Dan Erwin

Must-Read (and View) on Today's Conflicted World

A blueprint to actually fix America's police. In this article by a professor of law, a former deputy chief of police and a criminology professor, the three argue very intelligently that we know what to do to stop police violence, but there's not the will to do it.  https://bit.ly/2A8aGc0

How the world can avoid screwing up the response to the next covid-19 again. Begley and Branswell, two of our very best science writers, lay out a highly useful and informative strategy to avoid getting caught with our pants down. They avoid the magic stuff, like "invent a vaccine." https://bit.ly/3eZnz6O

What does the shocking unemployment report really mean? The Atlantic's Derek Thompson writes that no one is sure whether this is a dead-cat economic bounce or the beginning of a glorious summer of economic recovery. He tries to figure it out for himself, gives up, and turns to especially thoughtful economist who talks about the answer to his question with two unusual terms: suppression and recession--a unique analysis that sounds accurate. https://bit.ly/374Sjka

James Mattis denounces Trump. He finally breaks his silence, tells you why he opens up and then explains our presidential predicament. https://bit.ly/37i2zWF 

With protests, the 'bright side' and 'dark side' of America are on display. With two straightforward conclusions, the sociologist, Harvard's Orlando Patterson, explains our historical predicament: the background for Mattis. https://on.msnbc.com/3eUQcCk

The Wasted Attention to Human Foibles

Some time ago I heard David Brooks comment that the American public pays way too much attention to human foibles.  And in an astute Journal article, Joe Queenan argued the same case. The Obama impeachment fantasy is another case in point. 

I learned years ago that paying much attention to a politician's foibles, especially when the person was near genius policy-wise, and the country needed his or her expertise, was often a horrible waste.  Richard Nixon, a documented dissembler, eventually had to go because of the Watergate Scandal, yet his contributions to international relations are among the greatest of the 20th century:  successfully negotiated a cease-fire with Vietnam, opened the People's Republic of China and initiated detente with the Soviet Union.  

In my mind, significant expertise that benefits the the public community usually trumps personal foibles.  Inevitably, therefore, I had no difficulty admitting that Bill Clinton was a sexual jerk with a zipper problem.  And as far as I was concerned, that was his problem, not worthy of censure, impeachment or discussion.  His expertise in many areas of national importance was impeccable--and the nation as a whole would have been better off if Clinton's sexual peccadilloes had been ignored.  As David Gergen, advisor to three Republican presidents, has since pointed out--on many policy issues Clinton was a genius.  Gergen points specifically to ...

All Ethical Systems are Flawed

I readily agree with the current push for business ethics. Still, it’s important to recognize that not only are all ethical systems flawed, but some are deeply flawed. They are culturally bound. That’s a way of saying that what’s wrong in one culture is not necessarily wrong in another. For example, most in the English-speaking world view the Ten Commandments as an ethical guideline. So you’d think it was in stone. Not so. The Saints Augustine and Aquinas worked around the “commandment” against murder by formulating the Just War Doctrine—a means for justifying murder in some situations.

Recently I stumbled upon a unique set of broad guidelines by George Cheney and Phillip Tomkins that are not based on general ethical doctrine, but more upon communication. Particularly the role of persuasion in business. What often frustrates me about most ethical doctrines ...

Why Are Fewer Behaving Badly?

Leonard DiCaprio's Wolf of Wall Street is a bit late. Despite the economic rebound, research shows that behaving badly in business is down for the eighth year in a row. 

A report from The Ethics Resource Center (ERC), a 90-year-old non-profit, surveyed 6400 part-and full-time workers finding that 41% had observed misconduct in their offices last year. That's down from 45% in 2011 and from 55% at the highest point six years ago. The president of the ERC, Patricia Hamed, says that more companies are doing what they need to do.

The following is a summary of some of the relevant findings from 2013 contrasted with 2011 from the ERC's survey:

• Lying to employees, 17%, down from 20%.
• Violating company policies related to internet use, 12%, down from16%.
• Abusive behavior toward employees, 18%, down from 21%.
• Lying to customers, vendors, or the public, 10%, down from 12%.
• Abusing substances such as drugs or alcohol, 9%, down from 11%.
• Sexual harassment, 7%, down from 11%.
• Breaching customer or consumer privacy, 5%, down from 7%.
• Falsifying and/or manipulating financial reporting info, 3%, down from 5%.

Dr. Hamed indicated ...

You Will Never See a More Direct, So Straight-To-The-Point, No-BS Take on the Rich. But, Thankfully, It's Not Always True.

If people are highly successful in their professions they lose their senses. Sight goes. They have no time to look at pictures. Sound goes. They have no time to listen to music. Speech goes. They have no time for conversation. They lose their sense of proportion--the relations between one thing and another. Humanity goes. 

             --Virginia Woolf

Woolf's insight supports research from as early as 1925. Indeed, you can generalize from Freud's comment in "Those wrecked by success" that the highly successful occasionally fall ill precisely when a deeply-rooted and long-cherished wish has come to fulfillment. That "illness" is highly prohibitive, and can lead to the loss of senses and proportion.

There's a terrific amount of research clarifying the notion that wealth leads to selfishness. Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner of Berkeley ran several studies looking at whether wealth and prestige influences how much we care for others. In one study they discreetly boserved the behavior of drivers at a busy four-way interestection. The results were revealing: they found that luxury car drivers were more likely to cut off other motorists rather than waiting for their turn. This was . . .

Why Should You Keep Your Friends Close, But Your Enemies Closer?

I first posted this in November 2012, but since I'm working on a blog relating to the upside of Machiavelli's Prince I wanted to prep my readers. It wasn’t the Godfather’s Michael Corleone who first uttered this well-known dictum. Actually, it came from Machiavelli's "The Prince," the definitive primer for how to be a dictator and a politician. As I'm going to say next week, Machiavelli still matters. Furthermore, politics and business demand dirty hands, but there's actually nothing wrong with that. The ethics are simply different. Business execs and politicians shouldn't care. So stay tuned!

As a manager or leader it is inevitable that we’ll want to add to our knowledge base, try to sell ideas, get people on board and even change the direction of our organization. One of the involved persons just might be your enemy. That’s my basic rationale for acting on Machiavelli’s instinct.

In the business setting, I refer to “enemy” as a person you have to interact with, someone who’s competing for your resources, who doesn’t follow through on his commitments, whom you don’t trust, with whom the “chemistry” isn’t there, or who disagrees with your perspective from the ground up. These. . .

Scandalous Ethics: The Solutions Are Not Nearly as Simple as Most Believe

    Seek simplicity, then distrust it.
       --Alfred North Whitehead

As a result of the financial and ethical meltdown, both HR organizations and colleges are rethinking relevant corporate ethics and what to do about them. As all of us in business recognize, since the collapse of Enron, the fraud at Worldcom and the ethical meltdown of the finance industry, the media blasted away at the perpetrators and started searching for underlying causes. But the causes are not nearly as obvious as most think, and the solutions border on the impossible. 

The search for causes led to answers of varied sort: regulatory failure, bad apples and business incentives. Of course what the media and the public wanted were corporate and governmental changes to keep employees from acting unethically. The passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, for example, targeted changes to reduce corrupt behavior. But as all of us know, though the Sarbanes-Oxley functioned to reduce intentionally-corrupt behavior, it has become a gatekeeper for only certain kinds of ethical misbehavior.

In a thoughtful and intriguing survey in Social Justice Research, Harvard’s Max Bazerman and Mahzarin Banaji (see #1) update us on ethical research. What’s helpful is that the authors and colleagues put the ordinary unethical behavior front and center, and then argue for a different understanding and process for managing ethical misbehavior. I find it especially helpful because I’ve long been aware that the materials and classes on social ethics in my seminaries were an utter waste of time. And it took very few years after graduation from school to realize that now well-researched fact. Indeed, the research clearly finds that my typical background knowledge of ethics from both philosophy and theology plainly doesn’t work. There are far, far better insights and recommended practices from the field of social psychology.

What do we know about ordinary ethical failure?
Although the Sarbanes-Oxley is useful for intentional ethical failure, it bypasses the vast majority of unethical behaviors that occur without a person’s conscious awareness of engaging in them. Extensive research surfaces a number of reasons for ordinary ethical failure.

1. Ordinary unethical behaviors are based in the mechanics of the mind’s abilities and constraints. If you’ve worked through Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow, you know that the idea that our minds are susceptible to systematic errors is generally accepted. M R Banaji’s studies of prejudice reveal that these (un)ethical characteristics are not characteristic of an unethical group of people—but of all of us. Indeed, we’re masters at self-deception.
2. A great deal of evidence points to the limits of our conscious thinking. It reveals that many of our actions are impacted pervasively by our unconscious mind. Significantly, the research finds that much of our so-called “conscious decision-making” is an illusion. Indeed, we have little to no control over many intended actions.
3. The power of the unconscious has been revealed especially in studied of prejudice and bias. You can test yourself with the Implicit Association Test which gauges prejudicial attitudes or beliefs about certain groups of people. Candidly, in spite of my history of tolerance, I found the IAT immensely challenging, almost a shock to the system.
4. Further research reveals that we clearly overstate our potential for conscious feeling and thought determining our behaviors. You can see that when we assume that an act (of another) is motivated by feelings and thoughts that are “objective, fair and judicious,” but are obviously wrongheaded to the observer. (As I noted in #3, the unconscious surfaces strongly in issues of prejudice and bias.)

What resolutions are successful?
Historically, ethical behavior has been taught by an emphasis upon ethical theory, some discussion and application of ethical principles and the use of relevant cases. If you read the typical newspaper column written by your local ethics or philosophy teacher, you know what I mean. This approach assumes that by highlighting the moral implications of decision, business folk will be better able to “choose the moral path.” Research, however, points only to limited success using these methodologies.

In more fruitful research, Bazerman and Banaji argue that the problem with ethics training is that it focuses nearly solely on unethical practice. And if our unethical strategies are out of our awareness, that typical focus of the past centuries won’t work. Furthermore, in an aside, the authors point out that the most ethically challenged will give a deaf ear to such approaches.

Instead, the authors suggest that the best approach to ethical development is better aimed at understanding our psychological tendencies. To as significant degree this is the same approach that’s been applied to managerial decision making for the past 25 years, and the results have been fairly successful.

Fortunately, the process for becoming a skilled decision-maker (see #2) is no more complex than becoming a skilled athlete. It can be taught—and it can be learned. That means, for example, that if you understand that decision making is inevitably flawed and characterized by unconscious, feelings-oriented processes, that we’re inevitably overly confident, and that where we’re least capable we tend to be more certain, then we’d better be sure to go slowly in making important decisions. And most of all, that means we become systematic about our decisions and be sure to work at disconfirming them before we get very far down the path.

Flickr photo: Center for Study of Ethics at UVU

1. Bazerman, Max and Mahzarin Banaji, The Social Psychology of Ordinary Ethical Failures. Social Justice Research, V 17, No. 2, June 2004. 
2.  Russo, J Edward and Paul JH Schoemaker, Winning Decisions. (New York: Currency Doubleday),
2002. 

A Critical Look at Organizational Ethics

In Alexandra Levit’s glorious new book, Blind Spots: 10 Business Myths You Can’t Afford to Believe on Your New Path to Success, she states her rationale for writing in clear, uncompromising terms. Blindspots is a book written by a Gen-Yer for Gen-Yers basically because she was tired of reading silly theories and platitudes by business and career authors who sell their work by giving these myths credibility and by telling readers what they want to hear.

What’s clear is that we have a new page in business authenticity. She shrugs off the irrelevant, the obvious and the trite, landing us squarely in reality. In that same spirit, I want to think and talk critically about business ethics. Firms can say an awful lot about organizational ethics, and they have good reason to talk about the issue. The Ethics Resource Center released, in 2009, a survey which indicated that unethical behavior is prevalent in the workplace. Some of the relevant findings include:

• 22% observed abusive or intimidating behavior toward employees
• 16% observed a situation that places employee interests over organizational interests
• 11% observed violations of safety regulations
• 10% observed misreporting of actual time worked
• 14% observed discrimination on the basis of race, colord, gender, age, etc.
• 9% observed stealing or theft
• 7% observed sexual harassment
• 19% observed lying to employees, customers, vendors, or the public

These statistics demonstrate that unethical behavior does not seem to be rare in organizational life. The consequence is that organizations have attempted to establish ethics programs. About 70% of employees indicate that their organizations had implemented ethics training. And, the results also indicate that ethics training seems to have a positive effect on organizations.

In the spirit of Blindspots, not least because many have asked about ethics in organizations, I want to look at the realities of organizational ethics. I believe firmly that the more we understand the organizational setting, the more potential we have for work security and career success. And yeah, organizational ethics is one area where we need to get our head straight.

Organizational ethics is a very mixed bag. As a consequence, it’s important to stop thinking that the world is a just place. One of the first reactions many employees have is that the organization is going to be loyal to them. After all, ethical codes socialize an organization’s members into a culture of acceptable behavior, and announce that the organization is a worthy partner. That’s just not always true. Another reaction is that employees can be counted on to be honest in their dealings with the organization. That’s not true, either. So where is ethical reality in the typical organization?

Specialists in organizational communication have been looking at this question for some time. I’m especially indebted to the work of Modaff, Butler and Dewine in the growing field of organizational communication. They find that the answers are nuanced. So keep the fact that organizational ethics is a mixed bag in your front lobes. It’ll help you learn from all situations and all people, even those you don’t like or respect. Furthermore, it’ll keep you from naivete, and make it possible for you to deal with ethical and political reality.

1. Never forget that sometimes an organization’s code of ethics could be a public relations gimmick, designed to lure stakeholders into a false sense of security. And, of course, serve as a recruiting means for highly prized recruits.
2. An organizational code of ethics could be a means of imposing values upon employees upon employees that are not truly accepted by those employees. My own experience with that very issue created tensions impacting my productivity and personal life.
3. The code of ethics could be a way of regulating the behavior of employees in the interests of management.
4. Even though a code of ethics may encourage whistle-blowing, it’s clear from data that the worker who does so may face organizational retaliation.

As I write this, what crosses my mind is that the very people who educated me on the organization’s ethical realities were not low level employees or managers. They were senior execs, people who’d achieved at the highest rungs of organizational life. Once they became clients and friends they regularly urged me to deal with the inherent negative conflicts of corporate reality. These same execs who might reinforce the ethical codes were also telling me that I needed to recognize the implications of these rules. To recognize them meant that I was able to be more vigilant and proactive to ensure my own success. Those execs were very good at the process. Understanding these issues can also serve your interests.

Elie Wiesel on the Sexual Imbroglio

Although some of the articles on the current narcissism of public figures can be voyeuristic, Elie Wiesel put it all in a unique context. Here's his fascinating Talmudic saying, which pulls together the acts of betrayal with the cultural and historic implications.

In expressing sadness for Strauss-Kahn's wife, Anne Sinclair, the very well-known French journalist, Wiesel reminds us of the Talmudic saying:

No one is the owner of his instincts. But controlling them, that is civilization.

Anne Sinclair's comments, April 30, regarding the wedding of Prince William provide even further insight into her rich awareness of human life.

I can understand those who didn’t miss a crumb. As if, quite simply, we were like children who, before going to sleep, want a tale, a story with a princess and a dream, because real life catches up with you soon enough....

Reflecting on Sinclair and her French family's heritage of wealth, education and the Holocaust, those of us with a more ethical simplicity may be challenged to rethink our own perspectives.

Still, Peg Noonan adds a more explanatory comment when she writes that human sin is a constant, none are free, and anyone who is shocked by it is a fool or lying.

Quotation of the Week: On Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

Given the recent WikiLeaks, I want to surface a realistic understanding of the relationship between diplomacy and transparency with a quote from a 17th century British ambassador to Venice:

    A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country.

In a Washington Post op/ed, Throw the Book at WikiLeaks, Charles Krauthammer does an excellent job of explaining the damage done by WikiLeaks.  He calls the leak sabotage, arguing from a number of perspectives.  He points out that WikiLeaks damage our war-fighting capacity, are a blow to our ability to collect information, and make the U.S. look very bad.

You can almost sort levels of journalistic responsibility by how the various members of the media reported on the WikiLeaks.  Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times and the DesMoines Register, among our truly great newspapers, took a far more nuanced perspective.  Ha'aretz, the leading Israeli news media, was unsurprisingly cautious.  Even the Wall Street Journal was very careful in its writing, although the Journal's sister medium, Fox News, took the Leaks as an opportunity to badmouth government and the Democrats. 

My suspicion is that WikiLeaks may well be the nail in the coffin of transparency.  Thirty years ago when I was a faculty member at a theological seminary, transparency in psychological training was viewed as an absolute necessity in human relations.  But just a couple years ago, I had a drink with a former psych colleague of mine, and he referred to transparency as the "naivete" which he espoused early in his career.

Secrecy and deception are an inevitable, if not an occasional necessity, in all human relations.  And not just in diplomacy or negotiation.  No serious political compromise, corporate merger, complicated legal settlement, negotiation or even healthy human relationship could ever be managed without a reliable level of confidentiality and secrecy.  Even in the most intimate of human relationships, complete transparency is not always the best long term strategy for a healthy relationship.  Now that my beloved wife is beset with Alzheimer's, her occasional defensiveness becomes obvious, and our daughters and I chuckle about it openly, which reflects the acknowledged admission of its existence.  It's clear that our daughters and I have been aware of that defensiveness for years, but no longer need to keep it confidential.  My own attitude is that openly discussing that defensiveness was not especially useful in relations with my kids prior to her illness.  Much of our intimate relations are like that.  And that's a strength.  Besides, there's intriguing research that indicates that the best marriages survive because of the male's deference to his spouse.  I've followed that rule for years and found deference, confidentiality and secrecy, even though obvious, very useful strategies for a rich relationship. 

After all, as research has shown, lying is ubiquitous in the brain.  Max Bazerman and his Harvard colleagues' research has made clear that we all lie.  And though they believe it not to be especially so, they admit to its occasional usefulness.  So there are plenty of occasions in which transparency is not a useful strategy.  My own attitude is that the huge majority of the time truth-telling is the route to go.  For example, I despise sucking up and distrust those who do.  I've worked diligently to gain my reputation as a straight shooter.  But white lies, protective lying, and diplomatic lying are not only useful strategies, but can be a form of highly liberating street smarts.

Yeah.  I've pushed the envelope on this.  But largely to make the point that transparecy can be destructive.  The rest of the time, you'll get kudos for authenticity. And never forget that deception and lying require a lot of energy.  Energy that sometimes can be better used.