To reflect on what can make good people do bad things, I will mention two real cases, which occurred during my career.
In the first case, a successful and great looking, postgraduate bank manager, always kind and very nice to her clients, was dismissed for just cause by the bank. An investigation proved that she had gone astray with frequent deviations of small amounts from several of the bank´s customers accounts, sending to two other people´s accounts involved in the scheme. As they were small amounts, it took almost six months before one of the customers noticed the subtraction of small amounts and decided to make the complaint directly to the bank's top management, correctly believing that the branch management could have some involvement. It is important to note that the deviations were always from current accounts of individuals ... there were no deviations from current accounts of companies.
In the second case, a representative from the pharmaceutical industry was responsible for sales directly to hospitals and clinics in a distant state. Respected, committed and a professional with excellent performance and receiving several awards. On a certain day, the accounts receivable department noted that a hospital had failed to make a payment and called the billing area to contact the hospital's purchasing department. What a surprise when it was told from the purchasing manager that the hospital had never placed a purchase order directly with the company, when, in fact, purchase orders arrived by that representative on a monthly basis.
Under the perplexity of everyone within the company, an investigation was launched that ended up unraveling the mystery. There was collusion between the representative, a local wholesaler and a carrier employee, for the representative to take orders on behalf of hospitals and clinics. The distributor provided full payment of the purchase amount to the company's account. The carrier took the cargo and its arrival was communicated to the representative who was going to pick it up and transfer it directly to the wholesaler.
Apparently, everything was right. The company sold and received for the product, the wholesaler paid and also received the product and the representative made another sale in its territory. Perfect? No ... First, the sale to hospitals and clinics enjoyed a greater discount than the discount granted to wholesalers. In addition, due to the tax substitution system, the ICMS had to be added to the price and charged in advance from the wholesaler and the same did not happen for the hospital or clinic. For this reason, the name of hospitals and clinics were used when the buyer was, in fact, a wholesaler. And the representative was commissioned for that, starting to have an equity not consistent with his income.
The result of this, in addition to the shock caused internally to his colleagues and superiors, is that the representative was dismissed for just cause, and a police report for fraud was filed. The representative also tried to reinstate the company by the courts but failed.
These are just two of countless stories, in which misconduct occurs by individuals above any suspicion, ending promising careers early.
In the above cases, the deficiency in the internal controls of both the bank and the pharmaceutical industry is readily identified, since both situations could have been avoided if the controls had been effective.
Another reason for the misconduct pointed out was the greed of both professionals who were not satisfied with their remuneration, seeking enrichment more quickly, disregarding lawfulness and ethical conduct in their actions.
Would the absence of internal controls and greed be the only factors in getting a good person to do bad things? Of course not.
Ethics expert Muel Kaptein, for example, after conducting research with managers and employees, listed seven factors that effectively mitigate misconduct in the workplace:
- Clarity for directors, managers and employees about what constitutes desirable and undesirable behavior: the clearer the expectations, the better people know what to do and the more likely they are to do it.
- Leadership by example for administrators, management or immediate supervisors: the better the examples given in an organization, the better people behave, while the worse the example is, the worse the behavior is.
- Defined and attainable goals, tasks and responsibilities: the more people are engaged in an organization, the better they are able to do what is expected of them.
- Commitment on the part of directors, managers and employees of the organization: the more the organization treats its people with respect and involves them in the organization, the more it tries to serve the interests of the organization.
- Transparency of behavior: the better people observe their own and other people's behavior and its effects, the more they take this into account and the better they are able to control and adjust their behavior to the expectations of others.
- Openness to discussion of points of view, emotions, dilemmas and transgressions: the more space people in the organization have to talk about moral issues, the more they do this and the more they learn from each other.
- Response to behavior, such as appreciation or even reward for desirable behavior, disciplinary measures for undesirable behavior and the extent to which people learn from mistakes, omissions, incidents and accidents: the better the response, the more people tend to want be rewarded and avoid what will be punished.
In effect, they are coherent reflections that can certainly mitigate misconduct in the organization.
Two very important aspects in any organization brought up by Professor Muel Kaptein, is leadership by example and the efficient adoption of recognition and disciplinary measures, as appropriate. Without the adoption of such factors, it is very unlikely that misconduct will not eventually prosper in the organization.
Another interesting insight is that of psychologist Christine Hammond, who lists seven reasons why her patients have misbehaved, adding a brief description to each case:
- Hurt. Hailey left the hotel room in shock. The events of the previous night's drinking were coming back into focus. She was out of town at a business meeting, the first since the birth of her second child. She stopped at the hotel bar and one thing led to another, resulting in her betrayal to her partner. But, as the effects of alcohol disappeared, the pain returned. She felt like she was failing at work, as a mother and as a wife. Desperate to escape the pain, she turned to alcohol and the company of a stranger whose expectations were minimal.
- Fear. Ralph gave up on pornography after his wife confronted him about it. After seeing how it hurt her, he agreed to abstain for the past ten years. But now he found himself late at night talking to a woman he met through a porn site to set up a meeting. It happened so fast, but as he walked away from the house, he caught himself as if he were waking up from a dream. His fears returned in an avalanche of paranoia. The very thing he was trying to escape from now was more intense than ever. Convinced that everyone on the road knew what he was doing, he suddenly called his wife and fear paralyzed him, resulting in a car accident.
- Insecurity. "I don't think I'm good enough," said Samantha, furious, after a meeting at which the promotion of a subordinate coworker was announced. She went back to her office, slammed the door and started throwing objects. Samantha was furious so loudly on purpose, just so that others could hear. Normally calm, friendly and eager to please, her behavior shocked her co-workers. But every time Samantha was passed over for an award, honor and even ceased to be the official speaker, the result was a fit of fury, which masked her profound insecurity at not being good enough.
- Inclusion. Desperate to win the approval of a new crowd of friends, Carl stole a game store. They had been challenging him for a while and even showed him how easy it was. But Carl was able to resist their pressure because he knew it was wrong. However, he was tired of feeling lonely and wanted to maintain his relationship with this new crowd so much that he justified stealing the game. But instead of feeling more included, ironically, he felt more isolated and never played the game he stole.
- Exclusion. Larry was so involved with his image of self-righteousness that he was completely lost in the irony of the moment. He told himself that the reason he was going to the strip club was to prove that he was wrong and, somehow, he would not be affected by it. He was going there to witness the others and tell them how bad it was for them to be there. By struggling to prove that he was different from another group of people, he became like them. He who wanted to be excluded was now included.
- Fault. For years, Grace carried the secret that she was molested as a child. She blamed herself for being alone with her uncle and assumed most of the responsibility for her actions. But here she was arguing with her husband to deal with her inability to have sex with him. Once again, she was taking on her husband's guilt for betraying and blaming herself.
- Shame. Always protective of his past, Matt hid from everyone that he was physically abused as a child. The shame he felt for his mother's abuse was so intense that he did everything to cover it up. But as soon as he became a father, memories began to emerge. He stopped beating his own son with a ruler in the same way that his mother used to do with him. Back to reality, Matt collapsed, realizing that he had the same potential to be as abusive as his mother.
The reports pointed out by Christine Hammond above, demonstrate that people can have deviations in their ethical conduct not only in the corporate world, but also in their private life and, what is more interesting, some deviations in private life can dramatically impact the conduct and professional ethics in their work environment.
