Compliance…where are the boundaries?

 
Most studies focused on business ethics suggest that by establishing clear expectations, we can influence ethical outcomes because doing so provides a clear framework upon which people rely for examining the appropriateness of their behaviors. In the article you are reading this week, Dan Ariely suggests that only a few of us are really bad people, whereas most of us are good people who sometimes do bad things. If you cannot change the core moral or ethical compass of some employees who are basically “bad”, yet the employer must influence the behavior of many employees who are prone to be ethical yet may commit unethical actions, what best practices can you identify that will establish compliance that equates to “enough” without the “policing” culture described in the article?  Do some independent research and share examples of what organizations in all sectors (profit, not-for-profit, government, etc.) are doing well and (maybe) not doing well.
As you think about the case you will make, remember that although there are various forms of capitalism, (e.g., Nordic, Asian, and Third World) American style capitalism is the predominant form having the most global influence and the form being adopted by most liberalizing economies.  American style capitalism encourages members of society to get what they want (i.e. a profit, a wage, and/or a product) through competing with each other and pursuing their self-interests.  Moreover, such competition is assumed to lead to the highest quality goods and services at the lowest price to the consumer, thus benefiting society as a whole.   Best practice compliance programs must not compromise the aspects of exchange in American capitalism that do benefit society in these ways. I look forward to seeing what you think!