Do you think the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 offers sufficient safeguards to protect whistle-blowers from corporate retaliation? Do you think our current lending crisis could have been averted had employees blown the whistle? Do you think that corporate America is capable of policing itself? Or do you think we need stiffer government regulation at least in terms of financial transparency?
I think the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is a legitimate step in the right direction to encourage employees to more carefully consider the impacts of their actions in a moral context. However, though it will offer better protections to employees who ultimately become whistleblowers, I question whether or not it will increase the number of whistleblowers or increase the frequency with which they choose to go public with their accusations.
The general status of societal morality combined with the internal culture of organizations is still the driving force behind the actions of employees. In an increasingly amoral culture with a decidedly relativistic bend, I wonder if our very perception of morality (what is right and what is wrong) is becoming so skewed socially that it reduces the number of individuals willing to come forward with allegations of wrongdoing. If such a pool of individuals willing to step forward to prevent immoral corporate behavior is reduced, it does not bode well for improved corporate performance. If this is combined with corporate cultures willing to stifle whistle-blowing in pursuit of the almighty bottom line, even legislation like the SOA is only one small finger in the dike holding back a mighty ocean.
As for whether or not our current lending crisis could have been prevented by whistleblowers, I don’t think so. Perhaps its scope could have been reduced but I don’t believe it would have eliminated. I think there was a systemic and pervasive willful blindness to reality and commitment to selfish gain as profits soared. Even today, as a real estate agent, I see an industry that still silently craves a return to the “boom years,” even at the cost of the consumer. I still routinely observe mortgage brokers and lenders that would repeat previous offenses if given half a chance. Still they would loan money to borrowers who are not credit worthy if there was a way for them to pawn off the risk.
To me this indicates that current policies and procedures enacted since the crash are more of a knee-jerk reaction to the circumstances rather than a heartfelt morph to higher responsibility and accountability. Policies seem to have been instituted more as survival mechanisms rather than as means to a better more equitable moral future.
In light of this, can corporate America police itself? I think it is capable. That this automatically implies willingness is another matter entirely. American corporations do have the resources and ingenuity to implement self-policing at all levels. However, this requires a commitment from the top down, and a willingness of management to follow-up all private allegations of misconduct as vigorously as if they were under a watchful public eye.
I do not necessarily think more regulation is the answer. Discussions of the merits of capitalism and government regulation are for another time and place, but I will simply posit that I think government regulation can only go so far. As an old preacher once said, “Gentlemen, there comes a time when we cannot legislate the heart.” This is to say, at some point, our collective corporate behavior must stem from an internal desire to operate profitably, both monetarily and morally rather than simply choosing to get away with as much as possible in the context of current law. Our fundamental corporate culture must be founded on solid moral policies from which ethically sound profitability may be sustained. I know this is easier said than done, but it certainly is worthwhile goal for which to strive.
Approximately 582 words
No comments:
Post a Comment