Professional Ethics and Business Success

Professional Ethics and Business Success

Within the academic scope of business theory, it is argued that an ethically-bound organization will be shaped by such a proclivity in its leadership and the way that leadership relates to personnel. To this end, we might understand the part which effective and exemplary leadership will play in setting the parameters governing other members of an organization. Functioning in this role, business theory tells us, presents leaders with "a unique set of ethical challenges in addition to a set of expectations and tasks. These dilemmas involve issues of power, privilege, deceit, consistency, loyalty, and responsibility. How we handle the challenges of leadership will determine if we cause more harm than good." (Johnson, 10) This is to indicate that one characteristic of the current business climate is the emphasis on more conscientious leadership. However, it is also true that employees tend to respond negatively to too aggressive an oversight of affairs, with heavy monitoring producing resentment, lowered morale and a sense of organizational ethics as being enforced rather than exemplified.

In order for leadership to effectively stimulate this type of commitment without what is often referred to negatively as micro-management, it is necessary instead to simply set a positive example by ethically fulfilling the roles of the ethically-bound leader. Of course, with many of the corporate scandals of the early millennium implicating the highest offices of some leading firms, today's corporate atmosphere must be informed by an emphasis on ethically determined example leadership. This is an important aspect of improving the stewardship of businesses today struggling to find footing in a changing market. In order for the competent business leader to garner the desired ethical orientation suggested here, he must set an example and create a corporate culture which follows this example. Monitoring behaviors is tantamount to ethical enforcement which, even if this prevents divergence from ethical standards, will nonetheless lower productivity and morale.

There is evidence to support these claims in a set of articles provided by the Callahan text which apply this rationale to different occupations. In each, there seems to be indicated this close correlation between professional effectiveness and the retention of an ethical center. So is this supported by the Merrill article entitled The Professionalism of Journalism, which examines the parameters shaping a field that is in a constant state of practical, philosophical and technological flux. The primary issue for Merrill is the reality that though most journalists regard their conduct and approach to the field as being governed by codes of integrity and ethicality, there remains a wide variance of possible interpretations in these areas.

Though Merrill considers that journalism education is an option as a way to promote shared standards for professionalism, the article also cites the concern that "journalism education does increase and encourage conformist journalism. This, of course, is to some degree unavoidable . . . It is not the aim of education to cultivate eccentrics -- although 'that society is richest, most flexible, and most humane that best uses and most tolerates eccentricity." (Callahan, 43) Therein lay the divide for Merrill, who is torn between a belief in the need for some level of formalization in expectations for journalistic professionalism, which we may view as synonymous with the development of ethical integrity, and a belief in the need for some level of self-volition which can allow for the also ethically necessary maintenance of personal objectivity.

It seems fairly clear that in his own understanding, Merrill has come to endorse this individuality, taking the view that this is the inspiration from which journalistic ingenuity and success emerge. Indeed, this conclusion is underscored by the glowing language which refers to those independently minded professional journalists as 'brave souls' on account of their 'authenticity and autonomy.' (Callahan, 43) Merrill is driven to this conclusion by the view that journalism is, as a field, somehow inherently corruptible under the guise of professional conformity, particularly in the face of modern commercialization and the pressures of the 24/7 news cycle. Indeed, by his own report, we are enabled to make this inference based on the sentiment that "journalists have also seen that, usually, with increased professionalization comes increased financial remuneration." (Callahan, 39) Professionalization strikes us in Merrill's view as a distinctly negative force, implicated as such by what he sees are authoritarian forces pushing an inherently unethical standard for journalistic conformity. This provides us with an unstated assumption that there is some native value to resisting these limiting conditions, particularly within the context of the larger discussion here regarding ethical orientation. In the face of industry or leadership standards which may divert from a sense of personal ethicality, Merrill suggests that it must largely fall upon the individual to find an ethical and professional compass.

The belief presented here by Merrill that there are larger industry forces at hand which may undermine ethical tendencies is further supported by Nagel's article, Ruthlessness in Public Life. Here, Nagel makes a devastating but categorically demonstrable case as his primary argument that the most egregious and socially damaging crimes are those committed by the largest entities. This highlights an issue of startling relevance to our times. With the collapse of such major modern upstarts as Enron, Tyco and WorldCom, all of them destroyed internally by the embezzlement, misrepresentation and greed of their own leaders, it would become increasingly apparent that the presence of strong, defined and enforced business ethics codes is a determining factor in the long-term viability of corporations large and small. So would Nagel make this his primary issue, contending that "public crimes are committed by individuals who play roles in political, military, and economic institutions." (Callahan, 76)

This underscores the unwritten assumption of his text, that we have afforded far too much power to institutions which cannot be reigned in by individual ethical orientation. Citing such incidences as the Vietnam War and implicating such large scale economic institutions as the World Bank, Nagel argues that the largest institutions from which we tend to draw our ethical standards are also often guilty of widespread human rights abuses and acts that could certainly be considered criminal in nature. To Nagel, this presents us with the options either to concede to what we know are immoral acts and positions based on the understanding that society allows these trespasses or to reshape our behaviors to reflect an internal compass of ethical sensibility. As Nagel indicates of these options though, there is a self-delusion in shifting personal ethical responsibility to the mores of society. Accordingly, "when we try, therefore, to say what is morally special about public roles and public action, we must concentrate on how they alter the demands on the individual. The actions are his, whether they consist of planning to obliterate a city or only firing in response to an order." (Callahan, 77-78)

This points us to Nagel's conclusion, which much like that of Merrill, denotes the need for individual accountability in the construction of moral behavior. This is a conclusion which is supported primarily by the correlation which Nagel makes between such encompassing systems as military policy, governmental orientation and corporate culture. In the intercession between these, ethicality proves to be a casualty of interests proclaimed to be above such standards. It is this which causes Nagel to dismiss the ethical authoritarianism of such larger systems.