Back in the 1860s, when pickles and crackers came in barrels and preserved foods came in dark jars, a young boy raised horseradish in his parents three-quarter acre garden and sold the surplus to his neighbors. Soon he began grating the horseradish and packing it with vinegar in clear glass bottles to show neighbors that his horseradish was not falsely diluted with chopped turnips. That boy was Henry John Heinz, and pure horseradish was the start of H. J. Heinz 57 Varieties food business.

In 1902, J. C. Penney opened a dry goods store in Kem­merer, Wyoming, and named it The Golden Rule. “Golden Rule principles are just as necessary for operating a business profitably as are trucks, typewriters, or twine,” he said. One of Penney’s applications of the Golden Rule was “to charge a fair profit for what we offer-and not all the traffic will bear.” In less than five years his chain had 22 stores.

Heinz and Penney had a deep moral obligation to cus­tomers, as do many businesses today, judging by the codes of conduct that they publish. But how many of us can articulate such a commitment without referring to a sheet of paper? How many of us even have a sheet of paper with meaningful words written on it? If we cannot state our commitment to our customers in a few well-chosen words, we do not have a commitment; we have a nice state­ment for public consumption.

Penney could recite his commitment in an instant. He used to wear a lapel button with the letters HCSC on it. They stood for “Honor, Confidence, Service, Cooperation,” and they referred to the “Original Body of Doctrine” upon which the Penney chain was founded:

To serve the public as nearly as we can to its complete satisfaction.

To offer the best possible dollar’s worth of quality and value.

To strive constantly for a high level of intelligent and helpful service.

To charge a fair profit-for what we offer, and not all the traffic will bear.

To apply this test to everything we do: Does it square with what is right and just?
 

It was natural for Penney to internalize his company’s commitment to customers. It was based on values he had developed as a child. This commitment was also part of the fiber of the JC Penney family for generations. Not only did the general manager and sales clerks of each store under-stand the Penney doctrine, but so did their wives, husbands, and children.

Ethical codes contain general statements. We need to rec­ognize where they have application and apply them cor­rectly. We need to read the codes, understand what they mean, and experience them. By experiencing what these values mean and how they apply to what we do, we can internalize them and make them part of our natural self-discipline.

Some years ago, an international nonprofit organization asked me to do a review of its headquarters organization. After a week of work, I discovered that two other consul­tants had performed the same type of review two and four years prior. Their findings and recommendations were the same. I concluded that my recommendations would be essentially the same as well. Management, unchanged dur­ing this period, had not acted on either consultant’s rec­ommendations. There was nothing to indicate they would act on mine. What value, therefore, was I bringing to the client?

My early mentors taught me that “If our involvement is not likely to benefit the client, then we will not accept the assignment.” With regard to the nonprofit organiza­tion, my first instinct was to double my efforts, thus giving my client value in the form of a convincing and thorough report of the organization’s condition. Since I had inter­nalized “If my involvement is not likely to benefit the client, then we will not accept the assignment,” it occurred to me to question whether I should proceed. I discussed my concerns with the client and, satisfying myself that I had been retained for the wrong reasons, withdrew from the assignment.

Penney’s fifth doctrine, “Does it square with what is right and just?” is particularly challenging. What is right and just? Is it merely abiding by the laws of our countries? The atti­tude “If it’s legal, it’s okay to do it” has little to do with eth­ical behavior. There is a higher law, one that we impose upon ourselves.

Rushworth Kidder, founder and chairman of The Insti­tute for Global Ethics, says the best definition of ethics he has found is “obedience to the unenforceable.“ The expres­sion comes from an essay written by Lord Moulton and published in 1924 in The Atlantic. Moulton said there are three great domains of human action. Positive law is at one end, and free choice is at the other. Obedience to the unen­forceable-“the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey but where he is the enforcer of the law upon himself,”-is in between.

Jim Robison, former CEO of Indian Head Mills, reached the plane higher than ordinary law. Radio commentator Charles Osgood once reported that his father had worked at Indian Head Mills and was always impressed with Robi­son. Osgood said that Robison “never wanted to get the better of anyone in a business deal. If both parties didn’t benefit from the deal, he didn’t want to do it.”

In 1953, Robison issued an unusually forthright company policy on integrity. He told us that he wrote this policy when a supplier reneged on an agreement with Indian Head. Robison wanted to make sure his organization understood they did not play by those same rules. This is what he sent us:

“There is one basic policy to which there will never be an exception made by anyone, anywhere, in any activity owned and operated by Indian Head. That policy is:

Play it straight, whether in contact with the public, stockholders, customers, suppliers, employees, or any other individuals or groups. The only right way to deal with people is forthrightly and honestly.

If any mistakes are made admit and correct them. Our commitments will be honored, and we have the right to expect the same performance from those people with whom we do business.

This is fundamental. We will not welsh, weasel, chisel, or cheat. We will not be party to any untruths, half truths, or unfair distortions. Life is too short. It is per­fectly possible to make a decent living without any compromise with integrity."

Aside from giving us an unequivocal, no nonsense state­ment of appropriate behavior, Robison’s policy also included our responsibility “to the public, stockholders, customers, suppliers, employees, or any other individuals or groups”-that is, everybody. We cannot maintain a double standard. How can we instill a sense of what is right and just in our professional staffs if we do not do what is right and just our-selves? How can we expect suppliers to do what is right and just in dealing with their customers (us) if we do not treat them in a way that is right and just?

Codes of ethics are only a start. If we are to reach and maintain high customer loyalty, each of us needs to create his or her own personal guide for professional conduct, one that goes beyond the institutional codes, one that reflects our inner values. We need to review this guide regularly and know it so well we can express it concisely and practice its provisions consistently. Only then will we have a basis for obedience to the unenforceable.