Honor and Bravery and Truthfulness and Integrity. And did I say Honor?

Kevin Horrigan’s article in the February 2^nd Denver Post, hits many nails on the head from my perspective. In response to the outrage about Francesco Schettino’s “cowardly” behavior in leaving his sinking cruise ship, he asks whether our outrage is justified, whether any of us would have behaved any differently. “In our imaginations,” he says, “we are all noble and brave. But honor and self-sacrifice are qualities far rarer than we’d like to think. Look around. People are copping pleas and making excuses all over the place.”

And isn’t he right? What is this about? Why are we so guilty of this? Where have we learned not to take responsibility, not to bear the consequences for our actions?

Granted, consequences are not fun! If I spill the milk (or the peas or the chocolate syrup or the hair dye), I have a mess to clean up. The rest of my family is not likely to take kindly to my just leaving the house and expecting them to clean it up! If I don’t make the car payment, the bank is likely to come and take my car, and probably won’t accept my excuses. And I am not going to be too happy about figuring out how to make do without a car. And, of course, there are behaviors with far more serious behaviors, like the Wall Street executives who caused the collapse of the world economy.

But is it any great surprise that these executives are not taking responsibility when we have accepted a society of excuses? When we so rarely hold ourselves responsible? Why can’t we take responsibility? Why can’t we say, “I blew it and I hate the result and I know I have to make it right and I will make it right?” Of course, we would rather not suffer the consequences. But what does it say about our society that we don’t tend to own up to our mistakes, realize that everyone makes mistakes, and become determined to rectify the problem and make amends? What does it say that we don’t feel justified in holding other people’s toes to the fire when they make mistakes, while still caring for them, helping them to make it right, and helping them to do better next time? What keeps us so fearful of telling the truth that no one can help us to do better, to learn, to improve, to avoid the big disasters?

Wouldn’t doing just that have created a different culture on Wall Street, one that would allow people to be honest earlier on, and stop the mistakes from escalating into an all out world crisis? It’s almost as though the message is that we are all supposed to be perfect, and if we aren’t, then we have to hide it so people won’t . . . won’t do what, realize that we aren’t perfect? Ask us to make things right? Ask us to take responsibility and be honorable? Are we really so loath to do that? Do we really think we are fooling people into thinking we are perfect? Do we really have so little self-esteem that if we don’t look perfect, we will be nothing?

Well, the mental health professionals have some answers for these questions – things related to poor self-esteem and problematic child raising and psychopathology and . . . . But perhaps the most important questions to ask are aspirational questions, questions about honesty and integrity and how we can become the best we can be. Questions like, “Really, you think that hiding or lying is going to get you to a better place? To a place that you want to be?” Or, “Do you think that no one else has ever made a mistake?” And, “Let’s talk it all out and together we will figure out where to go from here.”

And perhaps the most important answers to seek are to the questions, “How can we care about one another more aggressively so that we all know that there are people to stand with us even when we blow it?” “How can we talk openly so that we are walking the path together, helping one another out, catching one another when we fall, and helping each other get back on the path when we veer off track?” “How can we know the truth about one another so that we know how best to care and encourage and correct?” “How can we model openness in our endeavors to demonstrate good character so that people see us fail as well as succeed, and thus know that we believe each day is a journey, not the end point, and that no one reaches perfection, so any attempt to look perfect (whatever our definition of perfect) is a lie?”

“So, Francesco Schettino, you blew it big time. Time to invest incredible amounts of energy in restitution and accountability. Perhaps you can’t make it right – after all, people lost their lives, and we desperately hope that it wasn’t because you were doing something other than being the captain you were supposed to be. But regardless of the causes, own up to your failures. Tell the truth – people won’t necessarily like it, but they would rather have the truth than have you telling them lies. Accept the consequences you deserve. Spend the rest of your life trying to make up for this tragedy, giving of yourself voluntarily. Be a role model of contrition in both words and behavior. We need more of that in our world if we are to turn it around, if we are to get beyond excuses to responsibility, beyond law suits to healing. Won’t you give it a try? Perhaps if you take the lead, others will follow. And so on, and so on, and so on. . . .”

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.

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!

Send Back Those Gifts!

Are we all so greedy that we want what we want when we want it? So greedy that we are tempted by material possessions to give up our integrity? So greedy that we damage the public trust by creating obligations that hamper the public good?

What am I talking about here? I am talking about public officials accepting gifts. I am talking about corporate leaders who accept pay offs, large pensions, and other bonuses beyond a reasonable salary. I am talking about any of us who accept gifts from those we don’t know, or have a passing acquaintance with, people who want something from us and are, in essence, “paying” us to look with favor on their products or services.

Gifts, at their best, are expressions of caring or gratitude. We give gifts at holidays or on birthdays or other special occasions to people we care about and to people that we have nice relationships with at work. We give gifts to those who have contributed to our lives or our success when we are celebrating our success and recognizing the team that helped us to get there. We give gifts to those that we have meaningful relationships with as expressions of appreciation for the richness that they bring to our lives. These are not the gifts that threaten our integrity.

The gifts that threaten our integrity are really “loss-leaders,” not gifts. That is, someone wants something from us, and they are willing to pay some money to give us a little taste of doing business with them. For instance, a restaurant hands out “free” samples. An office supply store hands out sticky note pads with their name on it. A vacation packages company offers an overnight stay at a resort if we will come and listen to their sales pitch. And we often accept these “gifts.” And companies know that the gifts are effective marketing strategies, reminding the “gift” recipient of the company’s name and services, because companies keep on using loss-leaders.

Loss-leaders are not really free gifts. They are small payments ahead of time to entice us to use the services or buy the products. Perhaps if we are aiming for ethical optimums, we should not accept these loss-leaders if we don’t intend to do frequent their business or store. But when we do accept the loss leader, we end up with a warm fuzzy feeling about the company. That is, the company gains name recognition and a reputation for doing nice things for people, which is exactly their aim.

The fact that loss-leaders work should alert us to other “purchases” of favor. I recently spoke with a businessman about offering him some consultation on ethics. When I entered his office, he had several gift cards in his hand, and after we spoke, he handed me a $50 gift card as a gift, saying he likes giving gifts. Initially, I took the gift card. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that I might hedge in challenging his unethical behavior if I accepted the gift card. You see, the gift, if I accepted it, created an obligation to look favorably on him and on his behavior. But if my job is to challenge unethical behavior, then my job would be hampered by holding a favorable opinion that wasn’t earned by ethical behavior.

And so goes the behavior of public officials and business and other community leaders who have been in the news lately. You see, ministers who accept personal gifts from wealthy church members may be tempted to look the other way if that member behaves illegally or unethically, thus failing to fulfill their ministerial role in counseling more godly choices. Board members who receive an unreasonably hefty payment for serving on the board ($100,000 for a once a year meeting is not uncommon) may be tempted to look the other way if the company president proposes actions that border on unethical. CEOs whose bonuses and other payouts depend on the profitability of the company may be tempted to “fudge,” if they think they can get away with it, if fudging will increase their bonuses or other payouts. And, of course, government officials who accept free hotel rooms, golf games, luncheons, or charity ball tickets may be tempted to play favorites with the gift givers despite requirements to equitably consider all views and all bids.

So what’s the point here? If we are shooting for optimal ethical behavior and refusing to start down a slippery slope, if we want to invest in a better society, if we want to prevent our own or others’ boundary crossing or inappropriate obligations, then we need to face the facts: loss-leaders are not gifts. Loss- leaders ask us for favors. Loss-leaders hope that we will have a more favorable relationship with the giver than with their competitors. Loss-leaders are given so that we will pay the giver back. And we need to return loss-leaders if they will tempt us to let down our guard, to play favorites, to sacrifice quality, or to simply not perform our jobs or roles to their best. We need to return loss-leaders if we have no intention of purchasing the product or service, if it would be illegal to do accept the item or service, or if it would harm our families, our companies, or the public trust to accept it. So, let’s put raw greed aside and think of the bigger picture. Let’s send back the loss-leaders!

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.