Baby boomer generation people have now reached the peripheral limits of their personal lives and are currently struggling with inferred turmoil and misunderstandings within our society. The advent of the millennium has brought forth a new mindset that is constantly changing. Gone are the days of open communication, transparency and ethical connections that were once perceived to be rational and collaborated joint efforts necessary to operate a business or a government agency in a most lawful and ethical manner.
Today’s breakaway method of running an entity has altered many old traditions once valued and respected. Breaking out of the molds of the past, we now tread uncharted territories that have changed the human consciousness to different levels with a deliberate intention to alter the mindset of “who” versus “what”. Who, determined by many today, to be a principle of the past experiences, is reflected by the knowledge, skills and abilities of human beings gleaned through relationships rather than objectives. Connecting and networking with many humans we have begun to understand who we are but not so much as what we have become. In business matters at the forefront, however, it is not about the “who” or people anymore, it is more about “what” reflecting our expectations and goals. Hence the internet and electronic email systems have enhanced that ability.
Personal accomplishment are great and remind us of the basic staple of one’s capabilities and capacities. Combining our moral values as baby boomers with our ability, skills and knowledge of this world, we apply our personal attributes to those assigned level of clarity of goals within the organization and personal ambitions. Others, perpetrating high levels of perseverance to accomplish personal goals or ambitions, transform newly generated energy into an innovative way misunderstood by many. In the past our personal endowments were used in the influence of the society we lived in; today we are adding elements of non- personal values which often clash in our culture at gigantic proportions. Our social character must be altered to fit within our goals and social conventions held to foster a new ideological approach that excludes the people involved. Risking leaving behind social ambitions and trumping them with political ambitions, the participation is both aggressive and determined within the social institution we work in. Impacted by tremendous pressures resulted in a change in society where these personal and social characteristics are limited and difficult to impose on the workplace. Social character has transformed into individual character that has the potential to develop a person at a much faster rate than sticking to your individual character traits. Willing to be more visionary and “thinking out of the box” these persons glean faster and stronger relationships with society and quickly achieve success in levels equal to a CEO or director. Sacrificing the good of many for the good of a few, this new approach determines a new response. Along with this sacrificing of previously important moral values, comes the willingness to take it one step further by imposing attitudes and energies driven to achieve the goals that benefit the person and not society.
Commonly referred to as corruptive thinking of management, we need to examine the evolution of such thinking and decision making. In the past, corporate and government entities shaped a formal relationship between firm and clients. Today, that particular mindset is to throw away those beliefs and foster a mindset of that omits the personal characteristics and persona of our cultures. The message today is to eliminate the people factor of decision making and focusing on the “what” factor of the purpose or message. Intensely focusing on “what people want” has changed our perspective of “who people are”. An extreme effort of this reshaping the mindset to accommodate such change, there appears to be a definite separation of human association vs. institutional association. Herein lays the foundation creating a clear conflict between the new mindset and the old mindset tearing apart any commonalities once perceived to be necessary for such an association to co-exist. This evolution of mindsets to determine that once determined “what” people wanted and “who” they are is now represented by a new message that translates into “what” they offer and “what” they think people want. Clearly this will be a force to reckon with as it deviates from the old practice, fostering trust and honesty, as there appears to be a motive for this change in mindset and the appearances of personal greed and power comes to mind. It is here where the two meanings disconnect as the “conscious or human needs are no longer weight as practical or rational to the business end or transactional part of the message.
The key is how the message is perceived and received as people can translate a message in many different attitudes or behaviors. Impacted by prior history of the establishment and inner cultures, the subject may create judgments that are not accurately portrayed or understood. In other words, what may be professed to be right for some may not be apparent to be right for others. The content is based on the value of the change or message. Unfortunately, messages are often received based on ethical individual morals thus society instantly determines right or wrong or views that are the same or different. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary states ethics is “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad….” In general, we call unethical those actions for which there is a social consensus that they are a bad thing.”
“Corruption has several meanings, depending on whether it takes place in the public or private sector; however, for most people corruption is something unethical, something considered a wrongdoing.” Under a microscope, looking at human behavior in their personal lives suggests that, in some instances, corruption does not reflect so much a lack of ethics as it reflects an invasion of our personal freedoms engrained within our leaders who want to make change under the direction of their ” what it wants” and not the “who needs it”.