You don’t ‘adopt’ ethical practices; you can’t operate without ethics, even if you couldn’t name them and you don’t have a code. We make moral judgements all the time and they’re the basis of our actions a lot of the time whether we recognise it or not. The question is: are these good ethics or not so good ethics, is this an action which is good or an action which is not so good? And this ‘good’ concept, that’s an ethical question itself, right?
People say, ‘My business is my baby’ – and babies can get different parenting. Some parents want their baby to grow up faster, smarter, richer than the other kids, some want them to grow up to be loving, compassionate, generous, maybe even happy; some want all of those things.
Did an Edgeware team-building workshop recently at the Logan Women’s Health Centre. The question: ‘Who’s your customer?’ elicited the usual response from not-for-profits: ‘it’s women, who otherwise … etc’. This is fine; these are indeed the clients of the service. But are they the customers? It turned out in conversation that the prime customer of the service was government, that is, that the core value exchange was ‘We give you funding (on behalf of *our* customers, the women of Logan) and you give us a service’. The women who access the service are in fact the customer’s customers, so the thing for the Health Centre to do is identify and recognise the (very different) needs of two customer segments.
To avoid the overwhelm that some people feel by the prescription to change the world - the world is so huge, there’s so much to do, and where do I start? - it’s simple enough to start by leaving more value than you take. Doing so, at the very minimum, overcomes the natural inclination towards greed…
This is a call to focus your passion and creativity on creating value that you can share with others, for brilliant, creative, and compassionate people lose more by withholding what they have and not exchanging value than by leaving more of what they have on the table.
From Leave Some Value On The Table by Charlie Gilkey at Productive Flourishing
From ‘experimental philosopher’ Joshua Knobe.
Harm Case: The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also harm the environment.’ The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about harming the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.’ They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was harmed. Now ask yourself: Did the chairman of the board intentionally harm the environment? Yes or No?
Help Case: The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, and it will also help the environment.’ The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about helping the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new program.’ They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was helped. Did the chairman of the board intentionally help the environment? Yes or No?
What’s the difference?
According to the Life Skills Coaches Association of British Columbia, we need an ethical code:
- to define accepted/acceptable behaviours;
- to promote high standards of practice;
- to provide a benchmark for members to use for self evaluation;
- to establish a framework for professional behaviour and responsibilities;
- as a vehicle for occupational identity;
- as a mark of occupational maturity.
The last two are especially interesting for Edgeware: the idea that ethical practice is a function of identity and maturity.
Get RSS updates
