The Wikipedia defines ethics as a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. It is also known as moral philosophy. For all of us ethics means living our life responsibly; to review whether our actions are right or wrong. Ethical behavior is that which is morally accepted as “good” and “right” as opposed to “bad” or “wrong” in a particular situation. All of us live in an ethical illusion about ourselves. The ethical illusions are discrepancies between how we think and how we behave and how we take an action. It also includes our sense of reasoning for our behavior. Laws are the regulations established, and usually written, by a governing power. Ethics are the morals of a culture, and often times, they inform the laws that are made. The distinction is that, while you may obey the law, you might not always act ethically. It would be a rare case for something to be ethical, but against the law. An important point to keep in mind is that ethics do not have any associated punishments when broken. A law, however, specifically sets the types of repercussions that should occur should it be broken.

Some of the top B Schools in the world are revamping their syllabus adding business ethics as a core paper, adding projects on ethical values. The process of revamping is for also pondering over and challenging the standard of business wisdom practiced for decades. Ethics and social responsibility seems to be in limelight by some serious thinkers and practitioners. Why?

Business organizations dawdle from ethical practices because of compelling and persuasive day-to-day organizational practices. Ethics take a backset because of the multifaceted processes and practices of businesses which leaves little time or penchant to divert attention to the moral content of organizational decision-making. Morality in business appears to be so obscure and qualitative in nature that it lacks substance in relation to business objectives and goals. Business relies on quantitative performance than qualitative performance. The pace leaves hardly any time for the managers in reworking their decisions based on ethical framework. Hence the entire frame work and thinking of the managers lacks ethical decision making. Dear folks, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle sadly have no place in the twenty first century business environment. A yawning gap exists between philosophical knowledge and business practices. Each generation has learnt ethics and morality with a divergence! Morality is just a dictionary word. Yet, like it or not, there has and will continue to be a surge of interest in ethics.

Ethisphere, a US based Research Company dedicated to the creation, advancement and sharing of best practices in business ethics, corporate social responsibility published its 110 business houses all over world for their ethical behavior in 2011. Through in-depth research and a multi-step analysis, Ethisphere reviewed nominations from companies in more than 100 countries and 36 industries. Some of the ethical companies are Adidas, eBay, Microsoft and Colgate Palmolive. From India only HDFC Bank has entered the list.

In the world famous Enron case we saw when the legal noose tightens around the corporate; one question that arises is why the legal fraternity drag in Enron’s auditing firm Arthur Anderson? Is it possible for an entire auditing firm to be guilty of a crime in connection with an auditing engagement? I think the Enron scandal is symptomatic of something much broader than Enron. I think it’s symptomatic of a breakdown of the ethical values of business over a period of perhaps 20 years, a gradual erosion of business ethics that brought investors to an Enron. Friends haven’t we witnessed since then a whole host of Enrons as we moved down the road. So here goes my question -What ethical lesson should we teach our students? A Satyam Case, Enron Case, I Gate Case, 2 G, 3G, Common Wealth games, Bofors, Fodder scam, IPL, City Bank the list can go on and on. Our memories are so short, that by the time we are fatigued with one scam there appears another scam. The big money, the lifestyles of cheaters, their overstated personas, and the glamour that comes with money feature more prominently in the young minds if the ethical frameworks in these and many other case studies are not tackled in the class rooms.

The fundamental of any business firm cannot claim to be ethical firm if it looks at profits and numbers while ignoring the legality and legitimacy. Today, businesses and industries increasingly find themselves facing external pressure to improve their ethical practices. The alert and well informed customers today scrutinize business activities. Pressure groups are a good example of this. They are external stakeholders they focus on activities & fair practice of industries with direct and indirect actions which at times has forced some firms to close down their shutters.

In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal announced that ethics courses are useless because ethics can’t be taught. Although few people would turn to the Wall Street Journal as a learned expert on the teaching of ethics raised an objection. But, I am seriously asking: Can ethics be taught?

In conclusion, many aspects stimulate a person’s development in life; the early childhood when impressions are made, the culture at home, parent’s backgrounds, surrounding, his own experience, and one of the most crucial factors is education. Subjects like business ethics, morals or social responsibilities challenge students to look at issues from a universal point of view. These subjects move their thinking upward with intensity. I think ethics can be taught at any stage in life, but how a student absorbs it, observes it and examines it depends on his/her upbringing. However, the efforts of B Schools giving eminence to ethics in their curriculum cannot be overlooked because developing ethical leaders is both an academic imperative and a critical issue for business world.

Ethics and morality are foundations of human society. Individuals, government, and organizations make decisions in line with the interests and values of the society. Ethics and morality set up path for excellence and they limit wrong doing in society in a world which is in true sense interdependent. Societies, nations and people must necessarily follow ethical behaviour. Ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct made by government, organizations, school and college etc. whereas morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.

For example, nuclear ethics is a cross-disciplinary field of academic and policy-relevant study in which the problems associated with nuclear warfare, nuclear deterrence, nuclear arms control, nuclear disarmament, or nuclear energy are examined through one or more ethical or moral theories or frameworks. It is moral duty of every nation to safeguard their nuclear arsenal and fissile material from the reach of terrorists for the security and safety of others as well as their own, because they are responsible for climate change, destruction of mankind and ecology of planet.

Another example for moral behaviours: If we want to save our planet from the worst effect of climate change, we need to get our greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2070: a target that requires immediate and drastic action, but, our indestructible addiction to fossil fuels makes this goal seem more and more unreachable. Can we make some stringent laws to drastically reduce the usage of fissile fuels? This is a moral issue. Moral reasoning is a thinking process with the objective of determining whether an idea is right or wrong. To know whether something is “right” or “wrong” one must first know what that something is intended to accomplish.

David Hume (April 1711 –  August 1776)  was a  Scottish Philosopher, historian, economist and author, who is best known even today for his highly significant system of philosophical empiricism, scepticism and naturalism. David Hume worked very hard to create a total naturalistic science of man that examined the psychological basis of human nature against philosophical rationalism. Hume believed that passion rather than reason governs human behaviour. He said that genuine knowledge must either be directly traceable to objects perceived in experience, or result from abstract reasoning.  There is a relationship between ideas which are derived from experience, he called the rest “nothing but literalism and illusion”, a dichotomy (a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different) which later was given the name of Hume’s Fork.

Hume’s fork shows us that we can have only two forms of lawful knowledge; relations of ideas and matters of facts. Matters of fact are source of substantive knowledge, facts that can tell us something new about the world. Knowledge in matters of fact is also a subsequent knowledge that is gained after experience and synthetic knowledge is something new about the world.

Our feelings or sentiments produce our actions, so much so that present actions resemble the past actions. We therefore can conclude that human actions depend on their beliefs which are in customary associations with human feelings. Clearly, rationality has no place in the account of morality. Being rational means acting wisely and efficiently to choose the appropriate means to advance one’s goals. Even though reasoning depends upon ideas and matters of fact, its most dramatic outcomes may come of out of feelings. All human actions flow naturally from human feelings, without any interference from human reason.

In major parts of the world, caste hierarchy is one of the oldest forms of social stratification. Deep down, the biggest features of casts is its ability to render a rigid and invasive hierarchical system of inclusion and exclusion. Whether it is India or America, people have not been able to get rid of the caste system. The caste system is based on deep feelings of people with an outcome of prejudice, stereotyping and pigeonhole mentality. Our emotional and intellectual mechanisms work together and sustain each other. Sometimes they cannot be separated at all. Rationality and empiricism (knowledge is based on experience) do not go hand in hand. Only ideas cannot be used to prove matters of fact; like it is pointless to prove existence of God.

We are experiencing progress in society because of some good institutions that have contributed to the quality of human life, scientific research, development in arts art, and education. Progressive businesses have given a lot to society because they have broken down myriad centuries-old barriers of racial, sexual, religious, and ethnic prejudice. And they have been the vehicle for countless numbers of individuals to develop their fullest potentials in achieving their dreams.  In short, some business organizations have been prime movers in making it possible for millions to pursue their lives in a wealthy, healthy, rational and exciting world. Good organization is built upon ethical business practices.

Corporate Governance which is offshoot of Business Ethics is based on the foundation that companies should engage in fair dealing with all of their stakeholders who are customers, employees, suppliers, and communities, as well as shareholders. Companies must engage in accordance with the expectations of the larger society in which they operate. An organization exists on its purpose in society. And an organization which exists on a shareholder-centric model also recognizes that it owes a lot to society, therefore, must minimize its negative externalities such as pollution and destruction of ecology.

And finally, for all individuals and organizations integrity is a choice, which depends to a large extent on culture, upbringing, peer influences, etc. it can’t be forced.  One who has strong and well-defined standards of integrity behaves with wholeness, integration, honesty, and does right by him and by others.

We see countless professionals giving up their integrity and morals for the sake of money and money is a big addiction. Wealthy people get imprisoned into their lifestyle and their need to impress the world.  It’s sad that people forget to create their legacy.

What is your legacy? It’s what you will be able to say about yourself when you’re old and look back at life. It’s about what you have stood for, given to the society, taught, imparted, and left behind. It’s not what you dreamed of being, but what you have been.  It’s not a dress rehearsal, but the reality of what you have left behind. Many professionals forget that they have this one chance to build a life that’s meaningful for them.  It’s sad that people compromise their legacy for a futile greed to grasp success, money, accolades and power.

Frederic Winslow Taylor, (1856-1915) was the first person who attempted to systematically analyze human behavior at work place. He compared the organization to a machine form; the machine with its low-priced, interchangeable parts, each of which does one specific function. Taylor said organizations are like big machines because humans working in an organization can be easily molded and can be transposable.

Like in a family or in a society, even in organizations, individuals and groups interact on different matters for the harmony and prosperity. The combined behaviors create a company climate that can reinforce or depress an organization’s success. Each individual and his behavior matters because business processes are interdependent. Therefore, while working from within a company’s structure, both management and staff might have difficulty in recognizing patterns of behavior and also how intensely those patterns can influence a company’s performance. The leadership is extremely important to create positive influence and positive atmosphere by helping the employees to grasp and work on achieving mission, vision and goals of the organization; this is where OB is important. Every person working in an organization from the gate keeper, sweeper to the CEO is involved in the company’s future. If the internal atmosphere is good in an organization, it projects a strong external manifestation.

OB relies heavily on social sciences and psychology. When an individual joins an organization he is concerned with his personal growth. But his interpersonal relations are important for the organizational competence and in return the group dynamics. The individual’s behavior is thus very important from the organization’s perspective. If the individual speaks good of his organization outside, it showcases the cultural strength of the organization. People are the key to an organization’s survival.

The importance of organizational behavior rests in understanding how individuals, groups, and organizational structures interact and affect one another. OB studies, examines communication patterns between individuals and groups, as well as the structure and culture of organizations. Many culturally and financially weak individuals have blossomed and grown after joining good workplaces. A detailed look at workplace behavior, business culture, and organizational practices generates greater insights about communication patterns and conflicts. People can make work place an exciting, fun-filled, and productive place to be, or they can make it a routine, boring, and ineffective place where everyone is apprehensive and tense. Steve Jobs, cofounder, chairman, and CEO of Apple Inc. attributed the innovations at Apple, which includes the iPod, MacBook, and iPhone, to people, noting, “Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have.…It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it.” 

Such conclusions sometimes spark solution-oriented policies and organizational change, causing leaders to implement rewards systems, new communication techniques, or innovative management approaches. Learning and revising the ways in which individuals and groups in an organization interact is often very helpful. Lot of factors challenge the system: culture of the nation, infrastructural facilities, demographics, educational standards in the nation, and few other factors are critical for explaining challenges within an organization.

Apple is known for its innovative products and sleek designs. The company is also known for offering tech products at higher price points than its competitors, but consumers still line up to buy new products or purchase upgraded versions of existing products. Apple corporate culture is built on innovation, but critics report that the executives push their employees hard and expect nothing less than the best from them. The company’s focus on creating seamless consumer technology has allowed it to prosper even when other tech companies have experienced declines in sales.

Another reality is that employees fear any change in an organization. Employees are often reluctant to embrace a new technology, new posting, new process, new boss, new colleagues – they have an aversion to something new. Change which cannot be avoided under any circumstance interferes with an organization’s advancement efforts. This is where OB becomes more important. Organizational behavior in such a situation as in adopting change highlights the capable leadership from top in effectively managing fear of change across the organization. When changes take place, managing individuals and groups are important.

Organizational culture is a system of shared values, beliefs, and assumptions that governs the behavior of people in the organization. The culture of an organization is determined by the values placed on a set of characteristics, such as risk taking ability, ethical governance and appreciation of good employees in detail. When jointly there is a high level of agreement and commitment among the members of an organization on preserving these values, the organization is said to have a strong culture. An organization in which members do not agree and are not committed to the core values has a weak culture.

Mary Kay Ash, founder of Mary Kay Inc., a billion-dollar cosmetics company, makes a similar point, saying, “People are definitely a company’s greatest asset. It doesn’t make any difference whether the product is cars or cosmetics. A company is only as good as the people it keeps.” Just like people, organizations come in many shapes and sizes.

The concern for ethical decision-making is key attribute among the regulators, employees, social groups and managers. It has substantially increased since failure of some of the prominent business organizations like, Satyam, Shell and Enron owing to strong social criticism of some of their business practices. Of late, prominent institutes like IIMs have now begun sensitizing students about business ethics and morality; eminent personalities like the Sri. Sri. Ravishnkar, Jaggi Vasudev or the Dalai Lama is invited to speak on business ethics and ethical behavior. A few imperative literature review shows that authors have frequently used ethics, morality and values interchangeably in the context of organizational behavior. But, this requires sufficient research to examine the linkage of ethical decision-making with organizational structure and business results.

While hiring people some organization go too far examining their cultures and behaviors. They check a list of desired attitudes and behavior before hiring employees. As far as possible they avoid hiring the wrong people, so that they can improve employee satisfaction and reduce employee turnover. Google is one such organization every industrialist might consider emulating, especially if the business is involved in the technology field. The company has an informal product development process and gives staff members access to the co-founders and chief executive.

They create a situation in an interview trying to confirm what they think of a candidate; psychologists call this confirmation bias.  Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, or prioritize information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs. A lot of scientific assessment goes in choosing the right candidate by hunting for evidence that confirms the panel’s initial impression.

Finally, much of what a manager does has to do with trying to get people to work as effectively as possible.  It involves trying to motivate each individual worker. Much of management has to do with understanding people and how they work.  Therefore, having an understanding of organizational behavior is vital to managers.

Each person has an inherent need to understand and envisage his role and his interaction with others in the organization because much of each individual’s time is spent working in or around a group of people in organization. People differ in their personalities, attitudes, and values, and an understanding of an individual’s personality is extremely important in maximizing his happiness and productivity at work. Organization Behavior theories are particularly helpful in satisfying people’s innate drives at the same time simultaneously using their strengths to accomplish vision, mission and goals of the organization. OB helps in creating a healthy work environment where individuals and organization grow concurrently.

A whistleblower is a person who exposes misbehavior, a wrongdoing, alleged dishonesty or illegal activity occurring in an organization/society. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, sexual molestation and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally; for example, to other people within the accused organization or externally to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues. Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing corruption, fraud, and mismanagement, and in preventing disasters that arise from negligence or wrongdoing. Those within public institutions and the private sector who speak out about wrongdoing potentially save lives and resources. It is in the public interest that the law protects whistleblowers so that they can speak out if they find mismanagement in an organization. Blowing the whistle is more formally known as ‘making a disclosure in the public interest.’ Whistleblowers risk their job, sometimes their life, and their prestige for social welfare. It is therefore the society’s obligation to protect them from getting victimized.

The term whistle-blower comes from the whistle – a referee uses to indicate an illegal or foul play. US civic activist Ralph Nader coined the phrase in the early 1970s.

They are a crucial source of intelligence to help society, organizations and governments in identifying wrongdoings and hazards in society. However, often whistleblowers have been disgracefully treated for doing good. They are victimized and oppressed for their good work. We have heard of too many cases of inexcusable treatment given to whistleblowers by others in society – their colleagues, head of departments, statutory bodies, police, and government. In 2005, in India, Shanmughan Manjunath, a former manager at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), spoke against adulteration of petrol. He was shot dead on November 19, 2005, allegedly by a petrol pump owner from Uttar Pradesh. This lack of action has a profound impact on confidence and trust in the system, and means that employees are less likely to blow the whistle for fear of what may happen to them. An engineer, Satyendra Dubey, was murdered in November 2003; Dubey had blown the whistle against appalling frauds taking place in the Golden Quadrilateral project by the National Highway Authority of India. Take the recent case of D.K.Ravi an additional commissioner of commercial taxes (enforcement) a 2009-batch Indian Administrative Service officer, whose death was camouflaged as suicide; Ravi fought against the land mafia in Karnataka for which he had to die unnaturally at a very young age.

The corporate world is also the same. Under the lable of organization “ethos” and “loyalty” lot of ill-doing has to be borne by employees and many things are hushed up in organizations. Prior to the 1960s, corporations had broad self-sufficiency in employee policies and could fire an employee at will, even for no reason. Employees were expected to be “loyal” to their organizations at any cost. Then labour unions were formed, and unions made noise for anything and everything. But, then you also get to see organizations like IBM who allow open-door policy which allowed employees to discuss their issues and grievances if any.

In a survey of Ministry of Defense employees, only 40% of respondents felt they would not suffer retaliation if they raised a concern, and a survey of Department of Health employees found only 54% of respondents felt confident that they could speak up. Over one third of civil service employees do not even know how to raise a concern under the civil service code. Take the case of Durga Shakti Nagpal IAS of 1984 cadre who was suspended for launching a massive drive against corruption and illegal sand mining within her jurisdiction of Gautam Budh Nagar and later for allegedly demolishing an illegal mosque wall in a village in Greater Noida. Of course in her case, the opposition political parties, associations of Indian bureaucrats and the general public on online social media demanded for her suspension to be revoked and it was done!

Whistleblower’s problems are often concealed rather than solved. Globally, there have been multiple instances of threatening, harassment and even murder of various whistleblowers. The India Law Ministry is working on a draft to amend the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2011 aimed at safeguarding against disclosures affecting sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, etc. Whistleblower’s protection should be broadly defined without any loopholes in it.

Culturally whistleblowing implies betrayal. There is still a gap between the promoting and protecting whistleblowers. In most of organizations employees are scared to speak up for fear of personal punishment or losing job. Many times employees confide some wrongdoing in a wrong or faulty person; he/she misguide the whistleblower by carrying tales to the higher-ups. Most times employees feel that no one is listening; they are unlikely to report any malpractice or misconduct that they see. Speaking out is difficult, especially in a culture where brazenness is practiced openly.

Whistleblowing is most effective when it operates in an open-door culture that actively encourages employees to report concerns. It works in societies/governments/organizations which work for bringing in a positive change. Not only does this create an environment where problems are dealt with before they become potentially damaging risks. The mentality of the top level is vital. Quality communication in handling the matter is essential.

A new report which was co-authored by researchers from Australian NGO Blueprint for Free Speech, Transparency International Australia, Griffith University and Melbourne University,  on the state of affairs of whistleblower protection based on a research in some of the world’s richest countries has found that Germany ranks alongside Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey where whistlebloweres are not protected. These countries do the least to ensure that whistleblowers can speak out without fear of revenge. The report found that serious shortcomings remained in most of the above mentioned countries – and those shortcomings affected most of the areas potential whistleblowers would be concerned about. Provisions for whistleblowers to remain anonymous when using internal channels to express their concerns were identified as a particular weakness. Most of the EU states are poor in protecting whistleblowers.

There is limited research about the psychological impact of whistle blowing. However, poor experiences of whistleblowing can cause discouragement to people who want to voice disorders. Whistleblowers often become paranoid, anxious and suffer from nightmare.   Depression is often reported by whistleblowers, and suicidal thoughts may occur in up to about 10%. Their health conditions often decline as they become fearful. In short, whistleblowers suffer for speaking. Nobody in power likes whistleblowers.

Precise, clear, inclusive, simple, and effective legislation must be introduced to protect those who, in good faith and on rational grounds, speak out against suspected acts of wrongdoing. It is everybody’s responsibility to provided safe and peaceful atmosphere for whistleblowers.  As a society we can no longer afford to ignore their wellbeing. There should not be gaps between writing policy, adopting it, and then going on with business as usual. Let’s stop the duplicity somewhere.