Ethics at Work: Creating Virtue at an American Corporation

1 | Titans and Warhogs

chapter one Titans and Warhogs A   concern about the moral behavior of businesses and business leaders since the earliest years of European settlement in the New World. Even while the United States developed the world’s most productive capitalist environment, ideas about what constituted appropriate behavior in the business community became part of the national conversation. The term “business ethics” did not gain currency until the middle of the twentieth century, but long before that, a series of ideas and opinions about the appropriate limits on corporate activity had developed strong traditions. These traditions developed alongside the ideology of a laissez-faire free-market economy that emerged in the nineteenth century. In some ways these traditions regarding business behavior took their strength from the individualist tendency in American life; in other ways, they drew more on ideas about the common good that had their roots in religion. The emerging corporations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did not, of course, always operate in accord with those traditions; indeed, the relative weakness of government allowed them a lot of latitude. Nevertheless , they operated in an environment where, at the very least, corporate leaders were compelled to make a public case that they ran enterprises that not only made money for the principals but also contributed to the common good. Different people and groups emphasized different aspects of business behavior. So what has emerged over the course of American history is not a single, indivisible conception of what we now call business ethics, but a cluster of interwoven strands of thought. Contemporary attitudes about corporate malfeasance are profoundly affected by the ways in which earlier Americans have responded to successive waves of corporate scandal over the last two centuries. By sorting out these strands, and by examining the legacy that each has left for our own time, we are bet- ter positioned to evaluate in a comprehensive way the ethics programs of major corporations like Lockheed Martin. An understanding of these strands of thought is important because, in the end, corporations cannot themselves choose the standards on which their ethics programs will be judged. Lockheed Martin, as an engineering company, is good at measuring things, and its leadership cares a great deal about measuring success. This attitude applies to its ethics program, as much as to airplane, missile, and software design. Its ethics officers are constantly challenged to produce data that show the value of the program, and offer specific suggestions for improvement. How can we judge the success of this“ethical culture”? One measure, which Lockheed Martin’s ethics staff embraces, is that the corporation has managed to avoid a banner-headline scandal since , when the merger of Lockheed and Martin Marietta formed the corporation in its current guise. In an era when other major corporations—including some of Lockheed Martin’s largest competitors in the defense industry—have fallen prey to major scandals, this is no small achievement.Avoiding major scandals and earning the trust of the U.S. government are two important markers , but they are not sufficient. Ultimately, corporations are judged in the court of public opinion, which takes the broad view of the subject of business ethics. Lockheed Martin makes large claims for its ethics program, and for the place of values within its corporate culture. The company puts a premium on “the personal integrity of each of our employees and their commitment to the highest standards of personal and professional conduct that underlie the ethical culture of Lockheed Martin.” 1 A corporation may do a spectacular job of rooting out corruption, strengthening the moral fiber of its workforce, and associating itself with worthy social service projects, but if a small cabal of its senior executives succumbs to greed, or if its operations systematically despoil the environment, the company ’s claims to excellence in “ethics” will mean little. By looking at history, I am arguing that the “court of public opinion” is not a shallow, fickle, ill-considered instrument of taste. It is, instead, a distillation of ideas and standards that have long and distinguished roots in American culture. A corporation’s ethics programs may satisfy a philosopher , or a management specialist, or even its customers. But it also needs to respond to the full complement of traditional expectations, Titans and Warhogs :  established and articulated by leaders in business,government,the media, the arts, and other actors...