A couple of weeks ago Mark Gibbs offered seven ethical questions and you, dear readers, did not disappoint.
In a Backspin column a couple of weeks ago I posed questions about ethical behavior in an IT setting and, much to my pleasure, a lot of people commented on the article or sent me e-mail.
Before I discuss the responses, some of the online feedback raises an interesting issue concerning people who respond anonymously and occasionally somewhat rudely. I consider it to be unethical not to publicly stand by the opinions you express in public, particularly when you are snarky (I also consider that to be a spineless way of being rude).
Such a response came from two Anons who whined about the thumbnail definition I gave for ethics and, in so doing, ignored the fact that I was discussing the narrower topic of business ethics. That said, the rest of you were extraordinarily thoughtful in your responses.
I don’t have room to slice and dice all of the feedback but a couple of interesting trends appeared that are worth noting.
The first is that most of you aren’t tolerant of any kind of cheating and, it appears, would be willing to speak out despite a risk to your own careers. The second trend is that you are generally loyal to your organizations.
What I find interesting is that you all seem to recognize that you are, in the eyes of your organizations, dispensable, but despite that you would go out of your way to “do the right thing” for the company. It appears that you are, in general, ideal employees
This, in turn, raises another question: Why, when you recognize that your organization is only as committed to you as it has to be, are you more committed in return? I think the great example of this is how many organizations ask you to give 110% yet when the going gets tough, don’t reciprocate.
Finally, the bonus question asked which of three applicants you would hire given a background check revealed two as womanizing, heavy drinking, party boys while the third hardly drinks, is a war hero and a vegetarian.
Online, reader “GooRu” said he’d never trust a vegetarian, while reader “YesIAmAnon” declared he would choose “the third candidate. Probably a lower risk to the organization, and some evidence [that he is] a more ethical person”.
Via e-mail, reader Lon Feuerhelm contended that “Nothing in the final candidate would eliminate him, so if he were qualified as a manager, he might get the nod. However, personally I would not hire any of them and re-advertise the position.” And reader Ken Diliberto asked, “Are you kidding? A vegetarian? Really? OMG! How could you suggest such a candidate?? Is living in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia starting to get to you? Are you in need of supplemental oxygen? I know — the taxes are getting to you.” Diliberto added “As long as they didn’t rule with an iron fist, there’s a possibility you could teach the third candidate to like a good steak.”
Longtime reader and frequent responder, Tom Franciosi, claimed he “would party with the first two and hire the last one. Reasons: 1) I work well with anyone who has served in the armed forces, 2) healthy life style means they would likely outlive the others and contribute more to the company, and 3) healthier life style would help contain my company’s rising healthcare expenses.”
You may not be surprised to learn that the bonus question was a trick. The three profiles were, in order, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler.
Gibbs is not a model employee in Ventura, Calif. Your resumes to backspin@gibbs.com.
