Mainly for Students: Persuasion, ethics and professionalism

In the first of a two-part look at an important topic, Paul Collins begins by exploring some basic characteristics of professional ethics. Among many things, the Greek philosopher Aristotle is remembered for his triad of fundamental characteristics of a person’s ability – and credibility – to persuade you of anything. Think of a politician, good friend, lawyer or fellow property professional that you like and admire. In explaining or arguing a particular point of view, or providing advice, Aristotle thought that there should be an evident measure of each of logos, pathos and ethos. These Greek words have always reminded me in some way of the Three Musketeers, Aramis, Porthos and Athos, who along with d’Artagnan, fought for justice – which has arguably some resonance with this topic. Well, what do logos, pathos and ethos mean? Logos relates to the logic, facts and reasoning of an argument. To a listener or reader, something has to be clear and well structured. Pathos relates to feelings and a sense that a person speaking or writing has some measure of passion, interest and care about what they are addressing. Ethos relates to a person’s character and standing – their reputation for integrity, speaking the truth and upholding sound moral and ethical principles. It can all fall apart if ethos is doubted. Writing some 2,300 years later than Aristotle, in 1988, Ken Blanchard and Norman Peale, in a book titled The Power of Ethical Management, suggested a simple three-question ethics check for individuals in business. Is what we do: Legal? Does an action break criminal or civil law, or company policy? Balanced? Will it be fair to all persons and stakeholders affected by business decisions and promote win-win relationships? Likely to make us feel good about ourselves? How would we feel if the process and outcomes were published, or our families knew? Today, three decades on, have these questions changed or become redundant? I don’t think so. Ethics in the workplace But do we as individuals, companies or as professional members of chartered organisations agree on what is or is not appropriate ethical behaviour in the property workplace? William Pivar and Donald Harlan, in their 1995 book Real Estate Ethics: Good Ethics = Good Business, thought there seemed to be little agreement among philosophers as to what that might be. They nevertheless favoured the words of polymath Dr Albert Schweitzer: “Ethics is the name we give to our concern for good behaviour. We feel an obligation to consider not only our own personal wellbeing but also that of others and of human society as a whole.” Pivan and Harlan then went on to condense this philosophy into three words: “regard for others”. However, they recognised that while it “is not possible for an individual to live in an absolutely honest manner”, and argued, quoting a former president of IBM, that “if you reach for a star you will never get a star, but neither will you get a handful of mud”. This view is easy to agree with, but not so easy to always follow. Walking the walk can be harder than talking the talk. Interesting, though, is Schweitzer’s reference to the wellbeing “of human society as a whole”. This chimes very well with the 1881 Royal Charter of the RICS, still in force today, that makes it quite explicit that the institution has a responsibility: “…to maintain and promote the usefulness of the profession for the public advantage in the United Kingdom and in any other part of the world”. Interestingly, Stephen Roulac, a Californian real estate consultant, argued that three of Buddhism’s eight steps to enlightenment can help in this regard: right speech, right action and right livelihood. He saw these as follows: Right speech: the need to be honest and recognise the need for the “reliability of information disclosure”, ie recognising that clients need full and correct information to make decisions. Right action: competence in what you do, fair decision making, trust and accepting the responsibilities of fiduciary relationships. Right livelihood: embracing the notion of “honouring the land”, ie looking after it in the broadest sense and respecting sentient beings, environments and different cultures. Are ethical standards different in different places? Ethical standards or norms vary as much across different professional markets and localities in one country as they do between countries. This always raises difficulties as to what might be considered (universally) acceptable behaviour. Laws are fundamentally society’s “bottom line” attempt to influence and control behaviour. However, while many laws may be considered ethical, others may not. Equally, some unlawful behaviour might by reference to some universally accepted ethical norms be entirely ethical. Codes of conduct set down formally by a profession or trade are not laws, but again in normal circumstances would attempt to set out what are considered to be appropriate standards of operation or behaviour. Whatever the situation, everyone in both a personal or professional context can choose to be ethical or not – irrespective of laws, licensing and professional codes. Writing in 2015, lawyer Michael Josephson of the Joseph and Edna Josephson Institute of Ethics set out 12 principles for business executives that are entirely applicable to members of professional bodies associated with the built environment. A shorthand of these, are: 1. Honesty – truthfulness and not deliberately misleading or deceiving others by misrepresentations, overstatements, partial truths or selective omissions. 2. Integrity – personal integrity and the courage of one’s convictions in doing what is right even when there is great pressure to do otherwise. 3. Promise keeping and trustworthiness – being candid and forthcoming in supplying relevant information and correcting misapprehensions of fact, making every reasonable effort to fulfil the letter and spirit of commitments 4. Loyalty – demonstrating fidelity to persons and institutions by friendship in adversity, support and devotion to duty and not using or disclosing information learned in confidence for personal advantage. 5. Fairness – not exercising power arbitrarily, not using overreaching nor indecent means to gain or maintain any advantage, and demonstrating tolerance for and acceptance of diversity. 6. Concern for others – being caring, compassionate, benevolent and kind, helping those in need, causing least harm and showing concern for the greatest positive good. 7. Respect for others – being courteous and demonstrating respect for human dignity. 8. Law abiding – following rules and regulations 9. Commitment to excellence – pursuing excellence in performing duties, being well informed and prepared, and constantly endeavouring to increase one’s proficiency. 10. Leadership – seeking to be a positive ethical role model by your own conduct and by helping to create an environment in which principled reasoning and ethical decision making are highly prized. 11. Reputation and morale – seeking to protect and build a good reputation and the morale of colleagues. 12. Accountability – acknowledging and accepting personal accountability for the ethical quality of decision making. In trying to meet these ethical values, Josephson, like many others, argued that it is often too easy to excuse our (unethical) behaviour. But what about the RICS and its ethical requirements? These will be explored in part two of this article in the 13 June edition of EG, but for now I close this part one with the RICS’ five core values: Treat others with respect Act with integrity Always provide a high standard of service Act in a way that promotes trust in the profession Take responsibility These are key necessary ingredients of ethos – ethics – that must go alongside pathos – passion and care – and logos – logic and clear evidence-based reasoning, if you are going to successfully persuade a client or group of, say, the justice of a situation – like d’Atargnan and the Three Musketeers! Paul Collins is a senior lecturer at Nottingham Trent University and Mainly for Students editor. He welcomes suggestions for the column and can be contacted at paul.collins@ntu.ac.uk