The New York Times, in its June 23rd issue, tells the incredible story of Mr. Biggs, a Manhattan prosecutor. He was in charge of prosecuting two men accused of the murder of a bouncer at the Palladium night club. However, he decided to help the defense because he believed that the two men were innocent. They are now both free.

He informed his superiors that he had serious doubt about the men's culpability and thought that the case should be dropped. Nevertheless, he was instructed (or pressured) to prosecute the case anyway.

He did.

However he also helped the defense by tracking down reluctant witnesses, preparing them to testify for the defense and coaching the defense lawyers. "I did the best I could," he said, "to lose."

Mr. Bibbs had a conflict between his conscience and his obligation to his superiors.

Some say that if he really believed the men were innocent he should not have prosecuted them. Daniel Castleman, chief assistant district attorney said: "Nobody in this office is ever required to prosecute someone they believe is innocent." However Mr. Bibb believed that if he had resigned the case, another prosecutor would have been successful in convicting them.

Idealistically both the prosecution and the defense should search the truth and serve justice, but in reality it is often about winning.

We may all be faced with a dilemma where our conscience is in conflict with our obligations. How can we resolve such a conflict?

Here are some suggestions that might help.

1. We should make sure that our "conscience" is well informed. We should have as much facts as possible before making any determination. Even then, we should consider the possibility that we could be wrong.

2. We should consult with someone that we trust and that is independent.

3. We should think of possible alternative solutions that could satisfy both our conscience and our obligation.

4. We should consider the consequences of our planned action, not only to ourselves but to others as well.

5. Finally, we should have the moral courage to do what we believe is right.

As C.S. Lewis once wrote:

"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point."

What lessons can we learn from the WorldCom debacle or how can we identify a situation that could become a slippery slope? (see last week's entry)

The concept of a slippery slope asserts that a minor violation or infraction to a moral code or the law will gradually lead to more serious offences that ultimately can culminate in very serious consequences. Some people believe that the slippery slope concept is a fallacy that certain events will not inevitably lead to other events. However, human psychology and experience allow us to consider it seriously.

The concept of the slippery slope is also one linked to the understanding of conscience.
I remember the story of a man who was driving very late at night in a remote area. He accidentally hit a pedestrian. Seeing no one around, without any hesitation he just took off. He was later caught (or turned himself in) and did jail time. He now speaks in public about his experience and makes the point that it was because of the many prior minor violations of his values and conscience that he did not even hesitate before taking off.

How can we identify and avoid a slippery slope situation?

1. The mere fact that we ask ourselves that question is an important step. Being aware that we may be faced with such a situation might protect us.
2. We should exercise caution remembering that the first step is the most critical.
3. We should resist the temptation to cut corners and take risks even when the pressure of the work environment presses us to do so.
4. We should learn from the experience of others. If it happened to them, it can happen to anyone of us.
5. We should get advice from a respected counselor or even colleagues whether the step we contemplate taking could lead to a slippery slope situation.
6. We should be willing to exercise morale courage.

I am sure that David Myers, of WorldCom, with 20-20 hindsight, would agree. He told the judge, at his sentencing: "At the time I consider to be the single most critical character-defining moment of my life, I failed."

As Michael Josephson, of the Josephson Institute said:

"Moral courage is a body-guard to conscience and character."

I participated in an Ethics and Compliance Officer Association conference in Scottsdale, Arizona last month and attended a fascinating session called The Causes of Corporate Corruption: On the panel, brilliantly moderated by Jeff Benjamin, the ethics officer for Novartis, was David Myers, the former Controller at WorldCom, David Anders, the former Federal prosecutor of WorldCom and Evan Chester a white-color crime attorney. The session lasted 3 hours and was fascinating.

David Myers, who went to jail for his role in the WorldCom scandal, told his side of story. As controller he was first asked by the Scott Sulivan, the CFO, back in October 2000, to enter an amount in the reserve for which there was no validation. He first refused and so did the people who worked for him. He was then approached by Bernie Ebbers, the then Chairman and CEO in a very friendly manner. Mr. Ebbers told him that he sympathized with his situation and that he should not be asking him to do anything that made him uncomfortable. However, he promised, this would be the one and only time such a demand was made, and based on the financial projections of the company, this "error" would be corrected in the next Quarter. David Myers believed him. He also knew that if he refused to make the entry he would, most likely, lose his job and would be unable to meet his financial commitments such as his mortgage payment and college tuition for his children. After much hesitation he entered the amount in the company's reserve. Predictably, the same request was made for the following Quarters until it was discovered in 2002 and the whole scandal broke out.

On June 25, 2002, WorldCom announced financial restatements for 2001 and the first Quarter of 2002 for the amount to $3.85 billion. The stock (which had traded at an all-time high at $62) closed under $1. The company went bankrupt a month later. Scott Sulivan and David Myers each entered a guilty plea. Scott served 5 years and David 1 year and one day. Bernie Ebbers is serving a 25-years sentence.

Once David Myers had made that "one and only" fraudulent entry, it would have been extremely hard for him to refuse to make the second one because he could never justify making the first one.

A slippery slope is, by definition, irreversible.

What lessons can we learn from the WorldCom debacle and how can we identify a situation that could become a slippery slope?

That will be the topic of my next blog.

Ethics and Blogs:
Last week I was invited by the Central Pennsylvania chapter of PRSA in Harrisburg to speak about ethics and blogs. The session was video taped and will be posted on their website shortly.

My co-presenter Brian Shoff is a known blogger. It was encouraging to discover that he and many other bloggers are concerned about ethics.

Last year, the Pew Internet & American Life Project estimated that there are some 12 million bloggers in the U.S. Some bloggers have been debating whether the Weblog community should follow specific ethical guidelines. Responsible bloggers recognize that they are addressing the public and have some ethical obligations to society in general. CyberJournalist.net has created a model "Bloggers code of ethics." Although all bloggers are not journalists, many believe that they should follow more or less the ethics code followed by journalists.

Libel and defamation is a critical issue for bloggers. According to the Media Law Center, there are approximately 150 lawsuits in the US against bloggers. Most of the lawsuits claim defamation and libel. However, only six of these lawsuits have resulted in penalties for the bloggers. Most of the cases have been dismissed by the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws. These laws protect from litigations whose only purpose is to intimidate a critic by the threat and cost of a lawsuit.

Last year, Andrew Left, a blogger, posted negative information on his blog, about GTX Global Corp .,a provider of IP multimedia technologies. GTX claimed that his intent was to depress the stock price of the company so that he could make a profit by short selling the stock. GTX Global sued Andrew Left for defamation and securities fraud but the court dismissed the lawsuit under the anti-SLAPP laws.

Neville Hobson, a leading influencer in social media communications gives good advice for corporate bloggers:

"If an organization isn't already in place where openness and transparency in communication exists and is practiced, then using tools like blogs will be unlikely to do anything positive for the organization. If your openness/transparency foundation isn't there, don't blog."

I believe we have those foundations at Ruder Finn!

In the June issue of Portfolio, a Conde Nast monthly magazine, the Editors ask in an article called "The Age of Attack" whether we are at a tipping point of "our corporate culture where civil discourse-politesse about our professional peers- is about to be come defunct?" The Editorial gives the examples of Jack Welch severely criticizing Jeff Immelt his successor at GE and Paul Volcker, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve making very negative comments on Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman. According to the Editors of Portfolio there has always been a "code that you don't beat up on the person who takes over from you."

The same question could be asked about our political culture. The presidential political campaign has provided numerous examples of loss of civility when instead of debating issues and ideas, candidates attack each other viciously and question the character of their opponent.

There is room in the public discourse for criticism, but it should never be an attack. A criticism should never be destructive. A criticism of a particular action should be accompanied with positive suggestions.

The etymology of the word "civility" comes from the Latin Civilis which means proper to a citizen. The word citizen comes from the word city. Civility is how one should behave in the "City" or in a close proximity with other people, such as neighbors, co-workers or any other person we come in contact with.

Civility can also be understood as a form of respect and tolerance for others.

Why is civility important? One could argue that without civility, ultimately we would not have a civilization. Without some respect and tolerance for others we would be facing violence and chaos and ultimately destruction of Society. After all, the antonym to civilization is barbarism!

What makes us lose our sense of civility in our actions?

They may be more than one explanation but I imagine that the root lies in our human nature that is essentially selfish. We should try to remember the biblical directive to love our neighbor as ourselves. (Leviticus 19:18)

Jane Adams, the U.S. social worker, sociologist, & suffragist wrote:

Civilization is a method of living, an attitude of equal respect for all men.

Time Magazine in its May 12th issue lists what it considers the 100th most influential people in the world. The issue's contributors such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu (who wrote about Peter Gabriel), Bill Clinton (who wrote about Tony Blair) and Edgar Bronfman Jr. (who wrote about the rock band Radiohead) are themselves influential and famous.

Richard Stengel the Managing Editor says in the introduction, that influence although subjective is measured by the effect people have on the world.

On a numerical smaller scale we each are the most influential person to someone, whether it is a family member, such as a 2-week old baby, a colleague at work or just a friend.

We all can use our financial resources to influence the lives of others. A small $10 donation to a hunger project will have a significant impact on someone who earns an average of $1 a day.

Our knowledge and experience can also be of great influence to many.

How careful are we about how we use our influence or power in order not to impact negatively the lives of others?

Ideally we should try to use our influence for the well-being of others. Many actors and actresses in Hollywood and elsewhere have used and are using their fame for good causes.Angelina Jolie has become a spokesperson of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHR,) Jerry Lewis has raised hundred of millions of dollars for research on muscular dystrophy and Bono is using his celebrity status to combat poverty in Africa.

We should also make sure that when we use our influence for our own benefit, as we should, we do not do it without consideration for others and try to be fair as much as we can. Fairness is a great value, but it is extremely difficult to determine and apply because we live in a very competitive world.

Fairness and justice are closely related concepts. The French word for fair is "just." Justice is an easier concept to comprehend and one to think about when we use whatever influence we have.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said:

"You can never really live anyone else's life, not even your child's. The influence you exert is through your own life, and what you've become yourself."

Two Reverends have been in the News lately.

Reverend Wright for his controversial and outrageous comments that have caused serious concern to the Obama campaign.

Reverend Sharpton who is threatening to cause serious disruption to the City of New York this coming Wednesday by leading a campaign of civil disobedience in protest of the not-guilty verdict of the three policemen who shot and killed Shawn Bell more than a year ago.

The etymology of the word "reverend" comes from the Latin "reverendus" which means "He who is to be respected. The Church gives that title to any ordained minister.

The philosopher, Emmanuel Kant considered respect as fundamental in Ethics. He believed that we should: "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

To better understand the concept, we should remember that:

1. Respect is to be earned. An individual or an institution must have a long record of consistent ethical behavior, to earn the respect of others.

2. Respect is to be maintained. We can lose the respect of others and our reputation by a single breach of an ethical standard.

3. Respect is reciprocal. We can not expect be respected unless we respect others.

4. Respect requires self-respect. We can not expect to be respected if we do not have self-respect.

Respect is a very important value and fundamental in human relationships.

As Johann von Goethe once said:
"The way you see people is the way you treat them, and the way you treat them is what they become."

Should doing "the right thing" be rewarded?

On the front page of last week's Week-End edition of the Financial Times there is an article entitled "World Bank rewards safe sex to boost fight against Aids in Africa." The World Bank and other NGO's are financing, a groundbreaking experiment.

Three thousand men and women in Tanzania aged 15-30 will be offered a $45 payment if periodic laboratory tests prove that they have not contracted a sexually transmitted disease. The $45 payment represents, for some of the participants, 25 % of their annual salary.

Some argue that the experiment poses an ethical problem because these payments are bribes.

Rewarding someone for doing what that person should do anyway is often questionable but rewards and punishment is very much part of the system in most societies.

Most parents reward their children for good deeds such as doing chores or getting good grades. The Alfred Nobel Foundation rewards extraordinary accomplishments with recognition and money.

In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has launched a program that would pay parents if their children attend school.

Even the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in chapter eight stipulates that an organization should promote and enforce its ethics and compliance standards through appropriate incentives as well as disciplinary measures.
The AIDS epidemic is a catastrophe claiming the lives of 2 million every year and most of them in Africa. Even though these payments could be considered to be bribes, I believe that the Tanzanian experiment is ethically acceptable because it will save lives and it causes no harm.

Pope Benedict XVI held a private meeting with survivors of clergy sexual abuse.

It took many by surprise.

His predecessor John Paul II never did. The Pope decision to meet survivors was courageous and symbolic. It also sent a strong message to the Church. The Pope is with the victims.

The Church never tolerated such abject and criminal behavior, which has always been considered a mortal sin. Yet in the U.S. more than 4,000 priests that have been accused of molesting children since the 50s. More than 2 billion dollars have been paid to victims in the past six years and six dioceses have been forced to go into bankruptcy because of those payments.

However, very often in the past, the Church's reaction to reports of abuse by priests was very much the same as the reactions of some CEOs when faced with a scandal. They are tempted either to deny what happened or to try covering it up.

The Pope by his recent actions is a model for any CEO when faced with a scandal:

- The message came from the top. (You can't go any higher!)

- He gave the example. On Thursday the Pope in his homily at an open-air Mass in Washington said: "Today I encourage each of you to do what you can to foster healing and reconciliation, and to assist those who have been hurt." He did just that a few minutes later, in his private meeting with survivors.

- He showed empathy. One of the victims, Bernie McDaid, said. "He looked down at the floor and back at me, like, 'I know what you mean.' He took it in emotionally. We looked eye to eye."

An apology always needs to be translated into action. Victims advocacy groups such as Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) ask for more transparency, more vigorous action against priests accused or suspected of abuse and a change in canon law that would explicitly bar sexual abusers from the priesthood.

We could be witnessing a turning point in the Church's reaction to clergy sex abuse and more concrete measures to prevent such crimes. That will be a sign of hope.

As the author and inventor George Iles said: "Hope is faith holding out its hand in the dark."

I was asked in an interview by Lyneka Little of TheStreet.com about when to break controversial news to your boss?

The answer: Immediately.

Delaying the release of such information, for whatever reason may have critical consequences. We should remember that we do not have the whole picture, while management does or at least should. Our consideration of the "right" time may not coincide with management's priorities and obligations.

The minute we are made aware that something is wrong we become responsible. The etymology of the word responsible comes from the Latin word responsa which means answer or answering to. To be responsible is to be able to give an answer to, or be accountable.

We all remember the question asked during the Watergate hearing: "What did you know and when did you know it."

Most importantly the negative information is not ours to keep or delay. It belongs to the company.

It may be particularly distressing to bear the bad news when we are the cause of it!

It will be helpful to anticipate the reaction and be prepared for the questions that might be asked. We may want to suggest a plan of action or even a solution that could mitigate the negative impact of the bad news.

It is true that "no one loves the bearer of bad news" but acting responsibly and ethically will be recognized and remembered.

Breaking some bad news may also give us the opportunity to show courage.

As C.S. Lewis once said:
"Courage is not simply one of the virtues but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality."