Managing Conflict with Communication Ethics

There are few organizations and institutions operating without some code of ethics. All the professions and most of the trades have a code of ethics. As part of orientation for new employees, they are required to read and have read to them their company and for some, their department code of ethics. Ethics also reflects the law; it may define the gray areas in the law regarding behavior; emphasizing that, while an action is legal, ethically it is unacceptable to the organization.

Yet, we find repeatedly in the print and television media, people who blatantly and wantonly dismiss ethics and ethical behavior for their personal gain. Frequently, the violators are those in the upper tiers of management and organization, particularly business and government, who are the most egregious violators; those in the greatest position of trust.

People need constant reminding of their obligation to their code of ethics as with the law. Regardless though, of how often people are reminded, there will always be those who find ways to skirt and shirk their responsibilities to it. Thus, the never-ending cycles of violations and violators, discussions about updating current law and ethics, condemnations passed back and forth, one accusation of failure after another, one side downplaying and falsely justifying their actions while exaggerating the same failure of another. The root of such conflict is another ethic.

That ethic could be political or corporate based and it is not for the public good (Applbaum, 1999). This unwritten ethic involves loyalty to an ideology or corporate culture or person. This ethic is described succinctly in the assignment for week, the ethical dilemma # 7, involving a CEO expecting a consultant to bypass the personnel department and give him an evaluation of selected promising employees. (Shockley-Zalaback, 2009)

Encountering conflict is neither good nor bad. The decision made to overcome the conflict is the challenge and that decision will be reflective of a person's personal strength of character. Deciding that you need sacrifice the rights of others and their need for security or reliability in order to advance or protect the self this perceived "security need" becomes part of their hierarchy of needs, distorting Maslow's Theory.

Their esteem and financial or positional well-being needs this unethical action to be taken at the expense of others. For example, corporate officers, enthralled by a rampaging market, begin using insider information to gain greater advantage and greater profits at the expense of the public investor's needs and security.

Another example is a politician needs votes; they will make distort, deceiving claims about their opposition including outright lying. While they manipulate an ill-informed public, they violate their own professed personal "values" and religious belief. These things cause a person who probably has spent years lambasting the opposition as being immoral and unethical to as in the manner accused of others.

Government is particularly and possibly the only institution where one person could be responsible for at least two codes of ethics at any given time. There is the Senate Code of Ethics, the House Code of Ethics and then there is the Code of Ethics for Government Service. Each federal agency has its own code of ethics. Yet, with all this guidance, it is still subject to the strength of personal character whether these ethics have value (http://www.usoge.gov). There is a continuing conflict between wants defined as needs; rights assessed as who has the greater right, and, does the end justify the means; serious conflict that is used to justify committing a wrong for the greater assumed good.

For many, personal values derive from their religious faith. For many, the Bible is their code of ethics. Others base their personal ethics on values on the "golden rule" of treating others, as you would have them treat you-but always subject to change and exceptions. There are those whose personal values and their professed religious values seem mercurial; modifying and changing with circumstance.

For example, high-profile religious leaders who end up in a precipitous fall from grace after succumbing to a momentary weakness; ignoring or adjusting their values in an attempt to eliminate the guilt derived from immoral and unethical behavior. The drive to behave this way is transformed from a lustful want to a need. Hedonistic values conflict with higher values. For a religious leader or politician, this makes there communication to the public a hypocrisy.

Religious beliefs do not allow comprising good for evil. Immediately, for those who proclaim their faith must be painfully aware of their contradiction. Some of the most hawkish Christians are in leadership positions of government and church. They allow and condone, even encourage irresponsible and immoral actions for the sake of power to influence through clandestine and covert actions those who disagree, resources as in schemes to control another's countries resources by declaring them a threat to our interests denying all facts to the contrary while declaring their actions in the name of God. Sounds like the Crusade or the Spanish Conquistadors (Rist, 2001).

Individually, values that conflict when there is strong desire is temporarily adjusted satisfying that desire. Their communication over time will highlight that change as their core values and beliefs conflict with the immoral and unethical behavior. Politics is our single best example; flip-flopping. Flip-flopping, not through necessity when circumstances and information require a change but the flip-flopping caused by the influences of lobbyist's money or political pressures forcing conformity and protecting the security of their seat in office. How often on the news do you see a show host play old sound clips or films of a politician vehemently denouncing a policy that presently, they are enthusiastically endorsing? (Seligman, Olson, & Zanna, 1996, p. 3)

Ethical policies are generally the same except where they define tasks and behaviors exclusive to their profession as acceptable or unacceptable. On a number of occasions over the years politicians and Wall Street media pundits and discussed their belief in Machiavellian philosophy. While in some circumstance it would be valid to use deceptions and "tricks" against an enemy, too many extend the philosophy to everyday communications and actions to manipulate and other wise influence an unwitting populace into agreeing or approving their claims of aggression or any other action required or desired by a group or ideology.

The adversarial role involves most professions to some degree but the most highly adversarial are the legal, political, and corporate professions. Those subscribing to Machiavellian philosophy generally just great justification in using lies and deceptions on anyone to win their cause in spite of the damage caused to those involved or are unfortunate enough to be affected. Being a subscriber to this philosophy does not necessarily mean that they would not behave otherwise; it is just a logical and understandable justification for that behavior.

Their mindset recalls a line in the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" where the Catholic monk who is always at the side of Balian "advises" him by saying "Submit to Islam, repent later" when it appears that Saladin is about to overcome the city. The monk blatantly advices a tremendous and very recognizable hypocrisy of violating your personal faith for the immediate convenience which Balian despises.

Other advice from this monk was for Balian to take his queen, a selected few and of course the monk along with the best horses and escape through a secret access. This is having no thought or compassion for those who put their lives in his hands. He, the monk and those today totally disregard the masses. They are Machiavellian before Machiavelli (Monahan, 2005).

Contrary to Machiavelli is the philosophy of Rousseau who is described as a moralist whose tenet is prudence, integrity, and deception but deception where he deems it "morally necessary" as opposed to Machiavelli who encourages deception as a means to an end. Grant argues that "Arguing that hypocrisy can be constructive and that strictly principled behavior can be destructive" (Grant, 1997).

It is believed by many that politicians and lawyers to be the two most untrustworthy occupations. Coincidentally, many politicians were from the legal profession as a large number from corporations and they return to those professions after their terms in office. Auto sales people are close behind depending upon your personal experiences. People hold this belief because they these professions generally seem to claim to maintain a high standard or morality; a moral duty to America. Depending on the circumstance, all you will hear in their communication is their high moral duty to the "American People." On the other hand, these high-flying proclamations are contradicted their action and communications in their votes and their speeches defending their voting record.

The public absorbs these contradictions, conflicting communications, and the resultant hostility between ideologies and for some; it becomes the model of behavior. Corporate America is equally guilty of such behavior. It is similar to the Johari Window. What I say in public, what I say to my friends, what I know in my heart and the windows we deal with. The blind box "not known to self" is rewritten and can be described as denied or suppression. While these are conscious acts, over time this self-denial or suppression can be deep enough that they believe their own deceit as truth thus, rewriting their values and ethics and corrupting their communication.

These corrupted communications are rife with innuendo, euphemisms and fallacies created in defense of unethical and immoral action. Ethical communication is always at risk to conflicts. Maintaining ethical communication may conflict of political or corporate goals and agendas. Grant argues that if one were to adhere strictly to Rousseau's philosophy, damage a company or party could result from such communications and that deception in this case would be justified.

This is why we are constantly violating our ethical and moral standards in spite of the public outcry when people are exposed violating the public trust and are also caught in uncompromising positions that conflict with what that person may having been espousing loudly about themselves and against others failures.

Professional, adversarial, and political roles by nature justify committing harm. In any event, a wrong action regardless of the good intended is still wrong when they are "permitted by the rules of the game. The professions of law, corporation, and politics set themselves above others by virtue of their position and responsibility to the greater good. Our professed leaders maintain a double standard of moral and ethical behavior determined by what they see as necessary or profitable. A common example is a government exercising eminent domain; forcing people to give up their land for Wal-Mart (Applbaum, 1999).

Governments and organizations represent the general population. One could say that the leadership is a reflection of the population or the population reflects the leadership. Whichever way influence flows, it is not acceptable for people to use one or the other as an excuse to act unethically or immorally. Yet, we learn through history, the reasoning used to justify harming population by deliberate deceit, instigate conflicts and war through subterfuge, justified by forms of ethics. Combining two topics turned into a goldmine instead of the anticipated bear.

Managing Conflicts with communication ethics opened avenues of learning that otherwise would not have been necessary. Managing conflict and communication ethics probably are inseparable in the forum of managing communication because of ethical conflicts. The ability of freewill allows for otherwise intelligent people to reason their way into serious conflict with professed beliefs and ethics for personal or organizational gain or security. This distorts Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Fear, power, and authority, followed by overpowering desire for personal wealth seem to be the top motivators for a person to violate ethics. The disgruntled employee is low on the list. While we operate using a logical process, frequently, good logic is distorted to justify illogical decisions. When repercussions are felt resulting from those decisions, we tend to shift blame onto others or completely deny any wrongdoing, "I will be completely vindicated" and words to that effect are commonly spoken. It is a dire conclusion that we will always be in an endless loop of writing and rewriting ethical standards while those in certain professions (place themselves above the requirement to uphold those ethics) conflicting what they say as being ethical for the public or their adversary.

The responsibility to adhere to an ethical standard is placed on their adversary or those to whom they harm while reserving their right to the contrary. Adolph Hitler once said that if "you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." While the leadership will not compare them to Hitler, they have no problem creating conflicts with ethics and morals with corrupt communications at complete their goals.

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)