I first heard the story on the radio: Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, had ghostwritten a number of research studies about a best-selling drug that, not coincidentally, Merck had developed. Prestigious doctors had then signed on as authors of the reports for publication in medical journals.

An article in The New York Times condemned the situation, indicating that the practice was widespread and saying it “almost calls into question all legitimate research that’s been conducted by the pharmaceutical industry with the academic physician.”

To be honest, when I first heard the news story I didn’t think about ethics—I wondered how doctors find time to author journal articles. I did give the matter more thought when I heard staff talking about the headline in the office, but even then, I wondered if there really was a problem. After all, doctors can review research data before they sign their names to reports, right?

Not long after that, my ethics officer knocked on my door and asked if we could talk. The media coverage had stirred a larger and deeper deliberation among staff. Unlike me, they immediately saw an ethics-related question at hand: Is it right for authors to sign their names to work that they have not personally carried out?

The question wasn’t merely a philosophical one; a few days earlier I had acknowledged and thanked a member of our staff for assistance she gave to my last Compliance Week column. Having reflected on the Merck news, the staff was concerned that I had not done all the work on my column myself. To their thinking, it was the very same ethical issue Merck faced. So my ethics officer wanted to challenge my assumptions about ghostwriting.

Now, let me say right away that some strong biases shape my view of the ethics of using the work of others generally, and of Merck’s alleged ghostwriting specifically. First, Merck has played an active and supportive role on our board of directors and in our fellows program for many years, and the Merck Foundation provides an annual contribution to support the operations here. But my personal experience with Merck aside, media coverage indicates that research ghostwriting is widespread in the pharmaceutical industry; even if Merck were to be removed from the discussion, ghostwriting would still exist.

Besides that, my perspective is skewed by my own experiences as the leader of an organization. As an executive, not only do I ask staff to help me write letters, send e-mails, and prepare other documents that eventually bear my name; I rely on them to help to make all those things happen. Just about every executive does. And yes, occasionally when my workload is busy, I even ask them to help me write my Compliance Week column.

In my view, doing so is a win-win: The research task helps staff to learn more about an ethics issue, and it helps me move my column closer to completion. I consider myself a legitimate author because I identify the topic, outline the article, and shape the final draft.

I also know that I am not alone in this practice; ghostwriting takes many forms, and most of them are commonplace. Consider the context of Sarbanes-Oxley and the certifications it mandates: Does anyone really believe a company’s CEO and CFO accurately compiled all the numbers appearing in the financial statements, or even reviewed every line of them?

Likewise, lawmakers can’t possibly write all the speeches that they deliver so eloquently in a political season. Lawyers would have far fewer compelling arguments in their cases if paralegals weren’t working behind the scenes. So why is it so shocking that prominent doctors rely on others to conduct the research they endorse?

Each of these activities is based on a pragmatic argument: Time is limited, and to focus on the things that matter, we need help. For executives, if ethical conduct means that each of us must undertake every aspect of the work we endorse, how successfully can we possibly lead?

Nevertheless, steps taken in the name of efficiency don’t remove ethics from the equation. In fact, the question of ghostwriting illuminates the challenges many organizations face when it comes to ethics.

Views of ethics vary by level. At the top, it may make perfect sense to delegate daily tasks like writing reports, sending e-mails, or authoring articles. There are very real ramifications if an executive loses sight of his or her responsibilities. To others in an organization, however, that decision may be seen as an effort by leaders to abuse the privilege, and take credit for someone else’s work. In a recent survey, we asked business employees whether they’d witnessed someone taking credit for the work of another. More than one in four said they had. The numbers varied by management level, from 22 percent of top managers to 34 percent of first-line supervisors.

Employees view ethical situations through the lens of their personal experiences and assumptions. In the Merck case, I immediately empathized with the busy doctor and assumed good intentions. When it came to concerns about taking credit for writing Compliance Week columns, my staff members put themselves in the place of their peer and assumed that she wanted public credit and felt cheated for having contributed to my article. Assumptions were made—and always are.

Lack of conversation can breed misinterpretation. In an organization, managers are asked to make decisions that take lots of factors into account: time, quality, resources, competing deadlines, and so forth. Sometimes staff understands the rationale behind the decisions management makes, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes the best is assumed, sometimes not. Fortunately, another truism in ethics is that if employees and other stakeholders understand how a decision is made, they are more likely to agree that a well-thought-out decision is an ethical one. Taking time to think out loud can avoid potential issues and can ameliorate concerns that have been raised.

Very real pitfalls do exist in the practice of ghostwriting, but I believe it can be done honestly and ethically. Some guidelines might include the following:

Clarify expectations. Before the writing begins, leaders and ghostwriters should come to a mutual understanding about how the final product will be credited. Leaders should also be mindful that even ghostwriters who are satisfied with their behind-the-scene role need recognition somehow. Identify mechanisms for recognition and rewards that will be meaningful for the ghostwriter who invested energy into the task.

Assume responsibility for work bearing your name. Authors should not sign their names to content of any kind that they are not willing to fully defend. Blind endorsement is wrong.

Get involved in the process. Leaders should provide input into the content for which they claim authorship. Guide the outline, and help draw conclusions. Provide enough direction to legitimately take credit.

Honor your obligation to your audience. Every article is based on a tacit commitment between the stated author and his or her audience. Conduct the necessary due diligence and make sure that what’s being written lives up to that responsibility to readers. When necessary, be candid about any biases that may have affected the piece, so the audience can make informed decisions about the work.

No president in modern times has written his own speeches. And when things go wrong, it isn’t the speechwriter who takes the heat. Some call that justice; I call it ethics at work. Taking credit for any work product means lending your name as credibility; authors should not take that responsibility lightly.

Topics