KEY POINTS:
The Tony Veitch affair is a timely reminder about the ethical responsibility of management and staff who work in a company. Unfortunately, every time we pick up a newspaper, it seems as if there are ever more new examples.
My father used to say that the golden rule
in life was "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In business, he advised me, it was a little bit different. It was "do unto others before they do it to you".
There is a common perception that a company, or business in general, is a different world where friendship, honour and our ethical compass are somewhat lower than the standards we would apply to ourselves.
In reality, however, a company is considered under the law as a person, with rights and responsibilities. Companies are literally virtual human beings.
They have faces, in logos and websites. They own property. Their arms and legs are their employees.
Companies are expected to pay taxes, act responsibly and be good members of society. The management or officers of the company are simply the enablers for company behaviour.
When you go to work, you are being paid to uphold the good ethical behaviour of the company first and foremost. As employees, you do not have a separate identity from the company. They are one and the same.
Every action by management or staff reflects on the ethical standards of the company. Management needs to understand that every staff member and every interaction with customers, other staff, media, law enforcement and other bodies reflects on the good standing of the company. Does this extend to the staff member's personal life?
Sometimes yes, if it affects the company's ethical standards by association - just as it does with real people.
A bad apple scenario - where one person within the company is unethical - is not a valid excuse. In other words, if you assaulted someone, you could not say that your arm hit them, but as the owner of the arm you are not responsible.
Companies are as good (or bad) as their weakest ethical link. CEOs cannot abdicate responsibility in this way, as they are ultimately responsible for the entire activities of the firm, whether they know about the behaviour or not.
This is a hard pill to swallow for some and there are very few who are willing to accept this burden unconditionally.
Companies need to protect themselves and their images, as would any of us.
It seems that Tony Veitch - the individual - has already been protecting himself by hiring PR agents and the like. TVNZ, the company - also an individual - through its management team is trying to protect itself as well.
Companies protect themselves by developing risk management and governance frameworks and employ certain types of staff to monitor their affairs.
This protection includes the ability to train and educate staff on how they need to behave to meet the needs of the company's ethical standards. The aim of these practices is to lift the lowest common denominator and minimise the risk of ethical breaches by the company.
Companies provide income for staff members who in turn support their families. The management need to ensure that their activities do not compromise the ethical integrity of their company.
Is there any difference between making poor business decisions and people losing their jobs, and management making poor ethical decisions and achieving the same outcome?
Any degrading of the ethical status of the company ultimately influences customer buying habits, the long-term stability of the company and its ability to continue to be the benefactor to the families of staff members in the future.
As a result, senior management have a social and moral responsibility that is linked inextricably with their ethical behaviour. The difficulty comes when management and staff cannot distinguish between the company's ethical position and their own. It is not unknown for these staff to use the resources of the company to assist their own causes. This in itself can be considered unethical behaviour.
Many a textbook will counsel up-and-coming managers that they should apply an "ethical test" to whatever they do. The standard "test" is whether you would like to see your questionable behaviour spread across the front page of the newspaper, or made known to your family and friends. The theory is that if you do not, then it is not ethical behaviour.
This test, however, is a myopic and highly individualistic view of the situation. A more appropriate test should include whether you can look your fellow colleagues in the eye and assure them that as a result of your actions, they will have a future with the company.
This type of introversion is vital in companies. For both Tony Veitch and his TVNZ managers, this test is appropriate.
Today, the ethical behaviour concerned is an alleged assault outside of work. Tomorrow, it will be another matter with someone else.
Irrespective of the questionable behaviour, the company and the individual should have agreed frameworks for identifying, classifying and dealing with such behaviour.
Like so many things, it is never a problem till it is a problem.
Preventive measures, such as ethics training and scenario role playing (like they do with football players on tour) need to be an integral part of the internal training regime of any company.
* Craig McIvor is the managing director of NZ-based Corporate Management Advice Ltd.
