Of course we need improved ethics: But are organisations getting the basics right to realise this?
Given the obvious need for improved ethics – specifically for organisations to create an ethical workplace culture – it would be ideal to assume that organisations are getting the basics right as regards ethics. But for many organisations, their ethical initiatives are inhibited by a focus that is both limited and inaccurate.
While the current focus on corruption and ethical breaches is understandable, it is noteworthy that this is not mirrored nearly to the same extent by an organisational focus on improving ethics. This limited focus curtails the greater impact that can be realised via a dual approach to ethics encompassing a focus on reducing unethical conduct and on improving ethical conduct.
It is self-evident that focusing on the right issues and the crucial levers are critical in order to realise the organisation’s objectives. Devoting too much attention, time and resources to peripheral or low-impact factors risk undermining the organisation’s intended outcomes.
This principle also applies to workplace ethics.
As regards the primary focus, for the majority of organisations ethics is largely centred on rule-based mechanisms such as legislation, rules, regulations, policies, procedures and checks and balances aimed at compliance and minimising unethical conduct. Much as this focus and the rule-based mechanisms are essential, it is not sufficient to create an ethical organisation. Reducing misconduct does not deliver the benefits which sound ethics and strong, aligned values can deliver.
An analogue that illustrates this point is the question of what the two key factors are that can improve an organisation’s profitability. The answer, of course, is to increase sales/revenue and to decrease costs. The different actions necessary to support these factors are well recognised, as it is widely recognised that increasing sales and revenue is a more sustainable, and hence preferable, path, while cost reduction needs to be balanced against risks such as eroding capacity.
Applying the cost reduction facet of the analogue to ethics translates into a focus on reducing misconduct, for which rule-based mechanisms, in conjunction with fair and consistent enforcement and consequences, are an effective approach. However, the key question is what is the organisation doing to strengthen its values and improve ethics? Given that, as in the profit analogue, this represents a valuable driver of ethical improvement, the answer should not be ‘nothing’.
This positive focus can be realised in a variety of ways. Recognising ethical conduct can be done via a performance management system with ethically aligned KPIs. Recognition programmes, such as an Employee of the Month programme, that include ethical criteria are also effective and easy to implement. Ethics training and awareness initiatives need to extend beyond telling employees what they cannot do (as set out in the organisation’s Code of Conduct) to engaging them in ethical conversations and interventions that encourage ethical reflection and aim to promote better ethical choices.
Strengthening values is also important given that values are one of the primary factors that underpins ethics. Unlike rules and a code of conduct that tell employees what they cannot and should not do, values articulate what is desirable and optimal.
This has added relevance given that employees’ personal values are affected by numerous factors including upbringing, culture and education and hence can differ widely, and that consequently employees’ values can differ from those of the organisation. This not only compromises the ideal goal of aligned personal and organisational values, but introduces risk that can arise, for example, when an employee’s unethical social media post goes viral.
Leadership plays a crucial role in this regard as they should demonstrate the organisation’s values. The positive effect of role models is well illustrated by a recent UK survey which found Sir David Attenborough to be the person whose values and ethics people would most like to see reflected across Britain. In second place was Swedish environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, followed by UK footballer, Marcus Rashford, who is an activist for child poverty and hunger.
As to ethics being inhibited by an inaccurate focus, this rests on the fact that in the vast majority of circumstances employees already know what is right and wrong. Phrased differently, unethical behaviour in the workplace is rarely the results of an absence of knowledge about what is right and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Whether pinching the petty cash or being party to procurement corruption, the perpetrator already knows the conduct is unethical and illegal.
Yet ethics initiatives are mostly directed at building or improving employees’ knowledge.
What this focus ignores is a crucial ethical perspective, that being an understanding ethics as a ‘knowing-doing gap’. This perspective recognises that despite employees having a sound knowledge and understanding of what constitutes ethical and unethical conduct, it will not necessarily translate into ethical conduct. In some cases this knowing-doing divide is not merely a gap – it appears to be a vast chasm.
The implication of this concept is that the primary ethical focus area should be on that crucial space between knowing and doing, specifically on positively influencing the choices employees make – good and right versus bad and wrong. This does not invalidate a focus on building and maintaining good levels of ethical awareness and understanding. But the pivotal factor is ethical choice since this is a key determinant of employees’ actions.
As to whether improving ethics beyond Ethics 101 can make a difference, consider the C3 effect. For every employee who is positively influenced ethically, it makes a difference in that company. When those employees take their ethical lessons and ethical commitment home, they have the potential to impact their communities. And for each community that improves, it makes a difference to the ethical fabric of our country.
By Cynthia Schoeman
© Ethics Monitoring & Management Services (Pty) Ltd, 2020