If you’d told me five years ago that I’d start Chapter 1 in Bootstrapping Ethics with a discussion of values and purpose, I’d have laughed (or maybe cried).

I’d seen so much of the BS bingo with corporate values and mission statements that I wanted to barf. As an investigator, you know what really happens inside companies. That juxtaposition with straplines, swooshes, and mission mantras is often stark. What changed?

Small is beautiful

Working with SMEs, I saw that quite a few organisations start with some (vaguely) cogent narrative and purpose. It may be deluded, but it’s believed. That is not to say that SMEs are all trying to save the world, but that’s the point.

Large organisational values have coalesced around the same platitudinous crud all too often. The corporate values BS Bingo – compiled using some data crunching of MNC values – illustrates the point.

If everyone’s purpose (or Purpass™️) is the same – integrity, diversity, fairness, honesty, blah, blah, blah – meaning is lost. So what to do?

Be like SMEs, who often start with a niche purpose aligned to success metrics for whatever they do. For example, think of your favourite coffee shop. What they offer may include things like – friendly service, quality coffee (fairtrade, ethical, artisan, gourmet, etc.), value ($), food (keto, indulgent, sugary, etc.) or not, speed of service, ambience, etc. In other words, one niche industry (coffee shops) has space for many variants. The values differ. The Vietnamese coffee shop with condensed milk might not go long on healthy living type values, whereas the MCT-laced keto place probably will.

Be honest, no, really

In the interests of pure laziness, this extract from the book on this topic sums up what I’d normally say now…

“Fixing this disjoint between what your organisation says and what people feel it does is the first step to effective risk and compliance management … You must demonstrate how you want things done; this should not be a FIFO approach (fit in or F-off). It is more akin to house rules. Are you a shoes on inside, or shoes left at the door kind of organisation? It is okay to explain how you want things to be done broadly.”

What’s that to do with risk & compliance?

I’m glad I asked, so I can blatantly plagiarise another tract of the book where I discuss how (and why) we arrived at family values:

“We wanted to use the active (not passive) voice to give positive meaning and personal ownership. This process stimulated debate and discussion about how we wished to conduct ourselves collectively and individually (and hold each other accountable). Crucially, this was a democratic process. The parents did not get a more significant vote, and the kids hold us accountable (repeatedly!) when our behaviours fall short.

Why did we feel the need to embark on this exercise? Because rule-setting was unwieldy. As parents, we’d seldom remember what rules we’d set, let alone the associated punishment and reward tariffs. The kids probably forgot – or acted as they had – and chaos ensued. We could have codified every expected behaviour, but as an employee of an organisation with a weighty Employee Handbook (or equivalent door-stop) will testify, no one reads rules. Adequately articulated, agreed, and tangible statements serve as the first line of defence against unethical behaviours.

Rules, policies, and procedures have their place, but they are the safety net when values have faltered. A moral code at a familial, organisational, or team level provides a framework around which you can hang your rules. For example, if your value is “We deal fairly and honestly with all stakeholders,” that is the hook for specificity around fair competition, honest financial reporting, transparent data policies, etc. Without the framework, you have a shopping list of rules that few will read; adherence becomes about an individual’s judgement in the absence of guidance, which frequently ends poorly.”

Over to you

Do your organisational values reflect your risk posture? If so, hooray for you 🎉! If not, you may be confusing people with the codified approach, not couched in a coherent ethical framework.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that it’s fixable and usually faster than you’d imagine.