Rick Marriner
Monday MBA 670
Double Journal Entries 1
Work Presented: Cynthia A. Lengnick, 1988, Summary of The Power of Ethical Management, by Kenneth Blanchard and Norman Vincent Peale, New York: William Morrow & Company.
Objective Points |
Subjective Points |
| Summary: Dr. Lengnick summarizes Blanchard and Peale’s work dealing with the critical issue of ethics in the workplace. The first half of the article describes the instance of moral dilemma business people face in the work place and the balance of the article prescribes tools to arrive at the "right" (ethical) decision. These tools include an "Ethics Check", "the 5 P’s of personal ethics" and their counterparts, "the 5 P’s" of corporate ethics. | I am in general agreement with the concepts in this article. The United States Navy was my first exposure to the study of ethical behavior in situations. This article expands that understanding and provides tools for flexing that rigid moral code into the business setting where, agreeably, there are pressures that are sometimes in opposition to what is right. This article makes a number of assumptions that, I feel, restrict the universality of implementation of the tools prescribed. These assumptions include that a persons internal knowledge of right and wrong and the guilt associated with the wrong actions are an indication of un-ethical behavior. If the reverse then is also true then if a person thinks something is right then it is ethical. It can be argued that peoples view of right and wrong are a function of their nurturing and experience. I believe the tools contained in the article attempted to balanced these assumptions as best they can, but there is still the argument that situational ethics will arise a truer driving factor than the "ideal" ethical behavior. Nonetheless, this article adds a layer of depth to one’s application of ethics in the business environment. |
| Point 1: "Is it naïve to be ethical in today’s complex [competitive] world?" asks the authors. This rhetorical question sets the atmosphere for the article pitting the personal goal of success in the work place against the personal and societal goal of proper ethical behavior. The authors of the original work indicate that short run ethical decisions are pivotal to long run success. | The authors caveat their resounding "no" to this question with the "likely-hood" of success in the "long run". In the business world of the quarterly report I contend that a some what Machiavellian outlook has a higher "success" potential than the ideal short term ethical decision. Again I do not disagree with the ideal and the purpose of the article is to persuade readers to try and attain this ideal. However, in comparing the model against the backdrop of the public company it is safer to be prepared to decide between the lesser of two evils or the more competitively viable of the two if you do not want to quit or be fired. In my own company I believe it is the nature of the Sr. Management to hold ethics in the highest regard. This privately owned corporation is, by my observation, meeting the ideal in the short and long run. (That ethical behavior is part of the owner’s goal statement is in line with the goal of the company to be durable over the long term.) I am thus split on my agreement having the ideal, but willing to sacrifice the "right" for the "Good". As is said in Eastern thought, "There is no right or wrong, but thought that makes them so." |
| Point 2: The first tool presented by the authors is the "ethics checklist". One should ask oneself when making a decision: 1) Is my choice legal?, 2) Is it balanced [fair], and 3) How will I feel after I make it? Blanchard and Peale contend that the first two, legality and fairness to all parties, are prima facia evidence of ethical behavior, however they contend that if the individual who makes the decision is going to feel diminished self-worth, self-esteem or pride then it may not be ethical to pursue that decision. The authors strongly urge the reader to not only to know that an action is ethical, but to act on it. | This is uncharted territory for me personally. With my military training at the academy (Ethics for the Junior Officer, Naval Institute Press, Maryland: 1994) I came to this article convinced that only the first two steps were necessary for decision analysis. Even then, if the decision included an enemy as one of the parties it did not necessarily mean that it was going to be a win-win situation. This third, "How will I feel?" issue is new. I revert back to my previous point in opposition to this as a valid check. As a marine knows, "You do not FEEL soldier you do!" If a person were conditioned enough o decision would make him feel guilt or loss of self-esteem. This kind of conditioning is all together dangerous in the business setting where people are hired to employ their judgment (we hope), but on in a soldier world there may be no feeling, in the short run. On the other hand this explains Post War Trauma. When the shells are done exploding and there is a chance to think about actions done, this "feeling" can crush a person. In end I believe this check list will prove a quick and valid test. |
| Point 3: If the ethics test is a short term solution to the ethics question, then the "5 P’s of Ethical Power" are the long term ethical habit that is the ideal for the individual. They are; purpose, pride, patience, persistence, and perspective. To have a purpose is to not simply to have a set of attainable goals, but rather a set of reasons for being alive. Pride is the learned self-worth that allows a self-trust which in turn allows one’s ability to make the right decision. Patience is the virtue that allows a person the peace of mind to wait for the proverbial long-term benefits of their short term decisions. Persistence is the habit of ethical behavior that is, to the authors, more than just choosing the ethical solution when it is convenient or handy, but making the tough ethical decisions. (It is contended that tough decisions build character.) Perspective is the binding principle that allows a person to sound ideas against their inner morals and values through introspection and contemplation. | How can one not agree with this. In other words as an ideal this is great stuff that makes us all feel warm and fuzzy to think about. Why? Because we can never achieve it, but it is the journey that will be worth while. To have a purpose is to be half-way there. Like Kenneth Blanchard in his lecture series, Mission Possible, I have developed my own life purpose. It is simply, Do important (good) work and develop people (me included). If everything you do is towards this purpose it is by definition ethical. Pride is a conditioned reflex. In my spoiled upbringing I was for years the focus of love and support. This has given me a tremendous pride (bordering on the egotistical side of "false-pride" and fear of failure, but pride nonetheless). Others are not so lucky, it is hopeful though that pride is a learned trait, my loving wife is a good example of how in the right environment one’s self-esteem and self-worth can be built and buttressed. Acting to maintain that self-esteem is by definition ethical, I agree. Patience is the weak link of human nature (at least for me). This virtue is the hardest to learn since one’s sense of time does matures relative to the years one has been around. I can remember waiting for a half an hour for something being forever. Or how two hours at attention during formal military inspections was a decade. But is a person willing to wait years for the pay off for ethical actions now? I am not so sure. Persistence is easier than it seems on the surface. As with any action ethical behavior can become a habit. As the little ditty says:Sow a thought, reap an act,Sow an act, reap a habit,Sow a habit, reap a lifestyle,sow a lifestyle, reap a destiny.Imagine that ideal, an ethical destiny! It is poetic. The last principle then is the prudence of the other four. It puts everything in its place and compares the problem of every day life against a built up structure of internal moral character. This personal sounding board allows for perspective. If one were to just star out in the process of self discovery I would argue that if they were not sure of their own internal values that perspective could be used to compare actions against the outward values and ethics of another person, some one they respect for their character. |
| Point 4: According to the authors, Organizational strategies can and should parallel the 5 principles of personal ethical power. Ethical behavior at the top has a trickle down effect encouraging ethical behavior in all of the ranks. Ethical companies have a high level of cross-commitment and loyalty. The purpose of a company may be to make money, but to do so in a ethical manner. Maintain a companies reputation (pride) is pivotal on it’s perceived behavior. Organizations with patience are able to trust their values to guide people’s decisions. Persistence on the company level manifests itself as honest dealings with customers and employees over the long term. Persistence is the unwillingness for a company to compromise an ethical nature for individual issues. Perspective s the balance between planning and implementation. | Since a corporation is made up of individuals and groups it is the value of those individuals and groups that are the real character of a company. Two specific point in this section stand out. Investing in the development of a companies people will have direct effects on a companies ethical profile. Development is addressed in this section through the use of performance reviews and incentives. Also the nature of organizational perspective is critical. If a companies key managers were caught in the day to day they may not catch the growing trends or possible upcoming opportunity. Taking time to strike a balance between the day to day and blue-sky thinking is an important lesson from this section. I agree and look forward to applying aspect of this in the development of the crews of our ships. |
| Summary: Dr. Lengnick concludes with the analysis of yet another 3 step plan for ethical decision making,. These steps include collecting information, asking the right questions and then inward listening for the "right answer". This leaves then one question that I still have: Given all of this introspection and personal feelings, do we run the risk of situational ethics governing even more strongly than legal or societal ethics? | This final tool does not go any further to answering my question. It is an important question because I feel that it is human nature to balance the outcome with the opportunity and personal risk of being caught heavier than the truly "ethical decision" because we as humans have the innate ability to rationalize anything as "good". If this is universally true then there can be no ethical or un-ethical, that thinking makes them so. |
Designed 08/18/98 |
© All Rights Reserved, MCE |