Many house flippers at the top of the market bought homes waving their right to inspections, some of these homes actually did have flaws, or real problems. Of course, if these house flippers were caught with these homes as the market fell many of them did whatever they could to hide the flaws that they later discovered. Hiding flaws or failing to disclose them to the buyers is fraud.

Sure they probably justify it to themselves, because they are either close to financial ruin themselves or because they feel it's not their fault that the house is flawed, the owners selling to them may not have disclosed it either, some may not have even realized. But that is no excuse and two rights do not make a wrong.

Not long ago, I was listening to a couple, that had still about 5-homes that they were unable to sell and get their money back out of them, homes they bought at the top of the market. Two of the homes had flaws, and they were discussing amongst themselves how to hide these flaws with built in furniture or putting in additions that would hide a cracked foundation. But anything they do is disreputable, dishonest and fraudulent.

Sometimes we need to look at both the cause and effect. When the housing bubble was in full-swing house flippers and their greed caused them to over invest and after doing so, their greed is causing some of them to cheat and be less than ethical. Thus, no one should be too surprised on this issue, but buyer beware!

Egoists would view our actions in any situation as being solely based on our own self interests. If exhibiting good ethics were the means to that end, then they are supported and encouraged. Egoists do not allow for motivations other than the self promotion of the individual or organization.

In the corporate world the general belief seems to be that the interests of the corporation take precedence over the application of ethical standards. Some believe that ethics are hostile to corporate self interests and those organizations that follow courses of action based on their own self interests will treat ethics as optional: Following those ethics that will benefit the organization the most, disregarding those that will not further their interests. There is even a commonly stated belief that business leaders encourage their subordinates to do "whatever it takes" regardless of ethical considerations.

Utilitarian theorists believe that our actions should be based on the minimization of harm and maximization. This would imply that we should only promote our self interest if the net effect of our actions will do more good than harm. If the ultimate goal is to provide the most benefit to the individual or organization, and following a standard of good ethical conduct will accomplish that goal, then that is the course of action that should be taken. If on the other hand the situation called for setting aside conducts of good ethics then that would be the choice to make.

Kantian theorists would argue that respect for the individual is of the highest priority and that any conduct should be in a manner that will maintain the dignity and respect that all individuals deserve. This would seem to preclude the area of self interest and turn our attention outwards, to those around us.

Many believe though, that it is still possible to have self interest in a given situation, if their actions follow in accordance with accepted ethical standards and allow those around them to freely make the choices they are presented with.

Overall it appears that the ethical theories as presented, both support, and refute, the principle that "self interest and good ethics generally coincide". Support coincides with their stated theories: Egoist - if it serves the self interest of the individual/organization. Utilitarian - if it creates the most good and the least harm. Kantian - if the dignity and respect of the individual is maintained and/or the individual willfully accepts it. But, the theories are also refuted, in that they may be adapted, or, in many cases, ignored depending on the particular needs, wants, and situations that organizations face.

As opposed to following a strict set of guidelines that must be applied in all cases, it appears that conflict, and its resolution, will ultimately be determined by the goals and basis of philosophy of the organization, and applied on a case by case, situational, basis.

Free trips to Cancun. Week-long company 'retreats' in Hawai'i. Company-sponsored conventions in Vegas that just happen to take place over a four-day weekend. We've all heard of business perks like these, and likely know the type that regularly attends such lavish functions. They're typically the ones who are getting the top sales numbers at their companies, who sold more of Product A during Quarter 3 than any one has ever sold, are consistently making their quotas....well you get the idea. They are the jerk salespeople who pride themselves on a record of 'earning' their way into these types of things.

Why is this wrong? Because salespeople shouldn't be convincing others to buy their products/services because they need one more sale to make it to Cabo San Lucas. Their sales technique and approach should be company-related, not incentive-based. What should be perceived about someone's morals when they are convincing a company to purchase their product(s) because they need just one more sale to get a trip or prize or cash bonus? In my mind, this type of person is being unethical. More importantly however, I question the morals of whomever has proposed such an outlandish rewards system.

How does it make sense to offer standard commission (or even none) for say 8 or 9 sales in a month, but the minute a salesperson hits 10...DING DING DING! DROP THE BALLOONS AND RING THE BELL! Just typing this makes me feel silly!

Of course it is silly. There is nothing magical X-number of sales and X-number of sales + 1. And yet this can be the difference between a salesperson going to Bermuda or going home to mope around the house wondering what they could have done to convince just one more potential client.

Craziness; that's what it is. If you believe in your company, you should not be putting your employees in a position where if they beg-borrow-and steal their way to a sale, they are heavily rewarded. Rewards should be reasonable, fractional and reflect a 'big picture' approach. Send someone on a great trip because of five years of good service, not five months. Don't tell them what they need to do to earn rewards, simply do the calculations behind their back and make all rewards, big or small, a pleasant surprise.

A lot can be said for a sale that was procured through hard, diligent work and truthful communication. Very little can be said for a client who was pushed into a commitment because the salesperson was reaching for an incentive.

In recent years a competitive global environment, the inability of some organizations to maintain a competitive advantage and other pressurizing factors have forced many organizations and their leaders to pursue unethical practices in a bid to remain successful. Can organizations survive within this very complex/competitive era without resorting to unethical practices, and how? This paper provides readers with an understanding of the necessity of the role of ethics in contemporary organizations. It addresses the importance of leadership in establishing and maintaining ethical principles in the organization and culminates with a set of recommendations to which leaders can ascribe in order to ensure that organizations remain ethical.

What is ethics?

Ethics is defined as the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and to act accordingly. According to Rand, a 20th century Russian/American novelist, it is a code of values which guide our choices and actions and determine the purpose and course of our lives." It revolves around others and hence...may be understood quite easily when analyzed from the perspective of Matthew 7:12 "do to others what you would have them do to you."

Old Problem, New People: Judas selling Jesus for 30 Pieces of Silver

In contemporary organizations we see many leaders and followers whose behaviors bear marked resemblance to that of Judas (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, John 13, 18, Acts 1:18). There are Organizations that are deliberately violating the ethical standards that are necessary for the successful functioning of any society. Hoyk and Hersey postulates that within one year Enron, Adelphia, Tyco International, as well as the conviction of the CEO of WorldCom by federal court represents only a small segment of organizations, and people implicated in unethical practices in organizations. An examination of the recent election in Zimbabwe highlights the height of unethical practices that exist even at the helm of organizations governing a country; which has led world government according to Lauren decrying it as an outright charade... The urge to succeed at any cost, greed, and selfishness are just a few of the causes of unethical practices; these practices condemn the poor to be even more impoverished, while the rich becomes better off. It should be noted that unethical practices undermine not only the trust of the stakeholders but also the general populace and create an unhealthy organization and a society that is not subject to rules and regulations; the end result anarchy and gargantuan proportions of mistrust in society, which ultimately will shorten the organization life span.

The Call to Act: Inspire to take action

The creation of an ethical organizational culture resides with leaders and followers; leadership by nature demands that leaders be the front runners in establishing an ethical organizational culture. We recognize the mammoth task leaders face in a fast paced society with rocket-like changes even as they fight to maintain a competitive advantage. However as the demise of many organizations becomes a reality due to unethical practices, the onus resides with contemporary leaders to create and sustain ethical organizational cultures even as they compete to survive, because it is the ethical/social stance to take. The issue of ethics is a solemn issue in leadership; its nonexistence can create a vacuum in the organization, fostering a climatic condition in which any action is acceptable. It is important for leaders to create an ethical environment, in doing this; decision making will rely on ethical standards which in the end gives ethical outcome. For such an environment to be created ethics has to be the foundation of the organization's vision, composition and mission. With such a proposition, leaders are forced to cosset themselves in a discourse of collective ethical codes. Such code enables the leaders to act with morals and to foster an organization that relish itself in the laws of right.

The role of an ethical leader is to foster an organization that enables all stakeholders to act responsibly, to be conscientious of their environment and those around them. Johnson postulates that, leaders have a duty to achieve ethical standard through the use of organizational aspirations that must be effective, efficient and excellent. Therefore, the burden is on leaders to captain the ship, take charge and be in charge. The premise is that ethical leadership and ethical principles begins at the top of the organization then spreads throughout. Leaders should not assume that employees intuitively know and will comply with ethical principles set out by the organization. It becomes the leader's responsibility to ensure that ethical practices are modeled as well as communicated orally...training employees on ethical issues should be mandatory. Leaders can foster an ethical environment by employing what I refer to as critical factors:

Critical Factor One: Vision

A clear and concise vision that incorporates ethical principle set the foundation for all stakeholders to realize exactly what the organization stands for...

Critical Factor Two: Open Communication

A channel of communication in which leaders and followers feel at ease in discussing or examining behaviors or issues that may "in question." This promotes trust and confidence in the organizational efforts.

Critical Factor Three: Ethical Team

Creating a team that looks out for unethical action: This team is responsible for identifying and addressing ethical problems confronting the organization. They craft an environment in which difficult ethical issues can be discussed and corrective measures put in place. This should allow stakeholders to have trust/confidence in promoting the organizational values.

Conclusion

In light of recent unearthing of unethical practices in many organizations, contemporary organizations are now faced with a serious problem. We are now faced with the challenge of how to combat the epidemic of unethical behavior in our organizations. The role of ethics in the 21st Century is integral in that, all organizations need a firm foundation to stand on, and a base that is rooted in an ethical framework, which when tested can survive. It becomes the responsibility of leadership to consider ethics as part of their organization dynamics. It is this move that will enable the organization to set itself apart from the predecessors that sunk through the times of unethical confronts. The price we pay for poor ethics has eroded the very fabric of our society as well as our organizational culture, producing mistrust and chaos. It becomes imperative that leaders promote an organizational culture that values/fosters ethics. Commitment to ethics is the definitive factor that will create a successful lasting organization.

One of the serious problems that businesses face these days is business ethics problems. When put simply, these problems are conflicts between the interest of a business and that of the employees/customer or the society in general.

No matter how hard the management of a business tries to set and maintain high standards of professional ethics, these conflicts do surface at some point of time or the other. One does not have to dig deep to find the reasons for these conflicts either, as they are inherent in the very nature of business.

Any person joining a job wishes to be paid as highly as possible. In contrast, cost minimization is always high on the priority list of the employer(s). An employee wishes to have the minimum work hours whereas the management is always striving to reach the peak of productivity.

When it comes to the customers, they want to have the best possible products on the least possible prices. At the same time, the manufacturer tries to produce an item at the lowest possible cost and put as high a price as possible.

The society expects the corporate world to bear their social responsibilities - being environment conscious, making investments in sports and education, maintaining clean surroundings, etc. For a business entity all these will mean additional expenditure.

The million dollar question, in the face of all these demands, is how do you overcome this situation, if at all these can be overcome?

The answer lies in 'balance'. No one can argue with the fact that businesses are established to maximize returns for its owner(s) and, in some cases, shareholders. Still, the business establishments can achieve this goal while behaving ethically - helping its employees, giving to the customers' products worth their money and serving the community in general.

By following ethical norms and investing in social sectors, the business will earn the respect and confidence of the customer. This way the business may not make fast bucks or what is termed 'go for kill' but the results will start to show with time. In long term, it will be a boon for the brand and will enable the business to get to high profitability rates.

Similarly, if a business takes care of its employees, it will have happier and more productive workers. This, in turn, will make very positive effect on the productivity of the company.

If a business takes care to reduce waste, encourage recycling and preserving energy, it will not only aid the environment but will also help itself. Using these means, a considerable amount can be saved which can then be put to better use.

There is no denying that even a responsible business outfit will face business ethics problems. However, they can be countered using business ethics acumen and insight.

What an interesting situation. The Supreme Court validated our right to own guns. I'm not a gun owner, I don't believe in it. I love to shoot and I lean toward a non-violent approach to life. Disclosures over, I don't see how they could have come up with a different verdict. I do think the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. That said, what are the ethical implications and considerations that lie under this issue?

The essay by Donald M. Wolfe in Executive Integrity edited by Suresh Shrivasta, set my perspective on this a long time ago. He posits primary and secondary ethics. Primary ethics are the ethics of survival. This is the ethical stance that the NRA (National Rifle Association) and many pro-gun folks take. The ability to protect oneself is a primary right. We have even coded this into law assuring our ability to self-defend. What becomes unethical is the conscious fostering of fear (The Bush Administration's terrorism mantra) to stimulate and maintain that fear.

Secondary ethics moves away from the fixation on individual survival and moves into community and relationship. Secondary ethics deals with fear through strengthening relationships and community governance. Here the focus is on long-term solutions and sees the needs of the community as paramount. This is the reason for the tension around this ruling.

It is clear to most people that the rule of law comes under threat when we regress into fears about individual survival.In doing so we negate our faith in law, community, relationships and principled discussion and instead put our faith in force and might.

This is an underlying tension in many organizations as well. The more secretive and heavy handed the leadership, the more primary ethics holds sway. Authoritarian leadership styles give permission for "me first" behavior - often at the expense of the company. It opens up the company to ethical issues and violations. In fact the justification for much of the illegal and unethical behavior that companies confront is the "They deserved it" logic that stems from disgruntled employees who have felt they have been dealt with unfairly. Unfair treatment often results in feeling of powerlessness which activates fear and acts of vengeance.

Justice Anthony Scalia made it very clear that control and regulation of hand guns ownership is still possible. We as a people and as a Nation, need to decide if we will move toward a more civil Union or devolve into every person for him or her self. Freedom requires responsibility to ensure people understand and accept their individual responsibility they need: information to be freely and easily accessible; to be educated to be able to think critically and effectively; to be supported in their personal growth, development and understanding so they can manage their own emotions and personal hurt effectively; and to be nurtured and cared for a children so that normal growth and development IS a norm. This is a tall order, but isn't this one of underlying drivers of civilization? Isn't our striving as a species, to create an environment where we are free enough from fear that we can develop, explore and express our true capabilities? If we want to reach a place where the true potential of humanity is developed and expressed is a hand gun in every home the way to go?

This is the path that business is on as well. The volatility of the marketplace, the rapid advances of technology and the shrinking of the globe all call for new ways of working together. To address these issues and if business answers the call, then, as employees and leaders rise to the occasion, they will transform a fear-based environment into one of innovative collaboration - out of necessity.

This is my belief, hope and vision for business. I believe that the external pressures combined with the drive for success will create a crucible of transformation. At the heart of that transformation is a rock solid knowledge in the exquisite capacity of humans, the courage of an o9pen heart as we all come together, and the wisdom to use the collective intelligence of participation to create a world we WANT to live in.

Life if full of ethical dilemmas, and many of the decisions we make in life contradict themselves. I've realised as I've got older, not to be worried about these contradictions. It would be lovely to live a totally consistent life, but I've met very few people who manage to attain these dizzy heights.

One of the major ethical dilemmas I face is over how green I am. I try to be green. I believe it's important to be green. However, I have also realised a lot of the more environmentally friendly options are far more expensive, and I simply don't have much money. Obviously, there are things that don't cost money, and are things everyone should be doing - for example, recycling, turning off lights, not leaving electrical equipment on standby, and using the car minimally. Unfortunately, a lot of the other options are expensive.

Some of the greenest people I've met are people with money; people who can afford to build their own eco-homes, install solar paneling, and source their own water. These are also the people who can afford to shop locally at Farmers Markets, buy ecological products, and buy expensive recycled products. I buy such items when I have the money. However, the reality is by the end of the month, I don't have any option other than to buy value items from major supermarkets.

Necessity makes for one of life's biggest contradictions. It forces difficult decisions and moral uncertainty. Necessity also forces compromise and making the best out of the circumstances offered. I don't want to make a decision which harms the planet, but I also have to live my life.

Renewing my car insurance last week gave me exactly this dilemma. I spent many hours at the computer looking at different companies, trying to work out which was the cheapest and greenest. I knew I needed to pay by direct debit as I didn't have enough money in my account for the full lump sum, so this again, through necessity, narrowed down my options.

Finally, I opted for the package that was the greenest for what I could afford. From my research, I knew this wasn't the best environmentally friendly option, but it was better than some of the others. Compromise eventually gave me the best option.

I find the same is true with electricity suppliers. I was forced to swap from a company who solely ran green power because I couldn't afford the bills. Again, I compromised by using a green policy from one of the major suppliers. However, having said this, energy saving light bulbs have now decreased in cost enough to be affordable to all. Things are improving.

Green options are coming down in price, and this is fantastic. I'm luckier than most. I can just about afford the lower end of these services. However, until we get to the point where environmentally friendly products are the cheapest on offer, we will not be able to move to a greener society.