Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
VALUES - are enduring beliefs that influence attitudes, actions and the choices
and decisions we make.
Values
Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, should
and shouldn't, good and bad. They also tell us which are more or less
important, which is useful when we have to trade off meeting one value over
another.
Values
Values are needs/desires. These needs are not necessarily self-centered, and
some of them might be abstract, e.g. liberty, egality, conformity, prosperity, etc.
Morals
Morals are types of values, interpreted as perscriptions, that one is willing to use
or see force to inflict on others to advance. This force may be direct or indirect
(e.g. by the state), but in every case, one approves of some level of coercion to
enforce their morals.
Ethics
You can have professional ethics, but you seldom hear about professional
morals. Ethics tend to be codified into a formal system or set of rules which are
explicitly adopted by a group of people. Thus you have medical ethics. Ethics
are thus internally defined and adopted, whilst morals tend to be externally
imposed on other people.
Ethics of principled conviction asserts that intent is the most important factor. If
you have good principles, then you will act ethically.
Ethics of responsibility challenges this, saying that you must understand the
consequences of your decisions and actions and answer to these, not just your
high-minded principles. The medical maxim 'do no harm', for example, is based
in the outcome-oriented ethics of responsibility.
"Ethics is a code of values which guide our choices and actions and determine
the purpose and course of our lives."
- Ayn Rand, 20th-century Russian/American novelist and philosopher
Ethics
Ethics refers to standards of conduct, standards that indicate how one should
behave based on moral duties and virtues, which themselves are derived from
principles of right and wrong. In order to apply this definition to practical decision
making it is necessary to specify the nature of the moral obligations considered
intrinsic to ethical behavior.
1.Aspects of Ethics
There are two aspects to ethics: the first involves the ability to discern right from
wrong, good from evil, and propriety from impropriety; the second involves the
commitment to do what is right, good and proper. Ethics is an action concept; it is
not simply an idea to think and argue about.
While every person inevitably must decide for himself/herself how to regard his
moral obligations, to say that ethics are "personal" misconstrues the nature of
ethics.
It is likely that personal conscience will embrace a wider range of values and
beliefs than core, universal ethical norms. When these "extra" values simply
supplement ethical norms with personal moral convictions that are compatible
with the dictates of normative ethics, there is no conflict between universal ethics
and personal ethics. Unfortunately, some people are "moral imperialists" who
seek to impose their personal moral judgments on others as if they were
universal ethical norms. A bigger, sometimes related problem is that some people
adopt personal codes of conduct that are inconsistent with universal page 2
ethical norms. Clearly, not all choices and value systems, however dearly held,
are equally "ethical." If they were, there would be no legitimate basis for
distinguishing between Hitler and Gandhi.
A person who believes that certain races are inferior to others and therefore that
it is "right" to oppress or persecute those races has adopted a personal value
system that is inherently "unethical" according to the universal and consensus
values associated with normative ethics. Similarly, an individual who has decided
that lying is proper if it is necessary to achieve an important personal goal cannot
assert personal ethics as a shield against impropriety.
Simply put, all individuals are morally autonomous beings with the power and
right to choose their values, but it does not follow that all choices and all value
systems have an equal claim to be called ethical.
Ethical Commitment
Ethical commitment refers to a strong desire to do the right thing, especially
when behaving ethically imposes financial, social or emotional costs. Surveys
taken by the Josephson Institute reveal that, regardless of profession, almost all
people believe that they are, or should be, ethical. While most are not satisfied
with the ethical quality of society as a whole, they believe that their profession is
more ethical than others and that they are at least as ethical as those in their
profession. Unfortunately, behavior does not consistently conform to self-image
and moral ambitions. As a result, a substantial number of decent people,
committed to ethical values, regularly compromise these
values - often because they lack the fortitude to follow their conscience.
People need to understand that ethical principles are ground rules of decision
making -not just factors to consider. It is OK to lose; in fact, it is preferable to lose
than to lie, steal, or cheat in order to win. People who are unwilling to lose have
to be willing to do whatever it takes to win. Ethics has a price and sometimes
people must choose between what they want and what they want to be. But
ethics also has a value, which makes self-restraint and sacrifice, service and
charity, worthwhile.
JENIS NILAI
What are the differences between values, morals and ethics? They all provide behavioral rules, after all.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but the differences can be important when persuading others.
Values
Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, should
and shouldn't, good and bad. They also tell us which are more or less
important, which is useful when we have to trade off meeting one value over
another.
Morals
Morals have a greater social element to values and tend to have a very broad
acceptance. Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We
thus judge others more strongly on morals than values. A person can be
described as immoral, yet there is no word for them not following values.
motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
Ethics page 4
You can have professional ethics, but you seldom hear about professional
morals. Ethics tend to be codified into a formal system or set of rules which are
explicitly adopted by a group of people. Thus you have medical ethics. Ethics
are thus internally defined and adopted, whilst morals tend to be externally
imposed on other people.
Ethics of principled conviction asserts that intent is the most important factor. If
you have good principles, then you will act ethically.
Ethics of responsibility challenges this, saying that you must understand the
consequences of your decisions and actions and answer to these, not just your
high-minded principles. The medical maxim 'do no harm', for example, is based
in the outcome-oriented ethics of responsibility.
PEMBANGUNAN
Periods of development
Sociologist Morris Massey has described three major periods during which
values are developed.
The critical thing here is to learn a sense of right and wrong, good and bad.
This is a human construction which we nevertheless often assume would exist
even if we were not here (which is an indication of how deeply imprinted it has
become).
Between the ages of eight and thirteen, we copy people, often our parents, but
also other people. Rather than blind acceptance, we are trying on things like
suit of clothes, to see how they feel.
We may be much impressed with religion or our teachers. You may remember
being particularly influenced by junior school teachers who seemed so
knowledgeable--maybe even more so than your parents.
The Socialization Period
Between 13 and 21, we are very largely influenced by our peers. As we develop
as individuals and look for ways to get away from the earlier programming, we
naturally turn to people who seem more like us.
Other influences at these ages include the media, especially those parts which
seem to resonate with our the values of our peer groups.
Becoming principled
It's tough to have high moral values, but some people get there.
Pre-moral
In the pre-moral state, we have no real values (we are thus 'amoral'). Young
children are premoral. So also are psychopaths. Our basic nature tells us to be
Machiavellian, doing whatever it takes to achieve our goals, even if it means
hurting other people.
Conventional
Most people have conventional values, as learned from their parents, teachers
and peers. These basically say 'here are the rules to live in reasonable
harmony with other people.'
The bottom line of this state is that we will follow them just so long as we think
we need to. We will break our values occasionally, and especially if our needs
are threatened or we are pretty sure we can get away with breaking values with
nobody else knowing about it. Page 6
Principled
When we are truly principled, we believe in our values to the point where they
are an integral and subconscious part of our person. Right and wrong are
absolute things beyond the person, for example as defined by a religion.
The test of a principled person is that they will stick to their values through thick
and thin, and even will sacrifice themselves rather than break their principles.
Many great leaders were principled (Martin Luther King, Gandhi, etc.).
So what?
If you can understand this, then you can guide the process. This is well
understood by dictators and religious sects around the world. Dictators
regularly take over the education system and brainwash the children in their
ideals. An old Jesuit saying is not that far off: 'Give me the child and I will give
you the man.'
I. Preconventional Level
At this level, the child is responsive to cultural rules and labels of good and bad,
right or wrong, but he interprets the labels in terms of either the physical or
hedonistic consequences of action (punishment, reward, exchange of favors) or
the physical power of those who enunciate the rules and labels. The level is
divided into the following three stages:
At this level, the individual perceives the maintenance of the expectations of his
family, group, or nation as valuable in its own right, regardless of immediate and
obvious consequences. The attitude is not only one of conformity to personal
expectations and social order, but of loyalty to it, of actively maintaining,
supporting, and justifying the order and identifying with the persons or group
involved in it. The level consists of the following two stages:
Stage 4: The "law and order" orientation. The individual is oriented toward
authority, fixed rules, and the maintenance of the social order. Right behavior
consists in doing one's duty, showing respect for authority, and maintaining the
given social order for its own sake.
The individual makes a clear effort to define moral values and principles that
have validity and application apart from the authority of the groups of persons
holding them and apart from the individual's own identification with the group.
The level has the two following stages:
CONTOH
INTRODUCTION
Values and ethics are central to any organization; those operating in the national
security arena are no exception. What exactly do we mean by values and ethics?
Both are extremely broad terms, and we need to focus in on the aspects most
relevant for strategic leaders and decision makers.
THE CHARACTER OF VALUES AND ETHICS
The Army, in 1986, had as the theme for the year "values," and listed four
organizational values-loyalty, duty, selfless service, and integrity-and four
individual values- commitment, competence, candor(berterus-terang), and
courage. A Department of the Army pamphlet entitled Values: The Bedrock of
Our Profession spent some time talking about the importance of values, and
included this definition:
Values are what we, as a profession, judge to be right. They are more than
words-they are the moral, ethical, and professional attributes of character . . .
there are certain core values that must be instilled in members of the U.S. Army-
civilian and uniformed soldier alike. These are not the only values that should
determine our character, but they are ones that are central to our profession and
should guide our lives as we serve our Nation.
Values are the embodiment of what an organization stands for, and should be
the basis for the behavior of its members. However, what if members of the
organization do not share and have not internalized the organization's values?
Obviously, a disconnect between individual and organizational values will be
dysfunctional. Additionally, an organization may publish one set of values,
perhaps in an effort to push forward a positive image, while the values that really
guide organizational behavior are very different. When there is a disconnect
between stated and operating values, it may be difficult to determine what is
"acceptable." For example, two of the Army's organizational values include
candor and courage. One might infer that officers are encouraged to "have the
courage of their convictions" and speak their disagreements openly. In some
cases, this does work; in others it does not.
The same thing works at the level of the society. The principles by which the
society functions do not necessarily conform to the principles stated. Those in
power may covertly allow the use of force to suppress debate in order to remain
in power. ("death squads" are an example.) In some organizations, dissent may
be rewarded by termination-the organizational equivalent of "death squad"
action. In others, a group member may be ostracized or expelled.
Group members quickly learn the operating values, or they don't survive for long.
To the extent they differ from stated values, the organization will not only suffer
from doing things less effectively, but also from the cynicism of its members, who
have yet another reason for mistrusting the leadership, or doubting its wisdom.
So how do values relate to ethics, and what do we mean by ethics? One of the
keys is in the phrase we quoted above from the DA pamphlet: "Values are what
we, as a profession, judge to be right." Individually or organizationally, values
determine what is right/important and what is wrong/not important, and
doing what is right or wrong is what we mean by ethics. To behave ethically
is to behave in a manner consistent with what is right or moral. What does
"generally considered to be right" mean? That is a critical question, and part of
the difficulty in deciding whether or not behavior is ethical is in determining what
is right or wrong.
Perhaps the first place to look in determining what is right or wrong is society.
Virtually every society makes some determination of morally correct behavior. In
Islamic countries, a determination of what is right or moral is tied to religious
strictures. In societies more secular, the influence of religious beliefs may be less
obvious, but still a key factor. In the United States much of what is believed to be
right or wrong is based in Judeo-Christian heritage. The Ten Commandments, for
many people, define what is morally right or wrong. Societies not only regulate
the behavior of their members, but also define their societal core values. "Life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" represent core American values.
Experience often has led societies to develop beliefs about what is of value for
the common good. (Note that societies differ from one another in the specifics,
but not in the general principles.) One example is the notion of reciprocity. ("One
good deed deserves another.") Another is the notion of good intent. ("A
gentleman's word is his bond.") Yet, a third is the notion of appreciation of merit
in others regardless of personal feelings. ("Give the Devil his due.")
These all contain implied "shoulds" about how people interact and behave toward
one another in groups, organizations, and societies. These "shoulds" define
collective effort because they are fundamental to trust and to team relationships
that entail risk. The greater the potential risk, the more important ethical practices
become.
Organizations, to some extent, define what is right or wrong for the members of
the organization. Ethical codes, such as West Point's "A cadet will not lie, cheat,
or steal, or tolerate those who do," make clear what the organization considers to
be right or wrong. To quote again from the DA Pamphlet, "Values: The Bedrock of
Our Profession," statements such as :
Selfless service puts the welfare of the Nation and the accomplishment of the
assigned mission before individual welfare. All who serve the Nation must resist
the temptation to pursue self-gain, personal advantage, and self-interest ahead
of the collective good.
[Integrity] is the basis for trust and confidence that must exist between the
leaders and the led. Furthermore, integrity is demonstrated by propriety in one's
personal life.
The reason norms are important for a discussion of ethics and values is that
norms may allow or even encourage certain behavior as "OK" that is not in
keeping with society's or an organization's stated values. When there is a
disconnect between stated and operating values, it may be difficult to determine
what is "right." An example might be a company that has among its stated values
to treat everyone with dignity and respect, but whose norms have permitted and
perhaps even encouraged a pattern of sexual harassment over a number of
years. Do those in the organization know that the behavior is wrong, but condone
it nevertheless? Is it clear to the Bosnian Serbs that ethnic cleansing is unethical
and wrong, or would it fall under the mantle of behavior that is considered to be
acceptable in that society? Listen to the arguments in support of ethnic cleansing
that have been made, and you will find that many of the perpetrators argued that
they did nothing wrong, and were only righting previous wrongs done to them.
If ethics and morality are important for groups and organizations, they should
also be important for public officials, and for very much the same reasons. York
Willbern, in an article entitled "Types and Levels of Public Morality," argues for
six types or levels of morality (or ethics) for public officials. By public officials, he
means those who are in policy making positions in public institutions; in other
words, strategic decision makers in the government, including the national
security arena. The six levels he differentiates are: basic honesty and conformity
to law; conflicts of interest; service orientation and procedural fairness; the ethic
of democratic responsibility; the ethic of public policy determination; and the ethic
of compromise and social integration.
"The public servant is morally bound, just as are other persons, to tell the truth, to
keep promises, to respect the person and the property of others, and to abide by
the requirements of the law" (Willbern). In many ways, this level only describes
the basic adherence to moral codes that is expected of all members of a group or
society. There are some basics of behavior that are expected of all if a society is
to function for the collective good. For public officials, there is an additional
reason why it is important to adhere to these basic moral codes and laws: they
have more power than the average member of the society, and hence more
opportunity for violation of those codes or laws. There also is the negative
example that misconduct by public officials provides.
2 CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
This relates to public officials, because it deals with the conflict between
advancing the public interest, which a public official is charged to do, and
advancing one's self-interest. The duty here is to ensure that the public interest
comes first, and that one does not advance his own personal interest at the
expense of the public.
This level relates closely to the last, and deals with the responsibility of public
officials to ensure their actions serve the public, and that the power they wield is
used only for that purpose. It is easy to abuse the power that comes with public
office. Procedural safeguards are designed to prevent that abuse. The moral
obligation of public servants is to follow established procedures, and not to use
their power to circumvent those procedures for their own convenience or benefit.
Power must be used fairly and for the benefit of the public. One can again think
of examples of public officials who have violated this moral charge by using their
influence and power for their own benefit or for the benefit of special interest
groups, or who have circumvented established procedures for their own benefit
or convenience. One frequent example is the use of government vehicles or
aircraft for nonofficial business.
These first three levels of public morality share one important characteristic: they
all relate to the behavior or conduct of public officials. These three levels are the
areas that get most of the attention in discussions of ethics, this is where public
officials are most likely to get in trouble. However, there are three additional
levels of public morality equally important. These deal with the content of what
public officials do, "the moral choices involved in deciding what to do, in pursuing
the purposes of the state and the society" (Willbern).
Given that public officials are operating within a democratic system, they either
are elected by the people or appointed by an elected official. This confers upon
them the obligation to carry out the will of the people. However, public officials
also have the responsibility to make moral choices consistent with their own
values, and that may be in conflict with what they perceive to be the will of the
people.
Willbern contends that the public official acts according to his or her own
judgment, rationalizing that it would be the will of the people if they were well
enough informed on the issue. To give one example of this level of public
morality, consider whether or not the representative in Congress is morally bound
to support policies and legislation which his constituents overwhelmingly support
but he personally opposes.
5 THE ETHIC OF PUBLIC POLICY DETERMINATION.
This level involves the most difficult ethical choices, because it concerns making
moral judgments about public policies. The responsibility is to make moral
policies; the difficulty is in determining how moral a policy is. Public policies
almost always deal with very complex issues, where ethical choices are rarely
clear, and it is often difficult to determine if a policy is right or wrong. For
example, many public policies deal with the distribution of limited resources. Is it
right or wrong to slash funding for one program, or to increase funding for
another? In almost any decision, there will be winners and losers, and there will
be some benefit for some and cost to others. "Right" and "wrong" may not apply.
Equity and fairness are important considerations, but not always easy to discern.
The determination of how much funding to provide for national security, and
which social programs to fund, involves ethical choices of the most difficult type.
What is the difference between equality and equity? Consider the controversy
around affirmative action programs: are they examples of moral public policies?
This final level deals with an area not as salient as some of the others. It deals
with the necessity for compromise in a society. A society with irreconcilable
differences on fundamental issues will be torn apart. Hence, it becomes a moral
obligation of public officials to engage in give and take, working toward
compromise in the policies they develop. One often sees legislators in our
political system establishing positions where they may not get all they want from
particular legislation, but will settle for some of what they want. Willbern contends
that compromise, rather than standing on principle, is moral, because without
compromise there will be discord and conflict, and disintegration rather than
integration of the society.
Public officials are given the trust of the public to develop and carry out policies
that are in the public's best interest. Living up to this trust has a significant impact
on the national will; public confidence is essential to the exercise of national
power. Public officials have a moral duty to act in a trustworthy manner.
Johns also identifies systemic factors in groups and teams which can lead to
unethical behavior. One is groupthink, which can occur in a homogeneous
group with a strong leader. A second is the presence of idealogues: individuals
who view their own extreme positions as "right" and any opposing positions as
"wrong." A third is the organization's response to dissent. There are few
incentives for "whistleblowers" or those who try to expose unethical behavior in
organizations. Organizational norms encourage "going along" and discourage
questioning the unethical actions of others. This can quickly compromise ethical
standards in any organization.
INDIVIDUAL
• GROUPTHINK
• PRESENCE OF IDEALOGUES
• NEGATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSE TO DISSENT
ETHICS IN PRACTICE
There are three qualities individuals must possess to make ethical decisions. The
first is the ability to recognize ethical issues and to reason through the ethical
consequences of decisions. The ability to see second and third order effects, one
of the elements of strategic thinking, is very important. The second is the ability
to look at alternative points of view, deciding what is right in a particular set of
circumstances. This is similar to the ability to reframe. And the third is the ability
to deal with ambiguity and uncertainty; making a decision on the best information
available.
Exit is the most direct response: if you can't live with behavior that does not meet
your own ethical standards, leave. However, exit is not only a direct response, it
is a final one, so the personal and organizational consequences must be
considered. The most important personal consequences are the costs. Where do
you go from there? What other options are available? How marketable are you?
Can you afford the financial loss?
There are specific organizational consequences as well. Will the ethics of the
organization's leaders change? Will they do business with someone else who
doesn't have the high standards you do? In leaving, one gives up the ability to
influence the organization directly. When considering exit, one must ask, "Could I
have had more of an impact by remaining in the organization and trying to
change it from within?"
Voice. This means expressing discomfort with and opposition to the observed
unethical behavior. To whom do you voice your objections? The obvious choice is
your supervisor. But what if your supervisor condones the unethical behavior, or
worse, is its source? You may be jeopardizing your position, and maybe your
membership in the organization. A second choice is to go to senior management.
This also has potential risk. The senior leadership may be condoning or even
directing the unethical behavior. This action may bring your loyalty into question.
If so, your objections may be covered up or ignored, and you may end up being
forced out of the organization.
On the other hand, it may be that the senior leadership is unaware of the
unethical behavior, and you may have initiated an organizational response
eliminating unethical behavior and restoring ethical standards. A third option is to
go public, to engage in "whistleblowing." This is also risky, because it can lead to
reprisals with negative consequences. The level of risk depends on the
commitment of the organization to high ethical standards and on its willingness to
encourage whistleblowing in its own best interests. Many organizations have
shown commitment to ferreting out unethical individuals and maintaining high
ethical standards by establishing procedures for anonymous reporting of ethical
breaches and safeguards to protect whistleblowers.
Exit and voice may be combined. An individual resigns in protest and goes public
with his or her reasons for leaving. This leaves the individual vulnerable to the
label of an employee who quit before being fired, but it also can lead to increased
credibility as someone acting on conviction in spite of personal cost. Exit
combined with voice is most effective if taken by someone at the upper levels of
the organization. An organization can more easily ignore the "exit + voice" of a
lower level employee than it can the resignation of a strategic leader, followed
immediately by a press conference. The widely publicized resignation of former
President Bush from the National Rifle Association over what he viewed as
extreme actions is an example of exit combined with voice. It undoubtedly had a
much greater effect on the NRA than the resignation of someone less well known
and respected. The resignation of James Webb as Secretary of the Navy is
another example of effective exit combined with voice.
Chaloupka maintains that both exit and voice must exist for continued
organizational effectiveness. Additionally, an organization cannot maintain high
ethical standards without mechanisms for eliminating unethical behavior. Also,
loyalty is not always a virtue. Loyalty should be predicated on the organization's
ethical demonstration that it is worthy of loyalty. If the organization condones
unethical behavior, it relieves the individual of any responsibility to be loyal.
CONCLUSION
Establishing moral principles means determining the core values which should
guide the organization. O'Brien suggests four for consideration: localness, merit,
openness, and leanness. By localness, he means adopting a philosophy of
pushing power down to the lowest level possible, and encouraging initiative and
autonomy. By merit, he means directing actions toward the overall goals of the
organization, and what is best for all. By openness, he means being forthright
and honest in all dealings. And by leanness, he means efficient use of resources
and economies when possible.
O'BRIEN