After a workshop, Paul (not his real name) told me he still has a 10-year-old scar from the time he quit a good job rather than lie.

When his boss asked him to issue a press release containing patently false statements, he refused, putting his employee badge on the table. His boss calmly handed the badge back, saying, "Think this over. Why throw away a good job and a promising career?"

Paul walked out so frustrated and frightened, he had to find a private place to cry. What’s worse, he said his act of moral courage was a meaningless waste.

Someone else issued the press release, and his boss’s career flourished. "It took me years to find a job as good as that one, and my family suffered," he added. "So what good did my integrity do for anyone?"

Paul was looking for validation of his principled stance in the wrong place. We exercise integrity not to get what we want, but to be what we want. Integrity isn’t about winning. It’s about staying whole and being worthy of self-respect and the esteem of loved ones. It’s about being honorable, not as a success strategy but a life choice.

Although Paul suffered because of his moral courage, he would have suffered far worse had he betrayed his values. While he didn’t appreciate it at the time, he preserved for himself and his family something far more valuable than his job – his honor.

It’s no accident that he now has a better job and a better boss with no pressures to cheat or lie.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comment (8)

Today, I want to talk about the qualities that generate trust.

First, I want to make clear that I’m talking about being trustworthy, not about trusting others. There’s a relationship between the two concepts, but a decision to trust another is a choice, not a moral obligation. Being trustworthy, however, is an indispensable aspect of good character. We should always act so as to be worthy of trust -- not because it’s wise but because it’s the right way to live.

Being worthy of full-bodied trust entails two distinct qualities: character and competence.

The attribute we first associate with trustworthy behavior is integrity. This crucial aspect of good character is demonstrated through scrupulous honesty and moral courage. If we want people to trust us or our organization, they must believe we’ll consistently do the right thing, regardless of circumstances or pressures.

Other aspects of character include accountability and fairness. People trust those who accept responsibility for their choices and don’t palm off blame to others. It’s also important to be regarded as fundamentally fair.

But in business, confidence in character is not enough. Trust also involves the conviction that the person or organization will successfully do what is expected. This competency dimension embraces faith in ability, knowledge, and judgment as well as a belief that the person or organization will be reliable and responsive.

Reliability is established through diligence and follow-through while responsiveness involves respectful communication and demonstrated concern.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Comment (2)

In the early nineties, I was asked to spend a full day talking about ethics with the entire California Senate. I was their punishment. Three senators had been convicted the previous year, and voters had passed an ethics initiative requiring legislators to receive education on ethical principles.

This was a high-profile, high-prestige program, and I didn’t want to be naïve about Sacramento’s political realities and rationalizations. I spent days interviewing senators and staffers.

During one interview, a senior staffer confided, "We need this program. People lie a lot up here."

I wondered if I should act surprised. ("Lying in politics? I’m shocked!") But before I could respond, the staffer added, "I hardly ever lie."

"Gee," I thought, "do you hardly ever take bribes?"

Although his statement about lying sounded like a confession, he wasn’t embarrassed at all. In fact, he was proud. "Hardly ever lying" made him feel morally superior. In a culture where lying is common, the occasional liar feels like a saint. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

I’ve heard variations of this justification ("I’m not so bad as long as others are worse") so many times that I’ve given it a name: The Doctrine of Relative Filth.

It’s a rationalization used by cheating athletes and coaches, dishonest businessmen, and others to minimize their moral shortcomings by comparing themselves to others who have even lower standards.

What a pathetic defense! People of character aren’t satisfied being better than someone else. They strive to be the best they can be.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comment (6)

"These are the times that try men’s souls."

This is the opening line in a 1776 pamphlet by Thomas Paine calling on fellow citizens to create a new government based on noble principles like truth, honor, justice, respect for human dignity, and compassion.

Looking at the way we’re trying to elect a President leads me to believe that our commitment to these historic American values, rooted not only in our founding documents but in the character of our favorite heroes from George Washington to Superman, has faltered.

During the Army-McCarthy Hearings – a low point in American history marked by blacklisting and persecution – U.S. Army attorney Joseph Welch exposed the conscienceless nature of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s character assassinations when he asked, “Senator, have you no shame?”

That same question could be asked of political partisans in the current election who are sinking to new lows in efforts to destroy opposing candidates, the media who seek out and repeat every negative inference, and the public (maybe including you) who condone distortions and unproven allegations and exaggerate the importance of any statement, act, or relationship that puts a candidate in a bad light.

Yes, each of the remaining candidates has flaws and vulnerabilities, but they’re the best we’ve got. One of them is going to be the next President of the United States.

Let’s recommit ourselves to truth, honor, justice, fair play, respect for human dignity, and compassion. Let’s discourage the mutilation of these Americans and let them tell us what they’ll do if elected.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Comment (7)

If a person asserted a Constitutional right to prevent the government from doing something the President or the Congress wanted to do, would you call him or her a conservative or a liberal? Would you support or oppose the position?

In today’s blindly partisan world, the answer would seem to depend on what right the person was asserting and whether you sympathize with the claim.

Thus, if someone opposes laws allowing gay marriages or abortions or restricting gun ownership, you’re likely to label her a conservative. If you have conservative leanings, you’d probably support her.

On the other hand, if the claim opposes attempts to limit free speech, supports laws providing free medical care, or prohibits torture, the person waving the Constitutional flag would likely be called a liberal. If you agree with him, you’re likely to approve his use of the Constitution.

My point is, many people only see the world through the clouded lenses of their political and social ideologies. They subordinate principles to partisanship and create a world where those who agree with them are inherently smart and good and those who don’t are stupid and evil.

Partisanship often leads to prejudice, precluding the fair evaluation of new facts. It also leads to self-righteousness and intolerance. The problem is not with deeply held convictions, it’s that too many people think that the more intensely they believe something, the more likely it is that they’re right.

Ranting and name-calling by both the left and right do a disservice to our country. They promote picking sides rather than analyzing issues.

The social positions of people of character are governed by reflective reasoning, not reflexive responses; by logic, not loyalty; and by consistency with enduring principles, not political parties.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

*So, what do you think, readers? Is Michael liberal or conservative? Are you sure? For two readers' viewpoints, click here and here.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comment (6)

Here are three suggestions for parents of young teens, all learned through my own mistakes:

First, remember that with emerging demands for independence, worries about peer acceptance, pressures of school and extracurricular activities, and a continuous search for self-identity, adolescents are on a physical and emotional roller coaster.

Like every generation before them (including yours), teens are often arrogant and over-confident about their knowledge and your ignorance and deeply insecure about most other things. They will make mistakes, behave badly, and be thoroughly self-absorbed. Although they want you to be less involved in their life, they actually need you more. Despite continual battles, if you’re open, you will experience glorious moments that both of you will cherish all your lives.

Second, be firm, but choose your battles carefully. Don’t back down when dealing with important principles, but don’t make every issue a hill you’re willing to die on either. Be willing to lose occasionally and give in graciously.

Third, don’t belittle or underestimate the importance of their feelings. It may seem like they’re over-reacting, but teens feel emotions like embarrassment, loneliness, insecurity, frustration, and love truly and intensely.

It’s disrespectful to minimize or discount these feelings with useless advice like "You’ll get over it" or "Everyone feels that way." Nor is it helpful to dismiss or invalidate an emotion by saying "You shouldn’t feel that way."

Teens can be hard to love, but be patient. Soon they will be the parents of your grandchildren.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comment (5)

One of the toughest jobs in the world is being a teenager. Everything is in transition. Everything is intense -- even apathy.

Kids on the brink of adulthood have to cope with inconsistencies and conflicts. The desire to be special and different clashes with the need to belong and fit in. The desire for independence collides with an aversion to self-reliance and personal responsibility.

Here are five suggestions for improving the journey through adolescence:

1. Be yourself. Mindless conformity is a prison. Express yourself authentically and don’t be afraid to stand out. But don’t dress or behave in extreme ways just to be different or to prove you can. You don’t need orange hair, a nose ring, or tattoos to be special. In the end, it’s more important to be respected than noticed.

2. Don’t expect too much or settle for too little. Don’t expect anyone else to make you happy, but don’t allow others to treat you badly either. Hang out with people who bring out the best in you, and be the kind of person who brings out the best in others.

3. Responsibility is a privilege, not a penalty. Dependability and self-reliance are the tickets to freedom and independence. Don’t waste energy resisting what you have to do. Win others’ trust by doing what you should do.

4. Think ahead. Every act has a consequence. The choices you make today will shape tomorrow. Pleasure lasts for a moment, but happiness lasts much longer. Just because it feels good doesn’t make it good.

5. Take charge of your life. Your life is your ship. Be the captain, not a passenger. Figure out what needs to be done to improve your life and make it happen. Your attitudes are more important than your aptitudes. You can’t control what happens to you, but you can control what happens in you. Don’t whine, win.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:16 AM | Permalink | Comment (13)

Why did former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer cheat on his wife and pay thousands of dollars for call girls? Why does anyone cheat on one’s spouse?

These profound questions have dominated a great deal of national press lately. Detailed stories making Spitzer’s hooker a bankable celebrity are offensive enough, but the parade of expert opinions sounding off on the psychology of Mr. Spitzer and other cheaters is crazy.

Most of the theories try to get into the head of the cheater. Pretending that it’s really complex, different experts have attributed Spitzerish conduct to deep insecurities, self hatred, arrogance, and self-indulgence. But the worst theory came from radio advice commentator Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

After she implied on national TV that a cheating husband is a symptom of an inadequate wife, she was asked, “Are you saying women should feel guilty that they drove their man to cheat?”

Dr. Schlessinger explained, “The cheating was his decision to repair what’s damaged and to feed himself where he’s starving. Yes, I hold women responsible for tossing out perfectly good men by not treating them with the love and kindness and respect and attention they need.”

Thus, Mr. Spitzer’s wife, Silda, is twice victimized, first by her husband and then by Dr. Schlessinger.

Perhaps her outrageous remarks were made to attract attention to her new book. Or maybe that’s really what she believes. Either way, her logic is fatally flawed.

Is she really naïve to the fact that some men find the allure of other women irresistible regardless of the quality of their marriage? Throughout history, men have undone their careers and damaged their families by indulging their lustful feelings.

No explanation beyond moral weakness is necessary.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comment (58)

When young children start to learn new things, they commonly reject any help, declaring, "I want to do it myself!" Whatever happened to this growing flame of self-reliance and independence?

Why have so many young people replaced this youthful hunger for self-sufficiency with an entitlement mentality? Why are so many comfortable with their hands out and indifferent to the idea of keeping their heads high?

We need to do a better job promoting self-sufficiency as a good thing, as a mark of maturity, as a requirement of independence.

Self-sufficiency is the only road to meaningful personal freedom. Dependency always comes with strings attached. Young adults who still live with their parents or let them pay for rent or car payments have to expect unwanted efforts to influence or control their decisions.

Self-sufficiency is an important aspect of responsibility. People of character carry their own weight. They want to free others of the burden of providing for them.

Self-sufficiency is not simply a state of financial independence wished for by parents anxious to reclaim their incomes and homes. Self-sufficiency is, or at least should be, a genuinely prized source of self-respect and esteem, arising from the sense of freedom that comes with knowing we can thrive on our own without relying on the good will and resources of others.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Comment (13)

In the summer of my junior year in college I took a job as a door-to-door salesman for the Fuller Brush Company. My mother had just lost a long battle with cancer, and I wanted to earn enough money to have a photo of her turned into a painted portrait to give to my dad.

What I earned depended entirely on what I sold; there were no guarantees. Things went well at first, but then I hit a long bad streak. Hardly anyone was home and those who were just weren’t buying. What’s worse, some people were outright rude and literally slammed their doors in my face.

I was on the verge of quitting, but something my father used to tell me over and over stopped me: "Where there’s a will, there’s a way; where there’s not, there’s an alibi." I had always resented this simplistic mantra, but suddenly I got it.

I realized that every meaningful opportunity in life would stay behind closed doors that would never open unless I knocked on them. Beneath this simple insight was another: If I couldn’t muster the confidence and courage to knock on more doors despite the certainty of frustrating and unpleasant experiences, I would never make it.

I earned enough to buy the portrait, and it now hangs next to another one of my dad in the lobby of the Joseph and Edna Josephson Institute of Ethics, a nonprofit organization I founded in their honor.

I’m so glad my dad taught me to persist and grateful I learned that an important part of character is to just keep knocking.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comment (0)

Long ago, a woodsman saved the life of a leprechaun and was given one wish.

The woodsman thought for a long time and finally wished that each of his three daughters find a good husband. But the leprechaun was full of games.

"How am I to know what’s good in your mind? I’ll give them husbands, but you can name only one quality and it’s got to be the same for all. I can make them clever, strong, beautiful, rich -- you name it."

The woodsman said, "Give me men of good character."

The leprechaun wasn’t done playing. "How am I to know what good character is?"

"Do you have children?" asked the woodsman.

"I do," said the leprechaun.

"Do you love them?"

"More than life itself."

"Then give my girls the kind of men you would want for your children."

"Ah," the leprechaun said, "then you shall have honorable men with kind and loving hearts. And I’ll throw in strong conscience, too."

The woodsman was a shrewd man and a good father. He knew that the well-being and happiness of his children depended on the quality of their relationships. The quality of their relationships depended on the quality of the people they were with.

But what if the woodsman was asked what one quality he wanted in his own daughters? As a wise father, he would again have asked for good character.

Whether it’s in one’s spouse or oneself, cleverness, good looks, and money are nice, but in the end the most essential quality of a good life is good character.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Comment (3)

In Josephson Institute’s book of essays by prominent Americans, The Power of Character, Dr. Laura Schlessinger wrote that her radio show didn’t become a success until she abandoned the nonjudgmental strategy of the traditional psychologist/family counselor and began to challenge, chastise, and encourage her listeners to think of their behavior in terms of right and wrong.

Believing we’re all obligated to discern and honor moral boundaries and ethical principles, she popularized discussion of conscience and character, not as abstract concepts, but as personal obligations.

As a law professor, I felt a similar need to distance myself from the "Who am I to judge?" legalistic perspective taught in law school in favor of a more complex outlook that included moral judgment.

Sure, clients may prefer nonjudgmental advice focusing on what works rather than what’s right, and patients in counseling may prefer talking about feeling good rather than being good, but universal standards of right and wrong cannot be ignored.

The middle ground between self-righteous finger-wagging moralists who scold and condemn everyone who lives by different standards and the "whatever works for you" relativists who have no moral backbone at all is found by understanding that "Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose."

In other words, a person’s need for happiness or freedom does not justify endangering or injuring others. If the concept of character is to mean anything, we should judge and disapprove of untrustworthy, disrespectful, irresponsible, unfair, and unkind conduct.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:26 AM | Permalink | Comment (7)

"What are you gonna be when you grow up?" It's a serious question. As kids, we knew we were going to be something and to be something was to be someone. Even as our ambitions changed, we knew what we were going to be was important and it was our choice.

When I entered UCLA Law School in 1964, I wanted to do good, yet when I graduated three years later, I just wanted to do well. My life’s mission had changed, not as the result of conscious choice, but as a surrender to the momentum of an elaborate matchmaking ritual, the ultimate competition to get job offers from the most prestigious employers, to get the most hard-to-get jobs.

Money was definitely a factor, as almost all of us had student loans to pay off, but the larger force was a desire for validation. I was, by inclination and training, highly competitive, and getting a coveted job was the ultimate trophy. Intoxicated with a desire to win, I abandoned my wish to be significant in favor of being successful.

I was lucky. The tax firm I wanted to work for didn’t make me an offer, so I took a teaching position at the University of Michigan Law School. I loved teaching and stayed with it for nearly 20 years before I founded an ethics institute in honor of my parents.

You may start out intending to be the captain, but if you’re not careful, you may find yourself drifting in another direction, a passenger on your own ship. Your life is too important to be little.

Be what you want to be.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comment (4)

Abraham Lincoln was very concerned with character, but he was also aware of the importance of having a good reputation. He explained the difference this way: “Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”

Put another way, your reputation is what people think of you. Your character is what you actually are.

In a world preoccupied with image, it’s easy to worry too much about our reputation and too little about our character. Building a reputation is largely a public-relations project; building character requires us to focus on our values and actions. Noble rhetoric and good intentions aren’t enough.

What we’re looking for is moral strength based on ethical principles. Character is revealed by actions, not words, especially when there’s a gap between what we want to do and what we should do and when doing the right thing costs more than we want to pay.

Our character is revealed by how we deal with pressures and temptations. But it’s also disclosed by everyday actions, including what we say and do when we think no one is looking and we won’t get caught.

The way we treat people we think can’t help or hurt us (like housekeepers, waiters, and secretaries), tells more about our character than how we treat people we think are important. People who are honest, kind, and fair only when there’s something to gain shouldn’t be confused with people of real character who demonstrate these qualities habitually, under all circumstances.

Character is not a fancy coat we put on for show. It’s who we really are.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comment (4)

As Lily Tomlin said, “No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.”

In the past month, baseball legend Roger Clemens unconvincingly testified under oath that he never used steroids. Marion Jones, one of the greatest female athletes ever, enters prison for lying about using performance-enhancing drugs and for her role in a check-fraud scheme. And now, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, a public official of heroic proportions who stood for truth, justice, and incorruptible honor, is caught red-faced in the middle of a tawdry sex scandal.

Although his contrite public statement was vague — he confessed that he shamed his family, violated his own ethical standards, and let down the people he asked to trust him — it was widely reported that he paid more than $4,000 for a prostitute to travel from New York City to a hotel in Washington, D.C. And it wasn’t the first time.

The distraught look on his wife’s face as she stood next to him revealed the depth of her suffering. Can you imagine how his three teenage daughters are feeling?

Some apologists try to dismiss his indiscretion as a private matter and point out that the crime he committed is a misdemeanor. But this effort to minimize the moral significance of his indiscretion is foolish and futile — especially for a governor who was swept into office by a landslide because of his success as a law-and-order crusading attorney general.

First, his conduct was illegal, and the politics of the case make it likely he will be criminally charged (unless he makes a quick plea bargain in exchange for resigning). That means if he stays in office he will be occupied with endless legal and political strategy sessions that take him away from doing the people’s business.

Second, his decision to engage in conduct he knew would devastate and humiliate his family, destroy his political career, and damage his party is a staggering display of irresponsibility and bad judgment. How could a man who knows he’s under constant and intense scrutiny put his own legacy and the well-being of so many people he cares about at the mercy of prostitutes and criminals? How could a man who had done so much and had so much more to do give such a deadly weapon to his many righteously earned political enemies?

And finally, you don’t have to be a prude or a Puritan to realize there's something deeply wrong about purchasing sex from someone else’s daughter, however willing she might have been. With only a few notable exceptions, prostitution is illegal throughout the world to protect the exploitation of women.

In the end, this is just sad, sad, sad.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

(This is an expanded version of the commentary that aired on the radio.)

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comment (15)

During a seminar on ethics in the workplace, participants spoke about a wide array of unethical conduct they'd recently witnessed. They talked about high-level employees who lied on internal reports or blatantly took credit for the work of others and the intimidation or abuse of subordinates. These were clear-cut violations of organizational policy. Yet, in most cases the perpetrator escaped any serious sanction.

Executives, who have the responsibility to uphold organizational standards, seem to find an endless array of excuses to look the other way. And so the culture of many private and public institutions reflects a don't-rock-the-boat, avoid-confrontation-at-any-cost philosophy that undermines institutional integrity and morale.

When managers systematically allow employees to get away with forbidden behavior, they make a mockery of organizational policies and ethical rhetoric. What's worse, they cultivate seeds of inefficiency and corruption and demoralize employees who would willingly live up to higher standards of personal conduct. Every time we let a bad guy win, we weaken the resolve of dozens of ordinary folks who need to know that playing by the rules is not just for suckers.

How many organizations are mired in the quicksand of hypocrisy because they're led by executives who are too timid or ambitious to demand honorable behavior? Good organizations need good people — men and women of principle who can resist the seductions of short-term political expediency and overcome fears of litigation or unpopularity.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comment (11)

What’s causing the growing hole in our moral ozone? Why is cheating and lying so common in schools, on the sports field, and in business and politics? Apparently it’s a thing called pressure.

Kids are under pressure to get into college, athletes and coaches are under pressure to win, and according to a 2006 survey by the American Management Association, the pressure to meet business objectives and deadlines is the leading cause of unethical corporate behavior. The desires to further one’s career and to protect one's livelihood are the second and third reasons people lie or cheat.

In other words, people take ethical shortcuts to get what they want. DUH!

Why are we so willing to shift responsibility for every form of human weakness from the individual to the system? We don’t blame the liar; we blame the law. We don’t blame the cheater; we blame the test.

The implication is: We can’t expect people to be ethical when personal interest is at stake.

Please!

What we call pressures today used to be called temptations, and everyone knew a test of our character was our ability to resist temptations. Calling temptations pressures doesn’t change anything.

We must believe in and expect integrity and moral courage and not surrender when our principles are challenged. We need to expect good people to do what’s right, even when it’s difficult or costly.

Yes, lots of people act dishonorably in the face of pressure. But pressure is an explanation, not a justification. Pressures, temptations -- call them what you will -- are part of life. Sure, it would be helpful if we had less pressure, but it’s far more important that we have more character.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comment (8)

Last week, in the role of preacher, I told a story about a young boy who sang to his ailing infant sister, possibly helping her recover, in a commentary called “Keep Singing, Michael.” It’s a story I’ve told many times, but it always brings tears to my eyes. The original version I saw was attributed to Women’s Wear Daily and, to be honest, I didn’t know whether it was really true or not. I retold it because I just wanted to share it and its message about the power of love.

Yesterday, in the role of social critic, I expressed my moral outrage at movies and memoirs claiming to be true stories that were knowingly packed with pure fiction added for dramatic effect. I feel duped and manipulated when I'm induced to believe that fiction is nonfiction.

And so, today, I say mea culpa! I admit my own guilt.

Many listeners rightfully assumed that the Michael story was true and their belief magnified its emotional impact. As a few indignant listeners pointed out, the story is widely circulated in many versions, but it can’t be verified as true. In all probability, it’s a parable, a story invented to illustrate a moral lesson. And I knew that.

I tried to assuage my conscience by telling myself I’m a teacher, not a journalist, and that all teachers use parables. But that’s a shallow and sorry excuse. I know better. The fact that I sometimes do label a story as a parable or an unverified tale circulating on the Internet simply underlines my failure to consistently do so.

I owe you more. I beg your pardon. And I pledge to do better in the future. Like the Michael in my story, this Michael will keep on singing.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comment (18)

A few years ago I was enthralled by the movie A Beautiful Mind, which was promoted as the true story of John Nash, a Nobel Prize winning mathematician who suffered from severe mental illness. I loved the movie until I discovered that the film’s most fascinating parts were pure fiction.

I felt duped and was outraged and I wrote a commentary denouncing the fraud.

The dominant reaction was that I was naive to expect any movie-maker to feel constrained by the truth no matter how the film was labeled. Obviously, my view on the importance of truth was out of sync with common expectations.

This week I received a double-barreled assault on my sensibilities. Two different memoirs were exposed as complete fabrications.

One was a bestselling book in Europe that was about to be published in the U.S. It told of a young Jewish girl who trekked across Europe on foot during World War II searching for her parents while eluding the Nazis.

The other outed memoir purports to be the true life story of a half-white, half-Native American girl who grew up as a foster child among gang-bangers in South Los Angeles.

Some people find these hoaxes more amusing than upsetting. They seem shocked that anyone would be surprised or troubled to discover that books calling themselves nonfiction would be replete with made-up facts and outright fabrications.

Others, like me, are deeply disturbed, not merely at the conscienceless audacity of the lying authors, but by the fact that publishers made no serious effort to verify the authenticity of even the most fundamental biographical facts.

What do you think? Please post a comment and let me know.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

More: Below are some additional remarks about memoirs that I couldn't fit into the original commentary.

The term memoir comes from the French word memoire, which means memory. Thus a memoir is supposed to be composed of real and actual memories, an honest personal account of life experiences. Many memoirs are written by famous people, but I think some of the best ones are written by people no one had heard of. (Frank McCourt’s Angela’s Ashes is one of my favorites.)

What makes their stories publishable is that they give first-hand descriptions of unusually dramatic or interesting events or people.

The truth of memoirs became a major issue in 2005. Author James Frey sold nearly 4 million copies of A Million Little Pieces, a compelling memoir of his brutal life of drugs and crime. Passages about his struggles to overcome drug addiction were so vivid that they brought Oprah Winfrey to tears and she urged her audience to buy the book. In January of 2006 we learned that Frey had initially submitted the manuscript as a novel. After it was rejected by many publishers, he re-worked the book into a memoir. In the book, Frey boldly but falsely claims he is a drug addict, an alcoholic and a criminal. Oprah was mortified and she brought Frey back to her show to tell him so in front of her national audience of millions. The fact that Frey had made a fortune before the discovery surely made the burden of public humiliation easier to bear.

Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years — a bestseller in Europe, translated into 18 languages, and the basis for a hit French movie — tells the story of a little Belgian Jewish girl who walked on foot throughout Europe during the Holocaust years trying to find her parents and avoid being captured. She did so by hiding with packs of friendly wolves. The book was about to be published in the U.S., but a lawsuit led to an investigation of the book’s underlying claims. Misha Defonseca was exposed as a fraud. She wasn’t even Jewish.

In late February 2008 Love and Consequences was published. This critically acclaimed memoir presents the personal recollections of Margaret Jones, a half-white, half-Native American girl who grew up in South Los Angeles as a foster child among gang-bangers and spent her youth running drugs. Margaret Jones turned out to be Margaret Seltzer, an all-white Valley Girl who graduated from a private Episcopal day school. All the stuff about gangs and her troubled youth were lies.

The stories were so well written, and the events described so unusual, that these books read like novels. But what made them so deeply interesting is that they were true. Readers were amazed — these things really happened! Except they didn’t.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comment (26)

Parents, teachers, and managers have one thing in common: They have the power to tell somebody to do something.

Whether it’s washing the dishes, learning the metric system, or coming to work on time, there is a superior-subordinate relationship that includes the additional power to judge the quality of performance and impose discipline if expectations are not met.

There is, however, a moral responsibility to use this leadership power effectively (as measured by results) and ethically (as measured by the propriety of the methods used to attain the results).

The best parents, teachers, and managers use their authority fairly and respectfully, both because it’s the right thing to do and because it produces better results. And as they realize that building solid and durable relationships based on mutual trust and respect is more important in the long run than accomplishing a particular task, they avoid motivational techniques likely to undermine a relationship.

A powerful leadership insight comes from poet Maya Angelou who said, “People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

From a leadership point of view, the better you make others feel, the better they will do. It’s the perfect marriage between ethics and effectiveness.

Good leaders motivate positively. They generate commitment based on pride and desire. They make people feel valued, appreciated, confident, respected, and inspired. Weak leaders use negative tactics that evoke fear of shame or disdain. They leave people feeling resentful, discouraged, unsure, and apathetic – counterproductive attitudes that cause disengagement and alienation.

So how do you make people feel?

Do they feel better or worse about themselves? Do they desire or dread their interactions with you? Do they expect to be encouraged and praised or criticized and rebuked?

Good leaders get the best out of others by using the best of themselves.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comment (5)

Why are negative management practices so prevalent?

They include yelling, cursing, insulting (sometimes masked in sarcasm or masquerading as jokes), criticizing subordinates in front of others, threatening demotion or termination, and talking to adults as if they were children.

Why are so many managers insensitive to the demotivating impact of focusing almost exclusively on weaknesses and shortcomings without properly acknowledging successes and accomplishments?

Do they really believe that causing resentment, fear, or insecurity will produce better results than pride, self-confidence, and enthusiasm?

Some managers intentionally use negative tactics because they think it’s an effective way to get people to do what they’re told, but most managers characterized by the people who work for them as rude, inconsiderate, or abusive are totally unaware of how inappropriate or counterproductive their attempts to motivate are. They think they’re just being tough. The people under them think they’re just being jerks.

Many good people act badly when they become the boss because they’re under pressure from their own boss to get results. Maybe they’re simply mimicking the management styles of people they worked for. Or maybe they want to distinguish themselves from ineffective managers on the other extreme who try so hard to be everyone’s friend that they don’t set or achieve high goals or hold people accountable.

Whatever the reason, a far better approach is to treat everyone with respect by engaging and empowering others through inspiration and example. The best leaders bring out the best in people by making them feel good about themselves and their capabilities.

Inspiration is much more powerful than intimidation.

By the way, the same thing is true for parents and coaches.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:42 AM | Permalink | Comment (5)