Workplace Ethics Advice

Workplace Violence on the Rise

What can Employers do to slow the Rising Tide of Workplace Violence?

The issue of workplace violence became a subject of media attention after the series of Post Office murders that occurred throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While such shootings are relatively rare, the impact of non-fatal workplace violence is significant, with the FBI estimating in 2011 that such crimes cost the American workforce approximately $36 billion per year.

The U.S. Department of Labor defines workplace violence as “any threat or act of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at [a] worksite.” The FBI further separates workplace violence into four categories based on victim-perpetrator relationship. These depend on whether a perpetrator: has no prior relation to an establishment or its employees (Type I); is a patron of an establishment (Type II); is a current or former employee (Type III); or is having a personal relationship with an employee (Type IV).

Although men who are victimized while working are more likely to be attacked by a stranger, women are more likely to be attacked by someone known to them. Five percent (5%) of the women victimized at work are attacked by a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend. One-sixth of workplace homicides of women are committed by a spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. For every murder, there are numerous rapes and assaults that often leave victims battered and disabled. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, boyfriends and husbands, current and former, commit more than 13,000 acts of violence against women in the workplace every year.

Last August, Steven Ercolino died after being shot five times outside the Empire State Building in New York. Police identified the shooter as Jeffrey Johnson. Former co-workers, Johnson reportedly blamed Ercolino for the loss of his job as a clothing designer two years ago. Last September, Andrew Engeldinger was fired from his job -- and returned to the Minneapolis sign company where he worked and according to police shot five people. Reports stated that he was targeting management people.

While these are isolated events, the question is whether there are ways to protect yourself and your co-workers from a potentially unstable peer? I recently read about such advice from Park Dietz, M.D., Ph.D. and president of the Threat Assessment Group in Newport Beach, California, who has testified and consulted on some of the most notable cases of workplace and school violence in recent history, including the attempt on the life of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the massacre at Columbine, and a previous shooting at the Empire State building. His company helps companies, schools and government agencies prepare for and prevent violence in the workplace. Here's what he says we should all know:

According to Park Dietz, short of violence in progress, nothing is a reliable sign that someone is about to "erupt." He says the idea of someone "just snapping" is a media fiction. Every case of an employee or former employee who did serious harm to a coworker has a long history of less serious early and late phase warning signs that were not adequately managed, often because no one reported what they knew to a manager who knew what to do.

Dietz says the early indicators, such as emotional outbursts, secretiveness, or attendance problems are good predictors of poor performance, job loss, and a need for the kinds of services available from employee assistance programs, but they are poor predictors of violence. The late indicators, such as stalking, paranoid accusations of a conspiracy, or overt threats to harm someone are fairly obvious, but even these may not get reported to a manager who knows what to do until it is too late.

Studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and other organizations show that employers who implement effective safety measures can reduce the incidence of workplace violence. These measures include training employees on workplace violence, encouraging employees to report assaults or threats, and conducting workplace violence hazard analyses. Other methods such as using entrance door detectors or buzzer systems in retail establishments, and providing adequately trained staff, alarms and employee "safe rooms" for use during emergencies in healthcare settings can help minimize risk.

If you are concerned as a manger about the potential for violence in your workplace, the best way to handle it is to immediately report any behavior of concern to human resources, security, or the manager in charge of your facility. If your company has received competent training, they will take it from there and will do everything reasonably possible to keep your safety -- along with that of other employees and visitors -- paramount in their decision-making. It can make it more difficult for the company to safely manage the situation if someone unnecessarily involves the police, obtains a restraining order, or starts spreading rumors, so report your concerns to management and avoid discussing them with your peers.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 5, 2013

Is Whistleblowing an Ethical Practice?

A response to 'Is Whistleblowing an Ethical Practice?' by Ranjana Lal, a student at the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand

From time to time I receive a blog response that is more in the way of an essay commenting on one of my blogs. Typically, these essays are part of a university assignment to comment on a blog of interest. What follows is the essay by Ranjana Lal, a student at the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. I have included my response to Ranjana below. Ranjana first wrote to me and said: “I’m currently doing a Business Ethics paper from the Open Polytechnic of New Zealand this semester and one of our assignment requirements is to comment on a Blog on one of the related topics in Business Ethics.   Below is my comment on ‘Is Whistle-blowing an ethical action’.”

You ask ‘is whistle-blowing an ethical action’?

Whistle-blowing always involves an actual or at least declared intention to prevent something bad that would otherwise occur. It always involves information that would not ordinarily be revealed.

Looking at the conclusions and certain criteria given by many ethicists, whistle-blowing is an ethical action. According to the standard theory – Michael Davis ‘Some Paradoxes of Whistle-blowing’ (Davis 1996) points that whistle-blowing is morally required when it is required at all; people have a moral obligation to prevent serious harm to others if they can do so with little costs to themselves. The action is morally justified when it meets the requiring five criteria. In his complicity theory, Davis states that because the whistle-bower is complicit in wrong doing rather than from the ability to prevent harm. There is a moral obligation to help right the situation.

I would also like to draw attention to the Utilitarian theory; the main question with Utilitarian is to which option for action will help produce the greatest amount of happiness and least harm? To support my answer from a general perspective in a case of fraudulent reporting behaviour, the option for a Utilitarian would be, to say nothing in the first place, secondly report the matter to the immediate manager and lastly blow the whistle externally – report outside the organisation.

Looking at these option and analysing the possible outcomes, saying nothing would likely result in the continuing fraudulent behaviour and if the fraud is discovered by any other means, this could cause a damaging effect for the ‘whistle-blower’. Also every employee has an obligation to report any such behaviour to their employer.

The second option – reporting the matter to the immediate manager could result in stopping the fraud, praise for both the ‘whistle-blower’ and the manager. The likely harm would be the loss of the employee who committed the fraud and possibly the ’whistle-blower’ not being trusted by fellow co-workers in the future. Lastly external ‘whistle-blowing’ reporting the fraud outside of the organisation would only result in publicity for the organisation, financial loss for the stakeholders. The only likely positive result from this action would be the ending of the fraudulent behaviour.

The Utilitarian would be morally obliged to the take the second option- report the matter to the immediate manager, as this would likely bring about the most happiness and least harm. Hence in a ‘general’ context and testing the Utilitarian theory, the second option reporting to the immediate manager is the morally correct action to take.

Further in the article you mention a person’s conscience of basic core values such as honesty, trustworthiness and integrity and so did the whistle-blower live up to the ethical standards whilst reporting.  (Duska, 1983) in his article ‘Whistle-blowing and Employee Loyalty’ argues that there is no obligation to loyalty because companies or businesses are not kind of things which are proper objects of loyalty.

It is not possible to be loyal to business as they produce a good or service which makes profit. He points out that people bound together in a business are not bound together for mutual fulfilment and support, but to divide labour so the business makes a profit. Loyalty lies in the existence of a relationship in which there is emotion, trust and confidence. Hence if there is no loyalty to a business or company because there is not emotional attachment how can one be disloyal?

I see an employment relationship as being based on the employment agreement signed by both parties unless loyalty is specified as a clause. There is no obligation from either side for it to be more than what the agreement is, so if whistle-blowing is an immoral action it means you are not fulfilling the terms of the contracted agreement you have with your employer.  For example, if you are disregarding you duties in order to seek out company wrong doing.  The deontologist might say that the rule ‘You should neglect your duties’ cannot be made universal so therefore the action cannot be morally right. A consequentialist still might argue that the harm caused to the company by the employee’s neglect is not as significant as the harm caused by the company’s wrongdoing to the community so therefore the action of whistle-blowing is an ethical action after attempting to right the wrong through internal means.

The significant point is whether the action of whistle-blowing reveals a company’s unlawful practice. If a company has not committed any offence and there is no benefit to either the whistle-blower or the community and the action has potential harm. If this is the case than Davis’ ‘standard’ theory (S4-S5) rule would apply, which is the “whistle-blower has evidence that would convince a reasonable, unbiased observer that his or her views of the threat is correct and has good reasons to believe that revealing the threat will most likely prevent the harm at reasonable cost” (P7).

So, when you ask ‘is whistle-blowing an ethical action’? In conclusion I do believe that whistle-blowing is an ethical action if done in the correct manner and also done for correct reasons because morally it is the correct thing to do, to prevent something bad that would have otherwise occurred.  As for incentivizing whistle-blowing, I believe it should be encouraged as long as the whistle-blower is acting with integrity and the intention is to prevent harm.

Article written by Ranjana Lal, Open Polytechnic of New Zealand

Comments written by Steven Mintz, Ethics Sage, on May 20, 2013

2013 Ethisphere Most Ethical Companies

The Case of McDonald’s: Corporate vs. Personal Responsibility

I have been a frequent critic of businesses and business practice in my ethics sage and workplace ethics blogs so to be fair I am devoting this blog to the 2013 Ethisphere Institute’s “Most Ethical Companies around the World.”

The Ethisphere Institute is a think-tank organization that focuses on business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anti-corruption and sustainability.  Since 2007, Ethisphere has published a list of the world’s most ethical companies. In 2013, the list includes 140 companies including 43 international companies.

Of the 140 businesses recognized, 23 have received this honor every year since the list was first published including Aflac, American Express, General Electric, Patagonia and Starbucks.

Starbucks was the only company in the restaurants and cafes category to make the list this year. The last time another restaurant or cafe was recognized as one of the world’s most ethical companies was in 2009 when McDonald’s joined Starbucks on the list.  

The way the process works is a responsible employee, such as one in charge of corporate social responsibility, corporate governance, compliance and/or ethics, completes a questionnaire nominating a company. Ethisphere then look for signs of “ethical business leadership” including:

• Companies that proactively engage with the communities in which they serve, impact, or operate
• Companies that invest in innovation, quality and sustainable business practices that reduce resource consumption in the production or use of their products and/or increase consumer health or safety
• Companies that leverage relative positions of influence to affect positive industry change
• Companies that look strategically to profit fairly from such ethical leadership business practices, as ultimately only profit ensures continuance of desired institutional behavior.

Ethisphere does have some checks and balances in deciding on those that make the list including whether a member of leadership was named in a class-action lawsuit, was under government investigation or was a defendant in a serious civil action. These must be disclosed to Ethisphere.

I agree with Ethisphere on the ranking criteria and applaud the Institute for its efforts to improve ethical leadership of companies around the world. Ethical business practices don’t just earn a business a spot on Ethisphere’s list of the World’s Most Ethical Companies, these practices can also help in the long-term success of a business.  Companies that are committed to the standards set by the Ethisphere Institute are likely to attract and retain the most talented employees.  

I also applaud Ethisphere for removing McDonald’s from the list after one year. While it was a long time ago, we all remember the 1994 product liability lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants) known as the McDonald's coffee case. It became a flashpoint in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.86 million to Stella Liebeck, who suffered third degree burns in her pelvic region when she spilled hot coffee. The jury damages included $160,000 to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages after finding the coffee was hotter than industry standards allowed. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount.

More relevant is a number of lawsuits filed against McDonald’s for health and employment conditions. Some of the cases are laughable but some may be legitimate.

On March 14, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against McDonald’s alleging that a child ate a used condom he found in the play area of one of the chain’s Chicago restaurants. The suit was filed on behalf of Anishi Spencer and her two sons, who were 3 and 2 years old at the time of the alleged incident in February 2012. This suit sounds a bit strange to me although it can’t be dismissed without a full hearing of the case. One would think, for example, that if the child became ill as a result of eating the condom and he went to an emergency room for treatment, the claims can be verified. Although I am not that naïve as to think the condom might have been placed in the playground by Spencer as a way to cash out on McDonalds’ desire to avoid bad publicity.

Then there is Shelley Lynn, who sued McDonald’s on March 28, 2012, along with her ex-husband, Keith Handley, and his restaurant company, Ivernia, in federal court in California. She claims that she met her ex while working the counter at McDonald’s, but that she was soon forced into working as a hooker. According to Lynn’s complaint, McDonald’s “failed to conduct a due diligence into the moral character of Handley when it sold franchises to him.”

Lynn claims McDonald’s “failed to properly supervise and train Handley, as a direct result of which Handley used his position as an employer and conspired with his corporation Ivernia to coerce and bribe two of Ivernia’s employees to make false statements against Lynn during Handley’s dissolution and to suppress relevant evidence he had disclosed about himself. Handley also engaged in pimping operations out of the McDonald’s franchises he owned,” according to the complaint.

On June 28, 2012, Marquita Thompson, who worked at a Chicago McDonald's, filed a lawsuit against franchisee DKA Enterprises LLC for circumstances surrounding her termination. Thompson claims she complained to restaurant management on several occasions that she believed the restaurant was in violation of Illinois public health related policies because of insect and vermin infestations in the restaurant. She was subsequently terminated. This is a serious matter as it may implicate McDonald’s in a whistleblower’s lawsuit.

Thompson alleges she made repeated verbal complaints and reports to her superiors – including the restaurant's general manager – about unsafe and unsanitary conditions around the restaurant's food storage and preparation areas and the employee break room. She claims she was informed by management that they would "take care of it."

The defendants have admitted in their court filings that Thompson had, in fact, informed the general manager of her concerns about the situation.

On or about June 25, 2010, Thompson claims she reported to the general manager that she saw a cockroach on her own salad. She believes this angered her general manager and claims she was fired shortly thereafter.

This was the second time in less than a year that a complaint has been filed against a McDonald’s franchise held by an entity owned by Darrell Winbush and Katina Winbush. Another complaint was filed against MRA Restaurants LLC, owned by the Winbush's, in late 2011, by former employee Melondy Paul, who alleges that she was berated and then terminated after informing restaurant management she was pregnant. If true, this could lead to a wrongful termination lawsuit against McDonald’s.

Finally, on July 23, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against McDonald’s and other fast food chains (Caesar Barber v. McDonald’s Corporation, et. al.)  seeking damages for the medical conditions of Barber brought on by consuming these corporations’ products. This case was dismissed in 2003 “without prejudice,” but never refiled. I put this lawsuit in the ridiculous category because it contends that a restaurant could be responsible for the physical condition of an unhealthy person. This case, and the hot coffee case, raise excellent ethical questions about one’s personal responsibility to make healthy decisions versus a “nanny state” mentality.

The bottom line is we live in a litigious society and each of us has to look deep inside our soul before bringing a lawsuit against any company for selling an “unsafe” product that we choose to use or eat all the while aware that it may cause health issues for us down the road.

I end this blog like so many with a quote by a famous person. In this case it is by Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on April 3, 2013

‘Queen Bees’ in the Workplace: What is the Role of Successful Women?

"Queen Bee Syndrome" Stifles Growth of Women in the Workplace

Last Friday I read an article in the Wall Street Journal titled “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.” It raised some interesting points about the role and responsibilities of women who make it big in corporate America with respect to serving as role models and mentors to younger woman at the entry level. The story did not paint a very flattering picture of how successful women, or “Queen Bees,” were treating their hives of followers who hope to benefit from the experiences and wisdom gained by women in top leadership positions.

Peggy Drexler points out in the article that the term "queen bee syndrome" was coined in the 1970s, following a study led by researchers at the University of Michigan who examined promotion rates and the impact of the women's movement on the workplace. In a 1974 article they presented their findings, based on more than 20,000 responses to reader surveys. They found that women who achieved success in male-dominated environments were at times likely to oppose the rise of other women. This occurred, they argued, largely because the patriarchal culture of work encouraged the few women who rose to the top to become obsessed with maintaining their authority.

Fast forward to more current times and we find a 2007 survey of 1,000 American workers released by the San Francisco-based Employment Law Alliance. It found that 45% of respondents had been bullied at the office—verbal abuse, job sabotage, misuse of authority, deliberate destruction of relationships—and that 40% of the reported bullies were women. In 2010, the Workplace Bullying Institute, a national education and advocacy group, reported that female bullies directed their hostilities toward other women 80% of the time—up 9% since 2007. Male bullies, by contrast, were generally equal-opportunity tormentors.

A 2011 survey of 1,000 working women by the American Management Association found that 95% of them believed they were undermined by another woman at some point in their careers. According to a 2008 University of Toronto study of nearly 1,800 U.S. employees, women working under female supervisors reported more symptoms of physical and psychological stress than did those working under male supervisors.

Drexler points out the dilemma for women today. As the old male-dominated workplace has been transformed, many have hoped that the rise of female leaders would create a softer, gentler kind of office, based on communication, team building and personal development. But instead, some women are finding their professional lives dominated by high school "mean girls" all grown up: women with something to prove and a precarious sense of security.

What makes these queen bees so effective and aggravating is that they are able to exploit female vulnerabilities that men may not see, using tactics that their male counterparts might never even notice. Some examples where expectations were not met include: a new employee assumes her female boss might want to help foster her growth out of some sense of female solidarity; another seeks out work at a magazine specifically because she admires the editor’s writings and thinks her career will benefit; and then there is the rising star who is waylaid by purposefully poor performance evaluations.

In a world where there are still relatively few women in positions of power -- just 2% of Fortune 500 CEOs and 16% of boards of directors -- it is an understandable assumption that the rise of one would mean the ouster of another. ‘One plus one equals one.’

Women executives tell me that though it is getting easier to be a professional woman, it is by no means easy. Some women—especially in industries that remain male-dominated—assume that their position and status may be pulled from beneath them at any given moment (and many times, they are indeed encouraged to feel this way). Made to second-guess themselves, they try to ensure their own dominance by keeping others, especially women, down.

The result is a distinctive strain of negative leadership traits—less overtly confrontational than their domineering male counterparts but bullying just the same. Comments on appearance or dress are part of their repertoire—something that would be seen more obviously as harassment when coming from a man—as are higher, sometimes even unreasonable, expectations for performance. Women who have risen in male-dominated fields may want to tell themselves that their struggle and success were unique. As a result they sometimes treat the performance of females who follow as never quite good enough.

Drexler also notes that it cuts both ways, though: Women aren't always the best employees to other women either. Female subordinates can show less respect and deference to female bosses than to their male bosses.

Studies have shown that women are critical of female bosses who are not empathetic. They also tend to resent female bosses who adopt a brusque and assertive management style, even as they find it perfectly acceptable for male bosses. And so they question and push back, answering authority with attitude.

The bottom line is women have to work twice as hard as men to achieve the same position. They always have faced challenges from men who seem stuck in the 1950s and 60s, before things grudgingly started to change. And now we find out their mentors feel threatened and may do whatever it takes to hold onto to what they have accomplished. That is unfortunate because one sign of a social responsibility and civic duty is to pave the path for those who come after you so that they can achieve more than you ever dreamed possible. Isn’t that what a good parent does for his or her child? Why should there be different standards in corporate America?

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 6, 2013

Office Romances: A Good Idea?

Employer-Employee Issues in Office Romances

Today is Valentine's Day. What better time to talk about workplace romances.

Dating in the workplace is a bad idea and can lead to severe consequences for both parties. A serious dating relationship may turn sexual and add another layer of ethical dilemma if and when the relationship goes south. Office romances can stifle productivity, lead to sexual harassment charges, and destroy the workplace environment. My advice is do not get started in the first place; don’t take that first step down the proverbial “ethical slippery slope.” That said, office romances can and will continue to occur. So, here is my take on the practice and how it can affect employees and the employer.

An office romance is a relationship between two individuals employed by the same company that advances beyond the socially acceptable employer-employee association and the work-related duties that require their interaction. The relationship can be of a sexual nature where employees engage in activities in and outside work or where one employee makes sexually suggestive remarks about the other. The danger of the latter is in creating a “hostile work environment” that might lead to a claim of sexual harassment. In fact, that is the biggest danger of having an office romance. If the affair blows up so may the workplace environment. It could lead to one employee doing everything and anything to avoid the other; difficulties in getting work done when working together; and, in the extreme, cyber-bullying.

The truth is office romance is inevitable because people work closely together for hours and can get to know each other in an intimate way that leads to sexual advances. The real question is should employers try to stop them?

Dating in the workplace has become commonplace. According to a 2011 survey by the job search website CareerBuilder.com, 38% of workers say they’ve dated a colleague at some point in their careers. Nearly a third say they married the person they dated at work. Another career website, Vault.com, found that 59% of respondents had dated a colleague at least once during their career.

And fewer workers are keeping their romances secret. CareerBuilder found that 63% of workers who have office relationships are public with them, compared with 46% six years ago. The survey of 7,000 workers was conducted for CareerBuilder by Harris Interactive.

If you “must” engage in an office romance, avoid a supervisor-supervisee relationship. Especially for the person in the supervisor’s seat, such a relationship is potentially career-destroying. The supervisee may feel that he or she can’t say no for fear of the consequences with respect to the job, promotion, and performance evaluation. A word to the wise: Do not date within your department in order to create a barrier between what happens inside and outside the office.

Can anything be done from the employers’ perspective to reign in the practice? Of course, office romance can be prohibited but that is unlikely to make a difference when hormones are raging. An employer should require employees to report dating relationships to the HR department, not to prevent them necessarily but to make both parties aware and sign-off that they are engaging in a consensual relationship. It is like a prenup for an office romance. Moreover, if the company has a sexual harassment policy, they should make it clear they understand the rules.

Most office romances end, some with lingering awkwardness when one member of the couple wishes that the romance could continue and the other does not. The “dangerous liaison” syndrome is likely to disrupt the workplace. Patterns of distrust emerge. Sides are taken. Reputations are damaged. The possibilities of retaliation and retribution threaten every assignment and evaluation. Lawyers.com found that the fear of reprisal after a romance ends affects 67 percent of those who have been so involved.

Here is my final advice. Before you take the plunge consider how you would feel if you lost your job. Everyone who has experienced heartbreak knows that proximity to an ex can be unbearable. All too often, say experts, failed office romances result in one person leaving the job–willfully or not.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 14, 2013

Incentivizing Whistleblowing in the Workplace

Blog Response of Steven King a Student at The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand

The following blog is from a reply to my blog on "Incentivizing Whistleblowing in the Workplace." Steven King, a student at The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, sent in the reply for a business ethics assignment. Given the thoroughness of his reply and counterpoint to my original one posted on February 8, 2012, I dedcided to post it as a separate blog. Thank you, Steven, for your contribution.

Firstly, I would like to address your point concerning the importance
of motives when considering whether an act of whistleblowing is
morally justifiable. Your statement, “I believe it [whistleblowing]
is an ethically acceptable practice as long as the whistle-blower,
first and foremost, is motivated to act in the public interest and
with the intent to right a wrong” implies that in order for an act of
whistleblowing to be morally justified it must be done for the right
intentions. Hence, your argument states that for whistleblowing to be
ethically acceptable, it must be done out of moral duty (or based on
morally permissible motives) rather then for selfish motives such as
for financial reward or to exact revenge upon an organisation for some
wrong doing. I would disagree with this argument and argue that it is
not necessary to have morally appropriate motivations in order for an
act of whistleblowing to be morally justified. From a utilitarianism
viewpoint, an act of whistleblowing would be morally permissible if
the option to blow the whistle would produce the greatest amount of
happiness and the least amount of harm regardless of what the motives
behind the action are (Open Polytechnic, 2012). That is to say that
from a utilitarianism position it is possible to perform an action
that is morally justifiable for immoral motives (Carson, Verdu and
Wokutch, 2008). To use an example, let’s suppose an employer was
involved in some unlawful activity that would harm a significant
number of people if it was not made public. If an employee was to
blow the whistle in order to exact revenge upon their employer for
some prior wrong doing, despite saving a significant number of people
from harm in the process, would the act of whistleblowing be morally
wrong because it saves people from harm for the wrong reasons? (Carson
et al., 2008) It would seem illogical to say that making the right
decision for the wrong reasons makes the decision wrong (Bouville,
2008). To conclude this point, I would argue that motives are
irrelevant when considering the morality of an action and instead
motives are more likely to determine the moral worth of the agent
acting as appose to whether or not the action itself is ethical or not
(Carson et al., 2008).

Moreover, let’s suppose that the act of incentivizing whistleblowing
indeed turns out to have a morally corrupting affect on potential
whistleblowers, leading some employees to “spy on company actions,
aggressively trace questionable transactions, and gather evidence of
wrongdoing even if it has nothing to do with that employee’s job
responsibilities” and hence results in an increase in cases of
whistleblowing based on selfish motives. Even so, I would argue that
the act of incentivizing whistleblowing is morally right on the
grounds that the overall benefit to the public (by motivating
potential whistleblowers and deterring unethical behavior) would far
outweigh the harm caused by morally corrupting certain whistleblowers.
For instance, in cases where potential whistleblowers who have
genuine moral motives for blowing the whistle but who otherwise would
not have blown the whistle out of fear of reprisal or fear of loosing
their career, by incentivizing whistleblowing, this will likely
encourage those to blow the whistle who would not have done so
otherwise (Carson et al., 2008). So although there will likely be
cases of ‘employee spying’ and incidences of whistleblowing based on
selfish motives, these incidences will likely be countered by an
increase in morally motivated whistleblowing cases that otherwise
would not have been reported. Most importantly, this is likely to
create a powerful deterrent for unethical behavior by business.
Hence, by motivating potential whistleblowers (and most importantly
deterring unethical behavior from business), this will increase the
likeliness that the public will be saved from harm and hence the
overall benefit to the public good would far outweigh any harm caused
by morally corrupting potential whistleblowers.

Finally, I would disagree with your statement, “From an ethical
perspective this would be wrong as it violates the loyalty obligation
of an employee to the employer” and argue that an employee does not
have a moral obligation of loyalty to their employer at all on the
grounds that a corporation is not the type of entity that can be an
object of loyalty (Duska, 1990). For instance, obligations of loyalty
can only exist between real people who have entered into a special
relationship with one another such as relationships between family
members or friends. In these relationships where obligations of
loyalty exist, the loyalty works both ways and hence both parties are
bound together for the mutual enrichment of each party (Duska, 1990).
In contrast, a relationship between an employee and a company is not
bound by mutual enrichment but for the self interest of each party.
That is, a company is in the relationship to make a profit, whilst the
employee is in the relationship to get paid (Duska, 1990). Because
loyalty is a tie between two parties that requires each party to
sacrifice self-interest, it is for this reason that a corporation
cannot be an object of loyalty and hence an employee does not owe an
obligation of loyalty to their employer (Duska, 1990). This does not
mean to say that whistleblowing does not require moral justification
at all, but instead, in my view, an act of whistleblowing cannot be
deemed morally unjustifiable on the grounds that it undermines an
employees’ obligation of loyalty to their employer.

References:

Bouville, M. (2008). Whistle-blowing and Morality. Journal of Business
Ethics, 81, 579-585.

Carson, T. L., Verdu, M. E. & Wokutch, R. E. (2008). Whistle-blowing
for Profit: An Ethical Analysis of the Federal False Claims Act.
Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 361-376.

Duska, R. F. (1990). Whistleblowing and employee loyalty. In J. R.
Desjardins & J. J. McCall (Eds.), Contemporary issues in business
ethics (2nd ed., pp. 142-147). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.

The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2012). 71203 Business Ethics.
Lower Hutt, NZ: Author.

Blog posted on Februaty 11, 2013

Buying Professors

Do Donors have a Right to Select Recipients of Funded Professorships?

Academic freedom fosters an independent academic voice and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Universities exist to promote the public interest, and not to further the interest of the individual professor or the institution as a whole [or, by implication, any donor firm]. A recent alarming trend in academic circles is donating money to institutions of higher learning with ideological strings attached.

The latest example of infringement on academic independence in decision-making is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that pledged $1.5 million to Florida State University, to endow two professorships. So far so good, but the problem is it is not a regular endowment, where a person gives a college or university money and they use the money to hire someone. The Koch professorships are the kind where a person gives the college or university money and then tells the institution whom they can and cannot hire based on prospective candidates’ adherence to the donor’s self-serving wealth-worshiping ideology.

Although the deal was signed in 2008 with little public controversy, the issue was recently revived when two Florida State professors criticized the fellowship agreement in the Tallahassee Democrat as an affront to academic freedom.

Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, faculty only retain an illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it is not happy with the faculty's choice or if the hires do not meet "objectives" set by Koch during annual evaluations. During the first round of hiring in 2009, Koch rejected nearly 60 percent of the faculty’s suggestions but ultimately agreed on two candidates.

Looking at it from the donor’s perspective if you are going to spend a lot of money endowing a professorship, it is only rational to ensure that the professor whose salary you are paying advances your interests. When the Koch’s invested millions in George Mason University, they got the influential anti-environmental regulation nonprofit Mercatus Center out of the deal. Florida State has accepted donor-directed fellowships before from the BB&T bank that require the university to teach “Atlas Shrugged” in a business ethics class.

David W. Rasmussen, dean of the College of Social Sciences at Florida State, defended the deal. He said hiring the two new assistant professors allows him to offer eight additional courses a year. "I'm sure some faculty will say this is not exactly consistent with their view of academic freedom,'' but it seems to me it would have been irresponsible not to do it."

Given the cutbacks in funding by public and private sources, most universities today accept gifts for the purpose of creating an endowed chair, professorship, or faculty fellowship positions. University faculty may be eligible to hold one of these positions to enhance their contribution to teaching, research and public service.

Endowed chairs, professorships, and faculty fellowships typically carry the name of the donor, of a person or institution designated by the donor, or of a person in whose name the University seeks funds to endow the position. However, the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, chancellor, or dean determines the appointment and length of term for each position based on the memorandum of agreement with the donor. Once endowed chairs, professorships, or faculty fellowships are established, a designated University administrator is responsible for ensuring the endowment funds are expended in accordance with the terms of the endowment and for providing periodic reports on the status of the position and nature of activities to the donor.

One of the problems with the growing trend toward commercialism in today’s universities is that it exacerbates the already growing trend of placing increased emphasis on bringing in funds through grant-related projects and commercial arrangements, without considering the ethics of such activities. For example, accepting funds from private donors and commercial interests may lead to compromising objective decision making if, for example, the donor/commercial supporter expects in return for the funding that the university will slant its curriculum in a way that supports the goals of the donor.

Koch, a conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business, has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on January 26, 2013

Occupational Fraud in the Workplace on the Rise

Is it Ethical for an Employer to Monitor Social Networking by Employees?

I have previously blogged about increasing workplace pressure (13% of workers say it exists) and retaliation against workers (22%) who blow the whistle on wrongdoing. These results appear in the 2011 National Business Ethics Survey (NBES). In this blog I report the results of a survey by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) about occupational fraud in the workplace. Occupational fraud is a growing problem and costs business a lot of money each year.

The ACFE report focuses on occupational fraud schemes in which an employee abuses the trust placed in him by an employer for personal gain. The ACFE defines occupational fraud as “the use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets.” A summary of the findings follows.

• Survey participants estimated that the typical organization loses 5% of its revenues to fraud each year
• The median loss caused by the occupational fraud cases studied was $140,000
• The frauds reported lasted a median of 18 months before being detected
• Asset misappropriation schemes were the most common type of occupational fraud, comprising 87% of the reported cases
• Financial statement fraud schemes made up just 8% of the cases, but caused the greatest median loss at $1 million
• Occupational fraud is more likely to be detected by a tip than by any other method
• Corruption and billing schemes pose the greatest risks to organizations throughout the world
• The presence of anti-fraud controls is correlated with significant decreases in the cost and duration of occupational fraud schemes
• Perpetrators with higher levels of authority tend to cause much larger losses
• The longer a perpetrator has worked for an organization, the higher fraud losses tend to be
• In 81% of the cases, the fraudster displayed one or more behavioral red flags that are often associated with fraudulent activities
• Nearly half of the victim organizations do not recover any losses they suffer due to fraud.

One of the reasons occupational fraud is on the rise is a changing ethic in the U.S. whereby the organization is a faceless entity. The entity and its management are increasingly separated from the workers; the pay disparity between top managers and the average workers has grown to greater than 300 to 1. The organization does not care about me, so why should I care about it? Of course, apathy explains part of the growing occupational fraud. Another contributing factor is we see some managers getting away with fraud so why not us? For example, very few managers have been prosecuted for their roles in causing the 2008-2009 financial meltdown.

Last week I received a question from a reader who asked if I thought it was ethical for an organization to monitor personal use of social networking sites by employees while at work. I said I did because it is no different than calling in sick when you are not or cheating on an expense report. Social networkers who use the Internet (for personal reasons) on the employer’s time are being paid for work not done. In fact, the NBES survey indicates it is a growing problem. It was one of the top five most frequently observed types of misconduct reported in 2011 with 16% of employees violating company internet use policies.

Most of the active networkers who reported misconduct say they experienced retaliation as a result: 56 percent compared to just 18 percent of less active social networkers and non-networkers. The perceived misuse of company resources to vent one’s concerns about an employer may play into these results. The NBES survey also indicates that active social networkers show a higher tolerance for certain activities that could be considered questionable. For example, among active social networkers, half feel it is acceptable to keep copies of confidential work documents in case they need them in their next job compared to only 15 percent of their colleagues.

Employees have to turn off their cell phones and not access the Internet while at work. It is difficult today given that so many people can’t seem to put the phone down while driving. Sometimes I wonder whether some people are having a cell phone conversation, texting, updating their Facebook page, or otherwise accessing the Internet while at sleep. Who knows, in a year or two that may be possible.

My advice is to focus more attention on interpersonal relationships. Stop texting so much. Stop cell-phoning so much. Go see a friend or business associate in person; talk, get to know the person on a personal level.

We have become a de-personalized society. I believe that is one of the reasons no one came to the aid of Ki-Suck Han last week as he struggled to get off the tracks while an oncoming train in the NYC subway was heading toward certain death for Mr. Han.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on December 12, 2012

 

 

 

Workplace Bullying

What to do if you feel you are Being Bullied

Workplace bullying refers to repeated, unreasonable actions of individuals (or a group) directed towards an employee (or a group of employees), which are intended to intimidate, degrade, humiliate, or undermine, or which create a risk to the health or safety of the employee(s) including physical and emotional stress. Workplace bullying often involves an abuse or misuse of power. Bullying behavior creates feelings of defenselessness and injustice in the target and undermines an individual’s right to dignity at work. Bullying is different from aggression. Whereas aggression may involve a single act, bullying involves repeated attacks against the target, creating an on-going pattern of behavior. “Tough” or “demanding” bosses are not necessarily bullies as long as they are respectful and fair and their primary motivation is to obtain the best performance by setting high yet reasonable expectations for working safely.

Examples of workplace bullying include:

• Unwarranted or invalid criticism
• Blame without factual justification
• Being treated differently than the rest of your work group
• Being sworn at/shouted at/ or humiliated
• Exclusion or social isolation
• Excessive monitoring or micro-managing
• Being given work unrealistic deadlines

A real-life example reported to “Bully-free Workplace” tells the story of an employee who said she had become a target shortly after a co-worker made a false allegation against her.  Her manager began a campaign to drive her out of the workplace by replacing her duties with menial tasks, denying time off, refusing to speak to her except to reprimand, writing her up for minor and contrived infractions, sabotaging her work, enlisting others to monitor and criticize her work, and physically intimidating her. 

These are classic signs of bullying. The manager did everything he could to make the work environment so uncomfortable for the worker that (he hoped) she would quite on her own accord. Sometimes it works; sometimes it does not. In this case the employee stood her ground and is trying to cope with the workplace pressure caused by the bullying manager and co-workers.

Workplace buying taken to its extreme filters throughout the organization and infects its culture. Signs of corporate and institutional bullying include:

• Failure to meet organizational goals;
• Increased frequencies of grievances, resignations, and requests for transfers;
• Increased absence due to sickness; and
• Increased disciplinary actions.

Of course, workplace bullying is always wrong. It violates an employee’s right to work in an environment that is supportive and not a hostile work environment. Beyond that, employers that sanction workplace bullying and managers who engage in it fail to realize the costs of the abusive practice including:

• Replacing staff members that leave as a result of being bullied, cost of training new employees.
• Work effort being displaced as staff cope with bullying incidents (i.e., effort being directed away from work productivity and towards coping)
• Costs associated with investigations of ill treatment and potential legal action

Bullying is different from harassment which is one type of illegal discrimination and is defined as offensive and unwelcome conduct, serious enough to adversely affect the terms and conditions of a person’s employment, which occurs because of the person’s protected class, and can be imputed to the employer. An example of harassment could be when an employee tells racist jokes and refers to a particular co-worker or group of co-workers by using racial slurs, and after a complaint, the employer does nothing to stop the behavior. Another example is when a male (or female) manager makes unwelcome sexual suggestions and/or touches another employee inappropriately. This, of course, is an example of sexual harassment.

Bullying in general is not illegal in the U.S. unless it involves harassment based on race/color, religion, national origin, sex, age (40+), disability, HIV/AIDS, or Hepatitis status. Some states go further and include marital status, sexual orientation/gender identity, honorably discharged veteran and military status or retaliation for filing a whistleblower compliant. Know your state laws on this matter by contacting your state's human rights commission.

Here are some suggestions if you believe you are being bullied:

• First and most important, realize you are not the source of the problem
• Recognize that bullying is about control, and therefore has nothing to do with your performance
• Keep a diary detailing the nature of the bullying (e.g., dates, times, places, what was said or done and who was present)
• Obtain copies of harassing/bullying paper trails; hold onto copies of documents that contradict the bully's accusations against you (e.g., time sheets, audit reports, etc.)
• Expect the bully to deny and perhaps misconstrue your accusations; have a witness with you during any meetings with the bully; report the behavior to an appropriate person

For conscientious employers I offer up the following advice:

• Create a zero tolerance anti-bullying policy that is part of your efforts to create a safe and healthful working environment that should have the support of top management
• When witnessed or reported, the bullying should be addressed immediately
• If bullying is entrenched in the organization, complaints need to be taken seriously and investigated promptly (reassignment of the bully may be necessary)
• Develop training programs to sensitize employees to the signs and dangers of bullying in the workplace, and explain how bullies will be dealt with

Workplace bullying is a disgraceful practice that attacks the very dignity of the bullied. It needs to be taken seriously by employers not only because it is an offensive practice, but also if bullying is allowed to persist unchecked, it may lay the seeds for other inappropriate workplace behavior including sexual harassment and even fudging on one's expense reports once employees realize the culture of the organization is such that abusive practices are tolerated.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on December 5, 2012

What Makes for an Ethical Company?

Values, Behavior, and Organization Culture Underlie Ethical Behavior

Ethics is about how we treat others. It goes back to the Golden Rule “To treat others the Way we want to be treated.” Nowhere is this more important than in the workplace where most of us spend the majority of our time.

Organizations have formal ethics systems in place to prevent and detect unethical and illegal behavior. This includes codes of conduct, values and vision statements, an ombudsman, and compliance mechanisms that might include a top-level ethics officer to oversee ethical and legal behavior in the organization.

There are many reasons unethical behavior occurs in the workplace. The most important is, I believe, the tone set by supervisory personnel and top management. Regardless of the ethics of a person, if people perceive their boss or higher-ups sanction unethical actions and may engage in such behavior themselves, then it is bound to affect workplace behavior of others in at least two ways. First, it may lead workers to engage in unethical acts themselves especially if they see it as part of the informal culture of the organization. Second, it makes it less likely internal wrongdoing will be reported or that whistle-blowing will occur when an otherwise ethical person view’s his or her reporting obligations differently because of informal norms and values.

The Ethics Resource Center recently issued its 2011 National Business Ethics Survey (NBES) and the results are mixed. Here are some of the major results reported in its Executive Summary.

• The percentage of employees who witnessed misconduct at work fell to a new low of 45 percent.  That compares to 49 percent in 2009 and is well down from the record high of 55 percent in 2007.

• Those who reported the bad behavior they saw reached a record high of 65 percent, up from 63 percent two years earlier and 12 percentage points higher than the record low of 53 percent in 2005.

• Retaliation against employee whistleblowers rose sharply.  More than one in five employees (22 percent) who reported misconduct say they experienced some form of retaliation in return.  That compares to 12 percent who experienced retaliation in 2007 and 15 percent in 2009.

• The percentage of employees who perceived pressure to compromise standards in order to do their jobs climbed five points to 13 percent, just shy of the all-time high of 14 percent in 2000.

• The share of companies with weak ethics cultures (i.e. informal systems) also climbed to near record levels at 42 percent, up from 35 percent two years ago.

Other results give me great pause including it appears that instances of bad behavior are on the rise; pressure to compromise one’s values has increased; and retaliation against whistleblowers rose sharply. It’s no wonder more companies have a weak ethical culture according to the 2011 survey when compared to past surveys. The weak economy and competitive global business environment may have something to do with these troubling results.

I was somewhat surprise that more employees have a negative view of their supervisors’ ethics: 34 percent in 2011 versus 24 percent in 2009. One explanation is that workers often perceive the ethics of those around them as weaker than their own. Another is that pressure in the workplace to compromise one’s standards typically comes from top to bottom.

Ethical behavior and creating an ethical culture is an ongoing process. Systems must be put into place and employees must be convinced that the organization values ethical behavior. A positive ethical tone must be set by those in top management. Violators of the code must be punished in some way and those who follow the code rewarded – a tricky proposition at best.

Ethisphere Institute, a leading international think-tank dedicated to the creation, advancement and sharing of best practices in business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anti-corruption and sustainability, recently announced the sixth annual selection of theWorld's Most Ethical Companies, highlighting a record 145 organizations that show leadership in promoting ethical business standards.

One of the companies on the list is Applied Materials. The following statement by its chairman and CEO clarifies the steps an organization should take to enhance its ethical culture:

 “We are honored to be named to Ethisphere’s 2012 World’s Most Ethical Companies list and to join this prestigious group of corporate citizens. Since its beginnings more than 40 years ago, Applied has based its values on ethics and integrity. Our reputation and success are measured by what we do, not just what we say, and we strive to attain the highest ethical standards in our work and in our interactions with customers, suppliers, competitors and our community.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on November 14, 2012