When the speed limit is 65 mph, how fast do you drive?
Everyone knows the police won't stop you unless you're going at least 72, right?
And if you don't speed a little, you'll disrupt the flow of traffic. Didn't your high school driver's ed instructor say that was even more dangerous than speeding?
Besides, why spend more time on the road than you have to? You're probably going to be late for your appointment if you don't step on it.
Used these excuses before? That's because most people have no problem justifying or rationalizing speeding.
But no matter what you say, once you hit 66, you're breaking the law.
"We all create these kinds of behavioral justifications," said David J. Cherrington, Brigham Young University organizational behavior professor. "Whether it's for speeding, whether it's for income tax evasion, whether it's for insurance fraud, whether it's employee theft."
About a month ago, Cherrington asked students in his business management class if they would commit to going a month without speeding. Of 55 people in the class, only 18 accepted his challenge and made a "good-faith effort" to stick to it.
"I've been doing this for years," he said. "The reality is that we have a number of areas in our life where we have to face standards of right and wrong. . . . On a daily basis, we confront all kinds of moral issues, most of which we don't even recognize, and how we respond to them determines whether our moral character will go up or down."
When it comes to the world of work, such moral character must go up — and stay there, according to several area businesspeople. For that to happen, people need to take the time to define their core values and be ready to stick up for them when challenged.
Because, inevitably, challenges will come. "Everybody in their life has a time where they're asked for the first time to cross over, or break their principles," said Adrian Gostick, director of marketing and corporate communications for Salt Lake-based O.C. Tanner Co.
"Pretty early in my career (with a different business), I was asked to lie. At first I thought, 'OK, I'll do it, I'm part of the company.' But in retrospect I thought, 'I can't do this. . . . All I have is my honesty.' If I broke that chain of trust, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror.
"You have to decide whether to cross that line or stay true."
Gostick and Dana Telford recently finished writing "The Integrity Advantage: How Taking the High Road Creates a Competitive Advantage in Business." Several of the executives they interviewed for the book said people should actively examine their personal principles.
"While most people think, 'I know what my principles are,' most people have never sat down for an hour or so and really thought about, 'What are the things that I believe and would not cross for any amount of money or power or any amount of threatening?' " Gostick said.
Such an investment of time and thought is valuable, he said, because "it's just not possible to be happy and productive long-term if you're working in an environment . . . that doesn't match your core principles."
Gostick said employee recognition company O.C. Tanner, winner of the 2002 American Business Ethics Award given by the national Society of Financial Service Professionals, matches his principles.
Kent Murdock, president and chief executive officer of O.C. Tanner since 1991, said there is no "sophistication" to the company's ethics.
"It comes down to telling the truth, to straightforward communication, to keeping the books straight and proper and to keeping the promises you make," he said.
Most companies in the United States are following the rules, Murdock said, and that trust makes the commercial world go 'round.
"I love the fact that Enron and Tyco and all of the other corporate scandals, like Global Crossing and Adelphia . . . are big news, because that means they're wrong and it's offensive to people," he said. "The country is reaffirming its standards of honesty and integrity."
Christian Ulmer of Salt Lake City agrees. He said he has avoided ethical dilemmas by filtering issues related to his work at Deseret Mutual insurance company through his personal principles.
"I have thought things out up front and decided, this is a line I'm not going to go past," he said.
Rachel Lyman, who works for Salt Lake-based energy company Questar Corp., said she learned her core values from her parents and refined them as an adult.
"Honesty, I feel, is very important," she said. "If you're honest, everything else fits together."
But not everyone strives to meet the same standards. Lyman said she once faced a situation in which a coworker had crossed an ethical line but did not know Lyman knew about it. Working with that person became difficult, she said, and it was a relief when the coworker left her department.
Varying cultural interpretations of values also may lead to difficulties. Rich Hartvigsen, vice president of global regulatory affairs for Provo-based direct sales company Nu Skin Enterprises Inc., said foreign individuals and governments may have different ideas than American businesses about what constitutes acceptable behavior.
"We've been faced with situations where people connected with a government would have wanted us to do things that I would consider unethical, and we've refused to do that," Hartvigsen said.
"There's always a temptation as a small business trying to go into another country to do whatever it takes to get in that country. But I just don't think anyone can afford to compromise their ethics and do that, because in the long run, it's not in the best interests of your company."
Nu Skin, which sells its products through direct marketing, also must deal with some "bad actors" — other companies that are "basically pyramid schemes that try to disguise themselves as legitimate companies," he said.
To combat this problem, he said, Nu Skin works with national and international industry associations to develop strict codes of ethics. When the company entered the Japanese market, it voluntarily submitted to a tougher regulatory standard than some of its competitors.
"We opted to take the stricter scrutiny road, and it made it a little tougher on us initially," Hartvigsen said. "But because we put such a value on Japan as a future market, we chose to come in under the higher standard. I think we created more credibility over there, a more ethical business, and I think we've seen some very good long-term benefits from choosing that higher road."
Executives interviewed for "The Integrity Advantage" echoed those sentiments. One businessman from Brazil said ethics in that country differed from U.S. standards when he was starting out. Practices like bribery were deemed appropriate. But Gostick said this leader found that businesses that refused to compromise their principles were the ones that lasted.
"The ones who thought it was just a part of doing business to grease the skids, they're long gone," Gostick said.
The spectacular failures of Enron, WorldCom and other companies that were harmed by unscrupulous executives show that individuals have a much greater chance of bringing down a company through unethical behavior than taking it to greater heights, he said.
And such examples also show that principled employees must "sound off" when ethical lapses occur.
BYU's Cherrington said people who uncover unethical behavior in the workplace "ought to at least say something. In some cases, they ought to rise up with righteous indignation and scream and shout and yell and refuse to go along."
If that doesn't fix the problem, both Gostick and Cherrington said it may be time to change jobs. Staying risks guilt by association.
"If it is a real serious miscarriage of justice and really flat-out wrong, they can't afford to leave themselves in that situation," Cherrington said. "They get out of it. They leave it. Even if it means quitting your job. Even if it means abandoning a set of friendships."
Even if it means driving the speed limit. No matter what.
E-MAIL: gkratz@desnews.com