All Posts in Business Ethics

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

Politics and religion are two of the three forbidden topics for polite conversation. Sex is the third, but its most interesting aspects don’t lend themselves to conversation anyway. But since sex is the only forbidden topic missing from this column in recent months, I figured, let’s make it a clean sweep …

Actually, no. Nor am I going to revisit politics. The electoral silly season is over.

Religion, on the other hand, calls for one more column.

Most of the responses I received in response to my recent column on core values were complimentary, compassionate, and favorable. To all who wrote, my thanks.

I also received dozens of letters I can only describe as evangelism. In conjunction with other recent experiences and conversations, I’m concerned.

It isn’t that I think conversations about either religion or politics are bad manners. In a society that depends on an informed electorate to choose its leaders, and also relies on the ability of diverse communities to coexist, one might consider exchanges of views on these subjects to be a worthwhile way for citizens to spend an evening or three.

So I don’t object at all to these messages that, either to criticize or evangelize, asserted the absolute truth of each writer’s brand of Christianity. I’m sincerely delighted for anyone who has found a system of belief that provides comfort and clarity. In churches, homes, and conversations with friends, your religious beliefs are your own business, so long as they don’t lead to actions that cause harm to others.

Bringing your beliefs into the workplace, on the other hand, creates discomfort for co-workers, and a dangerous situation for yourself and your employer. I worry that many Americans seem quite comfortable doing so.

Consider this anecdote, related by an acquaintance not long ago: “I interviewed a job applicant today. When he told me he was a Christian, I knew he’d be a great manager.”

Or this, mentioned to me casually in an open area by a middle-manager friend: “Secular humanism is the single biggest source of evil in the world today.”

Or this, paraphrased from several dozen office conversations I’ve overheard in recent years: “Islam isn’t like Christianity or Judaism. It encourages terrorism!”

(Or, at the risk of re-introducing politics, Joe Lieberman’s offensive comment, early in the presidential campaign, that God is the only source of ethics.)

If you don’t think attitudes like these can create discriminating or harassing work environments that lead to legal liability, you aren’t thinking. In the workplace, your actions and decisions must be pluralistic. You must show respect, not just toleration, regardless of your personal beliefs. It’s required, both by law and common courtesy. My friend who liked the Christian job applicant violated this rule, and to his company’s detriment. He should have disqualified the applicant for lack of professionalism, and is at risk of termination for his own unprofessional conduct.

It might appear that I’m singling out Christians in this column. If so, it’s because in my personal experience in the workplace I’ve only experienced evangelism and religious disrespect from people who describe themselves as such. Being the majority in America puts Christians most at risk. The principle certainly isn’t limited to Christianity, and if you’re Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic (or, for that matter, a practitioner of Wicca or an atheist) … you also need to respect the beliefs of others, at least when you’re “on the clock”.

Values are an important part of leadership. By all means discuss values, but when you do, discuss them behaviorally. You can, and should ask, “What would you do in this situation?” and not only during job interviews. The best leaders both demonstrate personal integrity in their actions and demand it of their employees, and take steps to ensure the core values of the business are well-understood by all employees.

Discussing the source of those values in religious terms, and especially insisting that any one religious perspective is more correct than the rest, puts you in the danger zone. The gulf between, “Here’s what I believe,” and “I’m right so you must be misguided,” is immense. Discussions of religion happen on personal time and can have nothing to do with business.

Besides, if you use religion as a criterion for personnel decisions you won’t learn anything. After all, anyone can tell you they’re a Christian. In the workplace, it’s how they … and you … act that matters.

Comments

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

It’s time to vote. It’s a tough choice this year. No, I’m not going to endorse either George “Fratboy” Bush or Al “Cyborg” Gore. This being an IT publication, that wouldn’t be appropriate. Personally, I’m using my Aunt Lila’s logic. Years ago she explained why she was voting for Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan. “I can’t stand the thought of voting for somebody stupider than me.”

At least we weren’t treated to a dueling dirt campaign. Much to my astonishment, the Gore campaign didn’t try to uncover the specifics of Bush’s youthful indiscretions, nor did the Bush campaign ever accuse Gore of getting high on WD-40 while lubricating his bearings.

Miracle of miracles, everyone seems to have respected both candidates’ privacy.

If only we could extend that respect to the rest of us.

For consumers, the privacy battleground is greasy corporate behavior vs. the BIG/GAS theory (“Business Is Great/Government and Academics are Stupid”). The heavily promoted and highly popular BIG/GAS theory says government regulation is always a bad thing and industry can regulate itself (despite more than a century of evidence to the contrary). Greasy corporate behavior includes stalking technology that surreptitiously follows you around the World Wide Web, privacy “policies” like Amazon.com’s, which, as Ed Foster recently reported, collects data now to be used according to whatever privacy policy Amazon.com happens to publish in the future … and use of the BIG/GAS theory itself to promote self-regulation as a solution, despite ample evidence of business shortsightedness, stupidity … and greasiness.

For employees, the privacy battleground is more nebulous, which may be the reason employees seem to be giving up. Awhile back the Society of Financial Service polled managers and employees on the subject. According to the survey, two-thirds of all companies monitor their employees in some fashion or other, and most employees don’t seem to mind: Only two out of five employees considered even video surveillance a breach of employer ethics.

Once the automated monitoring of e-mails and web usage becomes acceptable employer behavior, we accept the principle of automated surveillance for detecting violation of all company policies and procedures.

Consider the future. Computers will have built-in cameras; we’ll have software that surreptitiously watches employees at their desks. Telephones will include software that surreptitiously records all conversations in an office. And why not? It’s the company’s computer and telephone, not the employee’s.

The source of employer indifference regarding employee privacy rights is fuzzy, but as my upcoming book, Lewis’s Laws, points out, modern business theories dehumanize the workforce, so they’re a likely culprit. The process perspective, for example, treats employees as roles in processes, seeking to move intelligence from employees to the process. Similarly, the knowledge perspective treats companies as collections of knowledge and seeks to move intelligence from employees to knowledge management systems. With employees viewed as process role-holders and replaceable bags o’skills and knowledge, is it any wonder companies see no problem monitoring their behavior, “hoteling” them in shared workspaces, and otherwise failing to acknowledge their natural need for privacy?

Why employees aren’t outraged is a mystery. Regardless, don’t mistake employee docility for evidence that surveillance is a good idea.

The untheoretical reality is that companies succeed and fail more on the quality and motivation of their workforce than on any other factor. The employee anti-privacy policies now prevalent in the American workplace communicate a lack of trust that’s surely as de-motivating as any message an employer can send.

Comments