Goldenarticles articles

Enron?s best victim: ethics - ethics


FROM the 'MORAL HIGH GROUND', where we conceive of ourselves, the Enron debacle be supposed to have come as no surprise. Enron is cleanly a ideal illustration of the degradation of ethics such as trust, constancy and ethical standards.

Why it happened,however,is what exceedingly needs to be tacit if affair is to fix up its ethical foundation and carry on confused times.

Few will argue that affair today is more challenging and competitive; most all accepts that the bazaar is more ruthless than ever. We live in a dog-eat-dog world where for most, corporate survival is paying attention on just demanding to not get eaten.

Not long ago, belongings were not so ruthless, or so we'd like to think. Companies had a tacit agreement with their employees: the ballet company will continually be there for you. The expression, "I'm a circle man," once represented the unquestioned association amid employees and employer. The ballet company was our family, and families looked out for one another. Something less was painstaking false and unacceptable.

The 1990s ushered in changes that still exist today. The 90's also in progress us on the slippery slope that changed the bring down rules for ethics and basic corporate loyalty. Call it downsizing, rightsizing or realigning, but committed employees abruptly found themselves on the outs with new, allegedly competitive, corporate initiatives that were sold as de rigueur to keep companies viable. Custody viable from time to time meant severing long-serving employees, who were left disillusioned, betrayed and often exposed to fend for themselves.

Pre-1990, the downsizing of corporate workforces was inconscionable. Companies had an obligation to look after their people, didn't they? Apparently, they didn't. The targets of the realignment strategies were the rapidly "overpriced," tenured employees. Survival strategies were calculated to put back higher-income staff (in reality, those who had given the most to the company) with less skilled human resources to condense payroll expenditures.

Cuts in tenured staff were easy to excuse given that you bought into the case that older employees were redundant, i. e. , bereft of cpu skills. There was some legality to this, but therein lies one of the clearest examples of convenience and cost-cutting established over dependability and ethics.

It was train obtainable staff or change them with young techno-grads at half the price. Chronicle demonstrates the route most companies took. It also apparent the commencement of the separation of trust concerning employees and their companies. There is a small amount constancy left.

Today, employees lucky a sufficient amount to have outlived the 90's divert many of the area offices on the executive floors. Those who write the cheques and run the companies are the current veterans of the last decade, well-trained in guerilla management now tolerant by moral obligations for individuality such as constancy or ethics.

This is not to cast aspersions upon today's executives but to show how "Enronesque" outcomes can answer when industries abandon mechanism basic to sustaining moral values.

Ethics and morality have taken a backseat in business, and there is no superior illustration than the outgoing clearance cheques being issued to Enron execs. At the same time, 20- and 30-year Enron employees are down their total retirement portfolios.

Executives cannot be held absolutely to blame. They are victims themselves, the derivative of those well-trained in the new commerce religion. Most new executive contracts consist of a Parachute Clause, indemnity alongside the executive or circle who wants to part ways. The carry out is ethical but, in my opinion, a different case in point of a breakdown in loyalty. It all but promotes failure.

Parachute Development is analogous to a prenuptial. The aim and logic is understood. The facts speak for themselves. I read in recent times that reported 98. 9 per cent of prenup-weddings in North America fail surrounded by three years. From a different perspective, it appears there are now actual rewards for closure or disloyalty.

The Foot Line:

Ethics, trust and constancy are still there. Elemental morals have not changed. Companies who buck the "all-for-me" trend to collect admiration and trust will charity performance everyone, but it will take time.

About The Author

Author, corporate coach, intercontinental essential loudspeaker and leader of Accomplishment 150 Group Inc. , Suite 458, 7305 Woodbine Ave, Markham, Ont. L3R 3V7

T: 416-728-5556 / 1-866-855-4590

E: paul@success150. com

W: www. paulshearstone. com, http://www. success150. com

Developed by:
home | site map © 2021