Philosophers

What would Socrates make of a group of Dutch Tax Office executives taking part in an outdoor activity philosophy program that mixes typical Outward Bound activities (think rock climbing and orienteering) with an introduction to Socratic dialogue? After all, it is 2008, more than 2500 years since the first documented philosophers began their search for meaning.

This interpretation of the great philosopher may sound wacky, but in the current climate of the sub-prime crisis, Centro, Opes Prime and the Amcor cartel, perhaps we need a lesson in great philosophical approaches to ethical decision making, in whatever form it takes. 'HIH, Enron, those scandals come out of a wider acceptance of ethics as a luxury,' says Jeff Malpas, director of the school of philosophy at the University of Tasmania.

'But ethics is the foundation of good decision making, so why isn't every company trying to train its staff and leaders in ethical practice?'

Simon Longstaff, executive director of the St James School of Ethics, reckons there is a simple answer for that: 'They are typically afraid of doing so. It takes a ruthless honesty about what you do.'

Although the power of the balance sheet remains an all-pervading influence, philosophy and ethics are fighting their way onto the agenda of more enlightened organisations as they make attempts to become more ethical and responsible, to become good corporate citizens.

To do this means looking within an organisation at moral codes and rules, and encouraging individual accountability and ethical behaviour, particularly in the decision-making process. 'We need to support people to be ethical,' Malpas says. 'The problem is most companies think that dissent is a problem.'

Most organisations have little training or expertise in ethics, let alone philosophical approaches to business. This is why Amsterdam-based consultants Hans Bolten and Jac Rongen take Dutch Tax Office executives through what they call 'integrity programs'. The courses aim to teach the fundamentals of ethical decision making with a little help from Socrates.

Major engineering company Arcadis and supermarket chain Colruyt have also taken the courses that combine philosophy with outdoor education.

Known for his ruthless questioning, high moral standards of integrity and his bravery, both in words and in battle, Socrates is an ideal role model for changing unethical behaviour. (Socrates is widely believed to have served in the Athenian army.)

Socratic dialogue is a tool that can be used to help working groups reach a common understanding of a company's ethical guidelines. (Why should we behave in this way?)

The Socratic belief in individual, independent thought encourages every employee to personally address unethical behaviour of colleagues rather than take on a herd mentality.

The Dutch courses are designed to stimulate better communication and understanding between staff, and to introduce philosophical enquiry. Loosely interpreted, Socratic dialogue revolves around independent, critical discussions relating to ethics and philosophy, tackling the big issues if you like. Participants must speak honestly and listen attentively to others.

As the discussion develops, it is essential that the group is clear about what has been said, which is often challenging. What unifies the participants is the search for truth, and working towards a consensus. Consensus is not necessarily reached; it is the common goal that matters. Reactions to the course vary.

'Most participants experience this real attempt at true communication and philosophical inquiry as very confronting,' Bolten says.

Bolten doesn't believe that ethics are missing from corporations today, but rather that many companies are set up in a way that can take away from an individual's personal drive to behave ethically. 'The more mechanisms you put into place to check and control your people,' he says, 'the more you hinder the natural control mechanisms that naturally develop in a healthy group. When people are treated as 'resources', rather than emotional, well-thinking, ethically developed individuals, they will shed a lot of these normal human characteristics on their way to work.'

Major accountancy firms use glossy billboards at airports to tell the world about how ethical they are, but are they really trying to change the culture away from compliance towards an ethics-based approach? It can be hard to marry philosophical ideas and approaches to management.

'Most of it turns out to be pretty empty,' says Malpas, who sees large amounts of rhetoric around ethics and no real action. Malpas has worked with groups including police cadets and CPAs around ethics. He has plans for a new workshop relating to contemporary audit practice, 'to have a look at how auditors are understanding ethics,' he says.

Malpas has a rule not to talk about philosophers or the history of philosophy in his workshops. Instead he wants to tap into participants' own ethics and beliefs, to reflect on their own ideas of right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not.

He likens this to a method used by Socrates, who compared himself to a midwife, helping people realise the ideas they already have. 'Philosophy is part of the air we breathe,' he says. 'Ethics is in all of our activities. Ethical issues affect us all the time. The problem is getting people to reflect on that.'

The Sydney-based St James School of Ethics also runs workshops on ethical intelligence and decision making. Clients of the non-profit include many of the top 100 ASX companies.

Designed for board members, senior managers and other staff involved in ethics and compliance issues, the courses are written specifically for a business and its concerns. For example, a construction company would work on an ethical dilemma around a new competitor undercutting its business and potentially sending it to the wall. How will the business respond?

One of the course's key messages is that ethics is not an area 'just for fluffy bunnies and stem cell debates,' says Longstaff. 'It touches on all your choices.'

The workshops introduce participants to what Longstaff calls 'ethical intelligence', a creative capacity where 'you don't take the world as a given, you see all sorts of possibilities', a highly valuable perspective for a decision maker.

Longstaff agrees that being perceived as a pointy-headed academic is not going to convert corporates to the riches philosophy has to offer. He never wants to come across as taking himself too seriously, or 'as a smartypants trying to catch people out'. Rather, his aim is to have discussions about what people really think and to think carefully about why they believe what they believe.

Melbourne Business School's new philosopher-in-residence John Armstrong is not sure what kind of classes he is going to teach when his formal philosophy classes begin in 2009. 'It's really important to recognise that this is a new area,' he says. 'Nobody knows right now in detail how philosophy can contribute to business, that's what we are exploring.'

For now the Oxford-educated author is doing field research, including conducting a series of breakfast seminars around the country with senior executives, looking at key points of philosophy and how they might be used for business. 'One of the things that philosophy is really good at is discussing intangibles,' says Armstrong. 'Things that can't be answered by measurement.'

In order to open discussion, Armstrong poses questions such as 'What is leadership?', 'What is innovation?' and, 'What is risk?' A course on intangibles might be an interesting start for MBS because it can be such a contentious area in business. Longstaff agrees: 'The tough choices are not between good and bad, but right and right.

'When discussing intangibles, there is no one 'right' answer, rather different answers and interpretations. The skill lies in the explanation of an answer, and the reasoning as to why it is a good response. A good answer needs to be 'worked out properly in your own head', says Armstrong, rather than it being one you adopt without truly understanding it.

It is unlikely that students in Armstrong's classes will be asked to read the 2247-page Complete Works of Aristotle but that doesn't mean his students won't benefit from exposure to the great philosopher. American author Jay Heinrich is still working his way through the tome. 'Every time I go back to my Aristotle, he has something else to tell me,' he says.

Heinrichs' latest book, The Art of Arguing: What Aristotle, Eminem and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion is unashamedly mainstream. The author has no problem combining Aristotle's thoughts on ethos, pathos and logos alongside pop culture icons such as entertainers Mariah Carey and Eminem.

Heinrichs says he loves to drop 'the A-bomb' [Aristotle] in his talks and seminars. 'I talk about the ancients in the context of their work, and managers love it.'

For the self-interested manager who isn't really interested in searching for the truth, but rather getting ahead in business, he recommends Aristotle's theories of rhetoric (gathering people and inspiring them to do things in common).

His book explores Aristotle's examination of the three forms of rhetoric (forensic, demonstrative and deliberative). 'Understanding these varieties of rhetoric can greatly ease your life in the workplace, as I hope my book shows,' says Heinrichs. 'The human condition hasn't changed in 2500 years, and few people knew it as well as Aristotle did.'

Well, it seems that 2500 years on, philosophy is alive and well.

Ideas for business from philosophers

SOCRATES (469BC-399BC): Taught that there are dangers attached to thinking you understand something when in reality you don't. We feel pressure to pretend we understand something and this can lead to a herd mentality. Socrates greatly valued the ability to recognise that you don't understand something, and then striving to do understand it.

ARISTOTLE (384BC-322BC): Looked at the question: 'What makes a life go well?' He developed the idea of human flourishing. The same concept can be applied to an organisation: What makes it go well, what does it need and in what quantities in order to succeed?

JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE (1749-1832): Looked at the long term. Goethe trained as a lawyer, was a successful novelist and a government administrator. His philosophy looks beyond the immediate needs to long-term development.

CHARLES HANDY (1932): 'The companies that survive longest are the ones that work out what they uniquely can give to the world, not just growth or money, but their excellence, their respect for others, or their ability to make people happy. Some call those things a soul.'

LAO TZU (approx 600BC): 'A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worst when they despise him. Fail to honour people, they fail to honour you. But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, "We did this ourselves".'

THEODORE ZELDIN (1933): 'It's up to us to decide on the kind of conversations we have. The way we talk at the office or factory shapes the work we do; it's not just machines that force us to be obedient. I want to show how we could make our work a lot less boring and frustrating if we learned to talk differently.'

Leaving morals at home

Costs, profits and returns to shareholders are some of the reasons why ethical leadership expert Eva Tsahuridu believes businesspeople can leave their morals at home. In her role as a senior lecturer at the University of Greenwich Business School, Tsahuridu collaborated with Edith Cowan University's senior lecturer in the school of management Richard McKennaon a study of three Australian organisations. The result was the report: Must Managers Leave Ethics at Home? Economics and Moral Anomie in Business Organisations. The findings were depressing. For starters, no company wanted to be named once it knew the survey was about ethics. According to Tsahuridu, there was 'a reluctance of senior managers and selected organisations to participate'.

Part of Tsahuridu's study involved participants being given a series of ethical dilemmas. For example, taking credit for someone else's work, being asked to pay bribes, leaving environmental issues out of a development report.

Time and again, Tsahuridu and McKenna found 'an absence of moral awareness and judgement in organisational decisions'. For many involved in the study this behaviour was not seen as amoral but rather loyalty or obedience to the company. (Socrates would not be happy with that herd mentality.)

The study found few people taking moral responsibility at work. 'It's not my job'; 'It's not my place'; 'It's not my decision'; 'This is the way we do things' were excuses for behaviour. The compliance approach to work was taken rather than an approach where individual integrity is fundamental.

Reference: June 2008, volume 78:05, p. 24 –- 27