Interesting article in Computerworld about Ethics Consultants.

http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO53391,00.html

 Jeff
 masterracker@hotmail.com
 
If everything seems to be going well: you don't have enough information.......

Very interesting, Jeff. For those of you who don't have time to click the link (you really should), here's two paragraphs that address the heart of the article:

    Just what limits should there be on how online businesses use the information they gather about their customers? And what responsibility do companies have to publicly disclose their data mining practices?
    Or if a company is considering using software to monitor its employees' computer use, an ethicist can help gauge whether it's a legitimate way to ensure productivity or a violation of employees' privacy.

I find it refreshing that the maintenance of IT ethical standards has grown into an industry and that a guy can now make a respectable living by guiding corporations to "do the right thing."

It's about time Information Technology started to tie some reins to the wild horse it's been trying to ride.

Jeff,
It is a sad state in e-buisness when someone needs to get payed upward 100K a year just to tell people common sense problems.

Since when did the selling of rights ever become even a question?  It is violating the contract, something that is not only unethical but against the law.

Thanks for the links, they really showed just how far companies will go to make a few bucks selling information.

Bonecat42

Just to clarify...

Nothing against the ethnics consultant.  Mr. Shanks is doing the right thing in a bad situation.

If my previous post made it seem like Mr. Shanks was getting paid too much- SORRY.

Bonecat42

Bonecat,

I don't think you're too far off.  If raw, unbridled capitalism were tempered a little by including a focus on ethics into business and management training threre might not be a need for a full time "Ethics Officer".  In other words, if everyone in the mgmt. chain examined the ethical fallout of their decisions all the time, many of those decisions might be made differently.

On the pay issue, I don't think 100K is too much if the person is doing something valuable for the company.  It's certainly more reasonable than paying CEOs millions.  (I have no problem with someone owning something worth millions but I do have a problem with paying someone millions.   One person can only do so much and the number of executives who really are "visionaries" is pretty small.)

 Jeff
 masterracker@hotmail.com
 
If everything seems to be going well: you don't have enough information.......

BoneCat42, as I have said in the fora before, it sense really were common, we'd have a one-word term for the phenomenon.

I think Mr. Shanks' value to a company is two-fold.  The first is to be able to provide the opinion of a non-involved interested party -- providing a workaround for the whole "can't see the forest for the trees" problem.

The second value Mr. Shanks provides to a company is to give the officers of a company the tools necessary for them to be able to make these decisions unassisted later on.  His curriculum vitae, as excerpted in MasterRacker's link, highlights his teaching qualifications.

Now, whether he's worth his fees is entirely another question.  We'd have to talk with former clients to figure that one out.

______________________________________________________________________
Never forget that we are
made of the stuff of stars

Some body has to pay his bill, and who do you think it is? Yeah you and Me or simply the customer.
So for all the people trying to increase their earnings and looking for the big bucks, the money is in ethics.

But Mr Shanks is not only paid that high because of ethics, you pay for his title, his fame, his reputation, his education, and more important, his lost opportunities when working for you.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

svanels, so the cost gets passed on to the consumer.  What's your point?

Yes, you pay for his reputation.  Again, what's your point?

______________________________________________________________________
Never forget that we are
made of the stuff of stars

My point is that things are too expensive. Most of the large companies that pay that amount of money to inviduals, are the first to ones to start a factory in a third world country and pay slavery wages.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

svanels,

The primary ethical obligation of the officers of a company, at least in the US, is to increase owner value by legal means.  If hiring an ethicist for a month (which would cost ~$8300, assuming $100K for his total billing for a year) can save a company $10,000 over a 5-year period, then it is a good investment.

This guy must provide a service of definable monetary value to the table, else the companies wouldn't hire him.

And I don't think that those companies who are hiring this guy are necessarily the first who will move jobs overseas.

______________________________________________________________________
Never forget that we are
made of the stuff of stars

What may be difficult to quantify, is that an ethical consultant, more often than not, benefits the company by keeping legal expenses down by guiding the company down a safe path.  The end result is the company does not find itself it hot water thru either criminal or civil proceedings.

This ends up, not really "saving" the company money, but prevents the company from having to spend earned profit on legal costs, civil suits, and the like.  So the profit numbers remain high, and the owner(s) get a good return on investment.

What IMHO is a shame, is that proper oversight, either internal or external, is necessary to prevent malfeasance on the part of management.  Human nature is what it is, and as much as we'd all agree that ethics is a life-style (see thread by rbeaureg), most human beings do not practice that way of life.  Thus the need for the ethical consultant.

The cost does get passed on to the consumer, but how much are willing to pay not to get screwed, or not to see your neighbor get screwed?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

100K for a year sounds reasonable, but I assummed getting that for a month, which is absurd. Nike and C&A should hire an ethics consultant to guide them about child labor.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

Maybe I'm less cynical than some, but I think it is admirable for any company to hire an ethicist rather than impose whatever ethical standard the management of the moment wants to implement. Let's not forget that ethicists don't simply elevate their own personal moral framework to the level of 'One And Only Truth'. They usually take a more objective and scientific approach to the issues at hand.

I agree with sleipnir214, that companies that hire ethicists aren't necessarily the first ones to start factories in 3rd world countries. I also don't see how, if this were the case, that should be a reason for them not to do the right thing in other ways. It's the ones with total disregard for ethical consequences that we have to worry about, IMHO.

Taking these matters seriously shows respect for both owners/shareholders as well as those for whom the ethical boundaries are being defined: the employees. I can think of several former supervisors whose ethical views I would hate to live or work by.

We hire other experts for specific areas, why not on this one?

Martijn Middelplaats
martijn@middelplaats.net