Andrew has once again offered his insights and, as usual, I am more than pleased to post them. I want you, gentle reader, to understand that if I get a post of more than two or three paragraphs (and it is thoughtful and on point), it is going to appear as a blog post. This blog isn’t just about me. If I didn’t think you were intelligent and perceptive, I wouldn’t write this thing.

Andrew is commenting on my blog entry, Suggested Rules for Corporate “Moral” decision making.

(I don’t post Andrew’s last name, his e-mail, etc. He has not directly given me permission and I am loath to volunteer such data.)

Here’s what he has to say –

Mr. Badaracco seems to put much stock into the idea that what is popular is best. 2 of the 3 steps in his quick process revolves around how others will perceive the decision. I think this is a shallow and intellectually hollow way of developing a system of ethics.

The “Golden Rule Test”, I think, warrants some merit, but it also has a flaw. Sometimes the best decision for a company will involve a negative impact to one or more individuals. If one utilizes this rule and thinks “what if I were the one being laid off or fired?”, then it could lead the CEO to make a decision that, while compassionate, is detrimental to the company as a whole.

I find the long method to be more intellectually and morally stable. Of course, its not perfect either. I agree that #1 is a good place to start, and that it alone is not sufficient. #2 is a fairly simple question in my mind. The rights of the people involved are usually determined by the overall society that the corporation resides in. This can, of course, vary from society to society. The value and character of the organization should be paramount. To preserve that, the leader must act in accordance with the organizations set of values. If he does this, then he needs not worry about how his character is perceived. The character of the organization is inevitably linked to the character of its leader.