...although most people are attracted to fields of certainty, it is an unavoidable aspect of the human condition that we inhabit an ethical landscape that is inherently imprecise. A decision to adopt an effective approach to the development of codes [of ethics & behaviour] will require managers to recognise and accept that they are engaging in a task that requires them to "explore" rather than control the cultures they inhabit and share. So why surrender a capacity to control in favour of a far less predictable process?

The answer to this question may be as old as history itself. Eons have passed since legislators embarked upon the task of devising tools to curb the impulses of human beings. The scribes have used gallons of ink in drafting black-letter law. When alienated from its provisions, people experience the law as a yoke to be cast off as soon as it is safe to do so. That is why codes will fail unless situated in a culture where the individual is respected as the ultimate source of value.
                                                                                          (Longstaff 1994, p. 246)

Codes of Ethics and Codes of Conduct - Some Observations

It might seem commonsense to involve all affected parties when drafting codes of ethics and behaviour - everyone knows organisational change is only effective when key stakeholders are involved in the process. So why is the participative process so often neglected in favour of an elite few drafting the code for their organisation? Longstaff (1994, p. 240) believes the answer lies in a false belief in the efficiency and effectiveness of the unilateral approach:

...when it comes to addressing the "problem of ethics", most companies look for a cheap "off-the-shelf solution. What is more, those who seek such a solution do so in the face of compelling evidence that solutions of this type may be superficially efficient - but almost totally ineffective.

There is a fairly obvious reason why off-the-shelf codes or codes dictated by an elite don't work. The reason has to do with the level of trust needed in an organisation if the codes are to be effective. To put it bluntly, the level of trust in the organisation needs to be sufficient to ensure people are prepared to believe claims by management and others that rules are designed to prevent a serious mischief or to promote a worthwhile good. In a similar vein, the range and quality of relationships that underpin the organisation's culture need to be such that a sufficient degree of loyalty is felt to be owed to the enterprise and its defined ends.

There is another erroneous belief related to "quick fix" solutions that will lead to them being ineffective:

At first glance, the error might seem quite trivial. However, there is considerable significance to be found in the fact that so many organisations set out to develop a code of ethics and, instead, produce a code of conduct (or some sort of hybrid). The significance of this goes beyond the issue of mis-description. rather, the confusion is evidence of the phenomena... in which the broader issue of ethics is set aside in favour of the "hard science" of specifying types of behaviour that, in defined situations, are to be prescribed or post scribed. (Longstaff 1994, p. 241)

Specifying codes of behaviour in lieu of a code of ethics is a futile exercise for three reasons: (1) one cannot possibly cover/foretell all possible behaviours that may need to be defined, (2) it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain agreement with all people within the organisation at this level of detail, (3) codes at this level of detail are virtually un-enforceable.

Despite (or some may say because of) its "fuzzy" form, a code of ethics is the better vehicle for ensuring long-term commitment to important values. This is because a code of ethics demands something more than mere compliance. Instead, it calls forth an exercise in understanding that is linked to a requirement that people exercise judgment and accept personal responsibility for the decisions they make.

A code of ethics should be a document that expresses an organisation's underlying values. It is therefore essential that the document rings true for those to whom it applies. And this means that codes of ethics need to be devised in consultation with the people most directly affected by its application. In other words, everyone who's going to have to live with the statement should get a chance to put in his or her two cents worth.

Codes of ethics are not "magic bullets" that solve an organisation's problems. And the fact that an organisation has a written code will not guarantee that its personnel are especially ethical. But good managers will realise that, if approached with the proper degree of care and sophistication, the very process of developing these codes can have a profoundly positive effect on the culture of an enterprise.

Steps to Create the Code

1. Map the Base-line - i.e. Undertake a Values Audit

Very few organisations take the trouble to assess the culture that they seek to reinforce or change. Anecdotal evidence or a kind of "group memory" may provide a prolific source of assumptions that are seldom or never tested. At the very least, this opens one to the risk that the ideals of an elite come to form the basis for developing an approach to the organisation's ethos. In the same vein, it is possible that a "mythical" culture can emerge from the minds of idealistic enthusiasts. It is possible to avoid such pitfalls by the relatively simple expedient of conducting a "values audit".

In its simplest form, a values audit will seek to establish three things:

What do people in the organisation...

• think to be most important values? [We at the Minessence Group have developed a values inventory (AVI) to facilitate the asking and answering of this all important question.]

• believe to be the ideal level of presence of each of these values?

• believe to be the actual level of presence of each of these values?

This step identifies any "values gap" that exists in the organisation. It also provides a base-line against which progress to close the gap can me measured.

2. Involve Everyone

Everyone, directly or indirectly, should be involved in suggesting the means to close the gap. One way we suggest organisations can go about identifying strategies to close the gap is to use a future search conference. Involving everyone in this way helps build the level of trust and loyalty necessary for any cultural development or change that may be identified as necessary. By an organisation choosing to encourage all of its people to participate in defining its ethos it sends a message to personnel that they are regarded as being more than a mere means for securing the organisation's ends - they are co-creators of their own enterprise.

3. Aim for a Short Development Cycle

Involving everyone in the initial stages of identifying any values gap in the organisation and in identifying ways to close it is commendable. However, all the good work will be wasted unless timely reports and follow-up action take place in a timely manner. Such tardiness can lead to a serious erosion of morale. People become cynical and easily develop the perception that the entire exercise was nothing more than a "gesture"  by management. From a practical point of view, the faster the turn-around, the greater the likelihood that positive reinforcement ensues.

4. Build in a Process of Review

Codes that come to be seen to be stale or "set in stone" will lose their effect. Building a process of regular review will keep the codes relevant. The AVI (mentioned earlier in this eZine) is a very useful tool to facilitate this review process. It can be used on a selected random sample of the organisation from time to time to gauge if any values shift is occurring. If at any time, a significant values shift is found, then it may well be time to start again at Step 1 with a new values audit.

It is also important, as part of this regular review process, to ask people their perception of how their organisation is living in accordance with its codes.

Another key ongoing process should be to encourage people to look at their own values and reflect on how their life can be made more meaningful through living their personal values in such a way that they are "in tune" with the organisation's values. [See the last eZine - it is through this process that people are able to maintain themselves at position 4.]

Afterword

Three further points are worth making in regard to the above process:

• There is no need for managers to surrender responsibility

Many managers object to any orientation where they feel that they are abrogating the management of their organisation to their employees and therefore would "shy away" from such an approach outlined above. In this regard Longstaff (1994, p. 245) suggests:

[It is not meant to suggest that in the process outlined above] that managers ought to surrender their prerogative to manage. An important part of the process will be to define and articulate the various spheres of responsibility. It is perfectly reasonable to specify that while they are genuinely interested  in consulting their colleagues they will, in the end, have to accept responsibility for making the final decisions.

Having said this, there may be separate reasons for managers to extend the decision-making process so that it involves their colleagues. Such a decision might be part of a process of evolution away from the technical paradigm of management towards the less precise art of leadership.

• There is a need for authenticity rather than homogeneity

Many people believe that there is just one type of culture that can be described legitimately as possessing sound ethical characteristics. The prevalence of this false belief is no doubt what lies behind the motivation to go for "quick-fix" generic code products that can be bought "off the shelf". There is also perhaps some comfort in adopting positions that are similar to the "norm".

Over the years we have found huge diversity in the values of people in different organisations. To try to force the values of someone else on another is a form of oppression/aggression. Instead, the key feature to be sought (and the main one that builds trust, loyalty and commitment and leads to high levels of motivation, creativity and productivity), is an authentic expression of what people hold as important and right.

However, one caveat, it is the Minessence Team's belief that at the meta-level, there are some universal principles that can and should be part of all organisational design processes. One such principle is described by Ridley (1996, p. 260):

...Utopia is impossible, because society is an uneasy comprise between individuals with conflicting ambitions, rather than something designed directly by natural selection itself.

None the less, the new 'gene-tilitarian'  understanding of human instincts that [The Origins of Virtue] has explored leads to a few simple precepts for avoiding mistakes. Human beings have some instincts that foster the greater good and others that foster self-interest and anti social behaviour. We must design a society that encourages the former and discourages the latter. [emphasis added]

• The process should be viewed as an investment

In today's competitive global market place, organisations can no longer afford to sacrifice the additional effectiveness that flows from this process for the sake of achieving false efficiencies.

References

Colins, C. & Chippendale, P. 1995, New Wisdom II: Values-Based Development, Acorn Publications, Brisbane.

Longstaff, S. 1994, 'Why codes fail: And some thoughts on how to make them work' in Ethics for the Public Sector, ed. N. Preston, Federation Press, Sydney.

Ridley, M. 1996, The Origins of Virtue, Viking, London.