Warning: Humans at Work
Our work lives are, by definition, a big part of our lives. How, then, can we accept a notion of having one set of moral values for “work” and another for “the rest of our lives?” Clearly, we can’t.
I recently had dinner with an old family friend, who naturally asked about the Hill Center. As I told him about our mission of helping align business performance with ethics and social responsibility, he shook his head. He made the standard jokes, that “business ethics is an oxymoron,” and that books on the subject are works of fiction. Chuckle, chuckle. Then the conversation turned serious and, upon reflection, moderately disturbing.
My friend began by likening my work to that of the clergy – essentially positing that only the truly faithful (presumably, of any number of faith traditions), would really care about doing the right thing in business. “Business,” he said with conviction, “is morally neutral. It’s not about right and wrong, it’s about profit-making.” In the interest of decorum, I uttered something about the deeply ethical business leaders I’ve met, and changed the subject.
Decorum is overrated. I am still annoyed, days later.
The notion that business and morality are separable isn’t new; the noted business ethicist R. Edward Freeman dubbed it “The Separation Thesis” in 1993, and the most recent edition of Business Ethics Quarterly has yet another article about what it really means and why it matters. In general, it means that business decisions are, essentially, amoral. Theorists have been arguing against that view, quite persuasively, for years. I’m with them.
We spend much time at work. If we have different moral values at work, or simply suppress our sense of right and wrong there, what does that say about the totality of our lives? Moral values constitute an important component of our identity. An essential element of our humanity. If we are forced – or, worse yet, choose – to suppress who we really are in our work lives, how can we function effectively? How can we feel good about our lives?
It is certainly true that settings and circumstances appropriately influence how we conduct ourselves. A couple of years ago, my young son began playing rec-league soccer. A few minutes into his first game, he left the field in tears. Thinking he was hurt, the coach sent him over to me on the sideline. Thankfully, he wasn’t hurt at all – he was pissed! He had been taught not to push and shove, and that was exactly what the other kids were doing. We had a quick, sideline talk about being aggressive on the field, complete with my pantomime of an attitude of aggression. We also talked about the rules, and about going after the ball and not the other players. He returned to the game with a clearer sense of expectations, and was jubilant at half time, not for the goal he had scored, but because, “when other kids shoved, I just shoved them back.” He remains a gentle kid, except on the soccer field.
We are right to act differently in different situations. Our relationships with family members and close friends are different from our relationships with co-workers. Even within the business context, we are right to make distinctions based on our respective relationships (e.g., with colleagues, vendors, customers, or competitors), and to act accordingly. At the same time, a coherent sense of right and wrong ought to govern our conduct throughout. If we truly believe that business decisions are amoral, and act accordingly, we would do well to remove the mirrors from our washrooms, rather than face our own reflections at work.
That process of adaptation, of acting in ways which are appropriate to circumstances, is perfectly consistent with maintaining a coherent sense of right and wrong, which transcends those circumstances. It also speaks to the richness and complexity of a meaningful moral viewpoint. We can be deeply ethical, and still be flexible, within limits, about how we engage the world. If doing my job leaves me with a sense of moral discomfort, it is right for me to examine both my morals and my circumstances. Perhaps I am being a prig, or I am confusing ethics with etiquette. More likely, my pangs of conscience are indicating that I change my actions or lead a change in my environment, in accordance with a considered sense of right and wrong. This may entail a transformation within a company, or a departure from one.
Like youth soccer, ethical leadership is a team sport. (Also like youth soccer, it can get messy at times.) Members of effective leadership teams trust one another:, to act from motives of organizational success, for example, and to speak with candor about what an organization ought to do and why. If these leaders do not each have coherent moral perspectives, then the processes of reflection, and the resulting organizational improvement, are nearly impossible to achieve.
Great business leaders do not check their morals at the door. They seek opportunities to act in accordance with their moral values, and remain open to learning and growing through experience and engagement with others. Businesses grow stronger by embracing diverse points of view. They also grow stronger by cultivating a coherent set of ethical boundaries and shared values that promote excellence in action. It’s only human.
Great blog today. It sparked a thought that might be an interesting LWG discussion sometime: those people that think business is truly amoral ought to consider the way hiring processes are run. It would be interesting to consider the moral qualities often put forward as requirements by companies - translated as "job requirements." I would argue that much of what people are looking for in a job applicant, whether they are aware of it or not, has a strong moral dimension: for example, applicants should be more than just talented, intelligent, and experienced: they should also be hard-working, deserving of trust, and value relationship-building (i.e. have the ability to "play well with others"). In fact, taken a step further into considering the kind of statements that often make up a "Corporate Value Statement" that has come in and out of vogue in the last 25 years, this is another type of value set that sometimes gets translated into hiring criteria.
Now, whether or not people can truly assess those dimensions or not would also be a separate discussion, but I can't help but think this is one arena where corporations attempt to define a kind of value set that will ultimately affect the way they operate in the future.