Twenty-nine years ago, seventy-four men died in calm seas on a moonlit night in June.  All because an "employee" didn't feel safe enough to communicate vital information to "management."  It was completely avoidable.

Every day employee lawsuits cost companies millions and some CEOs their jobs.  Many because an employee didn't feel safe enough to communicate vital information to management.  They, too, are completely avoidable.

***

Companies Don't Practice The Ethics That They Preach (IndustryWeek: June 1, 2000)  "Despite the existence of ethics programs at many companies, more than 75% of the employees surveyed by accounting and consulting firm KPMG LLP say that in the last 12 months they have observed legal violations or violations of company standards within their organizations. The most common infractions: sexual harassment, employment discrimination, deceptive sales practices, breach of the environment, and unsafe working conditions. In addition, 61% of those surveyed by KPMG said they did not think their company would discipline individuals who were guilty of an ethical infraction. Nearly as many -- 55% -- said their CEO was unapproachable if an employee needed to deliver "bad" news."

"Why Lying Can Be a Tricky Business"

The Denver Business Journal -- September 25-October 1, 1998

Dateline: Prague, Czech Republic.

On a brand new highway, two Czech policie stop a U.S. businessman driving toward the German border.  "Grosse probleme! Grosse probleme!" one bellows.  They claim he lacks an autobahn vignette (sticker) on his German car, allowing him on the highway.  When the businessman points to a vignette just bought, the policie lie, claiming it's no good.  They demand a 5,000 koruna ($170) fine.

Czech policie legally collect traffic fines on the spot, but reportedly also extort money from rich Germans, under threat of jail.   Though having plenty, the businessman says he has few koruna. He thus avoids jail for a mere 700.  The policie are extortionists, they lied.  The businessman keeps his money, but he lied, too.  A case study in ethics.

Here in the land of the fifty-cent beer and in other less-developed countries, the law of supply and demand becomes quite visceral.   Stomachs churn from both hunger and fear.  Money often means the difference between surviving or not, as it does in any poorer area.  Ethics becomes relative.

Most reading this column work to "make a buck" to improve their standard of living: a new car, better house, higher tuitions, deserved vacations.  But in this former East Bloc country, "making a koruna" often means not just a better life, but survival itself.  Getting what you can out of another is not occasional, it's allegedly the standard work ethic; particularly if you're a member of the policie.

It would be inaccurate and unfair to label the Czech people or even its policie by the actions of two.  Nor might all American businessmen behave as this one did.  Yet it's an example of "When Ethics Collide."

Customs differ from country to country, culture to culture.  When do such differences justify behavior and when are they properly superceded by a more generally accepted standard?  Under the guise of cultural differences and economic hardship, should lying in the Czech Republic be more acceptable than in America?  Defending against extortion, should the businessman's lie to the Czech policie be more acceptable than lying to U.S. police?

Throughout Europe, most don't understand the U.S. concern over President Clinton's lying to the American people.  The purpose of the lie and the content of the deceit apparently excuse it.  Just as the purpose of the lie and content of the deceit apparently absolved the Czech policie.  After all, we're talking about only a few korunas here, perhaps to feed a child.  Do we then excuse the businessman's lie, based on its purpose and content?

We seem to judge lying, not with regard to lying itself, but rather its purpose and content.  Few might argue with lying to save one's child, for example. Therefore, when is lying okay and when is it not?  Where's the line?

Honesty can be practiced to a fault, of course.   Witness "est" (Ehrhard Seminar Training) of the '70s, for those aged enough to remember.  est graduates believed whatever thought passed through one's mind deserved voice.  Yet few would succeed in business following that route.

Perhaps the key lies in what harm, if any, is done.   The polls indicate most people don't feel harmed by the President's lying, because they don't feel harmed by his infidelity or covert dalliances.  They do feel harmed, though, by Saddam Hussein's lying because he's covertly making weapons of mass destruction, targeted at us.  Tolerance of lying thus lies on a continuum.

As the European Union edges toward adopting the euro and the world continues to shrink, it is likely more common cultural ethics will follow.   As the techno-communication revolution leads us into a new sociology, can a more shared standard of principled behavior be far behind?  Yet defining acceptable and unacceptable lying will still challenge us.

On his flight home, the businessman selects the film, "Wag the Dog."  The film proclaims the dog wags its tail because it's smarter than the tail, otherwise the tail would wag the dog.  Is it that liars mistakenly think they're smarter?

"A little lie that makes people feel better isn't really wrong," says a character in "Harriet the Spy."  That's certainly true.  So again, when does fibbing cross the line?  I invite your views.   No lie.

***

"Mergers Can Be Like Driving in Italy"

The Denver Business Journal -- October 16-22, 1998

Driving in Italy is a challenge.  Most Americans feel scared, overwhelmed at what seems total chaos.   Lane markers mean nothing.  Stoplights are mere suggestions.  No one gives way to another.  Courtesy in merging is non-existent.  It's every man, woman and Cinquecento for himself.  The goal: to simply survive and keep going.

Yet, despite countless gridlocks and inefficiencies, traffic does move.  Because everyone is playing by the same "rules."   That is, there are no rules.  Everybody knows it.  Snooze, you lose.   Bullying wins the day.

Mergers and acquisitions of companies can feel much the same: like it's every (wo)man for himself.  Everyone struggles to discern the new rules.  The goal: to simply survive and keep going.  But what happens when there are no rules?  Should bullying win the day?

Ethics is simply a code of right and wrong.   It's the rules a group creates for governing behavior.  When there are no rules, there are no generally accepted ethics.  People can get scared.  They may act rashly, impulsively, perhaps meanly.  Bullying is rewarded.

When two entities merge, success is greater if the new entity resembles neither the previous two, but instead creates its own identity.   Merging an apple and orange best succeeds if the new entity looks like, say, a pear.  Unlike a redesigned apple or orange, the pear has no "second class citizens."  Fear and rivalry are minimized.  A new set of "rules" for all is created.  No one is ahead or behind the power curve.  People feel safer.  Merger is much more efficient and successful.

Consider two single parents re-marrying.   Joining their respective families, how do they ensure equanimity, and resulting merger efficiency and success?  What questions should they ask themselves, each other, and their kids to monitor how the merger's going?  It's the same in business.

An enlightened company CEO here in Italy leads such an organizational transition.  To best do so, he asked the following about his company as it makes the transformation.  His questions are astute:

Do people still find working here rewarding, a challenge in the right context?  Do people feel recognized for their contribution?   How healthy is communication within the new organization? Is information getting to all levels?  Is the new organization optimally structured, or are we wasting human resources and people's time working around institutional impediments?  What are employees' biggest likes and dislikes?  Are they significant enough to take action?   Do employees know where the new organization is headed and what their role is?

To ensure an efficient, successful merger, keep these primary precepts in mind:

- Be honest with everyone from the beginning.   You're not dumb and neither are most of your employees.  They know a major change is coming.  Tell 'em the truth, before circumstances and time get the upper hand, creating reasons for people to become fearful, defensive and possibly angry.   The less folks worry and maneuver to survive the changes, the more productive they'll be.  And the more likely your best people will stick around.

- Within the context of change, endeavor to establish stability.  Be sensitive to people's needs, fears and desires, which govern us all.  Create a level playing field.  And make it fun.  It CAN be done.

- Publicize the new opportunities for employee growth and advancement.  It's essential employees you intend to retain recognize changes in the organization as personally beneficial to them.  Communicate that the rising tide of merger will raise all ships.  Everyone will benefit.

Once an American accepts the Italian code of driving ethics, it's actually fun...like bumper cars.  Cutting off a fellow Fiat or muscling a Masseratti can be a lark.  The key is in accepting and adapting to the new rules, which apply to all.  It's a good lesson for companies, managers and employees going through merger or acquisition.

Remember: make the new rules clear and open from the outset, create stability by making both entities as equal as possible, and publicize the new opportunities and rewards for all.  Oh, and create a pear.

Interested in mergers and acquisitions?   Denver's Chapter of the Association for Corporate Growth presents "Corporate Growth in Colorado: Leveraging the Opportunities." Friday, October 16th.  Call 303.296.6300 for details.  Ciao!

***

"Business Gifts Require Presents of Mind"

The Denver Business Journal -- November 6-12, 1998

Poor Mike Espy.  You wouldn't want to be in his shoes now.  He's the former three-term, Jackson, Mississippi Congressman who--before his forced resignation--was President Clinton's first Secretary of Agriculture from 1993-94.

Special prosecutor Donald C. Smaltz has Mike in U.S. District Court in D.C. these days on 38 felony charges of corruption.  Seems Mississippi Mike is accused of accepting $35,458 worth of plane rides, sporting tickets and other gifts he knew he wasn't supposed to receive.  Perennially bow-tied, Dandy Don says Mike did so repeatedly (from the day he took office!) saying ethics laws were "a bunch of junk."

On the benevolence end, Tyson Foods Inc. challenged the adage that it's better to give than to receive.  The poultry-giant pleaded guilty in December to giving Espy more than $12,000 in illegal gratuities. It paid a $4 million fine for the largesse.  That's a lotta chickens.

Besides Tyson Foods, Mike allegedly accepted gifts from Sun-Diamond Growers of California, Oglethorpe Power Corp. of Georgia, Smith Barney Inc., EOP Group Inc., Quaker Oats Co., and Fernbank Inc.  Apparently several companies weren't too clear on how business gifting may be inappropriate.

Naturally, there are accusations of political motivation on both sides.  But what's the lesson for those of us in the hinterlands?   Answer: think before you give or receive.

As the holiday season approaches and companies get their gift orders in, Rick Bowman, President of Advertising Products Company, reminds there's a "difference between a thank you gift and a reward."  APC's Cheryl Prangley, who counts Norwest Bank and Lockheed-Martin among her clients, notes "presentation is important, timing is important. Any quid pro quo should be minimized."  Words to heed.

On the receiving end, attorney Michael Sabbath suggests asking oneself the questions: What are my duties, obligations and expectations in accepting a gift?  What's the motive, the intent?  Is the gift manipulative?

Of course, many companies and organizations have policies (or should have) concerning gifting and receiving presents.  Likewise, many professional organizations have codes of ethics or conduct that guide members.  These give rise to more concrete questions such as: Is the gift illegal?  Is it against organizational policy?  How are my boss, co-workers and employees going to view the transaction, in light of the published code?

Within an organization, it can be a different matter, but not much.  Generally, the same spirit of right and wrong gift-giving and receiving applies.

With regard to a gift itself, it might be helpful to assess how close the gift is to cash.  For example, tickets to a football game, when the giver joins you, are likely normal business entertainment gifts.  However, if the tickets are just handed out, it starts to get close to cash.  A good rule of thumb is: the greater the value of the gift and/or the closer it is to cash, the more vulnerable it is to unfavorable review by others.

Here are some other guidelines:

- Alcohol, including wine subscriptions, is best left for those you know well, who won't be offended

- Lingerie, jewelry and perfumes are only for intimates to exchange

- Joke gifts may backfire and cause embarrassment

- Avoid gifts during negotiations or bidding processes

- Food gifts should accommodate the recipient's dietary needs

- Try to tailor the gift to the receiver

- Desk and travel accessories are always appropriate

- Charitable gifts in the recipient's name are classy

Sometime after Thanksgiving, Mississippi Mike will learn which, if any, of Dandy Don's charges stick.  No matter, the tension will ruin the Espy family's Turkey Day in Jackson.  And all because his greed, or appearance of it, got the best of him.  Don't let anything similar happen to you.

The holidays are a time for giving from the heart and showing your appreciation for folks you care about, including loyal customers and valued employees.  Gifting should not be to curry favor or seek business advantage.   Only quality products and superior service can rightly do that.  Only benevolent, skilled leadership will firmly retain valued employees.  Inappropriate gifts, both the giving and receiving of them, can be tacky, unethical, even illegal.   They only risk the stability and growth of good business relationships.  Happy Thanksgiving.

***

"Good Business Covers Many Bases"

The Denver Business Journal -- December 4-10, 1998

This is not a book review column.   However, I just finished a good one, from which I'm about to borrow.

Many management books cross my desk, but "From Worst to First: Behind the Scenes of Continental's Remarkable Comeback" is special in both its simple principles and proven application.  The words of the CEO who turned around a $6 billion, 40,000 person company are amusing and educational.  I recommend it.

For the busy, Gordon Bethune's book provides a compendium encapsulating its chapters.  Similarly, for the busy at this holiday season, the following encapsulation reviews the columns appearing in this space during the past year.

• Why loyalty and ethics don't always get along

Loyalty is a mutual responsibility sealed with trust.  It's a virtue when placed wisely and defended courageously.  However, loyalty doesn't require you to go against what you believe is right.  Loyalty does not excuse wrongdoing.  Constantly monitor your loyalties and question their validity, for your loyalties will reveal your principles.

• Sex-harassment policy: Where do you draw the line?

Sexual harassment lawsuits are increasing drastically.  Title VII categorizes them as either quid pro quo or "hostile environment."  Smart business people address the issue directly, taking preemptive steps to protect employees and ensure their safety.  It's both the ethical and pragmatic thing to do.

• Why its important to respect diversity

Our Declaration of Independence decreed: "We hold...that all men are created equal...."  Talk about your ethical mandate!   But forget ethics for the moment, just think pragmatically.  $176 million later, Texaco understands the need for treating all people fairly.  It's far more difficult and expensive to control and demean a person than to incorporate their insights and talents.  The ethical and adroit pursue ethnic equality, common decency and justice for all.

• "Blowing the whistle" requires courage

The great achievements in history are almost always accomplished by the courageous.  Whistleblowers act courageously to protect others.   After weighing the pros and cons, if you decide to blow the whistle: remain strong; stay safe; get all the evidence you can; think ahead; seize the initiative; and maintain the high ground.

• How communication can prevent lawsuits

A prudent CEO knows hearing the truth from employees, by whatever means, is crucial to ethical business success and can prevent traumatic and expensive lawsuits.  Review policies; widely promulgate them; walk your talk; seek feedback; document everything; hire an outside ombudsman, unfettered by internal biases, allowing employees to make confidential reports of wrongdoing.

• When are little white lies acceptable?

We seem to judge lying by its purpose, content and context.  Lies to conceal information to protect the innocent, or to make people feel good, are likely white.  Lies to conceal facts or behavior that is unethical, illegal or harmful are inexcusable.  Lying is always risky business.  Get in the habit of not.

• Courtesy in mergers is not an oxymoron

When two entities merge, success is more likely if the new entity resembles neither the previous two, but instead creates its own identity.   Merging an apple and orange best succeeds if the new entity looks like, say, a pear. Unlike a redesigned apple or orange, the pear has no "second class citizens."  Fear and rivalry are minimized.  A new set of "rules" for all is created.  No one is ahead or behind the power curve.  People feel safer.  Merger is much more efficient and successful.

• Be careful of what you give or receive

Think before you give or receive gifts that may be unethical, illegal or simply tacky.  Read your company's policy.  Be careful concerning alcohol, lingerie, jewelry, perfume, joke gifts, pricey gifts and food.   Do not give or receive gifts during negotiations or litigation.  Consider how others may view the exchange.  The greater the value of a gift and/or the closer it is to cash, the more vulnerable it is to unfavorable review by others.

Previous Ethics columns are available at www.amcity.com/denver or by contacting my office.  Your comments on past columns or suggestions for future topics are always invited.

A final, year-end thought.  Gordon Bethune's book emphasizes dignity and respect in dealing with others.  The author Tom Wolfe thinks your soul is your relationship to other people.   Could it be?

***

"Success!  But at what price?"

The Denver Business Journal -- January 15-21, 1999

I know, I know.  Other cities have done it before.  Yes, yes, they're simply the first guys to get caught.  Just dumb luck, that's all.  Amazing how folks can bend reality and their own minds in an effort to escape the responsibility of basic wrongdoing.  It's called rationalization.

The gang in Salt Lake City responsible for winning the 2002 Winter Olympics for that town were once local heroes.  Today the city hangs its head in shame.  And deservedly so.  What their leaders admittedly did to steer IOC votes their way is a disgrace.  They should be ashamed.  It doesn't matter how many other folks did it before.  By acting unethically, they've given new meaning to their old moniker, Slick City.

But you can bet "the system" will end up the target of choice, not the dishonest men who bought votes.  They will likely claim they were just playing the game as the game was played.  It's the system's fault.   Don't blame us, blame the system.  Or, as the late comedian Flip Wilson parodied, "The devil made me do it."

Of course, blowing the whistle on the system was out of the question.  That might have taken courage, guts.  It might have meant possibly losing the Olympics bid.  And that would have meant a lotta gold out the window.  Far simpler to sidestep the ethical responsibility to report extortionist behavior, to report the so-called agents who were brokering votes for a price.  Far easier to advance one's interests than do justice by the whole.

But many will say nothing's that simple.  That itself is a credo of those bent on rationalization.  The world isn't black and white; it's mostly gray.  And therein lies the rub.  The essence of ethical behavior lies in discerning when a gray area is really not gray but truly black or white.

Avoiding responsibility has become an art form in this country.  It's not the rapist's fault, it's the victim's.  What was she wearing that dress for, anyway?  It's not the clumsy, less than bright consumer's fault, the coffee was too hot.  How dare the store serve "hot" coffee?   What were they thinking?

Lying rationalized as private behavior.   Impeachment rationalized as politics.  Olympic payola rationalized as "the system."   All speak volumes about our increasing ability to reframe wrongdoing as something else.

The drive to win is consuming us.  The need to outperform last quarter's results is getting in the way of decent and ethical behavior.   We all value success.  But success at what price?  When do the ends justify the means?

In business, accountability is the new watchword in vogue.  About time.  We excuse much behavior of young children as immature.   Often they truly do not know of what they do.  Not so with adults.  Adults, seemingly wanting a system fair to all, must be accountable for their actions--by the rest of the adults!  Enforcement of the rules of society and laws on the books is inherent to maintaining an orderly world.

Business leaders are often guilty of not regarding responsibility as a two-way street.  They hold their managers and employees responsible for successful performance and ethical behavior.  Yet, all too often, the powerful forget they have the same responsibility.  When the quest for success blinds us to the requirement to be ethically responsible, careers derail, coffers deplete.   And justly so.  The price must be paid.

Many condemn excusing the serious misconduct of point-producing athletes.  Yet, profit-producing leaders ought not be excused serious misconduct, either.  Failing to hold leaders just as responsible, just as accountable as those they lead erodes and undermines a group's belief in itself.

Slick City can still repair some of it's reputation by acting decisively to discipline those who disgraced it.  No deals.  No compromising "solutions."  By doing so, others will think twice.  For it's not the severity, but the certainty of punishment that deters.

But what of the cities who lost the 2002 bid?   They didn't get beat out.  They got bought out.  They at least deserve some financial recompense.  The price must be paid.

People get the leaders they deserve.  When the people don't uphold their principles, it doesn't diminish the principles.  It diminishes the people.  As we start the new year, remember an old film line, "People are their principles."

*** 

"Dan and Mike: a familiar story"

The Denver Business Journal -- February 5-11, 1999

Well, it's over.  Yes, the Super Bowl, but I mean the long-standing feud between Falcons coach, Dan Reeves, and the Broncos' Mike Shanahan.  Oh, it's not over?  You mean it's only faded from the sports radar screen for awhile?  Well, as they're saying in Atlanta, "Wait 'til next year!"

But the wise won't wait.  They'll draw lessons from Dan and Mike and make adjustments.  They'll see that, lo those many years ago, neither Dan nor Mike handled their problem very well.  Then, as now, "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

If the two were the good buds they say they were, what happened?  Did one perceive a coup? Did the other perceive mistrust?   Whatever it was, one of 'em should have calmly brought the matter to the table, out in the open, into the light. (General rule: It's amazing how much of life goes better when it's thrown open into the sun.)

Unfortunately, silence was kept until tempers were lost.  Now time and venom have entrenched Dan and Mike.  They'll need an unbiased third party to guide them from the mire they created, if they're to get out of it.

For those who want to keep small problems from becoming big ones, here are some tips:

• First, make sure your objectives are honorable.

For those whom winning a disagreement is an ego trip or vindication of their unbearable rightness of being, good luck.  If your goal is to make someone else look bad, or gain an advantage by the situation, your heart's in the wrong place.  If so, stop here, the below won't help.

• Lighten up.

It's a disagreement, not cancer.  Stay calm. (Note: many a road rager is now taking a dirt nap for failing to heed this tip).

• Be courageous.

Most folks don't like confrontation, but putting it off just delays and stokes it.  Facing the music early on keeps the volume low.

• Make clear what you want.

Clearly communicate that you want to resolve the misunderstanding or your differences, fairly.  Do your best to get the other person to trust that you do.

• Ask for the other person's view.

Be the gentleman or lady.  Let the other person go first.  It's not only polite, it confirms your good will, commitment to fairness and sincere desire to resolve the problem civilly.  Ask one question which encapsulates your confusion about the situation, then be quiet.

• Listen.

It's one of the most bandied words of advice these days on interpersonal relations, but it's still true.  And you don't have to spend seven years and seventy large getting a doctorate to learn how true it is.  Just do it.  Respect the other person's point of view, no matter how outlandish it may seem.   Everybody deserves their day in court.  You expect yours.  Allow the other person the same.  You'll be surprised at how much you'll learn.

• Remember the greater good.

Ask yourself what is best for the organization, the relationship, not just yourself.  None of us is irreplaceable (as my editor keeps reminding me).  Ground your argument or viewpoint in the greater good.

• If you're wrong, admit it.

God knows men, in general, have a hard time asking for directions, much less admitting error.  Women are usually less hubristic (thank goodness!).  What's the big deal?  Quickly admitting mistakes: saves pain and suffering, prevents sleepless nights, wastes less time, checks unnecessary stress, allows you to concentrate on more important things, and would avoid an impeachment here and there.

• Accept the result.

Unlike football, most outcomes in interpersonal disputes have no clear cut winner and loser. Embrace a compromise.  Shake hands and smile.

To be sure, there's not always green grass on the gridiron.  Sometimes conflict arises, not from miscommunication, but because one party does injustice to another.  But in far too many cases, simple misunderstanding is at the root of it.  Don't let it fester, don't keep butting your head against the wall.  When the running game's not working, air it out.  Speak up.  Call a meeting.  Resolve it early.

Alas, in the Reeves-Shanahan saga, the talk--or lack of it--continues.  Next year, Dan, Mike, call me.  We'll do lunch.

***  

"15 Minutes of Shame"

The Denver Business Journal -- May 28-June 3, 1999

I made a big mistake the other day.  Perhaps not so big in the grand scheme of things, but big enough to awaken me several nights since.   In the name of loyalty, I let myself be used.  And I knew better.

The day after the tragedy here in Colorado I received a phone message, then another, from an out-of-state radio producer.  The very nice lady (aren't most people when they want something?) said she produced the talk show of an old Navy buddy of mine (whom I never hear from).  Would I please go on the air with my friend about the tragedy?

I didn't return either message, but instead called my friend later that day.  I left him the message that I didn't think there was anything I could contribute to his show. There were many post-trauma experts in his area who could speak to the situation.  And I was too far removed from the tragedy to add any meaningful "on scene" information for his listeners.  But if he just wanted to chat, I’d be happy to do so.  I didn't hear back from him.

Instead, the next day his producer called and left yet another message.  My friend was asking a third time: would I please (out of loyalty) come on the show?

I had not returned the producer's previous calls because I knew what she (and my friend) wanted: yet another person near the tragedy to comment on it.   Not for the information, but because I was close to it, from their perspective.

I've spent over twenty years in and out of electronic media, so going on a radio show is no big deal. In fact, it's rather a pain.  I know what goes on behind the scenes and some of the less honorable motivations.  And I don't need or want the exposure.  I long ago had my fifteen minutes of fame.

My embarrassment at my decision to let my friend interview me hit mid-way through. I felt sick.  My speech began to falter, I hesitated often.  I couldn't find the right words.  I had let myself be sucked into the media frenzy that surrounds most tragic events.  In the drive for listeners, viewers and readers, people in the news business want to get as close to an event as possible.  But it's not just their fault.  The relationship is symbiotic.

Questions to ask yourself if you're ever asked to be interviewed?

• What's the real purpose?  To inform or titillate?

• Will I add anything of value?  Will those hearing me truly benefit, or am I adding to the turmoil?

• Is my ego driving me?  Is my information important, or does it just make me feel important?

• Do I just "wanna be on TV?"  Most people do, but using a tragic event is not right.

What harm did I do?  A fair amount.  I contributed to the frenzy.  I joined the fray of people yammering about an incident that for a time took the headlines from the ongoing tragedy in Kosovo.  I spouted about post-trauma psychological phenomena, when any number of qualified clinicians in the radio show's own home town could have done much better.  But they weren't called.  I was.  I was near Littleton.  I was more "newsworthy."

What good did I do?  Not much. I gave some folks an idea of what characterized post-traumatic stress, and how it should be handled.  But no follow-up, no time for questions.  No real value to anybody except the radio show.   They got somebody near the scene on the air.  They put their listeners close to the action.  And I got to feel like a jerk.

Since then, have I heard from my friend?  No.   Friendship had little to do with it. I was simply fodder for an exploitive program.   And I knew better.  I'd overruled a principle of mine: Loyalty doesn't require the loyal to go against what they believe is right.

Ethics has always intrigued me, mainly because it's an ongoing challenge.  It requires constant vigilance.  I write this column to raise ethical awareness and promote my business.  It wasn't ethical for me to go on that program.  But I did.  And I apologize.

***

"Flyin' the Frenzied Skies"

Not a whole lotta time to think about business principles and ethics when flying Air Moldovoa from Chisinau to Frankfurt.  The constant creaking sounds make it hard to focus on developing one idea over seven hundred words.   Most of one's concentration goes to simply keeping the Soviet-built, Yakovlev Yak-42 up in the air.  So as I gnaw on my lamb kabob (for breakfast!), and the plane gnaws on my nerves, allow me the luxury of jotting down a kabob of skewered thoughts.   With knuckles whiter than Colorado snow, gripping one of their cognac-laced coffees, here goes:

Actions speak louder than words -

It was a relatively small newspaper story a few months ago.   The CEO of Level 3 Communications, Jim Crowe, "surprised his shareholders" by announcing ahead of time his plans to sell some of his stock and why (he wanted to repay his start-up debts).  Crowe doesn't require his company officers to do the same, they need only "comply with the law."  But Crowe decided to go further.  Why?  "At the end, I'm the Chief Executive officer, so the buck sort of stops here."  Harry Truman would be proud.  I know I am.

Looking for an honest (wo)man -

Which reminds me, if you know of someone who's demonstrated unusual honesty in your company or organization, I'd like to hear about them.  Simply e-mail the details to Diogenes@corp-psych-mgmt.com.   The most interesting three people--after securing their permission--will be profiled in this column in the coming months.

"Scuzati-ma, miss, uh, domnisoara?  Could I have another one of those coffees, va rog?  Multumesc."

You gotta walk your talk -

It's surprising how many organizations say they have a functional purpose or mission, but actually don't.  It may be written down somewhere, but it's only there, it's not in the hearts and minds of the folks in the organization.  Many mission statements even gild the lily with reminders to act ethically and in the best interests of the customer.  But often it's only a CYA move, not really lived.

As the saying goes, when you're up to your, uh, neck in alligators, it's hard to remember your goal was to drain the swamp.  And so as crises arise, many companies use band-aid approaches to solve their problems.  But that's when they should refer to their mission statement.  It's the ball to keep your eye on and will guide you through many a morass.  Not just talked, it must be walked every day.

One group walking its talk is the non-profit Alliance of Professional Consultants, of which I'm a member.  Its mission is "to elevate the level of educational, professional and ethical standards of business consulting, and facilitate the referral of high quality consultants to the regional business community."  Working to those ends every day, they do background checks on potential members and have a strict professional credentialing process.  They live their mission statement.  Does your organization?  Let me know.

International ethics -

The "Financial Times" of London just completed a fine series on ethical business.  I invite you to read such articles as: "Principles that work in practice," "When conforming with the rules is not enough," "Conundrums of corporate misconduct," and "The value of virtue in a transparent world."  We've made it easy for you to access them at www.corp-psych-mgmt.com.

"Domnisoara?  Could I have another one of those...?   Uh, what's THAT noise?  Oh.... You know, what?  Nu coffee, just the cognac, va rog.  Multumesc.  Da, da, the breakfast was delicious."

Yakety-yak -

I kid Air Moldova, but it's really a safe and friendly airline.   The Yak-42 was specifically built for primitive airports without runways, to operate in such severe climates as northern Siberia, so it's a hardy airframe.   Moldova itself is often mistaken for a fictional place in the "Dynasty" TV show years back.  Nestled between Romania and the Ukraine, it's actually one of the NIS (Newly Independent States) countries, formerly part of the Soviet Union.   It's trying hard to institute Western business principles, despite difficult economic times and political unrest on the eastern border.  In need of modern medical equipment and supplies, if you know of any to be donated, please contact me.  I'll do my best to see they get it.  Multumesc.

***