Recently I read of a new website where teachers can post and sell their lesson plans to recover the time that they had spent in developing these plans. On the surface, this sounds reasonable and why would anyone object to teachers making a little more money through such a capitalist venture and leveraging their intellectual capitol?

However this question is much more about understanding the importance of retaining intellectual capital (knowledge management) within the educational system and how this demonstrates questionable ethics on part of the teachers.

Consider the following scenario:

I am an instructional designer (person who writes training programs) and employed full time. Part of my job is to create activities that promote learning for the target audience. Do I have a right to sell those activities on my own time on a website? Even though I am not a lawyer, I know that this would be highly unethical and probably illegal. These activities are the direct result of my job description. My employer has already paid me for their creation.

Now, I am a teacher who is paid to educate young people. Also, I am paid to attend numerous professional development days in which I learn to create specific lesson plans that promote learning for my students. Do I have a right to sell those activities on my own time on a website? From a legal standpoint, I don't know the answer to that question. However, from an ethical standpoint, absolutely not! What is happening is that I am being paid twice to perform the same work. Some individuals call this double dipping and in many proven cases it is illegal.

As a former public school teacher, elected school board trustee and now a performance improvement consultant, I have seen hundreds of thousands of dollars lost by school systems because they had not created a knowledge management process. Lesson plans created during school hours and during time designated to teacher professional development should be archived by the school corporation so that every teacher benefits from this knowledge. Just think about all that lost knowledge and wisdom and its very expensive price tag.

Professional development is truly expensive. According to Northern Central Regional Learning Laboratory (NCRL), a quick search revealed the following allocation of funds for professional development:

Illinois over $100 million annually for professional development
Iowa over $50 million
Michigan over $20 million
Ohio over $25 million

Additionally within each school day, teachers receive paid preparation time to work on their lesson plans, grade students' papers, etc. For many teachers, the designated time is not enough and time must be spent after school hours to complete their daily tasks. And the question then arises, if I am doing it on my own time, then I own the intellectual capitol and have the right to sell this capitol. However, many salaried people take their work home to finish it and are not compensated for those efforts. In the real world, it is part of the job.

What for me is most troubling about teachers selling lesson plans (that in many cases are the intellectual property of the school) is one of ethics. Since I was a former teacher, I experienced first hand the extra hours invested in preparing my room, grading papers and creating engaging learning activities. Yet, coming from a small business background, doing all this perceived extra stuff wasn't really all that extra because it was part of the job, plain and simple. To go out and sell the fruits of my labor that were paid for by my employer would be totally unethical and probably would get me fired. Yet, teachers are being encouraged to engage in unethical behavior and they probably believe it is OK.

And finally there is the issue of copyright. In many teacher professional development workshops, the speakers distribute sample lesson plans. With today's technology, a quick scan and a few edits can change the visual ownership of the lesson plan, but the intellectual capitol still belongs to the presenter of the workshop. Of course if a student did this, it would be cheating or plagiarism.

As a small business and education coach who has created hundreds of learning activities to help clients better understand key concepts, I have always acknowledged the source of the activity such as a concept, story or quote when it wasn't mine. This keeps me always aware of my own ethical standards and ensures that I hold fast and true to those standards.

So before any teacher sells what they believe to be their lesson plan, maybe they need to identify where that plan came from and ask themselves: "Have I already been paid for that lesson plan?"

The study of business ethics and its implications for different stakeholders have seen tremendous growth in the past few decades. There has also been a rise in the use and development of codes of ethics and announcements for ethical practices by many firms; however companies are still criticized for their unethical practices at different levels (Papers4you.com, 2006). Business ethics, according to the literature has been entrenched with the philosophical details of Ethics (Trevino & Nelson, 1999). Ethics has been defined as ‘the activity of examining the moral standards of a society, and asking how these standards apply to ones life and whether these standards are reasonable’ (Velasquez, 1998; p. 11).

The literature on business ethics is divided on its views about the motivation and reason for businesses to have an ethical dimension. Drawing upon Harrison (2001), there are two major schools of thoughts, firstly those who suggest that firms are profit generating institutions and therefore business ethics is yet another way to attract customers, secondly those who support corporate conscience and intrinsic motivation for the adoption of business ethics.

Business ethics has been considered very subjective in nature and according to Paul (2001) is considered a function of time and culture. It has been established that with the passage of time business ethics have evolved and also that the cultural values and norms drive business ethics within national and regional boundaries. One of the major studies regarding the national values has been conducted by Hofstede (1983). According to this research, which was only based on four indicators i.e. individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, there is a great deal of differences among values across different nations and consequently the business ethics. Globalization combined with standardization has made businesses financially efficient but at the same time poses questions regarding the standardized codes of business ethics across national boundaries.

Vinten (1991) has divided the business ethical issues at different levels i.e. international business, domestic business and professional ethics. At the international level ethical issues include free-masonry and socialism versus capitalism; at domestic level these include religious dimensions, social marketing and ethical education; and lastly at the individual level these include bribery, corruption and data protection (Papers4you.com, 2006).

There are many reasons and criticisms for the failure of adoption of ethics in the business world. Firstly, the concept is considered to be overly theoretical and it also negates the basic purpose of any business i.e. to create shareholder’s wealth. Secondly, it has lack of direction and unanimity across different cultures and academic groups. Lastly, it has many inherent unresolved dichotomies that according to Sternberg (1994) make it a case of rejected relativism.

Dear committee,

I do not wish to continue the proscribed process as outlined in the action points of the last committee meeting regarding my grievance with Meg. It seems obvious that with Meg’s abject refusal to even attempt to redress the problem that any process will fail to effect change without putting the museum directly into a potentially destructive process.

Please find the attached document ‘Complaints.rtf’, which outlines the processes that are notionally in use, I must stress that this is a draft, and should not be considered anything more than my personal notes on the problem. Please circulate as appropriate.

Because there has not been a coherent effort to document this, until now, what has not been noticed is that this is a system which requires command and control structures that don’t, and can’t, exist within a totally voluntary organisation. This power vacuum is a natural consequence of the fact that, increasingly, we are all volunteers, thus among other inconsistencies, the required level of perceived authority to execute this style of system where one volunteer has to exert speculative control over others does not exist. This can be seen in the question of ' which hat am I wairing' and the confusion generated where direct reporting and operational lines are combined into one person with two 'hats'.

To extend the argument, I think since a hierarchical system is failing to manage with grievance and complaints, the idea of a more communal arrangement is worth some consideration, ie there have been two complaints recently, incidentally both of which can be directly linked to Meg’s interference.

In this communal environment, if a complaint can not be resolved informally, it passes to a ‘committee of the whole house’ type meeting for all volunteers and management to ask the questions of all concerned and to vote on a consensual solution.

As a by product of this thinking, I would seriously recommend that management committee meetings be opened up to all volunteers, and the formal directors meetings reduced to the circulation of written reports, effectively reverting to a more passive entity, ie as things were before committee members were actively getting involved in operations.

I don’t want to teach people how to suck eggs, but my situation doesn’t give me much choice in the matter as I have a unique insight into the workings of the museum, and I would hate to think that this painful episode has not produced anything of benefit to anyone.

With kind regards,

----------

Dear committee,

It has been 3 weeks since the last committee meeting at which, as I understand the situation, Meg was ‘asked’ to informally make some ‘attempt’ at ‘resolving’ the ‘personal’ ‘issues’ between her and I. Please excuse the excessive use of quotation marks above, my feelings as to the failures of the past should be obvious - that is not important as we look to the future, continuing in the same way. Nothing happened, or even looks like progress, I don't know what to do now, was hoping for some advice at the opening.

Well, I’ve gone out of my way to give Meg reasonable opportunities in which to start what ever process was indicated, including fixing her computer which had malfunctioned the day before the meeting, (heat retention damage to her most recent files) in fact while leaving, that same meeting, she asked my dad if he thought I would help her sort it out.

I sorted out the computer, said that if she had only being using MsWord, instead of Wordpad, she would not have lost her priory exhibition texts, I’ve even offered to help her learn how to use all the features of Word while helping to write her ‘reporting responsibilities’ document, that would have directly resolved’ the root of the original conflict.

The fact is that she only even talks to me when its convenient for her, ie when she needs something, before her computer issue I don’t think she has said more than 3 consecutive words to me since last October.

Even at the opening, there were times when Meg just came over and started talking to whom ever was there, as if I didn’t exist, once while talking she moved from where she was standing so as to literally exclude me too.

Anyway, I believe Meg is not ignoring or just not trying but is actively not accepting any problem even existed, I can only assume she is having difficulty as an ex school teacher, but that’s no reason to hide her head in the sand. What sort of behaviour is this for an adult women? What sort of an example is this for the younger generation?

I think Meg wants all this to be forgotten, putdown to bad luck and then all will be right again, either that or she ‘believes’ that she has resolved the problems, maybe since I fixed her computer, it her mind, that counts somehow. :-)

Well indeed the memory and the emotion fades – but the understanding gained will not so easily, enlightenment itself does not – not completely. What does this teach me? It teaches me that I am who I was, and will always be, and so will Meg, she didn’t even write her final dissertation (she gave notes to her friend who organised and typed it up). Still I wonder about how it is that this terrible and terrifying thing called human society allows the truly stupid, reckless and dangerous to flourish.

So then logically, if I am to survive in this world, in the midst of this society, then I too can just go around floundering helplessly interfering with things I don’t understand, aimlessly not knowing or caring for the reason to do so; barking orders & acting unilaterally, just as long as I say what ever is politically convenient at that time so people think I’m actually competent!

With kind regards,

-------------------

Dear committee,

I see your version of the covering note section on your reasoning is ‘stronger’ than dads original.

I like it, as you imply that Meg/Sheila didn’t know there were other considerations, other than simply a matter of permission fromVestry Hall, and just because they didn’t think it would be a problem, that noone else would have anything important to say on the matter & it is not in anyone’s interest for this to continue.

The sad fact is that, there was debate at ' committee level ' (you may remember a 'committee' ad hoc meeting in our garden last year when I was present, let alone more formal ones where I was not) about the possibilities, including that of a permanent sign, however the point that once we have permission to mount such a sign, there MUST be committee consultation has been (conveniently) lost.

Indeed, at that initial (informal) stage, the details of implementation weren’t important enough to warrant any real consideration which, sadly, means that Meg/Sheila could argue that they ‘didn’t know they needed to know anything else’ thus due to their limited understanding, they feel no committee consultation was required.

I don’t think this works in practise, ignorance should not be a reasonable defence, assuming they generally didn’t believe there would be any problems, should volunters be able to act unilaterally?

I think Meg/Sheila could argue that, ‘You unilaterally put up the WVF signs without committee consultation, this is no different’.

In the first instance these are temporary signs, erected correctly, by a trained volunteer and not subject to the same requirements. But more to the point, they were erected as part of an overall strategy which was agreed at committee level, where as the question of a perment Museum sign was not.

The question now, which Meg/Sheila could argue is about where we draw the boundary between normal (day-to-day) operations which don’t require committee consultation and what things do?

I think anything that someone should reasonably suspect could effect the running/operation of the museum MUST be subject to committee consultation, except to the extent where preexisting general authority has been given - was this ever done for Meg and Sheila?

If so how can they support/justerfy someone who has responsibility for the internal displays therefore having unilateral authority for anything else. Whatever the case, everyone should be alert of such a policy

With kind regards,

-----------

Summary:

This is an introduction to some relatively complex areas related to appraisals and evaluations which constitute two processes which can assist volunteer management.

It is only in situations which go drastically wrong that a complaints process needs to come into operation. Most complaints, either by or about volunteers, can usually be dealt with in supervisory sessions or through discussions with a manager. Volunteers need to know who they can approach should they wish to make a complaint and the action which will be taken is certain guidelines and policies are broken by them.

Making such processes as fair and straightforward as possible is important, in unpaid work it becomes all to easy for seemingly minor issues to heighten any pre existing sense of injustice or to crate it a feeling of there being an inner-circle of friends. Many volunteers leave an organisation of their own accord. Volunteers need to be valued and supported through their time of leaving. In this way, volunteers will leave with a positive experience of the organisation and possibly return in the future and of invite others, should the opportunity arise.

Complaints:

There may be occasions when a volunteer has cause to make a complaint about another volunteer, organisations run by volunteers where ‘there’s never been a problem’ and have never had need of measures for such procedures, sometimes import boilerplate grievance and disciplinary procedures from a business environment on the basis that ‘it works for them, so it’ll work for us’.

Grievance and complaints, like the burden of any bureaucracy, could quickly start to over-formalise volunteering thus dampening personal creativity. This administrative approch is clearly not appropriate for every organisation. However, it is important to treat volunteers fairly and without procedures all problems will tend to be tackled on an ad hoc basis which would inexorably result in unequal treatment and will only ever heighten any pre existing people's sense of injustice or could create it.

It is now generally accepted that guidelines are required specifically for volunteers, if for no other reason than to avoid an over-formalisation of 'contracts' or 'agreements' between the organisation and its volunteers, which can lead to ambiguities in the status of volunteers.

There are many examples of volunteers clamming protection under employment law, and there is a general perception within committee levels that volunteers are never personally at fault for any damage caused to the organisation, ie any problem is in some way seen as a result of the fault of management instead of the ‘guilty party’. This is true of paid employment, as a direct result of employment law but this can not be applied to the voluntary sector for reasons that should be obvious later.

In the event of a complaint by or concerning a volunteer, all involved should always know there is someone - usually a Manager - who is beyond the direct reporting lines of any issue, with whom they can discuss matters of concern. In most circumstances, this manager will be able to resolve problems, by listening to the volunteer(s) concerned. All parties must know who is responsible and that matters in this context will be treated confidentially.

Dealing with Complaints:

If complaints cannot be resolved by discussion, then some suitable framework has be put in place to deal with such situations; the overall affect should be to create a buffer between the personal and private area of involvement. This process should be seen as a last resort, to be implemented only if supervision and support have failed to resolve the situations.

As with other areas of volunteer management, present guidelines recommend that each organisation should formulate their own complaints process surrounding volunteer involvement. A framework for dealing with complaints should include methods whereby there is:

1) A named person for dealing with complaints;

2) A clear policy known to all everyone;

3) Separation and boundaries of confidentiality;

4) A method to withdraw complaints at any time;

5) A process for complaints included in the induction process;

6) Volunteers have the right to appeal.

Complaints by Volunteers:

As already stated, minor matters can be prevented from becoming major issues through good lines of communication, supervision and support. If a matter cannot be resolved through informal discussions, keeping guidelines as straightforward as possible can help ease frustration. Long, drawn out and complicated processes could be seen as a deliberate form of intimidation to prevent issues being reported in the first place and to prevent matters being dealt with swiftly / justly. Building on the framework described above, if volunteers wish to make a complaint, there needs to be:

1) An explanation of the options available in order to make a complaint;

2) A procedure for putting complaints in writing;

3) An acknowledgement that making a complaint against another volunteer will not prejudice their opportunity to continue to volunteer for the organisation.

4) Documentation of the complaint and subsequent meeting/s to resolve the problem and the outcome should be kept on record.

5) The right to withdraw from their involvement with the organisation or be given extra support to continue, whilst the complaint is being dealt with.

If the complaint is of a serious nature, it may require the involvement of a manager, or chair of the management committee.

In situations where a volunteer makes a complaint, he/she should be informed of the outcome.

Complaints against Volunteers:

In most circumstances, concerns about a volunteer's conduct should be dealt with in supervisory meetings, for example where someone starts interfering with other people’s work. The important point here is that dealing with a complaint at an early stage and in a more informal way is more likely to result in a satisfactory outcome by monitoring and intervention before possible problems are realised is preferable to sorting out problems after the event.

In situations where a volunteer has seriously breached his/her responsibilities, he/she can be asked to leave the organisation. However, these situations need to be specified at the time of induction. They may include, but not limited to, the following:

1) Theft of property;

2) Act of violence;

3) Falsifications of records;

4) Abuse/harassment;

5) Vandalism/damage to property;

6) Unauthorised disclosure of confidential information;

7) Action or inaction putting self or the public at risk

Further to this and depending on the nature of the complaint, the volunteer may be asked to withdraw his/her services on a temporary basis, while the matter is being investigated. Before any action is proposed to deal with a complaint, the complaint itself needs to be verified. The steps which may be taken to rectify a situation would include:

1) Nature of the complaint;

2) Why the behaviour has occurred;

3) Implementing change (additional support, training etc.) within a given time frame.

4) Review of change.

If, no change or insufficient change in attitude or behaviour is observed, in spite of additional support, it may well be necessary to ask the volunteer to leave the organisation if for no other reason then to enable the other volunteers to continue to contribute without feeling duress and or to prevent a feeling of ‘unfairness’ .

Bearing in mind the concerns expressed above, questions have to be raised as to how far it is possible for an organisation to take action 'against' a volunteer, unlike in paid employment there is in fact very little action that can be taken other than removing the disruptive influence. Due to this fact that nothing can be done other than that quite extreme measure, avoiding problems and minimising risks is preferable to trying to resolve problems after the event.

Throughout any process and during the time a volunteer is with an organisation, it needs to be made clear that their services can be withdrawn, without redress, on either side, this is why the issue of volunteer protection under employment law must be avoided at all costs, as these two ideas are totally irreconcilable

Deciding on the best methods of dealing with complaints requires thought, preparation and review. The NAVB suggest that the involvement of volunteers (and other related members of staff) in the formulation in the methods to deal with complaints is often helpful. As the NAVB state, the positive consequences of this are two fold: Firstly, it raises awareness of the process and secondly helps to ensure that volunteers are happy with the decision about such issues that affect them directly, (NAVB, 1995, p.5). Due to the nature of unpaid work, it is important that those effected are consulted and their input is valued and recognised.

As a direct result of an open structure, if a volunteer is asked to leave as a result of a complaint being upheld and not being resolved, it needs to be done firmly but with fairness.

Leaving the Organisation:

Many organisations find volunteer retention difficult and volunteers sometimes seem to leave all too frequently. Nevertheless, this freedom to come and go, without redress, is at the heart of the volunteering experience and a odds with employment law. Some organisations may feel that they require a specified commitment from their volunteers, however, this can prove problematic if in so doing it creates a more formal, legally binding agreement.

At whatever stage a volunteer wishes to leave, it is essential that his/her input is valued and recognised. One way of doing this is to obtain and value their opinion on the work of the organisation and volunteer involvement. Current thinking that in leaving volunteers are given the opportunity to discuss their work and reasons for leaving. Useful questions which may be to ask volunteers who decide to leave the include:

1) What was your role? Did this change over time? If yes, how?

2) What did you best like about volunteering with this organisation?

3) What did you least like about volunteering with us?

4) What improvements would you make for changes or improvements in the organisation's involvement of volunteers?

5) Would you recommend other people to come and volunteer with this organisation?

From gathering such information as a volunteer leaves, it is possible to build up a picture of volunteering within the organisation and this information could prove invaluable to the organisation as it may be used to contribute to the future retention of other volunteers.

It may be found that several volunteers leave for the same reason; this information will allow the Volunteer Manager to implement any changes considered necessary to aid future retention of volunteers.

Have you heard of the "prisoner's dilemma?" It is a situation where two people are apprehended as suspects for a major crime. They are separated from each other and interrogated. There are two options available to each of the two suspects:

1. Don’t admit to the crime. If each person refuses to talk, each will get one year in prison.

2. Admit to the crime. If one prisoner admits to the crime and implicates his partner, he gets off free and his partner must spend five years in prison.

A problem for each of the two prisoners exists if both admit to the crime. In that case, both suspects would receive a three prison sentence.

The best possible overall scenario would be for each prisoner not to confess to any crime. In that case there would be a combined total of two years in prison (One year for each suspect). Option 2 would result in a total of five years in prison (Five years for the first suspect and zero years for the second suspect). If each suspect admits to the crime it would result in a combined six year sentence (three years each).

The prisoner's dilemma is an example of where acting in one's self interest does not always serve one’s self interest. Greed, too often, gets the better of ourselves. This often happens in the business world, too. Just take Enron or Tyco, for example.

Business competition is great and healthy for the economy as a whole and great within individual businesses; it fosters innovation, growth, and profits. But, with many people being individualistic it can cause problems, just as in the prisoner’s dilemma.

Take, for example, two top salespeople in a company's sales department. Let's say that each one is so driven to succeed that they'll do anything to achieve their goals and outdo eachother. Normally, the salesperson with the best numbers (most sales leads, most appointments, most referrals, most closed sales) would be seen as the top performer. But, being jealous, they both decide to sabotage eachother's performance, eachother's numbers, and they continuously talk trash behind eachother's backs (office gossip). This happens in countless organizations, be it in executive management, the customer service department, the accounting department, or even the marketing department. I think we would all agree that if they co-operated, each of these two salespeople would be better off; I think the two salespeople would agree too. Yet it happens. Our jealousy and self interest, too often, gets in the way of what would be better off for ourselves and the companies that we work for.

Why Invent When You Can Reverse (Engineer That Is...)?

In an age when new technology erupts into the marketplace daily, finding a niche in business has never been easier. Looking back now, you could have been the first surgeon to broadcast a complex procedure. Maybe you could have been the first college professor to podcast lectures to students. Or maybe you could have been the first artist to set up a personal blog to sell artwork. Many people think of these “could have’s” and chalk them up as missed opportunities. But this is just a defeatist attitude.

Sure, people always say a first-mover advantage gives you a great lead time and you can price your product or service any way you want. But what if you’re a second-mover? Think of all of the “me too” businesses that have spawned into global successes. Big guys such as Microsoft, Apple, and Dell were not the originators of the products they sold. They capitalized on the mistakes of others, learned from them, and created a bigger and better product. Sometimes that’s all you need to do.

Apple’s iPod is one of the best examples in my mind. They looked at Compaq’s first hard-drive-based MP3 player in 1998, and saw how they could improve upon it. After three years of thinking about what Apple could bring to the table, the company spawned its own MP3 player. Apple’s name was already synonymous with user-friendly technology so they simply applied what they did best to Compaq’s design. The interface on the iPod and the free software, iTunes, which was released with the product, were raved about because of their ease-of-use and compatibility. And now they’ve sold almost 30 million iPods based on an idea that wasn’t even theirs to begin with! Crazy, right?

Crazy Like a Fox!

The lesson you can learn from these big companies is that anybody can steal a good idea. Especially if it’s a good idea that’s not protected by intellectual property laws! It gets a little sticky when you’re actually taking a product idea and trying to re-sell it. But if it’s a marketing idea or a sales technique that you’re oh-so-envious of, then it’s a whole new ballgame.

For example, one of the latest things in advertising for the service industry is blogging. Professionals have capitalized on the blog movement to establish expertise in their fields. Business coaches, lawyers, and consultants who write articles for newsletters and online publications are starting to post in blogs as well. This is a great marketing tool for professionals to stand out as they are giving their businesses a personal touch instead of trying to sell the benefits of their service through traditional media.

Don’t Steal, Improve!

Businesses really need to be on the lookout for things like the blog example. It’s simple to do and can really benefit your company. Keep on top of technology news and constantly challenge your business model for ways to improve. It takes a dozen of the greatest business minds to find new ways of producing and selling products, but it only takes one to steal it and adapt it.

And “steal” is the wrong word for this type of practice. It’s more of a modification or an adaptation. Every business has something that it’s particularly good at. Apple had its user-friendly differentiator that it applied to MP3 players. Find a product or strategy that you think can genuinely help your business and identify what you do best as a company. Combine the two into something new and beneficial.

There has been much written about the life and death of Ken Lay since he passed away earlier this week. I have long made it a point not to sit in judgment of others as it is very difficult to properly connect the dots from afar. It is my belief that there are indeed at least two sides to every story and that what often times appears in the media as hard news can actually be editorial commentary that may or may not portray the reality of a given situation. Furthermore, just knowing someone who knows someone will rarely even provide you with accurate information relating to the actual events of a situation especially one veiled in controversy.

Regardless of how you feel about Mr. Lay I was truly disheartened at many of the things that I read relating to the death. He was after all more than a businessman…he was a human being who was a husband, father, grandfather, church member and was active in his community. I always find it tragic when people’s lives are reduced to gossip and innuendo. Humans are imperfect creatures and I have yet to come across any business leader who can’t rattle off several decisions that they wish they hadn’t made. It just so happens that some mistakes are more public than others and for most people it is much easier to point the finger at those who have been in the spotlight rather than to deal with their own private indiscretions.

OK, I’ll step down from my soap box now and provide you with the perspective of others. I’ve read several different pieces written about Mr. Lay over the past few days, but I believe the following three individuals cover the topic at hand from every angle. While the comments below specifically address the life of Ken Lay, I would encourage you to take a step back and read the following commentary with the bigger picture in mind…As you read the following comments think about your perspective on people as well as about how you choose to view life in general:

Comment #1, obviously written by a critic of Mr. Lay:

“Lay had recently been convicted of a plethora of felonies, and was staring at the realization that he would most likely be spending the rest of his life in jail. Obviously, this news makes that scenario moot, and I’m sure that there are numerous lawyers, jurors, and reporters who feel like they just wasted a good chunk of their lives during the recent trials. The mainstream media seems to be flirting with turning Kenny-Boy into a martyr, almost portraying him as the victim of a stressful trial and prosecution. I believe this to be total crap. Whether Lay knew about every single corrupt practice at Enron or not, and I believe that he did, his company screwed over a ton of people, and as the head of the corporation the blame must fall on his shoulders. His rise from very poor beginnings in my home state, graduating from my alma mater, and eventually becoming the head of a major energy company are certainly commendable and impressive. The downfall of that fraudulent and crooked company, however, was criminal, and Lay deserved everything that he got. It’s a damn shame that he’s dead, because seeing him led away to prison might have given those that were burned by his sham of a company some peace.”

Comment #2, obviously written by someone who knew and respected Mr. Lay that provides the flip side of opinion #1 above:

“Ken Lay was a deacon at FMC Houston. There he chose to serve the homeless communion each Sunday. There he befriended the poor. There he gave money for food, clothing, and shelter. His gifts were with his heart. People who knew this gentle man would not recognize him by the media’s descriptions. Ken returned to Enron to save the company from problems. He did not know Andy Fastow, the CFO was lying to investors with creative accounting. Why would he come back to a company he founded…and take up and put on the mantle of a conspiracy that outdated him? Ken had a margin call….an order from the bank to sell his Enron stock, because of declining capital value. That is why he sold the stock. Ken believed in the company, believed what Fastow was telling him.

Please go to Ken Lay info.com and read the court transcripts, and view the meetings in which he is accused of touting Enron stock to investors. In those meetings he is straightforward, honest, and tells the accounting dept. “Vanilla is just fine…”…meaning…as I come back to lead, we need no creative accounting. Please don’t take your view of Ken from newspaper reports and a jury that did not understand finance.”

Comment #3, this opinion taken from the New York Times and falls somewhere between comments 1 & 2 above:

“Mr. Lay was fairly convicted of his crimes, but he was also a father and grandfather, whose family mourns his passing. He was headed for the penitentiary, but that did not have to be the end for him. He would have had an opportunity to use his personal skills to help other prisoners. And at 64 years, he might have had another shot at that third act after all. Michael Milken has devoted much of his resources to medical research since serving his sentence. What Ken Lay might have done we will never know. Chances are it would have been interesting.”

Wrongdoing is certainly wrongdoing and good intentions don’t justify deviant behavior. That being said, experience tells me that there is probably some truth in all of the above statements, but the bigger issue is not how we feel about Mr. Lay, but how we treat other individuals in general…during both the best of times and in worst of times. Don’t allow yourself to be a fair weather friend or a gossip…Rather understand that most of us are not privy to the inner thoughts of others and their motivations. We need to keep in mind that all people make mistakes and that mistakes don’t necessarily make you evil they just make you human.

Mike Myatt is the Chief Strategy Officer at N2growth. N2growth is a leading

History of Business Ethics

Early Judaism introduced the 10 commandments by the hands of Moses, which are still used as a guide for morality for many today. The 10 commandments provide practical principles for truthfulness and good ethical behavior. For example, Exodus 20:16 states, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. This verse gives great value to honesty in all aspects of business and life. Many ideas found throughout the Bible can be and have been used in business for a long time. Other religions also have similar sacred or ancient texts that help to guide people’s actions.

Philosophers also played a role in identifying and influencing morality and ethics in society. Plato was known for his discussions of justice in his work The Republic:

If what I am morally required to do can (in some circumstances) be different from what I would choose do for my own benefit, then why should I be moral? Plato wrote the remainder of The Republic in an attempt to provide an adequate, satisfying answer to this question.

Aristotle discussed economic relations, commerce and trade under the heading of the household in his Politics. He discussed trade, property and money which all apply to modern times. He made moral claims about greed and perverted use of one’s abilities in the quest of wealth for its own sake. He attacks exploitation because it includes a profit from money itself instead of the method of exchange in which money is simply a means.

After the fall of Rome, Christianity influenced business in the context of justice and honesty in buying and selling. Later, Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley among other Reformation figures led the way in the development of the Protestant work ethic. The Protestant work ethic is a biblically based idea of the importance of hard work, striving for perfection and the goodness of labor.

John Locke developed ideas pertaining to the defense of property as a natural right. He believed that people acquire property by mixing their labor with what they find in nature. Adam Smith, often called the father of modern economics, believed that morality and economics are intertwined and not mutually exclusive. Most focus on his economic influence, but Smith was also a moral philosopher and the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Why People Behave Unethically: An Enron Case Study

In the span of six months, how could one of America’s most respected and successful companies go bankrupt? Enron’s board of directors authorized their chief financial officer to create Enron-funded partnerships that defrauded shareholders by hiding real losses and creating phony profits. One of the most critical board meetings at Enron in 1991, where executives gave approval to set aside their ethics statements on behalf of fraudulent activities with partnerships, lasted only one hour.

Pressures from management often cause employees to consider and use unethical means to achieve success to please their superiors. Enron recruited exclusively at major business schools. They wined and dined the prospects. Recruiters promised young job-seekers huge bonuses and fed their egos as much as they would take. Once they were hired, it was an up or out culture. Those who survived began to think they were something extraordinary. Former CEO of Enron, Jeffrey Skilling, was an aggressive manager. “He used to pit them against each other. He knew that as long as he could keep them scared of one another and competing, he would have control. When you create an environment in which, if you want to be among the best and the brightest, you’ve got to play the game the way the boss has set it up, that’s not a culture where people are going to challenge top management”.

Personal greed frequently drives people into doing unethical activities. Andrew Fastow, the CFO of Enron, sold $36 million of his investments before the company went down. Kenneth Lay had many sweetheart deals with members of his family. Skilling is said to have gotten away with around $200 million. One might call that profuse greed. Business ethics is most important among the leaders of an organization. The leaders set a precedent for the behavior of all the employees, giving grave importance to the model that they supply for their actions. “Employees model – that is emulate – their boss’s behavior. That makes the top leader, ultimately responsible for the culture of his organization – including the ethical culture”.

Cronyism can often affect organizations in a negative way causing people to behave unethically. Enron had a tendency towards cronyism, which is partiality towards friends or family. Managers at Enron’s divisions grew arrogant, thinking themselves to be invincible. They had a tendency to seal themselves off from things on the outside. Skilling set up a system of ranking among employees that determined the fate of their jobs. If fellow employees gave you a poor report, you were out. This instantly created alliances among the groups that were willing to play ball and ousted the “Boy Scouts.” “They had something called a rank-and-yank performance appraisal system, which eliminated anyone who fell behind, a real Darwinist system that took care of anyone who might potentially disagree. All of the whistleblowers were rebuffed, humiliated or treated in an intimidating way by the various players. And finally their 1999 annual report in which all of the members of the board of directors are listed by their nicknames suggests a tendency towards cronyism”.

Prospering in an Unethical World: An R. G. LeTourneau Case Study

R. G. LeTourneau is considered by some as one of the most influential people of the past hundred years. LeTourneau made giving to others a priority – He gave away 90% of his income and only lived off 10%. He based his business on moral, ethical and religious principles. He set a great example for his employees and instilled a sense of gratitude and giving in them. “At the age of 44 I lost so heavily on contracts that my employees, with more faith in me than I had in myself, took up a collection to get me back on my feet”. LeTourneau was a school dropout from a small town, but that didn’t stop him from competing with some of the biggest companies in the land. Letourneau had fierce competitors consisting of Caterpillar, General Motors, International Harvester, Allis Chalmers and several others, all large corporations with high-powered executive staffs. During World War II, LeTourneau produced some of the most important earth moving tools to date. During World War II, more earth had to be moved than through all the combined wars of history. LeTourneau’s machines made up more than 50% of all the earth moving tools used in the war.

An example of LeTourneau’s moral and ethical principles is apparent in a story from his autobiography Mover of Men and Mountains. LeTourneau’s partner had fired some of LeTourneau’s family members who worked for the company. LeTourneau and his partner had an argument and his partner decided to leave. After the split, the company completed a project for Southern Pacific that turned out to be a near disaster, almost killing some of his workers. LeTourneau ended up coming out about even on the $100,000 job. Some time after that, his former partner came to him and said he heard they had made quite a bit on the Southern Pacific job; he felt he was entitled to the money. LeTourneau’s partner happened to be an elder in his church and LeTourneau was stunned that a Christian man would behave in such a way. He knew that the money was rightfully his. One of LeTourneau’s friends had even advised him to let the partner sue, because “he didn’t have a leg to stand on”. After some deliberation and prayer, LeTourneau decided to give his former partner the money to avoid a court battle and a possible split of his church. He would leave the rest up to the Lord. It turned out that a year later, after two bad contracts on his own, his former partner was wiped out. LeTourneau was convinced that if the Lord doesn’t think you are worthy of having money and responsibility, he will find ways to take it away. In his autobiography, LeTourneau says, “real partners don’t try to see how much one can get from the other. They work for the good of the partnership. They try to help each other.”

LeTourneau based his life principles on many scriptures from the Bible. His favorite was Matthew 6:33: “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you.” LeTourneau sought after God’s righteousness and he certainly achieved great prosperity.

Good Ethical Process: A Johnson & Johnson Case Study

In 1982, Johnson & Johnson experienced a crisis with reports of cyanide in their Tylenol Extra-Strength bottles. Seven people died from the incident. Johnson & Johnson could have been tarnished forever from this episode. Instead, against all human nature, they relinquished all financial influence on their decision process. They based their coming decisions on what they felt was right for their customers. The company ordered a full recall of 31 million bottles that cost more than $100 million. They ceased production of the original bottles and began production of a new tamper-resistant bottle. Johnson & Johnson was competent enough to “use the crisis to demonstrate to [its] customers [its] commitment to customer safety and to the quality of the Tylenol product”. Johnson & Johnson also displayed the company’s willingness to be honest with the public and to correspond with the media, which assisted in building credibility and customer trust during the incident. After the incident, Johnson & Johnson’s stock dropped seven points and lost 27% of the 35% pain-reliever market it once enjoyed. Several months after their ethically-based efforts to make the crisis right, Johnson & Johnson reclaimed and surpassed their previous market share. Johnson & Johnson’s actions are a strong testament to the benefits of acting ethically in a time of crisis, when it is most important.

Conclusion: You Can’t Prosper Unethically

Eighteenth century thinker Denis Diderot once noted, "There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it." The underlying truth of that statement is one reason some people seem to have difficulty operating an ethical home business. Ironically, however, those seeming inconveniences can actually turn out to be advantages. Those who try to short-cut real important business values aren't doing themselves a favor on either an ethical or a financial plane.

The temptation to skirt ethics comes from our strong desire to generate profits and to experience personal success. Most people who operate their own businesses are very driven by their aspirations and when all that seems to stand in the way of greater profits is an ethical question, they may be tempted to turn a blind eye to what is right.

That willingness to overlook principles might seem like a solid business decision in terms of the bottom line. Even if it is, of course, its reprehensibility and contribution to the worst parts of our society should dejustify the unethical behavior. However, a closer examination of most ethical shortcuts reveals that the "easy but questionable" way usually isn't the sound business decision in terms of the profit levels, either.

That's because our home businesses are based on our word and honor. This is especially true of online enterprises, where our perceived credibility is largely determined by our history of clean dealings. Although it may be possible to grab a few quick bucks disingenuously, doing so is likely to have longer-term repercussions on one's reputation that will cost more in the long run than what is immediately generated.

Additionally, the Internet never forgets! A questionable auto salesman may be able to last awhile, as advertising and blind luck may lead others onto his lot. Those who make buying decisions online, however, are already positioned to do quick research about those with whom they may be dealing. All it takes is a little bit of "Googling" to reveal complaints, allegations and criticisms of unethical players. An ethical compromise in pursuit of fast money will haunt online vendors and service providers indefinitely.

When I teach and mentor new online home business owners, I make a point of reminding them not to compromise their ethical standards. Not only is that important on some deeper level, it is also a core component of long-term success. Ethics breaches do nothing to help home-based businesses, but do risk destroying them.

As you grow your home business, remember that the inconveniences of maintaining the highest possible standards also supply you with the building blocks by which you can construct a recognized foundation for honesty and fair dealing. That kind of reputation can be the difference between barely eking out a living and being a home business success story.

So often we hear about dishonesty in ethics in business and government. We hear of Democratic Senators and Congressmen who will not listen to you unless you donate money to their campaigns and this goes for citizens and business people alike. It is no wonder that many business people fund political contributions.

It is also no wonder with such a system that Congressmen go beyond the call of duty of listening and intervene in business activity and help one business over another in the competitive market place. Indeed but really didn't Adam Smith warn us of such? If you own a company and want to move ahead faster, just support your Senator or Congressman and have them call up an bureaucracy or Regulatory body to disrupt your competition. Sure this has been going on for 100s of years.

Pretty sickening to think we stand for free markets and true Capitalism. It works if it is allowed to work. Ayn Rand is right, Marx is wrong and the politics of this nation are an absurd way to run the human race. If you want your business to grow and go to the next level you have to pay to play and that means interacting with the dishonesty of the Democrats in Congress and the Senate. That is just the way it is and there is nothing you can do about it but deal with the scum of the Earth to protect your business. Consider this in 2006.

In today’s highly competitive economy, it is difficult to maintain a significant market advantage based on your professional skills alone. Developing trusting relationships with your clients is vital to your business success as well. No matter what business you are in, the most powerful value-added contribution you can make to any business relationship is the trust factor.

The trust factor is even more critical in today’s business climate with the level of trust in Corporate America continuing to be at an all-time low, and suspicion of “all things corporate” remaining on the rise. To make matters worse, large corporations and small businesses alike continue to use antiquated techniques, such as gizmos and gadgets, to try to win over new clients. When instead, they should be trying to address the heart of the matter by utilizing trust-building techniques that will most effectively resonate with consumers and new prospects.

Clients and prospects are in search of trust in their business relationships, but building trust and credibility does not happen overnight. To cultivate trust, it takes the risk of being open with clients and prospects. This enables them to perceive you as a real person—one with strengths and weaknesses that come into play as the relationship develops. When trust is reciprocal, you will find that your confidence in others is rewarded by their support and reinforcement of what you also stand for as a business entity.

What is Trust

What is trust? Trust can be defined as a firm belief in the honesty of another and the absence of suspicion regarding his motives or practices. The concept of trust in business dealings is simple: Build on an individual’s confidence in you and eliminate fear as an operating principle.

Letting Go of Fear

Let go of fear, which restricts your ability to relate to others. Letting go frees you of behavioral constraints that can immobilize your emotional and professional development. Fear of rejection, fear of failure, fear of success, fear of being hurt, fear of the unknown—all these are roadblocks to developing and growing a trusting relationship with clients. Let go of your fear of losing an account or not having the right answers. Leave all your fears at the client or prospect’s doorstep.

Other critical steps in cultivating trust are knowing who you are and knowing your potential value to your clients. The relationship that forms because of this can have a tremendous impact on your sales. People don’t just buy from anyone. They buy from people they can trust. The rapport and credibility you can establish with the trust factor go a long way toward building a client’s confidence in your ability to meet his business needs.

Trust has both an active and a passive component in a business relationship. The active feeling of trust is confidence in the leadership, veracity, and reliability of the other party, based on a track record of performance.

The passive feeling of trust is the absence of worry or suspicion. This absence is sometimes unrecognized and frequently taken for granted in our most productive relationships.

Building Trust With Care

So how do you build trust with clients? First, you need to care about them. Obviously your clients care about your knowledge, expertise, and accomplishments. However, they care even more about the level of concern you have for them. Successful trust building hinges on four actions: engaging, listening, framing, and committing. The trust factor can be realized once we understand these components of trust and incorporate them in our daily lives.

Engaging clients and prospects occurs when you show genuine concern and interest in their business and its problems. Maintain good eye contact and body posture. Good eye contact signifies openness and honesty. And your body language and other forms of nonverbal communication speak volumes about your attitude toward them. By the same token, you want to be cognizant of your client’s or prospect’s eye contact and body language.

Listening with understanding and empathy is possible if you think client focus first. Let the client tell his story. Put yourself in his shoes when you listen to his business concerns, purpose, vision, and desires. Show approval or understanding by nodding your head and smiling during the conversation. Separate the process of taking in information from the process of judging it. Just suspend your judgment and focus on the client.

Framing what the client or prospect has said is the third action in trust building. Make sure you have formed an accurate understanding of his problems and concerns. Confirm what you think you heard by asking open-ended questions such as “What do you mean by that?” or “Help me to understood the major production problems you are experiencing.” After you have clarified the problems, start to frame them in order of importance. By identifying the areas in which you can help the client, you offer him clarity in his own mind and continue to build his trust.

Committing is the final action for developing the trust factor. Communicate enthusiastically your plan of action for solving the client’s problems. Help the client see what it will take to achieve the end result. Presumably, what you have said up to this point has been important, but what you do now—how you commit—is even more important. Remember the old adage “Action speaks louder than words.” Show you want this client’s business long term. Complete assignments and projects on budget and on time. Then follow up with clients periodically to see how your partnership is faring.

In the final analysis, trust stems from keeping our word. If we say we will be there for our clients, then we should honor that commitment by being there. Trust results from putting the client’s best interest before our own, from being dependable, from being open and forthcoming with relevant information. It is impossible to overestimate the power of the trust factor in our professional lives. Truly, trust is the basis of all enduring, long-term business relationships.

According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners’ "Report To The Nation On Occupational Fraud And Abuse" (Report), “participants in the study estimate U.S. organizations lose 5% of their annual revenues to fraud. Applied to the estimated 2006 United States Gross Domestic Product, this 5% figure would translate to approximately $652 billion in fraud losses.” Of course these organizations must pass on this cost to consumers. This translates into each of us paying approximately 5% extra for fraud when we purchase a good or service. If the average household spends $40,000 for goods and services each year, their annual cost of fraud is $2,000.

Part of stopping occupation fraud is understanding it. The Report defines occupational fraud as, “The use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misappropriation of the employing organization’s resources or assets.” We all know that people steal from their employers, even in very small amounts. Most of us at some time in our lives have taken home a few pencils, pads of paper, or perhaps some of the product sold by our employer. We also have heard about overstating of expense reports or the number of hours worked. These types of small frauds happen every day and cost us all billions of dollars each year. The Report breaks occupational fraud into three categories: asset misappropriation, corruption and fraudulent statements.

Asset misappropriation is the type of fraud we are most familiar with and includes the ones listed above. It is the largest type of occupational fraud in number, but not total amount. Corruption includes frauds such as bribery or conflicts of interest. Fraudulent statements generally include frauds relating to the organization’s accounting system and financial statements and are the largest type of occupational fraud by amount. Recent examples of fraudulent statements are Enron, Health South, World Com and other sensational frauds, which have been well publicized.

Occupational frauds are very hard to detect and most of them go undetected. According to the Report, the main detection tools are tips, accident, internal audit, external audit and notification by police. The Report points out that tips though anonymous hotlines is the most effective way of detecting occupational frauds. This means you are the one we count on to detect these frauds. When you are suspicious that a fraud may be happening in your workplace, do something about it. If your employer has a hotline, use it. If not, you can still provide an anonymous tip. Type out your suspicions and give it to a manager, who you do not believe is involved. You can mail it, put it in his in-box or use some other method, which will not identify you as the tipster.

What can you do to stop these frauds? Make sure you don’t commit them. This means the next time you need a few pencils at home, don’t take them from the office. You can buy them at the store and feel good about it when you do. This type of thinking, “I’m not hurting anyone”, only leads to encouraging others to do the same or it lets you rationalize that taking something more expensive is ok. You did not get caught taking the pencils, so take something more expensive next time. Secondly, when you are suspicious that a fraud may be happening, use the hotline. You don’t have to be sure. Someone skilled in investigating fraud will investigate and you won’t get your fellow employee in trouble, unless they deserve it. Thirdly, learn more about this type of fraud so you will know it when you see it. You are the main defense against occupational fraud.

If you are a small businessperson then chances are you have had a situation occur where another small business or larger competitor has used the local Government code enforcement officer to harass you. This is a common occurrence and it is unfortunate that they do not teach this at the SBA seminars.

The good old boy network that occurs in most cities is alive and well in the United States of America. This occurs both in large cities and small towns. Competitors know that if they can get the local code enforcement officer to come over and find a violation in your business that it will slow your business town and therefore give them the edge.

It is too bad that people do not have more integrity than that and too bad it competitors call in competing companies for violations. Of course if you are violating the law he should not be violating the law, but we know that many of the rules and regulations from the municipal level all the way to the federal level are quite onerous and this is unfortunate.

It is literally impossible to follow all the rules or for that matter even know all the rules. In my 27 years in business as a Franchisor, I cannot tell you how many times our franchisees just starting out in their local areas had to deal with competitors who called them into the code enforcement. Often they had done nothing wrong; except step on the toes of an existing businessperson, which was well-connected in the city.

Sometimes, a smart code enforcement officer will realize that the complaint coming in is from a competitor and simply make a visitation to the company or business involved in the complaint. This is an opportunity for you as a small businessperson to talk to the code enforcement officer and ask them if they can help you comply with all the rules.

This way they will explain what the rules are and which rules they are most apt to care about. Being on a first name basis with the code enforcement officer in a local municipality is a smart thing to do for any businessperson.

It is extremely important for you to realize that these things happen and although it may be personal between you and your competition; it is not personal between your company and the code enforcement officer. If you are breaking the law he will have to comply with the law and it behooves you to learn exactly what the law is and the intent so that you can remedy the situation without further problems from the code enforcement officer.

When a competitor makes a false complaint they actually end up hurting themselves and therefore it is unwise to turning your competitors unless they are ripping off customers, polluting the environment or doing something that you know to be harmful to others.

Simply turning in your competitors for a minor violation or infraction will only cause you to have a war with that competitor and just imagine all the different regulatory bodies that there are in our government and what you will do if each one of them comes to visit you during a one month period.

In fact it will be impossible for you to get any work done or make any money. So before you go in turning your competitors remember the Golden rule. Oh and one last thing; if a competitor turns you in for something that means they consider you a threat and that means you must be doing something right. Consider this in 2006.

Most people believe that you can trust your bank. For the most part this is true however, if you are a small business person the chances are that your information is being passed on by loose lips. For instance you might become a topic of conversation at a party where an off duty teller mentions that you are loaded or that your business does not have adequate cash flow. Another instance might be the branch manager or an assistant manager of the branch who discusses your financial position with members of his Rotary club. I have seen this happen before and heard conversations.

In fact I remember hearing a conversation about me and my business at a party where the other party did not know that I was the business owner. It was at a Chamber of Commerce mixer and in they were talking about my franchisee and their financial position with a lawyer and another small business person. There is way too much banking back door information flow.

But it gets worse, as your business gets bigger you will find that venture capitalists and investment bankers will often pass on information to your competitors, creditors and their potential partners. I remember one time when an investment banker who had invested millions of dollars into my competition's kitty, pretending to be a franchise buyer of our franchise system. The next day, I got a phone call offering to loan me money or to buy my company. However, remembering that the day before they had called using trickery and misrepresentation; I conveniently told them where to stick it.

The moral of this story is to be careful of your banker and to what you tell venture capitalists and investment bankers. Many of these people are involved in other deals, mergers and acquisitions, as well as other investments perhaps even with your competitors. Every single piece of information you give them you should expect that it may end up in the hands of your competitors. Never trust a banker or any professional wearing a tie who smiles and tells you that you can trust them. Trust me, as I do not wear a tie and I am not bank of Lance. Consider this in 2006.

If you're in business you know that often the competition can be quite dishonest and often they will go to lengths to hurt your business. In fact in all my years in business I have seen just about every single trick they can possibly be played against me. Every single tactic, bad mouthing and you use of even government agencies to attack.

In the 27 years in business I have seen by competitors use Associates in business to help them in getting information. I have watched competitors try to go through thru vendors, bankers and VC. I have seen customers who were not actually customers pretend to be somebody they were not simply to get information, brochures, prospectuses, disclosure documents, tax returns and you name it. It is called corporate espionage and the even write books about it. In fact you can get a degree in corporate espionage believe it or not.

So much for a level playing field when your competition is cheating. What is even worse is often these competitors use the government, which collects information on forms and makes all this information free to the public. It's amazing that the government now says it is going to protect the consumer and small-business person against identity theft, as generally the government is the one that asked for the information and it makes it available to anyone who wants it.

Often we find that competitors when caught trying to get information from you will say everyone else does it. Indeed, maybe they do, but does that make it right. It is unfortunate that competitors will not compete in the free market and will teach in any way they can to beat you. In my business career we always beat the competition so they were always beating down our doors calling up and pretending to be customers, government agencies or even vendors. Sometimes they would enlist the vendors to snoop for information from us.

In business you must run your own race, but at the same time he needs no or your competition is at all times and you must protect yourself from giving away information inadvertently to competitors who will use that information against you. You must develop a strategy to protect yourself from dishonest competitors and always know who you are dealing with. Please consider this in 2006.

Marketing is one of the most important aspects of running a business. Marketing could make or break a business. That's why it is important to get it right, especially if you’re on a limited marketing budget.

Perhaps the easiest way to get your marketing strategy right is to do what your most successful competitors do. But would you steal marketing ideas from your competitor? Is that ethical? There are patent laws, copyright laws, trademark laws, and other laws that make it illegal to steal or to use certain things that belong to another company. But there aren’t any laws that say you can’t use the same marketing techniques that your competitors use.

In fact, some of the most successful business start-ups use other people's marketing ideas. They use what's tried and true rather than thinking up new marketing ideas, which may have a higher probability of failure. A winning marketing plan of one form has a higher probability of being a winning marketing plan with a related firm.

Would you do it? Would you steal marketing ideas from a competitor? Perhaps it's a matter of business ethics for you? Maybe you consider yourself ethical and you don't steal no matter what. If so, your cognitive dissonance would probably prevent you from stealing marketing ideas. Or, perhaps stealing marketing ideas is not really stealing. Maybe marketing ideas have no ownership and all is fair in business competition. In the end, it’s up to you.