One of my old professors - Tor Dahl - an internationally known expert in productivity commented on a recent study in which Connie White Delaney, Dean of the University of Minnesota School of Nursing, stated that Iceland practiced a national philosophy that could be summarized in four points:

1. The healthy help those who are ill;
2. The employed help those who are unemployed;
3. The young help the old; and
4. The rich help the poor.

He uses the study as a jumping off point for some insightful comments about national health policy (see http://www.tordahl.com/newsletters.html for the whole story). But before you go to Professor Dahl's site, let me comment on some ethics implications of the study's findings.

The four points bring to mind ethical concepts connected to compassion, justice, fairness, redistribution of wealth, The Golden Rule, etc. But one idea that is not often connected to ethics is "practicality." And yet a country (or city or company or family) that practices the four points would be demonstrating practicality. Is practicality an ethical concept? I would argue that it certainly is, at least in this case.

For an organization to find a practical, effective, cost-efficient method of caring for all its members is to declare a moral imperative. Such an organization challenges its members to give back what they have been given - health, jobs, money and the benefits of youth. Such an organization creates a channel through which wellness in its broadest definition is delivered to all. Such an organization publicly affirms the intrinsic value of all of its members. Such an organization demonstrates its beliefs in action.

The topic of creating practical ways to live out our values is open for discussion. Can we here in the U.S., in your organization, in our towns, in our neighborhoods, in our families put those four points into practice?

What do YOU think?

March Madness and Ethics at Work

Okay, call me a spoilsport, a curmudgeon, a stick-in-the-mud, but does anybody else see the annual basketball tournaments as an ethical issue?

No, not the games themselves, but the inordinate amount of time expended at work filling out brackets, talking about the games, prognosticating the outcomes, etc. I know what you're going to say: "It's harmless." Is it? There have been a few studies that place the productivity drop during tournament season at a shocking rate. There are at least a few ethical issues involved in that reality. Workers stealing time from employers. Tourney-fan workers unfairly shifting work to their non-fan colleagues. Low productivity costs being passed onto consumers. I could probably name a couple more if I thought a little longer.

Maybe you'll say, "It's good for morale." Yours, maybe, but what about those at work who don't share your enthusiasm for dissecting every last three-point shot or every bad call? What about the anxiety caused in the longer term when the department has not met its goals or families realize a smaller (or no) bonus?

You may not like this message, but I challenge you to really think it through. Think about how you might see this issue if it were not about the tournament, but about something you don't care about or maybe even dislike. Picture all your coworkers spending work time on that issue and see if you might not view it differently.

Come on, sports fans. Cheer your teams. But do it during breaks, lunch and at home.

PS. A couple hours after I posted this I got the 3/26 issue of Business Week Magazine which reports $1.2 billion in lost productivity. It also reports that 67% of workers surveyed say they joined the 2006 pool, of whom 57% bet on March Madness. Finally, for one more ethical issue to consider, 57% of taxpayers say they aren't likely to to report tournament winnings.

Are Poor Ethics Related to Lack of Confidence?

I polled a number of my clients and associates recently asking them, "What is the most common ethical dilemma in your industry?" While the answers were many and varied, one theme seemed to keep surfacing across industries. It came in various hues, but essentially it boiled down to, "Do whatever you need to do to get the job."

In some industries it was misrepresenting capabilities to get the job.
In some industries it was playing with bid numbers to get the job.
In some industries it was promising one level of product or service to get the job and then switching to a lesser quality or quantity.
In some it was low-balling bids and then charging extra for contract details.

While I can only guess at people's motives, I suggest that perhaps underneath all their motives is a lack of confidence. Could it be that people are so afraid of not getting work that they resort to unethical bidding practices? Is it possible that companies are so fearful of their competitors' abilities that they misrepresent their product, service and reputation to get an edge?

If you examine yourself and feel that this just might be the case for you, let me suggest a solution. Focus on doing the right thing and doing it right. Focus on building your own capabilities, your own quality, your own internal controls. Focus on developing a pride in who you are and how you treat your employees, customers and vendors. Then craft your marketing and sales around the truth.

Along with your increased confidence, built on an accurate picture of your character and ability will come increased and improved stature in your industry.

Chris McDonald: A voice for corporate responsibility

I don't know how many of you regularly read Chris MacDonald of St. Mary's University in Canada, but if you want to follow corporate ethics at all, you really ought to bookmark his blog. He comments daily on the ethical implications of corporate activities. He pulls no punches, but also gives credit where credit is due.

MacDonald has a long-term view on things. That's important in ethics because he is not swayed by the vagaries of public opinion, but rather by a sense of what is right and what is good. I strongly recommend him as a daily diet.

Why am I pushing this? MacDonald and other like him generate discussion on ethics which, in turn, affects people's ethical behavior. It's as simple as "Starting With Me."

Thank you, Professor MacDonald. Click Here to read his blog.

Storm Mentality Spawns Ethics Discussions

While Minnesota digs out from a second snow storm in as many weeks, the news programs have picked up some interesting human interest angles - people helping people. There seems to be a "storm mentality" that touches people's desire to help others in a way that's not normally so present.

Well, kudos to all those who are shoveling neighbors' walks, pushing strangers' cars and cleaning off coworkers' windshields. But kudos also to the media for highlighting ordinary people doing extraordinary things. The news stories spawn discussions about reaching out; about helping people whether or not they "deserve it;" about anonymous acts of kindness.

The more people talk about it, the more people are open to doing it. The more people are open to doing it, the better off we will all be. Mature ethical behavior spawns ethics discussions. And the discussions spawn action. It comes down to "Starting With Me."