(Issue 27) Is it possible for unethical companies--and individuals--to change and become ethical? How?

Kenman Wong, Professor of Business Ethics, Seattle Pacific University

If "unethical companies and individuals" refers to those who have made some mistakes, then the outlook for change is somewhat positive. Unethical behavior occurs for a variety of reasons, including ignorance, ambiguity, and a reward system that encourages it. Decreasing these types of behaviors is not an easy task, but can be done through awareness raising, moral imagination, and changes to the incentive system. If, however, "unethical companies and individuals" refers to those who are corrupt in the very core of their character, change will be hard to come by. Only through a significant crisis and on-going intervention can improvement take place.

Frank Herman, Retired entrepreneur, Berkeley CA

Of course, anything's possible in this life. How else could people like George Bush or Bill Clinton get to be president? The imagination reels.

More seriously: there are two reasons people and organizations make dramatic changes. The first one is fear. If an individual or company sees that their unethical practices are probably going to get them sued, fined, jailed, fired, disbarred, beat up by thugs, etc., they will probably shape up. The second reason is love. If an individual or company is gripped by affection, desire, and longing for someone or something that can only be acquired through honesty, fairness, diligence, integrity, etc., they will probably shape up.

All of us have seen (and experienced?) what both fear and love can do--to individuals and to organizations. So one answer could be to ratchet up the fear side with horror stories, threats and warnings. There is a place for this, in my opinion, but it falls short of the ideal by making avoidance of evil a bigger daily focus than achievement of good. The achievement and performance side is best leveraged by helping individuals and organizations "fall in love" and stay in love with the right kind of goals. Pick those purposes carefully and sell your people on their beauty and desirability. Show and explain to them what kind of character and behavior is required to score that goal. Of course this is too simple. It can't be the whole answer. But it is the motivational foundation of ethical reform.

Frank Navran, Principal Consultant, Ethics Resource Center

How can an organization, especially one facing ethical concerns, change its culture to one that promotes and rewards ethical behavior? Here are seven steps to organizational change:

1. State your position, philosophy or belief
2. Create formal organizational systems
3. Communicate expectations through informal (leadership) systems
4. Reinforce the policy through measurements and rewards
5. Implement communications and education strategies
6. Use response to critical events to underscore commitment
7. Avoid the perception of hidden agendas

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 26) In what ways have information and telecommunications technologies affected, for better or worse, the ethical challenges faced by organizations?

Carl Mitcham, Professor, Colorado School of Mines
Author, Thinking Through Technology

The single biggest problem is speed. The new info/telecommunications technologies regularly up the speed of communication in ways that force instant responses and undermine reflection. On hot days I sometimes get over a hundred emails to which I am expected to respond quickly, almost without thinking.

With postal letters, just the process of opening them slowed us down, and there was seldom a sense of urgency in replying. After all, the post office would take days to deliver them anyway. We had time to think and digest the contents.

Now the expectation is that we should respond daily if not hourly. Time to think and reflect evaporates. Even the telephone is a slower medium, because in talking we can have pauses, we can think out loud with someone, and our interlocutor can begin to get a sense by our tone and hesitations about the difficulties we might see, and then appreciate it when we say, "Let's think about this and talk again tomorrow."

I'm reminded of opera and the invention of aria. The earliest operas (e.g., Jacopo Peri's Euridice of 1600) were composed exclusively of non-reflective recitative sung dialogue that moved the action forward. It was a great invention to set action dialogue to music and thus heighten its intensity. But an even greater invention was the reflective aria, in which time stops enabling a character to interpret action and events and sing to us about how she or he feels about what is happening. The two forms of operatic dramaturgy are further contrasted by the "secco" or dry accompaniment of only one or two instruments for recitative, and full orchestral accompaniment of the aria.

The reflective pause of time does indeed enrich experience. This enrichment of experience is what the speed of the new info/telecommunications technologies regularly and too quickly throw away. We need to reinvent the aria in cyberspace.

Robert Hollies, CEO, Lampstand Computing, San Mateo CA

First, email has been a great productivity enhancement because communication is not dependent upon both parties being present. The asynchronous nature of this communication means that many people can communicate with me while I am in other meetings. So, it effectively increases my communication bandwidth. Cell phones and text messaging also provide a productivity enhancement. However, here the benefits are greater for those people who work in the field, or for people whose jobs require realtime contact with others. I think of a guy who runs a small construction firm. Without a cell phone, he would be spending his evenings talking with people trying to work out the problems from the day. However, with a cell phone he can work out the problems in real time and get problems fixed faster and with smaller negative consequences.

From an ethics perspective, email probably has the greatest impact because of the potential liability issues of having a record of the communication. Bill Gates and some of the Wall Streeters have experienced the direct effects of having communications recorded, much like President Nixon experienced with the Watergate tapes. Essentially, having communications recorded is a plus for ethical behavior because it reduces the ability for individuals to have deniability.

Troy Winslow, Product Marketing Manager, Intel Corporation, Sacramento CA

Technology should not change our ethics (our values and principles), but it does have an effect on our ethical behavior in everyday interaction. Communication technology is a double-edged sword. On the positive side it gives us access to a global community with instant and secure communication anywhere in the world, along with offering tremendous flexibility and safety in our workplace and lives (anywhere computing and communication). Regrettably, it also gives people an opportunity to lie, mislead, or get away with laziness or ineptness. "I never got your email...my PC crashed and lost the data...my cell phone battery died so I couldn't return your call". Not much different from the "dog ate my paper" excuse many of us used in elementary school, but believable enough in today's business to hide the truth and challenge our ethics.

Organizations need to recognize the pressure these factors put on their employees. As email pagers, wireless PDA/Handsets, and remote access proliferate throughout organizations, the excuses will grow at an alarming rate. Instilling values and creating practical guidelines on how employees are to deal with communication technology is critical. More important, however, may be just reinforcing the basics of communication etiquette, e.g., the courtesy of a timely reply. These are vitally important challenges organizations must face if customer service and employee performance are not to decrease as fast as the capacity of our email inbox.

Harold "Bud" Boughton, Greenwood, IN

Technology, in and of itself, cannot be considered either good or bad when it comes to its influence on ethics in business. Ultimately, ethical principles and conduct are conceived in one's heart, and based upon those principles, one makes choices and guides his or her journey in life. How one utilizes technology is again, a choice. Does new technology present new and different opportunities for unethical behavior? Absolutely! Does it also, however, provide us with new opportunities to enhance communication, touch others and promote ethical behavior and ideals? The answer again is "Yes." So, technology is not as much the problem as it is the intent and purpose for which the individual chooses to use the technology. If anything, technology has helped to further erase our identity. Gerard Bauer once said, "The voice is a second face." Today, we have a third face; it's called e-mail.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 25) How does the size of a company affect the ethical challenges it faces? Does a small company have an easier time maintaining its ethical health?

Judith Martin, Senior VP, Bishop Ranch Business Park, San Ramon CA

I have worked for two large companies, and three small companies, all in the field of real estate development (commercial buildings.) One of the large companies, a publicly traded Canadian development company owned by the Bronfman family, was the most ethical and employee oriented company I have been associated with. They were international, there were a number of layers of management, but from the CEO down the culture of the company was one of "do the right thing." I remember being shocked by a teleconference call back in 1986, with the head of the company, Leo Kolber. He refused to incorporate any of the proposed "tax reform act" credits for real estate into any of our analysis, because he considered them "bogus" to a real investor.

On the other hand, another large real estate developer, also international with a strong presence at that time in San Francisco, had a "top down" culture of bureaucratic corruption. The family/owners were unaware how the CEO in NYC manipulated the vendors, the CPA firm (one of the Big 5 at that time) who audited the books and the pension plans. As CFO I went head to head with the CPA firm over pension and management company costs and ended up having to leave.

With the small companies, there is no "layer" between the owner and the employees--everything depends on the ethics of the owner. My current employer of 12 years, Alex Mehran owner of Bishop Ranch Business Park in San Ramon, is highly ethical, supportive of his employees and their family life, and takes responsibility for every action of the company. However another small company owner I worked for as COO for two years manipulated the books to make his partnerships (which he managed) look poorer than they were so he could buy out his partners at a low price. I had to leave because I "couldn't be trusted" to deal with the partners because I "told them too much."

The owner or the CEO, whoever sets the company culture, big company or small, gets the ethics they expect. They hire or keep similarly minded managers, and ones who don't fit are not rewarded and either quit or are fired.

Stan Leszynski , CEO, Leszynski Group, Inc., Bellevue WA

Companies across the spectrum of size experience mostly the same ethical challenges, but the manner in which they are addressed does indeed vary. Executives in a large company are generally protected by the company's policies and finances from their misdeeds. Contrast this to the often direct and personal liability that a small businessperson faces daily. This situation often emboldens managers and executives in mid-sized and large companies to feel somewhat bulletproof as they bend or break the rules, so when they stray they often stray more noticeably. On the other side of the coin, a small businessperson does not have the checks and balances provided by the peer review, public scrutiny, and organizational structure of a larger company, and thus may drift unrestrained more easily into those smaller scale, gray-areas of improper behavior.

Any size company is at similar risk of slipping down the ethical ladder but small companies can generally course-correct faster, are more forgiving, provide more mentoring, are willing to risk setting a visible ethical tone, and provide less "cover" for employee misdeeds by virtue of their size, so small companies in general do have an easier time charting and staying on an ethical course. As with any other business process in a large company, filtering ethical messages and guidelines from the top of a ladder to the bottom slows as size increases.

Mark Frisbie, Attorney at Law, Walnut Creek, CA

A small company has an easier time maintaining ethical health because it is not nearly as powerful as a large company. Where power is greater, it is harder to maintain ethical health. Moreover, the more people who need to agree and cooperate, the harder it is to agree on ethics, much less maintain them. As a sole practitioner, I can establish and adhere to my own ethical standards much more easily. Of course, maybe I can also break them without as much accountability. But it is my impression that most people do not join large companies to have their ethics monitored. More likely, it is for monetary compensation, prestige, ambition to excel in their chosen field of endeavor, or feeling called to be a leader or make a difference in a way that can only be accomplished through large group enterprise. I am not capable of building 747's or handling high-profile lawsuits, but that is not my ambition. I am happy to trade all of those "payoffs" for the freedom to call my own shots, for the most part, but I must admit to nagging doubts about whether I am making the most of my life.

I agree with David Korten that the corporate form of organization has many pernicious effects on human welfare. Nonetheless, it is clearly more powerful economically than the small business model. When have human beings, as a polity, ever chosen less power over more? I admire Korten for sounding a message which we all need to hear, but probably few will heed.

John A. Buckel, Senior Partner, Capital Partners Development Company, LLC, Folsom CA

A small company has an easier time defining and maintaining its culture because it is often closer to its founders/owners and their ethical principles. Also, leadership in a smaller company is often not vested much beyond these individuals either. So it should be easier to maintain its ethical health than in a larger organization. Another factor is the "public vs. private" structure of a company. As a private company (usually, but not always, smaller), we don't need to consider shareholders and their interests when we make our decisions. We just talk about them as a management/ownership team and make them to the best of our ability.

Robert & Amy Keltner, Architect & Small Business Manager, Little Rock AR

A smaller company has an easier time maintaining its ethical health simply because its size affords greater accountability and fosters a higher sense of responsibility. In a small firm, one becomes personally involved with the running of the business. The CEO knows your name and your family, and sees you at the company picnic. The smaller size of the company fosters relationship and therefore, personal investment. It is much easier to be anonymous in a huge corporation. Greater anonymity leads to feeling less responsible for your behavior. You feel that you can "get away with" unethical behavior. "No one will know". In large corporations, employees are prone to become personally and emotionally detached and therefore less concerned with how their actions might affect the company or those around them.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 24) What must happen for business to recover public trust after the headline problems of Enron, Andersen, Global Crossing, Tyco, and other businesses this past year?

John Reed, Former Chairman & CEO, Citicorp, New York NY

Business leaders must clearly be seen to have taken on the responsibility and accountability for keeping shareholders (and hence, the public) fully informed with regard to their company plans and performance (as it relates to the plans as well as the company's status). GAAP is a tool but this responsibility goes beyond accounting. If routine accounting reports do not fully inform - then management must add whatever is needed. Boards must be seen to be (and actually be) substantially independent. Boards must be responsible and accountable for the top management culture of the company, being alert to misalignments between senior compensation and motivation and longer term stockholder interests. Any board or management financial gains relating to the company during twenty-four months preceding a bankruptcy filing, should be automatically accessible to the bankruptcy court.

Rosalind Picard , Professor of Media Arts & Sciences, MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA

The new rules and regulations may be necessary, but a dishonest leader will find a way around them. Rules are no substitute for personal integrity and initiative by the CEO and CFO in doing what is right, and doing so publicly. I think businesses should build transparency and accountability into their financial auditing and review procedures, and demonstrate that what they've built provides a level of integrity of the highest standards. Although they will need to involve outside "neutral" auditors, they cannot depend on such as simple stamps of approval, as these have also largely lost the trust of the public. Corporate leaders should look for leaks in the integrity of their system as one would look for leaks in a secure computer system -- recognizing there is nothing perfect, but demonstrating substantial effort to provide for the best that can be obtained. I would like to see such initiatives come from within, from corporate leaders who genuinely value public trust. Trust needs to be earned, once again, by initiative and hard work.

Anne Taylor, Managing Partner, Deloitte & Touche, New York NY

Ethics and integrity are the foundation of our capital market system. When they come into question, the consequences can be severe because people invest their trust long before they invest their dollars. We all have a vested interest in understanding and learning from business failures. We will never eliminate them. The markets will always produce winners and losers. When they result from inappropriate activity, we need to uncover it, vigorously prosecute the violators, and correct the system to prevent similar abuses in the future. However, when all the systems, controls, regulations and laws are in place, success or failure will boil down to one thing--personal integrity. We need to be good individually. We can't depend on controls and regulations. Honesty and integrity of management and auditors are what's needed most to reestablish credibility in financial information and restore confidence in our capital markets.

Harold Boughton , Consultant and author of The Missing Piece (forthcoming), Greenwood IN

There is no substitute for responsible leadership that adheres to and honors high moral character and rules of conduct as guiding principles. With roughly 17,000 publicly traded companies, we will never effectively legislate or regulate compliance to accounting standards that depict accurately what a company's financial performance is. There is no way around it. Quasi-leaders in publicly traded companies have tried to manage and manipulate earnings in any way possible to boost stock performance and improve shareholder value. They were wrong and they violated the public trust. To paraphrase the words of Warren Bennis in his book Leaders, true leadership isn't about managing and doing things right as much as it is about doing the right thing. Maybe the words of the Rev. John A. O'Brien said it best when he defined the word, "Character." "There is but one rule of conduct. Always do the right thing. The cost may be high in money, in friends, in sacrifice. The cost to do wrong, however, is infinitely higher. For a temporal gain we barter the infinities." We cannot buy the people's trust, we must earn it. It starts with true, character-centered, leadership.

Jim Robertson , HR Director, Round Table Pizza, Walnut Creek CA

Trust is built through consistent behaviors over time. It can be eroded by one thoughtless act. Since the industrial revolution, the public has been skeptical of corporate America. On the one hand, it's a critical component to our prosperity. On the other hand, we know that competition for resources and personal greed can cause serious abuses. We will probably only see public trust restored after years and years of corporate DWYSYWD (doing what you say you will do).

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 23) How and why is corporate culture important? What are the most important traits of a healthy organizational culture in your view?

Roger Eigsti, Retired CEO, SAFECO, Seattle WA

An important ingredient stated in most corporate mergers or acquisitions, is that both corporations have the same or similar corporate cultures. In reality, as time passes after the merger or acquisition is complete, they find that the cultures are very different, even though on the surface they look very similar. Culture goes way beyond the written word and into the bowels of the organization where attributes of decency, diligence, empathy, integrity, and discipline are practiced or not practiced on a daily basis. Leadership must not only set the tone but must lead and live the cultural values.

Gerard Beenen, CEO, The Block Center, Chicago IL

For business performance, corporate culture is critical because high performing organizations have strong cultures. But it doesn't stop there. Enron had a strong culture, but it was focused on short-term financial gain, and a "look out for yourself" maverick approach to risk taking. So the ethical dimension of corporate culture also is critical. I therefore believe high integrity and recognition of the importance of customers and employees are the most important traits of a healthy corporate culture, and are keys to long-range organizational performance.

Stuart Jenner, Principal, Marketek Consulting Group, Seattle WA

The most important business cultural trait is allowing individuals to raise concerns about values without fear of retaliation, retribution, or termination. This makes it possible to move forward and achieve bottom line results while also staying within legal, moral and ethical boundaries--even when everyone is not in complete agreement. An individual can change the action of the group.

Uli Chi, Chairman, Computer Human Interaction, LLC, Seattle WA

Corporate culture is important precisely because it reflects who we are versus what we do. My observation as I've gotten older in business is that we tend to overemphasize the task and function-oriented aspects of our business and neglect the relationally-oriented ones. The culture of our organization in essence embodies how we interact and deal with one another (both internal and external to the organization). It should be of no surprise to those of us of a Judeo-Christian persuasion that as image bearers of God, relationality is central to any enterprise that is human (and wishes to remain that way). In addition to a mission, a corporation needs to have a culture that creates a context of human community that enables its workers to find meaning and purpose not only in what they do but also in who they are with one another.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 22) Why should companies and employees be ethical? How would you add to , subtract from, or modify IBTE's "Nine Good Reasons" (Ethix 22, page 11)?

Kim Daus, Business Consultant, Author of Customer.Community (Jossey-Bass, 2002), Sausalito CA

IBTE's list of reasons why companies should be ethical is solid, though I would strongly suggest reversing their order. I would place "It's the Right Thing to Do" first, followed by personal pride-->employee performance-->customer loyalty--> etc... The most solid business foundation comes from doing the right thing. Then the obvious by-product of doing the right thing is personal pride in leaders and managers. Personal pride then naturally produces an environment for employees where they can perform most effectively. And that naturally leads to customer loyalty, and so on down the line. I don't believe a company can effectively or ethically focus outside the company (market, investors, customers) if it doesn't have a solid, ethical core inside.

There's one element I might add to this list. Let's call it the "One Plus One Equals Way More Than Two" Factor. Think of the best sports team performance you've ever seen. What do you remember about the team and its star players? It's as if there is a magic, supernatural force at play and it can't be stopped any short of perfect execution. For example, watching some of the Chicago Bulls games in their glory days, it's as if they were playing in a different gravity zone. When companies are intrinsically ethical, and then you stir in a good product or service, a market that needs it, great talent, good strategy and coaching, you create the possibility for this magical element where teams within that company perform at world championship levels. Not only will they break record performance levels (this spells deep customer loyalty, which leads to supplier trust, etc...), they will also likely form working relationships and behaviors that are contagious and set standards for other teams.

You can't always predict it, and you definitely can't force it. But if the right elements are placed on the right foundation, this magic and spirited dynamic feeds on itself. Ethical soundness at a company's core breeds this magic ingredient. Who knows, it might even inspire revolutionary change--both within and outside the company.

Richard Osgood, Business Consultant, Chicago IL

The main reason companies should be run in an ethical manner comes down to simple organizational survival. I've seen it too many times: the misuse of power or misbehavior of powerful people leaves a legacy. Employees cringe in the presence of the offending person. Whole pieces of the organization hide out, trying not to be identified as prey. The consequences? A whole generation of unproductive employees, many of whom end up either leaving or forced out. The "reputation" lives on past the tenure of the offending person because it was this organization that tolerated, covered-up, or even protected the offending person for so long. What to do? Top leaders have a responsibility to open communication channels widely in the organization so this sort of behavior is exposed before permanent damage is done not only to the employees but to the organization itself.

Dan Wu, Software Developer, Mountain View CA

Some voices out there agree that being ethical is important in business. Here are some examples: The last of "Investor's Business Daily's 10 Secrets to Success" (IBD, April 10, 2002), says: "Be honest and dependable; take responsibility: Otherwise, numbers 1-9 won't matter." One of Warren Buffett's criteria in selecting a stock is that management is straight forward and honest. If he gets the impression that management is dancing around the truth, that is a big minus.

An old Wall Street saying is that "The bulls (people who make money when the market goes up) make money, the bears (people who make money when the market goes down) make money, the chickens (people who are too scared to be in the market) stay on the sideline, and the pigs (greedy people) get slaughtered." One of Deming's Total Quality Management underlying principles is being ethical. If one cheats and is unethical, the TQM stuff will not work.

In the commodity trading pits, integrity is very important because literally by one nod of one's head, million of dollars exchange hands. If you cheat and say you did not make a trade, nobody will trade with you. The pits that have a reputation of being "honest" are usually the ones that are highly liquid (lots of repeat business). Another saying related to the ethical issue is "Be nice to everyone on your way up, because you meet the same people on the way down."

Being unethical actually can have short term gains. It has certain appeals just as evil sometimes has certain attractiveness to it. It appeals to our greed, our desire to have power, our desire to be superior. But in the long term, you'll really pay, often in unimaginable ways.

I disagree some with IBTE's 7th "reason to be ethical" where it says "Companies that have poor reputation have difficulty attracting and retaining top talent." Unethical companies can and do attract top talent. But top performers who are not ethical can turn around and bite the company anytime.

Ann Darling, Former Administrator, Stewart and Patten Co., LLC, Investment Management, San Francisco

I have made the choice in my life to live in an ethical way as best I can. Because of that choice, I would not want to work for a company which is not conducting itself in an ethical manner. To be happy, I must be able to feel proud of my superiors, that they are making ethical decisions and set an example for and expect their employees to do the same. Similarly I need to be able to proudly present my firm to clients or customers as an organization that they can count on to behave in an ethical way. In the long run I feel that the company and those who work there will be better for operating in this way rather than needing to spend time and energy on making continuing decisions to fit in with earlier unethical ones. And, furthermore, in the long run I believe that the customers will prefer to deal with people and companies that have treated their customers fairly, and that have conducted their business in an ethical manner.

Greg Zegarowski, President, Financial Leadership Corporation

In addition to the many practical business reasons for being ethical, I believe that ethical actions help create a better society in which to live and do business. Whether we occupy executive or line positions in an organization, our actions can help build such a society. Our local communities and the wider society are stakeholders in the business equation. Ethical businesses and employees are solid pillars which society can lean on for leadership and development.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 21) Has the time come when corporations must become transparent and ethical to be economically successful?

Catherine L. Ferguson, Price College of Business, Norman OK

Companies in the past were ethical but somewhere along the line, they found it easier to be unethical and since they had no pride in their work nor sense of responsibility, it was not hard for them to justify their actions.

Mark Stevenson, Seattle WA

The time has definitely come for corporations to be transparent and ethical in order to be economically successful. If the troubles at Enron don't make this apparent enough at this point, I am sure we will see more evidence unfold in the near future!

Julian Charles, C.T.O, Ethics & NewTechnology (www.ethicsandnewtechnology.com), Edmonton, AB

I firmly believe that the time has come for a global ethical business change. This change would reflect upon so many different aspects of our lives. The occurrence of ethics in business and new technology sectors is the key for the revelation of our future.

David Tuttle, Mountain View CA

We're getting closer to the time in history when unethical corporations cannot succeed in the world marketplace. Ethical business conduct has always been important [but] there is an increasing degree of success to be gained from ethical behavior in business (and personal relationships).

Craig Rodger, Craigie, Western Australia

Economic success is what corporations are all about. They will only be transparent if it is economically viable and strategic for their long-term interests. Transparency could be seen as weakness in the marketplace. Yet without a commitment to ethical standards and behavior the corruption of the corporate culture would become transparent. The general public's level of acceptable ethics is decisive in whether they are successful or not. Public image is everything in our media driven world. Corporations are the "movers and shakers" in developing cultural standards.

Nibedita Deb, Rayer Bazar, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Business life is often terrible. The disasters are intolerable, and you cannot ascertain who are your chums or foes. You may be wronged if you are right--and justified as correct when you are wrong. Ethical values are demonstrated less and less. Almost nobody believes in ethics. Instead, people believe that 'all's fair in love and war'--including not being transparent. We think we should always win. But this is personally dissatisfying and others can treat us in the same way.

Before future corporations become entirely ignorant of ethical values, we should preach ethics among all people. All nations of the world should co-operate with each other so that those who are transparent and ethical will not be defeated by those who are not.

Economic success and personal satisfaction can be gained peacefully by stressing ethics in all different projects and jobs. Not doing so can lead to stealing, inequality, and devastating incidents like September 11. The world of business can become a world of destruction, thus trivializing economic progress.

When all corporations are ethical and transparent, rivalry will be less and economic success will increase. The grotesque and disturbing discords and disputes among people of different organizations make me feel sick. But when I think that there are still ethical and transparent organizations like the IBTE, I feel enchanted and proud.

Joseph Feitler, Oak Park IL

Yes, if business can become and remain successful without political lobbying and/or bribery.

Robert Ernst, MP TotalCare, Tampa, FL

Corporations must be ethical to remain successful over the long haul. It is possible for less than ethical character to portray the attributes of success for a while, as has recently been demonstrated by Enron. Transparency is another matter. A certain amount of transparency is necessary in public corporations, somewhat less in private companies. The amount of public disclosure required should continue to be specified by government financial regulatory agencies. Transparency should be limited so that non-decision makers are not tempted to micro-manage and second-guess every decision.

Ultimately, ethics and transparency issues are controlled by the culture of the business entity. The mission statement that defines the vision for the business should also provide some general statement of cultural norms that are to be followed while pursuing that vision. This would give the board of directors and investors a general standard of measurement to help hold managers accountable for their actions as well as financial results.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 20) How has September 11 affected your perspective on the globalization of business?

Thomas J. Boone, Former legal counsel in world wide petroleum industry; Since 1991 Visiting Professor of Law & Economics at Foreign Affairs College, Beijing PRC and elsewhere in China.

Nothing about September 11 changes the fact that the improvement of peoples' living standards around the world is fundamentally dependent on economic development. Economic development occurs through the wise investment of capital. World-wide growth and development of business is, thus, a positive thing, in my view. For example, the average family in China today is far better off than they were thirty years ago and this is clearly because of economic growth through business investment, much of it from outside China.

September 11 does illustrate how interrelated the world already is. For example people from sixty or so different countries died in the terrorist attack and since then a coalition of nations around the globe has formed to fight against the terrorist network. The terrorist network itself is a global phenomenon. This is not just one nation against another, but a global problem.

On an individual level, of course, terrorism means caution and cultural sensitivity are in order. But on the wider plane, September 11 should not change global economic development in any significant way.

John J. Gottsman, President & CEO, The Clarity Group (venture investing and strategic planning), Atherton CA

I believe globalization and the globalization of learning are only more obviously urgent as the result of 9/11.

Gerry Salter, Manager, Outpatient Rehabilitation, Saint Francis Medical Center, Cape Girardeau MO

The attack on September 11 will effect many changes in the decision-making process for business executives, and will become the scapegoat that justifies lost revenue for many others. World trade will not cease to operate. The environment that the global economy functions in is the same now as it was prior to September 11. What has changed is America's awareness that we ARE vulnerable on home soil. Americans have been working in foreign countries for many years and understood the risks associated with doing so: political unrest, potential capture, spying charges, etc.

What has changed is that certain businesses must now rethink how they are to be successful in meeting the needs of their customers and at the same time maintain positive cash flow. The airline industry in the US is only now approaching the security preparedness as that of other airline companies. I feel that, in the long run, the global economy will benefit from the understanding that everyone is vulnerable to terrorism and that we all need to cooperate to develop a unified plan to address this. Through this dialogue, trust will be fostered and therefore may open new markets and services previously unavailable. September 11 was a wake up call, not the closing bell.

Jerry Dziuba, Calgary AB

One of our business initiatives is global. Thus far, if anything, it has heightened the awareness of how small the world really is. It has not negatively impacted this initiative and in fact, some pressures for more ISO standards and cross-border controls have raised consciousness. This will be good for our business.

Mark Slivovskyr, Randolph NJ

The attack on Sept. 11, 2001 has not affected my perspective on the globalization on any business. I believe globalization will continue to occur and will take on different forms. Of course it will slightly alter some companies and their strategies more than others. One of the more critical issues is how the insurance industry (driven by the re-insurance companies) will impact how companies will expand their brick-and-mortar locations.

However, I am getting tired of hearing so many companies using the attack on Sept. 11, 2001 as for the reason their business and their industries not doing so well. This was not an abrupt change in one's company or industry direction but rather than an amplification of that in a point in time.

Globalization may have skipped a beat since Sept. 11 but companies will continue to expand when needed and with the right economic reasons.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 19) How has the "knowledge management" movement affected you and your company? Are there any significant ethical issues at stake in KM?

Scott Griffin, Vice-President and CIO, The Boeing Company, Seattle WA

In the second half of last century the "computer revolution" promised and delivered the capability to collect and analyze vast amounts of data that could not be computed with paper and pencil. The computer revolution has given way to the "information revolution," with the business promise of providing people with easy and immediate access to the information (information being the collection and organization of purposeful data) that they need to do their jobs. Information technologists now seek to transform the management of knowledge in the same way they are seeking to transform the management of information. As John Seely Brown said in the September-October issue of Ethix, we can store information in machines but knowledge lives in people. The field of knowledge management must therefore focus on creating knowledge tools that aid people and organizations in pointing to useful knowledge.

Much of the early work in Knowledge Management focused on collecting, organizing, classifying and communicating information to an organization so that it has purpose for those who need it. This information includes best practices, planning models, problem fixes, processes, policies, tribal knowledge, and intellectual property. Aiding an individual in the storage and retrieval of purposeful information is not nearly as difficult as making personal knowledge available to others in an organization. Organizations are dynamic organisms and they must react to planned and unplanned events. Knowledge management tools must address continuous and discontinuous change, and knowledge that is shared must be tested in light of its relevancy and currency in an environment that is constantly changing.

Knowledge management must shift from the traditional emphasis on storing, processing and rendering of information to providing knowledge tools that support the building of bridges between knowledgeable people, and fostering people competencies such as lifelong learning, communication, flexibility and building of trust.

Jim French, Geotechnical Engineer, Harding ESE, Oakland, CA

It seems that the larger our corporation becomes, the more people become reduced to "people are money," (the logical extension of "time is money," since "time" really means the time people give). What is then known about me (and how I am valued) is reduced to a cost, and a revenue stream. The same valuation is made for knowledge – it has a cost, and it represents a potential revenue stream.

Of course we are in business to make money; if we don't, we are out of business and out of a job. The problem I see in the prevalent corporate expression of free market economy is that knowledge (along with people, happiness, health and safety, etc.) is reduced to this one valuation: is its revenue stream sufficiently greater than its cost?

No longer do we support a set of values; rather, we slump toward one dominant value. I once worked with a smaller company where love of the work and pride of quality seemed to propel us, and we felt a camaraderie (perhaps "community" would be too strong a word here). I worked for another small company whose goal was to provide quality service and thus bring glory to God. Two other companies I worked for have been large, with a (wistful) corporate folklore among the troops of the old days when the founders faithfully carried long-term but no-longer highly productive employees on full salary because they were "part of the family," and other such stories. But with thousands of employees, it seems inexorable that the corporate knowledge be distilled down to the cost versus revenue equation.

Øivind Kure, Professor, University of Trondheim, Norway

My perspective is from my experience at Norwegian Telecom. Until this year, I was a research manager at Telenor, the dominant carrier in Norway, fixed line, cellular, and internet services. The telecom industry has been going through a rapid change in technology. At the same time there have been tremendous changes from regulated, state-own monopolies to privatized, competing enterprises. As a result, Norwegian Telecom was required to increase the average skill level within the company. The transformation took place while the company was still owned by the government, and a fairly costly process could be used. All surplus personnel got offers for retraining and help to find alternative work. Only a minute number were laid off.

In the current climate, I do not believe such a costly process is an option anymore. In a rapidly changing environment, management of collective knowledge in a company is paramount to survival. I see no ethical issue along the dimension of improving skills. The ethical questions are more along the lines of timing and scope. KM requires an effort to improve knowledge for at least a fair amount of the employees. However, with rapid changing technologies, the situation is often that the existing technology is kept going as long as it is profitable, while an alternative technology base is implemented. To avoid disrupting the existing technology, some employees are retained to use their existing skills but at the cost of their developing new skills for their future work situation. New people are brought in for the new technology so after the technology change, there is a set of people with outdated skills. To me the ethical question in KM is whether both employee and employer gain from it.

Andrew DiLiddo, IT Consultant, Avery Dennison, Framingham MA

I am an IT/Business Process Re-engineering consultant working on finance/accounting systems and upgrades for accounting/order entry and database management. I work at a traditional manufacturing facility which needs to climb the technology curve. Possibly the dot.com debacle combined with the current economic downturn is creating inertia whereby we are limping along with what we have.

Over the next year two years, I see the implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning in our organization. Business Intelligence is another leap above that and farther in the future. The exchange of "business intelligence" is still performed by our managers and executives who occasionally meet with our trading partners. Qualitative BI is exchanged person-to-person, not highly evolved technologically. Any ethical questions would be at that point of personal contact, rather than from the technological exchange of data.

The knowledge management movement has not yet impacted us organizationally. Our organization is not sufficiently far up the curve to wrestle with ethical issues posed by KM. We are still struggling with technological hurdles. Until those technological hurdles are cleared, any ethical concerns from KM are not even on the radar screen. What would put us on a faster track for KM implementation? A true competitive disadvantage in the marketplace from lack of KM. Thus far, we are not experiencing that.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 18) In what ways does your company expect you to be "connected" to your work when you are away from the office? Does it allow you to use company electronic resources (computers, fax machines, copy machines, phones) for personal use?

Jeff Iverson, Danville CA

It really depends on the company and its demands on your personal time. I was a Controller at Cisco Systems for about six years. Cisco is a very fast-paced company. In order to succeed, you need to be willing to commit all your time to the company. It isn't that you have to work seven days a week, 24 hours a day, but you need to be available at all times. I typically worked at least a ten-hour day and usually worked some time over the weekends. In addition to my work hours, I had to commute two to three hours to and from work. There really was very little distinction between my personal time and my time at work.

I was dependent on managing my personal life while at work. I used the internet at work to book vacations, shop and do various other personal activities. In addition, I would call home every day on my business cell or office phone to let my wife know when I would be home each evening, as I was never home at the same time. The key though to handling personal affairs while at work was to ensure that it did not affect my productivity. I had goals and objectives - as long as I met those goals and objectives, there was no issue with using business tools for personal use. There was talk at one time of eliminating corporate cell phone accounts for employees to control personal use but the company understood that significant demands were placed on the employees and that some personal use was necessary to manage personal affairs.

Cisco actually encourages employees to use the internet for personal use as they wanted employees to embrace their marketing campaign of using the internet at work, at play and at home. More people using the Internet creates more demand for infrastructure networking products.

Steve Mentas, New York, NY

I am expected to remain in contact via mobile-phone (company supplied) and e-mail. And yes, the company allows personal use of fax/copiers.

Karl Knarr, Noblesville, IN

My “office” is also my home. While this provides some advantages, an obvious disadvantage is that technically I'm never “away from the office.” I have developed a habit of keeping electronic contact with the office (checking e-mail, voice-mail, etc.), but my company does not require these periodic checks while I'm on vacation and such. Mostly, I'm looking for information that a client may have sent me that needs to be forwarded to someone in the office. Also, since my job can involve travel “at a moment's notice,” I'm often looking to see if a change in my schedule is coming up.

Since my office is at home, all of my materials are here as well. The company does not have a specific policy regarding the personal use of these items. The general feeling is that since they are hiring professionals, they expect the employees to exercise good judgment in regards to personal usage.

John Carter, Dallas TX

As a member of a small consulting firm, it is important that all of our principals are connected wherever they may be. A key point of market differentiation for our firm is immediate response to client questions, needs, etc. I doubt many small firms in the professional services arena can afford the luxury of not being constantly connected.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 17) In addition to financial compensation, what are the most important ways of treating employees as valuable? What policies, mechanisms, and practices are the keys to valuing and empowering people?

Wayne T. Alderson, Author & Business Consultant, Value of the Person Consultants, Pittsburgh PA

How does a manager or executive address the non-economic issues of the heart? By developing a style of working with people that builds relationships. And how do you build relationships in the marketplace? By getting close enough to people to bestow value upon them--to truly affirm, appreciate, and recognize them. This style of living and leading results in reconciliation, not confrontation.

When an organization values their employees, their employees will value their company. When they value the company, they will value the work they perform. And if they value their work, they will value the quality of the product. It is simple, but profound. What I call "Theory R Management"--valuing the person--is common-sense, but not common practice.

For a review of Wayne Alderson's Theory R Management published earlier in Ethix, go to www.ethix.org.

J. Kevin Michel, Principal, Michel Distribution Services, Aberdeen, MD

First, respect their time. The habit of technology companies is to assume that every employee's life begins and ends at work. Second, respect their ideas. Incorporate the opinions of operational staff at every level in the organization. This is especially true in strategic areas. Third, respect their families. Provide them with the best benefits you can afford and upgrade them whenever you can afford to. This includes time to spend with their families. Fourth, respect their needs for space and tools. Give them the best you can afford to give so that they can give you their best, every day. Fifth, respect the fact that no enterprise succeeds on its own, but only by the efforts of all its participants.

Michael Erisman, Vice President, Human Resources, Kronas Americas, Denver CO

One way is to trust your employees. This is a simple sounding concept, but one which is often contradicted by policies and processes, and other well-intended business realities. To trust employees requires risk, and often that risk is financial. I have been party to several T&E policies which were over 15 pages in length, and spelled out in detail the precise limits of spending. What this communicates very clearly to your best employees is "we do not trust you, and you do not have the ability nor the integrity to make good decisions." To trust employees, and show they are valued, allow for flexibility and emphasize desired concepts and leave the details to the employee. The results will show that the quality employees spend money wisely, and the exceptions can be dealt with without treating everyone as though they are untrustworthy.

Jack Madson, Principal Consultant/Owner, MED- Manufacturing Enterprise Development, Bellevue WA

More and more of the top Fortune 500 companies are developing new and enabling organizations focused on value chains and putting value in job positions in much different ways. Functional organizations have a minor role; business value-added process organizations have a major role. We see new titles like Director of Supply Chain Management, Customer Fulfillment, Process Velocity--Procure to Pay, Order to Cash and Schedule to Ship. These positions bring a renewed sense of corporate responsibility because the lines of responsibility and the handoff and connection points have better definition. Accountability runs high and people focus more value on how they interact up and down the supply because they know who is responsible for what. Satisfaction comes from a high appreciation level of the "value" people feel in their jobs as this is fed back from suppliers and customers.

This organization is focused on learning how to add value to supplier's and customer's needs. As people in this organization begin to learn, supply side, inside, and sell side resources begin to link together to form a product "channel" performance. The "inside" resources being those of the company, have the opportunity to be recognized by both supply side (suppliers) and sell side (customer) resources. The matrix around what this is and how it plays out is enabled by good measurement of performance. As people gain a greater sense of control over their work environment, a higher value of appreciation for accomplishment is gained. Performance improves because people are not only doing things right, they are doing the right things--the first time.

The value of the individual grows as the value of his/her contribution is linked to the supply side and sell side from the inside. The enterprise begins to establish a new sense of value around these links and people have a renewed sense of reward, recognition and responsibility.

Greely, Ontario, Canada

It's my contention that workers at all levels respond well to informal and formal acknowledgement of their leadership. This is not meant in the managerial sense necessarily, but more in the knowledge and participation senses. Organizations that find themselves with individuals who stand out technically and techno-socially (that is, they are highly social with their technical skills) naturally acknowledge these people by accepting their contribution to formalized technical efforts. Further than this, though, companies, especially big ones, should freely offer their clients and industry in general, technical publications (beyond whitepapers) describing their achievements and giving the leading individuals credit for those achievements. In-house training programs, for example, should be sold around the company on the basis that top-guns are doing the presenting, not talking heads. Everyone says that "people are our greatest resource", but few consciously point out that the unique contribution of talented individuals is the building block of corporate technical success. Younger workers can easily see that achieving this level of acknowledgement is worthy goal.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 16) What are the primary ethical issues and challenges we must face up to in the emerging biotechnology realm (genomics, bioengineering, etc.)? Who should take responsibility here? What are the first steps to be taken?

Doug Gibson, President & CEO, Washington Imaging Services, LLC, Seattle

Since today's technologies will be outdated in the near future any attempt to restrict certain types of technologies is a strategy of limited scope and utility that will not address the larger issues: what are the moral and ethical applications of biotechnology to the human race?

In the past we have used the government, through agencies such as the FDA, to protect the public from the dangers of new drugs by processes that force industry to identify the efficacy and toxicity of medications before they are made available to the public. What has been lacking to this point is a discussion of the moral and ethical nature of these medications. The advent of biotechnology brings with it the ability to manipulate the human body in ways that previous technologies could not. Medical ethics and other bodies of knowledge can be used to help us develop policies and guidelines that will enable us to use biotechnology responsibly to better mankind.

Our choices are either to deal with the implications prospectively before the applications are available to the public, or deal with the outcomes retrospectively through the legal system. To abdicate our opportunity to set national policies about biotechnology applications suggests we believe the legal system should become our moral compass. Allowing the legal system to become our moral compass may be the worst decision we can make.

Julie Donalek, RN, D.N.Sc., Associate Professor of Nursing, North Park University, Chicago

One challenge is how to balance the copyright and patent interests of biotech creators with exploding needs among people who cannot afford to pay "market" prices (e.g., AIDS drugs in some parts of Africa).

Another question is how much we are willing to tinker with human life. For example, I would be in favor of genetic therapy to re-engineer a schizophrenic who wishes it but what about an individual with an inherited predisposition for alcoholism? or a gay person who wishes to become straight? When parents lose a six-year old we can argue that cloning will not bring that lost child back but when a three-month old accidentally suffocates, cloning may come pretty close to doing so. Will we set limits or have guidelines?

Al Bjorkman, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Biology, North Park University, Chicago

There is a gap between the rate of new understanding in science and the rate of human/ethical understanding. Science relentlessly and rapidly moves ahead discovering the secrets of the universe. If there is a secret, scientists somewhere are going to try to turn over the "rock" and discover something new. Science does so without much regard for values or ethics issues. This is to some degree inevitable as science is not well equipped to deal with ethics and values.

If this is true, then it is up to the rest of society to help deal with the moral/value implications of science . Too often we wait until months or even years after a new discovery to wake up with an "Oops, this could be a dangerous problem for humankind!" We need to develop some form of rapid early warning "dialogue-and-wrestling-with-implications" system so that ethicists, philosophers, citizens, and the political process get involved with science far earlier than we seem to do now. Laws and regulatory responses will ultimately have to come from the people and from their understanding of the value and ethical implications of science's discoveries.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 15) What responsibilities, if any, should corporations have to their communities? How should these be balanced with accountability to their shareholders?

Milton Friedman, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Chicago

What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in thus vague sense.

What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers.

[In] my book Capitalism and Freedom I have called it a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free society, and have said that in such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

(from "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits" by Milton Friedman, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970)

Roger Eigsti, Retired CEO, SAFECO

Corporations have responsibilities to many constituencies including the communities where their employees live, work and raise their families. Other constituencies, to name a few, are their employees, customers and shareholders. We should be careful not to play one against the other or to ask which is the most important. Each constituency is important in its own way and is essential for a corporation to "be successful." If a company falls short in one area, all areas suffer.

Research shows that a corporation's image and reputation influence buying and retention decisions. The public judges the character and core values of a company as expressed through actions, including contributions and volunteerism. Active involvement in the community must start at the top, then others will follow. A recent study at UCLA revealed that employee morale is three times greater in companies with strong community relations, including volunteerism, partnerships in the community and philanthropy.

Responsible employees, involved in their communities, serve their customers better, which in turn increases sales and profits, and this enhances shareholder value.

Tanya Beder, Managing Director & Head of Strategic Quantitative Investments, Caxton Corporation, New York

There are many aspects of responsibility, including human rights, environmental issues, social issues and interactions with stakeholders, including employees, customers, and members of the community where a firm operates. How much local investment and support for education, arts, with sciences does the firm want to provide to communities in which it operates?

These are difficult questions to answer. The personal nature of ethics dictates that disagreement is likely even at the upper-most level that sets the direction of a company. Various stakeholders may answer the question differently, e.g., creditors and shareholders may place profitability ahead of generosity.

Indices are being set up now in United States (and some foreign) markets to define what is "ethical" and certify companies and funds. Many of these indices were launched in response to growing investor demands that companies be socially responsible. These indices will set some common standards for what to do on human rights, environmental issues, and social issues. Hopefully, a common definition of responsibility can be established.

There is tremendous pressure on many funds to remove support from companies that violate human rights (e.g. through child or slave labor production) or who are socially irresponsible (e.g. though manufacture of "bad" products such as cigarettes or drug paraphernalia). Many funds are anxious for certification as "socially responsible." These funds, representing huge investment dollars in capital markets, will invest in companies in the indices as long as the companies meet their other financial criteria.

At some point, the market takes over: a firm cannot operate if people do not want to do business with them. It cannot operate if lenders or shareholders do not want to invest. Some individuals and funds who do not place a high priority on ethical activity will invest in companies shunned by others. However, other firms that have ignored social responsibility will be forced to improve in order to retain employees and customers, and find lenders and investors. Otherwise they will operate at a less competitive level, bidding up the cost of doing business in order to attract a shrinking pool of employees, customers, and investors. Such a company is likely to go out of business.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 14) What do you do to maintain balance and boundaries for yourself and your family in this fast-paced, always connected economy?

Rosalind Picard, Associate Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I say no to a lot of things. I sometimes have days where I’ve just said no to things all day, which feels kind of crummy at the end of the day. All I accomplished was saying no to everything. One day I decided to start writing big time-consuming trips that I said no to on my calendar. Then when I come to that week on the calendar I see that I could have been in Korea this week, and Illinois and Japan next week if I’d accepted all these invitations. Then I feel really good about saying no, because the time is filled with plenty of other good things. And the invitations keep coming so I guess it hasn’t killed my career.

I have wonderful flexibility with my job. It is rare that I can’t cancel or move things to be home with my child when he’s sick or to be there for something he needs. MIT is wonderful about letting me work any hour of the day (as long as you work all hours of the day). I feel like one of those people who stands up in one of those AA meetings and says “I am an alcoholic even though I haven’t had a drink for ten years.” I am a workaholic even though I think I keep it under control. But it’s an unstable equilibrium; everything is constantly trying to tip it out of balance and I have to pull together every resource I have to keep my values and priorities on top.

Mark Neuenschwander, President, The Neuenschwander Company, Seattle

My wife and I each own and run a business. Cinda is a graphic designer and I’m a consultant in the field of pharmacy automation. Each of us has had a home office. However, we find the added expense and inconvenience of our out-of-home offices actually benefits our time together. Two or three days each week, we meet for lunch at a restaurant halfway between our offices. Generally, we are home by 6 p.m. Discipline required.

Last year I traveled 150k miles. Several times, Cinda met up with me at the end of a trip for an extended weekend together. Finally, we attend church on Sunday evening. The worship, prayer and sermon give us cause for reflecting on the week behind and prompt discussion over a quiet dinner before rushing into the week ahead.

Karen Frisbie, MF Consulting, Concord, California (formerly Vice-President, Bank of America)

I’ve tried various approaches over the years to balance work/family time, including job-sharing and other part-time work arrangements. What has worked for me most recently is to do contract work six months of the year (January - June), reserving the last six months for a stronger focus on my family. This seems to give me more energy to apply to both of these important, demanding areas of life.

Mark Frisbie, Attorney-at-Law, Walnut Creek, California

The issue of balance and priorities is an age-old question and I do not think that technology fundamentally changes the issue. The invention of the wheel undoubtedly changed the way people lived, including new problems of balance and boundaries, and I expect that electronic technology will do the same. But the wheel did not satisfy our deepest needs or answer our biggest questions, and neither will electronic technology. It is those needs and questions that are at the heart of “balance” and “boundaries.”

I am deeply skeptical of the popular, individualistic notion that we can all self-regulate our own lives. The most important factor for me is attending church, where I find guidance and community accountability. The question of balance and boundaries is really about the choices we make, not the technology we use.

Balance/boundary decisions depend a lot on the specifics of one’s life and personality so generalizations are difficult. With regard to the new tools of the electronic revolution, it is largely a process of screening out the hype and looking for the substance (one of the reasons I like Ethix). Do I really need this? When will I use it? What does it cost (monetarily and otherwise)? How am I going to pay for it? Will this help me be what God intends me to be?

David Stewart, State Farm Insurance, San Francisco

First, I don’t carry a pager! The bottom line is most pages are just not that urgent. I feel somewhat the same about cell phones. I have one and use it when necessary, but I never keep it on during a meeting. My pet peeve is when one goes off during a meeting, because all it says is that “I am so important” to everyone in attendance.

Second, I try to keep my priorities in order by reading my Bible instead of the newspaper on the train on the way to work (I get my news in other ways). My small group and church are also great support in keeping the right focus in my life. I stay involved in many of my high school age son’s activities. I know what is going on in his life. Since I only have one son left at home and I run my own business, some of this easier for me than others.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 13) Are there genuine moral/ethical concerns raised in your mind by globalization? What and why?

John R. Erisman, Recently retired Technical Marketing Manager, Hewlett-Packard Company, Boise, ID

A few years ago the Hewlett-Packard Company experienced technical problems with some LaserJet printer products in some areas of Asia, especially India, particularly during the environmentally extreme conditions encountered during the Monsoon season. The specs for this product, like all of our products, had been developed for use in "normal" office environments, such as are typically encountered in the Western world.

Customer complaints soon after product introduction revealed that they were being used in temperature and humidity extremes far outside of the design specs. Furthermore, the locally available paper had some filler additives that, when combined with a very high humidity environment, made for disastrous printing results. Visits by several engineers confirmed this; and they now better understood why failure rates were so much higher there than anywhere else in the world.

Some product divisions chose not to compete in that market. We could also have justifiably said, "sorry, the product isn't being operated within spec." We chose, however, to work with local folks and re-engineer the product to operate under their conditions. Simply telling them to leave air conditioners and dehumidifiers on all the time would not have worked. The unreliable infrastructure and very high electric utility cost would not have made that a viable solution. Telling them to use a paper not locally available, but which could only be imported at great expense was not a viable option either.

The expense of product reengineering was certainly not justifiable from a short-term ROI perspective. However, we felt that taking a longer term view, and recognizing that growth rate will soon render India as the most populous country--even surpassing China--made the decision to stay in the market and work with local distributors and customers to maximize satisfaction the correct one. Adapting to local circumstances and thinking long-term--these strategies seemed right from both the moral/ethical and business points of view in our global era.

Carl Mitcham, Professor of International Studies, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado

Globalization is clearly glamorous but the allure of glamour often obscures other realities. The fundamental danger of globalization is the reduction of diversity (biological and cultural) and the homogenization of the world. Globalization forces us to ask: Why protect diversity?

Take a simple example: It is fun to make connections, and to make money doing so. But this excitement of connections easily distracts us from addressing problems at home. How many business executives travel the world but lose touch with their families and neighborhoods? How many promote the global economic boom but forget their roots and the need to protect nature in their own back yards?

The problem of globalization is made concrete when we consider what happens not just to cultures but to nature. Increasing world travel by businesspersons, scientists, engineers, politicians, scholars, news reporters, and tourists, stimulates economies, advances scientific research, and excites the world. But the shipping of food products and consumer goods around the globe, certainly contributes to biological transformations that both dumb down species diversity toward what poet David Quammen has termed the "planet of weeds" and sets the stage for outbreaks of emergent terrorist diseases.

Beyond the physical dangers, however, the greater threat is that human beings will lose their sense of self and place. As Simone Weil argued at the end of World War II, we have a "need for roots" that cosmopolitanism cannot ultimately satisfy. Whether globalization can moderate its momentum to accommodate such a need remains open to question.

Tim Gammell, Portland OR

The focus of the recent WTO protests in Seattle, New York and Europe was on human rights and environmental issues. The protesters were predominantly from "northern" and "western" countries. Workers in those countries fear the loss of their advantages as more and more jobs are moved to lower wage areas of the globe. But how do citizens from these other parts of the world feel about globalization? Do they have enough political freedom or the requisite organization to enter the conversation?

Tom Athanasiou's Divided Planet: The Ecology of the Rich and Poor looks squarely and critically at GATT, WTO, IMF, etc. The author observes that today's northern greens "were naive to believe that the old questions about justice, power, and emancipation could be put off while the earth was saved" (p.53). I wonder the same about technology: are we naively putting off these old questions while technology races onward?

Scott M. Thomas, Lecturer in International Development, University of Bath, England

What sort of global culture are we creating? British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has called for the development of a global culture of human rights and democracy (Global Ethics Foundation, Tuebingen, Germany, June 2000). Other analysts, however, talk about the spread of "McWorld"--a global consumer culture. Would a true global culture build on a common history and a collective memory? Globalization may make us aware of our differences as well as our commonalities. The global resurgence of religion and cultural pluralism is one of the most important issues of our era.

The impact of telecommunications, world travel, and multinational business, suggests that we now have global responsibilities as well as global privileges. The borders of our states and nations are no longer the borders of our moral responsibility. "Unilateralism"--American or otherwise--undermines any chances of forming common responses to the various crises of our globe. Business, like government, is challenged to find constructive ways of working together with the peoples and institutions of the world.

Denis Browne, Managing Director, Alfa Laval (South Africa)
Judith Browne, High School teacher

Globalisation is representative of the drive for economic efficiency, the belief that in size lies a maximisation of value for stakeholders. But growing size means also concentration of power which easily dilutes the moral conscience. Having fewer and more powerful companies creates greater scope for manipulation of the market, of small governments, of who can access what products at what price (e.g., the cost of AIDS drugs which means inaccessibility to the areas in the world with the greatest problems).

Other problem areas are cultural intrusion and disturbance as companies expand into vastly different cultures from the home market, and the challenge to hold on to some kind of social (and maybe also environmental) responsibility while seeking to fulfil the profit motive. In this context it is interesting to observe the way some of the major oil companies are now seeking to position themselves in their advertising - e.g. Shell which portrays itself as culturally and environmentally sensitive in the search for oil.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 12) Can companies or individuals do business effectively with each other electronically without the benefit of trust developed through meeting face-to-face?

Stan Shull, Vice President, Business Development, NCompass Labs, Seattle WA

Trust will always be critical in forming deep business relationships, and sometimes face-to-face contact is essential. However, increasingly, many transactional relationships (e.g. e-commerce) and some strategic relationships will be formed and managed primarily "on-line." As an example, I recently completed a significant marketing alliance with another company using only the Web, e-mail, and telephone.

Developing trust in the absence of personal contact demands particularly effective communication and information sharing. Some of the cues we normally use to make business and personal evaluations are missing, so additional discretion is required. However, with today’s increasingly sophisticated collaborative technologies, the emergence of service providers that facilitate online business deals (e.g. transaction underwriters), and an extra dose of good judgment, it is possible to build trust and do business effectively on an electronic basis for a relatively wide variety of relationships.

Some may decry the depersonalization of business–and it surely has its downsides–but to the extent that it diminishes the role of old-boy networks and golf-course deal making in favor of trust built on objective business criteria it has its benefits. In any case, the pace of business today virtually requires that many relationships be executed without the benefit of meeting face-to-face.

Daniel Pierce, Manager, Numerical Analysis R&D, The Boeing Company, Seattle WA

A qualified "Yes." In the following situation a reliable journal and an independent third party were required to establish the necessary trust. In 1993, I read an article in Linear Algebra and its Applications that was directly related to my own work. It was by three authors in Taiwan, none of whom I knew. The paper referenced some of the same work that I had been building off of and had reached some similar but distinctive conclusions to my own.

It seemed like there was a lot of common intellectual understanding and interest. The article also displayed some keen insights. The journal gave email addresses for the authors but it was not clear who was the primary author. I contacted a colleague of mine in Taiwan and asked if he knew any of the authors. He knew the main author and gave me some validation of the author’s capabilities and openness to working with others. I then contacted the lead author directly and described my work and its relation to his. I told him how I got his email address and about my colleague in Taiwan.

We thus used a third person to validate that the person we were corresponding with was someone from whom we could expect a reasonable interaction. We began exchanging emails about our common area of work and our opinions for solving our problems. When these descriptions became quite technical, and standard email was inadequate, we started exchanging LaTeX documents. Within a couple of months we made huge progress on our technical problem and actually completed a paper that started as the exchanged LaTeX documents. It wasn’t until the end of the year that he and I actually met face-to-face.

Douglas Groothuis, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary, Author of The Soul in Cyberspace (Wipf and Stock, 1999)

The more matters of personal character are involved in human interactions–trust, faithfulness, honesty, integrity, etc.–the more a strong face-to-face, life-on-life. person-to-person element is required somewhere in the communicative matrix. If a strong personal relationship has been built up off-line, on-line communication of a more personal matter may be appropriate. If not, it should be treated with great care because of matters of privacy, impersonation, and miscommunication based on the limitations of electronic text. There is an irreplaceable and irreducible quality to face-to-face interactions.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 11) In the past two issues we have considered the two-sided loyalty question: an employer for its employees in the face of downsizing, and employees for their employer in the current tight job market. Is loyalty important, and what are the key issues to consider today?

Leon A. Kappelman, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Business Computer Information Systems; Associate Director, Center for Quality & Productivity, University of North Texas, Denton, TX

The question of employee loyalty is particularly troubling for information technology (IT) professionals, often placing them in conflict of interest situations. For decades research about IT professionals indicates that their professional loyalty far exceeds their employer loyalty. Add to that the fact that IT folks are typically hired on the basis of the vendor products in which they are skilled, and the result are the significant imbalances we see today especially in the software industry whereby too much market power has wound up in the hands of vendors at the expense of customers (i.e., the employers of IT folks). Though techies are supposed to make IT decisions in the best interests of their employers, in many enterprises, there’s little evidence they do this.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 10) How has the Internet changed the nature of your work? What challenges have you encountered in making the changes personally?

Scott Griffin, CIO, The Boeing Company, Bellevue, WA

The Internet has enabled new business models and challenged existing ones, and has thereby had a profound effect on the nature of my job. I have been engaged over the past several months in the creation of a global aerospace exchange which will connect buyers and sellers throughout the aerospace value chain via the web. We have teamed with four other aerospace leaders (and sometime competitors) to do so. This business model was enabled by the Internet, and was not even in the realm of possibility just three years ago.

On a personal level, I am available to suppliers and customers virtually 24 hours a day, no matter where in the world I might be. I get email from existing and potential business partners, my bosses, colleagues and teammates. My kids, and even my pastor, know that the fastest way to get to me on the road is by email. Internet-enabled communication does not replace personal communication, but it makes more communication possible. My laptop, like my toothbrush, now travels with me wherever I go. The Internet has made the world a much smaller (and faster) place.

Michael Erisman, Senior Human Resources Manager, Pepsi Bottling Company, Denver, CO

The Internet has delivered on the promise of what technology could do for business: more output, faster results, at a lower cost. As a senior human resources manager I find one of the biggest challenges to business success today is the ability to attract and retain good employees. External management recruiting was typically handled in one of two ways: expensive search firms and high cost local or national print ads. The Internet has added a new way to get the benefits of high cost local ads and the national and international exposure of search firms. A recent Internet job posting, at a cost of around $50 to $100, resulted in over 200 resumes, from local, national, and international locations, and resulted in an outstanding hire at a tiny fraction of the cost of a traditional search method. The ability to market the company's opportunities to a global audience at a fraction of what a local newspaper ad would cost is a great leap forward, and an excellent example of how this tool can have practical and beneficial applications to business.

Charles Peterson, Director, Center for Scandinavian Studies, North Park University, Chicago, IL

The Internet has made it easier to communicate efficiently with international contacts and colleagues in Scandinavia. Telephone communication has always been a bit difficult because of the time difference. With the Internet, I can send my message at the end of the afternoon and usually get a response by the next morning.

One little problem of Internet etiquette has come up. My Scandinavian colleagues expect a bit more personal warmth. When we used the telephone, each conversation would begin with a discussion of the weather and the family. With Internet, I usually get straight to business. Typically, I close my Internet messages with a programmed signature. Some of my colleagues don't think my messages are personal enough.

Phil Davidson, Berkely, CA

I'm a computer programmer working mostly in microcomputers. In recent years I've programmed in Microsoft Windows for companies making computer games and entertainment and reference products. My role is mostly with the internal mechanisms of the game, with little impact on the game's actual content or appearance.

Some changes the Internet has made in my work:

1. There is a widespread marketing initiative to put some sort of Internet awareness into every software product. Games gain much genuine excitement through play with human compatriots in real time via the Internet or other online connection. Almost every product gains value if users can be put in touch with technical support, product updates, or other users. Sales can sometimes be enhanced through additional content supplied via the Web (whether artwork, document templates, tax forms, or new product features), whether paid or gratis. Marketing endeavors are helped by automatic customer registration.
2. The Web is a wonderful channel for technical information needed to develop software or to maintain a computer system. Access is quick, extensive, and doesn't depend on the time of day. Along the same line, it's often easy to send an email directly to, say, an author of a magazine article and thus to obtain a little technical help directly from a minor authority in the industry.
   On the down side, online help may provide an excuse for vendors not to provide adequate live technical support, or to be careless about a product's reliability. For example, many computer games are now built with the ability to upgrade themselves automatically via the Internet. This reduces pressure on programmers to get the initial release right, because the user can download a patch developed after the CD was manufactured.
3. Even before the Internet penetrated every business, in-house email had become an essential convenience for corporate memos of every kind. The Internet forced email and in-house computer networks to become universal in the corporate world.
4. The Web is a live distraction from work, at least for several of my colleagues. There's a current tendency to check one's stock portfolio or news items during time that would be better spent working. I'm not arguing for a work day bereft of relaxation, but in my current work group, Web surfing cuts measurably into some workers' effectiveness. News from the Web regularly stimulates discussions that interrupt the concentration that programmers need.
5. Speaking of the stock market, the current Internet gold rush is still having major effects in the San Francisco Bay area. Demand for programmers has boosted salaries and made programmers choosy about their work assignments. Hope for dot-com IPO riches seems to dominate the choice of a job. Actual riches and influx of highly-paid workers is boosting housing prices, causing real suffering for those without a secure home or wishing to upgrade.
6. The Web has (at last) made computer literacy truly widespread — at least the ability to find useful information and to use a computer as a communication tool. This is more apparent in my non-work life, particularly with family and church committees and staff.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

(Issue 9) Many of us are dealing with high volume e-mail. How many daily e-mail messages do you receive? How do you handle your e-mail so that you neither overlook important messages or waste time on unimportant ones?

Denice D. Denton, Dean of Engineering, University of Washington

I get between 50-100 e-mail messages per day. Sometimes more. I manage them by:

1. Reading e-mail frequently and dispensing with it quickly.
2. I take care of items by forwarding them to others for action or responding immediately. Once a message is dealt with, I "file" it electronically in a folder. Eudora has a very nice folder system that makes it easy to file messages and find them later.
3. If the request in the e-mail message is complex, I ask an assistant to print the message for me and I deal with it during my next "open work time".
4. I delete messages very quickly if they don't look relevant.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

What ideas do you have for making technology broadly available to the economically disadvantaged?

Doug Schuler, Seattle, WA author of New Community Networks: Wired for Change

In spite of conventional wisdom and the rhetoric of the day, communication technology often is used to further distance those with more than enough and those who are barely scraping by. Too often, this chasm is blithely ignored, explained away with casual rationales as if no harm could ever come from such profound inequity. Here in Seattle we have begun looking at ways to improve democratic communication. The Seattle Community Network, SCN, is a volunteer-run, free access computer system that is intended to help support community communication, education, economic development and democratic participation using Internet resources. We provide free e-mail (without flashing ads and banners), training, and web space and is now the cyber-home for thousands of users and hundreds of community organziations. Beyond technical support, we try to promote policies that would help re-build our democracy, which as many people– on the right and the left– would maintain is in crisis mode.

Rich Stearns, President, World Vision, Federal Way, WA

One of the key challenges in connecting the developing world to the benefits of Internet technology relates to the lack of appropriate content. In the developed world the Internet is driven by market forces responding to the demands and needs of largely western users. As a result the potential needs of those in underdeveloped countries will not be met by simply ‘connecting them.’

For example, if even the current Internet content is to be made available to the poor in developing nations, a massive language problem presents itself. More than 1000 different languages are spoken in Africa alone, while most Internet content is available in languages such as English, German or Japanese. Beyond this language barrier then is a culture barrier. A remote village in Ghana needs content appropriate to their culture and relative level of development. This is more likely to involve agriculture and animal husbandry than e-trading or the purchase of books and CD’s.

Michael Hearl,Seattle, WA

I believe that if you want to end up with technology "broadly available" you have to create connections, which include the disadvantaged in the process of making a profit while at the same time being "prophetic".

I see a "fusion" which connects the "New Economy" (technology based), the "New Man" (spiritually based), and the "New Philanthropy" (investment based) as bringing a powerful design to bear.

In a small way, I have been attempting to bring about this very type of "fusion" through a program which takes Boeing surplus computers, creates computer labs in African schools established by Friends In The West, a Christian relief agency, and then links each African school to a "sister" school here in Seattle. The goal is not only to bring technological education and training to the African children, but to build relationships with their American peers. We have successfully launched this "Keypals" program between my daughter's school, Assumption-St. Brigett in Seattle, and the Friends In The West school in Kampala, Uganda.

The next step for maximizing the leverage from the tools we have placed in Kampala is to train graduates from the University of Kampala not only to step into the jobs of running and maintaining the computer lab for the grade school, but to launch their own digital businesses in partnership with the business community in that city.

Lew Platt, former CEO, Hewlett-Packard; now CEO, Kendall-Jackson Winery

This is a very big issue. It has the potential to separate and drive us even further apart than our class divisions of the past. I think there is a role for companies, a role for governments, and a role for individuals. This is a perfect place for governments to step in and make sure that less well-to-do communities have access to technology. A good parallel is universal telephone access. Telephone customers pay a basic subsidy to ensure that everyone can have basic telephone service–only $11.25 per month in this area, less than the real cost of the service. I am not big on getting government more involved in our lives but here is one place where it may be appropriate. The government is probably the only force that can ensure that all communities have the necessary infrastructure and access.

Beyond this it is up to community organizations, companies, and individuals. One great example is what has happened in East Palo Alto, a very poor community, right next to Palo Alto, one of the wealthiest communities in America. Palo Alto has decided that it simply cannot allow this to happen: ways must be found to get the technology into this poor neighboring community. So, various community outreach programs and also many well-to-do individuals in Silicon Valley have made it their mission to make sure that the technology is there in East Palo Alto. Several companies–Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Sun, and others–have built technology learning centers, and make sure they are staffed on a regular basis by their employees. And, these are great places: kids who might otherwise be fighting in the streets are in these centers working on computers. Not only are these kids learning the technology, they are being mentored by good people who have had goals in their lives.

In short, government (state, local, and national), companies, and individuals all need to step up to help address this need. It is happening, but we must move even more quickly. Given the rapidly-falling price of good technology today, we do not need to throw our hands up. This problem can be solved.

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

Are you concerned about privacy of information in the electronic age, and what would you like to do about it?

(Anonymous) Software Engineer

The ease with which personal information is gathered, stored, and propagated electronically makes life a challenge for people like me. I strive to protect my privacy to guard my time and peace of mind. I am annoyed at being harassed by people trying to sell me things. For years I have waged a continual battle to get my name off mailing lists. Now with the advent of spam, I am particularly cautious about giving my e-mail address out. I don’t even forward those humorous e-mails that come around every so often, because I know they might end up getting posted to some newsgroup somewhere, allowing my e-mail address to be harvested by spammers. (Alas, I get spam mail anyway.)

Other things I do to protect my privacy: I don’t use on-line banking or bill paying (and this in spite of having helped, against my will, to develop some on-line banking software–perhaps I know too much about what goes on behind the scenes and it scares me); I do not use DSL (digital subscriber line) because it would make my PC vulnerable to being hacked into; I disable cookies in my browser; I never register my software; I never buy anything on-line (well, I did once, but it made me really nervous and I’m not going to do it again). I am willing to pay more to protect my privacy, for example paying full price at the grocery store instead of using the savings card that allows them to track everything I buy. I know that it will get harder if not impossible to keep up this level of privacy as the world becomes more dependent on on-line transactions, so I will probably have to come up with another long-term solution. Until then, I remain...

A.D. Hill, Dean, School of Business & Economics, Seattle Pacific University

My fourteen year old daughter loves to receive "free" services on the net. What she (and many adults) fails to realize is that by giving personal information, she is indeed paying for the service. This is not a gift, but a quid-pro-quo exchange. I would like these companies to disclose what they intend to do with such data before it is given.

Jim Hershberger, Chief Financial Officer, Continental Mills, Tukwilla, WA

The increasing ability to economically retrieve and/or aggregate data from varied sources for analysis presents us with fundamental ethical choices–among them being access for economic or exclusionary purposes and ownership of the data. The situation will be further intensified as "public" information from disparate sources is merged and then mined for trends, patterns or tendencies. With it will come the risk of abuse along with potential benefits such as efficient mass customization.

At the most fundamental level, data about one’s personal characteristics (e.g., health history) or preferences (e. g., book subjects) would appear to be property, albeit intangible. (Even the fact that data may previously have had no prior perceived value, should not diminish its classification as property.) The question then arises regarding whether such property was exchanged as part of the consideration for acquiring a good or service, and so exchanged without restriction for unrelated uses. In most cases, that exchange was not bargained, particularly for unrelated uses.

The individual, thus, should have the prospective right to choose which data is made available, and under what circumstances, for secondary purposes or for use by third parties. The individual then can choose to receive whatever benefits data dissemination may result, along with any potential personal risks, including misuse, resulting from such dissemination. The data privacy "genie" is out of the bottle; we should develop a workable and constructive way of allowing individuals to manage the dissemination of their personally tagged data.

Scott McNealy, Chairman and CEO, Sun Microsystems

As reported in the New York Times, March 4, 1999: "You already have zero privacy–get over it."

Amitai Etzioni, University Professor of the George Washington University

From the Introduction of his new book The Limits of Privacy:
"This book is largely about the other side of the privacy equation. It is about our investment in the common good, about our profound sense of social virtue and, most specifically about our concern for public safety and public health. Although we cherish privacy in a free society, we also value other goods. Hence, we must address the moral, legal, and social issues that arise when serving the common good entails violating privacy."

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

Is this condition fundamental to our high tech world, or is there another way?

Robert Wills, M. D., Psychiatrist, Bellevue, WA

As a psychiatrist in a high tech town I have seen the people described by Michael Cochran. Perhaps the psychiatrist's couch is the proper place for these folks who have chosen to ignore their physical and emotional health and family stability to seek position and fortune in the developmental end of the "high tech world". However, my concern is more for the recipients of this technology. Theirs is a broader and more complex problem not easily solved by any psychotherapy that I am aware of. Many of these people did not chose their present situation, are poorly equipped to make changes to accommodate rapid technological changes and work for companies or individuals who seem clueless regarding the emotional and spiritual impact of this spreading problem.

Peter Morton, in last issue's interview, touched on this when he described a "future school" related to learning about the personal and social needs of the employee both in his or her work environment and in the greater context of the family and community. He correctly identifies a continuous need to focus on the emotional and spiritual well being of those who must work in a highly technical and competitive atmosphere. I can't agree more. Hopefully, it will be just this search for meaning that will occupy some of the pages of this journal in the coming months and years.

Sam Weirbach, Microsoft retired (1994), Bellevue, WA

In 1985 as a husband and father of two small children I made a major career move into the rapidly paced environment of "high tech." After 15 years in the not-for-profit sector I jumped from funding poor, lethargic decision making into the cash happy, decisive process of a 10 year old upstart in the computer industry. It was really jumping from the frying pan into the fire. In the early days little emphasis was given to how much it cost but rather how fast we could get it done. This was best realized in time frames of decisions. E-mail (a relative unknown at the time) made decisions happen in moments rather than days. This led to rapid changes in much of the business world, and the world as we knew it has been changed forever.

"Now, now, now, I want it now!" could be the cry of the toddler wanting candy or a cookie but rather has become the standard by which most of us operate. Patience is a virtue has been replaced by I need it/want it now and you don't have e-mail?

How did we get where we are? The pace by which the high tech industry has grown and its effect on business in general has created a new "ism." I call it "Technism." Techism is an addiction much the same as alcoholism, drug addiction or workaholism. Techism differs from workaholism in that it is based upon a search for information. A search that is all consuming, all absorbing. It replaces important parts of your life with the search or ability to search for information. It creates a "need" for a "hit" for seeing what you can find, how far you can go. I experienced this first hand during my time at Microsoft. Information moved at such a rapid pace that I knew if I went home at night a major milestone may be realized while I slept and I did not want to miss the "hit" of being there. This rapidly took the place of many of my life priorities: God, wife, family, and others. Even personal time for myself. Fortunately, those near me were faithful to me in spite of my addiction. I cannot say this was the situation with many of my colleagues during the same period of time. Maintaining life's priorities must be the first priority.

Cindy Breilh,Vice President, Strategic Solutions, Inc., Bellevue, WA

Living and working in the shadow of Microsoft, similar to Silicon Valley, I see an amazing amount of turnover, "burned-out" people, and young "retirees". Is this inevitable? I'm not sure, but perhaps we have set ourselves up for a very impersonal ride into the next millenium. We expect employees to be flexible, embrace rapid change, and to value productivity above all else, often to the detriment of relationships. Then there is the "greed factor", made so overt by our own hi-tech industry. The benchmark ethic you discussed in the last Bulletin hits it right on the head. Without strenuous effort to preserve core values, all that is left are personal ambition and simple economics. I would argue that neither holds any long-term personal satisfaction, therefore the heavy patient load of seemingly successful people seen by psychiatrist Michael Cochran.

Those of us in technology need to strive to care for and value people even in the midst of our technology push. Faster is not always better. The ubiquity of work requires disciplined time for reflection and renewal (from personal experience!). Bottom-line, however, we do risk isolation if we are not purposeful in caring for others and building as well as maintaining community beyond the "nerd-herd".

Email your brief comments to
contact@ethix.org

Computer Game Playing in the Office

(Issue 5) In the April 1999 issue of the IBTE Bulletin Borg-Warner Security CEO John Edwardson brought up the problem of employees found playing games on their computers during working hours. Prior to joining Borg-Warner, as United Airlines President, Edwardson responded by banning the installation of non-work-related games on computers. Here are some other perspectives:

Peter Morton, Vice President, Human Resources, Boeing Commercial Airplanes

What you'd like is for their work to be so engaging that they really don't have the time or inclination to play games~at least on company time. It doesn't really wear out computers for people to do it on their own time, even if they're using the company computer. So, I wouldn't waste my time taking the games off their computers.

I've been deeply involved in what we could call freedom of the web. I've gotten burned a couple of times because of too much irrelevant and even disrespectful conversation going on. Well, conversations are going to happen; if not on our website, somewhere else.

Donald Cassiday, Director of Operations, Center for Management Education, North Park