Ethics in Public Relationships: The Six Principles
A public relationship has no affection in it, and that is precisely what makes it demanding. You owe a stranger the same standard you would give a friend, without the feeling that makes it easy.
Fortune favours the bold
A public relationship has no affection in it, and that is precisely what makes it demanding. You owe a stranger the same standard you would give a friend, without the feeling that makes it easy.
Theory is what you read beforehand. This is what you use at eleven in the morning when a decision cannot wait and every option is imperfect.
The same person owes different things to a child, a client and a citizen. Confusing the three is where a great many ethical failures begin.
Two traditions insist that how you act matters as much as what you achieve. One is Indian, one is European, and together they answer most questions about means and ends.
Beyond the famous three lies a second set of theories, and they are where the interesting questions in this paper increasingly come from.
Almost every case study in this paper can be argued three ways. Knowing which three is the difference between an opinion and an answer.
If consequences are the effects of ethics, determinants are its causes. This is the part of the chapter that explains why two officers in identical circumstances behave differently.
Governance is where ethics stops being an idea about people and becomes a question about power — who holds it, how it is used, and whether anyone believes in it afterwards.
A society’s ethics is not measured by what its people believe. It is measured by what a stranger can safely assume about the next person he deals with.
Three names settle almost any question on organisational ethics: two that built value on it, and one that proved what its absence costs.