33

Inspire the Right Work Ethic

Too often we make things more difficult than they need to be or should be. That tends to be too frequently true of sound ethics in the workplace.

I’m not sure why, because it’s a pretty simple issue. There is nothing difficult about differentiating between right and wrong. Yet the business page of any major newspaper is full of examples of people of responsibility in the business world violating the law by one or another unethical or unlawful practice.

Striving to do the right thing in a highly complex and competitive world leads to temptations some find irresistible. Instead of creating and maintaining a healthy corporate culture with an established code of conduct, some leaders and managers are driven in the opposite direction by greed, dishonesty, or misconduct. It’s a pity if the next promotion or bottom-line profits steer your actions in the wrong direction.

Having a reliable work ethic is about having a set of values and accompanying virtues that guide an organization’s decisions and its respect for those inside and outside the company, employees and customers alike. William Shakespeare said it well: “Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.”

Leaders set the standard, senior managers enforce the standard, subordinates follow the standard. Trust in all three categories to do the right thing can and should be natural and expected.

The Institute for Global Ethics puts ethical values in more precise terms with respect to business dealings, transactions, relationships, and situations. It emphasizes five areas or indexes of importance: to be honest and truthful, responsible and accountable, fair and equitable, respectful and mindful, and compassionate and caring.

Pretty good yardsticks that came in handy in June 1998 to measure the ethical veracity of an explosive report on NewsStand, a new prime-time magazine-format program launched on Sunday, June 7, by CNN. One segment, titled “Valley of Death,” featured an eight-month investigation by CNN and TIME magazine into the alleged use of lethal nerve gas during the Vietnam War.

Veteran CNN correspondent Peter Arnett described how a secret elite unit of U.S. Special Forces had carried out Operation Tailwind, a 1970 mission to kill American soldiers who had defected to the enemy. Arnett told how commandos approached a Laotian village where the American defectors had been spotted by reconnaissance units. “During the evening,” Arnett reported, “American planes gassed the camp with deadly sarin nerve gas.”

Having had two tours in Vietnam and having seen and been on military operations as both an advisor and part of an American unit, I had never witnessed nor could I imagine anything so despicable. Not only would it have been illegal and in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to have killed fellow Americans would have been unthinkable.

My phone lit up two days later when the caller, retired air force Major General Perry Smith, asked if I had seen the program. A CNN military analyst for several years, he expressed outrage over not having been consulted before what he viewed as not just an inaccurate but an untrue account. A respected analyst, Smith knew about such things as a decorated fighter pilot who had flown 180 missions and had 370 combat hours in Vietnam. He knew full well that pilots everywhere during the war knew the type ordnance they were carrying and did or didn’t drop. Furthermore, he knew that munitions records validated the types of missions pilots were flying over Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

Smith, whom I had known for years and for whom I had great respect, asked if I’d share his concerns with my boss, General Colin Powell, whom he knew well. Further, he said that if Powell agreed with him, he should call Tom Johnson, CNN News Group chairman, president, and CEO. Powell and Johnson had been White House Fellows together in an earlier time.

When General Powell returned days later from a trip, I shared the CNN report and subsequent news stories that were especially critical of and damaging to the image of the U.S. military. The general and I doubted the CNN claims that deadly nerve gas had been used, killing soldiers and innocent women and children. This would have meant that war crimes had been committed by U.S. forces during Tailwind, as it was called.

Powell unhesitatingly called Johnson and warned him that the validity of the report was highly suspect and that if it was not retracted, it probably would cast aspersions on CNN. Johnson agreed to check into the story. They talked again two days later. Johnson expressed confidence in the report, having discussed it with Arnett and the primary producer of the segment, April Oliver.

Meanwhile, the defense secretary, William Cohen, ordered an investigation by the department into the allegations. The investigators found no evidence that nerve gas was ever used anywhere in the theater during the Vietnam War. Johnson and CNN came under blistering attack from watchdog groups and citizens alike.

Citing his inexplicable lack of involvement in the development of the piece, the serious damage to the U.S. military and U.S. foreign policy because of the report, and the threat to the credibility of CNN for developing a hypothesis it didn’t attempt to disaffirm, Perry Smith resigned on June 14. That took courage and conviction.

Truth has a way of rising to the surface when a question of ethics is raised. Clearly it was with CNN and with TIME as well, which published a “Did the U.S. Drop Nerve Gas?” article on June 15. It was a breathless but baseless headline that drew fire.

Tom Johnson meanwhile had gone back to look more deeply into the allegations. His internal investigation had concluded that the Tailwind report could not be supported and that there was insufficient evidence that sarin or any other deadly gas had been used. On July 2 he issued a 54-page CNN retraction and a statement that said, “Nothing is more important to a news organization than its reputation for accuracy, fairness and responsibility.”

The fallout within CNN was significant. Two key CNN producers of the report, April Oliver and Jack Smith, were fired outright. Senior producer Pam Hill resigned. Reporter Peter Arnett was reprimanded and soon left for HDNet and then NBC. Oliver and Smith filed lawsuits against their former employer. Their cases were settled out of court.

Justice had been served by the discipline meted out by CNN. However, the institutional damage to the U.S. military had marred its reputation. Had higher ethical standards existed at CNN/TIME, had better oversight occurred, had there been surer accountability, this damaging report might have never aired.

For the CNN/TIME family, it was a lesson in organizational humiliation. For me, it was a lesson in the need for the existence of organizational values. Having a code of ethical behavior is crucial to every professional and every organization. Such a code stands on traditional virtues that form a foundation built on trust, honesty, and a commitment to do the right thing. Doing so can avoid conflicts of interest that cause the wrong thing to happen.

As a professional, regardless of rank or position, you must be accountable for all you do or fail to do to uphold the reputation and credibility of the organization. That may come naturally to those who were raised to uphold the highest of ethical and moral standards. Others may have to learn it.

Increasingly common in organizations in the United States are established ethics programs. Ideally, they are conducted annually and are for all employees regardless of rank or time on the job. They are harmless, and they are timeless. Broad in content, they should be updated to remain current.

The benefits are far-ranging. Recruits are inspired by it. Current employees are satisfied by it. Company reputations are improved by it. It’s a painless investment that retains people and reminds them of company expectations.

Employees who feel valued by the organization as a result of ethics training are less likely to break the rules or the law. They are also more likely to report the misconduct of others. To accept less is to accept a low standard.

As a conscience for your organization, and each of us is, you have a responsibility to look at how the place runs, at those who run it, and at what the organization stands for and behind. That starts with the boss, but it includes the rank and file as well. Every day you work and everything you do during the day offers moments of truth as to what is ethically correct. Ethical dilemmas are sometimes unavoidable; compromise of the highest ethical standards possible is always unacceptable.

You can stand out at work as one who has a values-based work ethic: one with purpose and power, one that gives you the confidence and courage to make good choices. You can inspire others above, below, and around you by serving as a shining example of someone who makes the right choices in life. You can help create the right ethical climate in your organization; you’ll be glad you did.