Protecting one’s frame of mind as it pertains to unethical behavior and job security, now exist in the past while major organizations and firms are maximizing their efforts to restore employees and consumers confidence and trust, by implementing a fresh clean slate integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Rodrigues (2006) ethical analysis on corporate social responsibility highlights the ethical and moral issues on decision-making and behaviour (Rodrigues, 2006).

In retrospect, ERON executives, one of the largest corporate organizations fell without mercy in December 2001 leaving no financial return for their long-standing employees. Enron employees blanketed their trust in an organization expecting to live comfortably throughout with their retired savings, 401(k) investments. Yet, they were ousted unexpectedly, just as their leaders. Baucus & Baucus (1997) states “”illegality takes money from strategic investments, hurts a firm’s image with its stakeholders…”" (Elkins, 1976). According to CBC News (2007), A British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) panel reports Eron executives relegated a carefully planned “”massive fraud”" on British Columbia residents (see it here). These facts substantiated that Eron Mortgage Corporation, Eron Investment Corporation, Capital Productions Incorporation, and Eron Financial Service Ltd. raised $240 million from investors by lying to them.

According to Rodrigues (2006) the mainstream of corporate social responsibility is to contend with intricate issues, such as environmental protection, human resources management, health and safety at work, relations with local communities, and relations with suppliers and consumers (Rodrigues, 2006). The assumption of CSR is that organizations can be trusted to address, on their own, any problems their operations may cause, without being bound by laws and regulations (Rodrigues, 2006).

References:

AmeriPlan Health (2007). click here.

Baucus, M.S. & Baucus, D.A. (1997). Paying the piper: An empirical examination of longer-term financial consequences of illegal corporate behavior. Academy of Management Journal. Briarcliff Manor: 40(1), 129,23. Retrieved October 16, 2007, capella.edu.

Brooks, D.A., & King, C.L. (2007). Civil service reform as national security: The homeland security act of 2002. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 399-407. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

Eron Mortgage Executives. (2000). Retrieved October 16, 2006, from this website.
.

Rodrigues, M.C. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics. Dordrecht: 69(2), 111. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

Judith is pursuing her doctoral degree in Management of Nonprofit Organizations while attending Capella University. She has received her MA in Pastoral Counseling from Ashland Theological Seminary. Judith is a single-divorced parent of three teenagers, and is self-employed as a Consultant.

Article Source

Tags: unethical, behaviour, workplace, examples, legal

Blockbuster Online decided to alter and modify my existing movie rental contract, which initially allowed me unlimited rentals and exchanges at the store for a fixed price. On October 17, when I walked into the store to exchange a video the store rep told me I had met my limit for monthly exchanges and would have to pay over $2.00 per movie on any additional exchanges. The manager came out and agreed it was bogus and fraudulent, but said he couldn’t change it.

Upon looking at Blockbuster Online they have since phased out unlimited rentals altogether on their website, but such was in operation when I was sold the contract by the Blockbuster representative.

I phoned the competition at Netflix who told me they only lowered their prices, unlike Blockbuster who has since significantly raised their prices. The idea according to my research is for Blockbuster to put the competition out of business for a short while by their online services, than alter their contracts after the competition has been eliminated – kind of like an anti-trust price gouging operation.

The Netflix website contract for similar services, which verbally the rep on the phone said there would not be any price increases……says otherwise. Read the fine print online and you will see a contractual stipulation stating “changes to terms of use.”

Changes to Terms of Use
Netflix, Inc., reserves the right, from time to time, with or without notice to you, to change these Terms of Use in our sole and absolute discretion. The most current version of these Terms of Use can be reviewed by clicking on the “”Terms of Use”" located at the bottom of the pages of the Netflix Web site. The most current version of the Terms of Use will supersede all previous versions. Your use of the Netflix Web site or continued use of our service after changes are made means that you agree to be bound by such changes.

This is the new corporation nation which cares not for consumers but financially raping and taking advantage of us. I say let’s protest!

Write your Better Business Bureau and Congress representatives and cite these unethical billing practices and procedures. What we tolerate will dominate. Close the floodgates before capitalism overtakes we the people and honesty and integrity entirely leaves the marketplace.

Email Paul with your complaint and name.

Paul Davis is a highly sought after professional speaker, life purpose coach, worldwide minister, and change master.

Paul is the author of several books including United States of Arrogance, Breakthrough for a Broken Heart; Adultery: 101 Reasons Not to Cheat; Are You Ready for True Love; Stop Lusting & Start Living; Waves of God; Supernatural Fire; Poems that Propel the Planet; and God vs. Religion.

Paul’s compassion for people & passion to travel has taken him to over 50 countries of the world where he has had a tremendous impact. Paul’s organization Dream-Maker Ministries builds dreams, breaks limitations & revives nations.

As a passionate and fervent activist, Paul wants to see justice come to every disenfranchised person abused by the corporate profit driven system. A documentary filmmaker, Paul would like to hear from you.

Hire Paul to do a “It’s Judgment Day” expose for you!

Visit him here.

Article Source

Tags: business, ethics, contracts, unethical, behaviour

A new study from the University of Georgia concludes that Hispanic spending power will surpass African American buying power in 2007; marking the first year that Hispanics control more disposable personal income than any other U.S. minority group. This conclusion leads me to question the motive behind the research and the social consequences if Hispanics and Blacks buy into the competitive research. Will corporate America pit the two groups against each other when disbursing advertising dollars to their respective ad agencies?

The business case for diversity in corporate advertising has been a solid one for decades. Corporations have slowly realized the importance of advertising to ethnic markets and the results of such efforts to their bottom line. Despite the recent projections, African American consumers continue to be a powerful force in the U.S. economy.

Ethnic spending power is vital to the US economy. The vast majority of states continue to see Blacks as the nation’s strongest ethnic market because of the concentration of the Hispanic population is limited to a few key geographical areas. Hispanics are expected to have buying power of $863.1 billion verse Blacks estimated of $847 billion in 2007.

Despite this collective buying power, minority consumers are still greeted with suspicion about their intentions and with skepticism about their ability to pay. Many companies still function under a non-urban dictate when working with ad agencies. A non-urban dictate means that a company does not want their marketing and advertising materials placed in media that claim an urban audience as their main target.

Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing ethnic group and will comprise 8.5% of the nation’s total consumer market next year. Rosa Rosales, President of LULAC, says that she hopes the study will get the attention of companies who have ignored the Hispanic consumer.

I find it hard to believe that the Hispanic consumer has been ignored given the tremendous success of Hispanic owned advertising agencies. Maybe it’s time that African American consumers themselves take a stronger stand by taking their dollars to companies who advertise directly to them. Not only will this send a large economic message to companies who engage in discriminatory practices, such as non urban dictates, it will also send a strong message to all other companies that consumer discrimination will not be tolerated.

Imagine a pep rally where all of the ethnic groups competed for the top spending power chanting “We spend more! Yes, we do! We spend more! How about you?” Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Pitting two ethnic groups against each other is nothing to cheer about it. Inclusion is about engaging everyone. Separation is about keeping things apart. Which team are you on? Which team are you rooting for?

Mrs. Crystal Brown-Tatum is the CEO and President of Crystal Clear Communications- a Houston based advertising agency and public relations firm with whose portfolio boasts work for Fortune 500 companies including Intel, Wal-mart, Comp USA, Best Buy and Audi. The firm was ranked as a 2006 and 2007 “Top 20 Public Relations Firm and named the 4th Fastest Growing Woman Owned Businesses in Houston in 2007 by the Houston Business Journal.

Article Source

Tags: unethical, hispanic, corporate, behaviour, business

Bad press and lawsuits are things that every business owner fears. Bad press can ruin your reputation, as well as your business, and lawsuits can bankrupt you. The easiest way to avoid both of these situations is to avoid unethical business practices. There are very easy ways to avoid unethical business practices.

First, adhere to the old standby that honesty is the best policy. Be honest in all of your business dealings, whether it concerns vendors, customers, or employees. This also means that you need to use honesty when reporting earnings and expenses, when paying employees and vendors, and when disclosing information to customers.

When you are faced with a complaint, whether that complaint comes from a customer, a vendor, an employee, or the community, the complaint needs to be dealt with head on. Burying your head in the sand, and hoping that the problem will go away will only serve to make the situation worse, and because you are responsible, this isn’t the ethical way to handle problems. Never try to spin your own version of the truth to make the problem not look as bad as it really is. This will only damage your reputation in the long run.

When many companies are using unethical business practices, instead of trying to correct the problem, they try to cover it up. They will even go as far as paying loads of money on advertising and public relations to try to hide the problems at hand. Again, this is an unethical business practice, and it should be avoided. When mistakes are made, address them clearly, apologize, do better, and move on. The community as a whole will respect you a great deal more for this than they will if you do nothing, or try to hide a problem, only to be found out later.

Ethical business issues often arise that have little to do with the workplace, but a great deal to do with the product that is being sold. It could be that there are dangers with the product that were only recently discovered. If you are practicing ethical business, you will notify the public about these dangers, and depending on the extent of the danger, you may need to recall the product – even if it means losing some money, and losing some business in the future. Recall the product and fix the problem, and you will avoid a loss of your reputation, as well as lawsuits. When you recall a product, you get press, but because you took the appropriate ethical action, it isn’t considered to be bad press.

Placing blame is another issue. When problems occur, it seems that a businesses first instinct is to look for someone to blame, instead of taking responsibility for the problem themselves. Not only is this unethical, it is almost childish in nature, and it does little to instill trust in the public, in employees, or in vendors. If the issue arose because of a mistake that an employee made, depending on the seriousness of the problem, the employee may be fired, but it is unethical for the business to name that employee. In the public’s eyes, it is the company that made a mistake, and not an employee.

Again, there are many unethical business practices that crop up in the business world on a day-to-day basis. For your particular business, it is important to constantly monitor yourself and your employees to ensure that you are operating above board, and that unethical business practices are dealt with immediately, in the best possible way.

This and other topics that deal with corporate communications, business to customer relationships, and sales training through Collective Vision are just some of the topics discuss.

And now I would like to offer you one of my book chapters absolutely free. You can get instant access here

From Jed A. Reay – The Communicator/Connector and Visionary Master Sales Trainer.

Article Source

Tags: business, ethic, legal, scam, unethical

Well it there is no right answer and the test indicates there is then there is a problem with Trickery questions and is that really ethical? No of course not. It is nearly impossible to understand all the verbose rules and regulations, ambiguous definitions and intent of the laws sometimes, and all this is a clear sign of over regulation, over regulation is unethical, because it is like saying there is a problem in an industry that does not actually exist.

Even if you know the Letter of the law, over time the case Law is inconsistent with any sort of real ethics. Regulations are most often used as tools, like the regulators who write the legislation in order to attack a competitor in the market place. Of course, once attacked from a government agency, no matter why or who instituted the investigation, fine or finding; it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend and slows the progress of the company in question in the market place.

Thus most of our regulations are not made to help consumers, rather they are made so one business can get the upper hand of another. One has to ask why the government takes sides and why the government cannot practice what it preaches with regards to ethics or listen to the warnings of Adam Smith. So, if we really wish to discuss ethics, it is time to clean up the government’s hand in it, from the on-going education tests to the actual market place extortion. Think on this.

Identity theft is rampant, and these days it is a good idea to make use of a document shredding machine or mobile document shredding service to get rid of paperwork that contains non-public information. But what kind of paper work falls under this category?

Here is a list of 103 types of documents that you may want to shared.

1. Account numbers
2. Account records
3. Accounting Files/Records
4. Addresses
5. Advertising misprints
6. All Employee Information
7. All Financial Information
8. Anything storing electronic data
9. Audits
10. Audits/Surveys
11. Bank Account Information
12. Bank Statements
13. banking or financial records,
14. Bids and Proposals
15. Billing Information
16. Brokerage account information
17. Business Plans
18. Canceled Checks
19. Cancelled Checks
20. CD’s
21. Class Rosters
22. Client Files
23. Client Lists
24. Competitive information
25. Computer Generated Reports
26. Computer printouts
27. Computer Reports
28. Confidential correspondence
29. Consumer Information
30. Contracts
31. Correspondence
32. Credit Card Information
33. Credit Card Numbers
34. Credit card receipts
35. Credit Cards
36. Customer estimates & quotes
37. Customer Lists
38. Debit Card numbers
39. disks
40. Doctor/Nurse Notes
41. Drivers License Numbers
42. Education
43. Employee Information
44. Employment Information
45. Executive Correspondence
46. Fax Machine Ribbons
47. Financial Data
48. Financial records
49. Financial Statements
50. ID Cards
51. Insurance Information
52. Insurance Policy data
53. Internal Memos
54. Inventory lists
55. Invoices
56. Junk Mail
57. Legal Documents
58. Magnetic media
59. Management Reports
60. Maps and blueprints
61. Market Research
62. Marketing Strategies
63. Medical Charts/History
64. Medical Records
65. Meeting notes
66. Memos & correspondence
67. Microfilm and fiche
68. Names
69. New product drawings
70. New Product Information
71. New product proposals
72. Obsolete Brochures/Stationery/Files
73. Obsolete Documents
74. Organization Charts
75. Outdated business records
76. Passport Numbers
77. Pay roll records
78. Payroll Information
79. Payroll Records
80. Personnel Files
81. Personnel Information
82. Photographs
83. Prescription Information
84. Presentations
85. Price Lists
86. Price Quotes
87. Printed e-mails
88. Product Design
89. Product Information
90. product prototypes
91. Profit & Loss Statements
92. Proposals and Quotes
93. R&D Files/Data
94. Receipts
95. Research Data
96. Sales Receipts
97. Sales statistics
98. Sensitive Correspondence
99. Social Security Numbers
100. Tapes
101. Tax Records
102. Telephone Numbers
103. X-rays

That’s a lot of documents! Fortunately, you probably only deal with a handful of these types of documents on a regular basis. For home use, a good paper shredder will probably do the job. For businesses which deal with large amounts of data like this, a mobile document shredding service is recommended. To find a paper shredding machine or a suitable mobile shredding service near you, visit The Document Shredding Directory today.

G. Johnson works with the Document Shredding Directory . Visit today to find more information about mobile document destruction services in your area.

Article Source

Tags: identity, theft, unethical, examples, business

Culture is ubiquitously defined as “the way things are done around here”. Note the distinction between how things are done and official mantra, company rhetoric, policy and even, relevant instruments of law. It’s what we do and allow others to do that says more about who we are and what matters than any elegant vision and values statement sitting behind perspex in board rooms with marble and fresh flowers everywhere.

I would characterize organizational culture more pointedly. I would rather define culture as what we are and aren’t prepared to put up with. It is when we are tested that one understands the true character of both a person and an enterprise. Jan Carlsson, former CEO of the Swedish International Airline referred famously to watershed moments in customer service as “moments of truth”. Organisations face “moments of truth” in the context of culture. Behaviour that is committed (when it didn’t have to be) is one moment of truth. Bad behaviour called once it’s committed says something about the integrity of people who won’t sit by and watch bad stuff perpetrated. But the third and very telling moment of truth is when behaviour is consequenced.

At the risk of appearing to be name dropping (shamelessly and sorry, without names) I was doing coffee with an AFL Football Club president some time back when he politely excused himself to take a call following “Mad Monday”. He was particularly interested in whether or not anything was likely to blow up in the media that could cause anguish for the Club. When assured by the senior player who’d rung him that nothing untoward happened, I heard my coffee companion ask why. The simple answer coming back was “because we knew there was no way (Coach) would wear it”. If clear and reasonable boundaries of behaviour are set in a healthy culture where people are committed to the team, it’s vision and are protective of brand, most if not all can be relied on to do the right thing.

Having said that, many if not all of us have had a sudden rush of blood to the head and said or done something we wished we could take back. But when we do step over the line, is that behaviour called? Religious dogma would suggest that if we witness and don’t act, it is as if we committed the act ourselves. It is not just when we’re young and at school that others drop their gaze, shift uncomfortably in their seats, laugh nervously for fear of being next; sheepishly and tacitly condoning aggressive or ridiculing behaviour. It is undoubtedly happening in a boardroom somewhere near us all right now.

Have you ever wondered about corrupt business practices? Do those who do never get witnessed by those who don’t. Unlikely. How does a crooked cop, (and I believe they are in the overwhelming minority), a drug-addled athlete or a defiant trading floor sharebroker keep doing what they’re doing and remain part of an insidious in-crowd? At the risk of sounding naive, how shameful to think that supposed cleanskins working in corrupt environments sit by apathetically, or gutlessly and turn a blind eye to shonky practices, intimidation of others or smear campaigns. And if fear of retaliation is the reason, how reprehensible to think that anyone might work in such a climate of fear that speaking up could result in harm to themselves or their families? Something or someone has undoubtedly failed them. But potential dramatic and life threatening consequences for speaking out are not the common condition. In many situations there will be those bystanders who unreservedly disapprove but hold anti-dobbing policy as sacrosanct as ethical business practice or clean policing.

How many of us come forward when push comes to shove? According to the magistrate who heard the case, certainly not the bus driver (who “could have done more”) or other members of the drunken group of Ocean Grove footballers watching a mate torment an orthodox Jew walking down the street with his two small children; not former Amcor executives listening to others talking about Nazis and gas chambers and how Hitler should have done a better job; not staff of the West Coast Football Club who counselled and cajoled errant players but evoked no consequences until it was too late. And why? Because Cousins was a demigod and only mere mortals have substance use problems.

And what of behaviour consequenced? The Amcor Board took decisive action and sacked several of its executives in the wake of the price fixing allegations that emerged in 2004. Christine Nixon attempted to do that months ago when she sought powers to suspend and/or dismiss police over serious matters and still some police members cried foul and still the Police Association defended them to the death. What does someone have to do in this country before an organisation can cut the tangled parachute for the sake of others? The smear campaign against Janet Mitchell, former Police Association President eventually wore her down and ran her out of town. Ultimately the OPI will determine whether or not the infamous Kit Walker affair and the defamatory emails allegedly sent by someone in the Association are worthy of further scrutiny or punishment but what about the casualties of war along the way including organisational brand and public confidence? Why should thousands of other dedicated and decent sworn and unsworn staff of Victoria Police have to pay a price?

In an era where companies are obsessing (yes, right word) about how to hold on to good people, why give them the cringe factor about their employer as collateral damage? What does scandal, corruption and poor culture mean for the collective esteem of those who work in an organisation where bullies, sociopaths, misogynists, bigots and narcissists rule the roost either formally or informally. What respect exists for senior managers who may not perpetrate such examples of bad behaviour but effectively condone it because the perpetrators are popular and charismatic, opinion leaders or money makers or well-connected to the right people and therefore become Teflon-coated?

It is imperative in a civilised democracy country like ours that there are laws and regulations that obstruct impassioned managers wishing to jump the gun on process and punish or exit staff without the punishment fitting the crime or worse still, where no ‘crime’ was committed. Thus the means to uphold the principles of natural justice must be fundamental to any workplace relations regime. The system must make it difficult to do the wrong thing but if we are going to jealously guard good culture, it must not be almost impossible to do the right thing. Undoubtedly many organisations make brave decisions every day about what they will or won’t put up with. The context in which they operate must support that and where an employee can always cite custom and practice as a reason why things shouldn’t change, ethical management will draw a new line in the sand, ensure everyone can see it and demand that everyone respect it or expect to face the consequences. A Spanish proverb notes that every cask smells of the wine it contains. We will inevitably be judged by the company we keep and what we condone and reward in the people that work in our companies.

© Leanne Faraday-Brash

Visit this site

Article Source

Tags: ethics, issues, ethical, legal, unethical

I was in Sri Lanka in October 2004 (still blissfully unaware of the devastation that the country was to suffer a month later). One thing that struck me about the Sri Lankans was their ability to sell you exactly what you want at a price you’re happy to pay. A classic example of this occurred one day in a gem store (of which there are a vast number in Sri Lanka).

My wife, Anne and my daughter, Jo were doing a tour of the gem stores. As beautiful as the stones were, I had reached overload but Anne and Jo had insatiable appetites for ‘bling’. While they were oohing and ahhing, I took a seat and relaxed. I noticed that the salesman behind the counter was watching a middle-aged couple intently as they browsed around. It seemed clear to me that they were just browsing with no intention of making a purchase and I wondered if he had seen something in their body language that I had missed.

As they were about to leave the store without having bought anything, he said: “Excuse me Madam” addressing the woman specifically “I notice you love sapphires as much as I do. Can I show you something?”

“Oh, no thank you,” she said, “We were just looking”

“Of course. No. This is not for sale. It’s an exhibition piece but I love sapphires too. You must see this before you go” and he produced the biggest and most exquisite sapphire I had ever seen. The effect was as if he had hooked her with a fishing line and reeled her over to the counter with her husband in tow. I hadn’t noticed she was paying particular attention to sapphires but he had. He talked enthusiastically about sapphires as she nodded in complete agreement. Here was a man who understood the beauty of what was surely the most spectacular of all gems. They were on safe ground. This gem was clearly way beyond the means of all but the very rich. He wasn’t selling but sharing a mutual passion.

He dropped into the conversation that they had a number of extremely expensive sapphires that they couldn’t put on display for security reasons. Would she like to see them? You bet she would! He produced a tray that brought a gasp from her bosom. The most expensive gem on the tray was £10,000. She was in ecstasy. There were a number of smaller gems on the tray, some of which had been mounted onto rings. She admired each gem in turn until she came to one that looked as if it might possibly be withing their price range. “How much is this?” she asked but her husband was already shaking his head to remind her that they were looking, not buying. The salesman had spotted the husband’s gesture. “Oh that one is very expensive, I’m afraid. It’s because of the cut of the gem. I couldn’t let that go for less than £500″

She looked at her husband “Could we…?”

“No we can’t,” he insisted, “I told you – we’re looking, not buying “

The salesman looked sympathetically at her and said: “I’m so sorry, Madam” and was about to put the tray back when he seemed to have an idea. “Wait a minute” he said and produced a form. “We can sell to dealers at considerable discounts but only to dealers, you understand.”

“Oh, we’re tourists, not…” the man began but the salesman brought his finger to his lips and politely shushed him. “If you were to tell me you were dealers, I would be happy to take your word for it. We don’t always ask for evidence.”

“Oh, I see” the man said, getting the hint but still a little wary.

“Are you a dealer?” the salesman asked. The man’s wife was nodding vigorously, urging him to say yes.

“How much discount?” the man asked.

The salesman lowered his voice “I could let you have it for £350″

“Oh Steve!” his wife hissed excitedly. There was no way he could say no and stay on good terms with her for the rest of their holiday. He filled in the form and handed over his credit card.

Were they conned? No. Manipulated? Certainly. Misled? A little, but certainly not conned.

Although it is unlikely that the ring had ever had the £500 price tag, the salesman never expected to sell it at that price. He knew the answer would have been no even if he’d initially quoted £350 because her husband was clearly adamant that they were looking, not buying. However, judging by similar rings on display, it was certainly worth the £350 they paid for it. What the salesman did was pitch it just beyond their price range and then appear to go out on a limb to bring it just within their price range. This made it irresistible. It also rewarded the man’s ego. He could tell the folks back home that he told them he was a dealer and got them to knock £150 off the price, earning him a little kudos. He had also been able to impress the salesman by buying a ring that the salesman had clearly assumed to be beyond their means (“Oh that one is very expensive, I’m afraid…” ). He had made the man feel wealthy and powerful. The man was happy. The wife had the ring she wanted at a fair price and the salesman made a sale that was about to walk out the door. Everyone was happy and no one was ripped off.

The salesman had watched her and made a note of what pressed her buttons. He had also correctly estimated what they could afford to spend, perhaps by their dress or by their manner. He then lured her with the prospect of seeing sapphires she would be unlikely to see on display and fed her passion for them by expressing his own. Although the ring was no more beautiful than the rings on display she had already seen, it had become infused by the beauty of the gems that were way beyond their reach. He didn’t make her want it. He didn’t need to. The desire was already there but tethered by the knowledge that they were looking, not buying. He simply untethered her desire by feasting her eyes on unattainable gems before bringing one almost to within their reach. Then, when she had dared to hope that it might be within their reach and experienced the disappointment, he brought it actually within their reach. He had created a situation in which the husband could not say no and she couldn’t go home without it.

Despite the manipulation and the misleading initial quote – and, of course, the whole cock-and-bull story about dealers discounts, the salesman had essentially done nothing morally wrong. Quite the contrary. He had liberated them and he had empowered them. Their holiday budget might be £350 lighter but they would have no reason to regret the purchase. He had provided a rare and enriching experience that few get the opportunity to enjoy. How many of us have ever held a £10,000 sapphire in our hand? He had given them exactly what they wanted at a fair price that they were happy to pay. He had given them a moment they would cherish forever.

I was once told by a salesman that “Anybody can sell the people what they want. The trick is to sell ‘em what you’ve got.” This is not only a pretty shabby approach but it doesn’t hold true. We often see something we want that wouldn’t break the bank to buy but still we walk past because we don’t feel free to spend that much on ourselves. We feel it would be irresponsible. Heck! It’s our money! If we can’t afford it, we can’t buy it but, if it’s within our means then we do ourselves a disservice by denying ourselves what we want just because we feel it’s too indulgent. We do this all the time. This salesman liberated his customers from the constraints of their self-denial.

Fortunately, he didn’t pull the same stunt on my wife and daughter. I guess I must have looked every inch of the £25 I had in my pocket.

Article Source

Ron Tocknell – EzineArticles Expert Author

Tags: marketing, ethics, manipulating, unethical, strategy

Wealth in the new regime flows directly from innovation, not optimization; that is, wealth is not gained by perfecting the known, but by imperfectly seizing the unknown.”

Kevin Kelly

One question that comes to mind is “Why should we distinguish organizational values from personal values?” Let’s take a closer look. Over the centuries, philosophers and researchers have examined the various aspects of values and ethics. Our investigation today will take us on an ethical journey that will help understand how to improve the integrity of 21st century organizations as well as leaders.

Are we in a new era of corruption by senior leaders? Have you noticed all of the leadership scandals? You have high profile CEOs. You have government officials. You have celebrities. What are the results of these bad behaviors? People become less trusting of organizations and people. How can organizations exist when the leader-follower relationship is broken? According to one poll, 45% of the people give Congress poor marks for its honesty and ethics. How can intelligent and powerful people get in so much trouble?

In recent history, political strategists have shifted their approach for dealing with political scandals before the public. The most prevalent method is for a political figure to “get in front of the story” by voluntarily disclosing as much information as possible and by projecting an image of total cooperation with legal and media inquiries. This strategy goes along with denouncing questions as politically motivated, providing little information and praying that the storm will pass over.

Ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay took a similar approach when he discovered he was tied to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff scandal. Recently, evidence suggest that politicians are better off just hunkering down until it is over. This strategy is based on the belief that the public has a short attention span or memory. If a politician carries on with his duties, he can overcome any negative baggage. Examples of this approach can be found with prominent Democrats and Republicans as well the White House.

For example, President George Bush and the White House came under investigation in the Plame case in 2003. Senior White House officials faced legal and political scrutiny for leaking the identity of the covert CIA operative. The White House took no personnel actions and said nothing publicly. It appeared to have worked.

During the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal, President Clinton used the hunkered down approach. Polls taken during the time suggested that most Americans concluded that Clinton probably lied; they considered the matter a private one for family.

Clinton knew if he had acknowledged the affair in 1998, the political uproar would have driven him from office. Clinton explained in 2004, “I think the overwhelming likelihood is that I would have been forced from office…” Hunkering down does work. Unfortunately, this unethical behavior will continue unless citizens demand more. Lead, character does count.

References:

Ciulla, J.B. (1998). Ethics: The Heart of Leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Draft (1995). Organization Theory and Design. New York: West Publishing Company.

Harris, J. (April 12, 2005). In recent scandals, a rethinking of capital’s conventional wisdom. Washington Post.

Ethics Quality.com (n.d.). Cultural Management Essentials. Received on October 30, 2006, from http://www.ethicsquality.com/culturemgt.htm.

Kern, C. (2003). Creating and Sustaining an Ethical Workplace Culture, Pepperdine University.

King, S. (2006). The Moral Manager. Public Integrity. 8(2), pp.113-133.

Koch, W. (December 11, 2006). Washington scandal eating up public trust. USA Today.

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2003). Credibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kowert, P. (2001). Leadership and Learning in Political Groups. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration. 14(2). pp.201-232.

Kurtz, R. (2003). Organizational culture, decision-making, and integrity, Public Integrity. 5(4). Pp.305-317.

Miller, W. (2001). Responsible Leadership: Base Your Leadership on Spiritual Roots. Executive Excellence. 18(5).

Nelson, M. (1994). Why Americans hate Politics and Politicians. Virginia Quarterly Review. 70(4), p.636, 18p.

Psychology Today. (1993). Decision making: How presidents think. Pg 8.

Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly. 16(5), pp. 655-687.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Delhi, India: Pearson Education, Inc.

© 2006 by Daryl D. Green

Daryl D. Green has published over 100 articles in the field of decision-making (personal and organizational), leadership, and organizational behavior. Mr. Green is also the author of four books, including More than a Conqueror: Achieving Personal Fulfillment in Government Service. Do you want to improve your life? Do you want to make better decisions? If you answer “”yes,”" then go to the ‘master decision-making’ website

Article Source

Tags: unethical, examples, article, workplace, behaviour

Recently a curious phenomenon has risen to the attention of the American public. Why do people plead guilty to crimes then profess their innocence? Or, to put it another way, why would someone plead guilty to a crime they did not commit?

Several bankers from England recently plead guilty to a Federal indictment and received prison sentences. All of the bankers plead guilty and did not go to trial. As part of their plea agreement they were permitted to serve their prison sentences in England. Why does this case matter?

None of the bankers agree that they committed a crime. They now claim that the only reason they plead guilty was to avoid the risk of going to trial and facing a prison sentence in the US. The press in England is paying attention to this case and so should we.

In another case that received scant press attention, an executive tried to plead guilty to a crime. He did not want to go to trial because he feared receiving a lengthy prison term. The judge would not accept his guilty plea. This man walked into court expecting to be sentenced to prison. He had been charged with a crime that he did not think he committed. He knew that he had very little chance of being acquitted in today’s environment. He knew the prosecutors had no concern whether he may actually be innocent. And he surely did not want to risk getting a prison sentence that would have ruined his life. So, he marched into court to plead guilty. The judge rejected his plea deal when he admitted that he did not think he committed a crime.

So this poor guy is now going to have to go to trial under circumstances where his chances of prevailing are almost nonexistent, in a system that most fear gives longer sentences to those who go to trial.

The statistics for the percentage of people charged with a federal crime who end up spending time in prison are overwhelming. Over 90% of all people charged with a federal crime end up convicted. Virtually everyone who goes to trial looses. And over 80% of everyone convicted of a federal crime spend time in prison. Those numbers are staggering.

Even more staggering is the risk of lengthy prison terms. And whether true or not, the belief is that courts issue higher sentences to those who go to trial rather than accept a plea deal.

Under the federal system, one of the most important factors in determining the length of a prison term is the amount of money involved. In drug cases there are mandatory minimum sentences, usually over 10 years. In cases involving money — business cases, investment cases, anything involving property — it doesn’t take much money to send sentence lengths soaring. And the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply when determining the amount of money involved in a crime.

For these reasons, reasonable people will agree to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit. The risks of going to trial, the risk that a court can find that your supposed crime involved substantial amounts of money, are too great.

The bottom line is that, if you are charged with a federal crime, you are probably going to go to prison. Guilt or innocence are luxuries. If you have been charged with a federal crime your first thought should not be that you are going to fight because you are not guilty. And heaven forbid, if you are guilty, you should not risk going to trial. Your first thought should be how to keep your prison sentence to the absolute minimum. Leave the question of guilt or innocence to the academics. Make sure your sentence is short enough so you can pick up the pieces when you are released.

Federal Prison Inc.
We Prepare White Collar Defendants

Article Source

Tags: unethical, practice, law, legal, business

When a Network Marketer makes unethical choices, they do so for one of three reasons:

1. Unfortunately the Typical Network Marketer Does What’s Most Convenient An ethical dilemma can be defined as an undesirable or unpleasant choice relating to a moral principle or practice. As human beings, we seem prone to failing personal ethics tests. Why do we do something even when we know it’s wrong? Do we cheat because we think we won’t get caught? Do we give ourselves permission to cut corners because we rationalize that it’s just one more time? Is this our way of dealing with pressure?
2. Network Marketers Will Do What They Feel They Must to Seek Victory I think most people are like me: I hate losing. Business people in particular desire to win through achievement and success. But many think they have to choose between being ethical and winning. Many people believe that embracing ethics would limit their options, their opportunities, and their very ability to succeed in business. It’s the old suspicion that good guys finish last. If I believe that I have only two choices – to win by doing whatever it takes, even if it’s unethical or to have ethics and lose – I’m faced with a real moral dilemma. Few people set out with the desire to be dishonest, but nobody wants to lose.
3. A Network Marketer Will Rationalize their Choices with Relativism Many people choose to deal with such no-win situations by deciding what’s right in the moment, according to their circumstances.

According to Dr. Joseph Fletcher in his book, Situation Ethics, “right is determined by the situation, and love can justify anything – lying, cheating, and stealing … even murder. This philosophy spread rapidly throughout the theological and educational worlds … Since the 1960s, situation ethics has become the norm for social behavior. After spreading so rapidly through the world’s education, religion, and government, it has penetrated a new area – the business world. The result is our ethical situation today.

The industry of network marketing unfortunately has not been spared the spread of “situation ethics.”

The result is ethical chaos. Everyone has his own standards, which change from situation to situation.

It is interesting to note that though our decisions at one time were based on ethics, now our ethics are based on our decisions. If it’s good for me, then it’s good. Where is this trend likely to end?

Let’s take a look at what would happen if we applied this trend to network marketing:

1. What if a Network Marketer didn’t always do what was most convenient? What if we decided, as network marketers, to just handle every situation based on what was convenient to us? Not over a short period of time, but over a long period of time. What do you think would happen to our relationships with our downline, as well as our upline? Total disaster.
2. What if a Network Marketer didn’t feel that they must do whatever to seek victory? As network marketers, our entire business relies on the relationships we have with the people within our business. As business owners, if we try to “win” each and every transaction or interaction with the people in our business, over time those relationships will die off. The only way to ensure that both your business and your relationships with the people in your business grow is to seek a win-win scenario for each transaction and/or interaction.
3. What if a Network Marketer didn’t choose to deal with a no-win situation by deciding what was right in the moment, or according to their circumstances? What if they had a system to guide them? As a network marketer, or even a human being for that matter, waiting until the last moment to decide how to handle a situation without a proper moral compass will end in disaster sooner rather than later.

Fortunately, there is an increasing desire for ethical dealing in business, and as far as I can see, this desire reaches the very summit of the network marketing industry.

My next article entitled “Is the Global Market Altering it’s Ethical Behavior?” will examine this position.

See you on the Beaches of the World,

Kevin McNabb

Kevin McNabb is the author of The Responsible Network Marketer Series. Chief Executive Officer of Toronto-based. He is a network marketer, author, freelance writer, and offers seminars, and Internet training programs on personal development for the network marketing industry. For more information on the topic of this article, please see at Here

Article Source

Tags: unethical, network, marketing, online, business

Interviewing candidates for your company can often be a time-consuming and nerve-wracking process. While you want to find out as much as you can about the candidate and how they will benefit your company, you need to avoid asking questions which are deemed inappropriate or illegal. The following are examples of ways to find out information about your candidate without being inappropriate and still respecting the limits of the law. Be cautious about these topics during the interview.

According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners’ “Report To The Nation On Occupational Fraud And Abuse” (Report), “participants in the study estimate U.S. organizations lose 5% of their annual revenues to fraud. Applied to the estimated 2006 United States Gross Domestic Product, this 5% figure would translate to approximately $652 billion in fraud losses.” Of course these organizations must pass on this cost to consumers. This translates into each of us paying approximately 5% extra for fraud when we purchase a good or service. If the average household spends $40,000 for goods and services each year, their annual cost of fraud is $2,000.

Part of stopping occupation fraud is understanding it. The Report defines occupational fraud as, “The use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misappropriation of the employing organization’s resources or assets.” We all know that people steal from their employers, even in very small amounts. Most of us at some time in our lives have taken home a few pencils, pads of paper, or perhaps some of the product sold by our employer. We also have heard about overstating of expense reports or the number of hours worked. These types of small frauds happen every day and cost us all billions of dollars each year. The Report breaks occupational fraud into three categories: asset misappropriation, corruption and fraudulent statements.

Asset misappropriation is the type of fraud we are most familiar with and includes the ones listed above. It is the largest type of occupational fraud in number, but not total amount. Corruption includes frauds such as bribery or conflicts of interest. Fraudulent statements generally include frauds relating to the organization’s accounting system and financial statements and are the largest type of occupational fraud by amount. Recent examples of fraudulent statements are Enron, Health South, World Com and other sensational frauds, which have been well publicized.

Occupational frauds are very hard to detect and most of them go undetected. According to the Report, the main detection tools are tips, accident, internal audit, external audit and notification by police. The Report points out that tips though anonymous hotlines is the most effective way of detecting occupational frauds. This means you are the one we count on to detect these frauds. When you are suspicious that a fraud may be happening in your workplace, do something about it. If your employer has a hotline, use it. If not, you can still provide an anonymous tip. Type out your suspicions and give it to a manager, who you do not believe is involved. You can mail it, put it in his in-box or use some other method, which will not identify you as the tipster.

What can you do to stop these frauds? Make sure you don’t commit them. This means the next time you need a few pencils at home, don’t take them from the office. You can buy them at the store and feel good about it when you do. This type of thinking, “I’m not hurting anyone”, only leads to encouraging others to do the same or it lets you rationalize that taking something more expensive is ok. You did not get caught taking the pencils, so take something more expensive next time. Secondly, when you are suspicious that a fraud may be happening, use the hotline. You don’t have to be sure. Someone skilled in investigating fraud will investigate and you won’t get your fellow employee in trouble, unless they deserve it. Thirdly, learn more about this type of fraud so you will know it when you see it. You are the main defense against occupational fraud.

Mr. Cuthill’s practice is limited to court-appointed positions in large fraud cases. His work has produced the return of millions of dollars of investors’ funds. For more information about him, click here.

Article Source

Tags: unethical, marketing, business, behaviour, professional

In the past ten years, the soul, or lack thereof, of Corporate America has been revealed in many ways. Unethical and even illegal practices have been revealed by questionable accounting practices, poor investing advice, and undeserved bonuses being handed out in good ole boys fashion. But perhaps, there is no more vivid picture of Corporate America’s soul than the plethora of television ads that celebrate situational ethics and outright deceit to champion their products. With such constant indoctrination into unethical behavior, is there any wonder that we find ourselves in economic upheaval? Are we surprised to find entrepreneurs and executives bilking our companies and customers for large fees and exorbitant favors while at the same time shirking their fiduciary responsibility to work in favor of the shareholders and stakeholders?

Here is just a small portion of the companies from Corporate America whose ads teach our citizens and children that lying and or using unethical behavior to get what you want is okay:

A Popular Home Improvement Company

The scene opens with a female employee of a rival home furnishings store standing around waiting for customers to come in the empty showroom. Suddenly, she decides to go on an early break and tells her co-worker she will be right back. As she exits the store, she sheds her employee vest and runs across the street to Lowe’s where she buys a lamp for less than what she can buy at her own store. When she arrives back to her place of work, she goes to her car to stash her purchase. At the same time, her co-worker sees the box in her car and asks what she bought at Lowe’s. She lies and says she purchased some kind of hardware.

A Popular Sub Sandwich Firm

Like the ad mentioned above, an employee of a sandwich shop orders a sub from one of the most popular sub companies and has it delivered to his shop while he is still on duty. He meets the delivery boy at the door. In order to quell the suspicions of his co-workers, he berates the driver at the top of his lungs for delivering the sandwich to the wrong location. Subsequently, he slips the driver a five spot and asks him to set the sub down at the back door.

A Hip New Buffalo Wing Company

In one ad, customers are enjoying their favorite hot wings while watching March Madness basketball games. One customer says I wish we could continue this all night and motions to the bartender to do something about it. The bartender says no problem, opens up a hit control panel behind the bar and signals a cameraman to interfere with the end of the game. Using a very bright flash bulb, the cameraman shoots a photo of a man breaking away for the winning basketball who is blinded by the light. The player trips and falls and the game is sent into overtime.

A Burger Chain Trying to be Hip

This company takes the cake. This champion of the six dollar burger has used every ploy in the book including sex appeal and irresponsible behavior to seduce people into their stores. In the newest ad they celebrate a surgeon who before entering the OR to cut open his next patient chooses to steady himself with a shot of hard liquor. Well not really…it’s a bourbon burger. Even so, the ad is completely irresponsible in that it seems to say that sipping from a shot glass is a good way to prepare for a day at work.

These are just four examples of the many television ads that promote unethical and illegal behavior in order to satisfy one’s needs. They are a revealing picture of the soul of Corporate America. These ads teach the general public including our children that lying and cheating is acceptable behavior in order to get what you want. When our children grow up to be leaders, they adopt this same mentality, after all business is business, and take it into the office and boardroom. In the end, it seems people do get the leaders they deserve. If we want upstanding citizens running our companies and handling our finances, we need to stop using ads that teach otherwise and use positive ads that celebrate honesty and integrity in all aspects of life including business.

Eric Coggins has an MBA in Global Management and has lived and worked abroad in Cambodia. Beyond that, he has had extensive interaction with members of many different ethnic backgrounds including African-American, Latin American, Japanese, Korean, Cambodian, Australian and European. His mission is to promote the best possible life for all everywhere in the world and to help them reach their God-given potential.

Are you living up to your God-given potential? If not, Eric has written an ebook called The Best You: Foundational Principles for an Effective Life. If you want to develop your God-given capacity, you can find out more about the ebook at this site or visit his website

Article Source

Tags: ethical, unethical, conduct, behaviour, moral

“How to Resist the Con Artist Trying to make a “”Yes Man”" out of You through Mind Games.

The skilled con artist knows how to rig the game to make the players think they are winning. Every time you put a quarter into the slot machine, out come 2 more. In setting you up for the big con, this formula is altered a bit, to nothing more than ace-high salesmanship. They know they must get you in a good mood, very positive thinking, in every respect, in order to get you over to their side.

Thus, you are subjected to the preliminary “”Yes / No”" test. In it you are being set up, softened, conditioned to saying “”yes”" to that final (when it comes) “”closing”" question, “”Would you sign here, please?”" Their means? A long, introductory series of questions that you, in complete control of your mental faculties, can only say “”yes”" to. Examples: Would $2,000 a week in additional income be helpful to you? Would your wife appreciate the extra luxuries? Would it be easier to set up a fund for your children’s college education? Would holding a mortgage-burning party early make you happy? Would you breathe easier knowing that your retirement is secure?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes–to all 5 questions. Of course. Is there any doubt, really, as to what your logical reactions to such questions would be?

Now the con artist has you in the habit. You are being led, inexorably, like a sheep, to the slaughter, toward the desired end-result, the “”kill.”" This would be your final head-nodding, agreeable acceptance of whatever crackpot scheme or product this
artist is trying to sell you.

How do you break the rhythm, keep a full handle on your conscious objectivity in reviewing his sales presentation? You almost have to play a little game on yourself, a form of self-hypnosis combined with some amusing musings on answers.
For example, mentally–as you go, as he is talking–pose to yourself a mythical “”no”" answering routine. To demonstrate how this might work, let’s go through those leading questions again:

“Would $2,000 a week in additional income be helpful to you?” (No, I enjoy being a struggling paycheck-to-paycheck working slob.)

“Would your wife appreciate the extra luxuries?” (No, she enjoys home canning, making her own clothes and soap, and all the other joys of care-free poverty.)

“Would it be easier to set up a fund for your children’s college education?” (No, I’d only have more time to blow the money, like I might be doing right here, now, by listening to you.)

“Would holding a mortgage-burning party early make you happy?” (No, I don’t want to incur any prepayment or other back-end costs. And, besides, my banker’s got to eat, too.)

“Would you breathe easier knowing your retirement is secure?” (No, this whole concept challenges my Vow of Poverty.)

In sum, beware of stories with happy endings. Often they have unsettling postscripts. Thus, going through some such mental gymnastics–as you go through this person’s “”Yes Man”" routine–might a little better hold your feet to the fire, keep you focused on objective analysis. This, so you will be better positioned for the end-game: when you must ponder the only yes / no question that counts, whether on not to sign on the dotted line.

Jack Payne is the author of the legal thriller, Six Hours Past Thursday, a fictional book about real legal scams. For more information visit this site

Article Source

If you receive a letter and a check in the mail, telling you have won some bit of an Irish Lottery, BEWARE!!

I am Sherry Asbury and I live in Portland Oregon. In today’s mail there was a very authentic-looking check for $2,800 and some odd dollars, along with a letter telling me a computer had pulled my winning numbers.

It seemed, at least for a few precious hours, that I might win the further amount of $120,00! This check was to defray the costs of winning an overseas amount of money. Some $5,000 would be taken out of the winnings for the “sponsor” who was helping me.

Well, I thought to myself, that sounds reasonable. They do it for the funds. I showed the letter to our services co-coordinator (I live in in public housing for the disabled). He, too thought it might be legitimate.

So I called Canada and spoke with Tracy Richardson of Alpha Finances. She bristled when I said I couldn’t believe it was real. Of course it is real! She asked if I had deposited the check and I told her I had not until I spoke with someone. Well, says she, “Take the check to your bank and deposit and then call me back.”

So off I go, dreaming of buying all the books I want and not having to fear if I can pay the rent each month. Of course, I am not gullible. I do believe that if it seems too good to be true, it most likely is… However, the check looked valid and an old disabled lady can dream.

The teller took the check and spoke to his manager, made several phone calls and then told me they were keeping the check, as it was fraudulent. So much for a biscuit with my supper! Or a pair of shoes that fit correctly.

I wasn’t really surprised. I tried calling the woman again and of course could not reach her. I did leave a message filled with pathos, guaranteed to draw a sigh of guilt from the most heinous heart. However, I find this kind of thing cruel and disgusting.

They play on folks who genuinely want the win to be true; who will follow through and do whatever is necessary. Now, I have no idea what would have happened if the teller had deposited the check. It might have tied up my funds (42 cents), and made my account a mess.

Tongue-in-cheek aside – if you receive any sort of letter and or check – do not believe for one moment it is genuine! Go to legal aid, or have your bank carefully check out the source.

So, Tracey Richardson, here I am at end of day, having walked to the bank on my bad knee and with a temperature, trying for a dream. The bank has your check, dear and I may forgive you one of these days. . . maybe.

Article source

Sherry L. Asbury – EzineArticles Expert Author

Tags: ethical, bad, business, unethical, conduct

Have you ever been asked to do something unethical by one of your prospects or clients? Have you ever been pressured by a supervisor, manager or owner at your business to do something unethical? Have you ever observed unethical behavior by a prospect or client?

In today’s business world, there are daily instances of unethical behavior occurring all around us. What a sad commentary on business and society today. Over the more than 35 years in my own professional career, there have been instances where I have been approached by unethical prospects and clients and was fortunate to have had strong ethical mentors and supervisors, managers & owners that supported my actions to turn away from the unethical requests and to report them to my superiors.

And later in my own business, I have made decisions to forego doing business with unethical prospects clients that meant turning away some very significant assignments. One must always ask – what price do I put on my ethics? How can one justify a compromise of their ethics? It is essential to have some good advice on how to reduce the chance of an improper request from a client or prospect and how to respond when actually approached by an unethical prospect or client. Your strategic thinking business coach offers the following advice.

+ Always present and project a professional image that reflects your integrity and your personal and company core values.

+ Respond directly, clearly and confidently by saying “NO” to unethical prospects and clients.

+ Continuously reinforce company and personal core values to everyone in your organization.

+ Continuously reinforce the code of ethics of your company to all employees.

+ Never compromise your ethical standards in response to an unethical request.

+ Remember, it is impossible to “waive” your ethics, in spite of what Enron tried to do.

+ Be proactive and report the unethical behavior, prospect and/or client to your supervisor, manager, business owner or other appropriate people.

+ Use the “lessons learned” from previous experiences of responding to unethical prospects and clients to help reinforce your ethical standards and as a mentoring and training opportunity.

+ Provide positive reinforcement to those who say NO to unethical prospects and clients.

Your strategic thinking business coach encourages you to be stand firm and be firm when it comes time to dealing with unethical requests and unethical prospects and clients.

If you would like to learn more about dealing with unethical prospects and clients and how a strategic thinking business coach can facilitate and guide you in that endeavor, please contact Glenn Ebersole today through his website at http://www.businesscoach4u.com/

or by email at jgecoach@aol.com.

Glenn Ebersole, Jr. is a multi-faceted professional, who is recognized as a visionary, guide and facilitator in the fields of business coaching, marketing, public relations, management, strategic planning and engineering. Glenn is the Founder and Chief Executive of two Lancaster, PA based consulting practices: The Renaissance Group, a creative marketing, public relations, strategic planning and business development consulting firm and J. G. Ebersole Associates, an independent professional engineering, marketing, and management consulting firm. He is a Certified Facilitator and serves as a business coach and a strategic planning facilitator and consultant to a diverse list of clients. Glenn is also the author of a monthly newsletter, “Glenn’s Guiding Lines – Thoughts From Your Strategic Thinking Business Coach” and has published more than 250 articles on business.

Article Source

Have you ever been at work and noticed something highly unethical happen. Did it bother you to the point you almost quit? Well did you know that 38% of all Americans have had the same experience? A recent survey seems to indicate that we have an ethics problem in the United States and it is not just in Government or with cheating spouses. It is also prevalent in the Work Place as well. But if you do quit your job, well who is going to pay the bills?

It is amazing how easy in life it is to become ‘ethically unemployable’, but integrity is something that is becoming more and more scarce in our world. But you know what can you expect from a bunch of humans. The interesting thing about ethics is that it is so perception based. The person at your work who caused this ethical event that you are now thinking about since I brought it up? I bet they had some justification didn’t they?

So hold that thought for a moment and consider the issues of the “Ends and Means” debate. They say sometimes; “The Ends do not justify the means.” Indeed this is true, sometimes, but a pragmatist might say that sometimes the Ends are so great that the means are justified to win, complete the task or perhaps in a company make the deal? But still you shrug, why? Well, because you are an ethical person and we are deeply troubled discussing this aren’t we? But we also realize that there are rare circumstances when as much as we do not wish to admit it, well the ends might possibly, justify the means

For instance, inadvertently hurting a few to help the whole. Now that stands against everything we stand for in the US, however realize that it is unfortunately bathed in truth that sometimes you have too. I am sure you can consider examples of this and we are dealing with these issues now in some recent political events, which have been brought to light aren’t we? Or rather aren’t we always?

Now then is the “Ends do not justify the means” debate is an ethically troubling issue indeed. But what if we turn it around; what about the “Means do not justify the ends?” For instance what if you do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do, rather than focus on the ends (winning) and then your poor decisions fails to secure the necessary objectives and the whole of all involved are severely hurt because you did everything “politically correct” for instance but in doing so you built a really bad Dam? And the dam broke and everyone died. But you can save face because you did what was ethical in the process to build the dam without offending anything or anyone else?

So, often the ethical debate misses that flip side of the argument. The true answer in many cases is to do nothing. Yet in doing nothing there is no progress, no progress means nothing gets done and stagnation occurs which is a travesty also. So, then in ethical debate this is to be considered, as well, we must consider the opposite in the “Ends do not justify the means.” A pragmatists can do this, politicians have to, otherwise they cannot survive? Is this best for the whole? Sometimes, because you have forward progression, other times it is not good for the whole, but serves the few. Yet sometimes what is good for the few is good for the many (Ayn Rand type theory) so that also must be considered. So ethics is tough, but suffice it to say the best way to look at things is to encircle them from all perspectives and then you get a better picture. Ask yourself is it fair for all concerned; yes or no? If not find a third way and think hard on better and more ethical decisions; Think on this in 2006.

“Lance Winslow” – Online ThinkTank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Article Source

I had a recent exchange of e-mails with someone who wrote:

“39 dollars for a book that proclaims itself to be a way out of depression and feelings of worthlessness for unemployed people?

Tell me: what does a PsyD know about unemployment and low-self-worth?

This price tag is atrocious.

You are victimizing the unemployed, the societal outsider, and I do not appreciate it.”

After my initial response, he wrote back: “I can’t say I expected any less than what you’ve given… a total dismissal of my opinion. Do you see no injustice in the “Catch 22″ of expensive “ways out” of financial difficulty?”

The gentleman raises a very interesting question. Is there something inherently exploitative about selling a product or a service to individuals who are in a place of great need and few resources?

There is a common expression in marketing: “Don’t try selling boxes to the homeless.” Why? Because they obviously have no money, that’s why they are homeless. Sales need to be geared to a more lucrative market and demographic distribution charts are developed that pinpoint geographic locations, professions, age levels, and ethnic distributions where household incomes are higher and purchasing is more likely.

Where does that leave the homeless, or anyone else who is in a difficult situation where help is needed but money to pay for it is unavailable or severely limited?

There is the government for starters. At all levels, our public agencies exist to provide the help and services citizens need, that is the purpose of paying taxes. In fact, they do provide those services to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon how well developed is that particular sector.

When the services fall short of what is needed, the private sector steps in. Apart from true charity organizations or companies contracted with some level of government, private services require regular income or will shortly vanish from the scene.

If public colleges don’t provide the classes you need, on a schedule convenient to you, you pay to attend a private vocational school that costs thousands of dollars more than a community college but gives you what you need, when you need it.

If the State Consumer Credit office can’t help you with your bills and creditors are driving you crazy, you pay a private credit company to work out some sort of financial survival plan.

If the unemployment office has not been able to help you find work, you may pay a private job coaching service to redo your resume, give you interviewing skills practice, and perform research in your field.

Are these agencies exploiting your predicament or meeting your needs?

If they give you what you paid for, they are providing a service. Obtaining solid vocational skills that lead to a good job, working out a manageable repayment schedule that allows you to live without the hounding of collectors, or transforming your self-presentation to allow successful competition for a good position, are all examples of worthwhile pay-for-results exchanges.

It becomes exploitative when a school takes thousands of dollars, provides training of questionable quality, and leaves you unemployed with huge student loans to repay. It is exploitative when a company takes money to reestablish your credit and fails to follow through, leaving you still battling collectors with even more depleted assets. It is exploitative when an employment-assistance agency charges you hundred (or thousands) of dollars and fails to produce the results they promised.

In the end, it comes down to what we need and whether we are willing to pay for a service we see as better than those publicly funded. It also means that we have a responsibility to ourselves to thoroughly research any company, or group, or author, before we hand over our money, to make sure that the services offered will be useful, that the source will deliver what has been promised, and what recourse we have if premature withdrawal is necessary.

P.S. I cut the price of the book in half, anyway.

Virginia Bola operated a rehabilitation company for 20 years, developing innovative job search techniques for disabled workers, while serving as a Vocational Expert in Administrative, Civil and Workers’ Compensation Courts. Author of an interactive and supportive workbook, The Wolf at the Door: An Unemployment Survival Manual, and a monthly ezine, The Worker’s Edge, she can be reached at here.

Article Source

Tags: ethical, marketing, unethical, strategies, target

We’re a chess set online retailer. With the stakes so high in terms of profit – what to do when competitors get more and more nasty? What if they threaten to send the boys round? Publish a little online defamation? Register confusingly similar domain names? Steal photography and other content to use in selling their similar products?

The maturing of the web has allowed hundreds of thousands of opportunities to people across every industry who previously couldn’t afford to get a physical store. And thousands of IT consultants have managed to join the two skills (technical and business) they have to jump into the shark infested waters of online commerce. This example of chess set retailing is real and current. The victim is a successful niche chess set company who suddenly appeared on the web by utilizing SEO skills, techie ability and a love of chess. After a year of trading, one of the chess competition noticed and started with threats and intimidation. But this has happened across many industries previously dominated by other web sites. What’s the best course of action and reaction?
# Flattery

The first thing we feel is pride in the work done. The victimizer has been in chess set retailing for 12 years, we have been active for just one. A fellow retailer has flattered us by recognising a loss of income from our attempts at online marketing of chess sets. Hell, we’re good! – what other industries might we impact? Of course, the reality is that we all build upon the ideas of others. we see an idea and think of some improvement. Inertia then becomes our enemy – continuous improvement is required. So enough with the feeling of being flattered and keep on with the innovation.
# No such thing as bad publicity

Naming the defauding site may have the effect of publicising the business to our detriment. Indeed the unethical web site selling inferior chess sets did refer to us directly, but probably realised that it was just sending people over to us. We want to focus on our business with a long term objective, so need to take action such that we don’t lose focus. This is one knee-jerk reaction that won’t necessarily help with the problem, but neither is ignoring the problem the best course either.
# Losing focus

We seem to be occupying the aggressor somewhat. Well, that’s something too. Whilst he’s focusing his energies on us, he’s distracting himself from his own company. Nike found this years ago. ‘Hold your friends close and your enemies closer’ only goes so far. Nike innovated from the gut – they came up with their own designs that no other ‘competitor watching’ could have inspired. Whilst our chess competitor is sticking pins in our voodoo doll, he can’t innovate on chess set design and better chess suppliers with clarity of mind. More market share for us then.
# Poor business

Our chess retailing aggressor clearly has a poorer business model than us if he has to resort to this kind of behaviour. Why doesn’t he work on his own business and compete in an ethical way rather than the threatening and abusive emails he regularly sends? If he believes we are taking his chess sets market – then why not work on improving his such that customers see a better business? Is this really so difficult? Perhaps he should be working another type of business. Or working for continuous improvement. Harassing the competition in some mafia style suggests a bullying manner that would be better channelled elsewhere.
# Legal action

‘Theft’ of intellectual property rights (chess photography, chess product names, chess product descriptions…)- whether yielding any advantage or not – is just that – theft. The plain fact is that such illegal use of property rights may well confuse customers and lead to the wrong conclusion – that the cheaper chess set product is the same as the original site – what a great find? In the world of chess sets, most families will be truly defrauded as they unknowingly have a defective or inferior product at the expense of our company. They are unlikely to compare the product with another and so may never know the quality chess set they could have had. Sometimes, therefore, legal action is required in order to establish the bounds of unethical behaviour. Action can be threatened against the site hosts and against the aggressor company itself. Often a lawyer’s letter may suffice, but may be seen as ‘bluff’. So real court action may be required to bring the matter to a conclusion. Taking this course of action amidst physical threats is something demanding courage, especially when the chess aggressor’s last name has a distinctly Sicilian ring to it. But the only other option may be to be bullied. As in the school playground, bullies have to be stood up to even when a bloody nose is the result.
# Site warnings

It has to be remembered that bad publicity is still publicity. Mentioning the aggressor may only serve to send potential customers scurrying over to the site to see his side of events, and his chess sets. We did wonder whether to post the emails sent to us on the site – but the use of bad language is so bad that many filters would block our site. We have resorted to posting a notice of inferior chess set copies being available with language that communicates our ethical stance on such matters. Each overlapping product has a notice attached. This is by no means ideal – but it’s better than nothing. (Suggestions welcome…)
The new world is here. Online retailing and competition is a fact of life. Competition is good for consumers and good for business improvement. But as in the schoolground and in the High Street/Mall there are aggressive unethical bullies online too. Actions can be taken to offset the aggression, evasive tactics can be used with some success, but the end game may involve taking hooligans to the law to stop the murky activities affecting the sanity of our lives and helping us have societies with admirable qualities we all look up to.

Author: Baron Turner of ChessBaron UK, USA, France, Canada. You can check his site here.

Article Source

Tags: ethical, marketing, unethical, strategies, target

There is absolutely no room for unethical behavior in the professional world. This statement is exceptionally important for publicly traded companies and their accounting practices. From financial officers to accountants to auditors, and so on, there is no greater impact on stakeholders when these persons perform unethically.

Unfortunately, there are multiple reasons for which one might consider acting unethically when preparing financial information. The most obvious reason may be quite simply, for self-interest-greed.

An accountant may embezzle funds from his or her employer for financial gain. Or perhaps the CFO of a publicly traded corporation may prepare financial statements to appear as though the company is performing much better than it actually is, because he or she wants their stock portfolio to increase.

Another example for why unethical behavior might exist is from corporate pressure. An accountant may feel pressured from his or her client to report false information. Or maybe a CFO is experiencing demand for improvements from the board of directors, the company’s president, owners, or stockholders; or he or she may be in fear of losing their job.

An accountant may decide to work for a company even though a conflict of interest may exist. If the accountant is owed money or has a significant stake in a firm, he or she may not be the ideal individual to prepare certain companies’ financial statements.

Finally, and perhaps the most common form of unethical behavior, is the failure for an accountant to conduct an in-depth analysis when preparing and revising financial information. There are many individuals who prefer to take short-cuts in life; and frankly, this simply is not acceptable when expected to perform in a professional manor.

There have been many laws enacted, on both state and national levels, intended on preventing one from conducting unethical accounting practices. In addition to these laws, have been many recommendations to implement changes geared towards the improvement of professional ethics.

Two such individuals, who have spent much time working on this topic, are: Jane B. Romal and Arlene M. Hibschweiler. According to the June 2004 CPA Journal, Romal and Hibschweiler recommended that “states should be encouraged to mandate ethics training as part of CPE requirements”.

This notion forced the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy (TSBPA) to begin a more intense training regimen for accounting educators, CPAs, and accounting students. This included having every licensee taking four-hour ethics courses on the board’s Rules of Professional Conduct every two years. The Arizona State Board of Accountancy requires every Arizona CPA to take an ethics class for licensing renewal.

In addition to state level mandates, is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that publicly traded companies disclose their code of ethics for senior financial officers. The Act was designed to promote honest and ethical conduct; full and accurate disclosure in periodic reports; and compliance with applicable government rules and regulations.

Even with the actions of Romal and Hibschweiler, the TSBPA, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; no one can regulate another’s integrity. Some individuals, regardless of their profession, will always look for some form of personal gain, even if it means conducting themselves in an unethical manner. This article is designed to help educate people on unethical accounting practices, why they occur, and how we as a nation can promote ethical behavior.

Roderick A. Jacobsen, CPA
Karpinski & Jacobsen

For quality Accounting Services in Arizona, visit Phoenix CPA where you can find Accounting Resources.

References:

Gaumnitz, B. (2004). Codes of ethics with impact. CPA Journal, vol. 74, issue 5, 64-66.

Kieso, D., Kimmel, P., Weygandt, J. (2005) Financial Accounting (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

VanZante, N. (2005) Improving professional ethics. CPA Journal, vol. 75, issue 5, 9-11.

Article Source

Tags: article, behaviour, examples, unethical, workplace

Everyday, I see ads over the internet offering ways to make thousands of dollars, but they turn out to be scams. On average, I would say that for every legitimate work from home or home business opportunity there are fifty or more scams. The population of those wanting to work from home seems to be growing everyday and the population for scams, particularly internet scams, seems to be growing just as fast if not faster. Luckily for me, I was able to find a good business that fits within my busy college lifestyle.

I really believe that research is of utmost importance and should be conducted before any type of investment into a business or any other work from home opportunity is made. Often times we become lazy and do not take the time to do any research. It is this same laziness that attracts us to false business opportunities or work from home scams that promise an outrageous income without you having to do any work whatsoever.

At one point I probably would be considered as one to be placed on the “most likely to be scammed” list, but now I have forced myself to become a little more skeptical of new opportunities. I make sure I do my research before I decide whether or not to become involved with anything.

Visit this site

Work at Home

Article Source