Do circumstances and opportunity make us more or less honest people? This was the question that Dan Ariely tried to answer by putting university students in situations where it was easy for them to cheat and obtain personal benefits without being discovered ("Predictably Irrational"). For example, before taking a test (with the possibility of accessing the answers and receiving a financial reward) they were asked to write down the Ten Commandments (even if they didn't know them all) or to sign a declaration of compliance with the Code of Ethics (even if it didn't exist). And the answer was conclusive: remembering moral standards at the "moment of temptation" can be very effective in reducing dishonest behaviour and even avoiding it altogether, i.e. remembering ethical principles or values (individual or collective) leads us to behave better.
If we accept this experience as good, we can ask: How do we identify the moment(s) of temptation in an organisation? Better still: How can we be reminded of ethical values in moments of "temptation"? I believe that talking regularly about ethics may be one of the best answers.
And what is talking about ethics in organisations? Talking about ethics can be about something positive that we would like to have or implement, for example labour flexibility or hybrid working, or about something that worries us, for example bad practices that we may observe. The latest triennial international study, Ethics at Work, revealed that the three most observed bad behaviours are "abuse of authority" (36%), "incorrect declaration of the number of hours worked" (31%) and "bullying/harassment" (31%). In Portugal, from 2021 to 2018, abuse of authority increased slightly (40% vs 38%) but harassment increased a lot (29% vs 14%). Talking about what is or isn't abuse of authority or the different types of harassment, particularly moral and sexual, or even the boundaries between abuse of authority and moral harassment is a way of talking about ethics. Regularly applying this study in the organisation and reflecting on the results together is also talking about ethics. But talking openly about ethics, without fear, presupposes an ethical organisational culture, to be promoted and built every day.
"Talking about what is or isn't abuse of authority or the different types of harassment, particularly moral and sexual, or even the boundaries between abuse of authority and moral harassment is a way of talking about ethics."
If we accept the "20;60;20" rule* as a good one, we will conclude, it seems to me, that it is important to talk about ethics regularly in organisations, that it is important to manage ethics. This rule suggests that 20 per cent of people will always do the "right thing", i.e. they will always act legally and ethically regardless of the circumstances or working environment; it also suggests that 20 per cent of people will always act illegally or unethically when they have the opportunity to do so, if the rewards are attractive and if they perceive a low probability of being caught; the remaining 60% are people who, while generally honest, may engage in illegal or unethical behaviour if "circumstances require it", i.e. if there is pressure from management or peers, inadequate reward systems, or the conviction that they are acting in the best interests of the company.
These 60%, the (large) group of people who are "adjustable" to the pressures and type of environments in which they work, are the potential targets of ethics programmes. These programmes help to create a more ethical organisational climate and, in the long term, will allow (more) ethical organisational cultures to emerge.
"the (large) group of people who are "adjustable" to the pressures and type of environments in which they work, are the potential targets of ethics programmes."
What is an ethical organisational culture and how do we "measure" it? What is an Ethics Programme and what are its main elements? Are the code of ethics, communication and ethics training the only tools? How do we design ethics programmes that are effectively instruments for change? How can we compare ourselves with other national and international organisations on these issues?
At a time of increasingly demanding national and international regulations, which require the existence of code(s) of conduct and/or ethics and whistleblowing channels - for example on harassment, diversity, personal data protection or corruption - how can managers reconcile legal compliance and strengthening an ethical culture? What are the differences (in theory and in practice) between a code of ethics and a code of conduct? How can we create safe spaces for dialogue, without fear of retaliation, that allow and encourage whistleblowing, or rather, that allow us to "give a voice to integrity"?
At a time when it is often said that we no longer share the same ethical principles and values, when and how do we talk about ethics in organisations so that we are (permanently) reminded in "moments of temptation"? Can anything be done to strengthen the moral development of employees?
These are some of the questions we will try to give (some) answers to in this "periodic space for reflection on organisational ethics". Many other questions could be asked, so this is also a space for the reader to ask us.
For now, and going back to the "20,60,20" rule, we suggest taking advantage of the 20% of people who always do the "right thing" to set an example and be the promoters of Ethics Programmes.
In conclusion, one of the myths surrounding organisational ethics is that people are either ethical or they are not, and that therefore there is not much that can be done about it. Not believing this myth implies recognising that you can (partially) control the occurrence of unethical behaviour and, therefore, that you can prevent and/or change the behaviour of managers and employees, that you can increase the ethical sensitivity of (many) people.
* Mark S. Schwartz (2013), Developing and sustaining an ethical corporate culture: The core elements, Business Horizons, vol. 56, issue 1, pp 39-50.
