“There are no business ethics.”
There is one premise in American that has caused wars, propagated worldwide media coverage, created anxiety that has permeated throughout every home in the country, contrived strikes and boycotts by the American public, actualized sanctions by religious entities, shaped the ideologies of our youth, and merited lobbying and legislation by our politicians. Whether from a biblical, political, or ethical standpoint, our society is fueled, nourished, and driven by the concept that formed America and made it what it is today—“OUR RIGHT TO FREEDOM!!”
As Americans we cherish, nurture, and protect our right to many “supposedly” guaranteed freedoms that our country fought for throughout the ages. None of these freedoms are outrageous desires or unobtainable quests created by idealists who longed for a utopian or chimerical humankind. Rather, they are pragmatically contrived goals shaped from moral and ethical standards of everyday people.
If we fought so hard for these freedoms that in-turn guaranteed Americans so many ethical and moral rights, why then do we fight even harder to deny them to one another? In a speech to over one hundred business students at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Mark Conklin, Sr. Management Consultant in Organizational Effectiveness at Chick-fil-A, Inc. shared his perspective on Christian businesses by making this seemingly controversial statement;
“Businesses can’t be Christian,” Conklin said during his speech. “Individuals can be Christian. There are no business ethics. There are only personal ethics that show up embodied in the people who happen to make up an organization.” (1)
The profound statement raised many eyebrows in both the corporate and private sectors of America. Was it an unethical comment, or did it not embody the same characteristics encompassed in our continual fight for “freedom”. Do these freedoms not include our inalienable “right to freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion”?
The question is, would Mark Conklin’s presentation have equally raised the same eyebrows if he had noted the company believed a small percentage of employees steal chicken sandwiches to take home…or that it was acceptable if a few employees depicted “not so pleasant” attitudes as long as they adequately serviced the public? I guess the answer to that will forever remain a mystery.
To that extent, and taking into consideration the freedoms we’ve fought so hard to maintain, can we safely assume that the right to our freedoms is not founded so much on what the issue is? Do we admit it is also not founded on what might be the opinion of any group, individual, or entity? Are our freedoms not enforced by the simple belief that Mark Conklin, Chick-Fil-A, or your neighbor next door has the right to idealize, feel, and express anything that they desire whether we agree or not? Basically, is it not an individual’s distinct conviction that guides their ethical and moral interaction with whomever they come into contact?
In this day and time, the workplace appears to be most plagued by unethical and immoral conduct. Regardless of the means, why has it become so difficult to accept a medium that promotes a consistently healthy ethical environment? Would it make us more comfortable accepting our freedoms if it is presented in a more pretentious mien?
Where then is the “clear” distinction between Conklin’s message to the students of Cornerstone and the message that has been given to us by our role models, mentors, and ancestors. Just as it was presented in Conklin’s message, have we not all been taught from puberty to embrace efficiency and excellence? Did not our parents, our religious leaders, our teachers, and our politicians, stress that living and sharing our values is just as important as identifying and developing those values?
Over the last few years, statistics have shown a continual erosion of the ethical partitions between the workplace and the home. If indeed this is true, then the values and standards of each individual undoubtedly migrate one into the other. Though the previously mentioned “distinction” is not clearly understood, it is understood that the subsequent disdain for Conklin’s message was derived from statements clearly taken out of context.
What should be understood, and what should be of concern, is that at least an opportunity was given to express an opinion in a public forum to intelligent students who can obviously make their own choices. Just as with so many other public opinions, there was nothing etched in stone, and nothing etched into the minds of any of the students who chose not to be receptive. Yet there was the undeniable freedom for each student to discern their own individual values…one way or the other.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
(1) http://herald.cornerstone.edu/2013/04/28/chick-fil-a-executive-visits-cu-business-department/.
This a thought provoking perspective. I will interpret what I think Mr. Conklin was getting at, this way.
A corporation is made up of people . The people within form a culture or a story that they use to identify their collective desired values or morals and their Brand. So if a company–Wal-mart, chick-fil-A, or Chase bank– engage in unethical practices, we can’t accuse the entity; we look to the people within it as the cause. Since ‘a fish rots from the nose on done,’ unsavory conduct and harm done by a corporation means the public, shareholders and regulators must to call into question the aims and intentions of its senior leaders.
A corporation cannot be put in jail but its employees can.
Ron Rael
CEO of The High Road Institute