The Symbolic Frame and the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is one of the oldest government organizations in the United States. As one of the three branches of the federal government, the Supreme Court is essential to maintaining balance. “The first bill introduced in the United States Senate became the Judiciary Act of 1789. The act divided the country into 13 judicial districts, which were, in turn, organized into three circuits. The Supreme Court, the country’s highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the Nation’s Capital, and was initially composed of a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices,” (United States Supreme Court, 2013).

Members of the court must be nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Upon confirmation, the Justice is eligible to remain in service for the rest of their life. Although the Supreme Court is a small, close-knit organization, their impact is extremely significant as their decisions affect millions of stakeholders. Most justices remain as members of the court for more than a decade. This enables them to perform impartially. Even more so, the longevity of the justices allows them to heavily influence the politics and culture of the country for long periods of time, if not forever.

From the establishment of the Court, great effort has been made to strengthen the influence of the Court in the pursuit of justice and liberty. Many notable members of the court have helped to institute and evolve the culture of the organizational. “The Court by design keeps its operations largely secret from the outside world, but there are occasions when its rituals offer a window into its soul,” (Toobin, 2007, p. 3). The nature of the Court, the Justices, their support staff and the attorneys that argue before them, all help to create an organizational culture. Gillman and Clayton (1999) explain this in terms of judicial norms:

What makes something recognizable as a court, as opposed to another institution such as the presidency, is the existence of a set of distinctive norms and characteristics that gives its members unique goals and motivations. How we know institutions, not just what we know about them is definitive. There are many different ways of knowing the Supreme Court; for example, one might know it through its physical attributes, like the architecture of its building, or one might know it by studying the attitudes of the justices or the political struggles inside the Court, or one might analyze the cases it has decided, or the rules it has promulgated. But the Court, is not simply marble or codes and documents; rather, it is best described as a common set of practices, each of which has socially constructed meaning. In this sense, the Supreme Court is constituted by the interpretive community that is familiar with its practices and their commonly accepted meaning. (p. 6)

The Symbolic Frame

These judicial norms can be conceptualized based on the Symbolic Frame presented by Bolman and Deal (2008). In general, symbols serve as visual, physical, vocal and behavioral representations of ideas and concepts. The following presentation explains the Symbolic Frame of organizations and makes the connection between it and the United States Supreme Court.

Click link for Presentation: http://prezi.com/v5hy-hhu1x6s/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

The Importance of Organizational Theory for Public Managers

“Executive capacity in the form of leadership is the most important strategic factor in human cooperation; a major task of the organization is to see that those in executive positions are indeed leaders,” (Fry & Raadschelders, 2008, p. 201). Learning and understanding the different concepts and best practices of organizational theory and behavior is critical for managers in the public sector as part of expanding their leadership capacity. As in other sectors, public managers must deal with budget and time constraints; employees with varied backgrounds, skills and needs; and a multiplicity of stakeholders. Managers need to be able to bring routine and stability to certain tasks as well as handle dynamic situations fluidly.

For a leader in the public sector, organizational theory and behavior plays an integral role in the culture, stability and productivity of the organization. These theories represent cornerstones for the development of organizational values, processes, structure and leadership. “Leaders fail when they take too narrow a view. Unless they can think flexibly and see organizations from multiple angles, they will be unable to deal with the full range of issues they inevitably encounter,” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 437). As Bolman and Deal (2008) discuss the four frame model that includes the structural, human resource, political and symbolic frames, they acknowledge that frames should be interwoven in theory and practice.

Organizational theory and behavior concepts are what give public sector leaders, managers and subordinates a foundation for how to maneuver through and make sense of their environment day to day. However, “successful organizations need to decrease the degree to which their systems are formalized and structured,” (Shafritz et al., 2011, p. 5). Public managers should have a background in organizational theory, not to create concrete methods but to have a wealth of alternatives that will make decision-making easier. Overall, this positively influences organizational effectiveness and efficiency.

While leaving room for spontaneity and cultural shifts, public managers need to understand that one of the main benefits of utilizing organizational theory is to develop normalcy. This is relevant to the pursuit of efficiency, which is of high value in public environments where stakeholders are plentiful and resources are limited. Organizational theory and behavior conceptualizes the different structures and cultures that organizations can adopt to promote productivity. Delbridge, Gratton and Johnson (2006) discuss the importance of the collective experience and organizational culture:

For a group or organization to operate effectively, there has to be such a generally accepted set of assumptions; in effect, it represents the collective experience without which people would have to reinvent their world for different circumstances. As with individual experience, this shared understanding allows the collective experience gathered over years to be brought to bear to make sense of a given situation, to inform a likely course of action, and to gauge the likelihood of the latter’s success. (p.12)

Public managers help to shape the collective experience and shoulder most of the responsibility for it. Great managers are able to listen, delegate, motivate, learn and assess within the collective experience as well as visualize and adapt when the collective experience has or needs to changes. Organizational theory and behavior guides the collective experience and culture that public managers must guard against rigidity.

Public managers are assessed based on their performance. The study of organizational theory and behavior helps public managers to utilize different approaches and multi-frame thinking to solve problems effectively. Through the application of behavioral science, organizational theory teaches public managers how to incorporate several factors into the structure and processes of the public sector organization.

References:

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Delbridge, R., Gratton, L., & Johnson, G. (2006). The exceptional manager: Making the difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fry, B. R., & Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2008). Mastering public administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.

Gillman, H., & Clayton, C. W. (1999). The Supreme Court in American politics: New institutionalist interpretations. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.

Mears, B. (2010, Dec. 23). Behind the scenes tour reveals Supreme Court traditions, grandeur. Retrieved on July 27, 2013 from http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/23/supreme.court.building.75/index.html

Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (2011). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. In J.M. Shafritz, J. S. Ott & Y.S. Jang (Eds.) Classics of Organization Theory (4^th ed., p. 433-448). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y.S. (2005). Classics of organization theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Supreme Court of the United States (2013). The Court and its traditions. Retrieved on July 26, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/traditions.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States (2013). The Court as an Institution. Retrieved on July 26, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx

Supreme Court Facts (2013). Retrieved on July 24, 2013 from http://www.history.com/topics/supreme-court-facts

Toobin, J. (2007). The nine: Inside the secret world of the Supreme Court. New York: Doubleday

Don’t Underestimate the Power of the Retweet

The Cinnamon worker was absolutely having a “moment of madness” because he or she failed to consider the consequences of publicly berating a customer on Twitter. Social media is not a platform to use lightly as everything that you post on these networks has the potential to “go viral”. The staff member acted out of frustration and anger and should have been more mindful of the repercussions. You do not insult or threaten a customer, in any business, especially in the service industry. It is the responsibility of the company to satisfy the customer. If the customer expresses dissatisfaction, the company should try to find a reasonable remedy to the problem that the customer is having. Communication should be used to solve the problem not add to it.

The lesson learned from this situation is to think before you post. Social media is something that has the potential to sink the reputation and image of a company or promote the company positively. Companies should make sure that the people with administrative access to the account are those that have the proper training with conflict resolution, ethics and customer relations. Following this qualification, the person responsible for communicating through social media should simply think before they post. Taking a moment to consider the consequences of our words would prevent so much conflict. When representing a company, one should be careful about what they say and do. Expressing frustration and anger is not going to solve the problem, it only makes it worse.

As a professional I would have acted differently. Instead of responding with anger, I would have offered the customer something to change their opinion of the restaurant. This could have been a complimentary meal. The point in my twitter message would have been to present the company as one that cares about the concerns of their patrons. I would have made every effort to communicate to that customer and to the other customers that read our twitter messages that Cinnamon is a company that cares and is continuously striving to improve their products and services.

In this case, the personal life of the staff worker was not an influence on their professional life.  The staff worker used an online, professional forum to address the disappointed customer. This is the worst use of social media because it reflects directly on the company. No matter how much the company tries to distance themselves from the comments of that staff worker, the fact that the comments came from Cinnamon’s own twitter account is very damaging. It is not adequate to say that those comments do not reflect the position of the company. The professional online life of the staff member affected the company much more than their personal online or offline life.

Not Right or Wrong but Somewhere in the Middle

 

Adrian Smith made comments on his Facebook page proclaiming his disapproval of gay marriages being held in church. His statements complement his belief in traditional marriages between a man and a women and that these are the only marriages that are religiously acceptable. He fears that with the passage of time, the court system may penalize people like him for having traditional views on marriage. His employer demoted him to a non-management position and reduced his salary by 40% citing that his remarks were in conflict with the company’s code of conduct that does not tolerate making religious statements that could upset other employees.

I think that his Facebook page reflects his personal feelings on gay marriage. He simply expressed his opinion in a public forum on his own personal Facebook page. His comments were not posted on a company computer or during company time, neither were they addressed to his coworkers. With that said, I can also understand the point of view of the company. If other employees were offended by these statements, it can create a tension-filled work environment where people feel uncomfortable. Being that Adrian was in a management position, I think he could have been more cautious about his comments. I am not suggesting that he keep quiet about his opinions but rather that he choose a more appropriate forum to share them. The statements he made were neither right nor wrong but reflected a disregard for the feelings of others.

The gay and lesbian community has been treated as an outcast for centuries, so I find it ironic that Mr. Smith is now concerned with being treated the same way as a believer in traditional marriage. He is worried that his opinions and feelings will not be heard but does not express that gays and lesbians should be able to voice their opinions and be included in society.

This case shows us the power of social media. It is very pervasive and will continue to be. As communication technology increases and becomes more readily available globally, the things we say begin to matter more. Even though we are entitled to our private lives and social media accounts, we are linked to companies and institutions that strive to reflect a positive image for their sustainability, longevity and profitability. The more we try to distance ourselves from the company, or pretend as though we have two separate lives, the more we will ignore the actions that can affect our standing within these companies. Companies look at their employees, and especially those in management positions, as extensions and representatives of the company and therefore expect these employees to represent the values, principles and ethics of the company.

We must be careful about posting any comments that are of a political, religious or controversial nature. This is not to say that we do not have freedom of speech, but even that right is limited. You can’t walk into a movie theater and scream “fire” if there is no fire. This action insights panic and can cause harm. This is similar to comments about sexual orientation, gender, age, race, religion, etc. As a business professional, I would not have shared those comments on Facebook. Adrian Smith should have recognized the potential to create an uncomfortable situation. Although I don’t think he would have made those comments if he knew his job would be in jeopardy, he should have been able to look beyond his own opinions and leave the commentary to the BBC article and the law.

As a professional I am currently very aware of the conversations I have with people at work and otherwise and what opinions I express in any public forum. There are people that work in close proximity to me and I often hear them expressing, rather loudly, their political preferences and opinions. I always refuse to join these conversations because you never know how you are making other people feel. I don’t take the risk of offending or upsetting anyone and try to keep the conversation neutral. I don’t even update my Facebook page because I feel that so many people are just watching you and studying every message or picture you post. Our personal lives online can absolutely affect our professional lives offline, so we should always be mindful of what we do and say.

Reflections on Ethics

The past 6 weeks of this course has been very enlightening. While my ethical values have not changed, my ethical reasoning has. I now look at situations and my decision making process differently. I consider all the stakeholders, all the alternatives, my duty, my responsibility and the other philosophical frameworks that influence the ethics of any decision. I am better able to understand why I should come to a certain conclusion about an ethical matter.

I will use what I have learned in my professional career to communicate more accurately, effectively and ethically. In my career as a copywriter I have to ensure that the content that I share with customers is both legally and ethically appropriate. I have learned that corporate social responsibility should be more engrained in the daily practices of a company and not just in special projects or programs. When each person in the company recognizes the value of doing good for the sake of doing good, there is less need for promoting CSR to the public or as part of a public relations program. So in my daily work I demonstrate ethical behavior in the way I perform my job responsibilities and in how I interact with my coworkers.

Ethics can definitely be very useful in real world situations. Every day we are faced with interactions and challenges that highlight power struggles, conflicts of interests and personal responsibilities that force us to make decisions one way or another. Ethics in business should be an extension of the ethics we have in our homes and communities. We are bound by laws that we must keep and ethical principles that we ought to keep.

Over the past 6 weeks one of the more profound and lasting lessons I learned was about the deontological and utilitarian approach to ethics. I agree with both of these philosophical perspectives for different reasons. I agreed with the deontological approach that focuses on what our duty or responsibility is and to whom. This approach makes making ethical decisions easier because you can just use your “gut” to make a decision. You go for what is inherently right based on your moral conscience. You do good to others simple for the sake of doing good. The utilitarian approach is more centered on weighing the consequences to all the people affected by the decision. By selecting the choice that produced the most good for the most people, there is so much more to consider. I agree less with this approach than the deontological approach because even if the decision is good for most people, it could still be bad for some.

I also agree strongly with product liability. It is the responsibility of the company to produce a product that is safe. They should also practice ethical advertising methods that do not mislead customers through lies, unverified facts or omissions. I have learned that there is more than one side to a story, especially in the media. One company may be presented as ethical in one article and ethically irresponsible in another. Doing research and not believing everything you read is a great way to determine if a company is behaving ethically or not.

Overall, my knowledge base on ethics has been expanded. I am grateful that the materials in this course have forced me to think about ethics more critically.

-Rickelle

CSR: The New Performance Art

Corporate social responsibility is an effort made by companies to promote and invest in programs and strategies that involve sustainability, environmental and social responsibility, and a conscience. CSR has been embedded in the corporate culture and framework so as to represent the company as being a good corporate citizen with a heart. While many of these efforts are genuine, I can’t help but think that most of the time this is a very self-serving strategy for building brand loyalty and qualifying for a tax write-off. CSR methods and programs are often seen as an arm of the company and not a part of the soul of the company. This is because a company will always have the goal of making money, not spending it.

These are not non-profit organizations we are discussing. Their priorities usually contradict the very word “responsibility”. CSR has its shortcomings and its good attributes, but I will always be skeptical of it and cynical about it. I agree with the authors’ statement that:

The truth, which was extremely evident at #Promise but mostly absent from the stage, is that any evil corporation can build a wind farm and call it social responsibility. That doesn’t mean it isn’t an evil corporation anymore. There’s a growing skepticism that in promoting green or “socially responsible” initiatives, big companies aren’t necessarily scaling back their own negative impacts in the process.

It is difficult to promote being responsible in one dimension and not the other and come off as believable, especially if the two areas are completely contradictory to each other. A restaurant chain that promotes the use of fresh, organic, locally grown foods will have little trouble promoting the work that they do at a women’s shelter simply because they are showing responsibility in their daily business practices.

In the case of BP, their CSR strategy was initially very successful in that many people bought into the idea that there was a petroleum company that cared about the environment and was doing everything possible to be more environmentally responsible and sustainable. Their strategy took a turn for the worst after the Gulf Coast, Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Just this week, BP has agreed to plead guilty on criminal charges and civil claims with a restitution amount in the billions. Throughout the spill, people recognized that at the bottom of the rhetoric and green energy initiatives, BP was still making billions on their main product – crude oil/petroleum/gasoline. Their strategy failed to assume that the audience was reasonable enough to sift through the compelling imagery and rhetoric to see the company as it truly is, an oil company.

In the wake of the oil spill, BP could have done more for the people, animals and environments affected by the spill in a more immediate way. Instead it appeared as though they were dragging their feet to make sure that they were not legally liable for the destruction and loss of life, income and environmental stability that ensued. They appeared to want to limit their risk and liability instead of focusing on how they could not only stop the leak but make amends with all those who were negatively affected. Their “Beyond Petroleum” campaign could have created a more related angle on environmental responsibility that focused on their oil manufacturing and drilling process and how that can be made more safe and sustainable. It seems like they were promoting their green alternative energy research and production much more than how they could improve upon their main products – oil. They could have even promoted methods for reducing emissions and oil usage. Instead they focused on an area of energy that doesn’t even account for 10 percent of their business.

This case study teaches us that CSR is a multifunctional tool that can be used to serve others or gain from others. If CSR is not embedded in the daily practices of a company, it is merely another type of performance art seeking attention and applause.

McDonald’s: The Blame Game, $$$$$$ and Ethics

The Liebeck and Pelman cases brought against McDonald’s reminds me that we live in a society where there is often a monetary value placed on accountability and responsibility. While it seems that some lawsuits are of a frivolous nature, there are others that appear more legitimate. This is how I feel about the cases in this case study.

I believe that in Liebeck vs McDonald’s the plaintiff legitimately proposed that McDonald’s was responsible and accountable for the 3^rd degree burns she incurred as a result of the scalding hot coffee she spilled on herself. It is a reasonable assumption that when you buy a hot drink that if spilled, you will at most suffer from redness or irritation, not severe burns. The negligence of McDonald’s is made clear when you account for the hundreds of complaints that they had already received about the temperature of their coffee. These concerns and complaints were ignored until Liebeck brought a suit against them. If McDonald’s made an effort to rectify the problems as they were made aware of it, this suit would not have been necessary. The company should take responsibility for their faulty or defective product. They are liable for their product, especially because they were told about its defectiveness on several occasions.

I stand on the opposite side of the fence when it concerns the Pelman vs McDonald’s case. Blaming McDonald’s for your obesity is absurd. How one can attach responsibility to anyone but themselves for eating large quantities of fast food on a consist basis, I will never understand. The foundation of McDonald’s and other fast food chains is the provision of quick comfort food to their customers. It is reasonably obvious that the faster a food is prepared, the less nutritious it may be. This is because there has to be a lot of pre-preparation and preservatives to keep the food edible and reduce the cooking time required. Pelman decided, through no fault of McDonald’s to gorge on their food without the accompaniment of exercise and other nutritious foods. Just because a company advertises their product doesn’t mean that you have to consume it. There is a choice. It is not like cigarettes, where there is a highly addictive ingredient that has caused smokers to be hooked on a product that is not good for them. Pelman’s penchant for McDonald’s food comes from sheer overeating and self-inflicted addiction. Pelman’s lack of consumer due diligence and self-control should not be blamed on the fast food giant.

I can appreciate that a lot of good things came out of the case. McDonald’s became more informative about the nutritional value of their products and also began to offer healthier options, especially for children. The addition of milk and apple wedges to the menu is not surprising in light of the pressure the company faces to do better by joining the health wave.

McDonald’s can market their products in an ethical way to vulnerable audiences like children by placing an emphasis on the choice parent’s must make for the health and wellness of their children. Although children do not have the financial resources to make purchasing decisions, advertisers still target them in hopes that what the children see will be what they ask their parents for. McDonald’s lures child interest with the promotion of their Happy Meal. This meal includes a toy and colorful packaging. As I stated before, McDonald’s is trying harder to offer healthier options to children. To ethically market their products to children, they may benefit from prompting kids to talk to their parents about healthy eating and exercise. This will demonstrate that the youth target market is important to them without the appearance that their health is of little concern. Ultimately, it is up to the parents and guardians of these children to control their diet and instill good eating and lifestyle choices.

Conflict of Interest – Which Approach Is Best?

As the head of the public relations department of the state’s largest bank, I occasionally encounter ethical dilemmas that affect the stakeholders and shareholders of the bank. My decision making process however, has never involved the personal relationship that I have with my husband, the owner of Large Productions. His company has been chosen by the bank’s public relations agency to supply them with advertising products for a bank program that I am responsible for producing. This conflict of interest can be weighed using a utilitarian or deontological approach or possibly a combination of the two.

The utilitarian approach emphasizes the consequences of my actions and how they affect others. “In this sense, utilitarianism has been called a consequentialist approach to ethics and social policy: we should act in ways that produce better consequences than the alternatives we are considering” (p. 312). The target outcome of the utilitarian approach is to maximize good for the most people. As the public relations head, I would consider this approach. In doing so, I would first look at the interests of all the stakeholders involved and inform the bank’s public relations team as well as the public relations agency, Large Promotions and my husband, who I am sure would have been told informally. This allows these stakeholders to weigh the options and come up with a decision that promotes the greatest good.

Since the public relations agency was probably unaware of the potentially unethical business relationship between me and Large Promotions, it is only fair to inform them, as the use of Large Promotions was their idea, not mine. If the group decided that moving forward was perfectly appropriate, I would suggest that the second in command at the bank’s public relations firm deal more heavily with the production of the advertising specialty promotions done by Large Promotions as a vendor of the public relations agency.

Considering this conflict of interest from the deontological perspective prompts me to think beyond how the end justifies the means. This approach doesn’t focus on consequences as an ends to a means, but on principles and whether they are right or wrong. Is it principled for me to be the head of the bank’s public relations department and hire, through another party, my husband’s business? Probably not. But to decide on this, I would consult the human resources director, the legal department and the code of conduct/ethics that has already been outlined by the bank, the public relations agency and Large Promotions.

This principle-based approach would cause me to ask that the public relations agency to look for another production company to work with. Although the agency has a relationship with Large Promotions and the bank, the principled decision would eliminate Large Promotions as the vendor because of the personal relationship I have with the owner. Regardless of the ends or the potential for good consequences, the deontological approach focuses on what is right in essence and not on results. The deontological approach has the potential to produce the greatest good for the greatest number by preventing unethical matters from turning into a crisis that can affect the profits and reputation of the company.

Reflections on Ethical Decision Making

I thought that the lecture and readings for this week captured the cause of why and how ethical decisions are made and how stakeholders are affected. When reading about change blindness I thought about how this can occur in relationship to ethical decisions and other areas that don’t necessarily relate to ethics. When people “fail to notice gradual changes over time” this can cause them to participate in unethical behaviors or witness them taking place without realizing. I thought of how common this is in everyday life. People are so busy in their daily activities that it is easy to not see what is in front of you.

Learning about ethical decision making processes offers a systematic way of handling ethical issues that may arise in business or in any other forum. The way we assess these issue will help us come to the right conclusion about how to handle the situation ethically. One of the main ideas for this week was determining who stakeholders are and how they are affected by the ethical decision. Stakeholders are the people affected by the ethical decisions that are made. They can include communities and even employees. Since there can be a multitude of stakeholders, it can sometimes be difficult to come up with an alternative that everyone agrees with. The decision making process allows you to consider every point of view. Using our moral imagination, we can then compare alternatives and how each stakeholder will be affected.

Sometimes good people unintentionally act unethically for numerous reasons including ignorance, an inability to identify positive alternatives, motivation, simplicity and courage. This is why a code of ethics is important. Many organizations and institutions have a code of ethics. I can recall that for each grade level in elementary school, the teacher posted his or her own classroom rules that reflected the code of conduct that was necessary for success in that particular class. Codes of ethics are useful and practical because they guide us toward ethical behavior, which can sometimes be difficult to navigate. These codes offer consistency and accountability because they are written down. They limit ambiguity and reinforce ethical principles.

 

– Rickelle

Bernie Madoff and the Absence of Ethics

There are many ethical issues and failings in this case. For the love of profit, Bernie Madoff and his accomplices created and participated in what can be considered the greatest ponzi scheme in history. After several years in the securities and exchange industry, Bernie Madoff broke the law and deceived clients and investors in order to amass millions of dollars. It was unethical for him and others to prey on and betray the trust of investors. When he was repeatedly questioned by investigators, he consistently lied to evade criminal charges or suspicion. What started as an honest way to make a living became a fraudulent, calculated method of stealing money from others.

Bernie Madoff, his brother Peter and several employees were involved in this scheme. Some of the individuals that perpetrated the ponzi scheme are denying any knowledge of the fraudulent activity. Bernie Madoff could not carry out the scheme on his own because it required many different people with their own relevant expertise. The reason that the scheme was conducted for so long is because the participants were financially rewarded for their silence. Preferred employees were paid well. Even as the fraud was about to be exposed, Madoff and his cohorts were trying to give money to select employees and family members. The money they received bought their silence. The corporate culture reinforced this behavior. There was a low tolerance and appreciation for honesty and professional business ethics. The company was running on several layers of lies that if exposed would cause the entire operation to crumble.

If I was working for Bernie Madoff and discovered the ethical issue involved, I would think carefully about who this issue involved and how to handle the situation using my moral imagination. First I would relay my concerns to my manager or supervisor. I would consider the affect on stakeholders and also try to assess my own involvement in the scheme and determine my own guilt. This may be caused by change blindness, where overtime actual people involved in the scheme may not have noticed the unethical practices that were going on around them or that they had a hand in. During or after this assessment I would consider it my duty to report the fraudulent activity to the SEC and or other law enforcement entities providing them with as many facts as possible and offering the details of how I and others may have played a role. In doing so I would seek whistle blower protection and try to secure immunity and another job. From that point I would use the experience as a learning opportunity and try to identify ethical issues from the onset.

This situation could have prevented if the key players behaved ethically. Bernie Madoff decided to break the law, lie to clients and steel their money because of greed, peer pressure and a general disregard for others. His dominant business model was inconsistent with basic ethics and the law. If he decided to abide by the laws and be honest with investors, this would not have happened. He promised high returns, knowing that he could not produce it and vehemently denied any wrongdoing up until he was arrested. He and the other scheme participants could have volunteered the truth at any point but chose not to. Those involved in the scheme made a choice to side-step the law and fatten their wallets. They could have decided not to participate or to tell the truth after the lying began.

Reflections on Chapter 9

This week I learned that there are different concepts of ethical behavior. These differences come from the social and cultural contexts that make people behave a certain way and have a certain perspective. Finding a common ground in assessing what is ethical is essential for businesses to establish good codes of conduct and principles in other countries and at home.

I agree with the Integrative Social Contracts Theory that posits that “the ethical standards a company should try to uphold are governed by both a limited number of universal ethical principles that are widely recognized as putting legitimate ethical boundaries on actions and behavior in all situations and the circumstances of local cultures, traditions, and shared values that further prescribe what constitutes ethically permissible behavior and what does not.” This is a compromise between the ethical universalism and ethical relativism schools of thought. I think that while there are shared ethical codes among diverse cultures and nations, there are many ethical norms that only exist in a particular country or region of the world. To operate globally, transnational corporations must make an effort to craft an ethical code of conduct that incorporates both of these areas.

I think that ethics are defiantly applicable to real world situations. When I read about the mortgage crises discussed in this chapter, I could only think of the people that I know that were personally affected by this, people struggling to save their homes from foreclosure or trying to rebuild after losing their home to foreclosure. The companies involved cared very little about the people that they were setting up to fail and were only concerned with filling their pockets. If the lenders were more concerned with the welfare of the people they were serving and not the profit bottom line, the recession may not have occurred, more jobs would have been saved and more families would have been able to continue their lives comfortably, with dignity and pride. Companies that placed profit ahead of ethical behavior are what caused the economic crisis that we are faced with today.