The Nuremberg Defence

I love it when I am able to speak with a client about a problem and use an example from the news. 

I have spent a day and a half or so training a group of people who will have to do sales (rather than sales people) in the dark art of pricing and costing. One of the areas we covered was in disbursements - charging on expense to the client. One of my bright young things suggested that this was one area in which there was no need to search around for the best price. "The client's paying - if they want the best price, then they should buy the tickets", was his case (although not argued in a very articulate manner - I do worry about young people today).

Hmm. We engaged on a long discussion about this, using the focus of our lovely MPs. I explained the Nuremberg defence which most had been using (and, being the intelligent readers you are, I have no intention of explaining it again) and we looked at our own reactions to that defence. Sadly some of the team still didn't quite see that this analogy meant that they had any requirement to shop around on their client's behalf. I decided to try a more near-to-home example and asked one of the trainees to give me (it is possible that, as an oversight for which I apologise, I used the phrase "lend me...". This is, of course, not fraud. I have apologised and, if necessary, will pay the money back. A little parable for you.) some money for lunch. "How much do you want" she said (somewhat suspiciously, I thought). "£20 please", I said with my had out. "But you can get lunch for about £5 just around the corner!" "Yes, but it's not my money..."

That started another debate - partly, unfortunately, about the inapplicability of the example. Oh well.

I have a colleague who says that Ethics cannot be taught. Most of us who went through a top-notch MBA will have studied Ethics as part of the course, and having gone through that programme, I'm siding with my colleague. People will either act according to a set of socially-approved ethics, or they will not. I don't think that the requirement to "do the right thing" can be taught. It can be explained, but only as a concept. 

This seems to have been the problem with some or many of our MPs (some or many depending on your level of cynicism). Some of them just don't seem to get it. 

Let's hope that our shiny new Speaker in late June "gets it" and can help to engender a new ethical approach to expense claims on our behalf. Let's also hope that at least some of my group "got it" and will go on to treat every expense as if it is their own.

SC