Ethics in Unethical Situations

A young American friend of mine (we'll call him "David") was vacationing with a friend in Mexico when he got into a very minor fender-bender with a taxi, resulting in a small dent.

When David offered to exchange information, the taxi driver publicly and vehemently demanded $150 US. While David and his friend and the taxi driver were in their discussions, a police officer arrived at the scene. The police officer very publicly and vehemently demanded $300 US, the alternative being spending the holidays in a Tijuana jail. David did not have the cash on him, but the police officer offered to stay with his friend and the car until he returned with the money.

David went to the nearest ATM and withdrew the cash and returned with it. The police officer divided the money with the cab driver (David thought that the cabbie got the $150 he had originally demanded) and everyone went on their way.

Knowing that I have an interest in ethics, David's mother asked my opinion.

I hesitate to give one. Clearly, the young man was under quite bit of duress and his options were limited.

One could argue (and I often do) that when you're visiting a different culture, it's not your place to judge or attempt to change things unless someone is obviously being harmed. Maybe the legal system there is so corrupt that this was the best "justice" that could be expected. On the other hand, without some resistance, entrenched unethical situations never change. Perhaps a police officer that did not take bribes (which is apparently an entrenched system in Tijuana) would not long survive, and some police protection is better than none?

What would you advise? Should David, the cabbie, or the police officer have acted differently?

No Bank Left Behind?

Like everyone else, I have pretty strong feelings about the bank bailout plan that the President is proposing. 

Remember No Child Left Behind?  The legislation that purported to create accountability in schools and ensure that schools that received federal funding met certain criteria? 

We were talking about it last night, and my charming husband (usually the conservative at our house) said "well, it was a good idea."  I interrupted him with "No, it was a TERRIBLE idea. Even the name is terrible!"  

Our capitalist democracy is based on competition. If children get the idea, from their earliest days, that it is somebody else's job to make sure they don't get "left behind," then they get the idea that it requires no effort on their part to succeed.   

At least when I was a kid, I would get away with whatever I could get away with. While my parents were visiting  a friend's house and I was outside with the kids, my Mom would have to call me two or three times to come in now because she was ready to leave. I knew she wasn't going to leave without me.  

On the other hand, on mornings when I had to catch the bus myself and was responsible for getting myself ready for school, I made darn sure I was up and dressed and caught the bus, because the alternative was walking.  Knowing that there would be consequences for my actions influenced my behavior.  

Intervening in the space between action and consequence rarely helps.  

I don't believe the government did much good with No Child Left Behind.  We hear numerous reports of unfunded and cumbersome requirements taking teacher's time out of the classroom in order to compile and file reports and statistics.   There have been reports of teachers teaching children to take standardized tests rather than teaching them useful skills like math and science. A report from the UN Children's Fund says that the U.S. is one of the worst countries for kids, citing falling ratings in education. 

Given the government's stunning success in the field of education, I have no reason to believe that they will do any better in the banking industry. What little I can understand of the crisis is that the trouble stems from bundles of securities that are complex and may ore may not contain mortgages that may or may not have a high risk of default. Now, if the bankers and finance geeks of the world can't figure out what one of these securities should be worth, I doubt that the government will do much better. 

Another editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune says "Public shares the blame in creating Dr. Frankenstein's Wall Street." While many people suffered from fraud at the hands of hucksters (and I sympathize and hope they take the hucksters to court and win!)  Many members of the public made a lot of money from flipping houses in an overpriced market.  That's fine, but it's risky. Sooner or later the musical chairs would stop and somebody would get hurt. 

There are natural laws at work in business, as well as everything else.   The banking crisis is a great example of how, when natural laws are broken, everything goes awry.  The answer is not more intervention, it's being honest, allowing consequences to occur, and not tinkering with the  natural laws that run the economy as well as everything else. 

Trust is the Key Issue in Teleworking

Hurricane Ike hasn't even hit yet and has caused a 20 cent spike in gasoline prices, highlighting the need for businesses and employees to find alternatives to the daily commute.

Telecommuting has become more and more popular in the face of energy costs, globalization and other forces. But many employees still find resistance when they ask for a work-at-home arrangement.

Interestingly, today the AP ran a story - Bosses Worry if Telecommuters are Really Working. hitting the nail on the head of the key issue in teleworking or working from home. Most bosses don't trust their employees. Many bosses won't say so in so many words, but one did in this article, voicing an opinion that many, many bosses have but may or may not say outright.

Lloyd Princeton, the president of Design Management Co., said "The biggest issue I have is tracking time and knowing when he's working . . . The doubt starts to happen when he has offsite meetings -- various doctor appointments or the vet." Of course, most of us juggle personal appointments with our daily grind even if we work in an office, but it makes bosses feel better when they can see us come and go.

I think this is probably compounded when popular books like the Four Hour Workweek advise employees to manipulate their output to make it look like they're more productive while working at home than working in the office. Author Tim Ferriss may have done "the cause" more harm than good for the with that little gem.

So, where does that leave you as a work-at-home employee or an office dweller that wants to negotiate a work-at-home deal?

Clearly. trust is the key.

Here are some thoughts on how to build trust with your boss:

• Show commitment to your job and your team. Never let anyone down that's depending on you for something, including your boss.
• Quantify your output. Create and email regular status reports, even if your boss hasn't asked for them. A good format is to list tasks you expect to achieve this week, and then use the same list to report on progress the following week, followed by a new list for the new week.
  
• Maintain a transparent schedule. Don't make anyone come looking for you or wonder where you are.
  
• Find out your bosses favored method of communication- some dislike email, instant messaging, or phone. Use what they prefer, not necessarily what makes the most sense to you. If your boss isn't happy with the way you're communicating, you're wasting your time making the effort.
  
• If you do work at home, make sure you sound professional on the phone during working hours. Make arrangements for kids, dogs, and others in your home, and have a quiet room or office where you can do business uninterrupted.
• Maintain "face time" in one way or another - when ARE in the office, be very visible. Walk around and make small talk with everyone. Get a camera for your computer so that you can do instant messaging from home. People believe what they see.

Some ideas to build trust with your employees:

• Set expectations and model good behavior. Be a team player, make sure decisions are made for the good of the project or the company rather than individuals.
  
• Set up a system that quantifies output in an objective way. Set up a format for status reports that works for you and makes it easy for you to see what is (or isn't) getting accomplished.
  
• Maintain a transparent schedule. Set up a web-based or software-based calendar program so that you can see who is "on duty" at any given time. Enforce its use.
  
• Set checkpoints using your favored communication vehicle. (Phone, email, IM, etc.)
  
• Set expectations that anyone who works at home has agreed that other responsibilities (kids, pets, etc.) are taken care of some other way and don't become an excuse for not getting work done. (Within reason- of course if there's an emergency your employee would leave his cubicle to take care of the situation - expect the same at home.)
  
• Arrange for bonding time with your team on a regular basis - weekly or monthly meetings to ensure communication is good and some healthy socializing takes place. People communicate better, and have more accountability to, people that they see on a regular basis.
  

Whether you're the boss or an employee, the best way to ensure your work at home privileges is to work on trust.

Is The Four-Hour Workweek a Scam?

Isn't it strange the way you see things more clearly sometimes through someone else's eyes?

I read the The 4-Hour Workweek: Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich by Tim Ferris some time ago, and I highly recommended it to my friend Julie. Julie finally got around to reading it and came away with a completely different impression than I had.

Reading the reviews on Amazon.com, I've discovered that there is a third point of view that is extremely prevalent.


I read the book about a year ago, from a very practical point of view, and my impressions at that time were that there were some good ideas in it, and that the author was absolutely right about the fact that the 8-hour workweek was arbitrarily set in a time gone by. Managers who measure productivity by hours worked are obviously missing the point. I love the idea of applying creativity and energy to working toward your goals, and saying "why not?" to the most bizarre "dreamlines." I also like the fact that, like Ravenwerks, the book works toward transcending barriers.


Everyone knows I'm a big advocate of flexible and virtual work, and have published several blogs and articles on the subject, including "Getting More Done By Not Going To Work," "Virtual Teamwork - Long Distance Collaboration" I'm also convinced that people need to do a better job of financial planning and that everyone should have a source of residual income so that they're not dependent on their current job - financially independent people work together because they want to, not because they need to; and sometimes that makes all the difference in the world.


My friend Julie's first impression (having just started the book) was the point about delaying retirement until we're almost dead from overwork is a societal ill in the U.S. that needs to be corrected.


The vast majority of the reviews on Amazon paint a picture of a completely different book. They focus on the author's admitted looking for loopholes to achieve some objectives (his kickboxing title is the most glaring example) and taking advantage of the inattention of employers to get what one wants. (Minimizing one's productivity while in the office, and maximizing visible signs of productivity while working outside the office as evidence to support a request for virtual working arrangements.)

There was a lot of invective in the reviews about outsourcing and geographical arbitage. I don't see that either offends my moral compass, in fact, I think that the walls coming down is our greatest hope for intercountry understanding, working for mutual good, and world peace. Ferris takes the examples a bit far to prove a point when he has his personal assistant in India apologize to his wife when they were having a disagreemnt. But again, his purpose is to raise controversy.


Admittedly, I wrote off a great deal of the book as "not for me," I care enough about people (customers, co-workers, people on "my teams") that I would have trouble with not answering my phone or emails for extended periods. Ferris classifies most social interaction having to do with our day-to-day jobs as a "waste of time." While I agree that a lot of time gets wasted in ineffective meetings or idle chitchat, I think we would miss the deep and meaningful interactions that are the fabric of life without working together toward mutual goals that can only come from working with people. I also think it's disingenuous to exploit a work-at-home situation to the point that Ferris advocates.


Although one can argue that "the system" has exploited employees for years to put in unnecessary hours, slacking isn't the answer. You can't "get back at the system," two wrongs don't make a right, and Karma is alive and well. One should give fair value (and then some) for the salary one is being paid. If you have a decent boss, you should be able to get what you want and need without being exploited or being dishonest. If you don't have a decent boss, then you have a different problem altogether.


I care enough about people who have worked hard to be excellent in their sport or profession that I wouldn't exploit a loophole to gain a title that the other competitors and the judges did not feel I had earned, whatever the letter of the rules say.


But different people have different ethics, and I'm certainly not going to say that a book holds no value if the author's values don't mirror my own.


I would still give the book five stars by Amazon's system, just because Ferris does what he says he will do - challenges our assumptions and presents alternatives in a very entertaining and provocative way. The book is badly needed as an antidote to the lethargy, acceptance and entitlement that pervades the American workplace. Just because we don't wholeheartedly embrace everything he advocates doesn't mean that the book didn't fulfill its purpose.


I was shocked by the rancor in the Amazon forums. People sound really angry that the author displays such a disdain for hard work and social conventions. Is this because they feel cheated for buying a book that does not deliver on its promises, or because they are jealous that he is getting away that something that they cannot or will not "get away with" because they're not willing to pay the price in social comfort or prestige?


Did you read the book? What was your impression?