Are you familiar with the term ‘robber baron’?

“Robber baron” is a derogatory metaphor of social criticism originally applied to certain late 19th-century American businessmen who were accused of using unscrupulous methods to get rich, or expand their wealth.

It’s a great description of many, not all, of the tech titans you hear/read about daily.

The most familiar names are Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergy Brin, and Jeff Bezos, but there are many others, as well as all the aspirational robber baron founders looking for their own brass ring.

Today’s barons build their empires on your metaphorical back, i.e., your personal data, but the result is the same.

What drives them? Money? Power?

Why can’t they see what they are doing? How can they not?

What are their values? Where are their ethics?

I found the answer in a working paper published by Harvard’s Working Knowledge in 2007 and authored by four professors from various universities.

“The current effort to curb unethical behavior “ignores the innate tendency for the individual to engage in self-deception” (p. 224), an error which substantially negates any systematic efforts at the organization level.

This paper was intended to bring the psychological processes of the individual decision-maker to the forefront by examining the self-deception that is inherent in the beliefs about one’s own (un)ethical behavior. Individuals deceive themselves that they are ethical people and the continuation of this belief allows for the perpetuity of unethical behavior. We hope that by examining the interplay of the want/should selves through a temporal lens, we shed light on these false beliefs and break their defeating cycle.”

Self-deception.

That helps explain all the men who, after being called out for their words and actions, claim they didn’t do anything wrong.

While the research provides a reason, it certainly doesn’t alter the negative results of the behavior.

Reasons don’t excuse the behavior.

Nor does it offer a way to change it.

Image credit: Wikipedia

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

Before the bubble burst in 2008 I was writing a blog called Leadership Turn for b5 Media. The comments left led to a four post series. The Siemens bribery scandal brought me back to the subject in 2008 and I returned to the subject in 2009. It’s fluidity and changing definitions have always fascinated me (you can find more recent posts by using “ethics” as your search term).

Unlike those who see ethics as black and white, I’ve always seen them as shifting and changing with society. My favorite example of that change is murder. Every society condemns murder, but labeling a killing as such depends who died — no slave was ever murdered by their owner.

Finally, it’s good to keep in mind that legal doesn’t mean ethical and ethical isn’t synonymous with moral.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Ethics and Corporate Leadership  August 27th, 2007

Are Ethical Values Set or Fluid?  August 29th, 2007

So You Think You’re Ethical…  September 11th, 2007

The Quandary of Ethics  September 14th, 2007

Legal Isn’t Always Ethical  May 29th, 2008

The Changing Face Of Right And Wrong  April 3rd, 2009

More Ethical? Not That Simple  April 10th, 2009

Image credit: BK

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

As a founder, do you have an ethical or moral responsibility to consider the ramifications of your product on society — globally, not just locally?

In Numbers, a TV show that ran from 2005 to 2010, the central character, Charlie Eppes, was a young, prodigy mathematician. One storyline forced him to question his long held belief on his responsibility in innovation.

I always believed it was my duty to develop numerical tools and someone else’s to use them wisely.

Is that what you think?

In your drive for sales would you sell to any who could pay or would you scrutinize them to assure ethical usage?

Some companies do just that.

Data analysis powerhouse Palantir has been ultra-careful since it was founded.

Palantir can afford not to sell to just anybody — you have to believe in its values, too (…)  Palantir once turned down a partnership with a tobacco company “for fear the company would harness the data to pinpoint vulnerable communities to sell cigarettes to,” CEO Alex Karp told Fortune.

Jad Saliba, Magnet Forensics’ founder/CTO and ex-cop is emphatic on the subject.

 “The two areas I care most about are combating terrorism and child exploitation,” he says, adding that he hopes to keep his company on the side of the angels. “We spend a lot of time validating who we sell to … We sell to people who are going to use it ethically.”

Big Data in all its forms has enormous potential for good — and even larger potential for abuse.

And AI even more so.

From man’s earliest days, every new discovery has been a two-edged sword — fire can bestow life or death.

And while the final, future outcome of an innovation can’t be predicted, it should still be the responsibility of its creator, whether individual or company, to work to assure whatever it is is used responsibly.

Image credit: HikingArtist

I have a question for you.

Jean Murray, who writes Small Business Boomers, sent me a link to this story.

“The city of Alexandria, Virginia has hired a professional ethicist to help decide how budget cuts should be made.

The Washington Post reports the ethicists has helped with decisions that include turning apartments built for the mentally ill to temporary housing for the disabled.

Hiring ethicists is not unusual for public hospitals, but seldom has been a practice for local officials who are grappling with difficult budget choices.

When difficult choices have to be made, many see using an ethicist as a moral compass in an effort to do the least harm.”

A friend of Jean’s said, “It sounds to me like a failure in leadership.  These people were elected by the citizens of Alexandria to make the tough decisions, and they want someone else to get them off the hook.”

Do you agree? Should the politicians have made the decision or was it a wiser choice to get input from someone who makes a living being ethical?

Please cast your vote in comments, whether you choose add something else or not.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr