Dealing with Ethics Slobs

The various investigations of President Trump and some members of his administration and others have focused attention on an age-old debate:  whether careless wrongdoing is as reprehensible as is the intentional sort.

The answer is, I believe, Yes.  Indeed, crimes of carelessness may in some ways be even more perilous than is intentional wrongdoing.

The first word on this always interesting issue may belong to Samuel Johnson, who once said: “It is more from carelessness about truth than from intentionally lying that there is so much falsehood in the world.”

Indeed, I believe that as the economy and other aspects of society become ever more complex the need to address carelessness risks will likely become even greater.  

There will, I think, be more things to get wrong, and thus more of a need to make things right. .Some companies do rise to this occasion, meaning they do a good job in educating managers on the need for carefulness on C&E matters. But many others could and should do more.  The same is true of governmental bodies.

What else can be said about dealing with “ethics slobs”?

First, I should stress that the suggestion here is not to be taken too literally. A company should not, as a general matter, formally designate its employees as “ethics slobs,” (unless they are being terminated).  But using a more dignified approach to dealing with this issue one can achieve a similar result.

Second, C&E personnel should keep track of “carelessness cases” that arise at the company. This could include violations of law or applicable policy that led to harmful activity even though there was no intentionally wrongful conduct.

Third, based on this inventory of “carelessness cases” one should address this area in company-wide training, other (e.g., targeted) training and other communications. There should be a risk assessment aspect to ethics slobs risks.

Fourth, company compensation schemes should be reviewed for carelessness risk.  Indeed, the importance of incentives has been recently re-enforced by Justice Department memoranda on C&E programs.

Finally, the pitfalls of being an “ethics slob” should be addressed in auditing, monitoring and risk assessment. Here – and elsewhere – what one measures is what counts.