See Related Stories:
|
If
you wait to teach a person ethics when they're in college, you've
waited too long.
"You can't teach a person ethics in college," said the man who
this year as a Distinguished Lecturer represents the ethical face
of AAPG. "Ethics is what you learn as a family ... before college.
It's your core value."
John Gibson, who recently was named the inaugural AAPG
Distinguished Lecturer of Ethics, entertained and informed the All-Conference
Luncheon attendees in Barcelona with his observations on ethics
-- specifically, how the subject comes into play at corporate-level
decision making.
"Ethics ultimately is self-regulation," he said. "Imposed regulation
is law, (so) in our industry, (when) we don't self-regulate, we
create laws."
In other words, doing what's right is the best way to avoid being
told -- or legislated -- to do what is right.
"If you do wrong, you damage our industry," he said. "You've done
us all wrong."
Gibson, who is president and CEO of the Halliburton Energy Services
Group, laced his comments with humor and self-deprecation -- "There's
nothing more challenging than to talk about this (ethics) as a Halliburton
employee," he said -- but his words held a serious edge of warning
for those in the oil industry who operate in unethical ways.
"If you have a good leader, 70 percent of the people will follow,"
he said, citing tests that demonstrate people's proclivity for loyalty
at all costs -- even in the face of truth. "(Get) One leader that's
bad (unethical), and you give him a few years to get rid of the
people who disagree with him, you can ruin a company."
Citing recent corporate black eyes (notably, the Enron debacle),
Gibson pointed out how, in many of the actual cases, the executives
responsible for the unethical decision-making were graduates of
some of the top schools in the country -- which have had ethics
curriculums for generations.
Education alone can't make a person ethical, he said -- but ethics
can be an outgrowth of, and demonstrate itself as, responsible decision
making.
Gibson supported his opinions with an academic foundation, describing
briefly the "basic decision sets" that people use in making decisions
-- and he stressed the importance of knowing personal and corporate
preferences.
Those included:
-
A "consequential" approach, in which outcomes are based on
either what's best for the decision-maker (egocentric); for
others (altruistic); or for the most number of people (utilitarian).
-
An approach that relies on promises and individual integrity.
Gibson humorously categorized this as being for people who "feel
guilty about whatever happens, so they make it a 'do unto others
as you have them do unto you.'
"But I don't like that," he quipped. "What if they're into pain?"
-
A virtue-based approach, in which the "best people" are chosen
for jobs or in influencing the decision process. A potential
problem with this, he said, is the tendency toward nepotism.
Knowing personal tendencies for those options at decision time
is a valuable first step toward ethical behavior, he said. The next
step is in recognizing that, in any circumstance involving a company's
objectives, leaders must recognize:
- Are you seeking a short-term or a long-term solution?
- Is your priority truth to the facts or loyalty to the company
(or leader)?
- Do you seek justice or mercy?
- Is your priority the group, or the individual?
"Great decision makers know what decisions they're making," Gibson
said. "Plot yourself. Plot your company."
|