COMMENTARY--When you stand to make a decent profit or win the adoration of your management, why let a little something like ethics stand in the way?
There's been some nasty business going on lately, all concerning one issue, yet nobody is saying the word. Before we get into it, let me first give you some other words... Enron, HIH, WorldCom, One.Tel, Arthur Andersen... see a pattern?
All of these names are known for being involved in the uglier side of business. One word that comes to mind when thinking of this group is ethics, an area that I feel has been getting a bad rap lately. For something that we are meant to take pride in, it is almost a dirty word.
Journalists may not be the first group to jump to mind when you think of ethics, but journalists make ethical decisions every day. In part, our careers depend on whether the public sees us as a trustworthy and reputable source of information. (However some careers continue to thrive even though exposed as unethical--the names Jones and Laws spring to mind).
IT managers too are faced with ethical and moral decisions. Let's take this scenario: your boss comes to you and says from now on the company is implementing a three-month deletion policy on e-mail for certain members of staff. While not saying as much, the reason for this policy is deleted e-mail can't be held against you in court--after all, something can't be used as evidence if it doesn't exist.
From the company's stance it is easily justifiable, e-mail has got the odd person and organisation into trouble, just look at Microsoft in its antitrust case.
However, as a member of the IT department, it is your job to carry out the deletion. The question is, do you have an ethical problem with this?
TechRepublic conducted a survey recently, asking its members if they had ever been asked to do something at work that was unethical. Of the 827 surveyed, 57 percent said yes.
But what constitutes unethical behaviour? What is unethical for one person could be acceptable behaviour for another. Some people wouldn't raise an eyebrow at that dilemma, while others would be deeply perturbed.
In the Australian legal system actions are compared against what the jury believes the "common man" would do. But what happens when the common man is no longer the reputable person we thought he was? After all, One.Tel didn't fall over on its own.
According to a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald the fear factor is so high in our society that we don't even feel we can trust charitable organisations to do the right thing with our donations. But is it any wonder? There are many examples of profits coming before people; a quick look around and you see religious organisations hiding known child abusers for fear of being sued, a high-profile businessman going to jail (or not), and a government whose favourite term is "economic reform".
While it is easy to point the finger, the problem is too widespread for the blame to only rest with a few high-profile people and organisations.
Take One.Tel; you can only blame the management for so long--a lot of other individuals were involved along the way, from the board, to the financiers, and the employees at large.
What I want to know, is at what point are people taking on their employer's principles as their own? Is this what you need to do to get ahead?
Further, to bring it back to our dilemma, if you decide you don't agree with the e-mail deletion policy, what options do you realistically have and how will it affect your career?
Subscribe now to Australian Technology & Business magazine.
