Having dinner this evening in Memphis, I struck up a conversation with a person who taught compliance for government employees in purchasing. He shared that there has never been a time when temptation was so great and the chance of getting 
caught was so high. “Time have changed,” he shared. “When you consider the pressure of construction and politics its no wonder that construction ethics is so in the news!”
Construction Ethics in the News
Two employees on the Alabama Licensing Board for General Contractors – Nancy C. Saffo and Christy Easterling – were indicted on charges of forgery and using their position for personal gain.
A state investigation determined that they used their positions to obtain checks or currency, and knowingly possessed forged instruments.
Saffo is charged with seven counts of using her position for personal gain and 24 counts of second-degree possession of a forged instrument.
Easterling is charged with four counts of using her position for personal gain and 11 counts of second-degree possession of a forged instrument.
Violation of the ethics law by using one’s public position for personal gain is punishable up to 20 years for each count. Second-degree possession of a forged instrument is punishable up to 10 years for each count.
What motivates unethical behavior?
It’s not just power or position that contributes to the fall of smart people. If you look at any ethical failure there are three components that always are present in some form or fashion. Need, Opportunity and Rationalization. If one component is missing the ethical lapse fails or you can’t stand on the three-legged stool. What was Saffo or Easterling’s need? Perhaps position and power do provide a certain level of opportunity the average person lacks. But the key question, when you look at construction ethics, is how did they rationalize their behavior?
Research has shown that three behaviors are at the core of what would cause or allow an otherwise ethical person to make unethical and potentially illegal choices. These behaviors are well documented and for those who are charged with detecting fraud (Statement of Auditing Standards #99) are called “the fraud triangle” which applies to all areas of business and construction ethics:
Need. Described as perceived pressure that a person is experiencing, is the first and critical component of what motives a person to stray from ethical to unethical. Need may come in a variety of forms. The person who is in too much debt likely experiences financial strain – which was the root of my need. Alice, a church secretary, found her need triggered by her granddaughter’s diagnosis of cancer. Infamous Bernie Madoff’s need was certainly not money; likely, he was triggered by the need to be infallible. Whatever the pressure, need is the core emotional state that starts the ball rolling from a choice that is ethical to unethical.
Opportunity. It makes no difference what your need may be if you don’t have the opportunity to satisfy it then the unethical and potentially illegal choice fails. Without Opportunity there is no fuel for the potential unethical fire. I was a trusted employee, and with that trust came opportunity. Madoff took opportunity founded in trust to a new level.
Rationalization. Need, combined with opportunity, provides a firm foundation, but the glue that holds unethical activity together is the ability to rationalize that what is wrong, is right. If you ask most people found guilty of unethical/illegal behavior, they will tell you they felt their actions were legitimate. I, for example, rationalized that I was not “stealing” money as long as my intent was to pay it back. Further, I solidified this mental game by paying some of the money back. “Surely, I wasn’t guilty of stealing money as long as I was paying it back.”
That, of course, is a clear example of “‘stinkin’ thinkin.’” The mind can be tricky and when you combine need with opportunity, and can rationalize bad behavior as good, you have the perfect storm to move from ethical to unethical, and potential illegal, behavior. While we all would like to think that those employed in busienss would act in the highest and best interests of all concerned and with integrity. Reality in construction ethics is humans are all subject to “stinkin’ thinkin” and once on the slippery slope there’s a very real chance that the outcome will be bad.
What Can Be Done to Prevent Unethical Activities?
As business managers, HR Directors and those connected with Compliance, there are clear actions we can take that can help keep folks between the ethical lines.
Look for Need! While we can’t control what needs our employees have, we can be aware of any changes or activities that would suggest an increase in need and the stress that need brings.
I was the one responsible for my unethical actions. I was in too much debt and succumbed to the pressure of my need by turning to an unethical activity. I blame no one, but I also have to acknowledge that if those close to me (my partners in business for example) had noticed my changing patterns of behavior their attention might have thwarted my actions.
When subconscious need is brought to light or becomes conscious, then often the outcome is reduced inclination toward unethical behavior. So, signs to look indicating increased need are: (1) calls from creditors or personal calls intensifying at work; (2) abnormal purchases without apparent new sources of funding; (3) lifestyle changes and/or (4) marital issues or challenges with aging parents.
Need is the fuel that supports the possibility of unethical behavior. The challenge most managers face with thinking about “Need” is to be open minded enough to consider the potential sources of “Need” so that what might fuel unethical behavior can be suppressed.
Minimize Opportunities. The most effective course of action to keep our employees and associates between ethical lines is to remove opportunities to conduct unethical activities. For example, I embezzled money from a client’s trust fund. While I am not proud of that action (now some 25+ years ago), had the bank account that I used required two signatures, the embezzlement would have been far more difficult. Think about it: with that minor change what would I have done, asked the co-signer to help me steal money from the trust? The answer is simple: of course not. So, less opportunity equals less chance for unethical activity.
A practical question is how do we reduce opportunity? Some of the answers are obvious. Minimize opportunities by: (1) requiring multiple signatures on checks; (2) require people to rotate job responsibilities from time to time; (3) strongly encourage employees to take vacations or time off; and/or (4) ask employees from different positions within the company to identify how people can or do act unethically. When a person is aware that their actions are being watched or subject to being watched, the “Opportunity” factor decreases substantially. As worn out as the line might be, people really do respect what management inspects. Of course, management must be subject to inspection as well.
Train Rationalization. Depending on one’s internal ethical compass, what one person can easily rationalize may be a problem for another. Therefore, as managers our role (just as important as the more analytical “Opportunity” role) is to educate our people on the significance of “Rationalization” identifying what it sounds like and when it might appear.
When employees hear what rationalization sounds like, when we bring to consciousness what is active in the subconscious, it becomes far easier to support each other in our ethical choices. At a recent ethics seminar an attendee commented, “But everybody does it.” As those words were spoken, another participant yelled out, “Rationalization!” The crowd erupted in laughter as people began to see just how simple and easy it is to rationalize the “little things”. And, when we rationalize the little, the larger unethical choices become easier to swallow.
