Where’s the Line ?

Writing for Canada.com, writer Caitlin Crawshaw outlines the ethical dangers of “moonlighting,” or taking on a second job in the same field as your day job. Crawshaw interviews Mark Wexler, a professor of business ethics at Simon Fraser University, who notes that while moonlighting can drive extra income, it can also put your career in danger: “Reputation is the big risk. You may increase your income in the short run, and lose it in the long run.”

“Moonlighting isn’t inherently tricky,” says Crawshaw. “After all, if your side project is unrelated to your day job, taking on two jobs may make you tired, but it doesn’t pose ethical issues.”

But:

Things get thornier when you work for two different employers within the same industry. How your employer feels about you working for clients in your own time may be unclear. And legally speaking, while you may have signed a confidentiality agreement when they hired you, it’s unlikely they’ve got exclusive rights to your work…

The use of proprietary knowledge and skills also causes ethical and legal problems. It’s clear to most people that using company equipment for side gigs isn’t appropriate, but you may not know that your knowledge and skills may be considered proprietary as well.

Wexler says that the best way to protect your career is by being transparent with everyone involved: “Clearly communicate the circumstances of your moonlighting to your employer and client, and be clear about how your time will be divided between your clients.”

So where’s the line? Are Crawshaw and Wexler correct? Is transparency alone the key? Or are there other ethical issues involved with moonlighting itself? And, as a manager, what would you do if you found out one of your people was moonlighting?

(Image by R. Motti via Flickr, CC 2.0) 

Last week in Where’s the Line we posted, tongue planted lightly in cheek, an old quote from conservative humorist, P.J. O’Rourke. “There is only one basic human right,” said P.J., “the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”

We asked if this maxim was true for business. Judging from the numerous comments, many thought not.

thommyguns writes:

To the extent that our actions have no effect on others I would agree, but in an increasingly flat world there is little we do that does not affect others. So I disagree. We must keep in mind that the consequences born by others due to our actions can be insufferable and cruel, and therefore we are not free to do “whatever we damn well please.”

jenyj89 likes the quote but thinks those in charge only observe the worst half of it :

Too many times we see politicians and high-level corporate leaders who have done as they pleased and got caught doing something illegal or unethical and then they scurry away or try to point fingers….failing over and over to stand up “like a man” and take the consequences for their own actions. It’s sad but true!! And our children and younger generations see it and unfortunately learn from it… it’s a bad example.

If you’re going to do something, right, wrong or indifferent, then you have to be able to stand up and say “YES, I did that” and then explain why you chose to do it, right wrong or indifferent. If you can’t…well, then, you are no better than the dirt under my shoes as far as I am concerned.

Meanwhile, psoucheray invokes the ancient Greeks:

The issue I have with the notion is that it seems to stem from the old Spartan teaching: Doing something wrong isn’t as bad as getting caught at it. That seems to be a tenet many businesses and individuals follow these days. It might be fine if we all lived in our own little bubbles. But we don’t. Like it or not, we have responsibilities to “the other” because they are us.

Or maybe P.J.’s just plain childish, says lllama:

P.J. O’Rourke sounds like a truculent 4 year old. Hopefully, next year he’ll attend kindergarten where he’ll learn to play well with others…

And our own Peter Galuszka (pgaluszka), who pens our Corner Office blog, opines:

This sounds so Ayn Rand. Greed is good. Self-interest is best. Altruism is phony. Ugh!

So who’s right? Who’s to say? As psychology student Julie O’Malley says:

I don’t think O’Rourke is commenting on whether it SHOULD or SHOULDN’T be this way, he’s saying it IS this way. And as a student of psychology, I have to agree that it really is that simple. It all boils down to human behavior. Stimulus and response, rewards and punishments. If we behave in an ethical way, it’s because we are unwilling to suffer the negative consequences of acting unethically.

And those consequences may be multi-layered: internal (guilt, anxiety, shame), external (social ostracization, rejection), legal (arrest, incarceration), business-related (firing, lack of promotion), personal (disdain from loved ones), or all of the above, plus many other possibilities.

Our decision-making brain considers it all and guides our actions.

So there, Peter. I’ll see your Ayn Rand and raise you a Sigmund Freud.

Greenwashing.

It’s such a catchy piece of shorthand. Greenwashing, for those of you who haven’t heard, describes a marketing communications activity that companies engage in when they want to be perceived as ecologically sustainable, even when they’re not. Greenwashing, as the BNET Business Dictionary notes, could amount to, “a false or misleading picture of environmental friendliness given by some organization to conceal its damaging activities.”

But there are – and have been for years – other kinds of “-washing” going on. Take, for example, Big Tobacco’s funding of a “scientific” laboratory in the 1950s that purported to debunk any links between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

The latest advances in “-washing” have come, not surprisingly, via YouTube. Recent “films” posted to the popular online video sharing site include:

Nike’s “The Girl Effect”
This film is designed to demonstrate the sportswear company’s commitment to the economic betterment of women and girls in developing countries. (Nike and its vendors have been accused of exploiting labor in poor nations such as Vietnam and Indonesia.)

Starbucks Invests in Farmer’s Communities
There’s nothing quite like happy people in bright native headgear picking coffee beans in the shadows of Kilimanjaro and enjoying water from a new plantation-funded cistern to take attention off the fact that the about only people getting rich off of Starbucks coffee are the company’s execs and coffee plantation owners.

Whole Foods’ “Whole Earth Generation” Series
Among other things, like buying its organic produce and all-natural turkey jerky, Whole Foods would very much like it if you would convert your diesel vehicle to run on used vegetable oil. Presumably, this should alleviate some of your guilt the next time you take home one of Whole Foods’ large, organic soups in a waxed paper container. Heck, the company even has a YouTube channel all its own, where you can enjoy a virtual visit to a Whole Foods market, not in the company of a sales person, but of a Guest Services Ambassador.

These companies, and many others, are using Web 2.0 tools to try to show their commitment to “corporate social responsibility,” or “CSR .” Maybe some such commitments are genuine, and maybe some are less so. Whatever the case, we need to come up with a new buzzword for when a company shamelessly touts its CSR efforts, because “CSR-washing” doesn’t exactly roll trippingly off the tongue.

We’re taking suggestions.

Where’s the line when it comes to kissing up? As BNET Pharma Industry blogger Jim Edwards pointed out this week, when GlaxoSmithKline SVP of managed markets and neurohealth, Stephen Stefano, came out recently with a new management book (called “Passion and Ice,”) a group of company and pharma industry colleagues quickly came forward with downright worshipful five-star reviews – which Stefano then posted on the book’s promotional web site — and chipped in more enthusiastic praise on Amazon. Here’s just one of dozens of, er, “reviews.”

“Bottom line, Steve … you nailed it! You must be SO proud! I will cherish the personally autographed book forever.”

— Anne Komanecky, GSK regional VP

So what do you think: Harmless (and perhaps genuine) praise, or shameless brown-nosing?

“There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”

– P.J. O’Rourke

What do you think? Is that all there is to ethics? Is P.J.’s maxim as true in business as it is in life? Or does business ethics have special needs, especially where issues of compliance and HR come into play?

(Thanks to Jim Estill over at the Time Leadership blog for this quote.) 

Some little controversy erupted around last week’s post, Are Some Execs Committing Treason?

BNET member DrBruin says that corporations are basically amoral and a-loyal, and cannot be expected to pledge allegiance to any nation or even any system of principles:

Transnational corporations, such as IBM, Exxon, Ford, Procter & Gamble, General Electric, etc., have no loyalty to any country or to any way of life, political system, or set of ideals. They are loyal only to themselves and to the goal of making a buck. Most of these companies will blithely take actions that are against the best interests of the United States if those actions are likely to produce profits or improve cash flow for the company. National boundaries, ideologies, and human rights are irrelevant in this environment. All that matters is who can buy and who can sell. The only thing that keeps our leading defense contractors from selling more of our military technology to potential enemies are the laws that will put them in jail. Otherwise, most of them would do it in a heartbeat.

But fellow member, criving, demurs, saying that nations like China are the future and that griping about such old fashioned notions as national loyalty is really just a kind of sour grapes:

As China has been the force in PC components manufacturing for some years, I believe it is ridiculous to even mention the label treasonous… and considering the hundreds of PhD’s being produced by China, India and others it is just a matter of time to see Chinese companies take the lead in all areas of key technological advances. The USA can enjoy the last years on the top, get ready for [a] Chinesse lead and start sending more kids to college. Hamburger making and George Bush are leading the USA to the fall of the empire.

So who’s right? If corporate responsibility includes things like a duty to the environment and a duty equal opportunity and a duty to diversity, does it not also include a duty to country? And if not, why not?

In 2004, IBM (all-American “Big Blue”) sold its PC division to Lenovo, a company in China. According to an article by Clyde Prestowitz in the The American Prospect, “The announcement came as a surprise in Washington but was old news in Beijing,” which had been engineering the sale for more than a year, unknown to U.S. officials.

IBM, says the article, “wanted to support China’s industrial strategy (including the upgrading of its technological capacities and know-how).” The article quotes IBM chair Sam Palmisano: “If you become ingrained in their agenda and become truly local and help them advance, then your opportunities are enlarged… You become part of their strategy.”

Okay, so what? If you want to do business in the belly of the dragon you’ve got to play by the dragon’s rules, right? Well, yes. But there’s more to it, writes Peskowitz:

The CEOs of global companies often prefer to do business with authoritarian regimes; they can get faster decisions than they can in democracies. But these CEOs also find that they must be more responsive to the desires of the authoritarian regimes than to those of the democracies. Where there are conflicting national interests, the global CEOs are likely to line up on the side of the authoritarians and even to become lobbyists for them within the democracies.

The key problem is the asymmetry of governmental power over corporations in democratic and authoritarian regimes. In Washington, a CEO of a major corporation is an important political player who makes big PAC donations, maintains legions of lawyers and lobbyists, files lawsuits against the government, writes legislation, and influences regulatory decisions. In Beijing, Riyadh, or Moscow, however, the same CEO is a supplicant. He doesn’t file lawsuits against these governments; indeed, he needs to maintain favor and keep the bureaucrats and party operatives happy.

Peskowitz’s suggestion is clear: Some American (and by implication, Western) execs are in essence acting as double agents, helping fulfill the economic strategies of authoritarian powers whose humans rights ethos and strategic interests are antithetical to our own.

So, where’s the line? By playing both sides and promoting the interests of potential strategic rivals, are execs doing business with less-than-democratic powers committing a kind of treason? Are they merely protecting their own companies’ interests and, by proxy, supporting our own economy? Or is this just another case of xenophobia?

(Image courtesy Gregory Johnson via Flickr, CC 2.0)

Google’s informal motto is a simple one, “don’t be evil.” It has certainly helped the hipster search giant’s reputation among, well, hipster Web searchers, though the company hasn’t always lived up to its ideal. Take for example the company’s alleged complicity with China’s Golden Shield Project, which monitors Internet traffic coming into the country for information the authoritarian government finds inappropriate, which has been condemned by both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Yahoo, whose Mountain View, Ca., office halls sport posters of Google, asking the question, “Sometimes evil?,” has also been put on the hot seat for its ethical gaffs in China. After Yahoo turned over the personal information of Chinese dissident, Shi Tao to the Chinese authorities – which sentenced him to 10 years in laogai – CEO Jerry Yang was compelled to the ultimate Chinese act of contrition: bowing three times to the Tao’s mother during a congressional hearing.

Not to be outdone on the “evil” front, in 2005 Microsoft was roundly condemned for assisting authorities in stifling Chinese bloggers by helping censors remove words like “freedom” and “democracy.”

Just as China has been cleaning house for the Beijing Olympics, it appears the three companies are trying to clean up their ethical acts with regard to human rights in China and elsewhere. They have reached a voluntary agreement to adhere to a code of conduct when dealing with Internet-restricting countries. The deal comes at the prompting of U.S. Senators, Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who were concerned that the three might be forced by the Chinese government to turn over Internet data of athletes, journalists and others at the Olympics.

Though the companies have thus far provided few details of the code of conduct, it is said to involve “principles of expression and privacy,” and will provide implementation of guidelines, a “learning framework” – whatever that is – and a system of assessment.

Said Michael Samway, vice president and deputy general counsel of Yahoo in letter to Durbin and Coburn, “Events around the world make a code of conduct not just ideal but essential, as companies and others work to ensure the protection of basic human rights for citizens across the globe.”

Without more details, it’s hard to tell if this is for real or the ethical equivalent of “green washing.” How can Internet companies protect the human rights in places like China and expect to continue to do business there? What real trade-offs will these companies make?

Kickback. Carrot. Sweetener. Inducement. Backhander. They’re all synonyms for “bribe.”

Whatever you call it, bribery’s just a normal part of doing business in certain corners of the world. China, for example. For all its pre-Olympics tightening-up, business in China is still fueled by bribery. At least that’s what TRACE International has found. TRACE – a U.S.-based, non-profit association that counsels international companies on bribery – says that 148 reports detailing bribery demands in China were filed through its anonymous reporting system between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008.

How did it break down? Who requested the bribes, what did they request, and how much did they want?

• Major requestors included government officials (38 percent), government employees (14 percent), police, judiciary, and communist party officials (33 percent), with NGO reps, private companies and others taking up the remainder.
• What were they asking for? Cash or its equivalent made up the bulk of the bribery requests (77 percent). Nine percent requested hospitality and/or entertainment. The rest wanted things like “gifts,” “travel,” and “sexual favors.”
• The amount of bribes ranged from $20 to more than $500,000, with most requests coming in between $101 and $10,000.

(Download the full report from TRACE International.)

What to make of this? To some, business is business and if this is the way they do business in China then you have to play the game. But is it ethical? Should your company knowingly pay out bribes that only add to the corruption already endemic to a country’s culture and economy?

This knowledge comes to us via Ethics World.

It appears our workplace boozing post touched a few hot buttons, especially those of BNET reader, Acrebel, who is dead set against allowing any alcohol in the workplace, and who lays out a pretty tight case against it:

I am utterly opposed to alcohol in the workplace, for the following reasons, based on 35 years in both the private and public (government) workforce:

• Drinkers often behave with reduced impulse control and their coworkers may be exposed, therefore, to heightened risks around bullying, harassment, sexual innuendo
• Drinkers often become incompetent (to degrees that increase with each drink) and either cannot perform their duties properly or, and this is even worse, believe they are performing well or making sound decisions when they are operating at less-than-optimum levels
• Drinkers can be hazardous to themselves and others within the workplace, particularly if any kind of machinery is operated
• Drinkers can be hazardous to other people outside the office, particularly if they are driving back to the office, to pick up the kids, to do the shopping or to go home
• Drinkers can themselves be at risk outside of the office, as they go home (for example, first from potential attack by others who recognise their impaired state (at railway or bus stations, or in dark shortcuts) and second, by not recognising when they’re safe as pedestrians in busy traffic)
• Drinkers often have other addictive behaviours, such as gambling, and these behaviours can be triggered by alcohol consumption, leading to over-expenditure, or even misappropriation of funds
• Staff who are alcoholics and are dry should not be exposed within their place of work to alcohol; the workplace should be a safe place for them (noting also that drinkers frequently pressure and bully non-drinkers about their abstinence by reference to being ‘babies’ or ‘party-poopers’, calling manhood into question and so on)

I also believe that there is a certain amount of duty-of-care that falls to employers. It is beholden on the employer to provide a safe working environment, and such safety CANNOT be assured if the employer is serving or permitting alcohol to be served, and/or tolerating drinking during working hours (including staff coming back from lunch having consumed alcohol).

I have no problem with people drinking responsibly in their own homes or in licensed establishments, but never in the workplace.

What’s your take? Do you agree with Acrebel?

(Image courtesy DOS82 via Flickr, CC 2.0)