of me after this? Will the higher
authorities think the same as the person on whom I am blowing the
whistle? On whose side will they be? Will the ends justify the means?
The question of whether or not to report wrongdoing becomes very
complex very quickly.
Some protection against retaliation is available to whistle-blowers,
but they must prove that they were fired or demoted directly because
of the whistle-blowing act. This is often difficult to prove, especially
since the employer can say that the employee wasfiredfor other reasons.
Although some states have banned retaliatory firings, other state courts
upheld rulings that employees have been unjustlyfiredbut have awarded
no damages (Sheler, 1981). Still other states have ruled that employers
have a right to fire at will unless barred by union contract. The Whis-
tleblower Protection Act of 1989 assures confidentiality to federal em-

ployees who report wrongdoing and gives them the right to appeal a
retaliatory action on the part of the employer (McCormick, 1989).
Ebasco Constructors Inc., a company that owns a nuclear plant, was
accused of discrimination by an employee who was fired in April 1986
(ENR, 1988). An employee, Ronald J. Goldstein, had reported safety
and quality-control violations. In the summer of 1985, Goldstein com-
plained that the company had failed to follow required construction
sequences, alterations, and inspection procedures for pipe installation.
When uncovered, these mistakes were explained by Ebasco engineers
as "important," but not "earthshattering." The judge in Goldstein's
case ruled that although Goldstein was seen as disruptive and com-
plaining at the company, his complaints about these safety violations
were correct. Since he took his concerns to outside authorities, the judge
suggested that Goldstein was fired as a retaliatory measure. The firing
was considered discrimination (ENR, 1988).
Lawrence Archer (1986) cites a study that suggests that out of every
ten whistle-blowers, only one is still employed with the firm that em-
ployed them when they blew the whistle. Individuals who had filed
complaints of unfair employment discrimination completed question-
naires about the retaliation that followed their whistle-blowing. Analyses
revealed that organizations were more likely to retaliate against whistle-
blowers who were valued by the organization because of their age,
experience, or education and against whistle-blowers whose cases
lacked public support than against other whistle-blowers (Parmerlee,
Near, and Jansen, 1982). Retribution does not seem to curb the behavior
of determined whistle-blowers. In fact, Janet Near's research (1989)
shows that those who have been retaliated against are more likely to
blow the whistle again than those who are not retaliated against.
Retaliation by the employer depends on the company's perception of
the correctness of the whistle-blowing regarding both the facts and the
right of the whistle-blower to make the complaint. Marcia Parmerlee,
Janet Near, and Tamila Jansen (1982) found the following company
responses:
• If the company feels the complaint is legitimate and the employee has a rig
to express his complaint, they will usually resolve it internally.
• The company may cooperate with an outside investigative agency to correct
their wrongs but act toward the employee as if no complaint had been filed
• The company may decide to ''agree*' with the complaint and settle the matter
quickly and quietly to avoid bad publicity.
• The company may resolve the problem at lower levels, not even bringing
upper management into the matter.
• The company may completely block outside interference and discourage the
complaint and future complaints.
• The company may use legal pressure to get whistle-blowers to drop a complaint
or they may resort to isolating them, defaming their character, excluding them
from important meetings, and impugning their motives.
Moral conflict exists when persons recognize that their inclination to

blow the whistle might lead to a violation of fundamental norms that
their friends hold. From those who object to whistle-blowing, it is often
considered a violation of comradeship and confidence. For example,
the informal norm of professionals requires collegial loyalty, while
professional groups' codes of ethics usually stress responsibility to the
public over and above duties to colleagues and clients (Dozier and
Miceli, 1985). The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario
(APEO) is a professional organization that punishes members who do
not practice their professional code of ethics. However, the very same
members face disciplinary action from the company they work for if
they do find a dangerous situation and practice their professional code
of ethics by blowing the whistle (Archer, 1986).
Whistle-blowers risk quite a bit when they decide to go forward with
their accusations of wrongdoing: careers, friends, reputations, as well
as employability in their chosen field. If a whistle-blower files a griev-
ance regarding harassment, all his or her shortcomings as an employee
will be brought up. Several nationally recognized people have blown
the whistle over the years and encountered various responses:
• Karen Silkwood filed a complaint that her employer, the Kerr-McGee nuclear
plant, was mishandling plutonium and needlessly exposing workers to radio-
activity. She suffered a mysterious death that was never fully explained
(McGowan, 1985).
• Frank Serpico reported corruption in New York City and was later killed
during a raid. There is still some doubt as to whether his partners had anything
to do with his death (McGowan, 1985).
• Rick Parks reported that Bechtel, a nuclear management company, was not
conducting quality-control tests and was taking many safety shortcuts. He
was harassed on the job and was later transferred, suspended, and then laid
off. His charges against Bechtel werefinallyverified in May 1984.
• A. Ernest Fitzgerald was a cost analyst for the Defense Department in 1969
when he reported the Air Force for cost overruns. He wasfired,but in 1982,
after a long legal battle, he was given back his original job.
• Bill Bush reported NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center for reassigning
older engineers to menial, unfamiliar jobs to force their early retirement. Bush
was ostracized when he filed charges with the Civil Service Commission. He
retains a position with NASA but is treated as if he were a pariah by many
of his peers.
• An ex-employee of the Department of Defense, George Spanton, spoke out
about wrongdoing he discovered in 1981 (Miller, 1985). He had found illegal
billings from a Defense Department contractor based in West Palm Beach.
When the Defense Department did not act on Spanton's discovery, he went
public with the information. Because he did so, his boss tried to transfer him
long before his scheduled rotation. His transfer was eventually blocked, and
he was allowed to remain in West Palm Beach, where he retired in 1983.
The list does not stop. When Dr. Grace Pierce refused to continue
work on a drug that contained large amounts of saccharin (a suspected
carcinogen), she was demoted and not considered for any more senior
assignments (Chalk, 1988). She resigned from Ortho Pharmaceuticals
and sued the company for wrongful discharge. The New Jersey Supreme
Court acknowledged that she had acted according to her conscience,
but since she had failed to point out any legislation on which her decision
was made, the court did not rule in her favor.
Ethical Aspects of Whistle-Blowing

Many managers face difficult decisions about their own ethical con-
duct as well as that of their employees. For example, if a coworker
makes a habit of taking pens and paper home for her children, does the
manager have a responsibility to report it? Should she risk pointing her
finger at another colleague? One suggestion to reduce possible career
risk from whistle-blowing is to talk to the employee directly, instead
of to his or her supervisor (Byrne, 1987). Merely warning the employee
that someone knows about the questionable behavior may warrant a
change. If the employee is not in good standing anyway, there is less
risk involved in blowing the whistle. However, if the employee is in
good standing and has exemplary performance, the company may decide
to overlook the wrongdoing.
Revealing information becomes ethical when it will save someone
from being hurt or mistreated or when it will keep someone's rights
from being violated. In some cases it would even be unethical for
someone not to blow the whistle. A deciding factor is whether or not
the ratio of * 'good*' to "evil" warrants the whistle-blowing. The "evil"
represents the breaking of confidence when whistle-blowers reveal their
information. In any situation in which the question of whether or not
someone should blow the whistle arises, the end should justify the
means. The following case presents a typical whistle-blowing scenario.
Case: Flawed Construction

Sally Seymour (1988) poses this scenario: when a fifteen-year-old
report of flawed construction of a nuclear reactor was found by a lower-
level employee at Fairway Electric, he brought the matter to the atten-
tion of the vice president of the nuclear division. The report had been
drawn up by engineers in 1973 and was found accidentally when the
employee's secretary was cleaning out some old files. It stated that the
engineers had found the flaw and reported it to their supervisors then.
However, a memorandum had been circulated that said that the flaw
was not a safety problem and the costs of reconstruction would be
disastrous for the company. Nothing was done to correct the problem,
and it was then brushed under the carpet. Fifteen years later, when the
employee reported the problem to the vice president, the vice president
then reported it to the CEO, who told him to forget it and tell the
employee to forget it, too. When pressed on the matter, the CEO stated
that the problem was not one of safety and that if the flaw was made
public now, it would cost the company a great deal. He said to bury
it! The vice president then went back to the employee and told him the
same thing. The employee was irate, and began to lose respect for the
company. He researched the plant where the flawed design had been
constructed and found that the utility company had paid large sums to
have the flaw repaired several years after the construction had been
completed. The company had passed on the expense of repairing the
flaw to the ratepayers. He felt the public should know the costs that
they had inevitably paid due to increased utility bills. Since internal
channels of communication had not worked, the employee went to the
newspapers.
When the story came out, Fairway made no comment. The pressure
from demonstrators, press, and politicians soon became so great that
management decided to make a statement and come clean. Although
the public controversy eventually died down, pressures inside the com-
pany did not. Coworkers no longer trusted the employee who had re-
ported the story. They did not want to work with him anymore, and
their production rate went down markedly. When the CEO heard of
this, he asked the vice president to talk with the employee and "influ-
ence" him to "voluntarily" quit. The vice president tried instead to
get the employee to transfer because he believed that he was a talented
individual and the company needed him. The employee balked, and the
vice president then began to question what he should have done.
Ethical Issues
Honesty was clearly involved in this case, on the part of the company,
as was accountability. The integrity of the employee was at stake and
he felt a compelling role as a responsible citizen. The employee expected
the company to put the pursuit of excellence above monetary concerns
and wasflabbergastedwhen they did not. He believed the information
should be made public because he knew a public outcry would cause
the company to make reparations.
Alternatives
The vice president could have begun an effort in his department to
encourage employees to come forward with concerns and had a con-
structive procedure for handling concerns as soon as they became
known.
The vice president could have supported the employee who reported
the discovered flaw. Initially, he should have agreed on an effective
plan of action in dealing with the situation. Alternative channels of
communication should also have been open to the whistle-blower, so
he could go to someone else besides the newspapers when his vice
president and CEO did not support him.
Resolution
If the vice president supported the employee, he would be sending
a message that he supported honesty in the company as well as the fact
that he supported the integrity of the employee who brought the problem
to light. If he insisted on transferring the employee, he would be sending
a message that any whistle-blowers, no matter how correct their com-
plaints, would be treated punitively.
If a company seems to condone wrongdoing, potential whistle-
blowers have to examine their personal codes of ethics and compare
them to the perceived ethics of the company. If they do not match and
there is a large gap in between, perhaps they should consider a job
change.
The question of whether or not to blow the whistle is not reserved
to those who work in large anonymous bureaucracies. The following
case typifies the predicament of an employee working in a small art
gallery. As she became aware that the accounts were being kept dis-
honestly, she had to decide whether or not to take action.
Case: The Art Gallery

When Rita Barlow accepted a part-time job at a small art gallery and
framery, her responsibilities included sales and generally being a flunky.
She soon discovered that art sales were a natural for her. She enjoyed
the combination of craft and people skills. Soon she was selling more
in twenty hours per week than anyone else was selling in forty hours.
After Barlow had been there about three months, the owner-in-
residence (there were two silent partners) asked her to become manager.
It seemed like fun, and she agreed. They discussed a small raise plus
a percentage of sales increases as commission. It was a small business
with only four full-time employees other than Barlow, three part-timers
who worked during busy seasons, and several free-lancers who received
discounted materials and did their own labor. At first it seemed that all
was well. In the twenty or so months that Barlow was manager, sales
tripled. She expanded the market to include commercial sales, coor-
dinated shows with local artists, did residential consultation, and con-
ducted seminars. All this was done without an increase in staff.
Barlow was having too much fun to fret over not receiving the prom-
ised commission and receiving only minimal increases in salary. She
enjoyed all aspects of the business: ordering materials, being abreast of
the local art community, working with businesses and individuals, and
managing the personnel and work flow. The owner dropped by now
and then to pay the bills. Other than that, she had control.
Gradually she began to notice that the shop was getting what seemed
to be statements from accounts that should have been paid long before.
Occasionally supplies would arrive with a ' 'payment on delivery" de-
mand. A favorite supplier mysteriously stopped calling. Artists with
whom the store had a good working relationship suddenly became very
cool and stopped coming in. Nevertheless, the volume of business
continued to grow due to new sources.
It all came to a climax when Barlow's bank notified her that her
paycheck had bounced. The store's accounting was done by an outside
firm, but she had access to all the records. That same evening after
work, she was able to figure that the store should have been making
somewhere in the range of 250 percent profit. When the owner came
by a couple of days later, Barlow showed him the returned check and
related what the bank had said. He mumbled something about the ac-
countant and wrote another check on another account.
Barlow concluded that money was being diverted from the business.
And she had a fairly good idea that it was being done without the
knowledge of the partners. She was confronted with several possible
scenarios, all unpleasant. Should she confront the owner with her
charges, asking for explanations? Should she confide her suspicions to
the partners? Should she continue to seek out new customers and sup-
pliers when she did not have assurance that they would be treated fairly?
Should she continue to gloss over the problems with the employees?
Should she pretend that nothing was wrong? Should she resign?
Ethical Issues
In this case, the harm that was being done was to employees who
were not receiving their paychecks on time and suppliers who were not
being paid. Barlow cared about their welfare and worried about what
would happen to those around her as a result of the outcome of this
dilemma. Barlow wanted to respond honestly when asked by suppliers
and peers why checks were not forthcoming. As a manager at the shop,
she was accountable to those who had a stake in the enterprise. She
wanted to be involved in the pursuit of excellence, not in a cover-up
operation. She wanted to remain loyal to the employees, the partners,
the suppliers, and the customers. However, she found herself in a
dilemma where she had to decide where her greatest loyalty lay. And
she wanted to protect her integrity and not be involved in a shady
operation.
Alternatives
Barlow was confronted with these choices: to leave the shop, to speak
up about her concerns, or to continue at the shop but say nothing to
anyone about its bookkeeping practices. In other words, she was faced
with the classic choice of exit, voice, or loyalty. To leave meant she
would preserve her integrity but disregard the need she felt to be honest
about what was going on. Furthermore, it would minimize loyalty and
caring. To stay and do nothing would run the risk of her being viewed,
in the long run, as guilty by association. And her inaction would min-
imize honesty, accountability, pursuit of excellence, and integrity. To
stay and give voice to her concerns would contribute to caring, honesty,
accountability, pursuing excellence, and integrity, but she stood the risk
of being labeled as a troublemaker and fired.
Resolution
After a few days of doing nothing, she concluded that she was in a
no-win situation. After a while, she made the owner aware of what she
knew. She began to work fewer hours and began to withdraw emo-
tionally from the job. When she talked with the partners, it was obvious
that they were unaware of what was happening. Within three months,
she resigned. The end of the story for the business came when one
morning the sheriffs department came and took everything away.
There is not much evidence to show why some employees report
wrongdoing and others do not. Marcia Miceli and Janet Near (1984)
tested whether individuals' positions and their beliefs and perceptions
regarding organizational conditions would differentiate personnel of
three types. Respondents employed by fifteen federal agencies re-
sponded to a mailed questionnaire. Of thirteen thousand randomly se-
lected subjects who received questionnaires, 68 percent responded.
Three types of employees were examined in this study: those who had
not observed wrongdoing, those who had observed it but did not report
it, and those who had observed it and had blown the whistle (Miceli
and Near, 1984). The results showed that:
a. Actual whistle-blowers welcome the act more than people who do not blow
the whistle, and also believe that the employer should encourage it.
b. People who do not observe wrongdoing say they are more likely than those
who do observe it to blow the whistle for incentives such as seeing action
taken, but are less likely to do it for cash incentives.
c. Whistle-blowers know available complaint channels better than those who

do not blow the whistle.
d. People who are better educated and have higher salaries, and are therefore
more independent of the company, are quicker to blow the whistle than are
others, probably because they are in less jeopardy of threatening their live-
lihood.
e. Employees who blow the whistle inside the organization more often hold
higher positions than whistle-blowers who go to the press.
f. Whistle-blowers who use external means for reporting wrongdoing, such as
the press, have higher pay levels than internal whistle-blowers but less
education. Also, they do not rely on incentives to blow the whistle, think
they have more knowledge of how to report wrongdoing, and are more
approving of whistle-blowing than other employees.
g. Those who observe wrongdoing but do not report it tend to be lower paid,
highly educated "fast trackers" who probably fear their career aspirations
will be on the line if they blow the whistle.
The final conclusion of the study was that finding the right encourage-
ments or inducements for whistle-blowers is a problem. Employees have
been socialized to avoid organizational dissidence. To convince them
otherwise, that authority structures permit whistle-blowing, is difficult.
SUMMARY
Good citizenship is not the preserve of any one segment of the pop-
ulation. It is a challenge to everyone: large corporations and small
businesses, individual employees at all levels of employment, and com-
munities as a whole. Ethical questions that involve the issue of citi-
zenship arise in a variety of circumstances, including when to protect
versus when to share confidential information, weighing the good to
the community against the good to the individual, and blowing the
whistle on wrongdoing.
The cases in this chapter demonstrate the frustrations and complexity
that come with accepting one's responsibility to look out for the welfare
of others. Paying one's civic rent is necessary and sometimes very
expensive. But ethical business behavior encourages trust between busi-
ness professionals, between employees within a company, and between
companies and their clients, and it is the basis of successful relationships
between people (Smith, 1986).
Open, available internal channels within organizations encourage em-

ployees to voice their concerns and objections without fear of recri-
mination or retaliation. It is to the employer's benefit to remedy
problems early, thereby preserving employees' trust as well as the com-
pany's reputation. Trust is essential between employer and employee.
If employees trust employers to resolve concerns through internal
means, they are less likely to go to external channels to report wrong-
doing (Mathews, 1987). Protecting whisdeblowers sends the message
that the organization expects and is responsive to individual morality
in the corporate structure (Hauserman, 1986). In fact, fair treatment of
whistle-blowers may be the most dramatic way to persuade employees
to operate ethically.
When ethical considerations are brought into the policies and pro-
cedures of companies, people find it commonplace to practice ethical
conduct. Such an atmosphere establishes an ethical reputation for the
company and the individuals it employs.
7
Guidelines for Ethical
Decision Making
Ethics is about how we treat each other, every day, person to person. If
you want to know about a company's ethics, look at how it treats people—
customers, suppliers and employees. Business is about people. And busi-
ness ethics is about how customers and employees are treated.
—R. Edward Freeman
Ethical responsibility is personal responsibility. A group cannot act

ethically until its members, as individuals, choose to do so. When
individuals act ethically, together they produce a group action that is
ethical.
CHAPELFIRZ
Values shape the way problems are perceived. They are crucial to
our notion that something is a problem to be solved rather than accepted.
And the values of those who actively implement decisions affect the
actual shape of the ultimate policy. By the time a decision maker has
taken caring, honesty, accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of ex-
cellence, loyalty, fairness, integrity, respect for others, and responsible
citizenship into consideration, that person can be assured that a thorough
analysis of ethical values has been made. Each value adds a dimension
to the analysis. While some are redundant over others or add little,
taking each into consideration ensures that the decision maker is sen-
sitive to all possible ethical dimensions of the problem.
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

When ethical analysis is blended with decision making, ethical de-
cisions result. In order to reach an ethical decision, one must define the
problem and determine the desired end result. The values to be maxi-
mized must be identified, and all aspects of the problem must be ana-
lyzed to see which values are involved. After this, alternatives to each
dimension of the problem have to be identified and assessed to learn
which values will be maximized and which will be minimized. Ulti-
mately, the alternative which does the best job of maximizing the most
important values while still resolving the problem is the desirable choice.
In reality, choices are rarely made directly between values. Rather,
they are made between options that differ in the extent to which they
embody particular values or in the emphasis some values receive in
relation to others. Ethical decisions are decisions that result from a
reasoned choice among goods, and only rarely from a choice between
good and evil.
ETHICAL SATISFICING
People make the best decision they can, given the constraints of the
situation. Decision making in work situations is a complex task because
of the number of influences that affect the decision calculus. The prob-
lem itself presents the central issue, but consideration is moderated by
a number of factors, including the wishes of those who are affected by
the problem, the opportunities and costs associated with solving the
problem, the knowledge and interests of the person who ultimately
makes the decision, and the likelihood of being able to implement the
decision as it is intended.
Most problems involve two or more values, and a comparison between
them is inevitable, such that a greater return to one can be obtained
only at a loss to the other. Not everything is known about the situation,
and anticipated consequences cannot be predicted with certainty. And
the power to make the decision is dispersed over a multitude of people
and/or departments. Because of their proclivity to satisfice, people will
seek rules of thumb regarding which values are most important. Ideally,
GUIDELINES 157
Figure 7.1
the decision maker will determine the fundamental values to be maxi-

mized and then weigh the probable impact of each alternative. In reality,
only the most obvious values are analyzed and a full consideration of
all dimensions of the problem will not occur. This is why it is incumbent
upon organizations to clearly communicate those values that are most
important. Even if other values are not considered, at least the most
important ones will be considered during the problem-solving process.
Figure 7.1 illustrates the array of values that influence a problem and
affect ethical decision making.
Ethical decision making is the process of identifying a problem,
generating alternatives, and choosing among them so that the alterna-
tives selected maximize the most important ethical values while also
achieving the intended goal. Not all values can be maximized simul-
taneously. Some must be compromised in order for others to be max-
imized. This compromise is ethical satisficing.
Most work-related decisions have an ethical component. With few
exceptions, problems that involve people also involve ethical issues.
Decisions that affect people's jobs and careers have an ethical com-
ponent. Decisions that involve conflicts of commitment or obligation

have an ethical component. Decisions that involve how people should
behave on the job have an ethical component. And decisions that involve
basic freedoms and civic responsibilities have an ethical component.
Only the simplest, most mechanical of decisions are spared ethical
analysis.
Assessing Long-Term and Short-Term Effects of

Decisions
The time dimension complicates already complicated problems. What
may appear to be an ethical decision at the present time may prove
unethical in the future. What may prove to be the right thing to do in
the distant future may seem unreasoned at the present. Reviewing some
of the cases in the previous chapters shows why. For example, the fact
that Trumplit had been accepting gift certificates from a building owner
for years but not cashing them in seemed appropriate while he was an
office manager. However, when he was promoted into a position where
he was in charge of arranging office rental space for offices around the
state, it was apparent that his decision years earlier would ruin his
credibility if it were to become public knowledge.
On the other hand, the decision by Donohue not to accept gifts from
his Korean counterparts seemed quarrelsome in the short term. His
colleagues did not understand why he made such a fuss over a commonly
accepted practice. However, in the long run, it paved the way for those
who succeeded him to practice the same policy and avoid compromising
their judgment.
Bledsoe's decision not to print the political flyer seemed shortsighted
in the short run but paid off in the long run. Her integrity was respected,
she received promotions, she respected her supervisor, and he respected
her. In fact, they mutually admired one another's integrity. Had she
agreed to print the flyer and done so against her beliefs, she would have
grown to resent the supervisor, and the supervisor would have assumed
that Bledsoe did not mind printing such jobs and would be willing to
do more of the same. Had Bledsoe agreed to the first printing and then
refused to do a subsequent printing of a similar job, she would have
had to explain that not only did she not appreciate being asked to do
the job, she had not wanted to do the first job either. Trust would have
diminished within the relationship.
GUIDELINES 159
When Captain Johnson was asked to assume a position as personnel

officer, he solved the short-range problem that the battalion commander
was facing. However, in the long run the battalion commander's request
caused Johnson to forfeit a position that would have led to further
promotions in his chosen career. Johnson's loyalty was never compen-
sated and his career changed drastically because of it. Examples could
go on and on. Suffice it to say that for a decision to be ethical, it must
account not only for short-term consequences, but also for long-term
effects.
CREATING AN ETHICAL CULTURE

Actions speak louder than words. Leaders in all organizations must
understand that in order to be ethical and promote ethics, they must go
beyond the mere letter of the law as stated in their companies' codes
of ethics. Merely observing a rule does not necessarily make one's
behavior ethical. A failure to affirm basic ethical norms conveys a
message that values are of little concern or importance in that organi-
zation.
The values that are shared by most of the organization's members
mark the foundation of the culture. When these values promote CHA-
PELFIRZ, the foundation is laid for an ethical culture. Just as values
serve as a guide to a person's intentions and actions, an organization's
values provide guides for organizational goals, policies, and strategies.
The operational values of an organization are those that guide members'
decisions on day-to-day matters. To be functional, these values concern
the mode of conduct of members and focus on goals, functions, and
operational procedures. They deal with issues of product quality, cus-
tomer satisfaction, and innovation (Wiener, 1988). Socialization to these
values is an essential process that precedes the institutionalization of an
ethical culture. As new members join the organization, the culture is
perpetuated in the indoctrination process. Those who violate the ac-
ceptable norms of the culture are sanctioned in such a way that it sends
a message to everyone else about which behaviors will not be tolerated.
Ethical organizations are not created as much by enforcement as they
are by peer pressure. Personnel will be reluctant to engage in activities
that are frowned upon by those whom they respect. Enforcement efforts
following a breach of ethics are not as effective as proactively training
employees to make ethical decisions.
Establishing such ethical norms in an organization has to start from

the beginning with new employees because prior to employment, per-
sonnel may not have been expected to be sensitive to the ethical com-
ponents of problems. Students pass through the public-school and
college systems watching their peers cheat on homework. In 1987, 56
percent of college freshmen surveyed across the nation reported that
they had copied homework during their high school years, and 32
percent acknowledged that they had cheated on a test (Zumberge, 1989).
Many employers are discouraged with how insensitive workers are to
the ethical dimensions of problems. Allan Bloom (1987) castigates the
parents of today for having produced a generation without the moral
background to evaluate problems. He thinks the American family's
moral training comes down to inculcating the bare minima of social
appropriateness, that is, not lying or stealing, and produces young adults
who can say nothing more about the basis of their moral trespasses than
"If I did that to him, he could do it to me" (Bloom, 1987, p. 61).
Simply abiding by the law does not ensure ethical behavior. Laws
merely set minimum standards for legally acceptable behavior in areas
that have been tested and agreed upon by legislatures. Many behaviors
are not covered by the law but are clearly unethical. In fact, ethics
almost always calls for greater diligence than that required by law in
protecting the rights of others (Sanderson and Varner, 1984). For ex-
ample, in February 1989 a retired air force colonel, Robert L. Hedges,
was convicted on a conflict-of-interest charge for having negotiated a
postretirement consulting contract with the Sperry Corporation while
still on active duty and supervising the air force's $526-million computer
contract with Sperry. Hedges's defense, with which the jury did not
agree, was that he had followed the letter of the law. He claimed that
he had cleared the consulting contract with an air force lawyer, had
notified his superior officer that Sperry had contacted him about the
job, and contended that he had taken every step required by air force
regulations to avoid a conflict of interest. But following the letter of
law is not the same as making decisions on the ethics of the matter. In
this case, as in many cases, what was clearly a breach of ethics was
still within the letter of the law (Birmingham Post-Herald, 1989). In
response to the jury's conviction, the prosecutor was quoted as saying,
*4This puts vitality and meaning into the conflict-of-interest statutes"
(p. A10).
While a violation of the law is associated with afineor other penalty,
GUIDELINES 161
a violation of ethics is more likely to be associated with a troubled

conscience, dissatisfaction at work, and perhaps a loss of self-respect.
It is not unusual for this to deteriorate into an inability to trust others.
Since people tend to treat their own behavior as the lowest common
denominator of everyone's behavior, everyone else is held to the stan-
dard one holds for oneself. When someone knows that his or her own
behavior has breached ethical parameters, that person is likely to assume
that others do also. This cripples trust. For example, if personnel are
accustomed to padding their expense vouchers, they will assume that
"everyone else does it, why shouldn't I?" In fact, their assumption
may be only their projection of their own behavior onto others. The
more individuals there are who are sensitive to ethical considerations,
the more influence their sensitivity will have on their ethical decisions,
and the more newcomers to the organization will develop their own
sensitivity. In fact, O. C. Ferrell and Larry Gresham (1985) argue that
unethical behavior is influenced by the ratio of contacts with unethical
patterns to contacts with ethical patterns.
The word sensitivity keeps being used because there are no hard and
fast rules that apply to all circumstances, without some breaches being
punished by draconian penalties. Most people agree that stealing is
wrong. But the consensus lessens as the value of the gain and the
circumstances surrounding the intent of the stealing move from em-
bezzling company funds to padding an expense voucher to pilfering
pencils and erasers and poster board from a company's supply cabinet
for a child's homework project.
Ethical business practices stem from an ethical corporate culture. The
challenge is to create and nourish the culture so that ethical consider-
ations of issues are routinely made before decisions are made. More
and more, business schools are facing the fact that ethical decision
making should be an integral part of the training for tomorrow's man-
agers (Magner, 1989). A national survey of professors who teach ad-
ministrative ethics to public administration students showed that the
most important factor in ethical decision making is the ability to assess
the moral principles and probable consequences in ethical dilemmas
(Hejka-Ekins, 1988).
Corporate Codes of Conduct

Corporate codes of ethics are important because they provide visible
guidelines. Codes offer a touchstone for guidance and remind every
employee to look beyond simple expediency. A study of codes of ethics

concluded that there are only three broad clusters of topics in most codes
(Robin et al., 1989). These three relate to being a dependable citizen
of the organization, refraining from any action that would be unlawful
or improper, and being good to customers and clients. For example,
the code of ethics for certified computer professionals emphasizes ob-
ligations to the public at large to be knowledgeable of their field, to the
profession to uphold high ideals and disseminate knowledge pertaining
to the development of the profession, and to their employers to serve
their interests and the interests of the employers' clients (Association
of the ICCP, 1988). The code for certified public accountants stresses
integrity, objectivity, independent judgment, and responsibility to the
public interest. In fact, the American Institute of Certified Public Ac-
countants runs advertisements in national newsmagazines promoting the
ethical standards of their members (American Institute of Certified Pub-
lic Accountants, 1989).
In 1984 Glen Sanderson and Iris Varner collected thirty-nine codes
of conduct from the top one hundred Fortune 500 corporations. They
analyzed these codes for their content, purpose, and organization. After
studying all of them, they realized that the codes included only nine
major topics. And there was no major difference in the topics covered
relating to the industry in which the corporation was engaged. The nine
topics are
• conflicts of interest
• political contributions
• relations with customers and suppliers
• accurate record keeping
• antitrust matters
• equal employment
• product safety and environmental responsibility
• protecting confidential information
• theft by employees
About three-fourths of the content of these codes related to complying

with federal laws and referred their readers to their corporate legal
departments for more information. This is the easiest way out for a
GUIDELINES 163
corporate code of conduct, since it does not rely on individual analysis

of conduct. It is also the least effective at promoting an ethical culture.
Many activities are within the law but outside the parameters of ethical
behavior.
While codes may communicate specific rules, they have little impact
on the immediate problems that crop up in daily organizational activities
and operations. In other words, they offer no specific guidance on how
to make values-based decisions. Instead, they serve as rough guidelines.
Some organizations strengthen their codes with implementation guide-
lines and enforcement procedures, but this is the exception rather than
the rule. In summary, codes of ethics are helpful, but they stop far short
of ensuring ethical decision making.
A systematic approach to building and nurturing structures that em-
phasize the importance of ethical considerations is important. Corporate
credos, training programs, and codes of ethics that are clearly understood
by employees provide such structures (Murphy, 1989). Credos are suc-
cinct statements of the values permeating the firm. They work best in
firms with a cohesive culture, where a spirit of frequent and open
communication exists (Murphy, 1989). Credos set forth good general
principles, but they must be operationalized into terms employees at all
levels of the organization understand before they are meaningful. Much
like the trailer signs parked in front of churches that admonish passersby
to live their lives on the "straight and narrow," constant repetition is
necessary to remind everyone. Training programs are useful when they
are tailored to discussions of situations that participants recognize and
confront often. In order to train people to be sensitive throughout their
workday, they must be able to translate their workshop experience
directly into their own jobs. As Patrick Murphy (1989) warns, "If the
credo can be compared with the Ten Commandments, then ethics pro-
grams can be likened to weekly church services. Both can be uplifting,
but once the session (service) is over, individuals may believe they can
go back to business as usual" (p. 85). Codes of ethics are necessary
in largefirmswhere the work force is widely distributed. In small firms
where the work force see one another daily and where a culture includes
firmly entrenched, meaningful ethical policies, they are redundant. The
will do no harm, but they may fail to enhance what is already in motion.
Truly ethical behavior requires that one go beyond the bare minimum
and act responsibly, with due regard for the well-being of society, the
organization, and all its stakeholders. Despite codes of ethics and ethical
cultures, organizations do not make decisions. Codes of ethics help,

but control lies within each individual. Individuals make the decisions.
The greater one's integrity, the greater one's ability to carefully analyze
a situation and make an ethical decision. A respect for self and others,
a willingness to sacrifice for the common good, a sense of civic re-
sponsibility, the relentless pursuit of truth, basic honesty, and an in-
tolerance for anything less is a measure of the character of a person
(Roskens, 1988; Wade, 1988).
Hot lines within companies, codes of ethics, and corrupt-practices
laws attempt to prevent ethical dilemmas from occurring. But these can-
not supplant ethical decision making. They can only supplement what is
within the individual, which is his or her own set of principles applied to
discrete decisions. The best position executives can be in is one that pro-
motes ethical behavior in their organizations, rather than one that results
in the predicament of having to put out fires caused by someone's failure
to realize the ethical dimension of a problem.
STRATEGIC ETHICAL RESPONSE

There is a commonality of ethical concerns across all management
functions, including planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordi-
nating, reporting, and budgeting. It is naive to assume that ethical
sensitivity is only relevant at certain levels in an organization or is the
province of certain departments, such as the legal department.
The crucial task for all personnel is to identify the ethical issues in
the midst of all the complexity and moral uncertainty of the contexts
of the situation. Moral reasoning is fundamentally about the conscious
choices of individuals in relation to actions affecting others. Many of
the loyalties, interests, and preconceptions that actually shape policy
preferences or determine an organization's agenda are at best only partly
conscious in the minds of those who make decisions (Fleishman and
Payne, 1980).
Micromotives connote the short-term, individual self-interest side of
every ethical analysis. Macrobehavior connotes the long-term impli-
cations of a decision and weighs the impact of the decision on those
beyond the individual decision maker. Macrobehavior refers to what
happens in the aggregate when an individual makes a decision today,
and how it affects others in the future. Examining the extent to which
GUIDELINES 165
self-interest is present in a decision helps to clarify and resolve conflicts

among obligations.
A strategic ethical response is a matter of language as well as sub-
stance. The ethics of a company may be questioned simply because
someone says something thoughtless when, in fact, the speaker did not
mean to disregard ethical considerations. Certain phrases are dangerous,
for even in casual conversation, they send a message that consideration
of ethical implications are unnecessary, or extraneous, or bothersome.
Dangerous phrases to watch out for are "Yes, but we've always done
it that way," "Realistically...," "In principle I agree, b u t . . . , "
"Too much paperwork," "They won't do anything about it anyway,"
"They don't care," "They don't want to know," and "We have enough
complications already.''
One procedure for employers who want to highlight a renewed em-
phasis on ethics is to name an ethics advocate within the company. The
ethics advocate is someone whose job is to raise the right ethical ques-
tions and to serve as a resource when ethical questions arise. He or she
may well be someone already in the organization. This person can help
set up a code of ethics and make specific proposals, such as organizing
projects to ascertain the impact of a product and its moral implications.
The ethics advocate should be skilled at negotiating and capable of
persuading those who want to do the wrong thing to change their minds.
GUIDELINES FOR MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS

As unique as each problem is, there is a standard set of procedures
to go through to arrive at an ethical resolution. The seven steps are
listed below.
1. Define the problem.

2. Acknowledge the context in which the problem arose in order to identify
all stakeholders involved.
3. Identify the values that are at stake.
4. Select the values that must be maximized.
5. Choose the alternative that maximizes the essential values and minimizes
as few as possible.
6. Assure that the consequences of the decision will be ethical in regard to
both its short-term and its long-term consequences.
7. Implement the decision.
SUMMARY
Managers find themselves in ethical quandaries because situations
are marked by multiple, noncomparable dimensions. These dimensions
result from both the benefits and the harms to the organization, indi-
viduals, or the community that will result from selecting any given
alternative. The problem is compounded because individuals differ on
the goals, norms, beliefs, and values upon which they base their de-
cisions.
The intuitive feeling that someone gets when coming to a decision
on an ethical question is formed by what that person thinks is right,
just, and fair. But when the stakes are large, such as someone's career
or the moral stature and reputation of the organization, then relying on
such subjective feelings is inadequate. A careful analysis of the values
of caring, honesty, accountability, promise keeping, pursuit of excel-
lence, loyalty, fairness, integrity, respect for others, and responsible
citizenship is required.
Applying CHAPELFIRZ to the dilemma will lead to a careful weigh-
ing of the alternatives. The essential question to answer is not Will I
do the right thing? but rather, What is the right thing to do? (Hosmer,
1988). Careful analysis of the situation, the values involved, and the
consequences can bring each individual to understand what the right
thing to do is. Authentic values are those by which a life can be lived
and commerce can be conducted. Values only have value when they
are life-enhancing. Ethical decision making is good for personal de-
velopment as well as business development.
We live in a world that is not black and white. Rather, it is colored
by subtle shades of gray. Situations are complex and a multiplicity of
options are the rule rather than the exception. When an ethical dilemma
arises, what appears to be the most obvious solution may pale as more
information surfaces about the circumstances surrounding the problem.
The relative priorities that people attach to different values develop over
time in the context of differing situations, and are affected by friendships
and life experiences.
An ethical response will never come without there being a sense of
personal responsibility within those who make the decisions. Ideally,
leaders in an organization will guide ethical change. However, the
responsibility to be as an individual and act on the courage of one's
convictions can sometimes be the only effective approach. Martin Buber
GUIDELINES 167
(1958) wrote that all living is meeting and that all relationships are
mutual. He wrote: "My Thou affects me, as I affect it" (p. 15). To be
ethical, decisions must be made in the context of the relationships that
exist. This means that, as much as the courage to be drives individual
decisions, the courage to be when part of a group requires more com-
plicated decisions. More complex reasoning is required when the stakes
of others are concerned in addition to one's own (Tillich, 1952).
Ethical actions on the part of employees can take two roads. One is
the individual route, where one must act by oneself. The other is as
part of a group. To act as an individual means ending unethical orga-
nizational behaviors by working against others. To act as a part of a
group means leading an ethical organizational change by working with
others and the organization (Nielsen, 1989). These approaches are not
mutually exclusive, and depending on the circumstances one or both of
the approaches may be appropriate for correcting unethical conditions.
Bibliography
Adam, Paul J. 1963. Dealing with conflicts of interest. Management Review

52:50-53.
Alabama State Ethics Commission. 1983. Advisory opinion 737.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 1989. Code of Ethics. New
York.
Anderson, Hurst R. 1954. Ethical values in administration. Personnel Admin-
istration 17:1-12.
Andriacco, Dan. 1988. Ethics: The new fad in business circles spawns new
business. The Birmingham News (July 9), p. B12.
Archer, Lawrence. 1986. The moral minority. Canadian Business 59:56-59.
Arrow, Kenneth J., and Herve' Raynaud. 1986. Social choice and multicriterion
decision-making. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Association of the ICCP. 1988. Code of ethics for certified computer profes-
sionals. Des Plaines, IL.
Aviation Week & Space Technology. 1988. Officials warn of ethical decay in
weapons buying practices. 128(June 27):20.
Baier, Kurt. 1958. The moral point of view: A rational basis of ethics. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Banner, David K., and Robert Allan Cooke. 1984. Ethical dilemmas in per-
formance appraisal. Journal of Business Ethics 3:327-33.
Baram, Michael S. 1968. Trade secrets: What price loyalty? Harvard Business
Review 46(Nov.-Dec.):66-79.
Barry, Vincent. 1979. Moral issues in business. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
170 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barth, Thomas J. 1987-88. Should careerists question public policy? The Bu-
reaucrat 16(Winter):55-58.
Beauchamp, Tom L., and Norman E. Bowie, eds. 1979. Ethical theory and
business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ben-Yoav, Orly, and Dean G. Pruitt. 1984. Accountability to constituents: A
two-edged sword. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
34:283-95.
Birmingham Post-Herald. 1989. Air force ex-colonel is guilty of conflict (Feb.
24), p. A10.
Bloom, Allan. 1987. The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Bowie, Norman. 1987/88. Accountants, full disclosure, and conflicts of interest.
Business & Professional Ethics Journal 5(3 & 4):60-73.
Bozeman, Barry. 1987. All organizations are public: Bridging public and pri-
vate organizational theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, Thomas L. 1986a. When values collide. Industry Week 230(2):29-32.
. 1986b. Bridging the value gaps. Industry Week 230(3):50-53.
Bruner, Robert F., and Lynn Sharp Paine. 1988. Management buyouts and
managerial ethics. California Management Review 30(2):89-106.
Buber, Martin. 1958. / and Thou. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Buede, Dennis M. 1986. Structuring value attributes. Interfaces 16(2):52-62.
Byrne, John A. 1987. Think before you blow the whistle. Business Week (May
18), p. 161.
Cadbury, Sir Adrian. 1987. Ethical managers make their own rules. Harvard
Business Review 65(5):69-73.
Carson, Thomas L., Richard E. Wokutch, and Kent F. Murrmann. 1982.
Bluffing in labor negotiations: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics 1:13-22.
Chalk, Rosemary. 1988. Making the world safe for whistleblowers. Technology
Review 91(l):48-57.
Chatov, Robert. 1980. What corporate ethics statements say. California Man-
agement Review 22(4):20-29.
Christensen-Szalanski, Jay J. J. 1978. Problem-solving strategies: A selection
mechanism, some implications, and some data. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance 22:307-23.
Collins, Eliza G. C. 1983. Managers and lovers. Harvard Business Review
61(5): 144-53.
Cooke, Robert A., and Earl C. Young. 1987/88. Mergers from an ethical
perspective. Business & Professional Ethics Journal 5(3 & 4): 111-28.
Cooper, Terry L. 1986. The responsible administrator. Millwood, NY: As-
sociated Faculty Press.
Cornford, Francis Macdonald, trans. 1945. The republic of Plato. New York:
Oxford University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 171
Denhardt, Kathryn G. 1988. The ethic of public service: Resolving moral di-
lemmas in public organizations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Dittrich, John E., and Michael R. Carrell. 1979. Organizational equity per-
ceptions, employee job satisfaction, and departmental absence and turn-
over rates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 24:29-
40.
Donohue, John. 1988. Administrative ethics reaction paper. Unpublished man-
uscript.
Dozier, Janelle Brinker, and Marcia P. Miceli. 1985. Potential predictors of
whistle-blowing: A prosocial behavior perspective. Academy of Man-
agement Review 10:823-36.
Dubinsky, Alan J., and Thomas N. Ingram. 1984. Correlates of salespeople's
ethical conflict: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics
3:343-53.
Ellis, Junius. 1985. Indecent exposure of your financial affairs. Money 14
(July): 108-14.
Elliston, Frederick A. 1982. Civil disobedience and whistleblowing: A com-
parative appraisal of two forms of dissent. Journal of Business Ethics
1:23-28.
Elster, Jon, ed. 1986. Rational choice. Washington Square: New York Uni-
versity Press.
ENR. 1988. Firing held discriminatory. 220(Mar. 17):14.
Erdlen, John D. 1979. Ethics and the employee relations function. The Per-
sonnel Administrator 24( Jan. ):41-43, 68.
Ermann, M. David. 1986. How managers unintentionally encourage corporate
crime. Business and Society Review 59(Fall):30-34.
Ferrell, O. C , and Larry G. Gresham. 1985. A contingency framework for
understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Mar-
keting 49(Summer): 87-96.
Fisher, Cynthia D. 1978. The effects of personal control, competence, and
extrinsic reward systems on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Performance 21:273-88.
Fleishman, Joel L., and Bruce L. Payne. 1980. Ethical dilemmas and the
education of policymakers. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: The Hastings
Center, Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences.
Frankel, Mark S. 1989. Ethics and the forensic sciences: Professional autonomy
in the criminal justice system. Journal of Forensic Sciences 34:763-71.
Gellerman, Saul W. 1986. Why "good" managers make bad ethical choices.
Harvard Business Review 64(4):85-90.
Hagafors, Roger, and Berndt Brehmer. 1983. Does having to justify one's
judgments change the nature of the judgment process? Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance 31:223-32.
172 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hanson, Kristine, and Robert Solomon. 1982. The real business ethics. Business
and Society Review 41(Spring):58-59.
Hauserman, Nancy R. 1986. Whistle-blowing: Individual morality in a corporate
society. Business Horizons 29(2):4-9.
Hejka-Ekins, April. 1988. Teaching ethics in public administration. Public
Administration Review 48:885-91.
Hill, Ivan. 1981. Common sense and everyday ethics. Security Management
25(7): 123-32.
Hornung, Mark. 1987. Honesty's valued, but transgressions abound. Crain's
Chicago Business 10(34): 1, 61-63.
Hosmer, LaRue Tone. 1988. Adding ethics to the business curriculum. Business
Horizons 31(4):9-15.
Howard, Cecil G. 1988. Strategic guidelines for terminating employees. The
Personnel Administrator 33(April): 106-9.
Internal Revenue Service. 1986. The commissioner's and chief counsel's annual
report. Washington, DC.
Jansen, Erik, and Mary Ann Von Glinow. 1985. Ethical ambivalence and
organizational reward systems. Academy of Management Review 10:
814-22.
Johnson, Rossall J. 1974. How second-best decisions get made. Management
Review 63(August):30-32.
Josephson, Michael. 1988. Teaching ethical decision making and principled
reasoning. Ethics 1(1):27—33.
Leap, Terry L., William H. Holley, Jr., and Hubert S. Feild. 1980. Equal
employment opportunity and its implications for personnel practices in
the 1980s. Labor Law Journal 31(11):669-82.
Leys, Wayne A. R. 1968. Ethics for policy decisions: The art of asking delib-
erative questions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. The science of "muddling through. *' Public Admin-
istration Review 19(Spring):79-88.
The Lippman report. 1987. America's disappearing ethics. Memphis: Guards-
mark (Oct. 15).
Lucas, Douglas M. 1989. The ethical responsibilities of the forensic scientist:
Exploring the limits. Journal of Forensic Sciences 34:719-29.
Lucas, Rob. 1987. Political-cultural analysis of organizations. Academy of
Management Review 12(1): 144-56.
Magner, Denise K. 1989. Students urge graduate business schools to emphasize
ethical behavior and require courses in standards. The Chronicle of
Higher Education (March 29), p. A31.
Marini, Frank, ed. 1971. Toward a new public administration. New York:
Chandler.
Mathews, M. Cash. 1987. Whistleblowing: Acts of courage are often discour-
aged. Business and Society Review 62(Fall):40-44.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 173
McCormick, Sheila. 1989. Whistleblowers receive consideration on Capitol

Hill. PA Times 12(8, June 2):3.
McGowan, William. 1985. The whistleblowers hall of fame. Business and
Society Review 52(Winter):31-36.
Miceli, Marcia Parmerlee, and Janet P. Near. 1984. The relationships among
beliefs, organizational position, and whistle-blowing status: A discrim-
inant analysis. Academy of Management Journal 27:687-705.
Miller, William H. 1985. A whistleblower talks: Ex-Pentagon auditor urges
reforms. Industry Week 25(l):22-23.
Mueller, Robert K. 1977. The hidden agenda. Harvard Business Review
55(Sept.-Oct.):40-52.
Murphy, Patrick E. 1989. Creating ethical corporate structures. Sloan Man-
agement Review 30(2):81-87.
Near, Janet P. 1989. Whistle-blowing: Encourage it! Business Horizons 32(1):
2-6.
Nichols, Mary L., and Victoria E. Day. 1982. A comparison of moral reasoning
of groups and individuals on the * 'defining issues test." Academy of
Management Journal 25:201-8.
Nielsen, Richard P. 1989. Changing unethical organizational behavior. The
Academy of Management Executive 3(2): 123-30.
O'Reilly, Charles A., HI, and Barton A. Weitz. 1980. Managing marginal
employees: The use of warnings and dismissals. Administrative Science
Quarterly 25:467-84.
Parmerlee, Marcia A., Janet P. Near, and Tamila C. Jansen. 1982. Correlates
of whistleblowers' perceptions of organizational retaliation. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly 27:17-34.
Parry, Charles W. 1985. My company—right or wrong? Vital Speeches of the
Day 51 (Aug. l):632-34.
Pastin, Mark. 1984. Ethics as an integrating force in management. Journal of
Business Ethics 3(4):293-304.
Paton, H. J. 1947. The categorical imperative. London: Hutchinson & Co.
Payne, John W., Myron L. Braunstein, and John S. Carroll. 1978. Exploring
predecisional behavior: An alternative approach to decision research.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22:17-44.
Peterson, Joseph L. 1989. Symposium: Ethical conflicts in the forensic sciences.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 34:717-18.
Price, Kenneth H. 1987. Decision responsibility, task responsibility, identifi-
ability, and social loafing. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes 40:330-45.
Public Management. 1987. ICMA code of ethics with guidelines. 69(8): 12-
13.
Ranken, Nani L. 1987/88. Conscientiousness and work roles: An individualist
174 BIBLIOGRAPHY
approach to the ethics of corporate conduct. Business & Professional

Ethics Journal 5(l):51-68.
Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press.
Regazzi, John H. 1961. How to handle conflicts of interest. The Management
Review 50(March):48-50.
Rein, Lowell G. 1980. Is your (ethical) slippage showing? Personnel Journal
59(Sept.):740-43.
Robin, Donald, Michael Giallourakis, Fred R. David, and Thomas E. Moritz.
1989. A different look at codes of ethics. Business Horizons 32(1 ):66-
73.
Rohr, John A. 1989. Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values. New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Ronen, Simcha. 1978. Personal values: A basis for work motivational set and
work attitude. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 21:80-
107.
Roosevelt, Eleanor. 1940. The moral basis of democracy. New York: Howell,
Soskin & Company.
Rose, Gerald L., Michael B. Menasco, and David J. Curry. 1982. When
disagreement facilitates performance in judgment tasks: Effects of dif-
ferent forms of cognitive conflict, information environments, and human
information processing characteristics. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 29:287-306.
Roskens, Ronald W. 1988. Ethical leaders. Vital Speeches of the Day 54:692-
95.
Rothstein, Howard G. 1986. The effects of time pressure on judgment in
multiple cue probability learning. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 37:83-92.
Sand, Paul O. 1988. Business ethics. Vital Speeches of the Day 55(3):85-87.
Sanderson, Glen R., and Iris I. Varner. 1984. What's wrong with corporate
codes of conduct? Management Accounting 66(July):28-31.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1978. Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Schwenk, Charles R. 1984. Devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on
prediction performance: Task involvement as a mediating variable. De-
cision Sciences 15:449-62.
Seymour, Sally. 1988. The case of the willful whistle-blower. Harvard Business
Review 66(l):103-9.
Shapira, Zur, and Eli Zevulun. 1979. On the use of facet analysis in organi-
zational behavior research: Some conceptual considerations and an ex-
ample. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23:411-28.
Sheler, Jeffery L. 1981. When employees squeal on fellow workers. U.S. News
and World Report 91(Nov. 16):81-82.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 175
Simon, Herbert A. 1957. Models of man. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
. 1976. Administrative behavior. New York: The Free Press.
. 1983. Reason in human affairs. Berkeley, CA: Stanford University
Press.
. 1987. Rationality in psychology and economics. In Rational Choice,
edited by Robin M. Hogarth and Melvin Warren Reder. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, pp. 25-40.
Simon, Yves R. 1986. The definition of moral virtue. Edited by Vukan Kuic.
New York: Fordham University Press.
Smith, David R. 1986. Personal and professional responsibility. Data Man-
agement 24(8) :6.
Smith, H. R., and Archie B. Carroll. 1984. Organizational ethics: A stacked
deck. Journal of Business Ethics 3(2):95-100.
Solomon, Robert C , and Kristine Hanson. 1985. It's good business. New
York: Atheneum Publishers.
Stevens, Robert I. 1984. The case of the Hverwurst sandwich. Journal of Systems
Management 35(5):42.
Taylor, Ronald N. 1975. Psychological determinants of bounded rationality:
Implications for decision-making strategies. Decision Sciences 6:409-
27.
Tillich, Paul. 1952. The Courage to Be. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Tolchin, Martin. 1986. Investigators say it appears Deaver violated the law.
New York Times (May 13), pp. Al, A23.
Trevino, Linda Klebe. 1986. Ethical decision making in organizations: A per-
son-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review
11:601-17.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1986. Rational choice and the framing
of decisions. Journal of Business 59(4):251-78.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1987. Ethics enforcement: Process by which
conflict of interest allegations are investigated and resolved. Washing-
ton, DC: Government Printing Office. Report number GAO/GGD-87-
83BR.
Wade, M. Euel, Jr. 1988. The lantern of ethics. Vital Speeches of the Day
54(ll):340-43.
Walker, Susan O. 1987. Firing: Smooth and painless. Management World
16(6): 10-12.
Wallach, Ellen J. 1983. Individuals and organizations: The cultural match.
Training and Development Journal 37(2):29-36.
Weldon, Elizabeth, and Gina M. Gargano. 1985. Cognitive effort in additive
task groups: The effects of shared responsibility on the quality of mul-
tiattribute judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 36:348-61.
176 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wiener, Yoash. 1988. Forms of value systems: A focus on organizational

effectiveness and cultural change and maintenance. Academy of Man-
agement Review 13:534-45.
Wilson, Glenn T. 1983. Solving ethical problems and saving your career.
Business Horizons 26(6): 16-20.
Wright, Donald K. 1985. Age and the moral values of practitioners. Public
Relations Review ll(Spring):51-60.
Zumberge, James H. 1989. Ethical and moral responsibilities as faculty. Vital
Speeches of the Day 55(7): 199-202.
Index
Accountability, 13, 15, 17-22, 26- Analyses, 29, 31-32, 34, 50, 81,
27, 36, 38, 41, 43, 50-56, 58-59, 144, 166
61-62, 64-66, 68-70, 78-79, 82, Anderson, Hurst R., 8
85, 88, 93, 100, 102-3, 109, Andriacco, Dan, 20
113-14, 116, 119, 123, 130, 136, Antitrust matters, 119, 162
140, 148, 150-51, 155, 166; for Appearance of impropriety, 82
actions, 82; burden of, 119 Archer, Lawrence, 144-45
Act utilitarianism, 13 Arrow, Kenneth J., 32
Adam, Paul J., 74 Assessment center, 136-37
Adams, John, 112-14 Association of Professional Engi-
Administrative action, 4, 83 neers of Ontario (APEO), 145,
Admissions decisions, 104-5 162
Adoption, 131-33 Aviation Week & Space Technology,
Affirmative action guidelines, 90, 117
136
Agency for International Develop-
ment, 83 Baier, Kurt, 13, 16
Air Force, 146, 160 Banner, David K., 110
Alabama State Ethics Commission, Baram, Michael S., 79
84 Barlow, Rita, 149-51
Alternative, 28-39, 41, 52, 55-57, Barry, Vincent, 14, 128
59, 61-64, 69-70, 78, 81, 84, 86, Barth, Thomas J., 138
88,93, 102, 107, 109, 112-14, Beauchamp, Tom L., 12-14
117, 121, 123, 130, 133, 137, Bechtel, 145
140, 148, 151, 156, 165-66 Behaviors, 3, 14, 33, 55, 64, 68,
American Institute of Certified Pub- 75-76, 97, 99, 107, 127, 142,
lic Accountants, 162 144
178 INDEX
Belief(s), 4, 5, 11-12, 16, 32, 67, Chalk, Rosemary, 146

78, 97, 142, 166 CHAPELFIRZ, 155, 159, 166
Ben-Yoav, Orly, 36 Chatov, Robert, 20
Birmingham Post-Herald, 160 Chief executive officer, 102, 135,
Blackmail, 70 147-49
Bledsoe, Jan, 77-79, 158 Chief operating officer, 63-64
Bloom, Allan, 160 Children, 131-32
Blower, John, 80-81 Child Welfare Department, 131
Bobbert, James, 113-14 Christensen-Szalanski, Jay J. J., 31
Bottom-up approach, 30 Christianity, 17
Bounded rationality, 31, 33 Civil Service Commission, 146
Bowie, Norman, 12-14, 90-91 Climate, 48
Bozeman, Barry, 11 Code of the International City Man-
Breach of ethics, 22, 25, 75, 160 agement Association, 20
Brehmer, Berndt, 37 Codes of conduct, 5, 8, 13, 94, 162
Bribery, 8, 18, 20, 75, 139 Codes of ethics, 7, 19-21, 25, 145,
Britton, Major, 87-89 159, 161-65
Brown, Thomas L., 105, 115 Collins, Eliza G. C , 90
Bruner, Robert F., 73, 79 Commerce, 3, 83
Buber, Martin, 166 Commitments, 15, 20, 68, 69, 72
Buddhism, 17 Communication, 33, 50, 163; chan-
Budget cuts, 112-14; in relation to nels of, 169, 180, 271-73
performance, 112 Communities, 127-28, 130, 134,
Buede, Dennis M., 30 152, 166
Bureaucracies, 8, 108-9 Community mental health centers,
Bush, Bill, 146 134
Business, 8, 10-11, 13, 15-17, 75, Company, 47, 97, 106, 119, 144-
82, 89, 149, 150; ethics, 8, 10, 45, 147; ethicist, 75; norms, 47,
155; norms, 100; practices, 9; 99; policy, 75-76, 79, 137, 141
rules of, 141 Competition, 22, 75-76, 89, 98-99,
Byrne, John A., 146 135
Compromise, 19, 36, 42-43, 59, 69,
Cadbury, Sir Adrian, 37, 118 107, 157
Capitalism, 48 Computer professional, 162
Caring, 4, 14, 17-18, 20, 26, 38, Confidentiality, 91, 138, 145
50, 52-53, 56-59, 61-62, 65, 67, Conflict, 35, 37, 39, 41, 48, 74-76,
82,93, 100, 103, 114, 121-23, 81-82, 84, 90, 92, 106-7, 124,
132-33,150-51 165
Carrell, Michael R., Ill Conflict of interest, 20-21, 67, 7 3 -
Carroll, Archie B., I l l 75, 80-86, 89-91, 94, 160; stat-
Carson, Thomas L., 99 utes, 21, 82, 94
Categorical imperative, 11-12 Conners, Harry, 66
Chain of command, 9, 35, 143 Consumer credit, 138
INDEX 179
Contractor Performance Evaluation 6 1 , 6 4 , 6 8 - 7 1 , 7 4 - 7 7 , 9 3 , 125,

Program, 101-2 166
Cooke, Robert A., 110, 135 Disciplinary action, 42, 145
Cooper, Terry, 35 Discrimination, 54, 120, 144; eth-
Core values, 37, 71, 99-100, 121 nic, 120; racial, 120; sexual, 120
Cornford, Francis Macdonald, 11 Dishonesty, 87, 103
Coroner, 84-86 Disobedience, 141-42
Corporate social responsibilities, 100 Distributive justice, 18
Corruption, 6, 40, 75, 117-18, 121, District school superintendent, 55
145 Dittrich, John E., Ill
Corrupt practices laws, 164 Donohue, John, 40-43, 82, 158
Cost-benefit analysis, 37 Doster, John, 131-32
Counternorms, 49, 108, 118 Dotson, Joe, 69-70
Crain's Chicago Business, 8, 10 Double-loop learning, 137
Credibility, 7, 15, 32, 61, 114, 158 Double messages, 100-101, 115
Culture, 40, 82, 97-100, 106, 119, Dozier, Janelle Brinker, 145
124-25, 159, 161, 163; of com- Drinking problems, 65-68
pany, 181 Drug testing, 71, 139
Curry, David J., 39 Dubinsky, Alan J., 75
Duty-free goods, 40, 42
David, FredR., 162 Ebasco Constructors Inc., 144

Day, Victoria E., 36 Efficiency, 13, 28, 32, 94, 101
Decision(s), 3, 6, 16, 18, 20, 23, Ellis, Junius, 138
26-27, 30-32, 34-37, 39, 40, 4 3 - Elliston, Frederick A., 141
4 4 , 5 4 , 5 9 , 6 7 , 110, 131-32, 140, Elster, Jon, 30
156, 158, 164-65; analysis, 30; Embezzlement, 8, 75, 101, 139
calculus, 24, 27, 43, 50, 69, 156; Employee, 62-63, 92, 110-11, 118,
environment, 73; ethical, 66; 135, 141-42, 144, 167
maker, 6, 16, 19, 25-27, 30-38, Employer, 73, 141, 138-39, 143-
43, 44, 99, 157 44, 162, 165
Defense Department, 118, 146 Employment agreement, 57, 79
Democracy, 17, 49, 137 ENR, 144
Denhardt, Kathryn, 13 Equal employment, 162
Deontology, 13 Equal Employment Opportunity
Department of Public Assistance, Commission, 83
122 Equality, 13, 17, 48, 85
Department of Veterans Affairs, 83, Equity, 37, 111; perceptions of, 111
138 Erdlen, John D., 125
Department of Housing and Urban Ermann, M. David, 100-101
Development, 83 Ethical actions, 167; alternatives, 19;
Dialectical inquiry, 38 analysis, 22, 27, 37, 156, 158;
Dilemma, 40-41, 50-53, 56, 58, behavior, 4, 7, 17, 20, 23, 75,
180 INDEX
77, 127, 160, 163-64; breaches, Feminist, 136

22, 26, 75, 160; business prac- Ferrell, O. C , 161
tices, 161; component, 34, 43, Fisher, Cynthia D., 50
157-58, 160; conduct, 146; con- Fitzgerald, A. Ernest, 146
siderations, 25, 34, 38, 43, 116, Fleishman, Joel L., 143, 164
154, 161; core, 20; culture, 100, Food stamp program, 122-23
159, 163-64; decision, 26, 43, Forensics, 124
156, 158, 164; dilemma(s), 10, Fortune 500 corporations, 162
19, 22, 64, 75, 79, 80, 164, 166; Frankel, MarkS., 124
dimension(s), 47, 156, 164; in- Fraud, 8, 88, 101, 103, 122-23
quiry, 5, 14, 22; issues, 6, 21, Freeman, R. Edward. See Sand,
41-42,52,54,56,58,61,64, Paul O.
66, 68, 70, 77, 80, 84, 85, 87, Friedman, Betty, 92-94
93, 102, 107, 109, 112-13, 116, Funeral director, 84-85
120, 122, 130, 132, 136, 148,
150, 164; practices, 3, 23; prob- Gargano, Gina M., 36
lem^), 6, 57, 59, 119, 125; ques- Gellerman, Saul W., 105
tions), 105, 139, 152, 166; role General Services Administration, 83
models, 23; standards, 7, 17, 22, Giallourakis, Michael, 162
35, 82, 125, 162; values, 26, 39, Gift(s), 41-43, 74, 80-83, 106
43,71 Goal(s), 28-29, 34-38, 50, 58, 76,
Ethics in Government Act, 21 100, 102-3, 109, 113, 125, 136,
Evaluation, 40, 58, 111-12 159, 166
Everyday norms, 100 Goldstein, Ronald J., 144
Exchange, 110 Greek philosophy, 17
Exigencies, 48 Gresham, Larry G., 161
Expediency, 22, 81, 143, 162 Group, cohesion, 55; decision mak-
Expense account, 106 ing, 26, 36, 48; norms, 55
Extortion, 139
Hagafors, Roger, 37
Facet analysis, 38 Halfway house, 143
Facets, 38-39, 43 Hanson, Kristen, 3, 75
Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, Hardy, Sue, 68-69
138 Hauserman, Nancy R., 154
Fairness, 6, 16-20, 26, 38, 50, 53, Hedges, Robert L., 160
56, 61-62, 64-65, 79, 100, 103, Hejka-Ekins, April, 161
111, 114, 116-17, 122, 130, 136, Heuristic strategies, 32
155, 166 Hierarchy, 45, 98, 119, 137
Fairway Electric, 147-48 Hill, Ivan, 47
Fear of recrimination, 153 Hinduism, 17
Federal conflict in interest statutes, Hiring and firing, 71, 136
82 Holley, William H., 63
Feild, Huberts., 63 Honesty, 14, 17-18, 20, 26, 28, 38,
INDEX 181
41,43, 50,51-53,56-57,62, Jones, Major, 87-89

66-67, 69-70, 78, 81, 87-88, 93, Josephson, Michael, 14
100, 102-3, 107-9, 112, 114, Judaism, 17
116, 118, 121, 136, 148, 150-51, Justice Department, 21, 83
155, 164, 166
Hooker, Jim, 111-12 Kahneman, Daniel, 31
Hornung, Mark, 8-9 Kant, Immanuel, 11-12; categorical
Hosmer, LaRue Tone, 166 imperative, 12
Howard, Cecil G., 65 Katchet, Dan, 68-70
Human resource management, 136 Kerr-McGee nuclear plant, 145
Kibbutz, 27
Ideological values, 27 Kickbacks, 8, 10, 18, 20, 75, 100
Illegal dumping, 100 Korea, 40, 57, 82
Indoctrination, 159
Information, 32-33, 39, 41, 67-68,
108, 118, 138-39, 141, 146; col- Law(s), 4, 17, 1 9 , 2 0 , 2 5 , 4 1 , 7 5 ,
lection of, 67; dissemination of, 80,82, 125, 128-29, 131, 141,
67 160, 162
Ingram, Thomas N., 75 Leap, Terry L., 63
Inspector generals, 21, 83 Leys, Wayne A. R., 11
Insurance claims, 103, 105, 138 Lindblom, Charles, 34
Integrity, 4, 7, 16-21, 26, 38, 43, Lippman Report, 8
50-51,53,56,61,65,74,78-81, Loyalty, 6, 16-18, 20, 26, 38, 41,
88, 93, 102-3, 107, 109, 120, 43, 50, 52-53, 55, 58-59, 61-62,
122-23, 136, 148, 150, 155, 158, 68, 74, 76-79, 80, 84, 86, 88,
162, 164, 166; burden of, 119; 90-91, 93, 100, 102-3, 107-10,
standard of, 19 114, 116, 120-23, 140, 142-43,
Intellectual property, 79 145, 150-51, 155, 159, 166
Internal audit, 75 Lucas, Rob, 98, 124
Internal Revenue Service, 108, 138
Interpersonal relationships, 47, 49- Macrobehavior, 127, 164
50, 115 Magner, Denise K., 161
Investigation, 107-8, 112, 131 Magruder, Jeb, 50
Investigator general, 106 Management, 39, 47, 77, 79
Manager(s), 40, 47, 90, 100-102,
Jansen, Erik, 49, 107-8 108-9, 115, 118, 146, 149, 161,
Jansen, Tamila C , 144 166
Jenkins, Tim, 106-7 Marini, Frank, 10
Job performance, 52, 60, 64, 85, Martin, Sally, 113-14
136 Mathews, M. Cash, 141, 153
Johnson, Captain, 57-59, 158 Matrix structures, 92
Johnson, Rossall J., 35 McCormick, Sheila, 144
Jones, Donald, 119-21 McGowan, William, 145
182 INDEX
Means, 14, 17, 20, 34, 50, 57, 136- Nuclear plant, 144-45, 147
37, 147 Nursing, 92-93
Means-end analysis, 34
Medicare Claims Division, 101 Objectives, 37, 98, 138
Medicinal myths, 15 Obligation(s), 15, 16, 73-74, 80,
Member of Congress, 118 92, 134, 158
Menasco, Michael B., 39 Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Miceli, Marcia P., 145, 151 Act Amendments of 1988, 83
Micromotives, 127, 164 Office of Government Ethics, 21
Military advisors, 82 Office of Inspector Generals, 83
Military records, 139 O'Reilly, Charles A., Ill, 60
Miller, Judy, 63-65 Organizational development, 128
Miller, William H., 146 Organizational ethos, 99
Mission statements, 118 Organizational standards, 38, 99
Moonlighting, 20, 94 Ortho Pharmaceuticals, 146
Moral, 4, 16, 26; code, 3, 6; con- Overtime, 115-17
flict, 145; deliberation, 25; envi-
ronment, 7; growth, 20; Paine, Lynn Sharpe, 73, 79
judgment(s), 5, 36, 47; responsi- Paralegals, 115, 117
bility, 7-8; standard, 85; stature, Pariah, 146
166; values, 4, 6, 16, 26, 37 Parks, Rick, 145
Morale, 6, 56, 61,94, 115 Parmerlee, Marcia A., 144
Moritz, Thomas E., 162 Parry, Charles W., 4
Mother's rights, 132 Pastin, Mark, 50
Mueller, Robert K., 4 Paton, H. J., 12
Murphy, Patrick E., 163 Payne, John W., 32, 164
Murrmann, Kent F., 99 Payne, Bruce L., 143
Payoff, 8, 10, 75-76, 114
National Aeronautics and Space Pay rules, 111
Administration, 146 Peers, 22, 35, 114, 116-17, 146,
Near, Janet P., 142, 144, 151 160; burden of, 119; pressure
Nepotism, 90 from, 159
New Jersey Supreme Court, 146 Performance, 52, 55, 60-62, 65, 67,
New York City, 145 85, 111-12, 119; appraisal, 71,
Nichols, Mary L., 36 110, 112-13; employee's perfor-
Nielsen, Richard P., 167 mance, 68; evaluation of, 64-65,
Nobel Prize, 31 110-13; measurement of, 121;
Nominal group, 36 suboptimal, 67
Non-profit organization, 11, 51, 130 Personnel, 95, 98, 104, 106, 137,
Normative judgments, 47 140, 159, 164
Norms, 23, 40, 48-49, 55, 97, 99- Peterson, Joseph L., 124
100, 106-8, 118-19, 124-25, Philosophical foundations of ethics,
155, 160, 166; conformity to, 121 11-13
INDEX 183
Pierce, Dr. Grace, 146 Resolution, 17, 42, 53, 55, 57, 59,
Plato, 11-12,37 62,64, 67,69,70, 78, 81, 85-
Policy statements, 25, 94, 101, 115 86, 88,94, 103, 107, 110, 112,
Political values, 16 114, 117, 121, 124, 130, 133,
Postemployment restrictions, 83 137, 141, 148, 151
Postfurlough actions, 141 Responsible citizenship, 17-18, 50,
Price, Kenneth H., 36-37 59, 80-81, 84-85, 100, 103, 107,
Principle(s), 12, 17-20, 26, 35, 109, 118, 120, 127-28, 130, 132,
163-64 134, 136-37, 140, 148, 155, 159,
Principled reasoning, 3 161, 166
Privacy Act of 1974, 138 Respect for others, 17-19, 38, 50,
Privacy Rights, 138-39 59, 87, 114, 132, 134, 155, 166
Procedure manual, 108, 110 Retaliatory firings, 142
Procedures, 94, 98, 109, 138, 140- Right to Financial Privacy Act of
41 1978, 138
Productivity, 14, 53, 56, 111, 114— Right to privacy, 17, 67
15, 141 Right to property, 13
Promise keeping, 12, 15, 50, 52, Robbins, Bill, 136-37
57-58,62,76,77, 114, 118, 166 Robin, Donald, 162
Property, 86, 129, 134 Rohr, John A., 17, 20
Pruitt, DeanG., 36 Ronen, Simcha, 27
Public, 11,90-91, 122-23, 138, Roosevelt, Eleanor, 27
140-43, 146-47 Rose, Gerald L., 39
Public administration, 10, 17 Roskens, Ronald W., 164
Public agencies, 11, 56, 62, 70, Rothstein, Howard G., 32
106-7, 109, 122-24, 132, 140 Rule of law, 141
Public record, 42 Rule of thumb, 32, 35, 156
Public watchdog, 91 Rule utilitarianism, 12-13
Pursuit of excellence, 15-18, 20, Rush, Ed, 55-57
26, 38, 41, 43, 50, 52-53, 55-56,
58-59, 62, 66, 68, 84, 86, 88, Sand, PaulO., 155
93, 100, 102-3, 107, 109, 113- Sanderson, Glen R., 160, 162
14, 120, 122, 123, 130, 136, 140, Satisficing, 33-34, 39, 156
148, 150-51, 155, 166 Scapegoats, 7, 123
Schelling, Thomas C , 128
Ranken, Nani L., 118 Schwenk, Charles R., 39
Ranton, Sheila, 60-63 Serpico, Frank, 145
Rationality, 28, 31-34 Seymour, Sally, 147
Rawls, John, 12 Sexual harassment, 51, 63-64, 71
Raynaud, Herve', 32 Shapira, Zur, 38
Regazzi, John H., 94 Shareholders, 4, 6
Regulations, 42, 43, 99, 108-9 Sheler, Jeffrey L., 143
Rental property, 86 Short-term gain, 104, 119
184 INDEX
Silk wood, Karen, 145 Trumplit, Bill, 80-81, 158

Simon, Herbert A., 25, 32-34 Trust, 7, 8, 15, 22, 49, 68, 87, 89,
Simon, Yves R., 3 152, 154, 158, 161
Single-loop learning, 137 Truth, 3 1 , 6 4 , 6 8 , 7 0 , 107
Singleton, Lauren, 115-17 Tversky, Amos, 31
Slippage, 50, 70
Small, Al, 85-86 Ultimate Good, 37
Small Business Administration, 83 Unethical, 18, 37,73, 101, 105,
Smalley, Rebecca, 51-52 107, 158, 160; acts, 7; behavior,
Smith, David R., 47, 152 7,22-23, 124, 161; cultures, 125;
Smith, Linda, 136-37 practices, 8
Socialization, 97-99, 125 Unintended military consequences,
Social Security Administration, 138 100
Social worker, 122-23, 131 Union, 56, 77-78, 100
Societal values, 17 Union contract, 143
Society, 4, 15, 32, 127, 139 U.S. Army, 40-41
Socioeconomic nepotism, 90 U.S. Attorney, 83
Solomon, Robert C , 3, 14, 75 U.S. Postal Service, 83
Solution, 32, 55, 64, 69, 137, 166 U.S. Bureau of Justice, 8
Spanton, George, 146 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 8
Sperry Corporation, 160 U.S. Congress, 21
Stakeholders, 14-15, 19, 47-48, 50- U.S. General Accounting Office, 21,
51,68, 118, 135, 163, 165-66 83
Stevens, Robert I., 65-67 Utility, 12, 31,50, 147
Stockbrokers, 18
Strategic ethical response, 164 Value scale, 38
Subordinate(s), 22, 35, 71, 85-86, Varner, Iris I., 160
99-100 Von Glinow, Mary Ann, 49, 108
Summers, 65-67
Superior(s), 71, 77, 93, 101, 106, Wade, M. Euel, Jr., 164
113-14 Walbank, Dennis, 140
Supervisor(s), 22, 77-79, 85-86, Walker, Susan O., 65
111-12, 123, 139, 158 Wallach, Ellen J., 97
Suppliers, 83, 89, 135, 150 Watergate, 50
Wattson, Shirley, 122-24
Taylor, Ronald N., 33 Weapons buying, 118
Tennessee Valley Authority, 83 Weitz, Barton A., 60
Tillich, Paul, 167 Weldon, Elizabeth, 36
Tolchin, Martin, 83 Welfare programs, 138
Towlski, Rod, 108-10 Whistle-blowers, 35, 141-48, 151-
Tragedy of the commons, 128 52, 154
Travel expense vouchers, 87-89 Whistleblower Protection Act of
Trevino, Linda Kiebe, 27 1989, 143-44
INDEX
Wiener, Yoash, 159

Williams, Jim, 54-55
Wilson, Glenn T., 119
Wokutch, Richard E., 99
Work, 19-20, 47, 51, 62, 78, 109,
121, 137, 140
Work environment, 89-90
Workforce, 8, 140, 163
Wright, Donald K., 8, 16
Wrong, 5, 13, 18, 20, 22, 67, 118,
150
Wrongdoing, 6, 103, 151-52; accu-
sations of, 142, 145
Wrongful discharge, 146
Yoles, Ruth, 129-31

Young, EarlC, 135
Youth Home for Abused Children,
129-31
Zumberge, James H., 160

About the Author
MARY E. GUY is Associate Professor of Political Science and Public

Affairs at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. She teaches man-
agement courses in the Master's of Public Administration program and
conducts research in decision processes and organization theory and
behavior. Her previous books include From Organizational Decline to
Organizational Renewal: The Phoenix Syndrome and Professionals in
Organizations: Debunking a Myth. She has contributed chapters to
books on managing human resources and has published articles in a
number of journals, including Public Administration Review, Group
and Organization Studies, and New England Journal of Human Ser-
vices.

Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Decision Making in Everyday Work Situation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethical Decision Making

Global Corporate Intelligence: Opportunities, Technologies, and Threats in

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available.

The paper used in this book complies with the

PART I INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS AND

Codes of Ethics and the Role They Play in

PART II APPLYING ETHICAL DECISION

Chapter 3 Interpersonal Relationships 47

Chapter 4 Conflicts of Interest 73

He Who Pays the Fiddler Calls the Tune 90

Ethical Decision Making amidst Contrasting

Which Boss to Listen To? 92

This book attempts to bring the philosophical discussion of ethics

making as an adjunct to rational decision making. Right-brain thinking

An inclination is where virtue must begin, and no one need despair

Organizations are a reflection of society; they are the method by

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUES, ETHICS, AND

is good, in some cases it makes it more difficult to promote other

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

bility. Institutions are created by people to serve people's ends (An-

Generally speaking, good ethics is good business. 99% 1%

ness practices that respondents wished to see eliminated in their

make complaints about such things as hazardous or unfair company

BUSINESS VERSUS GOVERNMENT ETHICS

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ETHICS

governments, and he declared that lying is never justified; Plato on the

a business perspective often looks wrong from a government perspective

Answering "Yes" to these questions commits one to ethical inquiry

VALUES AS GUIDEPOSTS FOR ETHICAL DECISION

Respect for others means recognizing each person's right to privacy

1. to each person an equal share

These rules maximize different values. The first maximizes fairness.

Rule 1. Consider the well-being of others, including nonparticipants. This

CODES OF ETHICS AND THE ROLE THEY PLAY IN

imum. Codes typically cover the highest ideals of caring, honesty,

growth of employees. When codes focus on the negative, they risk

stipulate conditions for financial disclosure statements, service on reg-

Is this the person I want to be?

Moral deliberation, like all kinds of deliberation, is a sort of calculus, a

It is the responsibility of the decision maker to inject ethical consid-

THE DECISION CALCULUS

THE CONTEXT OF DECISIONS

Problem Decision Maker Decision

Stakeholders: Opportunity considerations:

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RATIONAL

I. Define the problem.

This step requires a thorough analysis of each alternative. The analysis

6. Make a commitment to the choice and implement it.

As time-consuming as these six steps are for solving simple one-

RATIONAL DECISION MAKING IN REAL LIFE

to thoroughly investigate all dimensions of the problem. The inevitable

solution are made, in contrast to ideal rationality in which a compre-

formulate the problem in a simplistic manner. For example, one of the

Successive comparisons of alternatives involving only incremental

ethically satisfice, just as they rationally satisfice. They come to the

a. Two or more values are affected by the decision.

APPLYING ETHICAL ANALYSIS TO DECISION

1. The idea of the Good

The construction of an inflexible value scale is an absurdity, since

DEFINITION OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING