The word “integrity” is passed around a lot. Many people use it without proper reflection upon what it encompasses. It is bantered about as a much more casual word might be. Why is that? Could it be that it’s far easier to use the word that it is to live by it? A life guided by integrity is certainly not a rare occurrence, but one that when observed, yields a sense of completeness, harmony and prosperity that transcends more than just the monetary.

Webster’s dictionary defines integrity as “firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values” and describes a person of integrity as incorruptible. I prefer a much more simplified and applicable definition that can touch each of us wherever we are: Integrity is what you do and how you behave when there is no one watching. Of course, I believe that there is always a righteous God watching. However, there are certainly those persons that are not as concerned about that fact as they might well be, but that is a topic for another day.

How does integrity relate to prosperity? After all, they are not mutually exclusive. It’s really quite simple… we reap what we sow. Man was given a conscience to act as a moral compass, a barometer, constantly receiving feedback from our thoughts and actions and then responding back to us with guidance. If we sow with integrity, we will also reap in abundance. Our reputation will grow and we will discover that we are the type of person that others will seek out to have business transactions with. This will grow exponentially and our prosperity is assured. The prosperity I speak of here is also one of peace, harmony, satisfaction, fulfillment as well as the monetary reward.

Some time ago, I came across a paper entitled “Ten Affirmations of Integrity” on which there was no mention of the author. These affirmations are simple, yet so very profound. Read them now and again each morning as you wake and again each evening as you prepare for sleep. Internalize them and you will certainly prosper.

1. When I make a promise, I will keep that promise.

How many times do people say something or make a promise that they have absolutely no intention of ever keeping? Do you ever catch yourself saying something to someone just to “shut them up,” simply telling them what they want to hear?

2. When I set a goal, I will work to achieve it.

Would you believe that most of us do not have any written goals? Most people have dreams or wants that they simply keep in their heads. These thought are fleeting and often tend to morph into new ideas or wants on a frequent basis like the winds. Learn to write down your goals and identify the steps necessary to achieve them. Review them daily and track your progress. It only takes a few minutes to do, but most of us will not bother.

3. I will treat others as I would treat myself.

The golden rule…where have we heard that before! This one is a gold mine ready to be enjoyed. Simply treat others with dignity and respect. You will certainly stand out in the crowd.

4. I will conduct my life with excellence.

Commit to living your life as if you were always being scrutinized. The word “shortcut” is not even in your vocabulary. See things completely through by creating mental pictures of your goal. Do your very best always. Finish what you start. Never quit and never give up. Always look to uplift others with a kind word or action.

5. I will be personally accountable.

Realize that you are responsible for you. There is no blame or credit to be blanketed on others. Stand on your personal word. Mean what you say and do what you mean to. Take pride in doing the small things that make a big difference. Don’t ever be afraid to admit you might be wrong. When wrong, make it right. Take a stand.

6. I will face my mistakes and grow from them.

Everyone makes mistakes. The key point is that we should always strive to eliminate the possibility of making the same mistake twice. We do that by examining our mistake, determining the reason for it and where we went off course. Gather as much insight as possible from the situation and make note of what you would do differently when the same opportunity comes your way again. Admit your mistakes. Learn from them.

7. I will relate to others with honesty.

Be honest with yourself and your dealings with others. Don’t ever justify a lie by calling it a “stretch of the truth” or a “white lie” that won’t hurt anyone. You will soon find yourself telling another lie to conceal the first one and so on. It is always best to tell the truth. Most people will respect you for it, even if you were wrong. Strength of character is forged from honesty and respect.

8. I will show respect for authority.

Everyone is subject to someone or something. We teach our children to respect their parents, grandparents, teachers, leaders, crossing guard and other adults in their lives. In the same way, we as adults need to respect the authority of others, especially while on their turf. Remember that the next time you are in the library or the movie theater when someone far younger than you asks you to please be quiet or turn off your cell phone.

9. I will honor my debts.

We live in a disposable culture. This has stretched well beyond mere “things” to include institutions such as marriage and family. How many commercials currently parade across our televisions promising debt relief or financial freedom? Shakespeare said “neither a borrower nor a lender be” and he was right. There is no running out on accumulated debt while maintaining honor. If necessary, sit down with a financial expert and design a plan to gradually work your way out of debt. A winner will always honor his debts, sleeping peacefully in the process.

10. I will love people and use things.

People are not pawns to be manipulated for personal gain, but that is exactly how some of us treat others if it will benefit us in some way. People of integrity will always seek to build up others, edifying them and encouraging them to victory. People lacking integrity selfishly seek their own agenda without concern for anyone else. This is not how we were designed by our Creator to interact with each other. We are interdependent beings, not isolated islands.

Integrity is a trait most admired by winners. It is such a quality in man that it is eagerly sought out by employers, diplomats, teachers, negotiators, pastors and many others. Given a choice of several similarly talented individuals from which there will be a single job awarded, the person of integrity will most likely stand out and be awarded that employment. In a leadership arena, such as an emergency situation, where someone must surely take charge, the person of integrity will rise to the occasion and will quickly garner the respect of those around her, allowing for her leadership to take over. Her integrity will ensure her leadership because those around her will sense her discerning abilities.

Integrity, of course, will not absolutely guarantee prosperity, but I submit that people of integrity sleep better, work more efficiently and attract a more qualified and capable “inner circle” of friends and associates from whom they gather advice, recommendations and counsel. This “cabinet” of leaders and qualified experts will almost always ensure their success at most any endeavor they undertake. Integrity is a critical yardstick by which we will be judged by our peers, our critics and our God. It is an ideal where we cannot afford to fall short.

There are many circumstances in which it would be easy to enlist the aid of 'white lies' in the era we live in today. 'The check is in the mail' when in actuality it won't be mailed until tomorrow. 'She/he is in a meeting - out to lunch - gone for the day' instead of stating that she/he is unavailable and take a message. 'No we didn't get your fax' when it has actually come through hours before but gone unnoticed and unattended by the staff. A majority of humanity reacts favorably to honesty and integrity.

Often when the word 'integrity' is spoken it brings to mind a picture of trustworthiness and truthfulness.

Definitions for the word 'integrity' are: 1. Wholeness, Completeness 2. unimpaired condition, soundness 3. honesty, sincerity. A more current definition indicates that integrity is 'comprised of the personal inner sense of wholeness - an honesty and consistency of uprightness of character'. Thus a relationship with an individual or business that promotes integrity would suggest an ethical relationship. One in which honesty and trustworthiness would be understood.

Is it possible that a definition of excellent Customer Service could include white lies? First and foremost, the definition of white lies has changed dramatically in the past 25 to 30 years. Webster’s New World Dictionary - published in 1974 - indicates that a "white lie" is 'a lie about a trivial matter often told to spare someone' s feelings."' Yet a current definition suggests: "....is a lie which is believed harmless or innocuous, or is in accordance with the conventions of the culture". Does this imply that we have become more complacent about accepting and indulging in "white lies". A "lie" - from current AND older resources - is an intentionally false statement. Albeit a "white lie", "lying by omission" or "just a lie" - it is still lying.

It is human nature to want to believe and trust. It is when a trust is broken that the problems begin - in all relationships. After we have been lied to,it is natural to disbelieve thereafter.

The success or failure of a service business is based on its customers. Satisfied, happy, trusting customers are essential to success. A business that has a solid foundation and where the essence of excellent customer service is an innate practice of every day's operation has no need for "white lies".

So the business owner must decide if the 'white lie' is worth the risk of breaking the trust of your customers.

My concern this evening is about a growing trend online - and I'm wondering "just because you CAN, should you?"

This week has seen the launch of several major marketing programs by major players. These guys (and gals) have magic fairy dust surrounding them, literally everything they touch - and throw out there - turns to gold... for them.

Now that in itself is not a bad thing. I'm all for free enterprise :)

The problems I'm wrestling with tonight are small potatoes I'm sure to the guy pulling in literally millions.

The thing is... I get phone calls ALL the time from people who've tried this and that on the net. People of limited means - financially - yet those same people still strive to discover something that will truly work for them. Help them make their mark on the internet.

Enter the newest "launched" products.

Some are extremely useful, heck maybe all of them are, and for the most part many are affordably within the means of the average marketer.

My dilemma harkens back once again to the phone calls I receive. I've literally heard from hundreds of people who have spent thousands upon thousands of dollars scarfing up this program and that program. With still nothing to show.

Let's face it... if you know how to write good sales copy, and you team up with the right individuals, the skys the limit on what you can get people to buy... and spend. Even if YOU SHOULDN'T!

I'm just praying to the force this evening that every would-be marketer who jumped on the various bandwagons today was given the time to speak one on one with the other guys on the other end. The guys raking in the BIG bucks.

Did they take the time to PREQUALIFY their buyers? I doubt it. Should they, when you're selling pie in the sky, anyone can do this, types of programs? YES!

I'm not badmouthing what's out there. I'm sure the time and effort to develop the product, hype the media, and get the crowds coming compensates for most costs.

The thing is though... while the THING itself may be better than sliced bread any day, after one spends the HUGE bucks to get it is the buyer aware that 10 to 1 he or she (the buyer) does NOT have the list the big guy(s) have... it's the LIST that pulled the sales. It doesn't matter what you just bought, if you have no list you will have to spend more money to see if you can recover your costs. So many who truly should not have bought will have to incur even greater debt trying to justify what they just did... A truly vicious and unnecessary cycle if responsibility is shouldered by all.

FACT:

Once hundreds or thousands of dollars are shelled out, without the benefits of these hugely responsive lists, more often than not the buyer is left holding basically a big expensive bag of nothing.

It's going to cost even MORE money to advertise (since he or she doesn't have the same high pulling lists). Were these buyers qualified, financially, to purchase? God I hope so...

Watching people spend money when they are hanging on by a thread at home with kids to raise and food and shelter to cover... and still being bamboozled to add even MORE debit to their credit cards on a HOPE... it just wrings my heart.

I truly hope that if you DO make the financial commitment online that the ones behind each and every program will continue to BE THERE for you. I hope they make a true commitment to make sure all these "money back guarantees" never have to happen.

I'd love to see hundreds of thousands of "NOBODIES" make it big online. I'm also just afraid that it very rarely happens :(

I DO hope I'm WRONG!

This morning, as I emerged blinking from Chancery Lane station on my way to work, I was confronted by a young lady sporting a nylon tunic emblazoned with the words ‘Every Child’ and a fat clipboard full of Direct Debit forms. As I approached, she began to play out some ridiculous dumb show of desperation worthy of the sad clown in a cut-price circus and entreating myself and the guy walking immediately ahead of me to “Pleeeeeease stop and talk to me!” in pathetic, ‘can-I-have-a-pony-Daddy?’ tones. In response to her transparent and two dimensional plea, I fixed on my best chugger-proof thousand yard stare (they can’t catch your eye if you look through them!) and trundled blithely on. My fellow pedestrian, however, felt no such need for reserve in his response, calling out loudly “there’s a good reason why no-one’s talking to you, love, it’s because you’re a f***ing parasite!”

A crass and imbalanced response to a kind-hearted soul trying to make a difference, you might say; a callous dismissal of the efforts of a good, honest individual to make a difference to the cruel world we live in? Not so, say I! Let us take a moment to examine the economics of this new, self-made industry sector and see if there might actually be some mileage in this young man’s claim.

Some years ago, whilst I was still at university supplementing my student by loan working in a bar up to five nights a week and living in a shared house, one of my then housemates came home announcing that she had found ‘an amazing job’ which allowed her to work just one day a week and bring home more money than my five bar shifts used to earn. Intrigued, I asked for more details of this wonder job and sat back as my housemate launched into a breathless account of how she and her fearless new colleagues were out to save the world. “Firstly, she gasped, in a froth of self-congratulatory altruism, “the best thing about the job is that it’s working for charity!” So far, so good I thought; charity is good. “Basically, you go out with a team of people and you talk to people in the street and you ask them to sign up to donate money for your charity.” “Which charity is this?” I asked. “Oh, it could be a different charity every week, we work through an agency” she replied. At this point, alarm bells began to ring.

To cut a long story short, it transpired that my housemate was being paid around £9.50 per hour to stand in the street, harassing the general public into surrendering their direct debit details and donate to charity making, over a ten hour shift a daily total of £95, which was a pretty damn good take home for a days work for a 20 year old student. Add to that the fact that employment agencies of any sort levy a charge on top of this daily wage to the employer, in this case the charity, which can easily be equal to or even in excess of the actual wages paid to the employee. Lets be generous in this case and assume that the agency in question charges 30% on top of wage charges. That leaves a daily cost to the charity in question of £123.50. After a rushed mental calculation, I exclaimed to my housemate “wow, you must have to work really hard to pay for yourself; how many are you expected to sign up in a day?” “One” she replied, “at least while we’re new to the job, later on you’re expected to be better at it, the really good ones get four or five in a day!”. Four and five in a day sounds like a pretty low rate considering the cost; “how much are these four or five people donating?”; “about £3.50 a month on average”.

I was gobsmacked! I couldn’t help it, the calculator came out.

“I hate to piss on your parade,” I said, five minutes later “but at one signee per day for £3.50 a month, you’d need to work for 35 days straight, or seven full working weeks to bring in enough revenue from initial payments to pay your wages for a single day. To put it another way, the one person that you sign up today has to maintain this direct debit for just shy of three years before what you did today becomes profitable for the charity that hired you. I fail to see how this is a good thing you are doing.”

Two days later, my housemate returns from a second shift ‘chugging’, “we are raising awareness” she says, “increasing the public brand visibility of the charities we work for”. Sure you are, you’re raising my awareness of the fact that people in nylon tunics are to be avoided; you’re raising my awareness of the depths to which unscrupulous agencies and cash strapped students will stoop; you’re raising my awareness of exactly how much voluntarily donated cash intended for charity use gets siphoned off into the pockets of middlemen and smooth talkers. I fail to see how this is a good thing!

Have you ever heard this: "Money is the Root of All Evil"? Most of us have heard that the Bible tells us that money is the root of all evil. Why someone would want to misquote the Bible about money is beyond me but it is done and sometimes on a regular basis. Is it because someone is poor and they are trying to defend their poverty status by making you think the Bible is telling them to be poor? Make sense? NO!! Our world system is set up on the monetary system so to do anything in this life it does take money.

But let's quote the Bible correctly: "The love of money is the root of all evil". It comes from 1 Timothy 6:10 and in the amplified version is says exactly: "For the love of money is a root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have been led astray and have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves through with many acute [mental] pangs." It is describing a craving; putting money above anything and anyone. We need to keep money in perspective and use it for good. Money in and of itself is not good or evil. Money is simply a form of exchange for services, goods and time. It is only when people become attached to their money and become greedy that difficulties arise. With money as a resource, great good can be done in the world. Hungry children can be fed, lands can be preserved for future generations and medical research can be conducted to cure diseases.

When I was reading the previously mentioned book about millionaire women, the common thread among them was that they know that money allows them to help others and help themselves. They received great joy in giving to charities. Think about what you can do with your riches? You may choose to do many wonderful things with money: you can assist others, pay for your children to go to college, donate to your favorite charities or treat yourself to a well deserved vacation, pay cash for a house or car instead of being in debt for it. The possibilities are endless. Money is not evil, it can do bad or good...the choice is yours. Allow yourself to dream about all of the wonderful things you will do with your money, and let these dreams drive your success!

Women from my generation have been under a ceiling of money myths and those myths need to be broken in order for us to be free to become as wealthy as we have ability.

Let's think to ourselves: "What is my wealth image and how has this money myth affected my inner image about wealth?"

My very favorite movie when I was a little girl was "Cinderella" (the Disney cartoon); I watched it over and over. I began daydreaming of my own Prince Charming. You would have thought that I would have grown out of that but you must realize...women in my previous generation (my Mom’s generation) were really taught that you finish high school, get married and have children. That's it!! And that’s what they tried to pass down to us. But my generation was supposed to be the revolutionary one where we were going to change the world (I mean just listen to the music of the sixties and you’ll see what I mean) but those imprinted ideas are like glue...they stick. (Or think of it like gum stuck in your hair…you must cut it out to get it out.) My mother didn't help much because she was only interested in who I was dating and was I going to get married. Like there was nothing more to my life than that. But I did break the tradition and was the first in my family line to go to college and I did pursue my career in the field of architecture. I was a divorced/single mother then and I did raise my child. I did marry but what I did not find was my Prince Charming. I did not find my rescuer who took care of my every need for the rest of my life. I looked for it somehow knowing it was unrealistic; but when you are “brainwashed” to believe it, it does make it hard to let that idea go. And think of the pressure it puts on a man, what a heavy weight that is to carry.

Another part of the Cinderella story that gets ingrained into our thinking is the poverty mentality. The Cinderella story makes it look so romantic for Cinderella to be wearing rags, slaving for her wicked stepmother, living with the rats. The picture is painted too cute. She does all this and waits for her rescuer. So even now when I’m watching TV there are movies or shows that come on and they show the same thing and I have started saying out loud: “Poverty is not romantic. Being poor and hungry and in need is not romantic. Not having enough is not romantic” no matter how TV tries to make it look that way. Then I switch to another channel and the opposite is on…there’s a show about people buying islands or who has the most luxurious yacht. Now I’m all for being able to afford nice things, a nice house (or an extremely nice house), etc. But wealth affords the balance of being extremely rich and being an extreme help to the world around us. It doesn’t mean you give everything away but it doesn’t mean you spend it all on yourself. But before we get that far we must first begin to dispel money myths so we can be free to receive. Begin to think or even right down on paper what money myths you may have and may be preventing you from moving into your wealthy place.

One of the biggest business myths is that business ethics is an oxymoron. There are some that would say that business is a big competition, a competition where business people are competing for a limited prize – success, money, power – and thrive achieve it by any means possible, including advancing your own personal interest at the expense of others.

Do you agree? Is there no room for etiquette in business? Is corporate social responsibility an oxymoron?

Take the following two anecdotal examples:

* Kenneth Lay’s and Jeffrey Skilling’s personal greed brought an end to Enron and killed thousands of jobs.
* The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is endowed with over $29 million, mainly consisting of Gates’ own money. The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, has a social conscience. Do you think he made it to where he is by conniving and cheating people. I think not.

Do you still think business ethics is an oxymoron?

Who would you rather have as a business mentor, Bill Gates or Kenneth Lay? Bill Gates has a track record of corporate social responsibility and Kenneth Lay is quite the opposite.

In my view, a socially responsible business, all other things being equal, will be more successful than one that is not. A good reputation is important in business and a business with a good reputation will have loyal customers. The opposite is true of businesses that perform bad business etiquette.

Be good. Your customers will thank you for it.

Is it possible for an individual with strong moral values to make ethically questionable decisions in a business setting? What affects a person's inclination to make either ethical or unethical decisions in a business organization? Although the answers to that question are not entirely clear, there appear to be three general sets of factors that influence the standards of behavior in an organization; individual factors, social factors and opportunity.

Several individual factors influence the level of ethical behavior in an organization. An individual's knowledge level regarding an issue can help to determine ethical behavior. A decision maker with a greater amount of knowledge regarding an object or situation may take steps to avoid ethical problems, whereas a less-informed person may unknowingly take action that leads to an ethical conflict. One's moral values and central, value-related attitudes clearly influence his or her business behavior. Most people join organizations to accomplish personal goals. The types of personal goals an individual aspires to and the manner in which these goals are pursued have significant impact on that individual's behavior in an organization.

A person's behavior in the workplace is, to some degree, determined by cultural norms, and these social factors vary from one culture to another. For example, in some countries it is acceptable and ethical for customs agents to receive gratuities for performing ordinary, legal tasks that are a part of jobs, whereas in other countries these practices would be viewed as unethical and perhaps illegal. The actions and decisions of coworkers is another social factor believed to shape a person's sense of business ethics. For example, if your coworkers make long-distance telephone calls on company time and at company expense, you might view that behavior as acceptable and ethical because everyone does it. Significant others are persons to whom someone is emotionally attached-spouses, friends, and relatives, for instance. Their moral values and attitudes can also affect an employee's perception of what is ethical and unethical in the workplace.

Opportunity refers to the amount of freedom an organization gives an employee to behave ethically if he or she makes that choice. In some organizations, certain company policies and procedures reduce the opportunity to be unethical. For example, at some fast-food restaurants, one person takes your order and receives your payment and another person fills the order. This procedure reduces the opportunity to be unethical because the person handling the money is not dispensing the product, and the person giving out the product is not handling the money. The existence of an ethical code and the importance management places on this code are other determinants of opportunity. The degree of enforcement of company policies, procedures, and ethical codes is a major force affecting opportunity. When violations are dealt with consistently and firmly, the opportunity to be unethical is reduced.

You’re buying coffee. One label says this roasted mountain-fresh Colombian coffee is ideal for all coffee makers. But is it ideal for the coffee bean’s maker, the farmer? Your choice is empowering. When you choose fair trade, you get more than coffee; you get the opportunity to enrich someone’s life.

What Is Fair Trade?

Fair trade is an international alternative trading system designed to empower disadvantaged farmers, artisans, and labourers. The movement began 50 years ago when international aid organizations worked to help farmers and labourers in Africa break free from oppressive trading practices. These inequitable trading practices still exist today.

Farmers and artisans in developing countries rely on intermediaries for market information and trade. These middlemen usually pay less than market price and keep the producers trapped in a cycle of poverty. Small-scale farmers can’t afford to produce the crop. They can’t afford the overhead or their financing’s interest rates. They abandon their farms, or, in the case of some cocoa producers, they “employ” unpaid workers, often children.

Through fair trade, farmers and artisans deal directly with members of fair trade organizations, bypassing the middleman and receiving a fair and sustainable wage for their work. According to the Fair Trade Federation, the goal of a member organization is “to benefit the artisans they work with, not maximize profits. By reducing the number of middlemen and minimizing overhead costs, FTOs (fair trade organizations) return up to 40 percent of the retail price of an item to the producer.” Producers receive a fair wage for their product, children are not exploited, and long-term relationships are encouraged to provide continuity in trading. Fair trade considers the enduring well-being of the person behind the product.

Who Decides What’s Fair?

In Canada, the Fair Trade Certified logo is managed by TransFair Canada, a nonprofit organization that belongs to the international Fairtrade Labeling Organization (FLO). Use of the logo comes with very strict rules and terms, to which all members are bound by contract.

The Canadian Fair Trade Certified logo is applied to product-specific items only, meaning that the product, not the company, is certified as fair trade. On the other hand, the Fair Trade Federation logo identifies the company as a certified member. Two of the largest members in the US are Ten Thousand Villages and SERRV International.

The Fair Trade Federation and FLO monitor their producers and members. They ensure that the playing field of trade is level and fair. For the consumer, these logos assure that the goods are produced in environmentally responsible conditions and that the cultures and communities of the worker are respected and sustained.

Is It Working?

Yes. According to the Fair Trade Federation, sales for Ten Thousand Villages in the US and Canada between 1985 and 1998 increased by nearly $15 million, creating over 12,000 full-time jobs for artisans and farmers.

As more consumers use their purchasing power for social justice, large corporations consider the fair trade alternative. Currently, there are 117 Canadian fair trade licensees, and 44 source countries are registered with the FLO. Today’s fair trade products include crafts, coffee, tea, chocolate, soaps, cosmetics, sugar, and fruit. Coming soon are wines, nuts, oils, and more.

A consumer in Canada buys fair trade and a child in Colombia goes to school.

That’s a strong cup of coffee.

What can you do? Most of life is really one form of scam or another. The biggest scams are being uncovered as scientists peel away the layers of reality to reveal that nothing is really as firm as we believe them to be. A piece of wood may look solid enough so that if one were to be hit in the head with it, some form of damage would be inflicted on skin of the head if not fracturing the skull itself. On the sub-atomic level, the atoms that comprise that piece of wood have another kind of reality. An atom is composed of a nucleus and orbiting electrons. The nucleus and the electrons never meet such that it might as well be infinite space that separates them This ghostlike quality of an atom is a far cry from the solid manifestation of a bunch of atoms that comprise a piece of wood that is capable of inflicting great damage to a head or a portion of the human body that comes in contact with it as when a wooden bat is swung to strike a man. A neutrino on the other hand, is a particle so tiny that it would pass through most anything as though nothing exists except itself

One of the biggest scams in human history is the belief that the world is flat. Sailors and mariners would be afraid to stray from charted waters for fear of falling off the edge of the world. Ancient maps would say, "here be dragons" to denote parts of the world which people know nothing about.

Christopher Columbus in his quest to find treasures for his king by charting a route to the fabled land of India mistakenly thought that the Indies was India hence the name and the indelible appellation of native Americans as Indians.The fiction of Heven and Hell is one of the biggest scams perpetrated on gullible Christians who swallow hook line and sinker anything professed by Church Fathers and Evangelists who know how to write and orate better than to use their reason.

Galileo Galilei was a genius who fell victim to the ignorance of the Church Fathers who found his notion of the Heliocentric System contrary to the Religious belief that the sun revolved around the earth. He spent his life in house arrest so to speak unable to share his wisdom and knowledge for the good of humanity simply because his theory challenged popular Christian belief.

Even today, the general population is held captive by the ignorance of so-called leaders who foist their own brand of authoritarianism in the name of Democracy and freedom and economic progress. Proponents of terrorism also promote the fiction of a holy war on clueless adolescents and young people who feel dispossessed and hopelesss enough to end their own lives along with their intended victims by a tragic act of self-annihilation.

Life is a scam and scams are not limited to economic scams perpetrated in the Internet by unscrupulous marketers who prey on the naive desire of people to make money online. Every day there is a new scam being concocted by people and every day there are people falling victim to these scams. The Romans in their legalistic wisdom knew that scams were difficult to prevent so they merely decreed: Caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.

Most authorities agree that there is room for improvement in business ethics. One of the most problematic questions raised in relation to business ethics is whether or not businesses can become more ethical in the real world. The majority opinion on this issue suggests that government, trade associations, and individual firms can indeed establish acceptable levels of ethical behavior.

The government can do so by legislating more stringent regulations. But, rules require enforcement and when in many cases there is evidence of lack of enforcement even the ethical businessperson will tend to "slip something by" without getting caught. Increased regulation may help, but it surely cannot solve the entire business ethics problems.

Trade associations can and often do provide ethical guidelines for their members. These organizations within particular industries are in an excellent position to exert pressures on members that stoop to questionable business practices. However, enforcement and authority vary from association to association. Moreover, exactly because trade associations exist for the benefit of their members, harsh measures may be self-defeating.

Employees can more easily determine and adopt acceptable behavior when companies provide them with a "code of ethics." Such codes are perhaps the most effective way to encourage ethical behavior. A code of ethics is a written guide to acceptable and ethical behavior that outlines uniform policies, standards and punishments for violations. Because employees know what is expected of them and what will happen if they violate the rules, a code of ethics goes a long way towards encouraging ethical behavior. However, codes cannot possibly cover every situation. Companies must also create an environment in which employees recognize the importance of complying with the written code. Managers must provide direction by fostering communication, actively modeling and encouraging ethical decision making, apart from investing in training employees to make ethical decisions.

Sometimes, even employees who want to act ethically may find it difficult to do so. Unethical practices can become ingrained in an organization. Employees with high personal ethics may then take a controversial step called "whistle blowing." Whistle blowing is informing the press or government officials about unethical practices in an organization. Whistle blowing could have averted disaster and prevented needless deaths in the Challenger space shuttle disaster, for example. How could employees have known about life-threatening problems and let them pass? Whistle blowing on the other hand, can have serious repercussions for employees; those who make waves sometimes lose their jobs.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you are the boss of others, the temptation to use your power to control them is always there. However, if you start using this power too much it can bring disorder to your office environment.

Think of how you would feel if you had a boss always driving you around. Would you like to work for someone like that? If your hard work was never appreciated, would your motivation last? Definitely not! Therefore it is important to do your duty as a boss in such a way that you get your respect for your position without upsetting your employees.

Giving power to your employees to make them feel unthreatened by yours can be a dangerous tactic. Being over friendly with your subordinates or not acting like the boss might make them a little too relaxed with their work. They might even start questioning your decisions. Be friendly and do not gorge them with work, make them do just as much is required from them. Also do not let them forget who the boss is by not allowing them to question your decisions.

Keep an eye on your employees but sure you give them enough space to work comfortably. Think of your staff as your team and yourself as the captain of this team. Your job is to make sure everyone plays in their right positions and keep them guided and motivated. Perhaps a few incentives to make them work harder will help in keeping them motivated to work harder.

When you change your focus onto a new opportunity, you should not expect your employees to know what you want them to know, without having explained/guided them properly. Hire and use some extra training staff if you have to, but make sure there is no communication gap between you and your employees. They should know exactly what you expect from them.

The most important factor that keeps your staff motivated is optimism in the way you see their work. Finding mistakes in their work and correcting them is important but do not just be a cynic about it, make sure you appreciate what they do right. Appreciation is often what employees look forward to more than anything else for their hard work. Putting just a little effort to gratify them wins you a healthier office environment and thus better results on their work.

“Prediction is very hard, especially when it’s about the future.” Yogi Berra

Given the focus on the recent one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina by the media and government officials and its label as the most costly catastrophic disaster in United States history, there has been little focus on the nationwide impact the property and casualty insurance industry has started to impart on homeowners and businesses in a post-Katrina world.

There has been serious discussion about reforming U.S. insurance laws in the U.S. Congress since 2004, before four hurricanes battered the Florida coast and well before the Katrina and Rita storms hit the Gulf Coast in 2005. However, the insurance industry since Katrina is now not only fighting hundreds of individual and class action lawsuits in Mississippi and Louisiana in the wind v. water debate, but also advocating change in the event of future catastrophic events.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act, enacted in 1945, delegated sole enforcement of insurance regulations to the states, where it was believed better oversight would take place rather than federal government mechanisms. However, state regulators are not law enforcement agencies and do not have the benefit of the arm of the federal government in cases which are beyond their means. Now, many state insurance commissioners, members of the Congress as well as consumer advocacy agencies believe that the whittling away of consumer protections over the years and recent staggering premium hikes, with little public disclosure, builds a case for federal insurance legislation and industry reforms.

Since 1945 the insurance industry has enjoyed an antitrust exemption and the viability of that rule has been seriously discussed and revisited by the Congress. There have been state accusations of price fixing and price gouging along with collusion in the industry leaving consumers with little information about their homeowners and business property policies, with only the civil or criminal courts left for recourse. It is argued that the antitrust exemption only fuels such a scenario.

The proposed National Insurance Act of 2006 (S.B. 5209) introduced by the Senate Banking Committee on July 11, 2006, would allow insurers to be licensed under a federal umbrella license, to choose between federal or state regulation and to do business in any state without need of state licenses. The U.S. Department of the Treasury would then have jurisdiction to regulate such national insurers. Arguments against such an arrangement cite more endless bureaucracy and red tape with fears that individual states would not be equally treated.

Alternatively, the State Modernization and Regulatory Transparency (SMART) Act introduced in 2004 addresses market conduct, licensing and antifraud data exchanges but has failed numerous times to move through the legislative process. It would leave regulation up to the states but to comply with uniform standards without federal oversight. The attempt to “modernize” the regulatory framework of the insurance industry has become synonymous with deregulation and appears that resistance on both sides of the argument makes reform more and more insurmountable along with immense struggles to provide sufficient delivery of adequate insurance for property owners.

The repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act has also caught the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee which held a hearing on the issue on June 27, 2006 for the first time since 1994, precipitated by numerous complaints of less and less public disclosure of information and devices used for premium calculations. Such has impeded consumers from making a proper decision when purchasing policies. Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) testified that “Insurers want competition alone to determine rates, they say. How about a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act to test their desire to compete under the same rules as normal American businesses?”

The CFA has also called for regulation to ensure consumers have availability of enough information in order to compare pricing of policies between insurers in order to make informed decisions. Unlike the way most consumer service products are purchased, insurance costs are based upon a non-finite uncertain condition to happen some time in the future. And consumers must rely solely upon the agent, especially when actuarial tables and insurance models are non-accessible. Thus, more scrutiny not less has been called for.

But deregulation has also brought about insurance products sold worldwide as investments and annuities and reinsurance companies which provide catastrophic coverage for domestic insurers primarily are located overseas. Therefore, in a global economy, federal oversight is far more necessary than in the past. Leaving global oversight up to state regulators is arguably negligent given the ramifications of lack of coverage during a catastrophe.

The insurance industry itself has been campaigning for some type of legislative reform to provide for a federal catastrophic fund which would subsidize insurers in cases of terrorism and natural catastrophes. The American taxpayer and consumer have gotten their fill of that, however, where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been and continues to pay out damages to the Gulf Coast states and primarily the City of New Orleans for rebuilding costs, with FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to homeowners and businesses and for FEMA housing costs for the displaced.

But an unexpected phenomenon followed the 2005 hurricane season and is primarily fueling the fires for insurance reform and that is the record high premium rate hikes on homeowners as well as commercial property policies. In addition, hundreds of thousands of policies are being dropped and non-renewed by the country’s two largest insurance companies, namely State Farm Insurance Co. and Allstate Insurance Co., from the Gulf Coast all the way up to the tip of Maine.

Even more unexpected, however, were renewal denials for inland properties for policyholders in the Northeast including New York City, where property owners have never even previously filed a claim for property damage. With premiums on the Gulf Coast having at least doubled since 2005, thousands of dollars have been added to mortgage loans. In some cases, many homeowners policies were not renewed at all, preventing homeowners from obtaining mortgages or rebuilding at all.

With insurers’ withdrawal from writing homeowners policies throughout regions of the U.S. and gutting those with less and less coverage for those in place, the industry believes it will be able to stay healthy. Astonishingly, in 2005 it made a record profit of $45 billion post-Katrina and after four storms in 2004 it realized a profit of $38 billion.

The models associated with risk management amongst insurers are also changing. The 100-year average of history for forecasting future hurricanes, for example, is presently being revised. And as those methods of calculations become murkier, homeowners can hardly feel safe or comfortable when purchasing new properties. There are also several states which only allow for the issuance of property insurance based solely upon a consumer’s credit history and income which makes it far more difficult for the working class consumer to be able to purchase insurance.

Over the next year, 43% of the U.S. population which covers 18 states can expect their policies to either be dropped by their insurance carriers or have their premiums escalate between 20% and 100%. And for that reason alone it might be time to reel in an industry which not only is in business to make a profit, but also has a moral obligation to help protect communities nationwide and such becomes necessary in the face of absolute destruction.

Ethics and History

"Ethics (from Greek - meaning "custom") is the branch of axiology, one of the four major branches of philosophy, which attempts to understand the nature of morality; to distinguish that which is right from that which is wrong. The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called 'moral philosophy'". (WIKIPEDIA).

The origins of ethics are related to the introduction of moral behaviour in early societies. The application of concepts such as 'right' and 'wrong', and the definition of these concepts in different environments, induced the need for a formal approach to social behaviour - an attempt to create commonality and organisation in a society. In this context, codes of behavior were created, and different forms of behaviour enforcement adopted.

As societies developed, and increasing importance was placed in structural thinking - such as the advent of sciences - meta-ethics became an eminent topic of discussion. Meta-ethics refers to the investigation of ethical statements, an actual analysis of ethics itself. Names such as Hobbes, Kant and Nietzsche were prominent in this period.

Nowadays, ethics is still a main topic of discussion. As societies evolve, the relationships between individuals become more complex, and so do the etiquettes and codes of conduct. The development of business relationships has raised many ethical dilemmas, and ethical counselling is one of them.

Ethical Counselling

Because counselling is not a regulated profession in many countries (including Australia), the use of ethical standards is a method of guiding the quality of the services provided by counsellors, the quality of training provided to counsellors, and of protecting clients. These standards provide conduct guidelines for professionals and are an effective way support many counsellors lacking experience or knowledge of the industry. It also serves the purpose of structuring the counselling industry, providing common professional descriptions, definitions and service boundaries according to each type of counsellor.

There is a wide range of issues comprising the field of ethical counselling - which are also part of common guidelines for the practice of therapy. According to Daniluk and Haverkamp (1993), "the main ethical framework referred to in many discussions of therapy is one based on the concepts of autonomy, fidelity, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence and self interest". In this context, we devise several 'problem areas' in ethical counselling:

Law and Counselling

The need for professionalisation has created a common link between ethical behaviour and legal conduct in the therapy fields. Legislation was provided to primarily protect clients from misguidance, and ultimately to provide guidelines for the profession. However, as cited previously, in most countries ethical conduct in counselling is not yet part of the legal framework - which outlines the importance of professional and industry peak associations in providing guidelines and codes of conduct for affiliated professionals.

The Australian Counselling Association is one industry association in Australia that provides ethical guidelines and a code of conduct for counsellors. The ACA's Code of Ethics and Code of Practice are part of the Code of Conduct - which can be accessed from their website at www.theaca.net.au/docs/code_conduct.pdf. An excerpt from this Code is:

Counsellors will:

- Offer a non-judgemental professional service, free from discrimination, honouring the individuality of the client.

- Establish the helping relationship in order to maintain the integrity and empowerment of the client without offering advice.

- Be committed to ongoing personal and professional development.

Confidentiality

This area is closely linked with the legal issues in counselling therapy. Confidentiality plays a major role in defining the communication between a counsellor and a client, bearing in mind that trust is one of the backbones of a therapeutic relationship. Albeit confidentiality is a key component of the relationship, it is also one of the leading causes of ethical dilemmas for counsellors. Situations which may put the client - or other individuals - in danger usually require the counsellor to make difficult decisions in regards to breaching confidentiality. In many instances, the actual breach is a legal requirement as it may incur the prevention of a crime against the state, or another person.

Other predominant issues such as consultancy with supervisors or colleagues; definition of the type of confidentiality to be used (absolute or relative) prior to the counselling relationship; and session record-keeping, must be considered by therapists when practicing professional counselling.

Bad Practice

The issues of privacy and power in a counselling session can be prejudicial in terms of unethical practice. The private nature of a counselling session leaves a 'gap for unsupervised practice', and therefore it is quite difficult to be assessed. For instance, fairly recent explorations of unethical practice in therapy have shown the emerging problem of sexual abuse of clients. This issue is augmented by the power relationship between client and counsellor, in which the therapist could take advantage of their position of power to practice unethical behaviour.

Training and Professional Recognition (Australian Industry)

As cited before, counselling is not regulated in most countries. In order to standardise the industry, and ensure that counsellors have the necessary skills to professionally practice, training and recognition must be accentuated. In Australia, the ACA plays a role in coordinating industry efforts, providing information to the public and maintaining records of counsellors in practice.

That system protects clients from bad practice, and supports training standards for organisations that provide counsellor training. The Australian Institute of Professional Counsellors, as an example, is recognised by the ACA - which means that AIPC and the Diploma of Professional Counselling complies with industry standards defined by this peak organisation in regards to training standards for counsellors.

Safety and Negligence

These concepts are utmost concerns of counsellors in practice. A counsellor-client relationship is a very delicate encounter of an individual seeking help, and a professional providing advice. Primarily, it is the counsellor's responsibility to provide a safe environment for the counselling session - particularly because physical and psychological safety is a premise for the counselling therapy to succeed. Negligence is closely related to the concepts of breach of confidentiality and safety. Observing principles for duty of care is part of ethical behaviour in counselling.

Most people do not easily accept the new, mostly because of the unknown factor that people tend to call fear. It is not only as Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky had put it that "taking a new step, uttering a new world is what people fear most." Even in slight things the experience of the new is rarely without some stirring of foreboding. In the case of drastic change, like the one information technology has currently imposed on the distribution systems inside every market discussed earlier, the uneasiness is deeper and more lasting. No man is really prepared for that which is wholly new. Everyone has to adjust and every radical adjustment is a crisis in self-esteem. By undergoing through a change people have to prove themselves right. It needs inordinate self-confidence to face drastic change without inner trembling.

In present times, global population is subject to drastic change and has evolved to a population of misfits, unbalanced, explosive and hungry for action. Through action mankind can regain confidence and control, can prove its worth, while at the same time it is actually a reaction against the lost balance. Thus, drastic change is one of the agencies that release a man's energies, but certain conditions have to be present if the shock of change is to turn people into effective men of action. There must be the abundance of opportunities, and there must be a tradition of self-reliance. This era of technological advancements is probably the most challenging one. The conditions that prevail today, from the film distribution industry to the ability of people to shop online from Italy while living in Brazil, have created a population subjected to drastic change that it is only a matter of correct timing before plunging into an orgy of action. The issue now is the sacrifices one has to endure in either case. Becoming active and consciously getting involved in any type of action, within any kind of market, the civilized individual has to select a position regarding his/her role in the overall process and sacrifice blissfulness that usually comes from states of ignorance, or apathy.

As Sigmund Freud had written in his book 'Civilization and its Discontents,' civilization imposes such great sacrifices on a man's aggressiveness that we can understand better why it is hard for him to be happy in that civilization. According to Freud, the civilized man has exchanged a portion of his possibilities of happiness for a portion of security. Although Freud did not discussed the outcomes of distribution and the severe interference of markets to the circulation process, he successfully conveyed that the stages through which a person undergoes before beginning to feel happy entail usually a scary process of unknown outcomes and difficult to comprehend practices. By trying to avoid the unknown consequences of any major change, people prefer to remain in their constant place with or without any control of their destiny, but holding on to the feeling of security in their familiar environment.

But through network connections and progressive learning practices, this practice has already changed. Future generations will be better equipped to judge the present choices vested upon us. The only thing present generations can do before accepting any change offered, is study and research the reasons behind the negative reactions people tend to have when any kind of distribution advancement is introduced to ease their usual routine. It is always an issue of control and respect of choice.

"So now I'm in a pickle," Michelle concluded. "Do I do what is right, or do I stay on the Senior VP's good side?"

"I hope that is a rhetorical question," Cheryl replied. "You know the answer." Cheryl had just invested in three cups of coffee while her mentoring partner described an agonizing issue at the office. As Michelle's mentor for almost two years, she had witnessed her protégé's impressive climb up the career ladder. Michelle began as a manager in a national fast food chain and worked her way to supervisor while still in college. Just after graduating, she was offered a corporate position in the franchising department. At age twenty-six, Michelle had reached a position of considerable influence, including an especially prestigious role on the franchise-approval committee.

Here's how that committee operates: In order to secure the right to own and operate one of the company's restaurants, prospective franchisees must win the approval of representatives from finance, real estate, and operations. Each member has veto power over the applicant's fate. As the operational link, Michele held significant responsibility and this assignment was a real jewel in her career crown. But it now held the potential for stopping her career in its tracks. Thus, Michelle had called her mentor for this midnight, Waffle House rendezvous.

"So let me make sure I've got this straight. Your boss sent word to you—he didn't talk to you directly, he just had his assistant tell you? Is that right?" Cheryl was as incredulous over the boss's cowardice as she was his blatant bigotry.

Michelle nodded. "Of course he wasn't going to tell me directly. He is a corporate officer. He needs to maintain deniability."

Cheryl could understand why he wanted to keep some distance from the message. He had ordered Michelle to veto the application of a franchise candidate named Sadid Patel. "Yep, that's exactly right. Mr. Senior Vice President had his assistant order me to veto him, because he feels we have too many foreigners in the system as it is," Michelle summarized.

"Any chance that finance or real estate will do the dirty work before you have to meet with him?" Cheryl was fishing here, hoping to find a way Michelle could sidestep the conflict.

"Not a chance. His finances are impeccable and he has picked a prime site to build on. Besides, they've both already signed off on him." Michelle continued to stare at the wall just behind Cheryl's seat, as if the answer might be written somewhere within the wallpaper. "There's no way around it. Tomorrow at 10:30, I can either perform a reprehensible act or I can see my career come to slithering stagnation at the age of twenty-six."

Michelle picked up her napkin and wiped at a small water spot on the table. Maybe just this once I can compromise a principle, she thought. Just this one time. Finally making direct eye contact, she quietly added, "You've always told me that I have to pick my battles."

Cheryl returned the eye contact and firmly replied, "And you know this is one you've got to pick, Michelle."

****** ****** ****** ******

It was eight o'clock the next evening. Cheryl and Michelle were occupying the same seats in the same coffee shop. "Well, let it out," Cheryl said. "You have that distant look on your face. What did you decide to do?"

"The only thing I could do," Cheryl replied. "I couldn't be a part of any racist act." Michelle took a deep breath and slowly let it out. "So, I approved Mr. Patel. He has his franchise." Michelle leaned back in her seat, continued stirring the coffee but never drinking from the cup.

"Good for you. I know it was tough, but you did the right thing." Cheryl was relieved to know that Michelle had valued integrity and character over developing a plastic career. But, Michelle was looking even more distraught than she did last night. Cheryl figured the VP must have come down hard. She decided to reassure Michelle that her career was not over. "Hey kid," she said with a kind smile. "There are other companies."

"Oh, no, that's not it. I'm not worried about my job anymore." Michelle allowed a slight smile to interrupt her malaise. "Before meeting with Patel, I had a short meeting with my boss. I let him know that if I ever even sensed him blocking my career, I would make a beeline to the president and maybe even the Justice Department. He got my message loud and clear. He won't be an issue."

"Well, now. I'll bet that knocked him on his keister." Cheryl was impressed with Michelle's preemptive strike. "But why are you upset? You should be ecstatic. It was an incredible day!"

"I'm not so sure about that, Cheryl." Michelle paused to press a napkin to her glistening eyes. "I really don't think I did the right thing."

Cheryl was stunned. "How can you possibly say that? How could you possibly doubt your actions?"

Michelle spoke slowly and with an intensity Cheryl had never before heard from her. "Because Mr. Patel is, without question, the most unqualified person I have ever interviewed for a franchise approval. He has no understanding of customer service, looks down his nose at foodservice workers, and had no concept of quality standards." Michelle leaned forward, "Cheryl, I approved a compete incompetent as a franchisee of the very company that entrusted me to select its business partners. I violated that trust."

Michelle paused and then quietly added: "Now, where is the integrity in that?"

Among many things, Donald Trump is a successful businessman and an extremely wealthy individual. Donald Trump is perceived by the mass public as a true corporate King. The question is who are all these people that competed so fiercely against each other during the hour that the Apprentice show was broadcasted and why did they strive to prove their skills so as to secure their position in his empire? One might support that they are the products of America's powerful media networks, the gladiators of our postmodern reality. But are these reality shows we tend to watch ritually, the mirroring of our contemporary culture, or are they the outcome of today's spectators' confusion regarding the prevailing notions of modernity, revolution and self-development?

To be a citizen of the modern world, is equivalent to remain open to change and evolution, to be able to explore and create, accept or reject, all those forces and trends that shape the global scene and the mere self at the same time. This ongoing change, the development of human history, has been classified according to scholars as the act of relating modernization (the socio-economic process) with modernism (the cultural vision), through modernity (the historical experience). But this powerful process, although once considered linear, has evolved over time to the point that it can now be conceived as "curved," since modernism has experienced a major decline during the 21st century. This realization can be partly explained by the fact that social, political, or economic revolutions have ended, while the upcoming reformations are not fostered by the bourgeois engagement, but mainly by the continuous technological progress limited to specific time fragments which make any kind of revolution seeming obsolete.

If then we accept that modernism has ceased to exist then what exactly are we left with? How can we identify ourselves in this endless game of change and evolution? The answer is hidden in the method used to analyze the present living circumstances and humanity's past actions. Postmodernism or post-historicism, is another generic title given to the period after modernism, in order to characterize a shift in mentality, methods, and processes used by society to deploy a new system of reference. Having to deal with an almost static capitalistic scheme that blocks the likelihood of any profound cultural renovation comparable to the great Age of Aesthetic Discoveries in the first third of this century, society is left to revolutionize itself through the ruins of the past, equipped with the belief that a true revolution would be to abolish modernity as a whole.

Where is the Apprentice show on this check board? Is it the King, the Queen or the soldier in this game of power and control? Various arguments may be raised to answer such a question, but the underlying truth is that television, along with other technological innovations of the 21st century, like the Internet, have succeeded in becoming a new type of artistic expression, where the spectator has no intention to classify and analyze what is seen using specific labels, since their existence is considered temporal. The threat is hidden on the simple fact that the majority of the viewers, regardless their age, as the citizens of this global village, remain almost indifferent to these alterations in the scenery of life and consume these preheated meals without questioning their source while sitting in front of a TV or PC screen, unable to resist the magical world of consumption, misinterpreting it as the best solution available in this chaotic mode of living. It may seem pessimistic or oversimplified as a view, but Apprentice, Big Brother and many of these reality shows, are actually an analysis on the cultural shift of today's societies, towards an epoch whose title has not yet been articulated.

The following four rights are the basis of much of the consumer-oriented legislation that has been passed during the last thirty years. These rights also provide an effective outline of the objectives and accomplishments of the consumer movement.

- The right to safety

The consumers' right to safety means that products they purchase must be safe for their intended use, must include thorough and explicit directions for proper use, and must be tested by the manufacturer to ensure product quality and reliability. Business firms should also be aware that consumers and the government have been winning an increasing number of product-liability lawsuits against sellers of defective products. Moreover, the amount of the awards in these suits has been steadily increasing. Yet another major reason for improving product safety is the consumer's demand for safe products. People will simply stop buying a product they believe is unsafe or unreliable.

- The right to be informed

The right to be informed means that consumers must have access to complete information about a product before they buy it. Detailed information about ingredients and nutrition must be provided on food containers, information about fabrics and laundering methods must be attached to clothing and lenders must disclose the true cost of borrowing the money they make available to costumers who purchase merchandise on credit. In addition, manufacturers must inform consumers about the potential dangers of using their products.

- The right to choose

The right to choose means that consumers have a choice of products, offered by different manufacturers and sellers, to satisfy a particular need. The government has done its part by encouraging competition through anti trust legislation. Competition and the resulting freedom of choice provide additional benefits for costumers by reducing prices

- The right to be heard

The forth right means that someone will listen and take appropriate action when costumers complain. In fact, corporate management teams begun listening to consumer complains after the end of World War II when competition begun again to increase. Today, businesses are listening even more attentively and many larger firms have consumer relations departments that can be easily contacted via toll-free phone numbers. Actually, one of the services every consumer today expects to receive from the companies he or she selects to purchase things from is consumer support.

I accompanied a visiting friend from my apartment in Singapore to a taxi waiting downstairs.

He climbed into the back seat and promptly sat on a wallet left behind by the previous passenger.

My friend looked inside the wallet and found money, credit cards and personal identification. I suggested taking the wallet upstairs right away to call the owner. The taxi driver allowed me to copy down the necessary information…but he wouldn’t let the wallet out of his sight.

He did not speak English well, but he made his message very clear. ‘My duty,’ he gestured to explain. ‘She left wallet in my taxi. I must report to company right away. Then I must return the wallet!’

This culture of honesty and personal responsibility deserves an honorable mention. Every year Singapore taxi drivers return hundreds of books, wallets and packages accidentally left behind by passengers.

The drivers consider it a matter of honor to return the items in person. Taxi companies consider it a commendable action and duly note the deed in a driver’s permanent record.

Bravo for the culture surrounding, and supporting, the taxi drivers of Singapore.

Key Learning Point
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a culture is strong and supported, individual behavior naturally aligns with the intention and commitment of the group.

Action Steps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What can you do to promote a strong culture? What actions should you take, and what traditions should you reinforce, to strengthen your culture and your values?

Government regulation and public awareness are external forces that have increased the social responsibility of business. But business decisions are made within the company. Two contrasting philosophies, or models, define the range of management attitudes toward social responsibility; the economic and the socioeconomic model.

According to the traditional concept of business, a firm exists to produce quality goods and services, earn a reasonable profit and provide jobs. In line with this concept, the economic model of social responsibility holds that society will benefit more when business is left alone to produce and market profitable products that society needs. To the manager who adopts this traditional attitude, social responsibility is someone else's job. After all, stockholders invest in a corporation to earn a return on their investment, not because the firm is socially responsible and the firm is legally obligated to act in the economic interest of its stockholders.

In contrast, some managers believe they have the responsibility not only to stockholders, but also to customers, employees, suppliers, and the general public. This broader view is referred to as the socioeconomic model of social responsibility. It places emphasis not only on profits but also on the impact of business decisions on society. Recently, increasing numbers of managers and firms have adopted the socioeconomic model and they have done so for at least three reasons. First, a business is dominated by the corporate form of ownership and the corporation is a creation of society. Second, many firms are beginning to take pride in their social responsibility records. Third, many business people believe it is in their best interest to take the initiative in this area, prior to their competitors.

The merits of the economic and the socioeconomic models have been debated for years by business owners, managers, customers, and government officials. Each side seems to have four major arguments to reinforce its viewpoint. Proponents of the socioeconomic model maintain that a business must be more than simply seek profits to support their position and they offer that businesses cannot ignore social issues because a business is a part of our society. Moreover, a business has the technical, financial, and managerial resources that are needed to tackle today's complex social issues. Additionally, by helping resolve social issues, business can create a more stable environment for long-term profitability. Finally, proponents of socially responsible decision making practices argue that these types of tactics can prevent increased government intervention, which would force businesses to do what they fail to do voluntarily. All these arguments are based on the assumption that a business has a responsibility not only to stockholders but also to customers, employees, suppliers and the general public.

Opponents of the socioeconomic model argue that a business should do what it does best; earn a profit by manufacturing and marketing products that people want. Those who support their position argue that business managers are primarily responsible to stockholders, so management must be concerned with providing a return on owners' investment. Furthermore, corporate time, money and talent should be used to maximize profits, not to solve society's problems. Also, social problems affect society in general, so individual businesses should not be expected to sole these problems. In addition, social issues are the responsibility of government officials who are elected for that purpose and who are accountable to the voters for their decision. These arguments are obviously based on the assumption that the primary objective of business is to earn profits, whereas government and social institutions should deal with social problems.

Did you now you can beat your competition even when they cheat? In the company that started I have been beating the competition city after city even though my competition lacks integrity and I often catch them cheating.

In my industry we are in the business of cleaning fleet of vehicles and we often found companies breaking environmental laws and charging the companies they did business with extra for environmental compliance and then underbidding us in the process. At first we could not understand how they were charging such little amounts of money and still reclaiming the waste wash water.

So we kept redesigning our environmental control and reclamation systems to become more and more efficient until we could compete on price without cheating. Eventually we noticed that they were cheating and we simply advised the industry that, that was unacceptable and we helped advise committees that set up standards in the industry to see that the industry could police itself and do business without environmentally negatively impacting the ecosystems.

Of course this is only one example of how we have beat the competition even when they have been cheating. We often in business find cheaters who cannot pull their own weight in nearly every industry. This is because they have grown old in stodgy and weak and they cannot compete in the real world so they make rules for a created reality.

Unfortunately, they can only do this so long until the customer tells them where to go and when they do; all you have to do is be in the way of the money and have with that customer wants and they will give you unit of trade called a dollar.

It is easy to beat the competition even when they cheat and you should know that anyone who cheats is inferior, weak and therefore you have the moral high ground and they should boost your strength of character and confidence in your ability to cream them.

Indeed, I love winning and I love beating the cheaters without cheating. It must be so demoralizing for them when they lack the integrity, the perseverance and the dedication to it even stand on the same field with us and cannot make single play witho

Many US citizens believe that the corporate world is totally corrupt and of course they believe this because they have been told by the mass media hysteria on their television sets that all business people are bad? Many people have surrendered their minds to their television sets and therefore they believe whatever they hear on TV. Further the media will often interview the government and the regulatory agencies and talk about ethics on television. Although there is a little bit of hypocrisy there obviously too.

Unfortunately, what many people do not understand is that many of the rules that are being broken are actually regulations that should have never been made in the first place, as they go against the innate characteristics of the species and the normal interaction between human beings. Additionally, it should be noted that you cannot regulate morality that is something that happens everywhere; morality issues are all over. It happens in government, the schools, churches, nonprofits, sports teams, politics and of course in business too.

Is business behaving badly or is it simply the blob of bureaucracy that we should really blame? The reason I point this out is that we are making criminals out of normal entrepreneurs. If you look around yourself right now and consider that every place you go and everything you see was brought there and made by an entrepreneur or a business or a corporation. If we over regulate these businesses then the American citizenry will get less and pay more for what they do get.

After all it is the consumer that desires something and it is the entrepreneur or business, which delivers it and makes it available for a corresponding unit of trade that we call a dollar. Each time the regulatory agencies make another law to regulate morality they find businesses trying to go around that law and therefore they shore it up with another regulation until there are so many regulations that no one knows what the law is including the lawyers who the businesses must hire just to explain it to them. All this does is stifle our economy and hurt the flows of our civilization. Perhaps you might consider this in 2006.

Traditionally, business ethics was considered to be a very controversial notion because even nowadays some people believe that it is a cornerstone of any future more or less prospective company’s strategy while others perceive it like an oxymoron. Personally, I think that business ethics have to be developed yet and, unfortunately, it is mainly the question philosophers or social critics are worried about but not those who are in the center of its attention, namely businessmen, managers, employees, etc. As far as I understand, the relations between all participants of a business process have to be controlled and regulated by some ethical norms because business ethics has an overwhelming influence on so many process in a company, and these processes can have not only interior but exterior character as well.

It plays a very important role for the climate within a company, shapes its public image, and the list may be continued. One more thing I would like to emphasize is the growing importance of business ethics in the future because moral standards and ethical norms became more and more important in our society and this trend will only progress accompanying the social development. Unfortunately, not all of businessmen and top managers realize this fact and they do not treat the problem of the business ethics seriously. Moreover, very often there actions may be characterized as absolutely immoral and contradicting to the main principles of the business ethics.

Among one of the most notorious examples of such attitude to ethical norms I may name the crisis and the following collapse of the Enron that had happened in recent years. As for me, I am convinced that it was the result of a permanent violation of ethical norms that gradually transformed into the violation of laws. Despite the fact that we shouldn’t equate these two notions, I mean ethics, or it is better to say the lack of it, and the violation of laws, because immoral or unethical doesn’t necessarily mean illegal, it is still quite evident that the latter may be a logical consequence of the former. In other words if decisions contradicting to ethical norms are acceptable within a company or for some members of this company it wouldn’t be a great surprise for me if soon this company or any of its staff will break the law. So I believe that the roots of a crime lie in the moral decay of a personality or the whole social group. Probably, that is exactly what happened to the Enron at large, and to some of its top executives in particular. Now I’ll try to describe briefly the collapse of this company, find out its causes and comment on it.

First of all I want to underline the following markers of a serious ethical conflict, namely it is a presence of 1) significant value conflicts of interests of different people or groups of people, 2) real alternatives that are justifiable, and, finally, 3) significant consequences on ‘stakeholders’ in the situation (Madsen and Shafritz, 1990). Practically all of these markers may be found in the Enron situation, particularly the third one. So, what was the starting point of the disaster as it is called by many because it is one of the most serious and biggest financial scandals in history? Now it is evident that the crisis had begun after the company reported about huge debts. Certainly, an investigation had been started and not surprisingly that very soon top executives were under suspect. It is not a secret anymore that top executives hide debts because they were trying to sustain the permanent growth of their company on the market and to increase the value of its shares in order to earn more money for them despite a very probable bankruptcy. They organized a very subtle web of transaction which helped them to hide millions of dollars of debts of the company as well as they also used for the same purposes complex financial partnerships. Moreover, the Enron executives profited from the situation and sold their shares in the nick of time just before the company failure.

As for top executives they also earned millions of dollars with the help of their families, some friends and partnerships which were controlled by them.

The next question that logically arises is who exactly was guilty and what were consequences of the Enron collapse. Among the most important and guilty is often called Andrew Fastow, a former Enron finance chief who is considered by many specialists to be a mastermind of the Enron failure but it is quite natural to presuppose that one person couldn’t organize such a complicated system of transactions without any other executive or manager knowing. Another person responsible for the Enron crisis is a former Enron chief executive Jeff Skilling. But what seems to me the most shocking, immoral, and absolutely unethical is the fact that one more chief executive of the company Kenneth Lay was extensively informed and warned by middle-managers about the situation within the Enron. And in the meantime, hypocritically, he, in person, announced that he was a good, hardworking, and absolutely ignorant about all those transactions and frauds that took place in the company he was responsible for as a chief executive.

It seems unbelievable but he is really so hypocritic. I think such cynic reaction reveals great problems that existed in the Enron and that there were no ethical norms that regulated relations between the Enron staff. It is even surprising, to some extent, that having such chief executives there still were some people who were fully aware of the danger for stockholders and tried to prevent the catastrophe. Probably, these people had those moral principles that are necessary for normal work of any company in the modern world and I think if they headed the Enron they could save it.

By the way, I want to say a few words about what could be done in order to save the Enron. I’m not going to analyze financial possibility to improve the position of the company on the market. I’d like to analyze ethical part of the problem because I believe that the lack of business ethics finally led to the numerous frauds and the legal crisis in the company. So, what could be done to prevent the Enron collapse? One of the possible ways to prevent it was the Ethical Code of the company. It shouldn’t be just a set of rules, principles or regulations written by one or several persons. To create an effective Ethical Code all members of the company everyday life should work on the project of such a code. Only this condition could provide that written regulations and principles would work in real life because all opinions would be taken into account. Certainly, an effective system of the control of the execution of norms of the Code would be vitally important and would prevent such situations when a chief executive being warned by middle-managers didn’t do anything to stop the terrible fraud. But none of the measures I have just mentioned were taken and, naturally, ethical decay ended in the financial collapse of a gigantic company. As a result many stockholders were ruined, thousands of people lost their jobs, and the criminals were imprisoned. Thus, a prospective company was ruined though who knows what could happen if the ethical principles were dominant in the company’s policy. The only thing I can say for sure is that, to my mind, the Enron would have much more prospects and could hardly collapse.

Custom essays

term paper

Buy essay

Finally, I want to say that it seems to me that the main aim of those who were responsible for the Enron failure was just to make more money regardless the fact that other stockholders could lose their life savings. I think it is absolutely unacceptable in business because nobody can get richer and richer and, in the meantime, lead his or her own company to the collapse. On the one hand it is absolutely immoral, on the other hand it is a serious crime that will be severely punished and the sentences of the Enron executives prove it vividly. So, it is evident that a priori modern business, and leading executives of any company should care about prosperity of the company and society but not only about there own financial success. Nowadays, the most successful companies pay a lot of attention to the effective ethical education of there staff because really working ethical principles contribute not only to the public image of the company but they also provide for the company interior stability, and, consequently, make it more competitive on the market. In general, I think that moral values must gradually transform into the common law. Anyway, moral principles of the business ethics become evident mainly in critical situations and if the company has any they usually unite all of the company’s staff and make it stronger and more survivable.

Ethics in business has become big news over the past several years. We read about the escapades of the executives at Enron, WorldCom and other major companies and shake our heads in astonishment thinking, "How could that happen."We marvel at the unethical behavior of these leaders while at the same time never considering our own behavior.

The truth is that business leaders, regardless of the size of the company, are faced with ethical pressures everyday. The scale or impact of the ethical decision may not measure up to the likes of an Enron, but nevertheless, they do exist. How a business leader handles minor ethical issues is a precursor to how larger decision will be made as the business grows.

Many of the ethical issues we may face are not clearly black or white. In fact, two people faced with the same issue could quite possible make contrary decisions, while believing they each have made the best ethical decision. Why? Because ethical decisions are based upon one's moral character. When it comes to moral behavior, we each march to the sound of different drummers and as such will make different decisions on similar issues.

As a business owner you must set the bar on ethical behavior. Make integrity a core value, be honest with your customers and employees, always follow the rules, never compromise your principles, and remember that the right thing is not always the opposite of the wrong thing. Do these things and your customers will respect you and your employees will remain loyal, essential ingredients to a successful business.

Are you surprised when you read and hear about all of the corruption within business these days? I'm not. The way people act in business situations is nothing more than a reflection of how they act in their normal lives. Why would we expect anything different?

I am a follower of rules. I believe that rules are there to give everyone an equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits that our great nation provides. I get angry when people don't follow the rules.

I don't like seeing people park in handicap zones, with or without a handicap tag, when they don't need to. I get irritated when shoppers take 15 items and check out in a 10 item or less line. I don't like to listen while people talk about how they managed to by-pass the cable company and get their cable TV for free. You get the idea. When people don't follow the rules, those of us who do pay the price. I guess those folks believe that the rules are made for everyone else and not for them. Their selfishness comes before rules.

I have a sign on my wall that reminds me of this, it says, "He who follows the rules gets screwed." It is not there to suggest that I not follow rules, rather to remind me not to get too angry when people don't. Every now and then I get comforted when I see someone who did not follow the rules get their just reward.

Last week a news story reported that an elementary school teacher was arrested in her classroom in front of her class. The story, and of course, the lady arrested, thought it was horrible that the police came into the school room in front of these young children and embarrassed her over a parking ticket that she did not pay. It turns out she had more than one outstanding parking ticket and they were several years old.

To bad lady, you broke the rules and thought you could get away with it. The fact that you were embarrass in front of your class is your own fault. Do you think those of us who follow the rules should be considerate of your feelings when you obviously don't care about ours? And the kids, let them see what happens when people don't follow rules. Let us reinforce good actions by clearly punishing poor actions.

My hope is that by doing so, these kids will grow up following rules. Remember, the way people act in their normal lives will carry over to their business lives. Do you want businesses to become less corrupt? Cheer the small victories we get when those who refuse to follow rules get caught. I want to change my sign to read, "He who follows the rules wins."

Compliance training gets no respect. Training managers view it as something of a bugaboo. Most trainees greet it with about as much enthusiasm as they would a parallel parking contest. So what is it, why do we need it, and how can we best go about it?

Well, government regulations and business best practices dictate that you not only conduct certain courses but also maintain records to show that they have been taken and understood by all concerned. Not offering such training can jeopardize the health and safety of your workers, earn the ire of your shareholders, and/or get you on the wrong side of the regulatory authorities.

Here are some examples of compliance training:

° Human resource issues: Such as equal opportunity, workforce diversity, and sexual harassment.

° Business ethics: A large organization will have need for courses that deal with general business ethics as well as the more specialized needs of those in sales and marketing, accounting/finance, information and document management, and corporate governance (Serbanes Oxley or SOX compliance requirements). Moreover, certain industries, such as real-estate and lending, will have additional requirements specific to their business.

° Occupational safety: US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations on both general occupational health and safety and the special needs of industries such as construction, food service, and healthcare.

° Industrial safety: OSHA and other standards that seek to prevent injuries, accidents, chemical spills, fires, and explosions.

° Driver safety education: For those who operate vehicles that are part of corporate fleets.

° HIPAA training: For healthcare workers on how to use and share patient information in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

What’s the ideal platform for such training? To answer that question, we need to examine the characteristics of compliance training, which are:

° It’s required by large numbers of people, often within a short timeframe.

° It’s often repetitive.

° The course content, once developed, is fairly stable (though subject to adjustment as regulations get fine-tuned).

° Even locations that have only one or two employees must undergo this training.

° And, of course, it demands good record keeping.

° Except for the needs of specialized industries, the course content – once developed – can be sold to a very large national, sometimes international, customer base.

What we have just listed are the exact situations in which e-learning is both appropriate and cost effective. E-learning has the ability to perform volume training quickly and relatively inexpensively, even when there are one or two participants per location. It’s also just-in-time and self-paced, allowing it to be more easily squeezed into a crowded work schedule. All those make e-learning the ideal vehicle for compliance training. What about the records? When e-learning is delivered from an LMS, record-keeping is automatic and effortless!

Now, what’s this LMS? A Learning Management System is software that allows you to display on your corporate intranet all of your training offerings, whether instructor-led or self-paced, as well as track the progress of everyone taking these courses – anywhere at any time in your company. LMSs, while quite useful, can be pricey, ranging in cost from many thousands to over a million dollars. They can also be hard to select, customize, install, and operate.

Does it ever make sense to offer instructor-led training (ILT) classes on compliance issues? There’s no better training than an ILT class taught well! There are topics related to people issues, for instance cultural diversity and sexual harassment and perhaps some aspects of SOX compliance training, which can be taught with much greater impact in an ILT setting.

So how do you implement compliance e-learning and an LMS without going broke? Here are some tips and ideas that will make the job easier:

° You can buy compliance e-learning from either a vendor specializing in a particular type of compliance training, for example, just human resource, occupational safety, or SOX training. (SOX training has become an industry by itself.) If the need of the hour is to address a particular compliance issue quickly, this may do. You can also buy it from an e-learning vendor that provides a variety of compliance and general e-learning. If you’re looking for a comprehensive solution addressing several compliance and/or general training requirements, this is the way to go. I should add here that there are sources of compliance training that are often overlooked, e.g., trade associations and nonprofits such as the National safety Council.

° Most large sellers of e-learning offer courses produced by the same old producers of quality e-learning courses. Given that, it may make sense to buy your e-learning from a smaller, low-overhead discount vendor than a large name-brand vendor – service and everything else being equal, of course. Doing your homework can help you stretch your training dollar.

° There are e-learning vendors who will allow you to run any e-learning courses bought from them off of their servers, using their LMS, saving you the expense and trouble of acquiring/operating both an LMS and the information technology infrastructure needed to host and support the e-learning libraries. If you have any third-parry e-learning courses, you will not be able to run them off of this vendor-provided “gratis” LMS, but if your objective was to track your compliance training for free, that objective has been achieved.

° There are vendors that offer both e-learning and ILT solutions. Some of them offer knowledgeable “blended learning” consultants who can help you take the best of the e-learning and ILT worlds and put it all together into packages that score high on the quality/effectiveness scale but are easy on your budget. A blended learning package might, for instance, combine e-learning courses on “mass market” compliance topics with high-impact ILT courses on sensitive human resource needs, especially if such courses require customization to your company’s culture or processes.

Finally, ask questions; insist on answers. Take the e-learning courses out for a test drive before you buy them. Make sure the courses are interactive and fun. Find out if the vendor has blended learning consultant who can help you combine e-learning with ILT in just the right way. Compliance training needs to be effective, or it hasn’t met your basic goals. It needs to be affordable. And it needs to draw and hold the audience attention. After all, you don’t want to be known as the impresario of parallel parking events!