[. . . There will always be] a need to persistently keep ethics before us. It is a major issue in life insurance today. Two factors�the recent legal actions concerning ethical issues and the media�s high-profile treatment of them�have focused attention on ethics. The result has been an even further decline in the public�s respect for the life insurance industry. Today ethical transgressions are discussed using such euphemisms as "market conduct" and "business practices." The choice of words doesn�t change a thing. Market conduct problems are ethics problems! While we might hope for the day when "Strictly Speaking" no longer needs to discuss ethics, it is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

The preface to the pamphlet containing The American College Code of Ethics emphasizes a rich heritage. It states that "Dr. Solomon S. Huebner, the pioneering educator who founded the College, seldom spoke of education without also speaking of ethics. To him a professional relationship between agent and client had to be based on sound ethical principles."

Both The American College and the Society have built their programs on the Huebner legacy. With this heritage, why is life insurance beset by ethics problems? Isn�t earned trust an essential part of the agent-client relationship? Don�t most�actually, nearly all�agents want to do what is morally right? My guess is that nearly everyone answered these questions in the affirmative."

For starters, today�s ethical crisis wasn�t invented by the life insurance profession. It is important to realize that others with noble callings and the desire to do what is morally correct have gone or are going through similar difficulties. Knowing why such problems develop can be the beginning of the solution.

Human beings have the ability to rationalize away and accept actions that once would have been viewed as clearly unethical. Those of you who have seen the Robert Redford film Quiz Show will recall the small, gradual steps by which a scholar from an intellectually disciplined family went from rejecting even the thought of receiving the answers before the quiz show to being able to justify why he should have them. On a larger and more shocking scale, who among us hasn�t wondered how a typical German citizen�who probably acted ethically in other situations�got caught up in and supported Nazi atrocities during World War II?

The ability to rationalize and to blind ourselves to truths we have earlier understood and lived by exists for families, educators, government officials, professionals, and everyone else! No one is excluded, including those in the financial services fields. There is no need to look further. Examples abound, from assumptions made in preparing illustrations, comments offered or omitted in replacement policy sales, to "looking the other way" when applications are filled out less than truthfully. Our ability to rationalize is competitive with anyone else�s.

Professor Saul Gellerman describes four commonly held rationalizations:

Perhaps you can add to the list. In little steps we learn how to justify that which we would have rejected months or even days earlier.

Gellerman further states, "The idea that an action is not really wrong is an old issue. How far is too far? Exactly where is the line between smart and too smart? Between sharp and shady? Between profit maximization and illegal conduct?"²

The boundaries between right and wrong or between ethical and unethical actions are clearer to us when we are emotionally unattached. Objectivity is more difficult when we have something at stake. We are then more likely to rationalize in the ways Gellerman describes.

Professor Stephen Robbins suggests factors that influence the how�s and why�s of moral behavior. First, he states, "People who lack a strong moral sense are much less likely to do the wrong things if they are constrained by rules, policies, job descriptions, or strong cultural norms that form such behavior."³

Codes can be inferred from Robbins�s list. He goes on to suggest, as Gellerman does, that even those who are strong morally can be corrupted under certain circumstances. He proceeds to examine four factors:

What influences whether we will act ethically? One factor is how independently we can act. A basically independent person can better withstand pressures from others to do something that would be clearly understood as wrong if there were no personal involvement. This perception of independence varies from person to person and situation to situation. For example, we feel less independent when we might have to act counter to the wishes of the boss.

If a clear code of ethical conduct is frequently communicated and methodically enforced, the odds are better that we will avoid unrealistic rationalization.

Some organizations have a long history of sound ethical practices. Many founders and other leaders of past generations have become heroes for the standards of conduct they established. Persons like Disney, Watson (IBM), Dayton (Dayton-Hudson), Penney, and�yes�Huebner (insurance education) remain legends for setting high moral standards and acting on them. Their impact on their organizations lasts long after their individual careers have ended.

The importance of a particular issue can also have a bearing. The extent of one�s personal involvement with individuals who might be helped or hurt by the action plays a part. What is the likelihood that harm to someone will result from the act? How severe or harsh might that harm be? What is the nature of the impact? Emotional? Material wealth? Relationships? Career? How strong (or weak) is public opinion on this issue? How long will it be between the time of action and when others will find out (if ever)?

Two questions emerge from this discussion. The first�What can be done to ensure the ethical environment that financial services needs and deserves? Robbins�s list of the reasons we rationalize unethical behavior into "acceptable" actions is a place to start. Be aware of these factors and seek to take the necessary steps to neutralize the negative impact each could have.

The second question�Who should be responsible for making sure that a profession-wide resurgence of high ethical conduct takes place? The "Strictly Speaking" answer to this remains unchanged. Eleven years ago and eleven years into the future the answer was and will be the same. The client-centered insurance agent should affirm the highest ethical standards in acting in the client�s best interests. Happy Anniversary, "Strictly Speaking."