The Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), which describes itself as The Association for Accountants and Financial Professionals in Business, has set down a Code of Ethics to guide its members on a clear path of ethical behavior. As with many organizations, the IMA desires to both ensure that its members adhere to its overarching behavioral guidelines and to reassure the public, its potential clients, that it attaches importance to these moral precepts.
As a natural development, it has included a standard for the Resolution of Ethical Conflict, which is comprised of three alternatives. These three approaches, briefly, consist of 1) consulting someone in a superior position in the chain of command, 2) consulting an objective third party such as an IMA Ethics Counselor or 3) consulting an attorney if the situation appears so dire as to require a legal consult. Has IMA concocted the ideal principles for the resolution of an ethical conflict, or could it have produced a better plan? I believe that some of the methodology is valid, and yet some could be improved upon. Let us examine the three different alternatives.
More specifically, the first alternative states, “Discuss the issue with your immediate supervisor except when it appears that the supervisor is involved … submit the issue to the next management level” (http://www.imanet.org). If mid-level manager, Thomas, finds himself in an ethical dilemma, he, therefore, is to contact his supervisor requesting guidance on how to proceed regarding possibly unethical behavior by a co-worker.
This is a logical step. Rather than attempting to resolve the issue on his own, Thomas has an objective eye to render assistance. What if the perceived conflict has been misinterpreted, for instance, and does not in fact exist? The supervisor could assist with this discovery. Having access to the “bigger picture,” the supervisor could clarify the perceived discord.
If the issue does indeed merit scrutiny, the supervisor would have greater access to areas of the organization , as well as the authority to deal with it as this association obviously has a clear hierarchal chain of command created as a formal network. “The formal organization … prescribes who has the right to tell others what to do, who is to work together as a unit or team, and who has the final authority in disagreements” (Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. 2009). If the policy of this group is that employees respect the chain of command, so be it. Alternative number one does declare that, “Contact with levels above the immediate superior should be initiated only with your superior’s knowledge, assuming he or she is not involved.” So if the ethical situation involves one’s immediate superior, one is allowed to “leap-frog” to the next level for resolution of the matter.
The gist of this first directive is that ethical issues should first be shared with someone of higher authority. This has the added benefit of protecting the “reporter” from later being accused of complicity with the initiator.
The second directive states that one should, “Clarify relevant ethical issues by initiating a confidential discussion with an IMA Ethics Counselor or other impartial advisor to obtain a better understanding of possible courses of action.” It certainly is advisable in these circumstances to get a professional and objective view of the situation as long as the consult is indeed confidential. The only difficulty I have with this is what assurances our fictional Thomas has that these Ethics Counselors do not have an agenda. Are they motivated solely toward the ethical resolution of dilemmas for the theoretical, absolute “good”, or could they be said to be more concerned with heading off any potential problems for the company?
At the risk of sounding too cynical, the primary dictate for these counselors could be safeguarding the company’s reputation, with only a secondary one of aiding individual members with their issues. If these counselors have taken some solemn oath or passed certification by some central body (like a state or national Ethics Board), then I would withdraw my objection. If these counselors were truly a source of qualitative guidance, then this would indeed be a valuable source of direction.
Finally, the third directive advises, “Consult your own attorney as to legal obligations and rights concerning the ethical conflict.” I believe this to be more or less counsel that protects the company from any legal culpability after the fact. By giving this advice, they have fulfilled their obligation of providing objective guidance.
Overall, the IMA has offered some sound direction for the dealing with a potential ethical conflict, such as misuse of insider information, for example. The first instruction is to inform a superior in the organization that you have encountered a situation which may cause clients to be affected unfairly, and which could also reflect poorly upon the organization. Listed as the first option, it is assumed that this is the primary action that should be taken. I can certainly agree that requesting that an ordered hierarchy be followed is a reasonable one. With a relatively simple issue, it is advisable not to air the company’s dirty laundry publicly. There is, after all, a responsibility to one’s co-workers not to jeopardize their positions unnecessarily.
However, nowhere in IMA’s guidelines do we encounter when it is appropriate to inform the client of a potential problem. It is, after all, their rights with which we are concerned. Why is there no specific instruction for keeping the client in the loop? The National Association of Social Workers has included this consideration in its Code of Ethics. There it states, “Social workers should inform clients when a real or potential conflict of interest arises and take reasonable steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes the clients’ interests primary and protects clients’ interests to the greatest extent possible” (http://www.naswdc.org).
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) also has more specific courses of action when encountering such a dilemma. “Journalists should: Disclose unavoidable conflicts … Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Admit mistakes and correct them promptly” (http://www.spj.org). The SPJ is very specific about how to deal with unethical practices discovered within their ranks: “Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.” Therefore, there is no wiggle room here. The SPJ says that if an unethical situation reveals itself, it must be exposed and dealt with. This too is a valid way to go about handling the conflict; however, I still feel that requesting that the proper channels be followed initially, as the IMA does, is a legitimate request.
Many states, like Louisiana, Washington and Wisconsin have Ethics Boards monitoring the actions of their state legislators and employees. A final recommendation I would make is for states to establish an Ethics Board available to businesses for just such cases. There would then be no question but that these counselors would be completely objective, with no hidden agendas. Our fictional Thomas could then contact this board and make a simple preliminary query to ascertain whether or not he has a legitimate conflict of an ethical nature. If so, an appointment in person or by phone could be made with an ethics counselor to discuss the issues in detail, and determine what steps he should then take.
Whatever modifications it might adopt, IMA has created a very simplistic set of directives which I believe should be managed as guidelines rather than a credo that must be closely adhered to. It has, to its credit, taken the more important step of establishing a Code of Ethics and a direction for resolving conflicts of an ethical nature, which certainly causes its members to be aware of the importance of ethics in the workplace.
References
Code of ethics. Society of Professional Journalists. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Code of ethics of the national association of social workers: Approved by the 1996 NASW delegate assembly and revised by the 2008 delegate assembly. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp
Shockley-Zalabak, P. S. (2009). Fundamental of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston: Pearson Education.
Statement of professional ethical practice. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://www.imanet.org/about_ethics_statement.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment