|
Hardly a week goes by without a scandal in high
places hitting the front page of the news. Even allowing for the
tendency of some papers to occasionally sensationalize, the reports
do seem to show a pattern of disregard for once hallowed ethical
principles in the country such as palabra de honor (word of honor)
or delicadeza (propriety). Broken promises, improper cell phone
calls, unseemly favors given and taken, abuse of power, undue
influence, among others, have become standard operating procedures,
it seems, among many leaders in government and even business.
One is tempted to conclude that
ethics is a lost cause in Philippine organizations. The resulting
attitude of many has ranged from defeatism (“There’s nothing we
can do”), resignation (“That’s the way things are and we just
have to accept it”), cynicism (“Human nature is basically flawed
so why be bothered by it?”) and jaded pragmatism (“Just get
along with it and you’ll at least get things done”). Still
others have combined with these attitudes the wish that “better
leaders” will come along and bring in the return of ethics. They
shake their heads woefully and think to themselves, “What a waste!
If only we could have someone like . . . ” and fill in the blank
with their favorite leadership hero.
I find that such common attitudes
about unethical organizational behavior are even more dangerous than
the original questionable acts themselves. In the first place,
questionable acts, even by the most powerful people, cannot prosper
for long without the cooperation or at least tolerance of the people
around them. Burke’s oft-quoted remark about good men doing
nothing comes to mind. In the second place, such attitudes discount
the capacity for heroism of every member of an organization, at
least within his sphere of influence. An organization’s action
truly is the sum total of the actions of all its members and not
just those of its leaders.
But what are we to do if we see
serious misdeeds in our organizations? Do we just look the other way
and simply pretend that it’s business as usual? Or do we go to the
other extreme and inform the media or present ourselves to a
government investigation at the risk of ruining our hard-earned
careers and the future of our children? Do we risk the ire, or even
deadly hatred of our colleagues? Perhaps none of this is necessary.
Doing nothing perpetuates wrongdoing. Publicly blowing the whistle
can destroy not only one’s own career and family future but even
the organization one loves.
Managers who want to influence
the ethical climate in their organizations have a range of
possibilities they can consider which lie in between doing nothing
and public whistle blowing. Richard Nielsen, author of the book The
Politics of Ethics, offers more than a dozen options but I will
focus on only three with examples from my research: dialoguing for
change, privately whistle-blowing to a responsible manager and
conscientious objection.
The key to dialogue as a medium
for promoting ethics is the quality of the manager’s relationships
with his colleagues and with management plus the manager’s
reputation as a contributor to the organization. A human resource
officer of a manufacturing company faced the challenge of improving
the working conditions of the workers in the factory. She had raised
the issue with the owner-manager that the workers were fatigued
because they were not provided seats as they worked. The owner
explained that only supervisors needed seats and, besides, giving
seats to workers would just encourage laziness. The HR officer bided
her time but was deeply bothered by the issue. She considered
resigning because of her inability to improve the lot of the
workers.
(To be continued.)
Dr. Ben Teehankee is an
associate professor at the Ramon V. del Rosario Sr. Graduate School
of Business, College of Business and Economics, De La Salle
University-Manila. Email him at teehankeeb@dlsu.edu.ph.
|
