“Ethics”
by Chris Reinhardt, feedlot specialist
I recently read a quote about managing employees: “We hope an employee is (1) ethical, (2) intelligent, and (3) has a good work ethic. But if a person is short on number (1), we’d rather they were equally short on (2) and (3) as well!” In other words, if an employee is unethical, we’d prefer they were also stupid and lazy or they’ll steal us blind!
That, to me, is a long way of saying that of all the traits by which we evaluate current and prospective employees, ethical behavior may be of the utmost importance and long-term value to the organization.
On the surface, this is obvious because of the short-term implications to company profitability if an immoral employee is pilfering product, equipment, or resources. However, even if the ethically-ambiguous employee never overtly violates any tangible law or company guideline, the unethical team mate can still be detrimental to the organization.
Imagine if colleagues of the unethical team member, over time, discover the person is untruthful, and lies routinely to avoid blame or responsibility. Team morale will suffer, trust in the person erodes and fewer responsibilities and expectations are placed on the person, resulting in greater share of duties falling on other team members, and the steam will ultimately boil over and will be directed straight at the supervisor. Having not broken any company doctrine or civil or criminal law, dismissal will require accumulation of documentation of failing to meet team expectations, depending on company policy. But more importantly, team unity will be damaged for a time and will require time for it to heal and return.
If the concept of “Team” matters, then all effort must be expended to avoid hiring only individuals who can be trusted to sacrifice their own comfort, prestige, or glory, for the good of their team mates.