Business Ethics v. Munchkinism

The endless battle between what is right and "right is what, exactly?" As I blogged earlier, throughout the the next year and a half I'd bring back tidbits from my educational adventure at BGSU. I'd have to say that I really am getting into my Business Ethics & Law class. The textbook can seem rather daunting, but it is filled with examples of real case studies to make one wonder where the line blurs between law and ethics (or rather, where the "sweet spot" on the Venn diagram is). Or, is there even a line at all? Reading case after case, it is amazing to see all the situations that arise. In one example, favor is given to perhaps a seemingly-shady practice on a legal technicality. Another case was an example of how an employee may have otherwise had a valid claim against her employer if not for diligence and consistency on the business's behalf through HR best practices. Sometimes that same correspondence that is encouraged has been used against managers in a judgment, too, for colluding among each other! Despite the varied cases, many come down to people doing things that they can do, but should not have done. Or, even if no specific law existed, there was no consistent process used nor reasonable amount of time given to ensure the problem was addressed. There's the versus again as these cases draw on both what we gamers call RAW and RAI. RAW: "Rules as Written." This is the letter of the law. "Thou shalt not kill and if thou dost, thou shalt be punished harshly." (Geek culture note: also known as "crunch.") RAI: "Rules as Intended." This is the spirit of the law. "Killing is bad and should normally be punished, but every death is neither equal nor intended." (Geek culture note: also known as "fluff.") Where many ethics and/or legal violations arise is when a party commits another gamer term: the Munchkin Fallacy. The Munchkin Fallacy states, "I can because the rules don't say I can't." This can also can include not just what is written, but what isn't written (reading between the lines) as well. There were (broadly) no laws that dealt specifically with the new, hot sub-prime mortgages a decade ago, so the industry took it upon itself to make their own rules. We can see how that backfired in terms of damage to the economy and humanity. They did something because nothing told them they couldn't. How many businesses or politicians have made important decisions on such a fallacy? To counter such a notion, the book gives the tip that effectively states, "When you make a decision, first imagine what it would look like on the front page of the local newspaper." That's a great first check to see if what you are doing is ethical and/or legal. How will the public react to a story that may/may not contain all the details? Was enough diligence put into your decision to be able to convince strangers (hopefully not a jury) that you were rational and measured in what you did? For example: ===== LOCAL WOMAN FIRED Stole $15,000 from employer ===== This headline and subtitle would seem to convey the whole story. To the public you acted rationally and this woman appears to be quite the scumbag. As the ER, you were seemingly justified in your actions to fire the EE for theft. The law backs you up and the citizenry would, too. But there's always more to the story, isn't there? Remember, we aren't just going for the headline on the front page. ===== LOCAL WOMAN FIRED Stole $15,000 from employer Kathy Klepto was fired from her job the other day for theft. However, the employee stated, "All I did was take $10 petty cash per day to eat my half-hour lunch like everyone else. Nobody had a problem with it for the over five years I've worked there and done that constantly." ===== Hmmm! Well this changes things doesn't it? Perhaps the law and ethics are blending a bit and it isn't as cut-and-dry as it once was! Public (and legal) opinion may now swing against the company for being irrational and suddenly enforcing a policy that never existed before, and only against Kathy. She still misused the petty cash, but in the context of the situation, where does that leave Kathy or her manager? The context of a situation is crucial, and whether there are any kind of contracts or other documents that can help back up either party's situation revolving around the entity of missing money. Have you ever been in an ethical conflict at your business or place of employment? What happened? Do any of you have stories or insight to share about where ethics and law merge, if you believe they do at all? Or have you witnessed two parties having completely different takes on the same incident?