Organizational Code of Moral Principles and Values
Tommy Boone
Professor and Chair
The College of St. Scholastica
Duluth, MN 55811
“A small mistake in the beginning makes for a large mistake
at the end.” -- Thomas Aquinas
WHAT
IS IT that governs the behavior of an organization? How do we know
when the behavior is right or wrong? Can organizations exist
in a vacuum caring only for their concerns? Answers to these questions
should be obvious, but they are not. The purpose of this article is
help exercise physiologists understand the code of moral principles and values
that govern organizations. What is right or wrong is understood when
standards exist to help members of the organization take responsibility for
their actions.
Organizations are responsible to the “invisible futures”
of the members, even when they may differ significantly from each other.
Their individual way of using technology and developing their varied futures
is a balance both in effectively building the organization and its members.
After all, members are stakeholders with the power to improve or to take
from the organization. Members, therefore, are in a powerful position.
Without members, there are no organizations.
Ethics sets standards, weighs the consequences of organizational
matters, and determines what is good or bad. Controversial issues,
even charitable concerns, along with the inundation of unwanted feelings
and criticisms, are understood when the leadership of the organization embraces
ethics as strongly as the interests of the organization itself. There
are many examples of how easily an organization can run into problems, especially
when new ideas can help to achieve a better outcome (although not immediately
recognized as such by exercise physiologists).
The questionable practices of top management should not exist,
but they do. Their behavior is part of a corporate culture that drives
the organization regardless of the responsibility to look out for its membership.
The wide range of personal interests and professional concerns of the membership
should take precedent over the organization itself. Organizations should
give a sense of value and respect to their members, even when new ideas and
dreams have spawned whole new organizations as well as entirely new methods
of educating exercise physiologists and interacting with the needs of the
public [1].
When the organization is more important than its members,
there is a huge problem. This is similar to corporations that exist
on the backs of their stockholders. While the moral duty of the administrators
of organizations is to do what is right, some fail [2-5]. Failed practices
run counter to the values of the membership, and the administrators are seldom
held accountable. They are viewed as upholding the deeply entrenched
values of the organization. Members who get a sense of what shapes
decisions concerning perceived responsibility to the organization are encouraged
to think in a particular way as a normal part of life in the organization.
Free choice to deal with values that are part of the profession
becomes a dilemma when members are faced with a mandated commitment to one
organization over another. Of course, this is the issue – isn’t it?
Every member of all organizations should be encouraged to maximize professional
opportunity and, where appropriate and consistent with the behaviors of a
particular professional, use resources and engage in activities designed
to increase its influence and opportunities in the public sector. Here,
behavior is not tied to codified law [6] where members must behave in a certain
way. Fortunately, membership does not carry with it enforceable standards
in the courts.
By not taking on the burden of the court to regulate values,
the business of membership is both a personal investment and, if you will,
a permission to associate responsibly with other professionals. Having
said this, however, there is one and only one professional responsibility
of professionals from different academic training and that is to support
and stay within the common sense rules of their game. Meaning, although
competition for membership, regardless of one’s profession, ought to exist,
it should be free from deception or conduct unbecoming to all professionals.
Members ought to support the organization they have membership
with, but not to the exclusion of morally acceptable behavior that influences
all facets of their profession. This conclusion is supported by the
behavior of professional membership in established organizations that benefit
both the members and the professions that increase organizational and professional
visibility. Imagine the controversy that would result if membership
in one organization limited social responsibility, professional responsibility
and, yes, even personal responsibility to friends and students in another
organization. This would be a very narrow view of responsible organizational
influence.
A better approach and a serious challenge to the inertia
of behavior that now associates with organizational thinking is to not just
allow but to encourage membership (without judgment) to recognize the responsibility
to their own profession. This thinking helps to decrease the imposition
of organizational morality on its members. It also helps to decrease
judging members by standards they may interpret as regulating behavior both
inside and outside of the organization. In other words, “Organizational
morality should not be permitted to forbid views or behaviors different from
the members of the Board of Directors.” This is a serious starting
point in eliminating disagreements and dilemmas about alternative feelings
and responsibilities.
While there may be no hard-and-fast rules in organizational
thinking, one good rule of thumb is the promotion of the member’s best long-term
interests. Members of any organization should, therefore, approach
differences of opinion with an open mind. As a result those members
will feel that their fundamental rights are respected. The top leaders
of the organization wishing to improve the behavior of its members should
not only encourage purposeful involvement in their own professional organizations,
but also communicate the same in its policies and procedures.
Thus, the key to an ethically correct decision as a President
or as a member of the Board of Trustees or Board of Directors is to encourage
the right of free consent, right to privacy, right of freedom, right of choice,
and right of free speech [7]. It makes sense for management to promote
a culture within the organization aimed at promoting choices and actions
that contribute to the welfare of the members as well as the organization
[8-9]. Not thinking or not planning for social responsibility of its
members is not acceptable. Even well-meaning members of management
fail to address issues and concerns of its members when they fail to act
with equity, fairness, and impartiality.
Being in support of its stakeholders, the right thing to
do is to take the lead in social issues. The organization’s leaders
should learn what is in the members’ interest and respond accordingly [7].
When top leaders support and embrace this kind of thinking, including rewards
for policy-based statements that encourage absolute freedom without criticism
and association without blame, there are no wrongdoers or questionable behaviors.
However, it is not enough to just encourage free thinking and willingness
to express feelings. For example, organization leaders must move beyond
the one major concern of all organizations, which is: “Will the stakeholders’
membership in other organizations threaten its nationwide acceptance and/or
survival?”
The answer ought to be obvious but, just in case the leaders’
tolerance for ambiguity is decreased, the leadership shouldn’t be troubled
by the idea of uncertainty. This is an important point since many decisions
must be made without certainty about what is likely to happen. And,
to some people, the uncertainty is okay. They do not even consider
the issue of differences in opinion. Other people decide they want
control over everything, and they want it now. The trick for leaders
of excellence is to appreciate that a market niche for one professional may
be (and often is) different from that of another, and that ownership and
control are crucial as are resources to aspiring professionals.
Leadership in the organization has a responsibility to the
personal, professional, and ethical development of every member. This
can be accomplished only through the belief and philosophy that the goals
and objectives of the members must come before the goals and objectives of
the organization. Stated somewhat differently, Cantu [10] wrote in
the Foreword of C. William Pollard’s book, “The Soul of the Firm is about
people and values.” It seems to me that this is an immutable fact.
Members of organizations are people first and members second. Everyone
who leads an organization ought to not compromise the dignity and worth of
members with the willingness to serve other philosophies of what exercise
physiology is and what an exercise physiologist is.
Several weeks ago a member of one of our competitors wrote
me. He was unhappy about the discussion he had with several other member-colleagues.
He concluded that too many of the leaders and members were trying to sell
the exercise physiology membership in a highly narrow view of organizational
alignment. Politics has been substituted for purpose. He said,
“Tommy, you know what defines a good organization. It’s when the leaders
demonstrate with unflinching honesty the right of members to invest and care
in the resources of their choice to promote the dignity and worth of every
person.
The challenge for leaders of different organizations is to
provide an environment of opportunity, participation, and empowerment.
Those who understand this view share in the gifts that associate with an
organization and its ability to maximize members’ strength. This is
an inescapable social dimension of organizations. Clearly articulating
this point is a prerequisite to its existence and recognition as an organization
of professionals. An organizational code of moral principles and values
is the leaderships’ commitment to honor personal differences, beliefs, and
ideas. The failure of the leadership to communicate openly and directly
with each member is symptomatic of communication difficulties that should
not exist within organizations. Most certainly it should not be an
issue between a professional association and other professional organizations.
“A professional association is an organization of practitioners
who are motivated to join together because of common interests flowing from
their professional commitment. Membership in professional associations
is limited to persons who share the expertise of the profession or perhaps
are preparing to enter the profession. The professional association
speaks for the profession as a whole and is recognized by society as the
voice of the profession. One of its primary functions is to establish and
enforce standards of professional conduct for ALL its members. Other
professional organizations do not address the professional commitment with
the same perspective as does the professional association.” [11]
However,
it is obvious that not all exercise physiologists share the same beliefs.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise. The hope of everyone agreeing on
exactly the same moral principles and values is unrealistic. Bioethics
is a system of specificity. Behaviors are dependent upon one’s contextual
understanding of commonly accepted ideals that define individuals who practice
a profession as professionals. The behaviors of exercise physiologists,
for example, indirectly define standards that guide their ethical decisions.
One bioethical standard is the decision that every exercise physiologist
has a right to be treated with respect, regardless of personal or professional
points of view governing exercise physiology. Another is the decision
that every exercise physiologist has a right to decide and act on personal
values. Yet another is the decision that every exercise physiologist
has a right to their own professional association. Still another is
the decision that every exercise physiologist has a right to self-determination.
In other words, the purpose of an organizational code of
moral principles and values ought to focus on the welfare of the members.
It is, therefore, of necessity that the leadership demonstrates an ethical
realism, independent from its own interests, in helping members make decisions
and actions appropriate to their profession. Thinking that justifies
umbrella-type professional organizations for academic-specific professional
associations should not result from institutional inertia [12] or groupthink.
To do the right thing defines the integrity of the leadership. To shirk
from professional duty is wrong. Each person’s own educational conditions
and unique set of abilities must be developed with the freedom to initiate
actions without being interfered with. Each person has the right not
to be deceived or coerced into action, especially if the action should stop
the person from making a difference even to one person. Hence, to be
ethically relevant, every individual or organization should have the opportunity
to make a difference and to bring about change (even if it benefits just one
person). This reminds me of the introduction to the Epilogue in the
text, Ethical Decision Making in Nursing, by Husted and Husted [13]:
“As the old man walked the beach at dawn, he noticed a young
man ahead of him picking up starfish and flinging them into the sea.
Catching up with the young man, he asked why he was doing this. The
answer was that the stranded starfish would die if left until the morning
sun. But the beach goes on for miles and there are millions of starfish.
How can your efforts make any difference? The young man looked at the
starfish in his hand and then threw it to safety in the wave. It makes
a difference to this one, he said.” -- Source Unknown
References
1. Boone, T. (2003). The ASEP Organization is a Paradigm
Shift. Professionalization of Exercise Physiology – Online. Vol 6 No 2
February 2003. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/TheASEPparadigmShift.html
2. Dobrzynski, J.H., Glaberson, W.B., King, R.W., Powell,
Jr., W.J., & Helm, L. (1989). Union Carbide Fights for Its Life. Business
Week [December 24, 1984], pp. 52-56.
3. Walsh, M.W. (1984). A.H. Robbins Seeks a Consolidated
Trial for All Dalkon Punitive-Damage Claims. Wall Street Journal. [October
23, 1984], p. 4.
4. Stricharchuk, G. & Wartzman, R. (1989). Dow Chemical
Product Is Assailed as Causing Brickwork to Collapse. Wall Street Journal.
[March 21, 1989], p. 1.
5. Soloman, S. (1979). The Asbestos Fallout at Johns-Manville.
Fortune. [May 7, 1979], pp. 197-206.
6. Valente, J. (1988). Sundstrand to Plead Guilty to Fraud
on Defense Work, Pay U.S. $115 Million. Wall Street Journal. [October 13,
1988], p. A3.
7. Daft, R. L. & Marcic, D. (1998). Understanding Management.
2nd edition. New York, NY: The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
8. Szwajkowski, E.W. (1986). The Myths and Realities of Research
on Organizational Misconduct. In Research in Corporate Social Performance
and Policy. Editors. James E. Post (Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, 9, 103-122.
9. Davis, K., Frederick, W.C., & Blostrom, R.L. (1979).
Business and Society: Concepts and Policy Issues. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
10. Pollard, C.W. (1996). The Soul of the Firm. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
11. Quinn, C.A. & Smith, M.D. (1987). The Professional
Commitment: Issues and Ethics in Nursing. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders
Company, p. 146.
12. Boone, T. (2003). Overcoming Institutional Inertia with
Leadership. Professionalization of Exercise Physiology – Online. Vol 6 No
2 February 2003. [Online]. http://www.asep.org/asep/asep/OvercomingInstitutionalInertiaWithLeadership.html
13. Husted, G.L. & Husted, J.H. (1995). Ethical Decision
Making in Nursing. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Mosby.
