The Center for Ethics, Governance, & Accountability

Ethics is among the most important business issues of our time. Many believe we have reached the tipping point. Given the similar – yet important differences - between non-profits and for-profits, an informed dialogue about the issues of non-profit ethics is of growing importance. This article will serve to frame the issue of ethics in the non-profit arena and, specifically, will illuminate challenges that the unethical status quo poses to even the best intentioned aspiring practitioners of ethical behavior.

A word of caution before we begin: being a student and devotee to the principles of ethics should not be misinterpreted as any ‘holier than thou’ stance. Just because I believe ethics to be critical to success in our world today does not anoint me in any way, nor does it mean I have found the perfect style, nor does it mean I should be empowered to discern the choices made by others. Instead, what I intend to accomplish with this dialogue is a realistic assessment of the role ethics should play in our daily decision-making process, together with an honest admission that it is tough to ‘play by the rules’ when it often seems that others do not – this is particularly challenging when it appears that others have no apparent conscience about their decision to ignore the importance of ethics in their lives. These are real issues – true challenges – and it seems to me that the very best we can do is be willing to talk about the issues, learn from our experiences, and define our own personal commitment to ethical behavior.

Readers of my articles know that I like to use actual examples – which I often call ‘case studies’ – to provide insights into the situations we are attempting to analyze. I believe very strongly that the use of actual examples takes us away from an ‘opinion-based’ approach and allows us to enter a ‘fact-based,’ carefully researched, informed approach. The differences between opinion and fact, I believe, are very important. Quite frankly, when it comes to learning about issues as important as ethics, I am not much interested in opinions – I want the facts and I want examples that help me make the tough decisions. So, that’s what this article is all about.

Example 1: I was driving on a divided highway and a car approached me in the opposite direction, slowed down, abruptly made a U-turn onto my side of the highway, stayed in my lane, did not accelerate, and nearly killed us both. Guess what? There was not a car in sight behind me! That was a real situation. The fact that we both could have died was real as well. But, importantly, that was not an ethical situation! There was nothing unethical about a person making that particular stupid decision. It’s of no use to analyze why that driver did what they did. After I got my wits about me, I thought to myself that it was entirely likely that the driver did not even know what they had done. This example provides some guidance on what ethics is not.

In the absolute, ethics is not about ‘shades of gray’ – it’s a clear-cut (right or wrong/yes or no) outcome – either it’s ethical or it’s not. However, to the extent that our society wants to create distinctions of gray, the challenge of ‘living ethically among the unethical’ is heightened. The societal penchant that yearns for ‘gray’ makes it all the more important that a personal process for determining ethical behavior be defined as precisely as possible in order that it may be practiced with clarity and purpose.

The study of ethics must be founded upon a system, or a set, of moral values; or, you may prefer to consider them to be principles. We know from other bodies of research and many popular self-improvement programs that we are supposed to view ‘principles’ as fundamental laws – unchangeable – clearly understood – that provide us with certain rules of conduct that can serve to provide assurances about our behavior which enable us to transcend all shades of gray. To be guided by such principles, those very principles must be inherently interwoven into the very psyche of the individual. The knowledge, practice, and application of those principles must be initially a conscious decision (as we seek to learn) and then morph into an unconscious foundational component (as we seek to apply). No list of ethical behaviors exists; we are left to be guided by what we know (fundamentally) to be a disciplined approach to dealing with good or bad, right or wrong. It is not, thankfully, unethical for people to be in dispute, to have differences of opinions, and to fiercely defend their beliefs.

Example 2: A current issue of great national confusion – the Wall Street Bailout and Bonuses – is a useful example. The day-to-day test of ethical behavior must be (emphasize: MUST be) distinguishable in the simple question that should always be in the back of our minds: ‘Am I doing the right thing?’ Without intending to assign any absolute meanings to any description of the Wall Street example, the majority of the American people likely understood that federal funds ‘bailed out’ Wall Street, may have believed that economic stability was at stake, and probably felt that a successful outcome necessitated action (even if the majority of us don’t really understand the science involved), but few Americans seem to accept the ongoing bonus payouts and high salaries that continue among those companies that were bailed out. Legal? Probably. The right thing to do? Doubtful. But, most importantly, was it ethical? No. Here’s why: to the extent that conscious decisions, strategic plans, CEO and board-driven actions were guided by the need to return stimulus money to the feds in order to restore the payment of bonuses, then those decisions step across the line of principle and indicate an ethical breach was consciously made. The likelihood that this is true is exacerbated by the fact that the programmatic public purpose of the stimulus funding plan has been a failure by any measure. Applying the simple question: ‘Am I doing the right thing?’ the Wall Street example is very instructive in any dialogue concerning ethics. And, let us not forget, what is ‘legal’ is not always what is ‘morally right’ (ethical), even though the opposite is not true (nothing can be illegal yet ethical).

Suggestion: if you have to ask yourself if an action is ethical, chances are it is not. You should recheck your moral compass.

But, how do you draw a distinction between legal/illegal and ethical/unethical? My third and final case study actually involves a non-profit situation that is directly related to the issues of ethics in the daily life of an executive director. The great thing about case studies is that they are real. You simply cannot invent anything nearly as good as a factual example.

Example 3: A relatively new non-profit organization was on the verge of consummating its largest deal. The organization was to sell a non-performing real estate asset to a buyer/donor whereupon the proceeds would become the lead gift in what was the ‘quiet phase’ of a yet-to-be-publicly-announced capital campaign. The deal was years in the making. A letter of intent had been dated three years previously. The closing was set and, as things happen, a breakdown in communications resulted in the deal being called off. The breakdown was related to the terms of the funds that had been designated by the donor. A meeting was requested by the donor with the volunteer board chair. The executive director attended the meeting as well. During the meeting, the chair of the non-profit board explained that the non-profit was truly trying to be accommodating, but that the donor had caused the problem by changing the terms of the deal at the last minute. Confused, the donor looked at the executive director for clarification, but got none. Realizing that the chair was genuinely concerned, well-intentioned, yet uninformed, the donor sized up the situation properly, decided to acquiesce, and the deal went through. What happened? The executive director had never shared the donor’s letter of intent (which was three years old – and – spelled out the precise wishes) with the board. Realizing what had happened – and desiring to rise to the charitable cause that the deal was created to serve – the donor did not point out to the board chair that the executive director had withheld the written documentation that substantiated the very issue that the donor was trying to resolve. To this day, that piece of information remains known to only a very few people. So, was there a legal issue? Yes, there sure could have been – in other words, the donor would have had legal grounds not to close on the deal – the letter clearly identified the terms. But, beyond the legal issue, and desiring to do the ‘right thing’ the donor rose to the occasion, focused on the charitable issue, and decided not to point out the obvious ethical breach: namely, that the executive director never shared the information with the board. How does this happen? At any point over a three-year period, would not an occasion have arisen by which the facts/intentions of the donor would have been communicated by the executive director to the board? But, unfortunately, poor communications is not an ethical issue.

When did this situation become an ethical one? I would suggest that the ethical breach took place on the part of the executive director at least by the time the donor questioned the confusion that surrounded the deal, called the executive director, and requested a meeting with the board chair. It was not ethical for the executive director to continue to withhold information from the board about the terms of the deal nor was it ethical for the executive director to allow the donor to believe the board had known the true facts. At that particular point in the meeting, the donor did not know what the board chair did not know. Nor did the donor have any reason to suspect that a three-year-old written document had not been shared with the non-profit board by its executive director. One must question why the executive director never told the board – not even when there was significant opportunity for embarrassing exposure in the meeting. The question ‘is it right?’ continues to resonate. And, it’s ‘not right’ to withhold pertinent information, watch a disagreement unfold, make no attempt to set the record straight, and continue to act as if there was never clarity on the matter. Currently, there stands a donor that will always wonder what else that same executive director has not revealed about other deals. That’s a fair concern for this donor to have – and, it undermines the entire charitable process for the non-profit organization. How does this donor go about ‘living ethically among the unethical’ executive director?

It is my hope that continued dialogue on the importance of ethics can be stimulated by this article. The organization to which I belong, The Center for Ethics, Governance, and Accountability (CEGA) is committed to creating ongoing opportunities for non-profit leaders to share case studies on issues of ethics. Given the complexity of the subject matter – and the importance that ethics plays in the overall existence of any non-profit organization – it is my desire to see the level of consciousness and awareness raised to the point where ethics is on our minds every single day – especially, the simple yet powerful question: “is this the right thing to do?”