Justifying Unethical
Behavior
So how do supposedly intelligent, and presumably
experienced, executives and employees manage to
commit acts that end up inflicting such harm on their
companies, colleagues, customers, and vendor partners?
Saul Gellerman identified “four commonly held
rationalizations that can lead to misconduct”:4
1. A belief that the activity is within reasonable ethical
and legal limits—that is, that it is not “really”
illegal or immoral. Andrew Young is quoted as
having said, “Nothing is illegal if a hundred businessmen
decide to do it.” Th e notion that anything
that isn't specifically labeled as wrong must be OK
is an open invitation for the ethically challenged
employer and employee—especially if there are
explicit rewards for such creativity within those
newly expanded ethical limits. The Porsches and
Jaguars that became the vehicles of choice for
Enron’s young and aggressive employees were all
the incentives needed for newly hired employees
to adjust their viewpoint on the company’s creative
practices.
2. A belief that the activity is in the individual’s or
the corporation’s best interests—that the individual
would somehow be expected to undertake the activity.
In a highly competitive environment, working
on short-term targets, it can be easy to find justification for any act as being “in the company’s
best interest.” If landing that big sale or beating
your competitor to market with the latest product
upgrades can be seen to ensure large profits, strong
public relations, a healthy stock price, job security
for hundreds if not thousands of employees, not
to mention a healthy bonus and promotion for
you, the issue of doing whatever it takes becomes
a much more complex, increasingly gray ethical
area.