WELCOME to March, which is National Ethics Month, as sponsored by the CPCU Society and many other fine insurance organizations. In honor of this month, I have a question for you: What's the difference between ethics and morality?
Some of you may be thinking, "Trick question! They are just different words for the same thing. Ethics is all about making moral choices and doing the right thing!"
As Yoda might say, "And that is why you fail." Ethics and morality are not the same. In essence, morality is about choosing right versus wrong, such as the question of whether to lie, cheat and steal or to be honest. Ethics is not about doing the right thing, but deciding which right thing to do. Instead of right versus wrong, it's about right versus right (not to be confused with politics, which is right versus left).
Consider this scenario: You're delivering your proposal to a prospect. The receptionist leaves you alone for a moment while she lets the prospect know you've arrived. On the receptionist's desk, you notice one of your competitor's proposals-evidently put there after an earlier presentation. No one is looking, so you pick it up and quickly leaf through it.
The competition's proposal has a much lower price than yours. You can't re-print your proposal, but you grab the receptionist's letter opener and slice the final, pricing page out of your binder. You'll give an oral price quote to the prospects. The underwriter won't mind that you've promised a new, lower price. After all, he had told you he would do what was necessary to be competitive-plus, he owes you a few favors. Is this a "right versus wrong" or a "right versus right" dilemma?
This is clearly a moral issue, not an ethical one. It fails the "cookie jar" test: If the receptionist had walked back in while the agent was reading the competing proposal, the agent would have looked as guilty as a cookie-thieving 6-year-old. If any agent in a similar situation argues otherwise, I'd counter that the agent then should have no problem walking into the meeting with that other agent's proposal in hand, dropping it on the table, and saying, "I just happened to see this in your receptionist's in-basket, read it, and want you to know I can get you a better deal."
To avoid a free-for-all of conflicting morality arguments, too many ethics seminars use scenarios similar to our example as a way of clearly telegraphing the desired answers. Unfortunately, making the behavior so obviously out of line also renders the scenario relatively useless in creating true ethics guidelines and strengthening decision-making muscles. Stray from such obvious scenarios when dealing with moral questions, and you open the door to arguments over issues of individual beliefs. Is it OK to lie in certain situations, for example? Some folks argue it is never acceptable. Others vehemently disagree, saying the circumstance may dictate otherwise-"the end justifies the means."
Ethics is a different issue altogether. Let's re-shape our scenario into an ethical dilemma. (Full disclosure: This scenario is based on one of several case studies I created for the Insurance Institute of America's Street Level Ethics II materials, which can be accessed free on the Institute's Web site.)
Once again, you are preparing a proposal for a prospect, and you know you have a competitive package. A few days before delivering the proposal, you're at the local agents' luncheon. As luck would have it, you are sitting right next to one of your oldest friends and competitors, who you know is also the current agent on your prospect's account. You have no problem with this, since the two of you have locked horns many times over the years and always have kept it above reproach and amicable.
This time is different. Your friend confides in you that his agency is struggling, and things aren't looking good. He says he hopes he manages to hold on to one of his few remaining major accounts, which is coming up for renewal. You realize he is talking about the very account you have targeted and that he is unaware you are going after it. Your heart goes out to your friend. You realize this account means a great deal to him. Even though it is of nice size, you would hardly characterize it as a "must-have" for your agency. Your proposal potentially represents some real value for the prospect, but keeping the account will mean as much or more to your friend. Do you go ahead with your presentation to the prospect, or do you quietly kill your proposal, informing the prospect without explanation that you are unable to make a competitive offer at this time?
This is an ethics conundrum. There is no wrong answer-both choices are valid. If you believe the top priority is for the client to get the best possible coverage, no one would question your decision to present the proposal and let the chips fall where they may. On the other hand, who can fault a decision to let one non-key prospective account slip away for another year, if it means helping a friend in need? In either case, I can argue you did "the right thing."
Your choice in our scenario should not be a spur-of-the-moment decision. To be valid and effective, ethical behavior should be a predetermined choice to follow a certain path when confronted with many possible good choices.
Ethics scholars describe three decision-making methods. In simplest terms, they are: (1) rule-based, (2) golden-rule based or (3) people-based. There are no evident hard and fast rules governing the situation in our scenario, so the rule-based approach is of limited value here. We might apply the "golden-rule based" method, also known as the "do unto others" rule, by asking, "What would you want the other agent to do if your situations were reversed?" The people-based method might lead us either way, depending on whether our concern for others is more swayed in this situation by empathy with our friend or by our belief that every insured deserves access to the best possible coverage and price.
In the spirit of Ethics Month, I challenge you to discuss with your staff which of the three approaches best fits your agency, and then commit to following it when confronted by "right versus right" ethical dilemmas. Your clients, prospects and friends don't have to agree with your choices, but they and you should never doubt those choices are the result of deliberate thought and commitment to a standard that isn't going to vary with the economic, political and social breezes. When all the choices are "right," the key to credibility and dependability is predictability.
There was a popular poster that said: "Perfection is a given. Doing the impossible just takes a little longer." For this month, consider a variation on that theme: "Doing the right thing is a given. Doing the "right" right thing just takes a little longer."
Right? Right!
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.