December 2007
You are currently browsing the articles from written in the month of December 2007.
All too often we watch the Senators of the United States of America make statements on our television sets while we are in our own living rooms. If you have been watching politics on TV for the last few decades you have obviously seen a repeat of the past and it is relatively obvious to you when they are completely lying and blowing smoke up the rear end of Americans.
We need the abatement of Senatorial insincerity and we need to make sure that our elected representatives do not treat us as fools. Remember they are our elected representatives and actually they work for us. If you see your local senator in your district changing his mind or has been wishy-washy on issues or if you catch them in an outright lie then it is your duty as an American to support a more noble candidate.
If there is no more noble candidate running and it is a division between a choice of the lesser evils then you might consider running for office because that is the right thing to do and sometimes it takes sacrifice to keep our great Republic supercharged.
The United States of America is the greatest nation ever created history of mankind and it is that way because people cared enough to do something about the problems that they see. It is definitely a problem when we have senators who are insincere and tell us what we want to hear rather than the truth. If we cannot trust are all government we cannot trust ourselves because we own it. Consider all this in 2006.
“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance in the Online Think Tank and solve the problems of the World; www.WorldThinkTank.net/
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 31st, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
God has never been shy about telling people how to behave. The first example was probably his instructions to Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Another early example is the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments[1]:
I. You shall not have other gods besides me.II. You shall not carve idols for yourselves.III. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.IV. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.V. Honor your father and your mother.VI. You shall not kill.VII. You shall not commit adultery.VIII. You shall not steal.IX. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.X. You shall not covet.A lawyer asked Jesus to rank these ten: “Which commandment is the first of all?” The answer? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” In short: Love God. Look for it in the list of ten, and you will not find it. Which commandment ranked number two? “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Again, it did not make the list. If you study the Ten Commandments, though, you will see that it can be divided into two groups: the first four commandments have to do with our relationship with God; the last six with our relationships with each other. How do we love God? As a starting point, by not having other gods, carving idols, misusing the divine name, and disregarding the Sabbath. Honoring those four injunctions is perhaps a long way from loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, but it is a starting point. We love our neighbor by not killing him, stealing from him, sleeping with his wife, or defaming him. We should refrain not only from stealing, but from even wanting things that are not ours, a demand that focuses inward, as does the command to love. These are all negative commands, things we are to refrain from doing. The only positive demand has to do with our parents. There we are expected to go further than refraining from harm; we have to honor. With our parents we must go a step further than we need to go with anyone else. The first four commandments are the focus of religion, the relationship between a person and his creator. Ethics has to do with human interaction, the bottom six. The Golden Rule, often cited as a model for ethical business decisions, has the same focus. “Do as you would be done by.” That was, loosely, the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant: “I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.”[2] To put it in a form similar to that of the Golden Rule: I should never do what I would not want everyone else to do as well.
Jesus gave the Golden Rule as part of his Sermon on the Mount. Confucius and Aristotle had said it even earlier, though Aristotle applied the instruction only to friends, and Confucius stated it negatively: “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.”[3] Jesus, in imposing on us positive obligation and applying it universally, was more ambitious.
The Golden Rule is uncannily useful as a moral guide. The application of Aristotle’s theory of justice, with its requirements of consistency treating similarly situated people the same–and proportionality -treating different people differently in proportion to their relevant differences may require a philosophical turn of mind and a good deal of intelligence. More importantly, its application may give rise to significant dispute. Does equal treatment mean equal opportunity or equal outcome? What differences are relevant? Differences in ability? That standard would reward the gifted, but lazy. Differences in effort? It has been argued. I once had a student contest his grade, arguing that his grade did not reflect the effort he had put into the course. Capitalism tends to base rewards on differences in achievement. A Marxist would argue that need was the relevant difference on which to base rewards: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”[4]
After identifying the relevant differences (a problem Aristotle did not address), Aristotle would have us allocate rewards and burdens in proportion to those differences. It might seem that an employee who works twice as many hours as somebody else should receive twice the pay. If so, then the Fair Labor Standards Act is unjust in requiring time-and-a-half for overtime, because time-and-a-half compensates the harder working employee more than twice as much. The rewards of labor are not proportional to the hours worked.
The theory of rights has its own difficulties, in that it is necessary to identify which rights are worthy of protection and to prioritize those rights to aid in decision-making when the rights of some come into conflict with the rights of others.
The Golden Rule bypasses all such difficulties. We may have difficulty in deciding when the rights of others are violated; we know instantly when our own are. We know instinctively how we want to be treated, even if we do not always want to treat others the same way. The Golden Rule would have us apply this same guide to others. Kant described the advantages this way:
I do not, therefore, need any far-reaching penetration to discern what I have to do in order that my will may be morally good. Inexperienced in the course of the world, incapable of being prepared for all its contingencies, I only ask myself: Canst thou also will that thy maxim should be a universal law? If not, then it must be rejected, and that not because of a disadvantage accruing from it to myself or even to others, but because it cannot enter as a principle into a possible universal legislation…[5]Not only do we know how we want to be treated, we want to be treated how we want to be treated. Put this way, the observation may seem trivial, but it is another way of saying that we love ourselves. Because we love ourselves, we protect our rights as best we can, and we insist on justice. Jesus, quoting a passage in Leviticus,[6] said that the greatest commandment governing interpersonal relationships was the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Note that we already love ourselves. This was not a call to increase our self-esteem so that we could better love others. Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.[7]When great good befalls us, do we resent it? Do we rejoice in the wrongs done to us? Do we hope for disease, disgrace, or financial ruin? No. We do not because we love ourselves. We may not think much of ourselves sometimes, but our love for ourselves is as close to perfect as anything human can be. “[I]t is for himself most of all that each man wishes what is good.”[8] The word “love” in this passage from the apostle Paul is a translation of the Greek word “agape.” It refers not to emotion, but to an act of the will. This is important. It is in this manner, undoubtedly, that we are to understand those passages of Scripture also in which we are commanded to love our neighbour, even our enemy. For love, as an affection, cannot be commanded, but beneficence for duty’s sake may; even though we are not impelled to it by any inclination nay, are even repelled by a natural and unconquerable aversion. This is practical love and not pathological a love which is seated in the will, and not in the propensions of sense in principles of action and not of tender sympathy; and it is this love alone which can be commanded.[9] The Greeks had other words for love: in addition to agape, eros, philios, and storge. Eros is what we usually call “in love.” It is romantic love. With it comes longing and intense feelings of all sorts. It is more than mere lust. We do not merely want to use the one we love for sexual gratification. We want the best for the one we love. We want to protect and nurture the one we love. We are happy when good things come to the one we love, and we are resentful of wrongs. Philios is friendship. Storge is affection, especially that affection that exists between a parent and a child. Eros, philios, and storge are lesser loves, which we can extend only to a few and only intermittently. If unaccompanied by agape, all would corrupt us. We would resent anything and anybody that turned our beloved’s attention away from us. We might do great injustice to others to protect our friends. We might despise those outside our own circle. Our love for our children must sometimes take on a stern cast. We cannot always indulge our affection, if we want what is best for them.
These lesser loves, though, are important warm-ups for agape, for love itself. By nature we love ourselves. When we fall in love, nature allows us, at least for a time, to love one other as we love ourselves. When we have children, the circle of those we are able to love as we love ourselves expands. Friendship expands the circle of caring in the same way, if not to the same degree. As we work to be good lovers, good parents, and good friends, we are increasing our capacity to love, just as exercise increases our ability to push and pull.
The Ten Commandments are also beginning exercises. We start on the road to loving our neighbor by refraining from doing them active harm. “Our neighbor” refers first to those closest to us. “[I]t is a more terrible thing to defraud a comrade than a fellow-citizen, more terrible not to help a brother than a stranger, and more terrible to wound a father than any one else.”[10] The parable of the Good Samaritan, which Jesus told in answer to the question “Who is my neighbor,” indicates that our duty to love is ultimately universal.[11]
When we steal from someone or tell vicious lies, we are feeding our hatred, just as doing good to someone will feed our affection, which is always an aid to wishing them well. As Aristotle noted, “Benefactors are thought to love those they have benefited…for that which they have treated well is their handiwork…[A benefactor] delights in the object of his action.”[12] When we refrain from doing harm, we are at least keeping the soil free from weeds so that love concern for our fellow human beings can grow.
The commandments do not take us as far as we need to go. We must do more than refrain from doing active harm. A rich young ruler approached Jesus and asked him how to have eternal life. The answer: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”[13] Which ones? Jesus listed five of the last six commandments (leaving out the prohibition of coveting) and concluded, “and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young ruler claimed to have done all these things, but we may doubt him as to the last, because he was unwilling to sell what he possessed and give it to the poor. If he and his neighbor had been equally concerns of his, his riches would have satisfied him as much in the hands of his neighbor as in his own.
Like the Ten Commandments, man made law imposes few positive obligations. We are required to support our children, just as we are enjoined to honor our parents. As to strangers, though, we have no obligation to render aid, even in emergencies, even when the cost or risk to ourselves is slight.
The law has on occasion required more of us, and it would be nice to think that we, as human beings and as citizens, were ready to do more for each other than simply refrain from doing harm. Soldano v. O’Daniels[14] involved a barroom altercation. A gun was pulled, and a barroom patron ran across the street and into another bar to call for help. The bartender refused to let him use the phone. The altercation escalated, and Darrell Soldano was shot to death. In holding the bartender liable, the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District, noted that the burden the bartender refused to assume was minimal and involved no risk.
The Soldano opinion stands alone. No other court in any other jurisdiction or even in California has accepted this apparent modification of the no-duty-to-aid rule. Soldano turned out to have been merely “an aberration in American tort jurisprudence.”[15]
The law asks no more of us than a wise parent asks of a toddler. The parent may expect the child to refrain from making crayon drawings on the walls or throwing his plate of food to the floor. Help with the dishes is too much to hope for. When the child is older and more mature, he can assume those responsibilities.
Like our children, business people cannot remain forever infants. They must go beyond the dictates of the law to where the law was never meant to take them. The first step is to do no harm. At the end of the journey is love.
[1] Exodus 20:3-17; Deuteronomy 5:7-21.
[2] Kant, Fundamental Principles Of The Metaphysic Of Morals
[3] John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations
[4] Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program
[5] Kant, Fundamental Principles Of The Metaphysic Of Morals
[6] Leviticus. 19:18
[7] I Corinthians 13: 4-7
[8] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 7
[9] Kant, Fundamental Principles Of The Metaphysic Of Morals
[10] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 9
[11] Luke 10:29-37
[12] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book IX, Chapter 7
[13] Matthew 19:17
[14] 141 Cal.App.3d 443, 190 CalRptr. 310 (1983)
[15] Eric J. v. Betty M., 76 Cal. App. 4th 715; 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 549 (1999)
Michael Monhollon is the dean of the business school at Hardin-Simmons University. His novel based on the adult career of Jesus Christ is being serialized at http://www.bookserial.com.
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 30th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
Have you ever met someone who puts themselves out as ethical at every turn, always talking about ethics like a Catholic Priest who is screwing little kids behind everyones back yet preaching the Holy Bible the rest of the time? These pragmatic ethically challenged individuals are everywhere. Just when you think you have found an ethical person, as you learn more you find that their ethics only go so far. Kind of like a man who talks of family values then screws other woman on the side and beats their wife.
Many people reading this know they are liars, yet try to conceal it, when in fact they are unfit to lead. They wonder why their business associates and friends are not long term, but only because they have never looked in the mirror to see what they really are. Are you a member of the Pragmatic Ethics Society; are you a liar in disguise? I think you are and I am a pretty good judge of character too. But what can we expect from a human? And with this truth how can we maintain the forward progression of the human race with you in it; that is to say all you Pragmatic Ethics Practicers?
They say you can only believe none of what you hear, half of what you read and most of what you see? Do you ever wonder why this is? It is because of people like you. Who sure have ethical value, as long as it suits you; that is to say as long as it is not too inconvenient and people are watching. But if you can gain from cheating, lying or concealing, you are all over it like a fly on feces. Are you afraid that people will find you out, find out your are full of crap and unethical by nature and nurture. Tell me how does that make you feel? Or do you even care anymore? Are you ethically challenged, a pragmatic ethics or can we just simplify all of this and call you a Liar. Think on it.
“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance in the Online Think Tank and solve the problems of the World; www.WorldThinkTank.net/
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 30th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
If you are a small businessperson then chances are you have had a situation occur where another small business or larger competitor has used the local Government code enforcement officer to harass you. This is a common occurrence and it is unfortunate that they do not teach this at the SBA seminars.
The good old boy network that occurs in most cities is alive and well in the United States of America. This occurs both in large cities and small towns. Competitors know that if they can get the local code enforcement officer to come over and find a violation in your business that it will slow your business town and therefore give them the edge.
It is too bad that people do not have more integrity than that and too bad it competitors call in competing companies for violations. Of course if you are violating the law he should not be violating the law, but we know that many of the rules and regulations from the municipal level all the way to the federal level are quite onerous and this is unfortunate.
It is literally impossible to follow all the rules or for that matter even know all the rules. In my 27 years in business as a Franchisor, I cannot tell you how many times our franchisees just starting out in their local areas had to deal with competitors who called them into the code enforcement. Often they had done nothing wrong; except step on the toes of an existing businessperson, which was well-connected in the city.
Sometimes, a smart code enforcement officer will realize that the complaint coming in is from a competitor and simply make a visitation to the company or business involved in the complaint. This is an opportunity for you as a small businessperson to talk to the code enforcement officer and ask them if they can help you comply with all the rules.
This way they will explain what the rules are and which rules they are most apt to care about. Being on a first name basis with the code enforcement officer in a local municipality is a smart thing to do for any businessperson.
It is extremely important for you to realize that these things happen and although it may be personal between you and your competition; it is not personal between your company and the code enforcement officer. If you are breaking the law he will have to comply with the law and it behooves you to learn exactly what the law is and the intent so that you can remedy the situation without further problems from the code enforcement officer.
When a competitor makes a false complaint they actually end up hurting themselves and therefore it is unwise to turning your competitors unless they are ripping off customers, polluting the environment or doing something that you know to be harmful to others.
Simply turning in your competitors for a minor violation or infraction will only cause you to have a war with that competitor and just imagine all the different regulatory bodies that there are in our government and what you will do if each one of them comes to visit you during a one month period.
In fact it will be impossible for you to get any work done or make any money. So before you go in turning your competitors remember the Golden rule. Oh and one last thing; if a competitor turns you in for something that means they consider you a threat and that means you must be doing something right. Consider this in 2006.
“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance in the Online Think Tank and solve the problems of the World; www.WorldThinkTank.net/
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 30th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
“… If you are not prepared to resign or be fired for what you believe in, then you are not a worker, let alone a professional. You are a slave.”
–Howard Gardner
He is uncomfortable. He is watching things happen within his organization about which he has ethical questions. He is uncertain. Perhaps everything is ok. Perhaps it is he who is out of balance. After all, nobody else is saying anything. He isnt privy to all the details. There are many unknowns. He is uncomfortable. What if he confronts the issue? What if he is wrong? What will they think? What if he is right? What will they do? He has bills to pay. He has responsibilities. He is uncomfortable.
In a world where Just Do It becomes a mantra, the concept of Just Do Right can be lost in the dust of the just doing. Sometimes the rush to perform blows the doors off right and wrong. We can drift into a numb and dumb state of personal ethics; so focused on the ends that we become numb to the means. So concentrated on our piece of the pie we are dumbed down to the larger picture.
The prescription for ethical numb and dumb comes in small doses. It comes with allowing out inner discomfort to signal us something is out of balance. It comes with knowing what we really and truly believe to be right and wrong. It comes with the courage to ask questions, seek clarity, and keep an ethical banner flying. It comes, too, with the courage to act. “It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible but for what we do not do,” wrote Moliere.
It may seem an over simplification to assert that Just Do Right is the answer, but is it not so?
Jim Gustafson is author of Take Fun Seriously — Little Thoughts and Big Ideas for Living Laughing and Loving. He was ordained in the United Methodist Church and has served as a local church pastor, pastoral counselor and consultant. He has more than 25 years in sales and marketing management. http://www.jimgustafson.com
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 29th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
One of my favorite maxims is just because youre paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get you. I generally apply it the quote to government, but in a business world pretty well wrapped up into pseudo-new-age secrets; it helps to remember that you cant positive think your way out of every situation. All the good vibrations in the world are not going to make some people behave with honor and integrity. In business, there are people whose ill will and appetite for destruction cannot be satiated. These are the entrepreneurial sociopaths.
Its no wonder to me that criminals and entrepreneurs have similar personality traits. We entrepreneurs are not get in line, play by the rules, and do what were told kind of people. By nature entrepreneurs have big egos. I do, and odds are you do, too. After all, we got into this game knowing the failure rate and audaciously thinking we were uniquely qualified to beat it. Something about us says were different, and we know better. The problem with bad natured entrepreneurs is that they are in fact the sociopaths of the business world, and often times its only short leap for them to the criminal world. The same ego that drives them to go into business in the first place, can lead some to believe that they operate by their own set of rules, often to the detriment of others and they dont think twice about it. The key is being able to tell the difference between the typically self-confident entrepreneurs like you and I, and these entrepreneurial sociopaths.
Entrepreneurial sociopaths abound at least in part because they enjoy very high profile successes, especially early on. The entrepreneurial sociopath has a very different and limited worldview that invalidates all others. He has little or no self-doubt (eventually, this will be his undoing). He has his own internal moral compass that defines its own true north. Basing all of his actions on this faulty instrument, he bases all of his actions upon it and early on it produces the results he expects. His worldview and behavior do not stand up well to objective criticism, and his self-esteem is far too fragile to handle it. In the beginning nothing he does amounts hill anyone wants to die on rather than confront the guy, people stay out of his way. Emboldened, he will display incrementally bolder and socially unacceptable behavior. Though respectable people will notice red flags, theyll dismiss his impertinence as quirkiness, or the incidents as flukes rather than the dangerous developing patterns that they are.
The entrepreneurial sociopath becomes much more dangerous at this point. At this stage, the cats out of the bag, but its too late. His perceived power and position seem to legitimize his behavior. It gives others a sense that theyre observing something real, that his actions have a basis in reality, or natural law. They do not. This phenomenon gives a sense of hopelessness to his foes, and provides a growing band of sycophants with a new reality. His foes look on with wonderment and dismay while sycophants feel everything he does is to be emulated. Its very frustrating for decent people to watch because everything hes doing is clearly inappropriate, and theres a surreal kind of upside down-ness to the whole world in which these people operate that seems to be spilling over into our world.
It can even get to the point where society seems to confer a kind of legitimacy to their lifestyle, and agrees without examination with his logic, and certainly does not challenge him. Thats because they appear to have a lot of good things going on. They are always charismatic, and self-confident, sometimes intelligent, and persuasive. We’re initially attracted to these people because we perceive that they have something we lack. They’re often viewed with secret admiration, and even envy.
Their downfall will be that they manage to persuade themselves of their own deluded PR. It is at this point that he will do something so stupid, or intolerable, or offensive to others that he will self-destruct rather than correct course. Individuals like this often blow up in spectacular, even public fashion. This is the part thats fun to watch. It’s why people cheered when the high-flying dot com executives who were throwing million dollar kid’s birthday parties on the company share holder’s dime finally began to be frog marched out of their expensive homes in handcuffs. Its why attendees at Ken Lays funeral were more likely to be there to make sure, than to pay respects. Sure, these people may have temporarily inspired those around them and sucked them into their wonderlands, where they were dizzy and disoriented by their success. In fact, superficial success validates everything these kinds of people do. Its all they, their cohorts, and groupies need as proof of the validity of everything they do. For the entrepreneurial sociopath, success excuses his behavior, and his bizarre self-concept becomes a substitute for reality. He is surrounded by supporters who worship him and believe he can do no wrong. These loyalties often persist even when their empire is crumbling. The community may even admire him, and justice rarely pursues him.
His incredible drive and ambition to achieve success is very attractive in spite of the fact that he has no qualms about how he goes about it. People see the energy, drive, and focus- qualities entrepreneurial sociopaths seem to possess in abundanceand they secretly wish they had these same qualities. Decent people and especially non-entrepreneurs cannot understand this properly. To us, the right thing seems so obvious yet the entrepreneurial sociopath deals with evidence that he may be mistaken about things with a selective perception of the world around him. He compartmentalizes negative events and ignores their consequences. The entrepreneurial sociopath dismisses reality in favor of his own worldview. He deals with critics by rationalizing his own behavior and attacking their credibility. Hes developed a way of thinking that lets him behave immorally, even illegally by demonizing the forces arrayed against him, and there are forces arrayed against these people in the late stages of their self-destruction.
Like Al Pacinos character, Scarface the first victims go without justice, or even a notice by the rest of the world. Later, gradually more powerful people are offended and a united front begins to develop between the unlikeliest of allies. Insignificant at first, but growing in power, determination, and ferocity as the months and years go on; soon the trail of bodies rises up against him.
When the world caves in on the entrepreneurial sociopath, hell still be surrounded by admirers who are driven by their own nefarious motives, who will adopt his pattern of thinking and dealing with the world. After all, the people around him have two choices in dealing with him: leave, or be ostracized (for now). However, hes constructed an empire with do defenses for the day of trouble which will surely come. When hes down, the scoundrels who surround him will kick him; and the weak minded who were initially taken in by him will flee. Since his fragile ego requires that he attract only those he has influence over, he wont have anyone left when his influence dissipates. His response will be to recruit new minor-league players and attempt to rebuild his empire. Theyll be powerless to do anything for him. Eventually, his reputation will precede him and the recruiting efforts will get substantially more difficult. He will neither stop, nor repent. Do not think that the entrepreneurial sociopath will ever give up, or give in. He wont. He is the type of person who, if arrested and jailed, will be protesting his innocence the whole time, doing TV interviews and writing books from prison. Whether actually finally losing a lawsuit, or being jailed, or fined when his spectacular world finally blows up, the one thing hell never be is sorry.
Part II: Dealing With The Entrepreneurial Sociopath coming soon
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 29th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
Twenty-one years ago I made a choice. At the time it seemed so simple and insignificant. I sat there with three questions as I pondered the opportunity: Who would know? Who would care? And the cost what cost? Little did I know at the time that every, literally every, choice has a consequence. That is a universal law a spiritual law that governs us alljust like gravity.
Anyone that knew me, at the time, would have said that I was basically an honest and ethical person. I was respected in my community, a community and civic leader, active in my church, serving as music director. No one, not even I, would have suspected that ten years later that I would be an inmate in Federal Prison.
Have you ever found yourself over-extended? I did and I admit that I liked that lifestyle. The only problem was my bank account couldnt support that lifestyle. This became the groundwork for the seed to be planted.
Throughout our lives, in fact many times during our lives, we are faced with temptations. It is not the temptation that’s the issue; it’s how we respond to it that defines us. In my case, I was more concerned with maintaining the illusion of success than I was with my own honesty and integrity.
After one Christmas, some twenty years ago, I received a call from my local banker, who said, Chuck, we noticed that you’re behind in your house payment. Is their problem? Now, being a successful tax partner in a CPA firm, I certainly did not want to appear to be incapable of managing my own money. So, of course, I suggested that his records were wrong and asked him to check again. The reality was, however, I was behind.
I had a problem. I needed money! Then, it hit me. I was the trustee of a trust. Why not borrow money from the trust? So, I put on my trustee hat. I looked at myself and said, Don’t you need to borrow some money? And as I took my trustee hat off, I replied, Why, yes I do. And with that little interchange, I stole money from the trust and changed my life forever. I planted the seed into the groundwork I laid.
Have you ever had one of those moments in your life, when you wish you could just rewind the tape? You wish you could just do it over? That was one of those moments. The fact is, when you make a choice, you have to accept the consequences. By my choice, I set the consequence in motion.
Therefore, I called the banker back, and apologizing profusely said, My wife pays the bills. Considering this was our first Christmas with our new son, she must’ve just overlooked the house payment. I’ll make sure you receive it today. Of course, I took the stolen money and made the payment.
Three months later, I paid back the trust. I convinced myself that it was just a loan. Unfortunately, I found out it was easy. Nobody was the wiser. It was easy to take money, in order to maintain the illusion. Thus, over the next several years, I took more.
Ten years later I found myself an inmate in Federal prison. I was reaping the consequences of the choices I made. From that first experience, I set into motion an outcome that would define my life forever. The following is an excerpt from my prison memoirs. Perhaps it can give you a glimpse of the reality of consequences one might face.
October 7, 1995. It’s Saturday morning and I just had my first prison visit. As I walked out of the visitation room, several of the inmates were standing outside near the make shift barbershop. Buck was standing there, so I stopped. From that vantage point, inmates can see their loved ones leave.
I can’t begin to describe how moving this experience was. Loved ones waving to the inmates, children hollering I love you Daddy, inmates waving in return. Buck said this was the saddest time for him. He saw his family leave, as I saw you leave. I choked back tears then, but feel the depth of emotion now.
As I write this now, I would prefer to be away from here. How precious is freedom, and how much we take it for granted. There is wonderful humanity here — truly fine people, who made the wrong choice. Still, by the grace of God, I am protected. I have clothing, shelter and food.
We all seem to keep up this tough faade — I guess it’s a form of protection. But deep down, there’s a level of sadness. Many have it worse than me. For now, I need to get outside. I know some changes are taking place. And yet I feel I have a long way to go.
Now, 2007 some twenty years after the crime and eleven years since Ive seen the inside of a prison, I know the law of reaping and sowing in greater detail. I sowed the wrong seeds and reaped, what most would describe as, a negative harvest. Yet, over time I have seen the law applied in more positive ways than I can imagine.
Today I am planting good seeds. Through accepting responsibility and living an ethical life, I have been given a second chance. I am blessed to serve as a Sales Executive in a Publicly Traded Company; teaching many people how to improve their lives through success in sales. Likewise, through my efforts in speaking, various groups allow me to share my direct experiences of reaping and sowing therefore, providing a framework for their personal growth.
We all will eventually reap what we sow that is a spiritual truth. The question is, will we enjoy the consequences of our choices? And believe me, there are always consequences to every choice we make.
Chuck openly shares the experiences of his life through his keynote address: Success Beyond Illusion or Ethics: Negative Consequences Positive Results.
On a crisp October day in 1995, Chuck Gallagher took 23 physical steps opened a door and began a new experience that was life-changing. Gallagher explores that experience and the success that followed while involving the reader in ways that could be life-altering for them. Gallagher captures the heart of the audience in an honest way that deals with human emotion. For information on Chucks keynotes and workshops go to http://www.chuckgallagher.com or for a free ezine on Ethical Choices contact Chuck at chuck@chuckgallagher.com
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 28th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
I took a course in social deviance several years ago. What this course helped me understand is that societies and cultures have their own definitions of values and they exist on a continuum. Anything outside the boarders of the continuum is deviant. In relation to values, both ultraliberal and ultraconservative are inappropriate values within the society or cultures definition. The problem with this is how one society and another define the same value.
When one experiences a significant emotional event it may tear the fabric of their values leaving them with the options you identify of confirmation, rejection, or modification. Further, when one wants to assimilate into a new culture, one tends to accept the values of that culture in spite of ones acculturated values.
We have evidence of this from our study of Pauls letters last term. Paul had the option to reject his calling. He did modify his values accepting the values of the new sect growing out of Jerusalem.
We read an interesting argument in Joas (2000) on self and values. We base our value system on how we define ourselves, a declaration of what we commit to and from what we distance ourselves. Therefore, our self-defining becomes a strongly valued good (pg. 130). We make qualitative distinctions on our actions creating a value preference self-defining what is important.
Joas’ suggestion takes into account life-long development of values through interaction with others. Johnson (2005) writes of casting light that spiritual development goes through several stages. At the primal level, spiritual development is of trust of parents and caregivers. Progressing, one begins to internalize beliefs and values of family and those barrowed from others, until one has an individuative-reflective faith (pg 111) of doubt and question. At mid-life, one accepts others beliefs and values and may reach the stage universalizing faith (pg. 112) desiring to serve a greater good beyond oneself.
In a biblical world view, both seem supporting Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:11, When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
Joas (2000) opens us to a new level of value development through the internalizing of new experiences and interpretation of complex activity in which we strive for harmony (pg. 135). Values change based on experience coupled with new experiences and new ways of life and practices (pg. 135).
Leaders within organizations who are founded spiritually display inward, outward, and corporate disciplines that aid in developing new values in workers. Inward values include disciplines of meditation, prayer, fasting, and study. Outward disciplines involve simplicity, solitude, submission, and service. Corporate disciplines shown by leaders are confession, worship, guidance, and celebration. Johnson (2005) presents these 12 disciplines of individual and corporate values as a way to seek a level of leader servanthood.
Compare Joas and Johnson with the spiritual gifts found in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, the similarity is striking.
References:
Holy Bible: New International Version
Joas, H. (2000). The Genesis of Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, C. E. (2005). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers.
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 28th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
Government regulation and public awareness are external forces that have increased the social responsibility of business. But business decisions are made within the company. Two contrasting philosophies, or models, define the range of management attitudes toward social responsibility; the economic and the socioeconomic model.
According to the traditional concept of business, a firm exists to produce quality goods and services, earn a reasonable profit and provide jobs. In line with this concept, the economic model of social responsibility holds that society will benefit more when business is left alone to produce and market profitable products that society needs. To the manager who adopts this traditional attitude, social responsibility is someone else’s job. After all, stockholders invest in a corporation to earn a return on their investment, not because the firm is socially responsible and the firm is legally obligated to act in the economic interest of its stockholders.
In contrast, some managers believe they have the responsibility not only to stockholders, but also to customers, employees, suppliers, and the general public. This broader view is referred to as the socioeconomic model of social responsibility. It places emphasis not only on profits but also on the impact of business decisions on society. Recently, increasing numbers of managers and firms have adopted the socioeconomic model and they have done so for at least three reasons. First, a business is dominated by the corporate form of ownership and the corporation is a creation of society. Second, many firms are beginning to take pride in their social responsibility records. Third, many business people believe it is in their best interest to take the initiative in this area, prior to their competitors.
The merits of the economic and the socioeconomic models have been debated for years by business owners, managers, customers, and government officials. Each side seems to have four major arguments to reinforce its viewpoint. Proponents of the socioeconomic model maintain that a business must be more than simply seek profits to support their position and they offer that businesses cannot ignore social issues because a business is a part of our society. Moreover, a business has the technical, financial, and managerial resources that are needed to tackle today’s complex social issues. Additionally, by helping resolve social issues, business can create a more stable environment for long-term profitability. Finally, proponents of socially responsible decision making practices argue that these types of tactics can prevent increased government intervention, which would force businesses to do what they fail to do voluntarily. All these arguments are based on the assumption that a business has a responsibility not only to stockholders but also to customers, employees, suppliers and the general public.
Opponents of the socioeconomic model argue that a business should do what it does best; earn a profit by manufacturing and marketing products that people want. Those who support their position argue that business managers are primarily responsible to stockholders, so management must be concerned with providing a return on owners’ investment. Furthermore, corporate time, money and talent should be used to maximize profits, not to solve society’s problems. Also, social problems affect society in general, so individual businesses should not be expected to sole these problems. In addition, social issues are the responsibility of government officials who are elected for that purpose and who are accountable to the voters for their decision. These arguments are obviously based on the assumption that the primary objective of business is to earn profits, whereas government and social institutions should deal with social problems.
Jonathon Hardcastle writes articles on many topics including Employment, Business, and Real Estate
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 27th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
Men cease to interest us when we find their limitations. The sin is limitations. As soon as you once come up to a mans limitations, it is all over with him.
Emerson
In todays society, personal and group ethics shape the value formation in organizations. Ethics and organizational culture can impact the success of an organization in the following ways: (a) group cultures influence ethical behavior more than the sum of their individual ethics, (b) ethic reasoning is a logical sequence where policies come last, making policies the result of ethical reasoning, not a substitute for it, and (c) ethics and culture gaps can only be reduced by preventing their root causes at the beginning of the process. Ethics in organizations are influenced more by the group ethics system (culture) than by the sum of the individual personal ethics systems.
Ethic plays a critical role in leadership. Ethics is defined as the code of moral principles that governs the behavior of a person/group to what is right. People will not respect a leader low in integrity. A leader cant trick them with promotions or bribe them with money. In the long run, character does count in an effective organization. Draft, an organization management expert, explains that leaders at the highest management levels develop internal moral standards that can often allow them to break laws if necessary.
A leaders unethical conduct brings about his own demise and shame of his organization. Therefore, it can be shown that effective leaders must have accountability mechanisms in place so that they wont hit any ethical mine fields. Can you imagine what happens in an organization without accountability?
Each individual brings their own personal beliefs into the workplace. Leaders are not the exception. An individuals family background, traditions, spiritual values, and experiences impact how the make moral decisions. At the medium development point, individuals learn to conform to the expectations of moral behavior defined by their peers and society. Most leaders at this junction are willing to following laws and society expectations.
However, the highest levels of value formation are individuals who develop their own internal set of standards. Therefore, these individuals develop their own ethical principles that become more important in their decision-making than any external expectations. This high arching principle allows them to make unethical decisions, such as break laws or compromise organizational values, because it allows them to sustain their moral principles internally. Obviously, values will continue to play a critical role in organizational development in the future.
References:
CNN (2005). Reid: White House owes an explanation. Received on October 31, 2005 from http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/30/leak.probe/index.html.
Ciulla, J.B. (1998). Ethics: The Heart of Leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Draft, R. (1995). Organization Theory & Design. Congress gets low ratings on ethics, honesty.
Harris, J. (April 12, 2005). In recent scandals, a rethinking of capitals conventional wisdom. Washington Post.
Heuser, B. (2005). The Ethics of Social Cohesion. Peabody Journal of Education. 80(4), pp.8-15.
Kern, C. (2003). Creating and Sustaining an Ethical Workplace Culture, Pepperdine University.
King, S. (2006). The Moral Manager. Public Integrity. 8(2), pp.113-133.
Lester, W. (2005). Associated Press. Congress gets low ratings on ethics, honesty.
Nelson, M. (1994). Why Americans hate Politics and Politicians. Virginia Quarterly Review. 70(4), p.636, 18p.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. Delhi, India: Pearson Education, Inc.
2006 by Daryl D. Green
Daryl D. Green has published over 100 articles in the field of decision-making (personal and organizational), leadership, and organizational behavior. Mr. Green is also the author of four books, including More than a Conqueror: Achieving Personal Fulfillment in Government Service. Do you want to improve your life? Do you want to make better decisions? If you answer “yes,” then go to the ‘master decision-making’ website at http://www.darylgreen.org
To Blame or Not To BlameA man can fall many times, but he isnt a failure until he begins to blame somebody else. (John Burroughs)Fire her, she set me up! John yelled quite loudly. He was incredibly angry and for good reason. However, he was really angry at the wrong person. What he was really saying was […]
Written by info on December 26th, 2007 with comments disabled.
Read more articles on ethics.
« Older articles
No newer articles