C H A P T E R

O N E

THE MORAL MELTDOWN

The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world is to be in reality what we would appear to be. All human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice and experience of them.

WHAT SOCRATES SAID is as true today as it was 2500 years ago. If you want to know the true character of an individual, watch his or her feet and not his or her mouth. Emerson may have said it better when he stated "What you’re doing speaks so loudly that I can’t hear what you’re saying." Character can be measured by what you do or how you act when no one is looking. I believe that there is latent goodness in all of us, but it is our actions that indicate how we deal with the temptations and expectations we face. It is our actions that reflect our character.

Most of us know what is right and what is wrong. Many of us know how to differentiate between good and bad. But there appears to be a continuing erosion of our conduct. While we may want to do what is right, or appear as if we are upstanding moral people, more and more of us seem to be "sliding down the slippery slope" to routine unethical behavior.

Here is a sampling of some current thinking and some expressions that are prevalent:

"So what if I take a few things? I am not stealing from a friend, I’m stealing from a big corporation and they can afford it."

"I can get anything I want from my parents. They feel guilty about leaving me while they work."

"What’s the use? How can I make a difference? I don’t vote. All politicians are crooks anyway.

"I’m a bit discouraged. My boss is having an affair with one of my co-workers and she got a raise and promotion even though she is less qualified and less productive."

"What has happened to the word honor? Our politicians seem to be people without honor and we are all diminished by having them in government."

"Where have all the role models gone? I’m having trouble finding them."

These remarks are topics of conversations today. A skeptic might react to them by saying, "So what? Such expressions are nothing new and they don’t prove a widespread deterioration in our values or our ethics." Unfortunately, statistical evidence demonstrates the pervasive-ness not only of this kind of thinking but also this kind of behavior.

Disturbingly high percentages of high school students responding to a Reader’s Digest study think that cheating is okay because the chances of being caught are slim. The Josephsen Institute for Ethics found that almost 40% of high school students had stolen at least once within a 12-month period. Worse, many justify such action because they feel it is necessary to lie, cheat, and steal in order to succeed. About a fourth of these youngsters agreed with the following statement: It is not unethical to do whatever you have to do in order to succeed as long as others are not seriously hurt.

Several years of data from an ongoing study by Who’s Who Among American High School Students support these findings. Students claim they "have to" cheat to get good grades and be competitive for top-rated colleges. An overwhelming proportion admits to cheating, yet virtually all know it is wrong to do so. And these include some of our best and brightest students.

This disconnect between understanding and behavior is not reserved for adolescents. In 1997, the Ethics Resource Center, in con-junction with the Society for Human Resource Management, conducted a survey of adults in their role as employees. In that survey, 35-45% of respondents report having witnessed lying to supervisors or falsification of information in correspondence or records. Almost 30% observed theft and about 25% had seen misuse of organizational assets. When asked if they reported their observations, almost invariably the answer was: "No!" When asked why, close to 60% justified their inaction by saying, "Nobody cares about business ethics." Well over half said that they did not trust the company to protect their identity and protect them from reprisal. These are people who see themselves as valuing loyalty and courage, but who are unable to follow through when tested. Rather than display their loyalty to their employer and demonstrate the courage to do the right thing, they turned away with rationalizations or in fear.

Survey after survey, study after study, reaches the same conclusion. We all seem to know what our values ought to be and we profess allegiance to them. Yet, we do not act — we rationalize misconduct with an "ends justify the means" mentality that is a sure prescription for a complete breakdown in integrity. This frightening disconnect between our values and our behavior manifests itself in schools, family, government and business. We have a problem and it appears to be getting worse. As we embark on our journey into the 21st Century, we must be concerned that we do not destroy ourselves from within by moral and ethical decay. World leaders have fallen before — the history of mankind is an undeniable harbinger — unless we learn from the past, we are condemned to relive it.

So, what can we do? What can we do to reverse the trend and restore our ability to live ethical, values-based lives? The first step is awareness of the problem. The second step is a shared concern for our children and our country. The next step will require a determination, a sustained and solid determination and national will to effect a meaningful change in society’s standards and behavior.

We are well on our way with step one. Surveys indicate that many Americans are worried about this state of affairs. Recent Gallup polls have found that by margins of almost 2 to 1, we believe that society is in a moral and spiritual decline. Similar proportions of respondents are unhappy with others’ ethical standards and they deplore the state of the American family. Shearson Lehman Brothers surveyed "Life in America" and reports that 80% of us think the United States is on the wrong track. The Futurist reports that almost 85% of Americans think that modern Western culture fails to provide a proper sense of belonging, purpose and values. Similarly, Newsweek found that 80% of us think we are in a moral and spiritual decline and we tend to blame parents, political leaders, teachers, and the clergy for failing to set the proper example.

Complementing this troubling finding are the results of a Parents Magazine survey that 90% of the readers who responded believe that we have lost track of our basic values and that it’s harder to teach traditional values to children today. The Josephson Institute reports that even our youth fear the deterioration of national values as our greatest present danger.

So, we have a starting point. That’s a good sign. Now, we must find a way to motivate ethical behavior. That is the challenge of leadership. We can all be leaders, because all of us influence others by our example, our mentoring, and our pursuit of truth. This is the key: we have to believe that ethical practices are really best for us and we have to teach this belief to our children. The best way for them to integrate values into their lives is to see us integrate them into ours. We can’t just tell them, we have to show them. As parents and exemplars we have to live the life and practice the values that we want our children to emulate.

And we have to do the same in our adult relationships — family, friends, business, government, service relationships. True success and happiness in life are possible only through the practice and implementation of ethical behavior. And all the faces of success are possible through the tremendous promise and power of character. In the end your character is your destiny and you are the architect of your own character.

C H A P T E R T H R E E

BUSINESS & ETHICS

NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE

In the arena of human life, the honors and the rewards fall to those who show their good qualities in action

I know of no present better example of one who has shown good qualities in action than Norman R. Augustine. As a son, a father, a husband, a student, a teacher, an engineer, a corporate executive, a government official and as a human being, Norm Augustine has demonstrated moral and ethical behavior. He graduated from Princeton with a BSE in Aeronautical Engineering magna cum laude, and he earned an MSE from Princeton with honors.

Over the years, he has received Honorary Doctors Degrees from sixteen different universities or colleges. He was chairman of the America Red Cross and a member of the Policy Council of the Business Roundtable. He is also a former chair-man of the Education Task Force, a former chairman of the National Academy of Engineering, and a former president of the Boy Scouts of America. These are just a few of the important positions he has occupied.

In addition to his professional engineering and managerial duties, he serves on numerous boards of directors and boards of trustees. He began his professional career in 1958 when he joined the Douglas Aircraft Company. During his tenure at Douglas he was a Program Manager and Chief Engineer. Beginning in 1965, he served in the Pentagon in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as an Assistant Director of Defense Research and Engineering. Joining the LTV Missiles and Space Company in 1970, he served as Vice President, Advanced Programs and Marketing. In 1973 he returned to government as Assistant Secretary of the Army and in 1975 as Undersecretary.

Joining Martin Marietta Corporation in 1977, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer and then as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. He served as President of Lockheed Martin upon the formation of that company in 1995, and became Chief Executive Officer on January 1, 1996, after which he was elected Vice Chairman on April 23, 1996, and Chairman on January 1, 1997. He currently serves as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of Lockheed Martin, having retired as an active employee on August 1, 1997, at which time he became a member of the faculty of the Princeton University School of Engineering and Applied Science.

For his accomplishments he was awarded the National Medal of Technology by the President of the United States and five times he was awarded the Defense Department’s highest civilian decoration, the Distinguished Service Medal. Additionally, he received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Air Force Exceptional Service Medal, the NASA Distinguished Public Service Award, the Department of the Treasury Medal of Merit, and Gold Medal of Merit. In September 1999, it is especially fitting that he received the West Point Sylvanus Thayer Award for exemplifying the ideals of West Point as reflected in its motto, "Duty, Honor, Country." Norm Augustine is the recipient of over 50 major awards from industrial associations, professional organizations, and national service organizations.

When you review the complete record of this distinguished citizen it becomes patently clear that Norm Augustine has devoted his life to constructive and productive service to his country, his family, and his fellow citizens. Make no mistake about it, Norm Augustine is a very successful person and a contributor to the welfare of others. He achieved his success by living his values. In all his endeavors in industry, in his Defense Department positions and in his public service roles he has conducted himself in an ethical and forthright manner. He has "talked the talk and walked the walk." He has gone on the record in support of moral behavior in our country and in strong support of business ethics in his profession. (See the Appendix for the Lockheed Martin Corporate Code of Ethics entitled Our Values: Ethics Mission Success and Teamwork. This code of ethics and the address "Ethics in America" presented at the end of this section provide additional insight into the character of this man.)

In summary, Norm Augustine has achieved success in his professional and personal life without deception, and without cheating. Norm Augustine is what he appears to be and he has practiced and experienced his human virtues to a considerable extent. His effectiveness as the Chief Executive Officer of a major corporation, as a senior government official, as a public service leader, as a father, and as a husband has been greatly enhanced by this trustworthiness, his sense of honor, and his commitment to duty and service. If we can conclude that he is a positive role model, let us proceed in our search of ethics to determine what in Norman Augustine’s background contributed to the development of his character.

Norm Augustine grew up in Denver, Colorado as the son of Ralph and Freda Augustine. The Augustines were hard working and honest people and were excellent role models for their son. Norm has stated that his father was the most honest person he has ever known. Ralph Augustine apparently didn’t talk about honesty or character he just lived it and exemplified integrity by his daily actions. Norm’s parents also practiced self-discipline and expected Norm to do likewise. They also expected their son to work hard and study hard and they had high expectations for him. Norm tells the story about how his father left a clipping for him on a mirror in his room when Norm was still quite young. The message simply stated, Don’t wait until you are a man to be great, be a great boy.

It is no coincidence that many years later he became the National President of the Boy Scouts of America. It is also no coincidence that he has spent seven years as the Chairman of the American Red Cross. His sense of duty and dedication to the service of others are traits that were inculcated at an early age.

Norm Augustine speaks highly of several of his teachers during his early schooling. He singled out his sixth grade teacher, Mrs. Gleasner, who fifty years ago taught him the meaning of discipline and motivation. After all these years he remembers her as being "tough as nails" and noncompromising when it came to doing the harder right than the easier wrong. He insisted that she raised the bar and caused him to strive and stretch to get the most from his abilities.

Several years later Norm was accepted into a high school fraternity to which many Denver high school students aspired. Tau Sigma Fraternity in Denver was run by a spirited public citizen by the name of Fred Perkins. Fred allowed no smoking, drinking or drugs in the fraternity, he encouraged community service and would not tolerate lying. Obviously this fraternity and Fred Perkins had an influence on Norm’s character development because here it is 45 years later and he can still easily recite the Tau Sigma Prayer:

Norm Augustine is an avid sports fan and he uses many sports metaphors in his talks, in his writings and in his professional life. In my interview with him he admitted that as a sports participant he was good enough to compete but clearly not good enough to be great. Basketball, softball and tennis were his primary sports and he has positive memories of his days of sports competition. He also remembers many lessons in character development that came as a result of his willingness to compete in team sports and in individual sports.

NORMAN R. AUGUSTINE

Q & A

In the course of our discussions and in an attempt to get a true measure of the man I asked him a number of pointed questions. Here are the questions and the answers:

Winston Churchill, General Omar Bradley and Abraham Lincoln."

"Honesty, self-discipline, courage, selflessness, hard work, and respect for others."

"I will have considered my life to be successful if:

• I was a constructive participant in a happy marriage.

• I raised my children to be good citizens with moral value systems.

• I leave the world a little bit better than I found it.

• I have given my best to my profession and to my employers and employees.

• I leave behind a reputation of competence, trustworthiness and reliability."

"Ability to persevere in a worthy cause in the face of adversity."

"A person’s character can definitely be changed by training, experience and example. Many times I have heard a young student or employee say, ‘I want to be just like so-and-so’ or ‘I really want to improve myself ’ or ‘I really want to be a better person’ and it can be done!"

"I often ask myself two questions: is this decision in line with our objectives and will this decision result in the right thing being done?"

Have you ever had to adhere to a value in the face of difficult circumstances?

"Yes, indeed, not once but many times. I’ll give you an example. Our corporation was bidding on a major contract, and we had spent months preparing our proposal. Just before we were to submit our proposal we anonymously received in the mail a copy of our competitor’s proposal including its final bid data. No doubt a disgruntled employee of our competitor sent their proposal to us before it was submitted to the customer.

After we saw our competitor’s proposal we could have changed ours and assured our winning this major contract. But we didn’t change our bid because we didn’t think it was the ethical thing to do. We lost the contract and some would suggest that we were naïve, but I think in the long run we received more business because we developed a reputation for trustworthiness and ethical conduct in addition to our reputation for good engineering and hard work. After all, if you are developing missiles or rockets that are designed to put people or sophisticated technical equipment into space, a deserved reputation and performance based on competence and integrity are of paramount importance."

If you could express your gratitude for one or two things in your life what would it be and to whom?

"I will be forever grateful to my parents for the way they raised me, for the example, for the discipline and the work ethic. And I will be forever grateful to my wife for the family and support she has provided me."

"I refuse to be a party to it."

Do you think America can still be the melting pot for all ethnic groups, races and religions?

"Yes, diversity can still be our greatest strength if we will all just treat one another with respect."

"He did his best."

"My most important personal decision was my marriage to Meg Engman, my wife now of 36 years. My most difficult business decision had to do with the closing of a number of our plants. These downsizing decisions are, of course, intended to be in the best interest of the company and the shareholders, but can be quite devastating for the employees who are required to find employment elsewhere. When you consider that I have spent most of my adult life building teams and fostering teamwork, it is extremely difficult to downsize or rightsize or whatever you want to call it. The human price is immense, but so too are the consequences of failing to face the problems one confronts."

In your view what is more important in becoming a success in life — intelligence or social skills?

"They are both important but I think motivation is more important that either intelligence or social skills."

If a foreigner asked about your country, what three things are you most proud of? Three things you are ashamed of?

"On the positive side I am most proud of our democracy, our free enterprise system and our nation’s general efforts to try to do the right thing. On the negative side I am most disappointed in the deterioration of our moral values, the breakdown of our families, and the lack of true equality for all our citizens."

What advice would you share with the young people of our country as they pursue their goals in life?

"Preserve your reputation and work hard."

"Give your children a set of values and an opportunity for a good education."

From your past experiences, what are some guidelines you would pass onto your children?

"Enjoy life and have the courage to do the right thing."

How can we help our youth bring pride and dignity back into their lives?

"By example."

IN HIS OWN WORDS

I think you will gain additional insight into the man from the following verbatim transcript of his 1992 address entitled Ethics in America.

An address by Norman R. Augustine Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Martin Marietta Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland At The Minnesota Meeting on April 3, 1992.

Thank you. It is indeed a pleasure to be here. I hope that I can live up to the expectations that have been created by that generous introduction. It makes me feel a little like my friend David Roderick, the former chairman of US Steel, who was once introduced to an audience as the most gifted businessman in the country evidenced by the fact that he "had made a million dollars in California oil."

When Dave came to the podium, he was a bit embarrassed. Those facts, he said, were essentially accurate, but it wasn’t oil, it was coal…and it wasn’t California, it was Pennsylvania…and it wasn’t a million…it was a hundred thousand…and it wasn’t he, it was his brother. And he didn’t make it, he lost it!

I have been asked to speak about ethics — the business of ethics and the ethics of business. Let me begin with two stories, both of which are true.

The first has to do with what is going on right now in universities across the country. More than 87% of business majors recently surveyed admitted to cheating at least once at college. The poll involved 15,000 juniors and seniors at 31 universities. Donald McCabe, a Rutgers University business ethics professor who conducted the survey, speculates that "business courses attract students looking to make a quick buck and willing to cut corners to do it."

Those who never attended business school have no reason to be smug. Students in my own profession of engineering ranked second in the cheating league with 74%. Next came science students — 67%. Even those least likely to cheat — humanities majors — came in at 63%. And one wonders if that is simply because the format of humanities examinations lends itself less well to cheating.

The second story I would like to share with you took place more than 30 years ago, in 1959, when Ted Williams was 40 years old and closing our his career with the Boston Red Sox. He was suffering from a pinched nerve in his neck that season. "The thing was so bad," he later explained, "that I could hardly turn my head to look at the pitcher."

For the first time in his career Williams battled under .300, hitting just .254 with 10 home runs. He was at the time the highest salaried player in sports, making $125,000 a year. The following winter, the Red Sox sent him the same contract he had during his disappointing season. When he received the proposal, Williams sent it back with a note saying that he would not sign it until they gave him the full pay cut allowed. "I was always treated fairly by the Red Sox when it came to contract," Williams said. "Now they were offering me a contract I didn’t deserve. And I only wanted what I deserved." The upshot was that Williams cut his own salary by 25%.

By the way, that year Williams had a great season. I need to say at the outset I always feel awkward addressing ethics. There are very few absolute standards as to what constitutes ethical behavior — that’s what makes the subject so difficult. I’m sure all of us here would agree that cheating is wrong. But how many of us would go so far as to practice Ted Williams’ standard of ethics? Ethics is a highly personal matter, and I don’t suggest for a moment any superiority of my personal standards.

There was a time when ethics was simple to explain. When a young school girl had been assigned a term paper on the subject, she went to her father for help on the meaning of ethics. Her father, who owned a dry cleaning establishment, told his daughter that he had settled an ethical question that very day. He had found $100 in the pocket of a coat that someone brought to be cleaned and pressed. "Now," he explained, "ethics is: do I tell my partner?"

We remember that Diogenes, lantern in hand, roamed ancient Greece looking for an honest man. If Diogenes roamed New York City today, he might be looking for a policeman to report his lantern stolen. A news clipping tells of a bookstore in Boston calling an affiliate in Washington, D.C., in search of the book Some Honest Men. Inquiring whether they had Some Honest Men in Washington, the clerk, momentarily taken aback, answered, "Perhaps two or three at the most." I commend to you a recent novel by John Grisham called The Firm. It’s been a best-seller. The book describes how young, 25-year-old attorneys fresh out of law school are recruited by a fictional Memphis law firm into what appears to be a dream job, a base salary of $80,000, plus such incidental perks as a BMW and frequent trips to the Caymans.

The only drawback for the rookie lawyers is that they lose their souls. They are gradually and inextricably trapped into crossing the ethical line — a line which they discover is incredibly difficult to walk back across in the other direction. Just as in the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals, these were people with no record of wrongdoing who would seldom set out deliberately with the intent of breaking the law. They are drawn into it, almost as a boa constrictor consumes its prey.

I labored in the past under the impression that the boa constrictor drops out of a tree on its victims and quickly crushes them in the powerful folds of its body. A quick look in the encyclopedia reveals instead that "…the snake places two or three coils of its body around the chest of its prey. Then each time the victim exhales its breath the boa simply takes up the slack. After three or four breaths there is no more slack. The prey quickly suffocates and is then swallowed by the boa." This deadly phenomenon of a victim becoming the unwitting accomplice of its own destruction is not confined to the world of rep-tiles.

It’s also around in the world of business, the world of politics, the world of athletics, the world of research and almost every place else. The boa we have to face and sometimes fail to face is following our ethical values; each lapse is another coil of the snake. In the world of politics, we have the "Keating Five," in which United States senators, on both sides of the political aisle, were accused of ethical violations of their office.

In the world of athletics, we find that Pete Rose was involved in gambling; that Rosie Ruiz took a shortcut on the subway when she ran the Boston Marathon; and that numerous professional, Olympic and college athletes have taken steroids to boost their performance.

In the academic world, we find distinguished university professors falsifying their research to win new grants and fleeting prestige. In the world of religious broadcasting, we have Jim and Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart.

In the world of hotel management, we have Leona Helmsley who is reported to have casually dismissed her tax violation charges with the statement that, "Only little people tax taxes." In my own industry, we have "Ill Wind," a government investigation of wrongdoing that has put several formerly highly placed government officials in jail — one of whom had been a friend of mine.

On Wall Street, we have Ivan Boesky, who spoke at UCLA Business School six years ago, and told the students "Greed is a good thing." He ended up spending three years in a federal prison, where greed turned out not to be so good a thing.

In the movie Wall Street, Gordon Gekko says, "Greed is good! Greed is all right! Greed works!" In the Broadway play Serious Money, the American arbitrager Marylou Baines says, "Greed is all right. Greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself." As is often the case, art imitates life. Have we reached the point, in the words of the Washington Post, where "common decency can no longer be described as common?"

Go into book stores and you see best sellers with such titles as Looking Out for Number One, Winning Through Intimidation,and a book that came out in January, 1992: Cheating 101: The Benefits and Fundamentals of Earning the Easy ‘A’. Recently I saw on the Today Show a manufacturer of sports trading cards who had just introduced a new line of trading material: a set featuring famous serial murderers. I really can’t say if ethical lapses or collapses as the case may be are worse now than they were in the past. Martin Marietta keeps track of the numbers of calls to our Ethics Hot Line. When the number goes down, our Board asks me if we have lost interest in ethics. When it goes up, the Board asks me if we are less ethical!

On the other hand, the considerable public discussion about ethics could imply that more people are concerned about doing the right thing. And that really is what ethics is all about. It has been said if rascals knew the value of honesty they would be honest just because of their rascality!

Potter Stewart, the former US Supreme Court Justice, defines ethics as "knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do." There are people who believe that if it’s legal, it’s ethical. Justice Stewart obviously doesn’t agree with that. Neither do I. You have a legal right to burn the flag. But I believe it’s the wrong thing to do. Racial discrimination was legal at one time. But is always was wrong. In business, hostile takeovers are legal but I think they are the wrong thing to do.

Others have stated it less elegantly but nonetheless insightfully: "Ethics is being unafraid to give your pet parrot to the town gossip!" Ethical behavior goes beyond merely complying with the law. Ethics requires some degree of voluntary compliance. Another best-seller of a few years ago was written by Robert Fulghum: All I Really Need To Know…I Learned in Kindergarten.In that book, Fulghum gives us seven short sentences that you might call his rules for living the ethical life:

• Play Fair.

• Share.

• Don’t hit people.

• Don’t take things that aren’t yours.

• Put things back where you found them.

• Clean up your own mess.

• And say you’re sorry when you hurt someone.

Having thought about this issue a considerable amount, I have found no better test than the "Golden Rule" — Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

When I was an undergraduate at Princeton, it was interesting to watch the evolution of students’ attitudes toward the University’s Honor Code — which was a very, very central part of the educational scheme of things. During an exam, the freshmen were afraid even to lift their eyes for fear they would be thought to be cheating. By the sophomore year, there was such great pride in the system that no one would have dreamed of violating it. By the upper-class years, it was just a normal aspect of everyday student life, and the possibility of cheating simply did not occur to most students. In fact, in four years I never saw anyone cheat.

At the University of Virginia, I am told that when a violation of the ethics code occurs, a small announcement surrounded by a black border is placed in the student newspaper simply stating that a student, unnamed, has left the university. In contrast, at ancient Olympia in Greece, where the original Olympic Games took place, the athletes’ entrance to the arena is lined with statues, not of those having achieved great victories, but statues of those who had cheated. To this day, one is beset by a hollow feeling in the pit of the stomach when viewing those stone statues still shouting their message after some 27 centuries have intervened.

Ethics is not simple. Not only does one have to know the right thing to do, but one must also have the moral fortitude to do it. Not always easy. Ethical people, of course, believe in honoring their word, respecting the law, acting honestly, respecting other people’s property, exhibiting loyalty, working hard.

But even these values can be misplaced. Optimism is not unethical. In fact, in most cases it’s even admirable. But in business, misrepresentation under the guise of optimism is a crime. Information is valuable, but it’s ethical only as long as you have a right to have it.

Profit is valued, as long as you’ve earned it. Loyalty is appreciated as long as it isn’t misplaced. The Iraqis following Saddam Hussein could be said to have been loyal. Pro-football teams labor all season to get into the play-offs and to get the "home-field advantage." Assuming this was what it was all about, I was surprised recently to see a letter to the editor in The Washington Post challenging the Redskins coach — a highly ethical man in my opinion — for being unethical in encouraging the crowd to make noise in the upcoming play-off game so that it would be difficult for the opposition to hear their signals being called. It probably never occurred to the 55,000 people in the stands that what they were doing might be considered by anyone to be unethical. Was it? People sometimes adjust their ethical values to meet pressures of the moment. I am reminded of an incident involving one of my favorite cartoon characters, Charlie Brown. Charlie was doing some target shooting one day, practicing with his bow and arrows. He would pull the string back as far as he could and let the arrow fly into the fence.

Then he would run over to the fence and with a piece of chalk drawn a target around the arrows. Of course it wasn’t long before Lucy showed up, saw what he was doing and immediately became hysterical: "That’s not the way to have target practice," she shouted. "You’re supposed to draw the target first and then shoot at it."

But an unrepentant Charlie Brown dismissed the matter, remarking, "I know that, Lucy. But if you do it my way, you never miss!"

Ethics has to do with hitting the target the hard way. First you have to have ethical values. Then you have to live up to those values. You can’t make up the ethics as you go along. That’s the most common pitfall of all to rationalize one’s ethics to meet the circumstances. That’s when the boa gets its first grip.

At the same time, we have to recognize the enigma that ethical values are not absolutes — although they are hopefully absolute for any one individual. Countries spy on other countries. We apparently don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. But because it is regarded as acceptable behavior for countries to spy on other countries does not imply that it’s acceptable for anyone else, whether it’s spying on your neighbor or industrial espionage. There is, I believe, great irony in that observation. One might think we would hold our governments to a higher standard than individuals. But when it comes to spying, it’s the other way around.

Henry L. Stimson, an attorney who had a distinguished career in government, serving twice as Secretary of War and also as Secretary of State during the early part of this century, once decided to close down the American counterintelligence and decipherment activities known as "the Black Chamber." He explained, "Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail."

Those who do spy on others, of course, do so at their own risk, and sometimes punishment is swift. This is painstakingly true of government spies who may be revered in their own land but despised in another. On a lesser scale, Frank Brady, in his biography of Aristotle Onassis, tells us that the Greek shipping magnate once installed a luxurious private bathroom adjoining his office. The door was a one-way mirror, so he could observe unsuspecting visitors from the privacy of the bathroom.

During a business meeting one afternoon, Onassis excused himself and entered the bathroom. Comfortably enthroned, he was horrified to see his own reflection staring back at him in the mirrored door. It turned out that workmen making repairs earlier in the day had replaced the mirror the wrong way around…reflecting badly not only upon their workmanship but also upon Onassis’ ethical standards.

Ethical standards, of course, vary from country to country and even within countries. Some years ago, I awoke one Thanksgiving morning to discover that a fresh turkey had been placed on the porch of almost every house except the one in which I lived and the one belonging to an airline pilot. Almost all our other neighbors were medical doctors. It turned out that a local mortuary had adopted the practice of delivering turkeys to the houses of all the doctors in our community. Needless to say, I did not find this a particularly reassuring practice!

Similarly, I once read of a man who went abroad on a mountain-climbing expedition. The first night in camp he put his sweater outside his tent before retiring for the night. Upon awakening in the morning, he found to his chagrin the sweater was gone. He assumed it was stolen until he noticed one of the local mountain porters in his party proudly wearing it as he went about his work.

Upon complaining to the head guide, the climber was told that it was the presumption of the mountain people that whatever you left behind had been discarded and thereby became the property of whomever took possession of it. It could be your sweater, your knapsack — even your shoes.

In some countries, the practice of "presenting gifts" to smooth the conduct of business is perfectly legal, even encouraged by custom. In our country, they’re called bribes, at least in the eyes of our government. Not only do ethical standards differ from country to country, they may also vary over the dimension of time. The great Daniel Webster, a leading political figures in the 19th century, was what we would now call "on the take" from Nicholas Biddle and Biddle’s Second Bank of the United States. Webster, while holding public office, once wrote to Biddle to complain that "my retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual."

What was perfectly acceptable in the last century is not acceptable in this one. On the other hand, in this century it is ethical for British members of Parliament to serve on the Boards of British industries. In our country, it’s not only unethical, it’s illegal. Foreign governments often give extravagant gifts to US diplomats; in our country it is illegal for the diplomats to keep them.

We regarded the Japanese sneak attach on Pearl Harbor as a "date which will live in infamy." In Japan, certainly in 1941, it was widely regarded as a brilliant strategic move. Our country believed then — and still believes — that a sneak attack is immoral. We have been so affected by what happened at Pearl Harbor that when President Reagan decided to bomb Libya for its acts of terrorism, he publicly announced what we were going to do in advance. Newspaper accounts at the time made it clear that we did not want to be accused of doing to Libya what Japan had done to America at Pearl Harbor.

And before President Bush began the air war against Iraq, he announced the date it would begin, unless of course, Iraq previously withdrew from Kuwait. Iraq refused to withdraw and the bombing began right on schedule.

President Bush similarly announced the date the land battle would begin. Once again, Iraq refused to withdraw from Kuwait, and the attack began right on schedule.

In fact, there are ethics even in the conduct of war as codified under the Geneva Convention. Just because other countries may violate inter-nationally accepted ethical standards does not free our country from the obligation to adhere to those standards we believe are proper. And, just like countries, companies also have ethical standards. Employees are expected to know what they are and adhere to them. At Martin Marietta, for example, we have an ethics training program which virtually all 60,000 of our employees, both in this country and overseas, have attended, including me.

We also have a Corporate Ethics Office that’s charged with responsibility for monitoring performance under our Code of Ethics, providing advice and resolving concerns raised by employees. I can think of no commitment more important to the corporation or fundamental to its survival than its commitment to ethics. We, like any company, of course, intensely want to win business. But we even more intensely want to compete fairly and ethically for the business we win. And that means not only conducting our business affairs within the letter of the law, but also in the spirit of the law.

Sometimes the ethical choices faced are easy. Such was the case some time ago when we were in competition for a major contract, and the day before we were to submit our proposal we received in the mail a copy of our competitor’s price sheet. It presumably came from a disgruntled employee.

We opened the package, not knowing what was inside. Once we realized what we had, we promptly handed the package to our attorneys, who informed the government and the competitor what had happened. We did not change our bid price. Incidentally, we lost the contract, and some of our employees lost their jobs due to lack of work. And that brings me to another facet of ethics. I wish I could say that ethical behavior always pays off. I truly believe that it does in the long term, but not always in the short term.

I can give an example from my own life. Some time ago my wife and I had dinner one weekend with a business associate who happened to be one of our suppliers. At the end of the dinner, as a thoughtful gesture, he presented gifts to my wife and me — attractive watches made by his corporation.

The following Monday, I asked my wife for her watch, explaining that since it came from a supplier, our company ethics code required that I turn both gifts into the company, which then would give them to charity.

But my wife liked her watch! She said it was a gift to her, not to the company; that she didn’t work for the company; and furthermore, that our friend would be genuinely offended if he knew that the company had taken away from her what was intended purely as a thoughtful gift to her. Therefore, she informed me, I could do whatever I wanted with my watch, but she was keeping hers!

What to do! After a prolonged discussion, our corporation’s legal counsel suggested I write a check to the company for the value of her watch and that amount would in turn be given to charity. Together, the attorney and I looked up the cost of a similar-appearing watch in a catalogue, the price: $120 — which I paid. All seemed well until a few weeks later, when our legal counsel mentioned to me that he had bad news: he had seen exactly the same watch which had been given to my wife in a jewelry store. I owed another $1,500!

I had the worst of all worlds. I was out $1,620 to buy my wife a watch, and my wife was mad at me for trying to take her gift away. She still thinks of the watch as a gift from my associate rather than from me.

My wife is one of the most ethical people I know! Let me give an example of a hard ethical decision. When I was managing Martin Marietta’s Astronautics company, our space launch vehicle contract with the Air Force included a compensation clause rewarding the company with several million dollars every time we successful launched a spacecraft.

C H A P T E R T E N

TRUTH

John Naber's story is a true success story that is all about sports, life and character. John Naber has few peers when it comes to sports accomplishments. In Montreal at the 1976 Olympic Games, he distinguished himself by winning four gold medals and one silver medal and setting four records in the process. During these same Olympic Games, he also became the first swimmer in Olympic history to win two individual medals on the same day. During his record ten NCAA individual titles at the University of Southern California, he led his swimming team to four undefeated sea-sons.

In 1977, his athletic feats were recognized when he won the Sullivan Award, which recognizes the nation’s outstanding amateur athlete. What does it take to become such an outstanding athlete? If you asked John Naber that question he would most likely tell you his "No Deposit, No Return" story. As the story goes, at age eleven, John learned a life-changing lesson from reading and internalizing the label "no deposit, no return" on a root beer bottle. He translated that label to mean "I have to invest in my dreams if I want to see those dreams come true. What am I depositing in order to see my dreams come true? What price am I willing to pay?" Consequently, he realized early on the importance of paying the price up front. He developed a willingness to invest in himself, and he came to understand that one must condition himself to work through the fatigue. Accordingly, for a good portion of his swimming career, he swam ten miles a day, six days a week, for eleven months of the year. At his daily practices he was usually the first swimmer in the pool; he usually sprinted his warm ups; he squeezed in thousands of yards during his "free" swim periods, and most of the time he was the last swimmer out of the pool. He viewed all of this practice time as an investment in his future. In John’s words, "the hours of training now seemed like an investment in my future. You can’t cram for the Olympics during the three weeks prior to the opening ceremony the way you study for a college midterm."

People do not spend all of this time practicing unless they believe in their ability to improve their performance. John Naber’s faith in his ability to improve led to an increase in his willingness to set personal goals. John’s primary swimming event was the backstroke, and as a senior in high school, he analyzed the performance and potential of the then-world record holder in the backstroke. He took the past Olympic results and extrapolated Roland Matthes’ gold medal performances from 1968 and 1972 into 1976 and determined or estimated what his performance would most likely be in 1976. His estimate, based on past performances and improvement curve probability, was that the East German champion and Olympic gold medalist in 1968 and 1972, Roland Matthes, could possibly swim John’s event in 55.5 seconds. This analysis allowed John Naber to concentrate on striving for a specific time rather than focus on a formidable competitor. In 1973, when John did his analysis, he was swimming the event in 59.5 seconds, which meant that John would have to drop his time by four seconds or one second a year or one-tenth of second per month, which, when viewed in that context looked manageable. This approach of aiming for small incremental improvements over a period of time enabled John to energetically take on the task of closing the gap between him and the then-world champion, Roland Matthes. Was it realistic for an eleven year old to imagine himself an Olympic champion or was it realistic for an eighteen year old to establish a series of incremental goals to lead him to a record breaking victory at the next Olympic games? Of course not, but Olympic champions do not deal in realism, they deal in the improbable if not the impossible. John Naber was an exceptional Olympic champion. He paid his dues, and earned his victories and he recalled and lived by the advice of Peter Daland, his head coach at USC: "The secret to swimming is not how far you swim, and it’s not how hard you swim. The secret to swimming is how far you are willing to swim hard." John Naber believes that practice, steady conscientious practice, makes progress permanent — and permanent progress is the essence of achievement and victory.

For most people, the forgoing words and accolades would be sufficient. All of John Naber’s achievements described above, however, do not fully define the man. What impressed me more than John Naber’s Olympic gold is the depth of his character. In John’s own words:

"The understanding that the price must be paid for in advance includes the realization that for the victory to mean anything, it must be earned fairly. To win a race, I must follow the rules and compete honorably against the competition. One of life’s greatest lessons is one that should still be taught in the athletic arena: The lesson of character." John goes on to say: "If winning is all that matters, then cheating becomes an option. I’ve heard it said that if we’re unwilling to lose, we had better be willing to do anything to win."

It has been said that athletic competition doesn’t build character it reveals character. That notion prompts me to describe a defining moment in John Naber’s life — a defining moment that revealed his character. The moment occurred in 1973 when John Naber, as a recent high school graduate, competed in the U.S. National Championships. His goal was to win a position on the World Championship Team, which for an eighteen-year old high schooler would be quite an achievement. Despite his young age, John was favored to win the 100- meter backstroke event but his hand did not touch the wall as required. When the starter fired the gun, John got off to a quick start and at the end of the first lap he reached for the wall behind his head and initiated his flip turn. His feet swung around and he pushed off to proceed on his final leg of the event. As he surfaced he saw the official standing over his lane raising a hand to signal a rule violation. He swam a fast final lap and reached the finish line ahead of the rest of the swimmers.

The applause from the spectators was deafening and the congratulations from the other swimmers was exciting, but John was more concerned by the conference taking place at the other end of the pool. Finally, the head referee walked up to John and said, "I’m afraid you’ve been disqualified. The turn judge says she didn’t see you touch the wall."

John’s shoulders dropped and his chin hit his chest. The crowd seemed to be pulling for him, and John’s teammates and his supporters hoped that the official had made a mistake. John’s coach approached him and asked, "Do you want to fight this thing? Do you want to protest the call?" John’s coach thought he could win if he protested strongly. There was a potential world title at stake and John’s head was swirling. I suspect that John Naber didn’t realize that this would be a turning point in his life, but he did know that how he handled this situation would fol-low him the rest of his life. "My decision whether to fight the judge’s call or to accept her decision was made in the blink of an eye. I knew what I had to do. My parents didn’t raise a cheater. With moist eyes, I looked at my coach, the man who was offering a way out of my disap-pointment, and I admitted, "Mike, I didn’t touch the wall." John Naber would rather be disqualified than dishonor himself. And it was after this huge disappointment and after his courageous display of character that he went on to become one of the outstanding athletes of his time and subsequently, progressed even further to become a productive citizen and loving father and husband — and basically a good person.

"Now, is being a person — what we call a person of character — just about obeying the rules? No, of course not. Character isn’t about doing what you have a right to do (adherence to the rules) but about doing what is right. Rules and regulations exist for a reason, how-ever. They may not necessarily make us better people, but they do provide some order to a given activity (say, competitive swimming or driving or paying taxes.) Rules offer a measure of predictability, and therefore fairness, to human interaction. Simply put, they make civilization possible. The rest is up to us." John Naber has offered his time and talent to help kids and athletes understand the importance of character by joining Character Counts —

All Stars. These former and current champions are advocates for the values known as the six pillars of character: Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring and Citizenship. It is his hope, along with all of Character Counts participants, to help build a stronger society that is built on a strong foundation. The preceding comments are my interpretation of John Naber and his character.

JOHN NABER Q &A

"Yes, I do see a decline in ethics in the U.S. And, furthermore, I witness on a regular basis that unethical people are materially benefiting from their lack of ethics or character. In some cases, they are achieving "success" in spite of their unethical conduct, and in other cases it was selfish or unethical behaviors or actions that got them their "success," or "power," or "money."

"Yes, I think the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments, especially the first two provide a standard. Most of the worlds religions have a version of the Golden Rule and similar Commandments. These have served as a guide or standard and could combine to do so — if parents, teachers and religious leaders would vigorously apply the standards and guide and model."

What is your feeling about groups like Promise Keepers and the Million Man March?

"My highest authority is not to do good, but my goal in life is to please the Creator. I have no problem with the Promise Keepers and/or the Million Man March. Their causes are good and well intentioned, but there must be follow up and continuing execution. It is important for all of us to keep our promises and mean what we say — but everyday and not just for one big event."

Do you feel that women ought to spend more time at home with their children?

"Yes, and fathers too! Children do have a harder time growing up and leading ethical lives in the absence of a mother or father. Parenting is the most important part of the process of successfully raising an ethical child."

Do you think that the growing number of single parent households has an adverse effect on the country?

"Marriage is an expression of love and commitment, and when couples split, they undermine the principle notion of love and commitment. We affect our children more by what we do than by what we say. So, divorce sends the wrong signals to children, and on top of that, they wind up feeling insecure and anxious. Children are affected by divorce in many ways, mostly negative."

Even conservatives are calling the war on drugs unwinnable. Do you agree?

"As far as I am concerned, the war on drugs is winnable in my house. It is incumbent on me as a parent and father to make sure that my wife and I win this war. I have the ability and responsibility to keep drugs away from my daughter, and it could be winnable in every household in America if parents take charge. Everything is possible if we pay the price. However, given the state of the family structure in America and the relative powerlessness of our schools and churches, we are fighting an uphill battle. There is so much "easy money" to be made with drugs that many people are tempted to the scene."

"I like the "good guys," like the unheralded linemen on the football team — like my mother and father who were true role models who discouraged me from "show-boating" or personally calling too much attention to my exploits and successes. I like Eric Little from Chariots of Fire.

I like Bjorn Borg, the former Scandinavian champion, who kept his pride under in victory and a stout heart in defeat."

How well do you think ethical values are being taught to children in school (or by their families?)

"Not well! Separation of church and state makes it more difficult. If you have difficulty in bringing stories of ethical behavior in front of students — and if you can’t emphasize the moral in each story, then it is hard to teach ethics. Students are bombarded with unethical permissive behavior items but "pushing" the positive side has its constraints."

Several presidential candidates, including Al Gore and George W. Bush, talked more and more about their religious beliefs on the campaign trail. Is this an ephemeral phenomenon or, in your opinion, does this represent a true moral renewal in America?

"I don’t think that it is too unusual to talk about character and religious beliefs right before an election — but is seems not to happen too much after the election. You don’t have to be a Christian or any other religion to be ethical, but it seems to help. I use the principles and values of the Bible to guide my life; however, we have some politicians who carry around the Bible visibly and then conduct themselves in a hypocritical and immoral manner."

We have seen a number of depressing incidents in sports. Is this the result of the over commercialization of sports? Has the emphasis on winning and on gaining lucrative TV contracts gotten out of hand?

"The commercialization of sports and the "big dollars" that are now available to sports franchises and athletes provide big temptations and big opportunities for exploitation and misbehavior. For example, to have your city selected as the site for conducting the Olympic games can affect the city’s economy to the tune of nine or ten billion dollars.

So when the rewards of misbehavior are so great we will encourage cheaters. When winning is the only objective, cheating then becomes an option — and in a society that overlooks this type of behavior, we have a sad situation."

We’ve heard a lot lately about the influence of TV, movies and video games on impressionable kids that may desensitize them to violence. Just how much influence do you think Hollywood has on children and adolescents of both sexes?

"The media is motivated by ratings and reviews. They sell papers and commercials, and they give the public what they think the public wants. For example, Dennis Rodman, the mischievous, professional basketball player, gets more "ink" than David Robinson, who is a better player and who appears to be a "straight arrow" in every sense of the word. Make no mistake about it, Hollywood and TV and video games have for the most part, a negative conditioning of our children’s minds."