Ethics Hero: Attorney Greg Adler (via Ethics Alarms)

Jack Marshal in his blog, Ethics Alarms has a fascinating story of a crusading attorney who taught two shady “entrepeneurs” a lesson. But better than that Jack Marshal has a paragraph that deserves attention and maybe preservation as an ethics quote –

One of the core principles of ethical conduct is that an individual who finds himself in a position to stop wrongdoing has an obligation to do so, regardless of whether he caused the problem or has an official or professional duty to discharge. Fix the problem. Ask questions, blow the whistle, confront the wrongdoer, pressure officials, call in authorities…whatever it takes.  So many of the scandals and disasters we have witnessed in the past— the home mortgage meltdown, the Enron implosion, Abu Ghraib, Bernie Madoff’s scheme, baseball’s steroid scandal, the Catholic Church’s child molestation cover-up, and too many more to list—would have been ended far sooner if someone on the scene had followed through on this ethical imperative.  We don’t know who those people who ducked their responsibilities are; all we know is that lives were ruined because they chose to be passive, and not to act.
Read the full article –

Vincent Cardinalli had been running a remarkably lucrative and heartless scam for years in Santa Clara, California, filing phony lawsuits against innocent citizens for towing and storage fees on vehicles they no longer owned or, in some cases, never owned. He was aided by a commissioner who routinely sided with him in the suits while ignoring obvious signs of a swindle. Cardinalli’s salad days ended, however, because a young lawyer decided to do … Read More

via Ethics Alarms

What Am I Doing? [1.10] (via Staying In Focus)

I also think that much of what Neitzsche said is silly. Staying in Focus is well written and fun. This essay discusses many ethical missteps in the restaurant industry. It is often funny certainly filled with good stories.

Of course, I am interested in business ethics and this gentleman has a lot to say that I like. So please give him some attention.

James Pilant

What Am I Doing? [1.10] I always thought Friedrich Nietzsche should get punched in the face for writing "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" in his book Twilight of Idols (I bet he'd be a hipster if he was alive today… that wuss).  After this past week, however, that crazy philosopher might have been on to something. I've had a lot to reflect on this past week, thinking about business relationships and how vital a role they play in our daily operations and … Read More

via Staying In Focus

Why Business Is Hollywood’s Go-To Villain, Especially Now (via BNET)

BNET has an interesting essay complete with clips about the corporation as the villian of choice. It’s a fun read and the film clips alone are enough reason to view the article.

James Pilant

Corporations and their leaders are seldom cast as movie heroes.

But in the movies of 2010, whether you were at the multiplex or the art house, the go-to bad guy was the American corporation.

Even the adorable Despicable Me has super villains who need to finance their nefarious schemes and pay a visit to the Bank of Evil, or, as the posted sign indicates, the former Lehman Brothers. From Tron: Legacy to Inception, the choice of evildoer was so consistent it was a relief …. Read More.

Benjamin Franklin, Business Ethics and Bearing Grudges

An excerpt from Benjamin Franklin by John Torrey Morse, Jr.

In Philadelphia Franklin soon found opportunity to earn a living at his trade. There were then only two printers in that town, ignorant men both, with scant capacity in the technique of their calling. His greater acquirements and ability, and superior knowledge of the craft, soon attracted attention. One day Sir William Keith, governor of the province, appeared at the printing-office, inquired for Franklin, and carried him off “to taste some excellent Madeira” with himself and Colonel French, while employer Keimer, bewildered at the compliment to his journeyman, “star’d like a pig poison’d.” Over the genial glasses the governor proposed that Franklin should set up for himself, and promised his own influence to secure for him the public printing. Later he=7= wrote a letter, intended to induce Franklin’s father to advance the necessary funds. Equipped with this document, Franklin set out, in April, 1724, to seek his father’s coöperation, and surprised his family by appearing unannounced among them, not at all in the classic garb of the prodigal son, but “having a genteel new suit from head to foot, a watch, and my pockets lin’d with near five pounds sterling in silver.” But neither his prosperous appearance nor the flattering epistle of the great man could induce his hard-headed parent to favor a scheme “of setting a boy up in business, who wanted yet three years of being at man’s estate.” The independent old tallow-chandler only concluded that the distinguished baronet “must be of small discretion.” So Franklin returned with “some small gifts as tokens” of parental love, much good advice as to “steady industry and prudent parsimony,” but no cash in hand. The gallant governor, however, said: “Since he will not set you up, I will do it myself,” and a plan was soon concocted whereby Franklin was to go to England and purchase a press and types with funds to be advanced by Sir William. Everything was arranged, only from day to day there was delay in the actual delivery to Franklin of the letters of introduction and credit. The governor was a very busy man. The day of sailing came, but the documents had not come, only a message from the governor that Franklin might feel easy at embarking, for that the papers should be sent=8= on board at Newcastle, down the stream. Accordingly, at the last moment, a messenger came hurriedly on board and put the packet into the captain’s hands. Afterward, when during the leisure hours of the voyage the letters were sorted, none was found for Franklin. His patron had simply broken an inconvenient promise. It was indeed a “pitiful trick” to “impose so grossly on a poor innocent boy.” Yet Franklin, in his broad tolerance of all that is bad as well as good in human nature, spoke with good-tempered indifference, and with more of charity than of justice, concerning the deceiver. “It was a habit he had acquired. He wish’d to please everybody; and, having little to give, he gave expectations. He was otherwise an ingenious, sensible man, a pretty good writer, and a good governor for the people…. Several of our best laws were of his planning, and passed during his administration.”

Governor Keith lied repeatedly to Franklin, mislead him into the dangerous and unnecessary journey to England, and decieved a great many others as well. Yet, Franklin’s account of him is kind, balanced, and gives the man full credit for the good things he did. Would any of us have been so kind?

But don’t take this as a compliment on Franklin’s generous personality. It is far more serious matter.

Franklin can take a step back from a situation and view it unemotionally. For an ethical man, this is critical. There is a tendency to assign all evil to an opponent, to never think of him positively, to never consider the situation from that person’s point of view. That tendency throws off judgment and turns the mind away from justice and morality.

A generous view of humanity is often the more accurate one. Viewing one’s enemies as devoid of value puts one surely in the wrong. Viewing with accuracy and balance ennobles the mind and gives substance to decision making.

James Pilant

Benjamin Franklin, Business Ethics And How To Approach An Opponent!

An excerpt from The True Benjamin Franklin

Author: Sydney George Fisher

Franklin was by nature a public man; but the beginning of his life as an office-holder may be said to have dated from his appointment as clerk of the Assembly. This took place in 1736, when he had been in business for himself for some years, and his newspaper and “Poor Richard” were well under way. It was a tiresome task to sit for hours listening to buncombe speeches, and drawing magic squares and circles to while away the time. But he valued the appointment because it gave him influence with the members and a hold on the public printing.

The second year his election to the office was opposed; an influential member wanted the place for a friend, and Franklin had a chance to show a philosopher’s skill in practical politics.

“Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce and curious book, I wrote a note to him, expressing my desire of perusing that book, and requesting he would do me the favour of lending it to me for a few days. He sent it immediately, and I return’d it in about a week with another note, expressing strongly my sense of the favour. When we next met, in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never done before), and with great civility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on all occasions, so that we became great friends and our friendship continued to his death. This is another instance of the truth of an old maxim I had learned, which says ‘He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged.’” (Bigelow’s Franklin from his own Writings, vol. i. p. 260.)

Some people have professed to be very much shocked at this disingenuous trick, as they call it, although perhaps capable of far more discreditable ones themselves. It would be well if no worse could be said of modern practical politics.

I confess to have done similar things myself having been a student of Franklin since I was in high school. (It took me an age to figure out what venery was!) 

There was a mail service in the building where I worked. The mail often contained items of some confidentiality so I asked the our version of a postman to give the letters only to me. Well, a few days passed and the office gossip brought in the letters after having gone through them. I was enraged and decided to go out and tell off the guy. Fortunately this thought passed away instantly as I realized that the busybody would have the letters from then on.

So, the next day I went over and told him how much I appreciated his giving the mail to me only, how it helped me with my work and how few people who did his work would have realized its importance and helped me in the matter. The office busybody never got the mail again. (And the postman and I were buddies from then on.)

Needless to say, I don’t consider Franklin’s action a mean trick. I think it is just a good way to get to know someone.

James Pilant

Benjamin Franklin, Business Ethics, And How To Present An Idea

From the Benjamin Franklin biography by John Torrey Morse, Jr., page 39.

In another enterprise Franklin shrewdly enlisted the boon-companion element on his side, with the result of immediate and brilliant success. He began as usual by reading a paper before the Junto, and through this intervention set the people thinking concerning the utter lack of any organization for extinguishing fires in the town. In consequence the Union Fire Company was soon established, the first thing of the kind in the city. Franklin continued a member of it for half a century. It was thoroughly equipped and efficiently conducted. An item in the terms of association was that the members should spend a social evening together once a month. The example was followed; other companies were formed, and fifty years later Franklin boasted that since that time the city had never “lost by fire more than one or two houses at a time; and the flames have often been extinguished before the house in which they began has been half consumed.”

Franklin does not go out with an idea convinced in advance of its success. He carefully tests his ideas with a chosen audience. The Junto was an association he created of other capable young men. They came together to discuss ideas, exchange information, and to lobby for their interests. The idea for an organization to fight fires made abundant sense but he tested it in front of this chosen audience to gauge its reception.

The Junto gave him a testing ground for his ideas. He could get feedback in a safe environment. If his idea was not well thought out, it will not be reported. If successful, he can then take an idea which has passed muster in an intelligent practical organization and test it out in the community.

One of the things that gets us in trouble is pride. Franklin in his autobiography admits that vanity (pride) was key to much of his success. That he is able to recognize that and give it due credit is amazing. Most of us spend our lives lying about ourselves to everybody including and particularly ourselves. Pride has it proper place as Franklin realizes. But when you have to much you tend to over reach.

The idea for a fire company is so obviously good, it would have been easy to bypass the testing steps. It would have been easy just to expect the idea to sell itself. After all, isn’t everyone afraid of fire and hadn’t the city almost burned down twice within memory? But he still kept to the process of testing and development building a successful execution from the ground up.

Watch how Franklin takes even the best of his ideas and carefully works them into reality. How many of us once convinced of an idea can proceed intelligently and cautiously to build consensus for it? No, generally we tell everyone how great it is and reflect astonishment when disagreed with. We can learn from Franklin’s example.

There is certainly an ethical element in the level of respect he is demonstrating in this process for other opinions, the thoughts and ideas of the other members. He is recognizing the importance of these other individuals in the community. He is celebrating their importance, communicating clearly the importance of their thoughts and their support.

He doesn’t just sell an idea. He build allies, develops friendship and allows others to mature and develop by being his friends and associates.

Can you do that?

James Pilant

Benjamin Franklin, Business Ethics, Newspapers And Teaching

From the John Torrey Morse, Jr. biography of Benjamin Franklin (pages 23-24)

But the famous almanac was not the only pulpit whence Franklin preached to the people. He had an excellent ideal of a newspaper. He got news into it, which was seldom done in those days, and which made it attractive; he got advertisements into it, which made it pay, and which also was a novel feature; indeed, Mr. Parton says that he “originated the modern system of business advertising;” he also discussed matters of public interest. Thus he anticipated the modern newspaper, but in some respects improved in advance upon that which he anticipated. He made his “Gazette” a vehicle for disseminating information and morality, and he carefully excluded from it “all libeling and personal abuse.” The sheet in its every issue was doing the same sort of work as “Poor Richard.” In a word, Franklin was a born teacher of men, and what he did in this way in these his earlier days gives him rank among the most distinguished moralists who have ever lived.

I, myself, am a teacher and a good one. Franklin is very good. He is fond of facts, fascinated with reason and inclined toward discussion, both intelligent and moderate.

But do not think for a moment that Franklin was not willing to be angry or unwilling to use strong language. He knew that civility is not a one way street. He was a leader in revolution, at times, a soldier and a master of spies.

We need Franklin’s example now, more than ever. Franklin believed in virtue, virtue ethics like those practiced by the Greeks. That system says that we do the right thing because it is a better way to live, that it has benefits and we profit by them.

Those benefits are generally internal, how we feel about ourselves, others, this life or the next one. But Franklin takes it to a place where we can see that you can be virtuous and effective, honest and successful, hard-working and prosperous. He takes virtue ethics and shows how when applied with diligence and intelligence, a balanced life is possible.

The Greeks of the Classical Age believed in the moderation in all things. I do not. Neither did Franklin.

However, we can certainly say that Franklin believed in moderation in most things and recommended such to others.

Let that be our lesson today.

James Pilant

Benjamin Franklin, Business Ethics, And A Whistle

Paul Elmer More’s biography of Franklin is one of those books designed to draw moral lessons at every possible point. Nevertheless, on occasion he does well in his almost manic pursuit of moral virtue.

Franklin had a rule – “Don’t give too much for the whistle.” This is why.

When ten years old the lad was taken from school and set to work under his father. But his education was by no means ended. There is a temptation to dwell on these early formative years because he himself was so fond of deducing lessons from the little occurrences of his boyhood; nor do I know any life that shows a more consistent development from beginning to end. There is, too, a peculiar charm in hearing the world-famous philosopher discourse on these petty happenings of childhood and draw from them his wise experience of life. So, for instance, at sixty-six years of age he writes to a friend in Paris the story of “The Whistle.” One day when he was seven years old his pocket was filled with coppers, and he immediately started for the shop to buy toys. On the way he met a boy with a whistle, and was so charmed with the sound of it that he gave all his money for one. Of course his kind brothers and sisters laughed at him for his extravagant bargain, and his chagrin was so great that he adopted as one of his maxims of life, “Don’t give too much for the whistle.” As he grew up, came into the world, and observed the actions of men, he thought he met with many, very many, who gave too much for the whistle,—men sacrificing time and liberty and virtue for court favor; misers, giving up comfort and esteem and the joy of doing good for wealth; others sacrificing every laudable improvement of the mind and fortune and health to mere corporal sensations, and all the other follies of exorbitant desire.

I think the author is a little over enthusiastic in his assessment of the effect of overpriced whistles, but the sentiment is accurate. We often give too much for the wrong things.

James Pilant

The Business Ethics of Benjamin Franklin – Truth, Sincerity, And Integrity

From the Project Gutenberg free book, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin –

Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenc’d the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but, each of them having afterwards wrong’d me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith’s conduct towards me (who was another free-thinker), and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho’ it might be true, was not very useful. My London pamphlet, which had for its motto these lines of Dryden:

“Whatever is, is right. Though purblind man
Sees but a part o’ the chain, the nearest link:
His eyes not carrying to the equal beam,
That poises all above;”

and from the attributes of God, his infinite wisdom, goodness and power, concluded that nothing could possibly be wrong in the world, and that vice and virtue were empty distinctions, no such things existing, appear’d now not so clever a performance as I once thought it; and I doubted whether some error had not insinuated itself unperceiv’d into my argument, so as to infect all that follow’d, as is common in metaphysical reasonings.

I grew convinc’d that truth, sincerity and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity of life; and I form’d written resolutions, which still remain in my journal book, to practice them ever while I lived. Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertain’d an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own natures, all the circumstances of things considered. And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favourable circumstances and situations, or all together, preserved me, thro’ this dangerous time of youth, and the hazardous situations I was sometimes in among strangers, remote from the eye and advice of my father, without any willful gross immorality or injustice, that might have been expected from my want of religion. I say willful, because the instances I have mentioned had something of necessity in them, from my youth, inexperience, and the knavery of others. I had therefore a tolerable character to begin the world with; I valued it properly, and determin’d to preserve it.

I find it difficult to understand why more people particularly in the world of business don’t read Franklin’s Autobiography. It’s a relatively brief book. I can read it easily in a couple of day in my spare time. It’s an easy read. It’s very straightforward writing, a writing style in which you are approached as if you were an old friend.

It is a multitude of good books all in itself. It’s an English book for in it he explains how to develop a writing style and improve it. It’s a book of business advice, explaining how to make a good start, how to maintain a business and how to retire from it. It’s a self help book, laying out a plan of perfections set up daily for the course of a year. It’s a book of politics, where one can learn how to move with assurance through the hallways of power. It’s a community development manual in which the first civic booster in the United States explains how it’s done. It’s a book of science, explaining how to think and how to get results. And it’s possible to keep on going explaining over and over again how it applies to different areas of learning.

In the book we see the beginnings of those attitudes, those thought processes, now considered to be quintessentially American.

It’s worthy of any person’s time.

James Pilant

Do Case Studies In Business Ethics Increase Ethical Behavior?

Only if the examples are of a particular type and taught in a particular way. Back in 2006, a group of professors from a variety of business disciplines got together to teach a class using the examples of Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and Shell.

From the article at SmartPros

At the end of the semester, the number of students in a simulated trading room who were caught in misconduct or misusing information for insider trading was significantly higher than at the beginning. The students said, “You taught us how to do it,” Buono recalled.

“For those of us who’ve spent our careers teaching this, it’s been a disappointing time,” said Buono, who has taught at the Waltham, Mass., college for 27 years. “Some of the most renowned names in the corporate world are now jokes at cocktail parties. And they were led by graduates of our business programs.

Obviously, the teaching of unfortunate case studies is not the best route to ethical behavior. The professors decided to try a new tack and taught examples from a perspective of moral heroism.

Their initial studies indicated some success.

What’s my take? I loath case studies. My favorite example is a case in which the employee is put crossways with his boss over a fairly minor issue that would however, result in the loss of his job. The study goes on to explain that his wife is in the hospital and his children are in an expensive private school. The case study is loaded for one side. It is obvious students will do the correct and moral thing on a test but take away from the class, the real lesson, the lesson of getting along.

In other words, this kind of ethics teaching is negative ethics teaching. This example clearly indicated that a moral life is expensive and damaging to a career, and that it really doesn’t matter anyway. After all, management will get someone to do the immoral act anyway. Just Great! We desperately need a generation of ethically sound business leaders and our business schools can’t even get ethics case studies right.

How much change in the case study movement do you think has happened since 2006? Why do we have case studies anyway? Simple, it is good class discussion and easy to teach. So we wind up with generations of moral phonies, because business ethics teachers are unwilling to do their job because it’s hard.

My contempt for standard textbooks and standard business ethics teaching is hard to put into words. I write my own class material emphasizing individual moral development. Each individual student charts out an ethical course for their life path. As the semester progresses the students are asked what changes occur because of their exposure to Catholic Social Doctrine, etc. An individual with a thought out moral system is much more likely to make the right decision when confronted with an ethical problem. You prepare a student to be a good human being. That’s the heart of teaching. You don’t teach him silly examples that he will quickly discard as not being part of the real world, you teach that a life lived nobly and honestly is better than the other choices.

James Pilant