“Slippery slopes” are rarely considered a good thing to be sliding down unless you are skiing or sledding (in control). The Bible warns about slippery slopes in Psalm 73:2-3:

But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled, my steps had nearly slipped. For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.

An organization can face various slippery slopes, but we are talking about the slippery slope of a “Can We” culture. It is a slope that can contribute to an organization sliding past ethical gray zones into moral failure and illegality.

A “Can We” culture is one of the four key attributes of the “way” of business as usual (together with Profit as Purpose, a Scarcity Assumption and a Self-Interest Assumption) that are at odds with the “way” of God’s Kingdom and can lead to behavior that is not in alignment with the Biblical principles such as love, generosity, mutuality, flourishing and Shalom.

As we have emphasized in prior posts, the antidote to a “Can We” culture is a “Should We” culture. A faithful leader seeking to lead with faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing can cultivate and reinforce a “Should We” culture by setting a faithful goal, putting in place faithful guard rails, establishing a faithful strategy, hiring the right people, eliminating the wrong ones, and ensuring that the organization “real” culture aligns with its Re-Imagined Culture.

Refresher: “Can We” vs “Should We” Culture

As we have described in several earlier posts, one toxic element of a business as usual culture is a “Can We” rather than a “Should We” approach to decisions.  It is an organizational culture in which ends justify means and ethics or the law are seen as the only boundaries (or even obstacles) in the pursuit of the organization’s purpose.

A “Can We” culture is, in many ways, the product of Profit as Purpose fueled by Scarcity and Self-Interest dynamics.  As we have noted in an earlier blog, Profit as Purpose does not support enduring values because it has no moral, ethical or Biblical foundation.  Although “values” may have such a foundation, values in service to Profit as Purpose become a “means” to the “end” and the “means” will always adjust to fit the “end” (never vice versa).

In a “Can We” culture:

• People are explicitly or implicitly rewarded for asking things like:

“Is it illegal or does it violate any rule?”

“Are our competitors doing it?”

“Are we likely to get caught?”

“Is it defensible if we are caught?”

“Is our customer demanding it?”

• Competition (whether internal or external), a fear of losing business (both tied to the scarcity assumption), and a desire to increase business can lead to pushing (or even crossing) boundaries.

The problems of a “Can We” culture are many:

• Competition will drive behavior to the edges and beyond.

• It is unprincipled, condones risk-taking and has a short-term focus.

• It is toxic to the desire we believe is built into each human to do the right thing and glorify God and, because moral failures typically occur through EROSION rather than EXPLOSION, can even lead people to do things they never imagined possible and that they will ultimately regret.

By contrast, a “Should We” culture asks “Whether or not we CAN do it (or get away with it), SHOULD WE do it?” “Should We” can call people to a standard higher than merely man-made laws or the current societal ethics–it can call them to the Biblical standards that they were created to emulate, and it can call them to the organization’s values.

This kind of business a better way organizational culture only arises when there is a commitment by the most senior leaders:

• To lead the organization in pursuing a “WHY” that is bigger than maximizing profit and in living out a set of values that reflect and reinforce that mission.

• To lead the organization in pursuing that purpose by doing the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons and by supporting all workers in doing the same.

• To maintain a long-term focus.

• To cultivate an intentional culture that reflects and reinforces those values and that purpose.

• To trust in God’s promises and sovereignty.

In a “Should We” culture, people ask things like:

“Is it consistent with how we want to serve our stakeholders?”

“Is it consistent with our values?””

“Is it consistent with our intentional culture?”

“Is it doing the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons?”

“Is it consistent with what we say we stand for and who we say we are?”

The Slippery Slope

James 1:14-15 bears a warning for every organization of humans about the slippery slide from temptation to death:

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

McKinsey was the crème de la crème of consulting firms.  In recent years, their reputation has been tarnished by employees crossing into moral failure or illegality.  For example:

• McKinsey entered into numerous settlements for its involvement in the pharmaceutical opioid scandal.  A December 2024 Wall Street Journal article titled “McKinsey Apologizes for its Opioid Consulting in $650 million Federal Settlement” described the billions of dollars paid in various settlements of civil suits, state suits and federal actions.  McKinsey apologized for its role in helping opioid manufacturers, which has been characterized as helping them “maximize their sales of opioid products.”  According to the WSJ article, McKinsey “also said it was sorry for the actions of a former partner who deleted documents“.

•Another December 2024 WSJ article described the agreement of a McKinsey subsidiary to pay a $122 million settlement of bribery allegations in South Africa.  Prosecutors alleged that “the firm ultimately earned around $85 million in profit as a result of the bribery scheme.”

For McKinsey, a “Can We” turned into a “We Should Have”.  the WSJ article on the opioid involvement noted:

“We should have appreciated the harm opioids were causing in our society and we should not have undertaken sales and marketing work for Purdue Pharma,” McKinsey said in a statement Friday. “This terrible public health crisis and our past work for opioid manufacturers will always be a source of profound regret for our firm.”

We do not mean to suggest that every Can We culture leads to moral failure or illegality.  “Can We” can be implemented as “Can we do this within ethical limits?” or “Can we do this within legal limits?” The slippery slope often begins when Profit as Purpose, fueled by Scarcity and Self-Interest dynamics, meets a gray area.  Together, they can slippery slope force identified in Psalm 73–“envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked”.

In a follow-up to a 2019 virtual talk to a group of business school undergraduates, Andrew Fastow of Enron fame (or, more accurately, infamy) reflected on the gray area problem:

Most schools teach ethics like it’s black and white. They say being ethical is to follow the rules, and being unethical is to not follow the rules. But there’s a gray area, where the rules may allow you to do something, but it may not be the right thing to do. . . You need to understand the difference between the right thing to do and the thing you have a right to do. 

[W]hen people make decisions in the gray area, they tend to underestimate the risk. . . When you’re in the situation yourself, it often starts with small, seemingly innocent decisions. But all of a sudden you find yourself down a path that you can’t come back from.

After leaving prison, Fastow reportedly said:

We weren’t thinking that it was fraud, but I also knew it was intentionally misleading, like a weird dichotomy. I rationalized it by saying, “This is how the game is played” . . ..

An article in Fraud Magazine titled “Twisted rationalization” describes why Ford took the “Can We” approach of leaving an exploding gas tank in its Pinto model rather than the “Should We” approach of fixing it:

Ford discovered that during crash tests Pintos’ gas tanks could ignite and engulf crash dummies in flames. The precedent from the 1947 2nd Court of Appeals decision, United States vs. Carroll Towing, excused a defendant from penalization if the cost of the change was larger than the societal benefit. The law became Ford’s guide. The company conducted a cost-benefit analysis using figures the U.S. federal government provided. The calculations indicated that the societal benefit was $49.5 million, and the cost to fix the problem was $137 million. Ford executives analyzed the calculated costs, and they decided the solution was apparent.

Because moral failures typically occur through EROSION rather than EXPLOSION, a Can We slippery slope can even lead people to do things they never imagined possible and that they will ultimately regret.  For example, at his sentencing for insider trading, a hedge-fund manager described the impact of the incessant pressure to deliver returns:

I was not aware of the changes that were happening in me that blurred the line between right and wrong. They came slowly over several years. I allowed myself to slip into the world of relativism where the ends justified the means.  Quite frankly, it’s very hard to imagine how I became that kind of person.

When Profit as Purpose is driving the behavior in an organization, people can be pushed to cross ethical and legal lines.  The recent debacle at Wells Fargo is a perfect example of how Profit as Purpose fueled by use of the Self-Interest Assumption to motivate people can have unintended costs and consequences.  The extreme use of targets and incentives in its sales culture led to workers living in fear, mistreating each other, leaving due to stress, violating client trust, and even breaking the law.

Because Profit as Purpose is devoid of a moral compass, it does not support enduring values or a “Should We” culture.  When combined with the Scarcity and Self-Interest Assumptions of business as usual, it can be used to push people onto a slope from which they can’t recover.

Staying Off the Slippery Slope

As we have emphasized in prior posts, the antidote to a “Can We” culture is a “Should We” culture. A faithful leader seeking to lead with faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing can cultivate and reinforce a “Should We” culture by setting a faithful goal, putting in place faithful guard rails, establishing a faithful strategy, hiring the right people, eliminating the wrong ones, and ensuring that the organization “real” culture aligns with its Re-Imagined Culture.

Setting a Faithful Goal

Perhaps the most consistent theme over the last 280 posts is that profit becomes a problem when it becomes the goal of a business, but that is the way of the world and business as usual.

As detailed in post #200 (Prioritize Biblical Flourishing), flowing from the Creation Mandate, Imago Dei, the purpose of God’s creation, and the nature of work and organizations, we believe the faithful goal of an organization of humans is to maximize the Biblical flourishing of all the creation it touches, particularly people.  That is the way of God’s Kingdom and what we call business a better way.

However, the flourishing it could unleash can only be realized when a leader has the courage to put profit in its proper place–as a means rather than the goal. In the words of Ken Eldred:

Profit is like oxygen. You absolutely need it to win the race. But that’s not the objective. The primary objective of business is serving others to the glory of God.

Profit as Purpose works against faithfully stewarding people and the rest of creation toward Biblical flourishing, which means it works against the Creation Mandate, Imago Dei, and the purpose of God’s creation.

Because the pursuit of Biblical flourishing is part of aligning the purpose, values and culture of an organization with Biblical beliefs, principles and priorities, it drives people toward “Should We”. Unlike profit, Biblical flourishing does support a foundation of transcendent Biblical values that can act as faithful guard rails.

Putting in Place Faithful Guard Rails

With a faithful purpose serving as the goal of the organization’s behavior, maintenance of a “Should We” culture that lives out that goal is aided by putting in place faithful guard rails to keep people from stepping off the path to the goal and beginning to slide.

In post #145 (Integrity Idea 013: Set a Values “Plumb-Line”), we discussed the importance of setting values aligned with the organization’s faithful purpose. Values in an organization are critical because they serve to translate the faithful purpose into an aligned culture–they are the transcendent plumb-line that keeps the organization’s culture in line with its purpose.  They become guardrails for the behavior and actions that create the culture.

In post #210 (Integrity Idea 040: Set Integrity Boundaries), we talked about the importance of faithful leaders identifying, establishing and communicating the integrity lines the organization will not cross in how it operates.   It recognizes that people are more likely to stay behind a line if they know what is expected before they are faced with the decision whether to cross it.

Integrity lines go beyond legal lines and even ethical lines. Rather than being reliant on standards set by the kingdom of the world, integrity lines are based upon the Re-Imagined Purpose and Re-Imagined Values of an organization pursuing faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing.  They are boundaries that help the organization stay aligned with that purpose and those values and with the Biblical beliefs, principles and priorities that form the foundation of that purpose and those values.

Rather than being an obstacle to pursuing the organization’s purpose, in a “Should We” culture boundaries are a tool for helping the organization pursue its purpose and live its values.  “Should We” can call people to a standard higher than merely man-made laws or the current societal ethics–it can call them to the Biblical standards that they were created to emulate, and it can help them to live out the organization’s values.

Establishing a Faithful Strategy

With a faithful goal at the end of the road and faithful guard-rails to keep people from slipping of the road to slide down a slippery slope, a faithful strategy for operating toward that goal will reinforce the need for “Should We” behavior.

In post #221 (Integrity Idea 050: Discourage Winning), we emphasized the importance of cultivating an organizational culture that “encourages mutuality” in negotiations–looking for “win-win” results that take into account the needs and objectives of all parties involved.

When Profit as Purpose is being fueled by Scarcity and Self-Interest Assumptions, people can start slipping down a slope in their drive to “win”–to get a raise, receive a bonus, earn a commission, keep their job. When these work together, organizations and people operate out of fear and use fear to manage others, which leads to manipulative and dehumanizing “survival” practices in order to “win”. Competition (whether internal or external) to “win” and a fear of “losing” can lead to pushing (or even crossing) boundaries.

These behaviors are certainly not in alignment with the Biblical principles such as faithful stewardship, love, generosity, mutuality, flourishing and Shalom. Humans experience Biblical flourishing more fully–they are more “fully human”–when living in alignment with God’s design, which includes working in alignment with God’s design.  That, in turn, means humans experience Biblical flourishing more fully at work when “winning” is discouraged and “mutuality” is encouraged.

Hiring the Right People

Cultivating and maintaining a “Should We” culture in an organization requires hiring people who understand the organization’s faithful purpose, faithful guard rails and faithful strategy and are willing to operate in alignment with them.  In post #230 (Integrity Idea 054: Onboard with Intention), we stressed the importance of designing an onboarding process for new employees that introduces, reflects and reinforces the most important elements of the organization’s Re-Imagined Purpose, Re-Imagined Values and Re-imagined Culture.

This emphasizes to a new employee from the start that the purpose, values and culture of the organization are important–not just nice slogans on a website or wall. It also serves to filter out people who are unwilling to work in alignment with the organization’s purpose, values and culture. It is about ensuring that each new employee sees, understands and experiences the heart and bigger WHY of the organization before engaging in its WHAT.

Eliminating the Wrong People

Cultivating and maintaining a “Should We” culture that will help keep people off a slippery slope requires eliminating employees who will push or pull them over the edge.  In post #253 (Integrity Idea 066: Stop the Rot), we discussed putting in place practices and procedures to identify and address behavior by stakeholders that undermines the organization’s Re-Imagined Values and Re-Imagined Culture.

It recognizes that one toxic employee, customer or vendor can begin a corrosive effect that spreads like the rot on a bad apple in a barrel. Moreover, an organizational culture cannot become or remain healthy if it excuses, condones, tolerates or ignores bad behavior or poor performance.

Ensuring Alignment of “Real Culture”

Regardless of what faithful goal or faithful guard rails are posted or otherwise reflected on an organization’s website or in its stated purpose or stated values, employees will experience, and respond to, what they perceive to be the real purpose and real values.  If the culture of the organization is not reinforcing its desired purpose and stated values, it is likely eroding them.

Successfully cultivating a “Should We” culture to keep people off slippery slopes requires ensuring that the “real” purpose and “real” values align with the faithful purpose and values. As we detailed in post #237 (“Real” Culture Revisited), the first step toward that alignment is to undertake an honest assessment of the organization’s current real culture.

Re-alignment may require courageous action, prayerfully taking steps to bring the real culture back in alignment with Biblical beliefs, principles and priorities.

Keeping an organization from sliding down a slippery “Can We” slope requires regular reinforcement of “who we are” and “how we do things around here”.  Hebrews 2:1 warns:

We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.

PERSONAL NOTE (from PM): In October 2010, I spoke at the Christian Union DOXA Conference.  I was asked to talk about how accepting Jesus as my Lord and savior in 2003 (at the age of 42) changed how I practiced law.  One of my main reflections was that I didn’t really need to be more ethical (I had always tried hard to be ethical in my practice), but the reasons for my ethics changed.  Before my renewed faith, I was ethical because I was afraid of the consequences of being unethical.  At my college graduation, the father of one of my roommates gathered the rooming group together and said, “Boys, as you go into the business world remember this one thing–don’t do anything you would not want to see on the front page of tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal.”  After the renewal of my faith, I wanted to be ethical because God called me to live a life of integrity.  My behavior shifted from “Can We” to “Should We”.  As a “Can We” person, I might have begun sliding down a slippery slope if I believed unethical behavior would never be “found out”.  As a “Should We” person, being “found out” was irrelevant.

ESSENCE: “Slippery slopes” are rarely considered a good thing to be sliding down unless you are skiing or sledding (in control).  An organization can face various slippery slopes, but we are talking about the slippery slope of a “Can We” culture. This is an organizational culture in which ends justify means and ethics or the law are seen as the only boundaries (or even obstacles) in the pursuit of the organization’s purpose.  When part of a business as usual culture where Profit as Purpose is the goal and assumptions of Scarcity and Self-Interest drive behavior, the slippery slope of a Can We culture can contribute to an organization sliding past ethical gray zones into moral failure and illegality. As we have emphasized in prior posts, the antidote to a “Can We” culture is a “Should We” culture. A faithful leader seeking to lead with faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing can cultivate and reinforce a “Should We” culture by setting a faithful goal, putting in place faithful guard rails, establishing a faithful strategy, hiring the right people, eliminating the wrong ones, and ensuring that the organization “real” culture aligns with its Re-Imagined Culture.

Copyright © 2025 Integrous LLC.  Integriosity is a registered Service Mark of Integrous LLC.

Image Credit: Original image by Alex Moliski on Unsplash
(image cropped)