PSU Magazine Spring 2002

undergraduate and graduate, should offer courses to examine ethics and provide stu<lents with tools to face ethical situations. Both Brenner and Yuthas agree that it's not feasible to teach college students to be ethical. But schools can give students an awareness of the types of ethics dilem– mas that arise in the workplace and techniques to make ethical determina– tions for themselves. Secon<l, says Brenner, business organizations such as chambers of commerce and trade associations should re-examine the ethics standards of their industries to give a rebirth of attention to moral issues faced on a daily basis. On a larger scale, says Brenner, government must make clear the things that are unethical or improper-even though they may not be illegal. A national convocation on ethics would provide an ideal forum for examining society's standards. "We could," says Brenner, "establish our expectations for business behavior." ut why should companies go to all this trouble to develop something that doesn't directly affect the bottom line? Surprisingly, they may find that it does. For instance, certain large investment groups only invest in socially responsible companies. Ore– gon-based Nike reversed negative pub– licity over labor practices of factories in Third-World countries by address– ing the ethics of the situation. And some companies are actively pursuing environmental certifications so they can promote their "greenness" as a competitive advantage. And of course, as Brenner notes, "It's easier on your con cience. When you do something flat out wrong, you know it." □ (Melissa Steineger, a Portland freelance uniter, wrote the article "Of Blood & Politics" for the winter 2002 PSU Magazine.) 14 PSU MAGAZINE SPRING 2002 Making hard choices Operating on the gray side of the law– without technically violating the law– can become a game to companies that give only lip service to ethics. And the bigger the stakes, the more nerve– wracking it can be for would-be whistle– blowers to know what to do. For instance, what would you do if: 1. Your boss orders you to inform a customer that a product will be shipped next month so that your company gets the sale, even though you know the product can't possibly be shipped for three months. 2. You learn that a production man– ager has started shipping merchan– dise in order to meet stringent new production goals even though the merchandise failed quality tests by a tiny margin. If the production goals are not met, your department could be closed. 3. You see your company involved in unethical activity and consider blow– ing the whistle, but all your 401 (k) is tied up in company stock, and whistle-blowing could torpedo the stock price-wiping out your savings. To help with making these and other ethical decisions, business professors Steve Brenner and Kristi Yuthas suggest starting with some basic principles. Yuthas offers the "stakeholder" approach. First, she says, consider the conditions that may have caused the dilemma. For example, reward systems may be inconsistent with resource alloca– tions. Then, identify all the affected par– ties or stakeholders, such as stockholders, employees, customers, suppliers, commu– nity members, and consider which of their rights are being violated. Take into account your options-generally these are to say nothing, to speak up, or to quit. Take into account the consequences of each option for the stakeholders, and consider long-term effects of each choice on the organization. Then act. Brenner also notes that we must live with the consequences of our deci– sions-either to act or to not act-and so must others. Even when we think we are acting ethically, others- either now or in the future- may see things differ– ently. Brenner stresses the importance of determining for oneself how to come to a decision in ethical situations, but he also agreed to provide his answers to the sit– uations posed above. 1. Lying to a customer to get an immediate sale could lead to that customer's distrust of the salesper– son and of the company and perhaps the company's loss of this customer in the future. Honesty, says Brenner, would be better for all concerned. And the consequences of truth– telling can't be perfectly foreseen. The sale might be lost today, but the future might bring other sales due to the customer's perception of the salesperson's honesty. Finally, even if you lose your job because you refuse to lie, you may believe it's worth the price. 2. It is important to know what the quality test was for. If the company advertises sheets with a thread count of 300 threads per inch, but one batch only has 295 threads per inch, then offering the customer a coupon for another item or the chance to return the sheets might be enough. But if the quality test is on, say, an "O" ring for a rocket, then promptly informing everyone who received the defective units and making good on the claimed standards is the only option. 3. Delaying the discovery of a prob– lem could make it that much harder to fix. And if you delay or cover-up, adds Brenner, when the problem is finally discovered, you could be seen as a willing co-conspirator. 11 Never believe that improper actions can be covered up-they can't, 11 says Brenner. "There are consequences in avoiding doing what you know is right. Your subconscious, in most cases, will make you pay a price-even if society never finds out. □