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!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
