In everyday life, most people practice adherence to a code of ethics.
The two major codes of ethics in American life are “church” ethics and
business ethics. Each ethical code has a distinct definition and
framework that often leads to conflict with the other code. While this
conflict poses a dilemma for business, talented executives should be
able to successfully reconcile the disputes between the codes in their
professional lives.
A key component of church ethics is a consideration of other people. The
practitioner must be concerned about the welfare and success of others.
Church ethics also involves according people the same degree of respect
and compassion that the practitioner wishes to be accorded throughout
his or her lifetime. This notion is the essence of the golden rule,
which is found in many cultures: “Treat others in the same way you wish
to be treated.”
Business ethics can be defined as a method of thinking and behavior
designed to maximize the success of the corporation, as defined as the
company’s profits. Like church ethics, business ethics is designed to
promote a favorable outcome for the practitioner. However, unlike church
ethics, business ethics does not provide for much consideration of the
well being of others. Business ethics often does not take into serious
consideration the well being of those at the bottom of the corporate
structure: rank-and-file employees. Indeed, practitioners of business
ethics are required to act in the best interests of the corporation’s
shareholders and customers first, with employees only receiving marginal
attention at best.
In an ideal world, church ethics and business ethics would be able to
coexist in mutually exclusive spheres. Church ethics would be practiced
in day-to-day activities, while business ethics would be solely confined
to corporate life. Given the centrality of business to American life,
however, the two codes of ethics inevitably clash, and business leaders
must make the difficult decision of whether to follow church ethics or
business ethics in a given situation.
A real-world example of the clash between church ethics and business
ethics involves Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines, one of the world’s
largest air carriers. Since September 11, 2001, Delta has lost well over
one billion dollars. The company has had to layoff, furlough, or offer
voluntary leaves to thousands of its employees. Delta Air Lines Chairman
and CEO Leo Mullin has been a leading advocate for the federal
government providing billions of dollars in aid for the airline
industry, playing a leading role in lobbying both immediately after 9/11
and during the current legislative campaign.
While speaking of hard times for the industry in Atlanta and Washington,
Mullin and other senior Delta executives have been granting themselves
millions in cash bonuses over the past year. Delta’s top five executives
received $4.8 million in bonuses last year, with Leo Mullin alone
receiving a $1,401,188 annual bonus. The other executives – Fred Reid,
Michele Burns, Vicki Escarra, and Robert Coleman – received bonuses
ranging from $542,850 to $1,233,750. In addition, these executives
requested and received from the Delta Board of Directors individual
trust funds that would protect the executives’ pensions in the event the
company had to file for bankruptcy. The irony of this request is that
while management was seeking to protect its pensions, the company
imposed sweeping pension changes that will greatly reduce the money
received by the rank-and file upon retirement.
In this case, Delta’s management had a decision to make: do they follow
business ethics and grant themselves the largest compensation packages
earned at Delta to date, or do they follow church ethics and forego the
bonuses in recognition of the reductions-in-force and benefit
degradations that the rank-and-file have been experience since late
2001? Admittedly, this was probably a difficult issue for the
executives, as they had to balance their humanitarian concern for the
workforce with the desire to maximize their personal success making as
much money as possible. Nonetheless, a reasonable argument could be made
that the executives would have placed themselves and the company in a
better position over the long-term by choosing an alternative solution
based on church ethics.
Had the executives used church ethics, they might have realized that the
$4.8 million in bonuses were not well deserved by a management team that
was losing more money than previous Delta management has ever lost in
the company’s history. Management might also have realized that the
bonus money could have been used to maintain or recall hundreds of
front-line employees at airports that are severely understaffed. At
worst, Delta management may have opted to simply leave the money in the
company’s accounts, adding a very small but nonetheless useful layer to
the company’s formidable cash-on-hand balance.
As the Delta Air Lines case demonstrates, successfully navigating two
distinct and conflicting codes of ethics can be a daunting challenge.
However, it is imperative for corporate executives and to establish a
proper balance between the two codes. Otherwise, they will end up
failing according to both ethical codes, and will stifle the very
success that they sought to create in the first place.
Originally from New Jersey, Everton E. Morris is a student of
political science and a member of the Class of 2004 at Morehouse College
in Atlanta, GA. He is an occasional contributor to to
www.airwhiners.net and can also be
found at
www.flyertalk.com |
|
