Review of
"There's No Such Thing as 'Business' Ethics"

(Written in July 2005). See the ratings of other books and more reviews here.

I was searching the local library for a book related to business ethics, when I came across this title in the web search of the library. Since the search result did not show the quotes around the word "business", I was a bit shocked. I thought the author, John C. Maxwell, was probably suggesting that ethics have no role in the business world. On looking up the book at the library, I saw the quotes, but I still didn't get it until I read the sub-text to the title, "There's only one rule for making decisions."

The author's primary point is that there is no separate set of rules that one lives by at the business place. He says that to conduct business ethically, we don't need to create another set of rules. We just need to follow the ethical rules that would apply in any situation, whether it is at home, in the workplace or in the playground.

The book's message resonates with me. I agree with the author that a person who lives by proper ethical decisions in his or her personal life will have no problems conducting an ethical business. Business is just another activity that the person must apply his or her life philosophy or rules to. Thus, the author makes his argument that there is no "business" ethics - there is just "ethics" which one may apply to different circumstances and situations in life.

The author starts by exploring the reasons behind ethical lapses. He cites examples from the recent financial scandals, such as Enron. Contrary to other authors I have read, he is not of the opinion that following ethical values is easy or it is immediately rewarding. In fact, he says that human beings have a tendency to fall off the ethical path, because in many cases, the unethical decision is more convenient or provides instant benefits in terms of successes.

The author also suggests that many of us tend to justify our decisions "with relativism". By this, the author means that we make many decisions that may have a tint of unethical behavior, but we justify them compared to other more clearly unethical behavior. An example I would cite is that a person may find it unconscionable to steal $10 off a widow, but would probably not return an additional $100 note accidentally handed by a millionaire.

This sort of justified unethical behavior results in what is known as a "slippery slope", where the person continues to indulge in worse and worse behavior while feeling he has not done anything wrong. Someone once told me that conscience at first is like a triangle with sharp corners and bites our mind. Once we start doing wrong and justifying ourselves, the corners break off and the triangle becomes a circle, without any power to affect our actions, which slowly deteriorate into spectacular wrong deeds.

The author cites a few marketplace solutions, such as "teaching ethics", once-in-a-whole "ethical flea dip" (cleansing of unethical behavior without changing circumstances which encouraged such behavior) and "relying on the law" to keep people straight. The author does not feel that it addresses the root cause of the ethical problems.

My take on this is that these solutions or tactics do provide some level of prevention to illegal and wrong actions performed by businesspeople. I think there is a place for both internal and external solutions. This is similar to laws in society. We would like everyone to follow the law, but there should be some disincentive (in the form of jail sentences or fines) to people who don't get the concept of ethics.

The solution proposed by the author is to follow the "Golden Rule", i.e., every decision that one makes should be based on the answer to the question, "How would I like to be treated in this situation?" The author asserts that by applying this rule to all decisions, one can make an ethical decision, as it serves a compass for those who need direction.

The author illustrates the advantages of the Golden Rule, by stating that it is easily understandable, and there is no controversy with the Golden Rule. Most people easily accept the Rule - no one would say that they would like to treat someone in a worse way than they would treat others. The author calls it a "win-win" philosophy.

I agree with the author with many of his points. Many of the problems in business and society, what to say, even between people of different countries and cultures, happen because many people do not think about how the other person would like to be treated in such a situation. In real life, we can easily see examples of politicians who keep calling other politicians names, and are offended when they are given back in kind.

If we look at several of the problems that have happened in the business world, we can see the value of the rule mentioned by Mr. Maxwell. If the persons cooking the accounting books would understand how they would feel if they were cheated by someone else, and suddenly they were bankrupt, probably they would not do wrong.

I do say that I have some level of skepticism about the author's advice. I remember a conversation with a person, say John, who was asked for a favor by another person, Mark. When John refused, I reminded John that someone had done a similar favor for John a while ago. John said that the person who had done it for him was a fool for doing so, and he was not going to be one himself.

There are such people in the world, who want everything good to happen to them and do nothing in return. Such people, in fact, expect others to be bad to them, but when they are treated with good, still reply with evil. I am not sure what the solution for such people is. Hence, I go back to my previous point that some people may never understand societal interaction and there needs to be an external system of reward and punishment to keep them on track. We cannot "judge" such people, because it may be part of their genetic disposition or such behavior may have been ingrained into them by their upbringing and surroundings.

I think the author recognizes this fact in some degree, although he does not come out and say it. He points out that most people term themselves "mostly ethical". He says that there should be a drive to get to "always ethical" and the Golden Rule can help us to get there. If we think about it, the difference between "mostly ethical" and "always ethical" is in those decisions that are not very convenient or that may have material consequences for us.

This is what I think is key to the whole ethical discussion. Most people don't want to be unethical. Many people, in fact, lead reasonably ethical lives. But in crunch situations or when it really matters, many of us are found wanting. The short story, "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg" by Mark Twain, showed how an honest community is easily corrupted when faced with temptation for the first time.

The Golden Rule can serve as a guide in such situations. Sometimes one's faith would also help resolve such conflicts, but faith and religion can sometimes also cloud one's judgment especially when there is a conflict between people of different religions or cultures. This has happened since ancient times, but the recent terror attacks have reminded how religion can be distorted by maniacs to justify their actions.

I did have one thought when talking about the Golden Rule. The Rule talks about "you and me". When "I" do something, I should worry about how "you" would like to be treated. But what happens if there is a "you, they and me". There may be a decision which affects "you" positively and "they" negatively, irrespective of what happens to me. How does the Golden Rule work in such situations?

A good example would be two loyal friends among whom one has to decide to give something important, say, a promotion. How would the Golden Rule play in such a situation? I am inclined to think that the application of the Golden Rule is not meant to keep people "happy", but to get them to know that the best possible decision was made with all fairness in a transparent fashion.

In this respect, the author does provide some guidelines about how other persons would like to be treated - they want to be "valued", "appreciated", "trusted", "respected", "understood" and "not taken advantage of". I believe decisions of "you, they and me" can be made effectively by following these guidelines with both parties.

The author's list does not cite anything about keeping people happy. This is a fundamental issue - many ethical decisions can result in serious heartburn and disappointment for oneself and others. In fact, there is also the case that a decision based on the Golden Rule can disappoint people on both sides of the issue, because both sides can be trusted and respected, but the decision has to be made with the best interests of both sides in mind. The final outcome may very well be a compromise that fails to satisfy either side, but in the view of the decision maker, may be the best win-win deal possible under the circumstances.

The author analyzes some of the things that can undermine the Golden Rule. Some of them, such as "pressure" (to deliver, to win, etc.), (desire for) "pleasure" and (desire for) "power" are pretty obvious. The author also talks about misplaced priorities that can cause the balance of decisions to tilt towards the unethical side.

The point that really struck me was the author citing "pride" as one of the causes behind unethical behavior. He is not talking about "arrogance" or "false pride", but simply "pride". What he says is that when we have pride about something in our life that is "better" than what someone else has. People are rarely proud if they have something which is as good as what others have.

So when a society is composed of people who delight in having "better" things than others, that society cannot effectively follow the Golden Rule, because people are more interested in "me first" than treating the other person the same as oneself. In a Golden Rule society, everyone wishes the best for others.

The "pride" issue is somewhat more complex than how the author puts it. I am not sure how growth and advancement in society will continue if lack of pride results in lack of competitiveness. But again, we are talking about ethics. A society that thrives on community spirit ("everyone succeeds together") will be a happier and more ethical society than one which is based on winner-gets-all.

The author provides a lot of advice on how to effectively apply the Golden Rule in one's life. The Golden Rule for him is a guideline, but without additional structure around the rule, it will be difficult to implement it effectively in our lives. The author emphasizes family values and giving importance to the real priorities and people.

The author rightly states that the Golden Rule is just a beginning for an ethical life. He says, "Treat people better than they treat you." The Golden Rule is insufficient to deal with deviant behavior. It cannot help one come out of cycles of destructive behavior.

To give an example (perhaps extreme), there used to be blood feuds between families, where one incident caused generations of murder and bloodshed. In such instances, each party expected to be treated with hatred. The Golden Rule doesn't help here. To break the vicious cycle, one side has to come out with love and forgiveness, even at the cost of being betrayed.

Doing that is not easy. Vengeance and revenge come naturally to human beings. Repaying in kind ("an eye for an eye") is very simple. But such a philosophy, applied to social and business relationships, can destroy them.

I would highly recommend this book to any person. There are so many good stories and examples that help the reader understand the concept practically. The author's emphasis on values is very uplifting. I especially liked the fact that the author does not term the application of the ideas he mentioned as easy or leading to immediate short-term success. This is well illustrated in the ending story.

Finally, I evaluated what I got out of the book. This is a book meant for me, addressing me directly and telling me what I can do to improve myself to make good ethical decisions. It is not an analytical study of what laws we need to have or what someone like the government should do. It is what I can do to improve my moral life and reach the goal of "always ethical". For that, I am grateful to the author.