Meaningful Minutes

Board members having a meaningful conversation in a meeting room

Board conversations should not be comfortable, routine exchanges of information concerning pre-agreed topics, facts and interpretations. They need to test the boundaries of the known to enable the organisation to profit from uncertainty whilst conceiving and avoiding risks that are emerging.

Such conversations are inherently dangerous and require a degree of trust among the participants. Challenging the status quo whilst supporting the current management and developing the next generation of managers requires boards to have a wide range of behavioural and conversational modes. As knowledge is developed through these conversations it must be recorded so that it is not lost; if records are not kept then knowledge will need to be regenerated in every meeting, wasting valuable time and undermining progress.

Recent trends and tendencies threaten this process by restricting the information contained in board minutes so that only ‘safe’ records are maintained. Legal advice to record only the issue and the decision protect boards if minutes are disclosed in legal proceedings. They also render the minutes virtually useless as a means of developing corporate memory.

This process has led many directors into the habit of making their own records, often by annotating their board papers or in a private ‘board diary’. These documents then leave to company and are stored as each individual director sees fit. Whilst these personal notes assist individual directors when they need to remember the nuances of difficult conversations about risky decisions they participated in, they can be a source of great embarrassment if they fall into the public domain.

Some companies manage this risk by requiring all board materials to be returned to the company secretary or some other person) for secure disposal. They enter into a ‘deed of access’ which gives the individual directors a right to examine the official records should a need arise. The most sophisticated companies manage this process by using ‘electronic board packs’ which allow directors to make notes on a version for use up to and during the meeting but then destroy all marked papers and retain only a clean copy for the company register.

Other companies request that directors destroy their papers after a pre-agreed period of time.

Neither of these risk mitigation strategies controls personal diary notes or compensates for the loss of qualitative data about the factors that were considered in reaching each decision. Some governance advisers have called for boards to record in the minutes which directors voted for or against each decision. This information is useless without a background of the facts presented and the interpretation given to these facts during the board’s conversation. Disclosing individual votes serves only to weaken board unity. All board members are responsible for all actions of the company taken pursuant to a decision of the board, regardless of whether they voted for or against it.

Rather than recording votes (although abstentions should be recorded where this information serves as evidence of the board properly managing a conflict of interest) it would serve the company better if the minutes recorded the key elements of the discussion so that these were available for later review. Far better to have the assumptions clearly recorded so that decisions can be revisited if key assumptions prove to have been wrong. Most boards are more likely to revisit a decision than they are to be called upon to defend it in court.

If you do end up in court it is better to be able to state that the board considered a range of issues before making its decision when, with the benefit of hindsight, unfriendly barristers are suggesting that the decision was negligently or recklessly made.

A side effect of such record keeping is that the truly negligent boards would then be easy to identify.

The downside, of course, is that dangerous and radical ideas would be recorded and, from time to time, could surface in public records, exposing the board members to ridicule or retribution. One director said that, when her company was being criticised for slow growth compared to rivals she reviewed past minutes and found that the board had considered collateralised debt instruments but had decided not to use them as they couldn’t understand them and it appeared from the board discussion that management didn’t understand them either. The original board decision was reviewed several times but never overturned; each time the opacity of the instruments deterred the board from approving their use. The board members felt no qualms about recording their inability to understand the CDOs even though the information could have been used against them if it became public. The GFC passed and the company then performed well compared to peers. Several billion positive reasons to record dangerous ideas in board minutes!

What do you think?

———————————————————————————————————-
Julie Garland-McLellan has been internationally acclaimed as a leading expert on board governance. See her website and LinkedIn profiles, and get her book Dilemmas, Dilemmas: Practical Case Studies for Company Directors.

Metaphors Be With You: The Strategist as Poet

Bright idea concept illustrated with light bulbs

Strategy-making begins with an idea. Without a guiding idea there can be no sense of direction. Yet many articles and books about strategy do not address a most important matter: how to generate ideas. To conceive the essential set of ideas that we call strategy, the strategist must understand and master the art of the metaphor. As Aristotle said in Poetics, “the greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor.” It is “a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars.” Effective strategic thinkers display openness to new and different ideas, and one way to generate ideas is through the use of metaphor, or its close relative analogy, perhaps the most advanced form of human thinking.

Good strategy does not fall out at the bottom of an equation. Yes, analysis is necessary… Yes critical thinking is essential… But in the end, great ideas about “what to do” come to us through inspiration.

In a wonderfully insightful book called An Alchemy of Mind Diane Ackerman says that “Metaphor is one of the brain’s favorite ways of understanding the ‘this and that’ of our surroundings, and reminds us that we discover the world by engaging it and seeing what happens next. The art of the brain is to find what seemingly unrelated things may have in common, and be able to apply that insight to something else it urgently needs to unpuzzle.”

In their Harvard Business Review article entitled “How Strategists Really Think,” Giovanni Gavetti and Jan W. Rivkin show that reasoning by analogy plays a major role in the thinking of successful strategists. As an example, these writers point to Intel chairman Andy Grove’s story of how he came up with an important business strategy. Attending a management seminar, Grove heard the story of how fledgling “mini-mills” in the steel industry began in the 1970s to offer a low-end product—inexpensive concrete-reinforcing bars known as rebar. Establishing market share with the low-end products, these steel companies then began to migrate up the hierarchy of products toward the higher-end, more lucrative steel products. U.S. Steel, which had ceded the low-end products to the smaller and seemingly insignificant players, was caught unawares by the companies attacking the market for their core business and lost market share over a number of years.

An epiphany struck Andy Grove as he sat in that management seminar, thinking about the steel industry. Using what Gavetti and Rivkin call “analogical thinking,” Grove saw that Intel was sitting in a similar situation to that of U.S. Steel in the 1970s. Intel had theretofore leaned toward ceding low-end computer chips to niche players, a strategy that, Grove now realized, would put Intel in a dangerous situation. He began to see low-end computers as “digital rebar,” a metaphorical image that helped him in articulating his strategy to Intel management. “If we lose the low end today,” Grove said, “ we could lose the high end tomorrow.” As a result of this thinking, and the deliberations that followed, Intel redoubled its efforts to market the low-end “Celeron processor” for low-end personal computers.

As Diane Ackermans says “… the brain forms metaphors in order to understand ‘one kind of experience in terms of another,’ as new metaphors create new realities…” It is the leap of thought from one set of conditions to an analogous one, that brings us that truly great idea for action. As Ackerman concludes, this is “what metaphor does so well: illuminate some of what can’t be wholly understood. “

Kenichi Ohmae says in The Mind of the Strategist, “In business as on the battlefield, the object of strategy is to bring about the conditions most favorable to one’s own side, judging precisely the right moment to attack or withdraw and always assessing the limits of compromise correctly. Besides the habit of analysis, what marks the mind of the strategist is an intellectual elasticity or flexibility that enables him to come up with realistic responses to changing situations, not simply to discriminate with great precision among different shades of gray. In strategic thinking, one first seeks a clear understanding of the particular character of each element of a situation that makes the fullest possible use of human brainpower to restructure the elements in the most advantageous way. “

To conclude? Perhaps a poem…

We’re coming to the edge

running on the water

coming through the fog

your sons and daughters…

Let the river run

let all the dreamers

wake the nation

come, the new Jerusalem

… by Carly Simon

For more thinking about strategic thinking, see Mark’s website; http://strategybydesign.org

Ethics Management Programs: An Overview

Woman holding a pile of books on business policies and ethics

What’s an Ethics Management Program?

Organizations can manage ethics in their workplaces by establishing an ethics management program. Brian Schrag, Executive Secretary of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, clarifies. “Typically, ethics programs convey corporate values, often using codes and policies to guide decisions and behavior, and can include extensive training and evaluating, depending on the organization. They provide guidance in ethical dilemmas.” Rarely are two programs alike.

“All organizations have ethics programs, but most do not know that they do,” wrote business ethics professor Stephen Brenner in the Journal of Business Ethics (1992, V11, pp. 391-399). “A corporate ethics program is made up of values, policies and activities which impact the propriety of organization behaviors.”

Bob Dunn, President and CEO of San Francisco-based Business for Social Responsibility, adds: “Balancing competing values and reconciling them is a basic purpose of an ethics management program. Business people need more practical tools and information to understand their values and how to manage them.”

Benefits of Managing Ethics as a Program

There are numerous benefits in formally managing ethics as a program, rather than as a one-shot effort when it appears to be needed. Ethics programs:

  1. Establish organizational roles to manage ethics
  2. Schedule ongoing assessment of ethics requirements
  3. Establish required operating values and behaviors
  4. Align organizational behaviors with operating values
  5. Develop awareness and sensitivity to ethical issues
  6. Integrate ethical guidelines to decision making
  7. Structure mechanisms to resolving ethical dilemmas
  8. Facilitate ongoing evaluation and updates to the program
  9. Help convince employees that attention to ethics is not just a knee-jerk reaction done to get out of trouble or improve public image

What do you think?

————————————————————————-

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

How NOT to Do Strategic Planning!

Classic wooden chess board pieces

I got a call from an organization that was (as they said) “desperate to finally do good strategic planning.”

A Far Too-Common Approach to “Strategic Planning”

The previous two times they did “planning,” the organization hired a facilitator and:

1. Got Board members together for one retreat.

2. Word-smithed the words on their mission statement. (“Are our services ‘transformational’ or ‘transcendental’? Let’s break into small groups and discuss this!”)

3. Fantasized a very far-reaching, inspirational, feel-good vision statement. (“We’ll solve poverty in our lifetime!”)

4. Then asked the executives to come up with “some goals” to achieve that vision.

5. Then they left the retreat.

That’s Not Strategic Planning, That’s Fantasizing — and It’s a Delusion

The “benefits” of that approach to planning are

1. Board members don’t need to spend much time in planning.

2. The organization doesn’t have to do the work to actually analyze what’s going on outside the organization that might affect the organization

3. It’s easy and it feels good to word-smith words and fantasize visions — it makes “planning” fun!

4. The organization can feel like it’s “planning.”

5. The facilitator is liked a lot — at least for a while.

The Damage Caused from That Approach to “Planning”

The harm from that approach to “planning” is that

1. The organization is no better off in understanding what it needs to survive, much less thrive.

2. Planners cultivate the illusion that planning is one fun “get away.”

3. Planners become very cynical about “strategic planning.”

4. Consultants and facilitators begin to write that “strategic planning doesn’t work.”

What Strategic Planning Should Be Instead

If an organization:

1. Has not done strategic planning before — planning that resulted in an implemented plan.

2. Has many changes going on, outside the organization.

3. Has had several recurring issues in the organization, e.g., in finances, conflicts and turnover.

Then the “fantasy” approach to planning will only make things worse.

Instead, the organization should be doing issues-based planning.

What’s Issues-Based Planning?

In issues-based planning, planners:

1. Identify current, major issues.

2. Suggest strategies to address each issue (they might be right or wrong, but at least they get people focused on the issues and trying to do something about them).

3. Detail the strategies into action plans that specify who is going to do what and by when.

Some consultants might decry, “That’s not strategic!” What’s more strategic than addressing current, major problems so you can then accomplish a successful future?

For more information about issues-based planning, see Should I Use Goals-Based or Issues-Based Planning?

What do you think?

———————————————————————————
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

Making the transition from manager to director

Thinking like a director

Directorship is very different to management. Directors act differently and have different liabilities and duties. They need to think differently.

Good managers are often invited onto boards. They need to make a critical shift in their thinking if they are to be successful in their new environment.

The biggest shift is the move from personal to group accountability and authority. Whilst many managers in modern corporations have experience as team members and are accustomed to being personally rewarded for team achievements many are not comfortable with an environment where they bring no personal power into the boardroom.

Board Leadership

As a leader (and directors are leaders) you are never powerless; you may, in some circumstances, lack authority. This is especially true in circumstances where an individual director wishes to influence the course of events. He or she has no authority over the board but, working through the proper processes and providing insightful contributions to the board debate, is able to make an impact. Some managers find this confronting and dislike the sensation of needing to bring the group to consensus before a decision is made and the board authorises a course of action. These are often the naturally authoritarians but can also be people who, as managers, were very democratic. The difference is that even a democratic manager has the final say on issues that are decided whilst in the board there is never any guarantee that your most persuasive arguments will convince the board to follow your chosen course of action.

The role of the Chairman

Sometimes an experienced chairman can assist a director in making the transition to ‘board thinking’. This is usually best accomplished by a private discussion after a board meeting in which the director has failed to achieve an outcome. These conversations are difficult as the director concerned will feel threatened by the failure. It is important that the conversation be supportive and, where possible, that the chairman highlight issues raised by the director which, whilst not having the outcome that the director desired, have been picked up by management and will be used to enlighten risk management as the company progresses with implementation.

These conversations are only possible in a board with strong collegiality and mutual respect between board members. They will never work if the board is divided or simply failing to work as a team. Boards with shareholder representatives or other nominee directors will find these conversations more difficult than those where the members have selected each other.

When to intervene

Specific indications that a board member is ready and able to be coached in accepting the group decision (and their inability to override this) are hard to define; they may include approaches to other board members whom the director feels are more sympathetic to their point of view, statements to the group in general about concerns or risks raised by the decision, and/or deferential and submissive behaviours that are just slightly out of character (caused by the director attempting to reintegrate with the group after the potentially divisive decision). Responding positively to these indicators will assist the director in coming to terms with their board role.

Behaviours that indicate a board member is not likely to be receptive to coaching are more overt. They include refusal to stop arguing their case, lobbying outside the board meeting for the decision to be overturned, undermining the decision, upsetting the chain of command by direct communication with staff involved in implementing the decision and/or lobbying stakeholders or regulators o encourage them to step in an overturn the decision.

These behaviours do not, however, indicate that a chairman should back off and allow the director to continue. Rather than coaching, in this instance, the chairman must make a firm statement regarding behaviours that will not be tolerated on his or her board. It is helpful to have a written charter to which the director has already subscribed to back up this statement. If a board lacks a charter and finds itself in this position it can rely on external codes of accepted practice but should note that these are less powerful than a specific charter written by the board to describe how it will regulate its own conduct. Directors who place a high value on authority will often be comforted by a display of authority from the board chair. When things are proceeding well again the chairman can attempt to have a coaching conversation to ensure that the director is aware of the issue and also of the board’s intent to support him or her as they deal with it.

Setting standards

Resolute adherence to good practice coupled with an understanding that the change from management to directorship is difficult and can be traumatic are required to assist novice board members, especially those who have been good managers in the past, to become excellent directors in the future.

What do you think?

———————————————————————————————————-
Julie Garland-McLellan has been internationally acclaimed as a leading expert on board governance. See her website and LinkedIn profiles, and get her book Dilemmas, Dilemmas: Practical Case Studies for Company Directors.

Ethics of Whistleblowing

Last week GlaxoSmithKline settled a claim with the US Justice Department for $750 million. However, what really made the news was that whistleblower Cheryl Eckard stood to receive $96 million for her efforts.

The concern, as raised in today’s Wall Street Journal, is that with such a potential goldmine on the back end, potential whistleblowers will be going straight to the feds before working through internal channels. For over 20 years major organizations have built extensive ethics and compliance infrastructures, including helplines and ethics training that details the suggested ways to report misconduct.

Pending regulations to be enacted under the new Dodd-Frank financial reform law have compliance officers worried that whistleblowing will be expanded far beyond the False Claims Act.

Most ethics officers would prefer that employees go to their managers first before going to the helpline, which is usually monitored by an external service that reports back to a company official.

Is the concern that potential whistleblowers will now bypass these protocols and run to the feds overblown?

The answer depends on what are the true motivators of the whistleblower. For most employees, going to the government would not be their first course of action. Whistleblowing often results in retaliation or even termination (it did for Cheryl Eckard). it is a high risk gambit for an employee.

In the Glaxo case, from August 2002 to her firing in May 2003, Ms. Eckard urged GSK managers to take swift and decisive action at Cidra, including shutting down the plant. She made a full report to the GSK Compliance Department, which treated her complaints as unsubstantiated. She then reported the fraud to the FDA in San Juan.

However, some whistleblowers definitely have an axe to grind. Many of them are looking to seek retribution against a company they feel has mistreated them. Anecdotes about some of the heroic whistleblowers from the Enron and WorldCom era paint a picture of whistleblowers who were not well liked within the company and felt no qualms of taking the neer-do-well managers to task. For these class of employees, requiring stringent internal reporting may deter them, but it also may prevent valid claims from being made.

Other employees are not looking for a windfall. They have legitimate issues and feel that the company is either not willing to listen, or is not able to effectively address the situation. Surveys have shown that 50% of observed misconduct goes unreported

For these employees, requiring them to go through internal channels as a deterrent to going to the feds first will thwart the underlying goal of the entire whistleblowing statute: to get people to report. Why deter someone who wants to do the right thing?

For the organizations that are concerned that new federal rules will unleash waves of bounty hunters, they may be well-advised to first look internally to see how safe employees feel in reporting and what they can do to ensure that no observed misconduct goes unreported. Protecting employees from retaliation will lessen the need for them to go to the government in the first place, regardless of the bounty at the end of the line.

Halloween Special: Five Business Plan Tricks

Here are five tricks from business planning expert Tim Berry. Excellent advice to follow to avoid getting spooked by your business:

1. Keep the planning simple and practical.

Your plan should be measurable, and include strategy, dates, deadlines, metrics, and basic projections, plus a review schedule. This is critical: when will we review and revise? The goal is to keep the plan alive.

2. Grow it organically.

The worst thing you could do is avoid taking any action until you’ve developed a complete plan. Don’t put anything off for planning; plan as you develop your business.

3. Think it, plan it, test it.

Stay on top of your quickly-changing plan and manage your assumptions as the reality emerges. You’ll continually be going back to the plan, looking at how everything is related, and making adjustments as needed.

4. Use agile planning.

Real-world business planning, particularly in periods of rapid change, should be pretty darn agile. And rapid. Plan it, build it, revise it, plan it again. That’s the planning process, and without it you don’t control your destiny.

5. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Planning has to be like steering – a matter of constant small corrections within a broad navigational plan. The details change, but all within the context of the long-term direction. You’re always reviewing and revising.

– – – – – –

For more resources, see our Library topic Business Planning.

[Note: Tim Berry is the president and founder of Palo Alto Software, which produces Business Plan Pro software, and is the author of The Plan-as-You-Go Business Plan. You can also read his blogs.]

What Does a Healthy Board Look Like? (Nonprofit and For-Profit)

There has been an extensive amount of research and sharing of opinions about what makes for a highly effective Board. Asking what a healthy Board looks like is akin to asking what a healthy person looks like or how much a car costs. It all depends.

Yet for the sake of furthering your understanding of Boards, it might be useful to consider at least one description. One of the most useful, yet not overly constricting descriptions, is offered in the book The Executive Director’s Survival Guide (Mim Carlson and Margaret Donohoe, John Wiley and Sons, 2005, p. 95). With minor modifications, the authors’ descriptions are as applicable to for-profits as nonprofits. The authors assert that the attributes of an effective Board include:

  • Focus on, and passion for, the mission, and a commitment to setting and achieving vision. Board members realize that one of their most important jobs is to verify that their nonprofit is indeed meeting the community need that the nonprofit was formed to meet. (For a for-profit, the Board’s passion should be ensuring that the organization’s products and services are indeed meeting the needs and wants of customers — otherwise, sales will decrease.)
  • Clear responsibilities that refrain Board members from micro-managing. [Micro-managing is when members are so involved in the details of management that they 1) damage operations because staff are continually updating members with trivial information, and 2) do not sufficiently attend to strategic matters of top-level policies and plans.]
  • Desire of Board members to work together, listen to diverse views and build consensus.
  • Flexible structure that changes to fit the organization’s life cycle and priorities.
  • An understanding of, and ability to shape, the organization’s culture.
  • An interest in knowing the good, bad and uncertain about the organization, and commitment to resolving its issues.
  • Commitment to self-reflection and evaluation, with clear expectations and each member’s accountability to meet them.

Other authors mention overall features of a high-performing Board, for example, that it has:

  • Governance – Board members employing very effective practices to establish the organization’s purpose and priorities, and ensuring they are effectively and efficiently addressed for maximum benefit of stakeholders (clients, customers, investors, funders, collaborators, government agencies, etc.).
  • Diligence – All Board members consistently attending to their duties of care and loyalty, with full attention, participation and responsibilities in all deliberations, decisions and interactions with stakeholders.
  • Transparency – Board members always providing full disclosure and explanation of the organization’s governance and financial information to support stakeholders’ efforts to understand that information.
  • Accountability – Board members continually making their organization and themselves responsible to 1) conform to relevant laws, rules and regulations; and to 2) meet the expectations of stakeholders, and continually verifying with those stakeholders that their expectations are indeed being met.

(There is much more information about Boards in the Free Complete Toolkit for Boards.)

What do you think?

———————————————————————————————–
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

10 Benefits of Managing Ethics in the Workplace

Benefits of managing ethics in the workplace

Many people are used to reading or hearing of the moral benefits of attention to business ethics. However, there are other types of benefits, as well. The following list describes various types of benefits from managing ethics in the workplace.

An image of showing business ethics.

1. Attention to business ethics has substantially improved society.

A matter of decades ago, children in our country worked 16-hour days. Workers’ limbs were torn off and disabled workers were condemned to poverty and often to starvation. Trusts controlled some markets to the extent that prices were fixed and small businesses choked out. Price fixing crippled normal market forces. Employees were terminated based on personalities. Influence was applied through intimidation and harassment. Then society reacted and demanded that businesses place high value on fairness and equal rights. Anti-trust laws were instituted. Government agencies were established. Unions were organized. Laws and regulations were established.

2. Ethics programs help maintain a moral course in turbulent times.

Attention to business ethics is critical during times of fundamental change — times much like those faced now by businesses, both nonprofit or for-profit. During times of change, there is often no clear moral compass to guide leaders through complex conflicts about what is right or wrong. Continuing attention to ethics in the workplace sensitizes leaders and staff to how they want to act — consistently.

3. Ethics programs cultivate strong teamwork and productivity.

Ethics programs align employee behaviors with those top priority ethical values preferred by leaders of the organization. Usually, an organization finds surprising disparity between its preferred values and the values actually reflected by behaviors in the workplace. Ongoing attention and dialogue regarding values in the workplace builds openness, integrity and community — critical ingredients of strong teams in the workplace. Employees feel strong alignment between their values and those of the organization. They react with strong motivation and performance.

4. Ethics programs support employee growth and meaning.

Attention to ethics in the workplace helps employees face reality, both good and bad — in the organization and themselves. Employees feel full confidence they can admit and deal with whatever comes their way. Bennett, in his article “Unethical Behavior, Stress Appear Linked” (Wall Street Journal, April 11, 1991, p. B1), explained that a consulting company tested a range of executives and managers. Their most striking finding: the more emotionally healthy executives, as measured on a battery of tests, the more likely they were to score high on ethics tests.

5. Ethics programs are an insurance policy — they help ensure that policies are legal.

There is an increasing number of lawsuits in regard to personnel matters and to effects of an organization’s services or products on stakeholders. As mentioned earlier in this document, ethical principles are often state-of-the-art legal matters. These principles are often applied to current, major ethical issues to become legislation. Attention to ethics ensures highly ethical policies and procedures in the workplace. It’s far better to incur the cost of mechanisms to ensure ethical practices now than to incur costs of litigation later. A major intent of well-designed personnel policies is to ensure ethical treatment of employees, e.g., in matters of hiring, evaluating, disciplining, firing, etc. Drake and Drake (California Management Review, V16, pp. 107-123) note that “an employer can be subject to suit for breach of contract for failure to comply with any promise it made, so the gap between stated corporate culture and actual practice has significant legal, as well as ethical implications.”

An image of a man and a woman holding puzzle  and a woman sits while working with her laptop.

6. Ethics programs help avoid criminal acts “of omission” and can lower fines.

Ethics programs tend to detect ethical issues and violations early on so they can be reported or addressed. In some cases, when an organization is aware of an actual or potential violation and does not report it to the appropriate authorities, this can be considered a criminal act, e.g., in business dealings with certain government agencies, such as the Defense Department. The recent Federal Sentencing Guidelines specify major penalties for various types of major ethics violations. However, the guidelines potentially lowers fines if an organization has clearly made an effort to operate ethically.

7. Ethics programs help manage values associated with quality management, strategic planning and diversity management — this benefit needs far more attention.

Ethics programs identify preferred values and ensuring organizational behaviors are aligned with those values. This effort includes recording the values, developing policies and procedures to align behaviors with preferred values, and then training all personnel about the policies and procedures. This overall effort is very useful for several other programs in the workplace that require behaviors to be aligned with values, including quality management, strategic planning and diversity management. Total Quality Management includes high priority on certain operating values, e.g., trust among stakeholders, performance, reliability, measurement, and feedback. Eastman and Polaroid use ethics tools in their quality programs to ensure integrity in their relationships with stakeholders. Ethics management techniques are highly useful for managing strategic values, e.g., expand marketshare, reduce costs, etc. McDonnell Douglas integrates their ethics programs into their strategic planning process. Ethics management programs are also useful in managing diversity. Diversity is much more than the color of people’s skin — it’s acknowledging different values and perspectives. Diversity programs require recognizing and applying diverse values and perspectives — these activities are the basis of a sound ethics management program.

8. Ethics programs promote a strong public image.

Attention to ethics is also strong public relations — admittedly, managing ethics should not be done primarily for reasons of public relations. But, frankly, the fact that an organization regularly gives attention to its ethics can portray a strong positive to the public. People see those organizations as valuing people more than profit, as striving to operate with the utmost of integrity and honor. Aligning behavior with values is critical to effective marketing and public relations programs. Consider how Johnson and Johnson handled the Tylenol crisis versus how Exxon handled the oil spill in Alaska. Bob Dunn, President and CEO of San Francisco-based Business for Social Responsibility, puts it best: “Ethical values, consistently applied, are the cornerstones in building a commercially successful and socially responsible business.”

9. Overall benefits of ethics programs:

Donaldson and Davis, in “Business Ethics? Yes, But What Can it Do for the Bottom Line?” (Management Decision, V28, N6, 1990) explain that managing ethical values in the workplace legitimizes managerial actions, strengthens the coherence and balance of the organization’s culture, improves trust in relationships between individuals and groups, supports greater consistency in standards and qualities of products, and cultivates greater sensitivity to the impact of the enterprise’s values and messages.

10. Last – and most — formal attention to ethics in the workplace is the right thing to do.

What do you think?

(There is much more about ethics and social responsibility in that topic in the Free Management Library.)

———————————————————————————————–
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 763-971-8890
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.

How Transparent can a Mine be?

As the world watched the amazing rescue of the Chilean miners, I was struck by the amazing level of transparency being demonstrated by the Chilean government. No one knew if the rescue was going to be successful. And yet, the world was watching the event unfold live, with cameras above and below ground. What a display of trust.

Contrast this show of transparency with the tragic events that occurred in West Virginia earlier this year.

Massey Energy chairman and CEO Don L. Blankenship repeatedly defended his company and its safety record. He was quoted as saying that, “any suspicion that the mine was improperly operated or illegally operated or anything like that would be unfounded.” As commented on at the time: “Rather than exercise the least amount of humility and allow such investigation to take its course, Blankenship has already gone into a defensive mode of denial and refusal to take responsibility. Even in the wake of terrible human tragedy, he will not budge from the arrogance of a stance in which he and Massey ‘can do no wrong.'”

A headline in the Charlestown Gazette stated:

Will transparency help Massey Energy and hinder the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster investigation?

Ken Ward wrote that “It’s being argued that we in the media are “just silly” to be demanding that federal and state investigators open their probe of the disaster at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch to the press and the public.”

While the Chilean government is just beginning its probe into the safety lapses at the San Jose mine, we can hope that the level of transparency shown at the rescue will be carried forward into the investigation.