Faith Makes All the Difference!

Cal Thomas in the Denver Post asks a very important question, “What difference does faith make?” He asks this question as a challenge to those who would make faith a central issue in the political discourse. And by the end of the article, he suggests that we should keep the realms of the earthly and heavenly kingdoms separate when it comes to presidential politics.

And yet . . . in all realms of life, politics included, my answer to his question, ”What difference does faith make?” is, “Faith makes all the difference!” It inspires us, challenges us to reach for what’s ultimate or optimal, strengthens us in difficult times, guides us in others, challenges us to live in caring ways toward ourselves, others, and our physical world. Just because we humans are not perfect and get it wrong at least as often as we get it right doesn’t mean that faith is to blame! Just because we can’t figure out how to manage in helpful ways the many different faiths living next door to one another doesn’t mean that faith is wrong or unhelpful or irrelevant! It merely means that we are fallible humans on a journey that is not yet complete. We haven’t figured it all out yet. We regularly do damage even when we intend to do good! And presidential candidates are no exception. They are no more perfect than the rest of us!

Perhaps if we quit running from faith and faced it head on, we would realize that faith is part of every facet of our lives. We can close our eyes to it, but it won’t go away. We choose on a daily basis what we believe in, what will guide our lives, what values are worth investing in, what our lives will be about. We can make those choices intentionally or they will “happen” unintentionally. We regularly have faith in one another – trusting others to show up at appointments when they say they will; trusting manufacturers to create quality products; trusting service providers to perform well what we pay them to do; trusting teachers to teach well, parents to parent well, and so on. And if they don’t, we let our feet do the talking!

In the political realm, we let our votes do the talking. We listen to the rhetoric, we listen to the arguments, we listen to what people stand for – including their religious and philosophical and political perspectives – and we decide who we will vote for. And even when we are prayerful and intentional about these choices, even when we seek wisdom or guidance from what is Ultimate or Infinite, we sometimes get it wrong. And our politicians sometimes get it wrong as well.

Ultimately, our faith has to be in something higher than mere humans. Initiating regular conversations about faith ought to come from hearts that believe faith will ultimately save us – and we ought to be encouraging one another to grow in that faith. Perhaps that loving approach to encouraging one another and inspiring one another ought to replace the condemnation and vilification of those whose faiths and behaviors differ from our own. Perhaps we need to get ourselves out of the way and let the One(s) in whom we believe carry the day!

When Values Face Trials

I noticed my character going out the window the other day when a vendor was being unreasonable about a cancellation. I wondered if I was the only one who wanted to give up being loving and kind and honorable when faced with injustice or ignorance. And as I was reading the paper, I read about others in difficult straits and wondered if they too struggled with the maintaining their ethical values in the face of life’s trials.

For instance, what about the hockey player whose neck was broken after he was rammed against the wall – how did he and his parents keep from fury at the game, the coach, the other player? Were they tempted to “lose it,” lose their ethics, and take out their anger and fears on others in the face of their potential loss?

What about those “Occupy” protesters around the world using their collective might against corporate greed? Clearly, they were advocating for what they believed was right. And in the face of economic tumult around the world, many of us have been reevaluating our values related to money. Or perhaps reevaluating the values of others who committed the crimes that contributed to our economic crisis – crimes for which many have yet to pay. We read that some of the protesters followed the law, were peaceable, and used their numbers to speak their values or concerns loudly. Others –the papers say outside trouble makers – became violent and destructive, values I would hope we would not aspire to.

And what about the police officers trying to ensure peace and safety during the protests – Did they use wisdom and restraint in handling the protests? Or did they find themselves fearful, and as a result, lose their commitment to promoting peacefulness? Did they become belligerent in the face of the anger that was being expressed?

It is natural to become angry in the face of someone harming us or ours, or in the face of losing something that we value. The question is, what do we do with that anger? Do we lash out or retaliate? Does our fear lead us to do things that are not honorable? Or do we remember that conflict is a normal part of life, and that learning to handle it in helpful ways is a necessity? Do we remember that the person on the other side or the conflict is a human being too, with needs and desires and hopes? Or do we only focus on our needs and desires and hopes?

I certainly know I have trouble thinking about the other person when my needs are thwarted. Or when I am depressed or hurt or sick. And sometimes I justify my “crazy” behavior with those excuses. But afterward, I am drawn back to asking – “Did I behave honorably?” “Was I loving?” “Respectful?” “Kind?” And more importantly – “What would happen if everyone behaved as I did?” Because really, isn’t that the most important thing – realizing that we are all critical cogs in the wheel of our communities – and that we can start a hostile, angry ball rolling downhill fast if we don’t remember that everyone is important in creating a positive community. Won’t you instead stand up and let your character be counted as one who continually aims to grow ethically? To refuse to let circumstances pull you from your central values? To invest in creating positive change in your family and community and school, rather than following along with negativism and harmfulness? I’m going to try to stay there – won’t you join me?

War Plus: Will the Big Issues Get Us Down?

Day after day, I read the newspaper articles on Gaza and Israel, and I ask myself, "What's the answer?" "What does an ethicist like myself have to say about such huge and long standing issues?" I ask myself, "What would I say if the politicos in Washington asked me for ethical input?" And I reply to myself, "Yes, but what do I know about politics? What do I know about how to prevent war, how to create peace, how to help countries get along with one another?" I will simply have to stick with what I do know, what I can do, and recognize that if I use all that I have, it will make a difference.

So, what do I know, and what can I do? What do you know, and what can you do? I have spent my career as a mental health professional, doing assessments and psychotherapy, and teaching graduate students to become counselors. What I know is how to help people heal from emotional struggles; how to help them to learn the life skills necessary for daily life, for success in school and work, for raising a family; and how to help them figure out and reach for their dreams. And I know that the world is a better place for the changes created when people grow in these ways. The world around the people I have helped is a more peaceful place. It is a more positive place. It is a place with healthier, less damaging relationships. It is a place where people can trust one another because they know that they have each communicated clearly and honestly with one another. It is a place where when conflict arises, they can trust that the other will work with them to clear it up, rather than disappearing or hating or stirring up trouble. And if I can't solve the war in the middle east, isn't it better to know that there at least some people who are living in greater peace, who are raising their children in a more loving environment, who are following their "call", and so are contributing to the world in some positive way?

What I also know is how to write and teach and develop curricula. And so I write this blog, and write virtue newsletters, and write books on life skills and character and optimal development. And I teach adjunct classes and continuing education classes, developing new curricula as the need arises. And if I can persuade those who read and who are students that "positive psychology" (that is, aiming for mental health, aiming for the best, encouraging optimal development, investing in becoming and creating people of character with strong ethical decision making skills) has value, then perhaps they too will take it out into the world with them, and will assist their clients and students and business partners and family members that being people of character matters. Perhaps they will become persuaded that investing in the "spirit" of life, in the "higher" things of life, makes a difference. Perhaps they will spread the news that if we each aim for the optimal in caring and trustworthiness and responsibility and courage and wisdom and fairness and respect and citizenship, if we take little steps each day, that we can create a better world around us, and that what is "better" will spread and keep on spreading, like the ripples that begin with a mere drop of water.

But it takes intention and inspiration and perhaps spirit to live out what I know, where I am, and to not despair over how short it falls. It takes courage to believe that if I live my life in integrity, if I intentionally aim for the best character, even when I can get away with less, if I encourage the children and parents that I see at school and church and Girl Scouts to do the same, that others will also be motivated to do the same, and that the "good" will spread. It takes trust that others will be just as concerned and motivated as I am, and that we can lean on one another, that we can encourage one another, and that this team effort can transform our schools and families and communities.

But if we don't have the courage to fully live into what we know, where we are, what hope is there? What other options do we have if we want things like wars in Gaza to end, people in the frozen north of the former Soviet Union countries to have access to oil to heat their homes, and the crime ridden neighborhoods around us to become safe?

Will you join me in saying that you will take the risk to invest in your own character and to support your family members and friends and co workers to invest in character? I believe Obama when he says that if we all join together, "Yes, we can" make a difference.

The Power of Posterity

David Brooks, of the New York Times, offered an inspiring proposal in “The Power of Posterity,” a proposal that fits with what I have been advocating in my ethics and character work. He basically indicated that much of what we do, we do for the unborn children.

Now, some of you may be saying, “What?” in great surprise at this proposal, particularly those of you without children. But think about it. In his scenario (which came from the Marginal Revolution blog) the question is asked, what would happen if there was a “freak solar event that sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?” This obviously implies that the culture on that half of the earth would essentially come to an end when the children and adults on that half of the earth died. People from the other half of the earth might immigrate, but they would import their culture. After all, since the sterilized folks would soon be dying out, immigrants would have little incentive to adopt the dying culture as their own. The sterilization question triggers us to ask what difference it would make to our lives if we knew that our culture would end in 50 to 100 years.

I often propose that our motivation for ethically transforming our schools, organizations, businesses, and communities is that we want to turn over a world worth having to our children and our grandchildren. When we speak of preserving the environment, or stopping global warming, or not polluting, or saving the Earth, we are aiming for the selflessness of not taking more than our share, of saving something for those who come after us. Not only can we not disconnect ourselves from people who are currently living – because what we do ripples out to affect people and systems beyond us – but it seems that we can’t disconnect ourselves from the generations that come after us either.

In fact, Brooks goes further to suggest that much of what we do, we do for its lasting value. “Without posterity, there are no grand designs. There are no high ambitions. Politics become insignificant. Even words like justice lose meaning because everything gets reduced to the narrow qualities of the here and now.” The great art and music and architecture and companies and business products and government activities are done, not only with the thought of enjoyment and a personal sense of purpose and benefit, but in order to create a lasting contribution to society. In some cases, people engage in these activities for the possibility of lasting fame. Brooks suggests that if there is no future to our culture, if there are no unborn children to inherit what we do, we will reduce our focus to the here and now, and focus only on ourselves as individuals, on what is good for us. As he says, “People would themselves become children, basing their lives on pleasure and ease instead of meanings to be fulfilled.”

Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want our values and our way of living to reflect? I would suggest that we are bigger than that, that, even if we don’t have children ourselves, we realize that our future society and culture lies with our children. There is a reason that we advocate for children, for their education, for their health, for their wellbeing, a reason that extends beyond their vulnerability and inability to advocate for themselves. They are our future. And we have to decide what our future will look like. We sometimes have to decide to sacrifice the now on behalf of that future. We have to look beyond our own pleasure to some greater virtues. The question is, what will those virtues be? What do you want to stand for? What kind of a world do you want to create and pass down to future generations?

Beyond “Dr. No” to “Dr. Yes”

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald wrote an article this week with the above title. In it, he spoke about Michael Jackson, about the fame and power Jackson wielded that made it difficult to say “no” to him. In fact, says Pitts, if his doctor had said “no,” Michael would still be alive.

But beyond the illegalities of drug addiction and excessive spending and inviting children into your bed, isn’t it also true that we need either an internal or an external “Dr. No” if we are to behave in accordance with positive values? If we look carefully at the times in which we have crossed over an ethical boundary, hasn’t it been because we wanted a “yes” and we were going to take it however we could?

Perhaps it was a “yes” to paying less taxes, or a “yes” to having a bigger car or a bigger house, or a “yes” to going out on a Friday or Saturday night when our spouse didn’t want us to, or a “yes” to eating just a little more dessert, or a “yes” . . . well, you continue the thinking as it might best apply to your life.

Beyond personal “yeses,” perhaps the auto industry said “yes” one too many times to those in power rather than those who many years ago could have created better and more fuel efficient cars. Perhaps the mortgage brokers said “yes” to one too many loans that they shouldn’t have. Perhaps the bankers said “yes” to too many risky investments or income increasing strategies. It seems clear that, in these situations, as with Michael, the failure to say “no” has damaged the very core of our society and our trust.

We seem to understand, if we are parents or other adults who work with children, that children need clear limits in order to learn right from wrong. They need parents who will serve as “Dr. No’s.” They need someone outside of themselves saying, “Here is the limit of what is right. When you step over this line, you will have stepped into a danger zone, either for yourself, for someone else, or for property.”

We are supposed to eventually grow out of the need for external controls. We are supposed to internalize our parents’ or our society’s messages about right and wrong, how to decide among options, and how to choose what’s best for ourselves, for those we love, for our organizations or communities, and for the physical world around us.

Sometimes tragic circumstances hinder our development. And sometimes issues are very complex, and require carefully weighing of benefits and harms to determine what the best choices might be.

But sometimes, we just want what we want when we want it. And if we can get away with it, we sometimes just take what we want when we want it. And sometimes we feel guilty. And sometime we don’t. Sometimes we say, “It isn’t hurting anyone.” And sometimes we realize that harm is happening. The harm is just to someone or something “out there,” where we have no personal connections to the people who might be hurt, where no one can connect the misbehavior to us. Sometimes we figure that whatever harms happen, they will be to people that we don’t know or care about, or to a world many years in the future when we are no longer alive. Such an attitude takes a toll on our souls, on our beliefs about ourselves, on our sense of self-worth, our sense that we are good and valuable people.

But I think that “Dr. No” doesn’t go far enough. I think we need to get to a “Dr. Yes.” Sure, as people and as a society, we need to say “no” to greed and mistreatment of others and breaking the law. But plenty of research and stories tell us that merely focusing on what not to do doesn’t get us where we want to go. People don’t like to be told “No,” and so they rebel and try to find any way they can to get around it. But even those who rebel at “no” can be inspired toward “yes.” We need to aspire toward becoming “Dr. Yeses.”

Dr. Yes points us toward what is good and healthy and positive in ourselves, in other people, in our institutions, and in our communities. Dr. Yes doesn’t rely on the sensationalism of crime and dastardly deeds to get our attention, but instead tries to draw attention to businesses that treat their employees well, schools that educate well, and people who contribute to their communities. Dr. Yes buys advertising in programs that advocate for what is best in our people and our communities. Dr. Yes boycotts products and companies that harm people and the environment. Dr. Yes encourages people to be the best that they can be, rather than stopping at minimal requirements. Dr. Yes, urges people to aim continually upward, toward personal and family and community growth. Dr. Yes holds up character traits and behaviors, like integrity and tolerance and caring and responsibility and wisdom and courage, that we can aspire toward. Dr. Yes says we can always aim upward toward something better and we should never stop trying, that we never really arrive, that personal, moral, ethical, interpersonal growth is a lifelong endeavor. Dr. Yes looks for the possibilities of who we can become, and believes that we are better people than we know. While Dr. No may always be necessary to ensure a certain minimum, Dr. Yes holds possibilities for transformation – of ourselves, our families, our communities, and the world. Won’t you become a “Dr. Yes?” If we all become “Dr. Yeses,” I believe we have the power to change the world.

Lower Case or Upper Case Morality

In his article, “The moral naturalists” (explanations for lower case letters to come), David Brooks points to research that points to a sense of right and wrong that we are born with and learn very early. Even “lower” animals such as rats and monkeys learn to cooperate. It seems that we have “natural receptors that help us recognize fairness and cruelty,” and we show preferences for goodness and fairness from infancy. Social norms, evidently, “fall upon prepared ground. We come equipped to learn fairness and other virtues.” Those who behave morally seem to do it because they are “more sensitive to other people’s points of view” and better at “anticipating and reading other people’s pain.” What researchers seem to be identifying as a moral sense is one that values such virtues as cohesion, cooperation, and empathy. However, Brooks complains that researchers’ perspective on morality seems to be “lower case” and that it might not satisfy “those who want their morality to be awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.”

I find myself asking the following questions in response: If morality is inborn and starts so early, what happens along the way that people let go of it and allow themselves to choose such immoral behaviors? What do we have to do to encourage people to continue caring about the group, about other people’s pain, about respect and empathy and responsibility and courage (those lower case virtues)? Why are we seeing so many fall from grace? Fall from honesty and integrity? Right into our prisons. When will people understand that a lack of trust is the greatest risk to our society, to our psychological wellness, to our safety, and to our financial well being?

Personally, it is the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” that motivates me. Without a powerful faith, my fears would overwhelm me and persuade me to take the easy, safe, and perhaps less than honest or kind path. That faith keeps me moving along the path toward greater character, remedying my faults, and striving for what’s optimal (believing that it is only possible with help from Beyond). Many of the people that I collaborate with on character issues also find their motivation in the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great.” So I ask the question – must we have “the awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to move us out of our moral depravity? Does it take something grand and holy to persuade us, to enable us to live differently?

If so, then the approach I have been using in the Eriksen Institute for Ethics is likely to fail. That is, I figured, given the clear relationships between our economic recession and the unethical behavior of mortgage and financial institutions, and given the clear relationships between long term profitability and developing an organizational culture centered on aspirational values, that businesses and other organizations would be hopping right in line to fully infuse aspirational values from top to bottom. I figured that because of the clear ethical needs in our society, we could, without calling on the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” feel justified in advocating for business ethics. We could justify our demands or expectations that businesses and corporations live according to a basic set of aspirational values without having a discussion of religion or faith or. . . you get my drift.

And yet, we seem to be a people who respond to crisis. We seem to need it to break through our inertia. If Haiti and the Gulf oil spill and a war in the middle east and an economic crisis can’t get organizations to put values first, then perhaps we really do need the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great” to empower our efforts. However, I personally have found that when I daily think the “lower case” morality, how to be more loving or kind or trusting or responsible, I feel less defensive and more willing to grow and work on myself. I believe that, despite a life time of the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great,” I am a better person from having, for a few short years, invested in “lower case” morality. Do we need to require people to take the larger plunge into the “awesome, formidable, transcendent, or great?” Or might they be more willing to begin with the smaller steps, with the “lower case?”

Winning or Growing

Two newspaper articles struck me this week as illustrations of the lack of respect in our society (Cerebino; Pitts, Palm Beach Post), rather than an acknowledgement of tremendous opportunities to teach respect in the face of values differences. One article described a situation in which students expressed the very strong religious opinion that the earthquake in Haiti was God’s punishment for the Haitian people’s pact with the devil. Their teacher, a non-Christian, called their perspective “a bunch of fairy-tale nonsense.” The conflict escalated into other teachers spraying “holy water” on the first teacher, who, in turn, filed a bullying complaint. It further escalated when a community preacher joined the fray with his lawyers to support the students and the holy water sprayers.

In the second article, some Mexican-American teenagers celebrated Cinco de Mayo by wearing the red, white, and green of the Mexican flag; and their principal called the shirts “incendiary” (because emotions are running high about public policies related to illegal immigration), and asked them to remove the shirts or turn them inside out.

In each case, people with power who disagreed with an expressed opinion tried to force their opinion on those with lesser power. And when they did so, they were met with an attempt to take back power in response. The power approaches were the attempt of one side of a values dispute to “win” over the other, to say, “You are wrong, and I have more power, so I get to say that you are wrong and keep your perspective from being heard or valued.” And this approach means, generally, that the person(s) with the most power win, even if their perspectives harm others. Clearly, women and people of color’s experiences illustrate the damage that can be done to those without power if their perspectives are not heard and honored.

Is winning always best when there is a dispute? Doesn’t winning always imply that there is a loser who will want to fight back? Might such power approaches actually create dangerous escalation? What might be an alternative approach?

But just as important as these questions is asking ourselves, didn’t these teachers and principals miss tremendous opportunities for teaching their students about character and about making difficult ethical decisions, based on critical thinking, rather than on merely following the crowd? Didn’t they miss the chance to help the students to learn how to respect others, even when they find themselves in a conflict? Didn’t they miss a phenomenal chance to help their students to develop into independent thinkers, instead of merely followers of the loudest or most popular speaker? Isn’t this what we want for our children—to develop into people with the capacity to make quality decisions in the face of difficult circumstances, so that they won’t get sucked into following a dangerous and destructive leader or crowd?

It takes a great deal of respect to really listen and understand another’s perspective. And we have to be open to the fact that if we really listen, we might actually learn something and, in turn, change in some way. The teens in each of these situations might have been able to face the developmental challenges posed by such conflicts with the help of older, wiser souls capable of shepherding them through an experience of carefully weighing differing perspectives, of considering what to do about these differing perspectives, of using the conflict to become clearer on the higher values or virtues that we ought to aspire to, and on what to do when these higher values conflict.

For instance, what might have happened in the Haitian earthquake situation if the teacher, instead of using his power to insist that the students were wrong, respected the students enough to try to understand their perspective. He might have asked, “How did you come to believe this?” And if they said, “Our pastor told us,” the teacher might further have asked, “And what do you think about your pastor’s opinion?” or “How have you decided that your pastor is right?” He could pursue the questioning with a spirit of trying to understand their perspective, while at the same time asking them to develop the skills necessary for carefully weighing what they hear against some internal standard, and further, to decide what that standard might actually be.

The teacher might also have shown respect for other students’ opinions by asking about other class members’ perspectives; and he could have pursued the same line of inquiry with respect to their alternative perspectives. Further, after demonstrating respect, concern for all of the students’ perspectives, and a commitment to developing the students’ commitments to a set of higher values or standards, the teacher could ask students to research the issue and to hold a respectful debate during the next class. And he might have upped the stakes by indicating that people’s lives (or their grades) might depend on the diligence with which they researched the issues, the ways that they conducted the debate, and their abilities to find a solution to the conflict that did not conflict with the higher values that they were committing to.

The teacher might even have asked the students to grade themselves on the results of the debate, asking them to evaluate their feelings, the degree to which they stayed respectful of others with different perspectives, the degree to which they were able to contribute to possible solutions to the differences, and the higher values that they were willing to commit to in order to determine whether to live with the differences, create a better solution than either of the perspectives, or eliminate one perspective because of the damage it was doing to other people. Because, after all, some perspectives are far too dangerous to far too many people to support merely because they are different. In fact, believing that Haitian people should not be helped, should be left to starve and die because of their beliefs or choices, might very well be one of these dangerous perspectives. Immigration policies that result in hatred or discrimination against people of color would also be dangerous.

The students might, as a class or school, have talked openly about what they learned about conflict, values, and respect during such a process; or about how participating in the process changed them. The teacher might have evaluated their ability to be respectful, to think carefully about the issues and perspectives, and to commit to and demonstrate higher principles.

As Mr. Pitts pointed out, the students might then have learned the very valuable lesson that “reasonable people reason their way through disagreements,” that it might be important for people to be able to express their opinions, but it is just as important to give others the chance to do the same. Some of those opinions will lead to needed changes and improvements in our society, and some opinions will lead to actions that harm our society. Students of all ages need to learn how to carefully evaluate these opinions for themselves, rather than merely following along with the most charismatic or well-marketed or well-funded opinion stater. But, of course, that would require teachers and principals (and the rest of us) to be reasonable and to have developed enough them(our)selves to see the value in going through such a process. Perhaps we are not always there yet – as the newspaper examples illustrated.

Virtue vs. Vanity

Here we are in the New Year, a new decade, a time that most of us hope will be better than the last couple of years. If you are like me, you have either thought about New Year’s resolutions, are avoiding thinking about them, or are wondering when you will find the time to carefully consider what you want your life to look like in the New Year.

But whatever state your resolutions are in, what are your thoughts about how to decide what you will aim for? Will you decide on “fixing” areas of your life that are in disarray? Will you decide to become something that you are not? Will you let vanity overwhelm values? Or do you have other strategies?

I ask these questions because of what our resolutions typically look like. I have heard many people aspire to lose 20 pounds; to get in shape; to buy the new car they’ve dreamt about; to get the mess in their house cleaned up; to make $1,000,000; to change jobs; to get the big promotion. . . . Well, you get my drift. Is it any wonder that we hear over and over again how few people actualize their resolutions?

Could it be that whatever needs fixing can’t be fixed with just a decision, that some depth work, some digging is needed to recover from past experiences? Could it be that we are aiming for something that has little real worth, something that won’t really fix our lives or bring us joy? Could it be that we are trying to reach our goals by ourselves, without asking for help from others or from a Higher Power? Could it be that we have set our goals without consulting the people who really matter to us, and had we consulted, we would have discovered the need for some compromising in order to ensure that we weren’t impinging on another’s dreams and hopes and resolutions? Could it be that our resolutions are really just responses to external pressures, rather than drawn from our innermost selves, and that as a result, a healthy part of ourselves rebels against merely doing what others seem to want?

What would it look like to do New Year’s resolutions differently? What would happen if we considered making Resolutions to be an opportunity to get our lives in order, to become clear about who we want to be, how we want to live and work, and how we want to do relationships – at home, in the neighborhood, and at work? What would happen if we used this opportunity to set aside regular time for reflecting, for talking seriously with the people who matter to us? Might our resolutions turn out differently if we made them more an exercise in discovering our values than in feeding our vanity (you know, the car, the figure, the body, the money)?

For instance, if we chose several character traits to aim for (e.g. integrity, trust, courage, wisdom, caring, respect), reflected on them each morning with our coffee, and decided to do just one thing of character each day – what might happen? If we chose several areas of our lives (e.g., our relationships, our work, our commitments to “giving back”) or only one to focus these character traits on – might we actually make our resolutions a reality? Consider how your world might change if you decided. . .

• to smile at everyone whom you encountered;
• to look into the eyes of people who were talking with you so as to really
hear them and understand them;
• to take on one new thing each day that you’ve never done before;
• to approach every conflict or disappointment with peacefulness in your heart;
• to get rid of the impatience in your voice as you spoke with your children
or employees;
• to always tell the truth, even it is hard;
• to see the people around you as people, rather than as instruments to help
you to reach your aims
• to ask yourself, as you approach each relationship or conversation, what you
might offer to the other person?

Well, these are some of my ideas about living with character. But no one can decide for you. You have to decide what being wise means, how to be caring, where you need to be courageous. You get to decide what your life will look like this year. Make it a good, well-considered choice – and remember, you get to decide what “good,” or “better,” or “best” is. May you make it the best year yet in very important and meaningful ways!

Beyond “Dr. No” to “Dr. Yes”

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald wrote an article this week with the above title. In it, he spoke about Michael Jackson, about the fame and power Jackson wielded that made it difficult to say “no” to him. In fact, says Pitts, if his doctor had said “no,” Michael would still be alive.

But beyond the illegalities of drug addiction and excessive spending and inviting children into your bed, isn’t it also true that we need either an internal or an external “Dr. No” if we are to behave in accordance with positive values? If we look carefully at the times in which we have crossed over an ethical boundary, hasn’t it been because we wanted a “yes” and we were going to take it however we could?

Perhaps it was a “yes” to paying less taxes, or a “yes” to having a bigger car or a bigger house, or a “yes” to going out on a Friday or Saturday night when our spouse didn’t want us to, or a “yes” to eating just a little more dessert, or a “yes” . . . well, you continue the thinking as it might best apply to your life.

Beyond personal “yeses,” perhaps the auto industry said “yes” one too many times to those in power rather than those who many years ago could have created better and more fuel efficient cars. Perhaps the mortgage brokers said “yes” to one too many loans that they shouldn’t have. Perhaps the bankers said “yes” to too many risky investments or income increasing strategies. It seems clear that, in these situations, as with Michael, the failure to say “no” has damaged the very core of our society and our trust.

We seem to understand, if we are parents or other adults who work with children, that children need clear limits in order to learn right from wrong. They need parents who will serve as “Dr. No’s.” They need someone outside of themselves saying, “Here is the limit of what is right. When you step over this line, you will have stepped into a danger zone, either for yourself, for someone else, or for property.”

We are supposed to eventually grow out of the need for external controls. We are supposed to internalize our parents’ or our society’s messages about right and wrong, how to decide among options, and how to choose what’s best for ourselves, for those we love, for our organizations or communities, and for the physical world around us.

Sometimes tragic circumstances hinder our development. And sometimes issues are very complex, and require carefully weighing of benefits and harms to determine what the best choices might be.

But sometimes, we just want what we want when we want it. And if we can get away with it, we sometimes just take what we want when we want it. And sometimes we feel guilty. And sometime we don’t. Sometimes we say, “It isn’t hurting anyone.” And sometimes we realize that harm is happening. The harm is just to someone or something “out there,” where we have no personal connections to the people who might be hurt, where no one can connect the misbehavior to us. Sometimes we figure that whatever harms happen, they will be to people that we don’t know or care about, or to a world many years in the future when we are no longer alive. Such an attitude takes a toll on our souls, on our beliefs about ourselves, on our sense of self-worth, our sense that we are good and valuable people.

But I think that “Dr. No” doesn’t go far enough. I think we need to get to a “Dr. Yes.” Sure, as people and as a society, we need to say “no” to greed and mistreatment of others and breaking the law. But plenty of research and stories tell us that merely focusing on what not to do doesn’t get us where we want to go. People don’t like to be told “No,” and so they rebel and try to find any way they can to get around it. But even those who rebel at “no” can be inspired toward “yes.” We need to aspire toward becoming “Dr. Yeses.”

Dr. Yes points us toward what is good and healthy and positive in ourselves, in other people, in our institutions, and in our communities. Dr. Yes doesn’t rely on the sensationalism of crime and dastardly deeds to get our attention, but instead tries to draw attention to businesses that treat their employees well, schools that educate well, and people who contribute to their communities. Dr. Yes buys advertising in programs that advocate for what is best in our people and our communities. Dr. Yes boycotts products and companies that harm people and the environment. Dr. Yes encourages people to be the best that they can be, rather than stopping at minimal requirements. Dr. Yes, urges people to aim continually upward, toward personal and family and community growth. Dr. Yes holds up character traits and behaviors, like integrity and tolerance and caring and responsibility and wisdom and courage, that we can aspire toward. Dr. Yes says we can always aim upward toward something better and we should never stop trying, that we never really arrive, that personal, moral, ethical, interpersonal growth is a lifelong endeavor. Dr. Yes looks for the possibilities of who we can become, and believes that we are better people than we know. While Dr. No may always be necessary to ensure a certain minimum, Dr. Yes holds possibilities for transformation – of ourselves, our families, our communities, and the world. Won’t you become a “Dr. Yes?” If we all become “Dr. Yeses,” I believe we have the power to change the world.

The Power of Posterity (August 2009)

David Brooks, of the New York Times, offered an inspiring proposal in “The Power of Posterity,” a proposal that fits with what I have been advocating in my ethics and character work. He basically indicated that much of what we do, we do for the unborn children.

Now, some of you may be saying, “What?” in great surprise at this proposal, particularly those of you without children. But think about it. In his scenario (which came from the Marginal Revolution blog) the question is asked, what would happen if there was a “freak solar event that sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?” This obviously implies that the culture on that half of the earth would essentially come to an end when the children and adults on that half of the earth died. People from the other half of the earth might immigrate, but they would import their culture. After all, since the sterilized folks would soon be dying out, immigrants would have little incentive to adopt the dying culture as their own. The sterilization question triggers us to ask what difference it would make to our lives if we knew that our culture would end in 50 to 100 years.

I often propose that our motivation for ethically transforming our schools, organizations, businesses, and communities is that we want to turn over a world worth having to our children and our grandchildren. When we speak of preserving the environment, or stopping global warming, or not polluting, or saving the Earth, we are aiming for the selflessness of not taking more than our share, of saving something for those who come after us. Not only can we not disconnect ourselves from people who are currently living – because what we do ripples out to affect people and systems beyond us – but it seems that we can’t disconnect ourselves from the generations that come after us either.

In fact, Brooks goes further to suggest that much of what we do, we do for its lasting value. “Without posterity, there are no grand designs. There are no high ambitions. Politics become insignificant. Even words like justice lose meaning because everything gets reduced to the narrow qualities of the here and now.” The great art and music and architecture and companies and business products and government activities are done, not only with the thought of enjoyment and a personal sense of purpose and benefit, but in order to create a lasting contribution to society. In some cases, people engage in these activities for the possibility of lasting fame. Brooks suggests that if there is no future to our culture, if there are no unborn children to inherit what we do, we will reduce our focus to the here and now, and focus only on ourselves as individuals, on what is good for us. As he says, “People would themselves become children, basing their lives on pleasure and ease instead of meanings to be fulfilled.”

Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want our values and our way of living to reflect? I would suggest that we are bigger than that, that, even if we don’t have children ourselves, we realize that our future society and culture lies with our children. There is a reason that we advocate for children, for their education, for their health, for their wellbeing, a reason that extends beyond their vulnerability and inability to advocate for themselves. They are our future. And we have to decide what our future will look like. We sometimes have to decide to sacrifice the now on behalf of that future. We have to look beyond our own pleasure to some greater virtues. The question is, what will those virtues be? What do you want to stand for? What kind of a world do you want to create and pass down to future generations?

War Plus: Will the Big Issues Get Us Down? (June 2009)

Day after day, I read the newspaper articles on Gaza and Israel, and I ask myself, "What's the answer?" "What does an ethicist like myself have to say about such huge and long standing issues?" I ask myself, "What would I say if the politicos in Washington asked me for ethical input?" And I reply to myself, "Yes, but what do I know about politics? What do I know about how to prevent war, how to create peace, how to help countries get along with one another?" I will simply have to stick with what I do know, what I can do, and recognize that if I use all that I have, it will make a difference.

So, what do I know, and what can I do? What do you know, and what can you do? I have spent my career as a mental health professional, doing assessments and psychotherapy, and teaching graduate students to become counselors. What I know is how to help people heal from emotional struggles; how to help them to learn the life skills necessary for daily life, for success in school and work, for raising a family; and how to help them figure out and reach for their dreams. And I know that the world is a better place for the changes created when people grow in these ways. The world around the people I have helped is a more peaceful place. It is a more positive place. It is a place with healthier, less damaging relationships. It is a place where people can trust one another because they know that they have each communicated clearly and honestly with one another. It is a place where when conflict arises, they can trust that the other will work with them to clear it up, rather than disappearing or hating or stirring up trouble. And if I can't solve the war in the middle east, isn't it better to know that there at least some people who are living in greater peace, who are raising their children in a more loving environment, who are following their "call", and so are contributing to the world in some positive way?

What I also know is how to write and teach and develop curricula. And so I write this blog, and write virtue newsletters, and write books on life skills and character and optimal development. And I teach adjunct classes and continuing education classes, developing new curricula as the need arises. And if I can persuade those who read and who are students that "positive psychology" (that is, aiming for mental health, aiming for the best, encouraging optimal development, investing in becoming and creating people of character with strong ethical decision making skills) has value, then perhaps they too will take it out into the world with them, and will assist their clients and students and business partners and family members that being people of character matters. Perhaps they will become persuaded that investing in the "spirit" of life, in the "higher" things of life, makes a difference. Perhaps they will spread the news that if we each aim for the optimal in caring and trustworthiness and responsibility and courage and wisdom and fairness and respect and citizenship, if we take little steps each day, that we can create a better world around us, and that what is "better" will spread and keep on spreading, like the ripples that begin with a mere drop of water.

But it takes intention and inspiration and perhaps spirit to live out what I know, where I am, and to not despair over how short it falls. It takes courage to believe that if I live my life in integrity, if I intentionally aim for the best character, even when I can get away with less, if I encourage the children and parents that I see at school and church and Girl Scouts to do the same, that others will also be motivated to do the same, and that the "good" will spread. It takes trust that others will be just as concerned and motivated as I am, and that we can lean on one another, that we can encourage one another, and that this team effort can transform our schools and families and communities.

But if we don't have the courage to fully live into what we know, where we are, what hope is there? What other options do we have if we want things like wars in Gaza to end, people in the frozen north of the former Soviet Union countries to have access to oil to heat their homes, and the crime ridden neighborhoods around us to become safe?

Will you join me in saying that you will take the risk to invest in your own character and to support your family members and friends and co workers to invest in character? I believe Obama when he says that if we all join together, "Yes, we can" make a difference.

Presidential Thoughts on Respect and Fairness (November 2008)

It seemed fitting to begin this blog with a reflection on our country's newly elected president. I was one of the group who was overjoyed by Obama's election. And while I realize that everyone does not share my views, I thought you might be interested in some of my perspectives. Given our country's economic crisis, I, of course, wanted to vote for change. But Obama's election brings possibilities for change far larger than economic change and the ethical/character changes necessary for fixing our economic situation. Barack's election signals that America is willing to take a stand for fairness to all people, for respect for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin. As one email I recently read stated, "Finally, we are winning the Civil War," or what was begun by ending slavery. As another said, "Harriett Tubman escaped so that Rosa could sit. Rosa sat so that Martin could stand. Martin stood so that Barack could run."

But my enthusiasm is far larger than a celebration of fairness and respect for people of different races. You see, if "we the people" are willing to respect people who are Black, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, or Native American, I see us as have reached a place of accepting, and perhaps even celebrating, other differences as well. It seems to me that Obama's election (and Hilary Clinton being in the running) also signals greater respect and acceptance of women, and gays, and the poor, and immigrants, and the many other groups who have been discriminated against throughout history.

Character and/or ethics includes respect for all people and fair distribution of goods. It means that everyone has access to goods - products, jobs, salaries, benefits, raises, promotions, housing, quality schooling -- and that any differences in distribution have to be justified (by such differences as qualifications, education, working more hours, etc).

America used to be considered a "melting pot." Well, a better analogy is a "salad." You see, in a melting pot, all differences are melted together into a common "mush" that we call "American." A "salad," instead, celebrates difference - all of the colors, the textures, the sizes of the ingredients contribute to the richness of the salad, and, for many of us, to its desireability. Even those who are not fond of salad have begun to realize that the best answers for our society come from the participation of many. The more differing perspectives are heard the better the chance of developing solutions that include all of the possibilities. The better the chance of ensuring that some groups of people are not hurt, and in fact, that more of us prosper.

Loving and Doing "The Good" (January 2009)

I applaud the efforts that have recently been cited in my local news to encourage public officials (and all of the rest of us) toward more ethical behavior. It is time for us to take the gloves off, to move beyond complacency, and to realize that unless all of us act on behalf of character and ethics, we all suffer. There is no way in our society to separate ourselves from the effects of other people's unethical behavior; we have seen this in the devastation caused to our neighbors and friends and non-profit organizations by the unethical behavior of securities and investment professionals, realtors and mortgage brokers, and Bernie Madoff. We see it regularly in crime statistics and in the 15% more we pay at the cash register as a result of theft.

However, we can no longer point to "the other guy" as the offender when we have done little to create change ourselves, to behave ethically, or to teach our children to be people of character. We have had a "doing the minimum" or "doing what we can get away with" attitude, rather than a "doing the optimal" attitude, for too long. Clearly laws and ethics codes and procedures are not enough. Enron, and many other companies that have hurt employees, consumers, and the environment, have had ethics codes and procedures. They have often adopted them to comply with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines so that they can avoid huge fines should they get into trouble.

Yet, research indicates that laws and efforts at ethical compliance do not motivate ethical behavior. Unless values are infused throughout organizations from the top down, formal ethics procedures and awareness of laws do little to change individual or organizational behavior for the better. It is understood that ethical behavior requires first that we "know the good," thus the need for laws and regulations, codes and procedures. But these fall short in creating ethical behavior --we also have to "love the good" and "do the good." Preachers can preach "the good." Lawyers can define "the bad," or what we shouldn't do. Many can define and promote ethical behavior. But let's get the mental health professionals - experts in behavior change - to work on helping people to "love the good" and "do the good." Or better yet, let's all work together, using all of our skills, talents, and energy to "create the good," to aim for what's optimal, so that our children can inherit a better society to live in than we are currently experiencing.

Our Better Angels (January 2009)

What a tremendous moment in history!! -- Martin Luther King's birthday falling one day before his success is demonstrated in the inauguration of Barack Obama, Black people and members of other historically oppressed groups traveling to Washington D.C. to celebrate a victory over oppression, and Obama taking up Martin Luther King's "torch" for service. I have always voted in the presidential elections, but rarely have I believed my vote for the presidency was anything more than voting for the lesser of two evils. Not this time! History is being made, and as a result of Obama's use of emails and the internet to include all of us, we can claim ownership in the history that is being made. We are part of it. And Obama shares the victory, telling us that we made it happen.

Obama also appeals to all of us to participate in solving the problems that America faces, claiming that it cannot be done without all of us taking part. Republican or Democrat, no one can argue the need for all of us to reach out in service to create better communities. No one can argue the need for ethics and character to infiltrate business and government, to lead people and organizations toward a higher good, to be the "fore" thought, rather than the after thought. No one can argue the need for parents and other adults to "teach the children well," to raise them to be people of character, to serve as role models, so that the next generation will inherit a better world, a safe world, an environmentally livable world.

And so, when Obama says, What's required is...an appeal not to our easy instincts, but to our better angels," we are inspired to think about what's best, not what's easiest, to consider the paths of angels (or what they represent) rather than the opposite, to become active, rather than reactive or complacent. No longer should we apologize for living "the good" (as in good character) life, for loving "the good," and for advocating that everyone around us pursue "the good." Of course, what is "good" or best is not always easy to decide. But that doesn't let us off the hook for choosing "the good" when it is apparent, for aiming for what is best in each situation we encounter.

So, what will be your first step? What is the good you will to pursue this week? We get to choose and act. No one else imposes this on us. My choice is to more consistently speak kindly and gently to friends and family members. What will your choice be?

Hope Dies Last (December 2008)

Studs Terkel, in an interview with Alex Kotlowitz of the AARP magazine, said that, unlike the Great Depression, hope was possible during this economic crisis because of the differences between the culture of the 1920's and our culture today. Terkel also pointed to what we could learn from the Great Depression.

Back in the 1920's, Terkel said, people thought "the man" knew. The "big boys" were in charge because they knew more; they had greater skills. And what a shock, he said, when the "wise men" blew it, when they didn't know what to do. When that happened, how could a person hope? Who could get the country out of a crisis if the people in charge didn't know how? Many people were furious. They blamed themselves. They lost their self-respect. They drank more. They fought more.

Some people weathered the crisis, though, and he describes how we might emulate them. Some drew hope from lending a hand or being on the receiving end of a hug. Other lessons learned during the Depression were "Don't blame yourself. Turn to others. Take part in the community."

We might also draw strength from they ways we are different from the people of the 1920's. For instance, now, Terkel said, people don't have a lot of trust in "the man." We are doubters. We agree with Terkel that "the big boys are not that bright." We are activists because during the 60's civil right movement and protests of the Vietnam war, we saw the power of activism. We decide for ourselves and determine our own fates more frequently, sometimes joining with others to have the impact we desire. And now, more than ever, Americans are raising their voices and, as Obama keeps reminding us, crying out for change.

So, what's it gonna be? When our jobs and mortgages are disappearing, when our neighbors are losing their homes, when we worry about our safety, what will we choose? Will we allow our fear to destroy our hope? Will we grab onto whatever we can get no matter whom it hurts? Will we let go of honor and love and caring and giving and all of the values we have cherished? Will we say, "Anything goes?"

Or will we follow Turkel's advice and lend a hand, turn to others, and become a community? Will we use this crisis as a warning, and, as Obama's team keeps urging us, stand up for change? Will we stand up and say, "No more taking what you can get, when you can get it, in any way you can," because that sort of behavior got us where we are today. Will we stand up and say, "Pursuit of what's good for ourselves can only get us so far. Without caring for those around us and the environment and our education systems, without limiting our greed, we will all lose." Will we stand up and say, "Come, I will help you and you will help me. We need one another, now more than ever." Will we let go of our pride and our self- or other-blame and admit our need for help; in fact, can we come to realize that people are supposed to help one another, and so we should even expect to receive help. And can we develop the trust in the people around us, trust that people care and will be looking around for ways to help. Can we use this crisis as a time to become a community, to regain the benefits of being a community, to realize that the old metaphors of "individuals pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" no longer work or are relevant? Can we embrace our interdependence?

I say, YES, WE CAN! The only question left is "WILL WE?" I will! Will you join me?

Independence No More (March 2009)

So, this was the week that Bernie Madoff went to jail, and people stood outside the courthouse to celebrate his getting his "just desserts." The extent of the damage caused by his behavior has boggled the minds of many of us, and made the rest of us wonder if there is any way to protect our investments. We wonder if being responsible and saving will actually pay off in the end. We are shocked that people got "taken" who know a lot more about finances and investments than we do. "If they got taken," we reason, "What chance is there to prevent ourselves from being taken?" In other words, Madoff's fraud and dishonesty shakes our sense of financial security. It increases our fears. It shakes our sense of trust in our institutions. It makes us wonder who we can trust.

I hope it also challenges our "live and let live" and "everyone gets to believe what they want to believe" and "every person for him/herself" mentalities. Consider the phenomenal impact of Madoff's choices, the trickle down impact of Madoff's behavior. For instance, wealthy people in Palm Beach have had to foreclose on their homes, and have wondered how they will support themselves now that their wealth is gone. Some of us may say, "Well, I am not sure if I care too much about people who have had more than their share all along." But I think that, upon careful reflection, we will realize all of the people that these folks kept employed: gardeners, house cleaners, pool care people, home repair workers, interior designers. These employees didn't deserve to lose their livelihoods! And consider how much wealthy people buy in their communities on a regular basis, and the impact on the local businesses that are losing that income: restaurants and bars, clothing stores, car dealerships, theatres, home furnishings stores, and repair companies. Those businesses didn't do anything wrong! They didn't deserve the chaos caused by Madoff's illegalities!

But perhaps most distressing to me are the losses to philanthropic work that have and will trickle down from the losses experienced by wealthy people. Contributions to the arts, to research on health problems like AIDS and breast cancer and altzheimer's, to public television and radio, and to service organizations are all in jeopardy. And while the arts and broadcasting industries add value to our lives, more upsetting are the losses of services to those who don't typically access that value: the hungry, the homeless, those who are losing their homes, the mentally and physically ill, and the children off all of these less advantaged people. And, of course, Madoff's scandal is not the only challenge to philanthropy these days. The financial and real estate industries share that blame.

I think our current ethical and legal and economic experiences are a profound wake up call for all Americans who still believe in pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, in independence as a way of life, and in "every person for him/herself." We need to realize that one person's illegal, unethical, or character-less behavior affects us all. We are not insulated from one another. We are all connected. My behavior affects my friends and neighbors, colleagues and family members. They then react in ways that affect all of their friends and neighbors, colleagues and family members. And so on, in a wider and wider web of influence. If my behavior is positive, inspiring, and character-full, then I will spread love and inspiration and hope and trust out into that web. However, if I make less inspired choices, then I poison the web, and that spreads fear and despair and mistrust and a "you better get while the getting is good" mentality. And as people take the first step down the "slippery slope" of taking what they want, even if the shouldn't, it becomes harder and harder to climb back up, and the crimes become bigger and bigger, and more and more dangerous and harmful.

Let's instead own the connections that are the reality of our current existence. Let's own them and relish them and challenge one another to be more than we have been. Let's declare, "Independence no more!" and celebrate our interdependence. Let's rise to the challenge of taking responsibility for more than ourselves and our own families. Let's realize that as long as one person, one community, one country in the world is suffering in disease, poverty, homelessness, crime, or poor education, then we are all at risk. We are all affected even if we are unaware of the impact. Did you know that we are all paying 17% more at the checkout stand just to make up for the theft experienced by retailers? I am sure that you can point to other costs of illegal or unethical behavior that many of us are paying daily, sometimes unknowingly.

Let's celebrate the ethical code that Obama requires federal employees to sign, even if it means it takes longer to find necessary employees. Let's support efforts by our current administration to get everyone involved in creating change, in empowering all Americans ("Yes We Can!"), in combating apathy, in building technology-assisted networks to keep people informed and to listen to citizens. Whatever political party we hail from, I think we need to rise to the challenge to reconnect ourselves with our neighbors, next door, down the street, downtown, on the "other side of town," on the other side of the country, and on the other side of the world. And once connected, we need to send positives out through that web, positives like trust, love, fairness, respect, honesty, responsibility, wisdom, courage, and integrity. We need to spread the wealth of character and material possessions and money. We need to reach out to community members and friends and family members who have lost jobs, or lost homes, and are struggling to survive this economic crisis. We need to stop blaming those who don't have what we do, stop our superiority complex, and realize that environment counts for a lot - and in this environment, many are over-challenged. If we won't take a stand and do it, who will? If we don't act now, then when?

Getting to Success (May 2009)

Discussions about ethics or character would be incomplete without a discussion of success. What do we define as success? What do we feel justified in doing to achieve success? Clearly, Bernie Madoff was not above lying and cheating and behaving illegally to achieve what he considered success. Similarly, the Palm Beach County (Florida) Commissioners who landed themselves in jail considered it acceptable to break the law in order to move themselves toward what they considered success. These folks seemed intent on taking short cuts to achieving power and gaining wealth, rather than putting in the work and time necessary. Further, national discussions about success at Guantanamo have focused Americans on what is acceptable in getting necessary information out of prisoners of war, and what will be considered torture. It seems that we may agree on the goals, but not always on the means!

But beyond what we shouldn't do is what we should do. I was struck last week by an article on "genius" that David Brooks wrote in the New York Times, in which he pointed to "genius" being the result of putting in hours and hours of practice in at a very young age. Rather than innate ability, he pointed to the substantial effort that distinguishes geniuses from their peers. He used Mozart and Tiger Woods as examples. He cited Daniel Coyle and Geoff Covin's review of the research on how genius comes about. For instance, in order to create genius, you would take a slightly above average child (in the desired area of genius), connect her or him with an expert mentor, with whom s/he might have an affinity (same race, religion, etc.), have her or him spend hours and hours reading about or studying the particular area of desired expertise, and then have her or him practice non-stop with an eye toward discovering and correcting errors. Finally, the mentor would provide a constant stream of feedback, correcting errors and making suggestions, in order to ingrain desired habits of thought.

He concludes, "The primary trait" when a person succeeds is not genetic hardwiring, "is not some mysterious genius. It's the ability to develop a deliberate, strenuous, and boring practice routine." It strikes me that doing so requires a great deal of determination. And I wonder where that determination comes from. Coyle and Covin indicate that various life traumas can create a sense of insecurity, which in turn drives people desperately to achieve and to thus be valued. Of course, trauma can just as easily defeat people. Being recognized early for one's talent might motivate one to put in the work necessary to bring it to full fruition. A spiritual calling - which doesn't have to be religious, merely the sense that one was put on this earth for a particular purpose - might motivate a person to put forth the effort. But early and long term effort seems to be the key! I think a lack of other options might also inspire a person to expend great effort - consider the basketball stars who have emerged from the ghetto.

Overall, I was pretty inspired by the article - it seems that when researchers actually look at genius, logging lots of practice hours, being deliberate, highly invested, and willing to go the distance, may play more of a role than dumb luck (the luck of the genes). That should leave most of us with few excuses!! I think we need to ask ourselves what really matters, and then we need to invest ourselves fully, knowing that there are few shortcuts, few easy solutions, and that the "nose to the grindstone" image has value in creating success. But it is success achieved by paying our dues, not by cheating. Whatever persuaded us that we should "get it all" easily? That things worth having can be accomplished without a good deal of effort? Well, perhaps that is fodder for a future discussion...

Disney Does It Right (November 2008)

Well, after all of the reading I have done on business ethics, I have become sensitized to what an ethical business looks like from the consumer perspective. And, of course, I have had a number of conversations about the need to improve with businesses who have fallen short. I have even, as you might imagine, terminated relationships with businesses that have fallen far short. But I was pleasantly surprised this week by the performance of a business that I had, up to this point, thought was overly commercialized, overly superficial; a business that I had avoided for a number of reasons.

My family and I just spent a week at Disney World, and from my observations they outperformed many businesses in living out good character or ethics. Every employee we had contact with greeted us in a friendly, enthusiastic manner, with a smile, and questioned with interest how our vacation was going. Never did I receive an "I don't know" or experience an indifferent or unhelpful attitude in response to a question. Service was always prompt, despite the crowds of the Thanksgiving holiday. And I was amazed at the crowd management, particularly given the holiday - despite the masses that were clearly apparent, never did we have to wait more than a few minutes for transportation or food service or entry to events.

In addition to terrific customer service, everything we attended reflected values that I think ought to be promulgated. Respect for diversity was reflected in the number of disabled people enjoying and working at the parks and the accommodations provided for them. It was also evident in the wide range of diverse cultures represented in employees and performers - "cast members," as they are referred to. Further, whether it was Epcot or Animal Kingdom, consideration for the environment and for the animal world were clearly apparent. We were all encouraged to do more to sustain our planet and had many opportunities to learn how to do so. Healthy food for children and adults was also available at the restaurants we went to. I don't think the carrot sticks, raisens, and apple sauce sides that were offered to accompany children's meals are even available to my daughter at her elementary school.

And in every show we attended, cast members were upbeat and cheerful and enthusiastic and had a positive attitude about life. They encouraged children to pursue their dreams, to work hard, to persist until the best goal could be reached. They encouraged and demonstrated caring and kindness and respect for all people and the natural world. And they did it in playful, entertaining, and often humorous way. Epcot, in its Candlelight Processional and concert, even did what many companies consider too great a risk - they acknowledged the religious element of this season by telling the Christ story. Even if it isn't the only story or everyone's story, they seemed to be saying, it is a story worth telling, and an important part of many people's history and lives. I was happy to have my child at Disney World - the values illustrated there were clear, did not detract from what I am trying to teach her, and were values I would be happy to see reflected in every part of our society.

The big question is why they aren't reflected in very business, school, government, and community organization. If Disney - which is clearly a very profitable and enormous enterprise - can do it, why can't everyone else? Now, I am sure that someone can probably dig up some dirt about Disney. I understand Walt wasn't all that delightful. But if the lowest members in the chain of command at Disney - those picking up the garbage and cleaning the bathrooms for minimum wage - can reflect such positive attitudes and values, the values must now be infused throughout the organization from the top down. Can't we all start today deciding on and living out values that create a better working environment and better physical and mental health for ourselves and everyone around us? Can't we all live as though our children or mothers or the evening news were watching us? I say, "Yes, we can!"