A former successful college coach and athletic director once wrote me a note about the state of college sports.

The pressure to win in high-profile schools is so great, he said, that it’s almost impossible to resist rationalizing. When competitors cheat or engage in other unethical conduct, the tendency is to redefine the ground rules for competition rather than be at a disadvantage.

He compared the way win-hungry boosters blur the vision and undermine the integrity of coaches and administrators with the way money-hungry shareholders stress stock prices, which promotes accounting manipulation and other ethical shortcuts.

In sports, outsiders who aren't concerned with a college’s educational mission or notions of sportsmanship and character-building promote a “no excuses” demand on coaches that can transform an athletic program into a business driven by the pursuit of money and glory.

In business, shareholders (from day traders to money managers of mutual and pension funds) who aren’t concerned with the ethics or long-term viability of a company create pressures and incentives that can promote short-term decision-making and undermine the economic and moral health of their firm.

We need people to act as guardians who will understand and protect the soul of their enterprise. Coaches should be allowed to think about more than winning, and business executives should be given the opportunity to consider more than stock prices and short-term profits.

If we don’t recalibrate our incentive systems and insulate coaches and managers from unhealthy influences, things will only get worse.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:25 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

Sam, a supervisor, was dumbfounded as he watched Bill diligently dig holes while Chuck, after waiting a short interval, filled them. When he demanded an explanation, Bill said, “We’ve been doing this job for 10 years. What’s your problem?”

“Are you telling me that for 10 years you’ve been digging and filling empty holes?” Sam replied.

“Well, not exactly,” Bill said. “Until a few months ago, another fellow put a bush in the hole before Chuck filled it. But he retired and was never replaced.”

“Why didn’t you tell somebody?” Sam sputtered.

“You’re management,” Bill answered. “We figured you knew.”

While management is ultimately to blame when employees systematically waste time and money in thoughtless unproductive activity, we can’t let Bill and Chuck off the hook. Sure, it’s easy to hide behind the assumption that management stupidity has no bounds, but responsibility is a personal burden everyone carries.

Too many organizations are weighed down by practices equivalent to digging and filling holes because too many workers and managers engage in or ignore inefficient and ineffective activities.

Whether unaccountability is fed by laziness, ignorance, or fear, employees who surrender to the negative momentum of the workplace not only demean the value of their work but increase the likelihood that they’ll someday be out of work.

We can avoid our responsibilities, but we can’t avoid the consequences of avoiding our responsibilities. All of us are accountable for what we allow as well as what we do. If we want to make our lives more meaningful, we should be sure our work is meaningful.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 12:31 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

One problem with talking about business ethics is that there’s often a wide gap between rhetoric and reality. The reality is that business isn’t nearly as bad as some critics make it out to be and not nearly as good as its apologists contend. By the same token, ethics may not be as crucial to success as moralists make it out to be.

Yes, trust has been badly eroded by too much lying and cheating, even by basically decent people. Yet every day, people of character successfully overcome pressures and resist temptations to sacrifice ethics for expediency.

At the same time, well-meaning reformers often oversell the role of ethics in success. Asserting platitudes like “good ethics is good business” as if it were moral truth makes ethics vulnerable to cynics who will eagerly disprove the generality with a host of examples.

The truth is, good ethics sometimes is good business, but sometimes it’s not. It depends on one’s goals and how one defines good business. Sometimes, good ethics can end in bankruptcy. Of course, so can bad ethics.

A fairer statement would be: Good ethics can be a powerful business asset. Good things tend to happen to companies and individuals that consistently do the right thing, and bad things tend to happen to those that even occasionally do the wrong thing.

But the crucial point is that the moral obligation to live according to ethical principles isn’t dependent on whether it’s advantageous. People of character do the right thing in the pursuit of virtue, not self-interest.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:16 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (9)

After a workshop, Paul said he still has 10-year-old scars 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 to him 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. “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 is not 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 as a life choice. Although Paul suffered for a time because of his moral courage, he would have suffered far worse had he betrayed his values.

While he didn’t appreciate it, Paul preserved for himself and his family something far more valuable than his job – his honor. And it’s no accident that he now has a better job with no pressures to cheat or lie.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:16 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (8)

Here are seven truths I’ve discovered in my struggles to be an effective boss:

1. It’s not what you say that matters; it’s what people hear. Just because you said it doesn't mean they heard it. Just because you wrote it doesn’t mean they read it. Be sure your message is received and understood.


2. There are lots of things you don’t know and lots of people who hope you don’t find out. The boss rarely hears the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You’ve got to walk around, look around, listen, and ask direct questions.


3. Hire for character, train for skills. Integrity, responsibility, and the ability to work with others are vital competencies. You’ve got to screen out or weed out people you can’t believe or rely on or who are toxic to the team.


4. Settling for warm bodies turns one problem into two. You still have to get someone who’s right for the job, but first you have to deal with and remove the wrong person. If you can’t find the time to do it right, when will you find the time to do it over?


5. What you allow, you encourage. If you don’t enforce your values and rules, they’re not your values and they’re not rules.


6. Doing nothing is doing something. Indecision and inaction cause as much harm as poor decisions. Indecisiveness is incompetence.


7. It’s all about relationships. Your most important job is to get the most out of the people who work with you. You’ve got to be ready to be a boss, motivator, mentor, counselor, disciplinarian, or friend.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:51 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (3)

A sure way to elicit angry mail is to criticize common rationalizations. So I expected to be called a self-righteous purist who is out of touch with reality when I protested against a young man's decision to conceal from a new employer his commitment to start his Air Force tour of duty in three months.

Just because we're convinced that we have a moral right to something doesn't mean that others have a moral obligation to give it to us. The filter of self-interest inevitably distorts our perceptions about our rights and others' obligations. It's even harder to accept that wanting something, even needing it, is not a moral justification for lying, cheating, or stealing to get it. Moreover, most necessity claims are illusions. As Nietzsche said, "Necessity is not a fact; it's an interpretation."

When our children earnestly declare, "I really need it!" or "That's so unfair!" we don't take their claims at face value. We've got to be equally critical of our own rationalizations.

Remember, if it's OK for someone who "needs" a short-term job to lie or conceal important facts to get it, then it's equally OK for an employer to lie about only needing a short-term employee. If it's OK for a tenant who "needs" an apartment to lie about having pets, then we can't complain if the landlord falsely promises to install a new carpet.

Next time you feel justified in lying to get what you think you deserve, ask yourself if you'd feel the same way if you were the one being lied to.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 5:46 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (2)

Modern managers often utter clichés about wanting employees to think outside the box, take risks, and be creative. While I’m sure companies appreciate innovative breakthroughs that increase profits, productivity, or quality, the fact is that most organizations are inhospitable to those who challenge old ways of doing things, even practices that are inefficient, useless, or counterproductive.

I’ve talked before about employees’ obligation to pursue excellence. But managers have an equal if not larger duty to establish an atmosphere where employees are truly expected and willing to think and act in the best interests of the company and its customers.

According to Josephson Institute surveys, between one-fourth and one-third of all employees say there’s a kill the messenger tradition at their job, causing them to distort or conceal negative information or tailor data to give managers what they want to hear.

A sure sign that management hasn’t done enough to promote candor is when a manager asks, “Why didn’t someone tell me?” Companies must find ways to more effectively send the message that employees who produce and demand quality are to be prized, not penalized.

I’ve come to believe there’s never just one incompetent or unaccountable employee. There are at least two: the employee and the manager who keeps him or her employed.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:32 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

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

Executives, who are responsible for upholding organizational standards, seem to find an endless array of excuses to look the other way. Hence, the culture of many private and public institutions reflects a don’t-rock-the-boat, avoid-confrontation-at-any-cost philosophy that undermines 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 do live up to higher standards of personal conduct. Every time we let the bad guys win, we weaken the resolve of dozens of 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 9:16 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (7)

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately consulting with large companies concerned with strengthening their ethical culture.

Although I’m sure the leaders I work with care about ethics and virtue for their own sake, I know the driving force to seek outside assistance is self-interest. The risk of reputation-damaging and resource-draining charges resulting from improper conduct is so high that it’s a matter of prudence and responsible stewardship to stress ethical values and moral principles.

Yet changing or strengthening an organization’s culture is no simple task. We start with a questionnaire to identify vulnerabilities – attitudes and behaviors that could jeopardize the company.

The most common vulnerability we find is a management style that represses frank and open discussions about ethical concerns and discourages revelation of bad news.

Invariably, we discover that at least one in five employees admit they lied to their superior about something significant within the past year and at least one-third concealed or distorted negative information to avoid harmful career repercussions. Often, half or more employees say they remain silent rather than risk their boss’s anger, abuse, or disapproval. Thus, many questionable or improper actions go unreported and uncorrected – each one a scandal waiting to happen.

The antidote is explicit and credible corporate policies that promote accountability by making it clear that repressive management styles will not be tolerated and that every employee is encouraged and expected to muster the moral courage to report unwelcome facts and to voice dissenting opinions.

Meaningful improvement in business ethical culture requires persistent and pervasive efforts to create an environment that values and protects honesty, personal responsibility, and corporate integrity.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:42 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

Reach for the stars. Pursue goals beyond your grasp. These are good life strategies. We never know how much we can accomplish until we try.

But what happens when we’re told we must reach the stars or suffer consequences?

A common workplace strategy to spur employee achievement is to set aggressive productivity objectives that, like mechanical rabbits that lead racing greyhounds, are usually beyond reach. Benignly called “stretch goals” by those who set them, the idea is to generate maximum effort. A salesperson who’s expected to increase sales by 10 percent may only achieve a 6 percent gain, but that’s still pretty good.

But there’s a downside to this clever management technique. For one thing, it generates unhealthy stress and low morale when employees catch on to the game and resent being manipulated like racing dogs. For another, unrealistic stretch goals overemphasize short-term performance and encourage employees to conceal, ignore, and defer problems. Finally, some employees will simply cheat to make the numbers.

Organizational audits conducted by Josephson Institute reveal that a high percentage of employees who are pressured to achieve ever-escalating numerical goals manipulate numbers and distort reports. A significant number outright lie.

Pressure is no excuse for cheating, but it’s a frequent cause. Those who play the stretch goal game are accountable for the predictable side effects of relentlessly pursuing numbers, especially if they don’t place even greater emphasis on honesty and integrity.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:37 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

Management guru Peter Drucker advocated a practice he called planned abandonment. He stressed how important it is that managers develop the wisdom and courage to regularly review what their organization is doing and determine whether it's worth doing. He urged executives to note and resist the systemic and emotional forces that make it difficult to abandon activities that drain resources, detract from central goals, or otherwise impede progress.

Professor Drucker's insights about abandonment seem equally applicable to the management of our lives. Many of us continue to pursue unrealistic career goals or stay in unhealthy or nonconstructive relationships that ought to be abandoned because they keep us from moving upward and forward toward core life goals.

It makes no sense to settle for relationships that lessen rather than enlarge us, that diminish rather than develop our values and character. Thus, we should summon the courage and integrity to abandon dead-end personal or work relationships. We need to recognize how murky notions of loyalty can blind us to simple realities and how unrealistic hopes that things will change can prevent us from achieving our higher potential.

Toxic relationships not only make us unhappy, they corrupt our attitudes and dispositions in ways that undermine healthier relationships and blur our vision of what is possible. It's never easy to change, but nothing gets better without change.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:53 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

The founder of a company needed to choose his successor. He studied resumes and talked to references, but he decided to ask only one question during the final interview: “How much is 2 + 2?”

Ann, the first candidate, worried that there was a trick, but she answered straightforwardly. “There’s only one correct answer: four.”

Terry, who had an engineering background, was more creative. “Depending on whether you’re dealing with positive or negative numbers,” he said, “the answer could be plus four, zero, or minus four.”

Chuck, the last candidate, looked the founder in the eye and whispered, “How much do you want it to be?”

While Ann and Terry took different approaches, their intention was to give an honest answer. Chuck, on the other hand, wanted the founder to know he was willing to say or do whatever it takes to succeed. Some employers may find this combination of creativity and moral flexibility highly attractive.

I’d show him the door.

You see, Chuck is a manipulator and rationalizer, and they don’t make good employees. They search for excuses rather than solutions. They’re more concerned with looking good than doing it right.

People like Chuck, who are adept at inventing justifications that sound good but aren’t true, are simply clever liars. Eventually they'll be found out. Remember, an employee who will lie for you will lie to you.

Without conscience there’s no credibility, without credibility there’s no trust, and without trust there’s no future.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:34 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (12)

Frank is a new supervisor who wants to do well. Maria consistently comes in late. When he confronts her, she jokes about it. Hoping to win her friendship and loyalty, Frank is painfully patient.

Pat, a conscientious employee, urges him to do more. When he doesn’t and others begin to come in late, Pat quits. Frank feels victimized by his disloyal employees, but he has no one to blame but himself.

A frequent workplace complaint is waiting for the boss to make a decision or take needed action. It might be about a pending promotion, filling an open position, giving an overdue performance review, pricing a new product, or dealing with a customer complaint. Whatever the issue, failure to make a decision can make big problems out of little ones. What’s more, indecisiveness generates resentment and undermines confidence in the manager’s ability.

It was Frank’s responsibility to set the tone of the work environment. In management (or parenting, for that matter), what you allow, you encourage. As Frank learned the hard way, indecision and inaction can cause as much harm as a poor decision.

Sure, it’s important to be careful, and it’s sometimes wise to put off a decision or delay action (e.g., to get more information or buy-in, to let things cool off, or for other strategic reasons). But failing to make a simple, needed decision because you’re too busy, avoiding an unpleasant confrontation, hoping things will work out, or just procrastinating is unacceptable.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:59 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (6)

Sam, a supervisor, was dumbfounded as he watched Bill diligently dig holes while Chuck, after waiting a short interval, filled them.

When he demanded an explanation, Bill was indignant: “We’ve been doing this job for more than 10 years. What’s the problem?”

“Are you telling me that for 10 years you’ve been digging and filling empty holes?” Sam replied.

“Well, not exactly,” Bill said. “Until a few months ago, another fellow put a bush in the hole before Chuck filled it. But he retired and wasn’t replaced.”

“Why didn’t you tell somebody?” Sam sputtered.

“You’re management,” Bill answered. “We figured you knew.”

While management is ultimately to blame when employees waste time and money in thoughtless, unproductive activity, that’s not enough to let Bill and Chuck off the hook. Sure, it’s easy to hide behind the assumption that management stupidity has no bounds, but responsibility is a personal burden that everyone carries.

Too many organizations are weighed down by practices equivalent to digging and filling holes because too many workers and managers engage in or ignore inefficient activities.

Whether unaccountability is fed by laziness, ignorance, or fear, employees who surrender to a workplace’s negative momentum not only demean the value of their work but increase the likelihood that they will soon be out of work.

We can avoid our responsibilities, but we can’t avoid the consequences of avoiding our responsibilities. All of us are accountable for what we allow as well as what we do. If we want to make our lives more meaningful, we should make our work meaningful.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:26 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

Larry wrote me the following letter: “I’ve been a small businessman for almost 23 years in a business where people lie, cheat, and steal. I’m sorry to say I became one of them. In the short term it may have helped, but long term it came back to haunt me. There’s no amount of success that’s worth it. I am now 48 years old. I have lost my good name. My values and ethics have been destroyed. Will I ever be able to restore my reputation and lead a life of integrity?”

What a pity that so many people delude themselves into believing that traditional ethical principles like honesty and integrity don’t apply in the business world. They govern their daily decisions by pragmatism (what works) without reference to principles (what’s right). Piece-by-piece, decision-by-decision, they sell their souls and sully their names until they find themselves naked and alone on the barren wasteland of moral compromise.

The good news is, Larry can start leading a life of integrity immediately. He can redeem himself and become a man of character simply by choosing to be honest, responsible, respectful, caring, and fair.

The bad news is, his reputation will take longer to restore. Character is what you are; reputation is what people think you are. Since people are more likely to judge us by our last worst act rather than our most virtuous habits, rebuilding a reputation can take years of honorable living.

Still, each phase of one’s life brings new opportunities for learning and growth. If Larry wants it badly enough, the best part of his life is ahead.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:34 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

In the wake of a continual parade of scandals, there has been a lot of talk about codes of ethics. I’ve written dozens of codes for organizations and have a healthy respect for their value as an element of corporate culture, but I wince at the unreasonable expectations attached to them.

First of all, ethics codes don’t make people ethical. They don’t make bad people good. Nor do they make people with poor judgment wise. Ethics codes would not have prevented most of the bad behavior we’ve seen in recent years.

You see, there are two aspects to ethics: discernment (knowing right from wrong) and discipline (having the moral willpower to do what’s right). A code defines what’s right and acceptable and imposes sanctions on those who don’t follow it. But unless a code reinforces an established ethical culture, it won’t do much to assure that people will do what’s right.

It’s proper and prudent to clarify obligations under existing laws and to establish standards of conduct in areas not governed by law. In effect, ethics codes transform one perspective of a moral obligation into a binding rule.

For example, it’s helpful to set clear parameters for using e-mail, private information, or company property; for hiring or doing business with relatives; and for accepting gratuities. In more complex cases, codes can mandate disclosure or certification and forbid or restrict transactions such as loans and reimbursements that could create real or apparent conflicts of interest.

To the extent we need more clarity, we need more codes. To the extent we need more character, we need a lot more.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:36 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (3)

The bad economic news just keeps rolling in.

What could I say to 700 bankers, investors, and lawyers deeply involved in the commercial real-estate market?

I started with a simple point: External economic forces beyond our control can diminish, even decimate, every form of financial asset we have, but the most important asset we possess – integrity – can only be destroyed by our own choices. Those who sacrifice integrity to save their fortunes will eventually lose both.

I showed them a cartoon of a boss discussing an issue with executives in his office. The caption reads: “This might not be ethical. Is that a problem for anybody?”

My point was that ethics is not simply a factor to consider; it’s a ground rule. People who treasure their integrity summon the strength to do the right thing even when it costs more than they want to pay.

Another cartoon depicted a conference table. The head honcho points to a woman with an armful of blindfolds and announces: “Miss Jensen will now hand out the moral blinders.”

The message: Try as we might, we can’t avoid ethical responsibilities by covering our eyes. Our obligation to be honest, fair, and responsible doesn’t go away just because we refuse to acknowledge it.

Speaking of the turmoil before the American Revolution, Thomas Paine said, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” Tough times always try our souls, but they also test our character.

The next year or so will be like a character boot camp for all of us where our moral backbone will be either strengthened or broken.

While we can’t know when, it’s absolutely certain this dark period will end. And when it does, only those who protected and preserved their integrity will emerge with the credibility to restore everything they lost.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:32 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (3)

Ethics is a popular topic at corporate meetings today because management correctly sees the benefits. Good things tend to happen to companies that consistently do the right thing, and bad things tend to happen to those that even occasionally do the wrong thing. Being ethical is playing the odds.

Ethical companies have a competitive edge because people prefer to deal with firms they trust. They also benefit from high credibility; being believed is an enormous asset. In addition, ethical companies attract and retain employees better because they have higher morale. And finally, good ethics generates a good reputation, good will, and loyalty.

So it’s true: Good ethics is good business.

Most companies try to motivate employees to be ethical by stressing how doing so will benefit the corporation. The problem is, this amoral rationale is grounded in self-interest rather than morality. It has nothing to do with ethics.

Doing the right thing to get something in return is an investment, not a demonstration of character. Ethics based on self-interest is situational; ethics based on moral convictions is reliable. It’s the difference between acting ethically and being ethical.

Trying to motivate people to do the right thing by stressing benefits rather than values and virtue turns decision making into a cold cost-benefit analysis rather than a reflection of what’s right.

But if a company encourages employees to make decisions based on the supposed advantages, why should anyone put the firm’s interests above his own? In the absence of authentic moral conviction, why should employees refrain from unethical or illegal conduct if they think it will save their job or enhance their compensation? Clearly, what’s good for an enterprise is not always good for its employees.

My point is, it’s foolish and fruitless to expect most employees to sacrifice their financial well-being for the good of the company. On the other hand, many will do so in the name of honor, as a matter of conscience, and to earn the esteem and admiration of family and friends.

Corporations have a much better chance of deterring improper conduct by appealing to conscience and principle rather than risks and rewards.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:23 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

An angry woman once approached me after a speech to tell me off. It's easy for me to talk about her responsibility to speak out and object to waste or wrongdoing, she said, but she's a single mother and her highest duty was to keep her job. If that meant occasionally looking the other way, so be it. I had no business trying to make her feel guilty for putting her family first.

As the father of five, her criticism hit hard and it took a while for me to sort it through, but I think we have to be very careful about using our families as an excuse for making choices that diminish our integrity. Financial security is surely important, but so is the moral example we set for our children and the foundation we give them to build their own lives on.

Suppose you're faced with a difficult choice at work where you think you'll be fired if you do what is right. Which is the better gift to your family: compromising your principles and sending the message that you can't always afford to be ethical, or demonstrating confidence that we can always afford ethics, that whatever happens we can make it, that in this family character really does matter and that no job is worth dishonor?

Sometimes the dues we pay to maintain integrity are pretty high, but the ultimate cost of moral compromise is so much higher. In fact, the more an act of honor costs, the more it's worth. And every example of moral courage contributes to a lasting legacy our children can and will be proud of all their lives. Don't give that up for the short-term benefits of security.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:46 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

In every organization I work with, people talk freely and frequently about the importance of trust as a crucial business asset. No one seems to doubt how important it is to business or personal relationships, and everyone seems aware of the tremendous costs of distrust.

Yet despite enlightened rhetoric about trust, many people in business regularly engage in conduct that undermines it and damages credibility.

It’s really simple: To be trusted, one has to be perceived as being trustworthy. That means being scrupulously honest even on little things, and especially when one may have to pay a high price. Trustworthiness is more than telling the truth. It requires conveying the truth. Deception through clever wording or half-truths is essentially dishonest.

Individuals and companies that care about building and retaining trust don’t rely on legalistic loopholes or take refuge in the fact that "you never asked." People worthy of our trust are forthright and candid as well as truthful. They tell us what they know we want to know, even if it’s not in their self-interest. Thus, being trustworthy involves a complex trio of concepts: truthfulness, nondeception, and candor, all aspects of honesty.

It also requires integrity, promise-keeping, and loyalty. We trust people who put principles above profit and have the courage of their convictions. We don’t trust those who look for and find exceptions and special circumstances that justify dishonesty.

Trust isn’t attained by wishing and wanting. It must be earned by actions. And after it has been earned, it must be continually protected. Remember, even a little lie can raise the question: "What else have you lied to me about?"

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:53 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

Lots of companies are focusing serious attention on the issues of ethics and values – and lots of people think that’s a waste of time.

The skeptics argue that you can’t teach ethics to adults. By the time they’re in the workplace, they’re either ethical or not.

It’s a plausible argument, but it misses the point.

The purpose of a corporate ethics program is not to make people ethical but to increase the likelihood that they’ll act ethically. This is definitely achievable. In today’s environment, failing to protect your company from employee misconduct is irresponsible.

The objective of such programs is to establish a business culture in which it’s easier to do the right thing than the wrong thing and where concerned coworkers and vigilant supervisors repress illegal or improper conduct that can potentially endanger or embarrass the company.

An organization can further improve its ethical track record by assuring it has clear and credible statements of values and standards of conduct. When supplemented with quality training, those values and standards can clarify expectations and reduce misconduct resulting from ignorance or misinterpretations of laws or company policies.

A firm that wants to strengthen its ethical culture hires for character and trains for skills. It takes background checks seriously, screens out employees who lack the moral compass or strength to resist temptations, and weeds out those who lack moral commitment or judgment during probation.

During performance reviews and promotions, it assesses ethical attributes like trustworthiness, responsibility, and respect. Only people who are comfortable living up to high ethical standards are retained or promoted.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:42 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Some years ago, a senior executive at a large company objected when I asserted that corporations have an ethical, as well as a legal, obligation to keep promises and honor their contracts.

He said the decision to live up to or ignore contractual commitments is a business decision, not an ethical one. His primary responsibility, he said, was to the stockholders. He noted that most of the time it is wise to fulfill your promises because there are legal and relationship risks involved in breaking contracts, but in the end the decision to honor or renounce a business agreement should be based on a cost/benefit analysis. Ethics has nothing to do with it.

This claim that business executives are justified in treating the pursuit of self-interest as a moral imperative is disturbing and dangerous. It’s also common.

The theory that expediency, not ethics, should control decision-making in business flourishes because many people compartmentalize their lives into separate personal and business domains, choosing to believe each area is governed by different moral standards.

As a result, fundamentally good people who would never lie, cheat, or break a promise in their personal lives delude themselves into thinking they can properly do so in business.

Nonsense! There’s no such thing as “business” ethics. There is only ethics. Fundamental standards of right and wrong such as trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship do not become irrelevant when we enter the workplace.

And it doesn’t matter how many people think otherwise. Ethics is not a description of the way people actually behave. It’s a prescription for how we ought to behave.

In business – and, for that matter, in politics, sports, journalism, and parenting – ethical principles are not simply factors to be taken into account. They are ground rules.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:43 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (2)

A critical maxim of management is “Suitability is as important as capability.” Capability asks, “Can they do the job?” Suitability asks, “Are they right for the job?”

If the job isn’t a good fit, it’s not a good job.

Yes, an employee has to have (or be able to readily acquire) the skills and knowledge required for excellent job performance, but compatibility can be more critical than capacity.

There are three aspects to suitability: intellect, temperament, and objectives.

Intellectually, will the employee be challenged but not overtaxed by the job? People who are overqualified usually fail or leave because they get bored or hate being underutilized. On the other hand, employees who must stretch mightily to do a job often find it too stressful to do so continually.

Temperament and personality are also important. Some people flourish while others wilt in particular organizational cultures. Some need more authority or autonomy than a job entails while others want closer supervision and more direction. Some love and others hate detail work. And some rebel against too much structure while others need orderliness and predictability.

Fit involves integration with existing people and practices and compatibility with the style and values of their boss. An organization should encourage fresh ideas, creativity, innovation, and a willingness to challenge assumptions and approaches, but there is a significant downside to employees who spend too much energy trying to change the way things are done.

Finally, does the job make sense given the applicant’s financial and career objectives? Despite pledges and protests to the contrary, employees who take a step backward in pay or prestige often find easy excuses to leave. In such cases, it’s like hiring a temp but without the control over timing.

A responsible manager must be perceptive and prudent. Just as job applicants tend to say whatever they think the employer wants to hear, employers who need to fill a job tend to believe whatever they want to hear.

There’s no lasting benefit when suitability gaps are filled with wishful thinking or rationalizations.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:43 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Suppose Amy’s bonus depends on achieving aggressive sales goals and she knows she can pump her numbers by instructing Bob, a subordinate, to ship goods to a large customer that weren’t ordered.

Whether she will choose to engage in this scheme and order Bob to participate, and whether Bob will do so, is not only a matter of personal character but of corporate culture.

Decisions of employees like Amy and Bob are strongly influenced by their perceptions of the company’s character and operational values. In most organizations, you get what you reward and encourage what you allow.

Amy is more likely to avoid deceptive conduct if she believes integrity and honesty are ground rules rather than rhetorical ornaments and if she’ll be more severely sanctioned for deceptive conduct than missing her numbers. Similarly, Bob is likely to say no to his boss if he’s convinced the company wants him to and will support him if he does.

In today’s precarious environment, leaders have a duty to assess their organization’s culture and do whatever is needed to strengthen or create a sustainable ethical environment that generates trust and promotes honesty, fairness, and unflinching accountability as well as legal compliance.

This can’t be accomplished by lofty rhetoric or even strict ethics codes. Words and rules must be translated into expectations and made believable by the modeling of senior executives and by adopting performance-review criteria, compensation systems, and promotion decisions that reward ethical judgments and punish ethical shortcuts.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:36 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

Years ago I was talking to a group of Army generals about the way politicians often treat the defense budget as an all-purpose public-works fund to help bring money to their districts.

One general admitted, “Yes, if the chairman of the Appropriations Committee comes from a place that makes trucks, we’re probably going to buy those trucks. That’s the way it is, the way it always was, and the way it always will be.”

I suggested that it was a form of bribery to buy the trucks just to please the politician.

The general barked, “It’s not bribery. It’s extortion!”

“Don’t sound so powerless,” I replied. “You’re a general.”

Without skipping a beat, he answered, “Yeah, but I’m only a one-star.”

I hear this abdication of moral responsibility a lot – from business executives who surrender to pressures to engage in dubious business practices, from journalists who see their great calling being overcome by a growing profit obsession, and from others who feel they just can’t buck the system.

I understand it’s easier and often seems smarter to go along to get along. But when systems become corrupt, irrational, or wasteful, it’s our duty to try to make things better.

As Edward Everett Hale said, “It’s true I am only one, but I am one. And the fact that I can’t do everything will not prevent me from doing what I can do.”

When there’s a gap between reality and ethical ideals, people of character don’t surrender their ideals. They fight for them. They work to change the way things are to the way they ought to be.

And much more often than we realize, defective systems collapse at the first sight of principled resistance.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:37 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

What we do to make a living plays such a critical role in our lives that it’s worthwhile to ask ourselves now and again whether we’re in the right job.

There are four dimensions of job satisfaction: what you do, who you work for, who you work with, and what you’re paid. If there’s a big deficiency in any one of these, you should consider changing your job by fixing what’s broke or finding another one.

Remember, you do have a choice. Sure, you need a job, but it’s a trap to believe you need the job you have. Like it or not, you could lose your job at any time for a whole lot of reasons. And if you do, you’ll get a new job – often a better one.

To have a good life, you need a good job, one where you can feel a sense of achievement in what you do, where you can be proud of whom you work for, and where you like and respect the people you work with.

As Disraeli said, “Life is too short to be little.” Don’t belittle your life by demeaning work.

No job is inherently demeaning. Physical labor can be as rewarding and meaningful as management. Every job can be performed in a manner that is significant and worthwhile. What is demeaning is a job where you are pressured to compromise your values or where you work for or with people or a company you aren’t proud to associate with – a boss who’s dishonest, disrespectful, irresponsible, or unfair or coworkers who don’t care about quality and excellence.

John Ruskin said, “The highest reward for your toil is not what you get for it, but what you become by it.” Your job should make you a better as well as a happier person.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:48 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

Labor Day’s a good time to think about the role work plays in your life.

Henry Thoreau said, “The mass of men spend their lives in quiet desperation.” For some, work is part of that desperation. For others, it’s part of what makes life worth living. Finding the right job is as difficult as finding the right mate, but it’s just as important.

People who love their work get more out of their lives. Teddy Roosevelt said, “Far and away, the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.” George Sand put it another way: “Work is not a punishment; it’s a reward.”

According to W. H. Auden, three things are needed if people are to be happy in their work: “They must be fit for it, they must not do too much of it, and they must have a sense of success in it.” Elbert Hubbard told his readers to “Get happiness out of your work or you may never know what happiness is.”

In summing up his life, comedian Johnny Carson said, “Never continue in a job you don’t enjoy. If you’re happy in what you’re doing, you’ll like yourself and you’ll have inner peace and more success than you could possibly have imagined.”

One of the profound questions is where does work fit into a balanced life. Some live for their work. If their work is truly meaningful and gratifying, that may make sense, but Harold Kushner points out, “I’ve never met anyone on their deathbed who said, ‘I wish I’d spent more time at the office.’”

Work is, of course, a common subject of cynical observations such as “Accomplishing the impossible means only that the boss will add it to your regular duties” (Doug Larson) or “Many people quit looking for work when they find a job.”

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:41 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

Ben was a lumberjack who swung his ax with great power and could fell a tree in 20 strokes. In the first few days of a new job he produced twice as much lumber as anyone else. By week’s end, he was working even harder, but his lead was dwindling.

One friend told him he had to swing harder. Another said he had to work longer. Neither idea worked. Finally, an old fellow asked Ben how often he sharpened his ax. He said he had no time; there was too much to do.

The lesson of this parable contains the remedy to ineffectiveness in today’s workplace.

Dedicated executives may work enormous hours not realizing how much their failure to sharpen their ax by taking time off reduces their effectiveness. As one exceeds the limits of intellectual and physical stamina, both the quantity and quality of work suffer. Fatigue affects judgment and mental acuity, and the time and energy needed to fix errors can offset the extra time devoted to the task.

Organizations fail to sharpen their ax when they give short shrift to screening job applicants and training new hires. Burdened with heavy workloads, managers consumed by urgency to fill positions often succumb to the “warm body” fallacy: anyone is better than no one.

You need three things in a good employee: competence, commitment, and character. Shortcomings in any area can be costly, consume time and resources, and damage morale. Sharpening your ax in this setting means taking the time to be more diligent in background checks, more selective in hiring, more serious in training, and more demanding during probation.

Without the right tools, hard work isn’t enough.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:14 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

Roy, a service rep, is told one of the salesmen forgot to send an order for window blinds to the factory and, as a result, they won’t be available for another ten days. Roy is asked to call Jenny, the customer, and tell her the blinds won’t be delivered on the date promised.

Roy has a decision to make: What should he tell the customer?

Telling Jenny the real reason will likely infuriate her and cause her to demand a refund or deep discount. This isn’t a good result, so he devises a plausible but false excuse that shifts the blame onto Jenny’s credit-card company. He even makes himself a hero by convincing her he did everything possible to solve the problem and, though his company wasn’t at fault, he convinced his manager to give Jenny a 10 percent discount for her inconvenience.

Jenny is angry at the credit-card company and upset about not getting her blinds, but she’s impressed with the professional way Roy handled the situation. Her loyalty to the company is actually strengthened.

Should Roy be praised or penalized?

The case for praise is that he took a lemon and made lemonade. He turned a bad situation into a good one, and no one was hurt (except, maybe, the credit-card company – and who cares about them?). His little white lie yielded great dividends and was well within the norms of business.

The case for reprimanding or firing Roy is that a good decision must be ethical as well as effective. He was dishonest and, whether his solution worked or not, a company that values trust should not permit dishonesty to be used as a problem-solving tactic.

If you were Roy’s boss, what would you do?

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:35 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (6)

As I watched nearly five dozen eager graduates of the Los Angeles Police Academy throw their hats in the air celebrating their achievement, I knew they were the survivors of a rigorous training, but their journey wasn’t over.

Ahead of them was a full year of supervised field training, and it was unlikely all of them would make it through their probation.

It’s difficult to cut hard-working and hopeful probationers, but if an organization wants to create a culture of excellence, its gatekeepers (those in charge of hiring, training, retention, and promotion) must exercise clear-eyed objectivity and demonstrate unflinching courage by weeding out those who are unwilling or unable to be excellent.

In policing as in many other fields, the stakes are simply too high to knowingly accept less. No one wants a surgeon, teacher, or peace officer with marginal skills or a shaky character.

Yet everywhere we see signs of declining standards. Public and private organizations regularly lower their expectations due to political expediency, misplaced loyalty, forced diversity, or perceived necessity. Adequacy has become the shifting standard defined as “the best we can get.”

Two results are inevitable when we lower standards: The quality of service sinks as fewer people strive for the best within them, and mediocrity becomes the norm as good people move up and out, leaving behind a growing proportion of so-so performers.

Two results are inevitable when we insist on excellence: Performance increases as everyone does better than they otherwise would, and some people are asked to leave.

Management can avoid its responsibility, but it can’t dodge the consequences of shirking it. Excellence is achievable, but not without sacrifice and discipline.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:49 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (8)

Frank is a new supervisor who wants to do well. Maria consistently comes in late. When he confronts her, she jokes about it. Hoping to win friendship and loyalty, Frank is painfully patient, though Pat, a conscientious employee, urges him to do more. Soon others begin to come in late, and Pat quits. Frank feels victimized by disloyal employees, but he has no one to blame but himself.

A frequent workplace complaint is waiting for the boss to make a decision or take needed action. It might be about a pending promotion, filling an open position, giving an overdue performance review, pricing a new product, or dealing with a sticky customer complaint. Whatever the issue, failure to make a decision can make big problems out of little ones. What’s more, indecisiveness can generate resentment and undermine confidence in the manager’s ability.

It was Frank’s responsibility to set the tone of the work environment. In management (or parenting, for that matter), what you allow, you encourage. As Frank learned the hard way, indecision and inaction can cause as much harm as a poor decision.

Sure, it’s important to be careful, and it’s sometimes wise to put off a decision or delay action – for instance, to get more information or buy-in, to let things cool off, or for other strategic reasons – but failing to make a needed decision is not acceptable because a manager is too busy, is avoiding an unpleasant confrontation, is hoping things will work themselves out, or is just procrastinating.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:27 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (2)

Racing dogs are trained to chase a mechanical rabbit that always goes a little faster than the fleetest dog. This causes them to run faster than they otherwise would.

Companies that annually set overly ambitious performance objectives for their employees employ this greyhound principle. To a point, it works. Most people achieve more when expectations are set high.

The strategy turns negative, however, when firms chasing Wall Street’s rabbit continually set “no-excuses” double-digit growth goals without regard to market realities (including multiple competitors driving toward the same goals) or systemic understaffing (part of the “do more with less” philosophy). Consequently, many corporate leaders are caught up in a ceaseless upward spiral of stress.

Yes, the financial rewards for such success are ample, but the driving motivation is usually not greed, and certainly not job satisfaction. It’s fear. This can often morph into desperation, a dangerous mindset that in turn can spawn imprudent short-term decisions and outright cheating.

It’s unwise and unethical to ignore the business and moral implications of aggressive growth strategies that put executives under unprecedented, unrelenting, and unreasonable pressure.

On one level, it’s a matter of values. Work-life balance should be more than a rhetorical ideal. A good company cares about its people. The path to career success should not be littered with the ruins of failed marriages and neglected children.

On another level, it’s long-term self interest. Without an abundant and replenishing pool of talented and committed leaders, no company will succeed for long. The organizations that will pull away in the next decades are those that can attract and retain the best talent because they’re places where those people want to work – and that will take a lot more than money.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:45 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

Character Is An Essential Competence.mp3

If you were hiring a new CEO, what are the most important qualities you’d look for?

Surely you’d want a high level of demonstrated competence – knowledge, experience, intelligence, vision, communication, and relationship skills and the ability to motivate, manage, and solve problems. But what about qualities such as honesty, moral courage, accountability, and fairness?

Despite bold rhetoric about the indispensability of good character, many hard-driving organizations are willing to be flexible on character to get an exceptionally competent person.

Thus, many current scandals – in business, the church, and sports – have occurred because organizations compromised their principles by recruiting, retaining, or tolerating leaders with serious character flaws who generated costly accusations of wrongdoing and undermined trust, morale, teamwork, and loyalty.

I used to tell clients that competence and character were two separate aspects of intelligent employment decisions. Now I think it’s a mistake to disconnect them. Good character is an essential aspect of competence.

Long ago, Samuel Johnson said, “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, but knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.” Warren Buffet updated that notion: “In looking for people to hire, look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. But if they don’t have the first, the other two will kill you.”

Since it’s easier to train a person of good character to do a job well than to develop character in a skilled but unprincipled employee, if you have to choose, hire for character and train for skills.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:23 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

Why are so many corporations and government agencies spending time and money on ethics surveys and training? What’s the ROI – return on investment? Is it about doing the right thing because virtue is its own reward, or is it about doing the smart thing because good ethics pays and bad ethics costs?

Although I wish it were otherwise, appeals to self-interest are more compelling than appeals to conscience. The best way to get the attention of executives is to talk in terms of risk management.

It’s easy to make the case that dishonest, irresponsible, or illegal actions can be enormously costly. Thus, responsible leaders understand the value of creating and sustaining an ethical workplace culture.

Meaningful efforts, however, need to go beyond codes and classes.

Codes of conduct are important to provide a framework for compliance. And training courses can teach legal requirements, raise ethical consciousness, and encourage employees to do the right thing. But unless ethical values are advocated and enforced in everyday decision-making, the risk of reputation-damaging and resource-draining misconduct will remain high.

In an ethical culture, values and character play a prominent role in recruitment, employment, orientation, in-service training, performance reviews, and discipline.

In an ethical culture, formal and informal incentive systems promote honesty, moral courage, responsibility, and fairness. Contrary behavior is risky, not simply because it harms the organization, but because it endangers the careers of those who take moral shortcuts.

In the workplace, you get the behavior you reward. Character counts – if you count it.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:32 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

A former successful college coach and athletic director once wrote me a note about the state of college sports.

The pressure to win in high-profile schools is so great, he said, it's almost impossible to resist rationalizing. When competitors cheat or engage in other unethical conduct, the tendency is to redefine the ground rules for competition rather than be at a disadvantage.

He compared the way win-hungry boosters blur the vision and undermine the integrity of coaches and administrators with the way money-hungry shareholders stress stock prices, which promotes accounting manipulation and other ethical shortcuts.

In sports, outsiders who aren't concerned with a college's educational mission or notions of sportsmanship and character-building promote a “no excuses” demand on coaches that can transform an athletic program into a business driven by the pursuit of money and glory.

In business, shareholders (from day traders to money managers of mutual and pension funds) who aren't concerned with the ethics or long-term viability of a company create pressures and incentives that can promote short-term decision-making and undermine the economic and moral health of their firm.

We need people to act as guardians who will understand and protect the soul of their enterprise. Coaches should be allowed to think about more than winning, and business executives should be given the opportunity to consider more than stock prices and short-term profits.

If we don't recalibrate our incentive systems and insulate coaches and managers from unhealthy influences, things will only get worse.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:03 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (3)

Here are seven truths I’ve discovered in my struggles to be an effective boss:

1. It’s not what you say that matters, it’s what people hear. Just because you said it doesn't mean they heard it. Just because you wrote it doesn’t mean they read it. Be sure your message is received and understood.

2. There are lots of things you don’t know and lots of people who hope you don’t find out. The boss rarely hears the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You’ve got to walk around, look around, listen, and ask direct questions.

3. Hire for character, train for skills. Integrity, responsibility, and the ability to work with others are vital competencies. You’ve got to screen out or weed out people you can’t believe or rely on or who are toxic to the team.

4. Settling for warm bodies turns one problem into two. You still have to get someone who’s right for the job, but first you have to deal with and remove the wrong person. If you can’t find the time to do it right, when will you find the time to do it over?

5. What you allow, you encourage. If you don’t enforce your values and rules, they’re not really your values and they’re not really rules.

6. Doing nothing is doing something. Indecision and inaction cause as much harm as poor decisions. Indecisiveness is incompetence.

7. It’s all about relationships. Your most important job is to get the most out of the people who work with you. You’ve got to be ready to be a boss, motivator, mentor, counselor, disciplinarian, or friend.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:30 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (3)

One problem with talking about business ethics is there’s often a wide gap between rhetoric and reality. The reality is that business isn’t nearly as bad as some critics make it out to be or nearly as good as its apologists contend. By the same token, ethics may not be as crucial to success as moralists make it.

Yes, trust has been badly eroded by too much lying and cheating, even by basically decent people. Yet every day, people of character successfully overcome pressures and resist temptations to sacrifice ethics for expediency.

At the same time, well-meaning reformers often oversell the role of ethics in success. Asserting platitudes like "good ethics is good business" as if it were moral truth makes the case for ethics more vulnerable to cynics anxious to disprove the generality with a host of examples.

The truth is, good ethics sometimes is good business, but sometimes it’s not. It depends on one’s goals and how one defines good business. Sometimes good ethics can end in bankruptcy. Of course, so can bad ethics.

A fairer statement is that good ethics can be a very powerful business asset. Good things tend to happen to companies and individuals who consistently do the right thing, and bad things tend to happen to those who even occasionally do the wrong thing.

But the crucial point is that the moral obligation to live according to ethical principles is not dependent on whether it’s advantageous. People of character do the right thing in the pursuit of virtue, not self-interest.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:57 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)

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)

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)

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 (4)

Modern managers often utter clichés about wanting employees to "think outside the box," take risks, and be creative.

While I’m sure companies appreciate breakthrough innovative ideas that increase profits, productivity, or quality, the fact is that most organizations are inhospitable to those who challenge old ways of doing things, even practices that are inefficient, useless, or counterproductive.

I’ve talked before about the obligation of employees to pursue excellence. Well, managers have an equal, if not larger, duty to establish an atmosphere where employees are truly expected and willing to think and act in the best interests of the company and its customers.

According to Josephson Institute surveys, between one-fourth and one-third of all employees say there’s a "kill the messenger" tradition where they work and that it’s common to distort or conceal negative information or tailor data to give managers what they want to hear.

A sure sign that management hasn’t done enough to promote candor is when a manager asks, "Why didn’t someone tell me?" Companies must find ways to more effectively send the message that mission-oriented employees who produce and demand quality are to be prized, not penalized.

I’ve come to believe that there’s never just one incompetent or unaccountable employee. There are at least two: the employee and the manager who keeps him or her employed.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:56 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (5)

I’ve been spending a lot of time lately consulting with large companies concerned with strengthening their ethical culture.

Although I’m sure the leaders I work with care about ethics and virtue for their own sake, I know the driving force to seek outside assistance is self-interest. The risk of reputation-damaging and resource-draining charges resulting from improper conduct is so high that it’s a matter of prudence and responsible stewardship to stress ethical values and moral principles.

Yet changing or strengthening an organization’s culture is no simple task. We start with a questionnaire to identify vulnerabilities – attitudes and behaviors that could jeopardize the company.

The most common vulnerability we find is a management style that represses frank and open discussions about ethical concerns and discourages revelation of bad news.

Invariably, we discover that at least one in five employees admit they lied to their superior about something significant within the past year and at least one-third concealed or distorted negative information to avoid harmful career repercussions. Often, half or more employees say they remain silent rather than risk their boss’s anger, abuse, or disapproval. Thus, many questionable or improper actions go unreported and uncorrected – each one a scandal waiting to happen.

The antidote is explicit and credible corporate policies that promote accountability by making it clear that repressive management styles will not be tolerated and that every employee is encouraged and expected to muster the moral courage to report unwelcome facts and to voice dissenting opinions.

Meaningful improvement in business ethical culture requires persistent and pervasive efforts to create an environment that values and protects honesty, personal responsibility, and corporate integrity.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:22 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (9)

Every company says it’s committed to customer service, knowing it can’t survive, let alone flourish, if it doesn’t satisfy the people who provide the revenue and referrals required for success.

Many firms don’t seem to believe, however, that employee satisfaction is equally vital. In fact, nothing is more important to sustainable success than a competent and committed workforce.

So how come some companies that demand uncompromising customer service permit and perpetuate management styles and policies that alienate many employees and generate resentment, fear, frustration, and emotional and intellectual disengagement?

Yes, unhappy employees are more likely to stay attached to a company than unhappy customers, but if the organization cares about customer service, that’s a liability, not an asset.

Quality, price, and convenience are important, but the kind of customer satisfaction that builds loyalty requires listening and responding to customer needs and expectations, friendly and respectful service, and authentic caring.

How can one expect employees who think they’re not treated well to treat customers well? Why would one think employees will treat customers better than the company treats them?

Josephson Institute’s surveys have consistently revealed that a high proportion of employees are not satisfied and don’t think their company is trying hard to satisfy them. Many are unwilling to report improper conduct or even to respectfully express disagreement or alternative ideas to their bosses because they fear harmful repercussions. They say they conceal or distort negative information, ignore company policies, and distrust their leaders.

These toxic attitudes destroy morale, increase turnover and, most certainly, undermine customer service.

The antidote: Managers at every level should be hired, trained, and held accountable to treat their subordinates as if they were their customers. How? By listening and responding to their needs and expectations and by assuring that the people who represent the company are proud of their affiliation and feel valued and appreciated.

Customer satisfaction starts with employee satisfaction.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:41 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

Reach for the stars. Pursue goals beyond your grasp. These are good life strategies. We never know how much we can accomplish until we try. But what happens when we’re told we must actually reach the stars or suffer consequences?

A common workplace strategy to spur employee achievement is to set aggressive productivity objectives that, like the mechanical rabbit that goads and paces racing greyhounds, are usually beyond reach. Benignly called “stretch goals” by those who set them, the idea is to generate maximum effort. A salesperson who is told he’s expected to increase sales by 10 percent may only achieve six, but that’s still pretty good.

There’s a downside to this clever management technique. For one thing, it generates unhealthy stress and low morale as employees catch on to the game and resent being manipulated like racing dogs. For another, unrealistic stretch goals overemphasize short-term performance and encourage employees to conceal, ignore, and defer problems. Finally, some employees will simply cheat.

Organizational audits conducted by Josephson Institute reveal that a high percentage of employees who are constantly pressured to achieve ever-escalating numerical goals manipulate numbers and distort reports. A significant number outright lie.

Pressure is no excuse for cheating, but it’s a frequent cause. Those who play the stretch goal game are accountable for the predictable side effects of the relentless pursuit of numbers, especially if they don’t place greater emphasis on honesty and integrity.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 9:53 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (5)

Lots of companies are focusing serious attention on the issues of ethics and values -- and lots of people think it’s a waste of time.

The skeptics argue that you can’t teach ethics to adults. By the time they’re in the workplace, they’re either ethical or not.

It’s a plausible argument, but it misses the point.

The purpose of a corporate ethics program is not to make people ethical but to increase the likelihood that they’ll act ethically. This is definitely achievable. In today’s environment, failing to do what can be done to protect a company from employee misconduct is irresponsible.

The objective of a corporate ethics program is to establish a business culture in which it’s easier to do the right thing than the wrong thing and where concerned coworkers and vigilant supervisors repress illegal or improper conduct that can potentially endanger or embarrass the company.

An organization can further improve its ethical track record by assuring it has clear and credible statements of values and standards of conduct. When supplemented with quality training, those values and standards can clarify expectations and reduce misconduct resulting from ignorance or misinterpretations of laws or company policies.

A firm that wants to strengthen its ethical culture hires for character and trains for skills. It takes background checks seriously, screening out employees who lack the moral compass or strength to resist temptations and weeding out those who lack moral commitment or judgment during probation. And during performance reviews and promotions, it assesses ethical attributes like trustworthiness, responsibility, and respectfulness. Only people who are comfortable living up to high ethical standards are retained or promoted.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:00 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (10)

A man in a hot-air balloon, realizing he was lost, lowered it to shout to a fellow on the ground. "The wind’s blown me off course! Can you tell me where I am?"

The man replied, "Sure. You’re about 60 feet over this wheat field."

"You must be an engineer," the balloonist yelled back.

"I am. How’d you know?" the man said.

"Everything you told me is technically correct but of absolutely no use."

The engineer retorted, "You’re an executive, right?"

"How did you know?" the balloonist responded.

"You were drifting in no particular direction before you asked for my help, you’re still lost, and now it’s my fault."

The tale is a good metaphor for our lives. At first, all we want to do is rise as high as we can in terms of money, position, and prestige. Yet as we ascend, wind currents push us sideways. Eventually, many of us discover we’re on a very different course than we intended, a long way from the spot we took off from, and nowhere near where we hoped to end up at. So we blame the wind -- or anything else.

What we must realize is our power of choice is a steering mechanism that lets us respond to each breeze and gust. We can drift with the current or go against it. Like haphazard wind drafts, unplanned events beyond our control can affect the direction of our lives. But in the end, what we do and become is determined by our choices.

The key is to be attentive, look around, and ensure we’re going where we want to go.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:48 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (4)

I read somewhere that a person who has a positive restaurant experience is likely to tell three friends, but if he has a bad experience he’ll tell ten. Thus, there are two sides to the customer-satisfaction equation: Good service generates more customers, and bad service keeps new customers away and sends current ones elsewhere.

This compelling case for treating excellent customer service as an indispensible cost of doing business, however, runs headlong into a conflicting two-sided equation: Executives succeed only if they increase profitability, and a simple way to increase profits is to cut costs. This translates into mean and lean personnel strategies -- reduce the number of employees and keep compensation and training expenses as low as possible.

This year, Circuit City, a national electronics retailer, fired 3,400 of its highest-paid hourly workers so it could replace them with lower-paid employees. By doing so, it expects to reduce its costs by $110 million annually.

Since management had to know that letting go of its most experienced line-level employees – the ones who answer customer questions -- would both damage morale and reduce the quality of customer service, it must have concluded that employee and customer satisfaction aren’t critical.

In the next eight months, its stock price dropped from $25 to $6. Sure, other factors were probably at work there, but cutting customer service is an irrational strategy, especially in a business where customers want and need help.

Home Depot made a similar decision to trim its workforce and replace full-time workers with part-timers. This year its stock price plummeted from $40 to $27.

The long-term costs of failing to invest whatever it takes to create a workforce capable of producing positive customer experiences will always exceed the short-term savings.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:29 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (11)

Every major company I’ve worked with recognizes that the key to sustainable success is the ability to please its customers. In fact, identifying and exceeding customers’ expectations is often a core value.

Yet I’ve had so many disappointing and distressing customer experiences lately that even satisfactory customer service exceeds my expectations.

It seems the gap between rhetoric and reality is getting wider as legions of companies, focused so intensely on increasing short-term results, are failing to create the required infrastructure needed to deliver the customer service they say is so important.

Lots of factors go into exceptional customer service. Most can be compressed into what I call The Four Ps: -- products, processes, policies, and people.

First, a company should deliver high-quality products (or services) that meet or surpass customers’ needs at a reasonable price (usually referred to as value).

Second, the processes that govern the sale and delivery of products should make the transaction pleasant, convenient, and efficient.

Third, company policies affecting transactions should be fair and sensible in customers’ eyes.

Fourth, the most important element of customer satisfaction is the people delivering the service.

Exasperating experiences with premier companies convince me that many corporate leaders don’t truly understand the primacy of customer service and the indispensability of acquiring, training, and retaining knowledgeable, engaged, and friendly people.

This isn’t easy and it isn’t cheap. But just as prudent companies would not jeopardize their relationships or reputation by substituting inferior materials, they must not shortchange their customers by inflicting them with unqualified or indifferent people.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:18 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (9)

As a former law professor, I know all about loopholes. I trained young attorneys to find omissions and ambiguities in wording to find legal ways to evade the clear intent of contracts and laws. Although I’m not any more, I used to be comfortable with this technique. After all, that’s what lawyers are paid to do. And despite public disdain for lawyers, it’s precisely what most clients want and expect when they hire one.

The fact is, long-standing traditional assumptions about the adversary system do justify the search for and use of legal loopholes. But strategies to evade the spirit of promises and laws put our integrity on a slippery slope.

Farther down that slope is the willingness to fabricate facts, lie about true intent, or falsely deny knowing or remembering things. These are fundamentally lies. They are dishonest and unethical in litigation, business transactions, and personal relations.

For example, a common ploy to evade limits on campaign contributions is to donate funds in the name of minor children. But falsely representing that the children actually exercised control and independent judgment isn’t just being clever, it’s fraud. The same is true for workers who falsely claim to be sick to take a day off work or to evade no-strike laws, parents who misrepresent their address to get their child in a better school or fudge their child’s age to qualify for a discount, and executives who backdate documents.

Exploiting loopholes is bad enough, but lying crosses the line.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 12:30 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (2)

A company founder needed to choose his successor. He studied resumes and talked to references, but he asked only one question during the final interview: "How much is 2 + 2?"

Ann, the first candidate, worried that there was a trick but answered straightforwardly. "There’s only one correct answer: four."

Terry, who had an engineering background, was more creative. "Depending on whether you’re dealing with positive or negative numbers," he said, "the answer could be plus four, zero, or minus four."

Chuck, the last candidate, looked the questioner in the eye and whispered, "How much do you want it to be?"

While Ann and Terry took different approaches, they both provided an honest answer. Chuck, on the other hand, wanted the questioner to know he was willing to say or do whatever it took to succeed. Some employers may find this combination of creativity and moral flexibility highly attractive. I’d show him the door.

You see, Chuck is a manipulator and rationalizer, and they don’t make good employees. They search for excuses rather than solutions and are more concerned with looking good than doing things right.

People like Chuck who are adept at inventing justifications that sound good but aren’t true are simply clever liars. Eventually they will be found out. Remember, an employee who will lie for you will lie to you.

Without conscience, there is no credibility. Without credibility, there is no trust. And without trust, there is no future.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 12:43 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

A master carpenter who worked for the same builder for nearly 50 years announced he wanted to retire. The builder told him how much he appreciated his work. He gave the carpenter a $5,000 bonus and asked him if he would build just one more house. The builder owned a magnificent lot with a spectacular view and he wanted to build a dream home.

The carpenter was bitterly disappointed at the small bonus, but his last building fee would help him buy a small cottage, so he agreed to build the dream house.

The carpenter prided himself on his uncompromising commitment to quality, but his resentment caused him to cut corners, ignore details, and accept shoddy workmanship from other workers. He even looked the other way when some of them substituted cheaper materials and pocketed the difference.

When the house was finished the builder shook the carpenter’s hand and with a huge smile he gave him an envelope with a thank-you card and a folded piece of paper. The carpenter was disdainful -- until he unfolded the paper and found the deed to the house he had just built.

The carpenter was ashamed that he had misjudged his old friend and betrayed his own values, and he was remorseful that the house he would live in for the rest of his life was made so carelessly.

Our character is the house we live in and it’s built piece by piece by our daily choices. Deceit, irresponsibility, and disrespect are just like shoddy workmanship. Whenever we put in less than our best and ignore our potential for excellence, we create a future full of creaky floors, leaky roofs, and crumbling foundations.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 1:13 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Can a job applicant properly withhold information about a criminal record or being fired from a previous job? Can a woman who has just started dating say nothing about a previous marriage or abortion? These are problems of candor. When does an ethical person have a duty to reveal negative information about his past?

First, let's reinforce a basic premise that all dimensions of honesty -- truthfulness, lack of deception, and candor -- are important to establishing and sustaining relationships of trust. Intimacy flourishes in an atmosphere of openness and vulnerability. While knowledge of negative information can damage some relationships, secrets discovered later are often fatal.

Second, there is a much higher expectation of full disclosure in personal relationships than in business relationships.

But, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, not everyone can really handle the truth. So why should someone sabotage himself by telling a new boss, friend, or potential life partner things that could impede the relationship?

As tempting as it is, keeping such matters secret is like burying landmines within the relationship. Undisclosed truths build fault lines under the foundation of important relationships and, in a person of conscience, they create guilt, fear, and insecurity.

Trust is just a state of mind and maintaining trust is about meeting the expectations of people who trust us. So here's an easy test: upon finding out the whole truth, will the person who was denied knowledge feel betrayed? If so, the honorable thing is to fess up.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 1:05 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Why are so many companies taking ethics so seriously these days?

The obvious answer is to stay out or get out of trouble.

After all, lots of bad things happen when an ethics-based scandal hits.

They start with substantial legal, accounting, PR, and consulting costs. But these are nothing compared to the costs associated with damages to reputation, customer relations, internal morale, difficulties recruiting new employees, and increased scrutiny and cynicism of regulators.

Then there is the enormous diversion of the company’s top leaders. Instead of tending to business, the CEO and other key executives often are consumed with strategizing defenses and responses to accusations of wrongdoing.

Finally, there’s the possibility of huge fines, prolonged litigation with major verdicts, debarment from future business, and even long prison sentences.

So, though I prefer to emphasize all the good things resulting from a sustainable ethical business culture, when I consult with corporations in the midst of or recovering from an ethics scandal, I know the immediate and pressing incentive is to avoid or minimize the likelihood of real or perceived improprieties.

Thus, ethics has become a critical risk-management strategy.

The problem is that the traditional focus on legal compliance -- written ethics codes or standards of conduct and mandatory ethics training -- has proved to be wholly inadequate. There’s simply no evidence that these efforts significantly deter wrongdoing or bad judgment.

A deeper and wider approach is needed, and this requires a move from a rules-based compliance mentality to a values-based ethical culture.

In essence, a truly effective ethics initiative must teach, enforce, advocate, and model (we use the acronym “T.E.A.M.”) core ethical values in recruiting, hiring, training, compensation, promotion, and discipline. It’s more difficult than codes and courses, but in the end, it’s a lot cheaper.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:56 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

What we do to make a living plays such a critical role in our lives that it’s worthwhile to ask ourselves now and again whether we’re in the right job.

There are four dimensions of job satisfaction: what you do, who you work for, who you work with, and what you’re paid. If there’s a big deficiency in any one of these, you should consider changing your job by fixing what’s broke or changing your job by finding another one.

Remember, you have a choice. Sure, you need a job, but it’s a trap to believe you need the job you have. Like it or not, you could lose your job at any time for a whole lot of reasons. And if you do, you’ll get a new job – often a better one.

To have a good life, you need a good job, one where you can feel a sense of achievement in what you do, where you can be proud of whom you work for, and where you like and respect the people with whom you work.

As Disraeli said, "Life is too short to be little." Don’t belittle your life by demeaning work.

No job is inherently demeaning. Physical labor can be as rewarding and meaningful as management. Every job can be performed in a manner that is significant and worthwhile. What is demeaning is a job where you are pressured to compromise your values or where you work for or with people or a company you aren’t proud to associate with – a boss who’s dishonest, disrespectful, irresponsible, or unfair or coworkers who don’t care about quality and excellence.

John Ruskin said, "The highest reward for your toil is not what you get for it, but what you become by it." Your job should make you a better as well as a happier person.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 1:18 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Sam, a supervisor, was dumbfounded as he watched Bill diligently dig holes while Chuck, after waiting a short interval, filled them. When Sam demanded an explanation, Bill was indignant: "We’ve been doing this job for more than 10 years. What’s your problem?"

"Are you telling me that for 10 years you’ve been digging and filling empty holes?" Sam replied.

"Well, not exactly," Bill said. "Until a few months ago, another fellow put a bush in the hole before Chuck filled it. But he retired and was never replaced."

"Why didn’t you tell somebody?" Sam sputtered.

"My gosh," Bill answered. "You’re management. We figured you knew."

While management is ultimately to blame when employees systematically waste time and money in thoughtless unproductive activity, we can’t let Bill and Chuck off the hook. Sure, it’s easy to hide behind the assumption that the stupidity of management has no bounds, but responsibility is a personal burden everyone carries.

Too many organizations are weighed down by practices equivalent to digging and filling holes because too many workers and managers engage in or ignore inefficient and ineffective activities.

Whether unaccountability is fed by laziness, ignorance, or fear, employees who surrender to the negative momentum of the workplace not only demean the value of their work, but they increase the likelihood that they will someday be out of work.

We can avoid our responsibilities, but we can’t avoid the consequences of avoiding our responsibilities. All of us are accountable for what we allow as well as what we do. If we want to make our lives more meaningful, we should ensure our work is meaningful.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:52 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Racing dogs are trained to chase a mechanical rabbit that always goes a little faster than the fleetest dog. Presumably this causes them to run faster than they otherwise would.

Companies that annually set overly ambitious performance objectives for employees employ this greyhound principle. To a point, it works. Most people achieve more when expectations are set high.

The strategy turns negative, however, when firms chasing Wall Street’s rabbit continually set “no-excuses” double-digit growth goals without regard to market realities (multiple competitors driving toward the same goals) or systemic understaffing (the “do more with less” philosophy). Consequently, many corporate leaders are caught up in a ceaseless upward spiral of stress.

Yes, the financial rewards for such success are ample, but the driving motivation is usually not greed, and certainly not job satisfaction -- it’s toxic fear. This can often morph into desperation, a dangerous mindset that in turn can spawn imprudent short-term decisions and outright cheating.

It’s unwise and unethical to ignore the business and moral implications of aggressive growth strategies that put executives under unprecedented, unrelenting, and unreasonable pressure.

On one level, it’s a matter of values. Work-life balance should be more than a rhetorical ideal. A good company cares about its people. The path to career success should not be littered with the ruins of failed marriages and neglected children.

On another level, it’s long-term self interest. Without an abundant and replenishing pool of talented and committed leaders, no company can succeed for long. The organizations that will pull away in the next decades are those that can attract and retain the best talent because the firms are places where those people want to work -- and that’s going to take a lot more than money.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:16 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

When it comes to sports, every coach and athlete should pursue victory. When it comes to business, every executive should pursue maximum performance.

Victory in sports is easy to measure – it’s about winning games and championships. Maximum performance in business is usually measured in terms of growth in profitability, revenues, and market share.

I understand and strongly identify with a passion for victory in sports and growth in business. Committed coaches and dedicated executives usually perform better than counterparts who are satisfied with smaller goals.

The problem is, many sports and business organizations push the success principle to irrational extremes. It’s one thing to expect leaders to strive mightily for victory and continuous growth; it’s quite another to define success solely in terms of these goals.

Even if a “no-excuses” policy that treats coaches and executives who fall short of performance objectives as failures gets better results, it does so at a huge cost.

Morale – a positive attitude about one’s work and organization – is crucial to stability and sustainable success.

When the pressure to perform creates ceaseless stress and fear, even good and great people get worn down and worn out.

Because most people excel best when they enjoy what they do and derive a sense of worth and achievement from their work, excellence and improvement are much better standards of success than championships or “hitting one’s numbers.”

Greyhounds may run faster chasing an uncatchable mechanical rabbit, but smart people withdraw from any race that’s rigged against them.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:13 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

In the wake of a continual parade of scandals, there has been talk about codes of ethics. I’ve written dozens of codes and have a healthy respect for their value as an element of a corporate culture, but I wince at the unreasonable expectations attached to these documents.

Ethics codes don’t make people ethical. They don’t make bad people good. They don't make people with bad judgment wise. Ethics codes would not have prevented most of the shocking behavior we’ve seen in recent years.

There are two aspects to ethics: discernment (knowing right from wrong) and discipline (having the moral willpower to do what’s right). A code can help define what’s right and acceptable and provide a basis for imposing sanctions on those who don’t follow it, but unless it reinforces an established ethical culture, it won’t do much to assure that people will do what’s right.

It’s proper and prudent to clarify existing laws and establish standards of conduct in areas not governed by them. Ethics codes transform moral obligations into binding rules. For example, it’s helpful to set clear parameters for using e-mail, private information, and company property; hiring or doing business with relatives; and accepting gratuities. In more complex cases, codes can mandate disclosure or certification and forbid or restrict transactions such as loans and reimbursements that could create real or apparent conflicts of interest.

To the extent we need more clarity, we need more codes. To the extent we need more character, we need a lot more.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 1:56 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

If you were hiring a new CEO, what are the most important qualities you’d look for? Surely you’d want a high level of demonstrated competence – knowledge, experience, intelligence, vision, communication, and relationship skills and the ability to motivate, manage, and solve problems. But what about honesty, moral courage, accountability, and fairness?

Despite bold rhetoric about the indispensability of good character, many hard-driving organizations are willing to be flexible on character to get an exceptionally competent person.

Thus, many current scandals -- in business, the church, and sports – have occurred because organizations compromised their principles by recruiting, retaining, or tolerating leaders with serious character flaws who generated costly accusations of wrongdoing and undermined trust, morale, teamwork, and loyalty.

I used to tell clients that competence and character were two separate aspects of intelligent employment decisions. Now I think it’s a mistake to disconnect them. Good character is an essential aspect of competence.

Long ago, Samuel Johnson said, "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, but knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful." Warren Buffet updated that notion: "In looking for people to hire, look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. But if they don’t have the first, the other two will kill you."

Since it’s easier to train a person of good character to do a job well than to develop character in a skilled but unprincipled employee, if you have to choose, hire for character and train for skills.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:36 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

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 the political realities and rationalizations in Sacramento, so 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 to myself, "do you hardly ever take bribes?"

Although his statement sounded like a confession, he wasn’t embarrassed at all. In fact, he was proud. "Hardly ever lying" made him 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 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 who minimize their moral shortcomings by comparing themselves to those 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 11:23 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

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 turn a photo of her into a painted portrait for 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. I couldn’t make a sale. What’s worse, some people were outright rude and literally slammed their door 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 that simplistic mantra, but suddenly I got it.

I realized that every meaningful opportunity in life would stay behind closed doors and never open unless I knocked on it. And beneath this simple insight was another: If I was to succeed in anything difficult, I had to muster the confidence and courage to plug away despite the certainty of frustrating and unpleasant experiences.

Well, I hung in there and knocked on enough doors to earn what I needed to buy the portrait. My dad was thrilled, and the painting now hangs next to another one of my dad in the lobby of the Joseph and Edna Josephson Institute of Ethics, the nonprofit organization I founded in their honor.

I’m so glad my dad taught me to persist and so 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 3:11 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

My training as a lawyer taught me to identify weaknesses in arguments and hidden risks in ideas. Although I was often accused of negativism, I thought of myself as a constructive critic, even when there wasn’t anything constructive in my criticism. A simple poem called "Builders and Wreckers" changed my perspective.

I watched them tearing a building down,
A gang of men in a busy town.
With a ho, heave, ho, and a lusty yell
They swung a beam and a wall fell.

I asked the foreman, "Are these men skilled?
Like the men you’d hire if you had to build?"
He laughed as he replied, "No, indeed,
Just common labor is all I need.

I can easily wreck in a day or two
What builders have taken years to do."
I asked myself as I went away
Which of these roles have I tried to play?

Am I a builder who works with care,
Measuring life by rule and square?
Or am I a wrecker who walks the town
Content with the labor of tearing down?

Why do so many of us find it gratifying to be sideline cynics smothering ideas in a relentless barrage of "what ifs" and warnings? As the poem points out, it’s much easier to be a wrecker than a builder.

Of course, it’s wise and necessary to challenge assumptions, test theories, and predict problems, but that should be the beginning, not an end. We should measure our value by the number of balloons we helped launch, not the number we deflated.

A builder sees problems as challenges and seeks solutions; a dismantler sees problems in every solution. A builder sees flaws and tries to fix them; a dismantler sees flaws in every fix.

We need more builders.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:02 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

As I watched nearly five dozen eager graduates of the Los Angeles Police Academy throw their hats in the air celebrating their achievement, I knew these were the survivors of a rigorous training and their journey was not over.

Ahead of them is a full year of supervised field training, and it’s unlikely all of them will make it through their probation.

It’s difficult to cut hard-working and hopeful probationers, but if an organization wants to create a culture of excellence, its gatekeepers (those in charge of hiring, training, retention, and promotion) must exercise clear-eyed objectivity and demonstrate unflinching courage by weeding out those who are unwilling or unable to be excellent.

In policing and many other fields, the stakes are simply too high to knowingly accept less. No one wants a surgeon, teacher, or cop with marginal or mediocre skills or shaky character.

Yet everywhere we see signs of declining standards. Public and private organizations regularly lower their expectations due to political expediency, misplaced loyalty, forced diversity, or perceived necessity. Adequacy has become the shifting standard defined as "the best we can get."

Two results are inevitable when we lower standards: The quality of service continually sinks as fewer people strive for the best within them, and mediocrity becomes the norm as good people move up and out, leaving behind a growing proportion of so-so performers.

Two results are inevitable when we insist on excellence: Performance increases as everyone does better than they otherwise would, and some people will be asked to leave.

Management can avoid its responsibility, but it can’t dodge the consequences of shirking it. Excellence is achievable, but not without sacrifice and discipline.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

To receive my commentaries by e-mail at no charge, visit www.CharacterCounts.org.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:20 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Ethics is a popular topic at corporate meetings today because management correctly sees the benefits. Good things tend to happen to companies that consistently do the right thing, and bad things tend to happen to those that even occasionally do the wrong thing. Being ethical is playing the odds.

Ethical companies have a competitive edge because people prefer to deal with firms they trust. They also benefit from high credibility; being believed is an enormous asset. In addition, ethical companies attract and retain employees better because they have higher morale. And finally, good ethics generates a good reputation, good will, and loyalty.

So it’s true: Good ethics is good business.

Most companies try to motivate employees to be ethical by stressing how doing so will benefit the corporation. The problem is, this amoral rationale is grounded in self-interest rather than morality. It has nothing to do with ethics.

Doing the right thing to get something in return is an investment, not a demonstration of character. Ethics based on self-interest is situational; ethics based on moral convictions is reliable. It’s the difference between acting ethically and being ethical.

Trying to motivate people to do the right thing by stressing benefits rather than values and virtue turns decision making into a cold cost-benefit analysis rather than a reflection of what’s right.

But if a company encourages employees to make decisions based on the supposed advantages, why should anyone put their firm’s interests above their own? In the absence of authentic moral conviction, why should employees refrain from unethical or illegal conduct if they think it will save their job or enhance their compensation? Clearly, what’s good for an enterprise is not always good for its employees.

My point is, it’s foolish and fruitless to expect most employees to sacrifice their financial well-being for the good of the company. On the other hand, many will do so in the name of honor, as a matter of conscience, and to earn the esteem and admiration of family and friends.

Corporations have a much better chance of deterring improper conduct by appealing to conscience and principle rather than risks and rewards.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 5:45 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

A few years ago, after a decade of full-time mothering, my wife Anne became restless. Our four daughters were in school and she wanted to find a way to make better use of her Ivy League education and entrepreneurial mind. But she wasn’t sure what to do and was fearful that starting a career would prevent her from being the great mom she was and wanted to be.

A book called Finding Your Own North Star by Martha Beck helped her clarify what she liked to do and was good at. As a result, she started a family-friendly children’s activity center built around gymnastics. She cleverly got me on board by stressing it would be built on the principles of CHARACTER COUNTS!

Creating and running The Josephson Academy of Gymnastics became much more challenging than either of us expected. On the plus side, Anne’s made great use of all her maternal instincts, becoming a queen bee mother and nurturing more than 1,000 toddlers and teens. And, on most days, she loves it.

On the downside, the time and emotional drain of loving so many kids and dealing with demanding parents and employees has made it much harder for her to be the “always there” mother of her own children.

The stress is enormous, and she struggles constantly. In my view, she succeeds admirably, but I know she’s often wracked with guilt. It’s the plight of most working moms, and I don’t think we husbands or dads truly appreciate how difficult it is.

So with Mother’s Day coming up, these marvelous women should get more than flowers or jewelry. They deserve deep, sincere, and enduring admiration and gratitude.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:54 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Years ago I was talking to about 50 Army generals responsible for weapons and equipment purchases. When I raised the issue of professional integrity, one of them reminded me there's a big gap between the way things are and the way they ought to be.

"Look, if the chairman of the Appropriations Committee comes from a district that makes trucks," he said, "we're going to buy those trucks whether or not they're the best."

I suggested that was bribery. Without missing a beat, he said, "That's not bribery -- it's extortion!" The implication was, if they didn't cater to the politicians, they would pay a high price.

He then added, "That's the way it is, the way it always was, and the way it always will be."

"How can you sound so powerless?" I asked. "You're a general."

"Yeah," he said, "but I'm only a one-star."

I'm only a one-star. I hear this abdication of moral responsibility a lot.

Later I heard a similar claim of helplessness from a middle manager who protested my appeal to moral courage. "Do you really expect someone with a well-paying job and heavy family obligations to put it all at risk?"

"Yes, I do," I replied. "There are lots of people who would rather lose their job than their integrity." More than ever we need people to stand up and be counted.

When there's a gap between ideals and reality, people of character don't surrender their ideals. They fight for them. They work to change the way things are to the way they ought to be.

As Edward Everett Hale said, "It's true I am only one, but I am one. And the fact that I can't do everything will not prevent me from doing what I can do."

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 5:04 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (2)

Suppose you want to quit your job. Maybe you're bored, burned-out, fed up, or just want something better. Whatever the reason, quitting a job involves serious ethical issues.

Taking a job creates a web of moral responsibilities that don't end simply because you want out. The organization you work for, your coworkers, and the customers or clients you deal with are stakeholders in what you do and how you do it -- all are entitled to be treated ethically.

It's wrong to ignore your moral duties, but it's also unwise. If you leave behind justified resentment or feelings of betrayal, you create ill will that can trail and damage you for decades.

Your ethical obligations are fundamental: Be honest every step of the way, be fair, be responsible, and be respectful. In short, treat others the way you'd want to be treated.

Sadly, these basic commitments are regularly ignored by both employees and employers who convince themselves that, in the workplace, self-interest and expediency -- not principles and ethics -- are the proper standards of conduct.

Widespread as this view may be, it's a self-serving delusion. Decent people are decent in every setting.

Start by acknowledging that leaving a job honorably may require you to subordinate your wants, desires, and needs to the legitimate moral claims of others.

If you made a compact, whether written or oral, keep it or seek a release from it. Strive to reduce the negative effect of your departure by providing ample transition time and offering to help during the changeover. Sometimes two weeks is enough, sometimes it isn't.

Remember, character is doing the right thing, even when it may cost more than you want to pay.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:47 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

After 30 years of building houses for Ben, a prominent land developer, Sam announced he wanted to retire, buy some land, and build a small home for himself and his wife.

Sam had hoped for a large bonus for all his years of service. Instead, Ben asked him if he would build one more house. He gave Sam plans for a lovely home located on a choice piece of land with a magnificent view. It was for a very important person, Ben said, and he urged Sam to do his best work.

Because Sam was resentful, his heart was not in the project and his work was shoddy. He ignored architectural details and even substituted inferior materials so he could pocket the difference. When the house was finished, there was a big celebration. Ben gave Sam an envelope as a parting gift.

"At last, my bonus," Sam thought.

There was no check in the envelope. Instead, it included a key and a note: "For everything you've done -- the house is yours!"

Sam was ashamed and embarrassed. He had not only misjudged Ben, he had betrayed his professionalism by constructing an inferior home, one that turned out to be his own.

Through our daily actions we all build the houses we will ultimately live in. Careless decisions, neglected relationships, lies, and insincerity are the shoddy workmanship and inferior materials of life-building.

Whenever we take shortcuts, we shortchange ourselves. Whenever we put in less than our best and ignore our potential for excellence, we create a future full of creaky floors, leaky roofs, and crumbling foundations.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:43 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Two fellows on a camping trip see a bear approaching. When one announces he's going to run for it, his friend says, "You can't outrun a bear."

The cold-hearted response: "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."

This story is a metaphor for all sorts of selfish, me-first practices that are corrupting the workplace.

As a former law professor, I'm ashamed to say these behaviors are often the product of short-sighted and morally myopic legal advice designed to reduce risks of litigation without considering the ethical and long-term social impact.

For example, almost all private- and public-sector employers refuse to give honest and complete job references. In fact, most managers think it's unlawful to give negative job references, though the laws in most states explicitly protect employers so long as they act in good faith. It's not the law but self-imposed internal rules that prevent a fair and honest discussion of an employee's history.

When pressed, lawyers admit that unless a former employee can prove malice or recklessness, there's almost no chance of a successful lawsuit. But, they reason, there's still a risk of a bogus suit, and they see no upside. The shameless rationale: "Why should we take a risk just to help you?"

The result, of course, is that everyone plays "pass the meatball." Denied crucial information about character and competence, employers may hire undesirable employees who could end up damaging their organization.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:41 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

I find myself spending more and more time consulting with large corporations concerned with strengthening their ethical culture. I start by identifying two reasons to be concerned about ethics: virtue (it's the right thing to do) and prudence (it's the smart thing to do).

Although I always stress the intrinsic value of moral principles, most executives are more receptive when I talk about ethics as a risk-management strategy. Above all, they are the stewards of the reputation and resources of their organization, and they know unethical conduct can severely damage or even destroy a company.

The key is to establish an authentic ethical culture that nurtures and rewards trustworthiness, responsibility, and mutual respect and discourages dishonesty, unaccountability, and disrespect.

This requires much more than codes and classes. Well-written standards of conduct clarify expectations and provide a useful basis for discipline, but that's not enough.

Neither is training. A well-designed ethics course can raise ethical consciousness, teach legal requirements, and encourage employees to do the right thing. But unless ethical values are pervasively advocated and enforced in everyday decision making, the risk of unethical behavior remains high.

Generally, we get what we reward. In an ethical culture, formal and informal incentive systems make it easier and wiser to do the right thing. In an ethical culture, deceit, cowardice, and irresponsibility are high-risk behaviors because they endanger careers.

The best way to establish a sustainable ethical culture is to integrate character issues in recruiting, hiring, orientation, in-service training, and especially performance reviews and discipline decisions.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts – especially if you count it.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:38 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Today, the concept of risk management is so fundamental that most large organizations dedicate entire departments to assessing factors that create risks of financial loss or physical injury.

The first job of risk managers is to identify conditions that increase the likelihood of a damaging event. If the concern is fire, for example, they would focus on overloaded electrical circuits and sloppy handling of flammable substances.

The second aspect of risk management is reducing the harm in the event of a fire. Requiring sprinklers and firewalls reduce the risk of damage.

If we've learned anything from the last few years of unrelenting budget-breaking, reputation-damaging, energy-diverting scandals, it's that people with weak character or bad judgment constitute a far greater jeopardy than fires.

Thus, treating good character as an essential job competence is an important and potent risk-management strategy. Unfortunately, in a litigious environment dominated by fears of getting sued, many companies neither seek nor give comprehensive and candid background information on new employees.

That's a great mistake. If one has to choose, hire for character and train for skills. This means developing a robust program of screening and weeding.

First, spend more time ascertaining the character of job applicants through background checks and require them to sign a waiver authorizing their former employers to disclose all relevant information.

Second, establish and uphold high character standards and eliminate employees, especially during their probationary period, who exhibit a disposition toward dishonesty, irresponsibility, or disrespect.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:22 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

I just returned from a meeting with top executives of a multinational corporation that has an unusually good reputation with the public and employees for its values and concern for ethics. I was there to demonstrate the company's commitment to pursue profit with honor.

In an environment where the costs of unethical conduct can be devastating, it's a wise risk-management strategy and a sign of moral virtue to self-consciously and continually integrate ethical discussions into business strategy sessions.

What strikes me, however, is that the emphatically stated justification for this unusual commitment to ethical values always centers on business results. It's as if executives have to continually reaffirm and convince each other that good ethics is good business.

Well, of course it is -- at least in the long run.

This particular company has benefited in many ways from its hard-earned and vigorously protected equity of trust. Still, there is something unsettling about relying on a cost-benefit analysis to justify any sacrifices or costs associated with unwavering ethical standards. The implication is, if we can't demonstrate bottom-line advantages, we can't justify constraints of ethical principles. Ethics, in other words, is a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

What if good ethics wasn't good business? Would business executives be exempt from moral duty if principles couldn't be associated with profits?

My concern is that when we justify ethics in terms of self-interest, it isn't ethics anymore. And it understates the powerful draw of virtue itself. People not only want to be treated ethically, they want to work for an ethical organization. They want to be proud of that logo on their paycheck.

Whether or not good ethics is good business, it's a good way to live. When people believe that's enough, good ethics will be good business.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:39 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Every few years, the business community becomes enthralled with a new management theory designed to improve quality, productivity, and/or profitability and to make the art of management more of a science, e.g., reengineering, the hedgehog principle, Six Sigma, MBO (management by objective), or TQM (total quality management).

The risk is that such theories can overemphasize the role of structures and systems and underemphasize the importance of other key attributes to sustainable success -- such things as personal integrity, passion for the company's mission, pride in one's work, loyalty in one's company, and a healthy work-life balance.

It's not uncommon to find high-level executives who are more comfortable with and better at managing projects and hitting their numbers than attracting, developing, and retaining good people. They are managers, not leaders.

While a narrow, cold-eyed focus on growth and profit can work for a while, single-minded, relentless pressure to increase revenues and cut costs will eventually and inevitably create a negative workplace climate that breeds gamesmanship strategies.

Such an environment can result in deceptive and distorted reporting, disloyalty leading to toxic gossip and complaining, discontent and burnout leading to increased turnover and, worst of all, ethical compromise. These costs can far exceed benefits.

The solution is not to ignore or minimize the importance of traditional measures of performance, but to pay more serious and systematic attention to such factors as:

• levels of employee satisfaction, trust, and loyalty
• success in recruiting and retention
• confidence in the integrity of reports and communications
• frequency of legal or regulatory problems

In the end, sustainable success requires a workforce of competence, commitment, and character.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:30 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

I won't go as far as Gordon Gecko, the movie character who declared "greed is good," but profits are important -- beyond the fact that no unsubsidized company can sustain itself without them and that owners and investors have a right to a return on their investment.

From an ethical perspective, however, there's a great difference between public and private companies.

To the owner of a private business, return on investment may mean more than profit. Thus, in deciding what the working hours will be, how much to pay employees, how much quality to build into a product or service, how much to charge customers, and whether to expand existing facilities or enter new markets, the owner's profit motive may be primary or secondary. There's no need for a private owner to maximize profits.

It's generally assumed that this outlook changes once a company goes public. While many public companies continue to be guided by strongly imprinted personal values of their founders, in time that influence tends to diminish or disappear, replaced by Wall Street values focused exclusively on financial performance.

Consequently, though ethics and social responsibility are often talked about, in the end they are viewed pragmatically: Will they contribute to the success of the company (measured by increasing stock price)?

There's nothing wrong with the profit motive. Wall Street can define its own objectives and criteria of success, but ultimately all human behavior is and must be judged in moral terms including honesty, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and good citizenship.

The profit motive can't immunize anyone from moral judgment or excuse short-sighted or selfish decisions to maximize personal compensation or to please investors (usually dominated by huge mutual, pension, or hedge funds that measure success strictly in terms of current financial returns) at the expense of other ethical principles.

Shareholder interests are important, but so are those of other stakeholders – customers, employees, vendors, and the public.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:25 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

A listener once asked me to talk about the special challenges of mixing friendship with authority. The issue often comes up when parents want to be their children's best friends, teachers invite students to treat them as equals, or managers are overly chummy with the people they supervise.

Clearly, there are benefits to enriching these relationships with the affection, trust, and loyalty that come with friendship. A casual atmosphere where you can call your parent, teacher, or boss "Bob" or "Debby" invites openness and is more pleasant than formal relationships where authority is continually emphasized by titles or other traditions that emphasize the power one person has over the other.

The problem is, sooner or later the expectations of friendship will conflict with the responsibilities of authority. Parents, teachers, and bosses can be friends only up to a point.

Friendships are voluntary. Friends are equals. And since the bonds of friendship are essentially formed by affection, friends have to be concerned with being liked. People in authority, on the other hand, have a job to do. They have to set boundaries, give instructions, and impose discipline, even if it engenders dislike or hostility.

Friends can accept each other without a need to change, improve, or judge, but people with authority have a duty to be more demanding. They have a responsibility to insist on character and competence.

Authority is much more complicated than friendship, and it takes character to be a good parent, teacher, or boss.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 11:23 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Most Americans say they’re religious and their beliefs are important to their lives, yet I’m astonished at how many of these people blatantly ignore the moral expectations intrinsic to their religion.

Religion is not only about worship and ritual; it tells believers how they are supposed to live. Thus, the holy books of every major religion are filled with precepts and principles about honesty, justice, fidelity, compassion, and charity that leave no doubt about the role ethics and personal virtue should play in our daily lives at home and at work.

In a fine book entitled The Business Bible, Rabbi Wayne Dosick tells of a soapmaker who challenged a rabbi: "What good is religion? It teaches honesty, but most people are dishonest."

The rabbi answered, "My dear soapmaker, religion -- like soap -- only works when you use it."

The ancient truths and enduring values embodied in traditional religions are much more than guidelines or suggestions about how to behave. To those who profess religious belief, moral and ethical behavior is not an option. It’s a mandate.

To practice the rituals of a religion and to claim reverent identity without scrupulous concern for the moral teachings of the faith is like going to a fine restaurant and eating the menu rather than the food.

It’s also blatant hypocrisy. Integrity is about wholeness, the unity of beliefs, words, and actions. I’m not saying you have to be devout to be ethical. I’m saying if religion is important to you, so is ethics.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 10:04 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Can a job applicant properly withhold information about a criminal record or being fired from a previous job? Should a woman who has started dating say nothing about a previous marriage or abortion? These are problems of candor. When does an ethical person have a duty to reveal negative information about his or her past?

First, let’s reinforce a basic premise: All dimensions of honesty -- truthfulness, straightforwardness, and candor -- are important in establishing and sustaining relationships of trust. Intimacy flourishes in an atmosphere of openness and vulnerability. While knowledge of negative information can damage some relationships, secrets discovered later are often fatal.

Second, there is a much higher expectation of full disclosure in personal relationships than in business relationships. But, to paraphrase Col. Nathan Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson, not everyone can handle the truth. So why should someone sabotage himself by telling a new boss, friend, or potential life partner things that could impede the relationship?

As tempting as it is, keeping such matters secret is like burying land mines within the relationship. Undisclosed truths build fault lines under the foundation of important relationships and, in a person of conscience, can create guilt, fear, and insecurity.

Trust is a state of mind. Maintaining trust is meeting the expectations of people who trust us. So here’s a test: Upon finding out the whole truth, will the person who was denied that knowledge feel betrayed? If so, the honorable thing is to fess up.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 9:55 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Whether you're a teacher, coach, parent, or boss with the power and duty to instruct, inspire, and discipline others, you've probably heard this challenge: Who are you to teach me? Implicit in the question is the idea that if you're not perfect, you have no qualifications or moral standing to teach, preach, or punish. That's simply not true.

Of course, inconsistencies between our words and personal conduct will undermine our credibility and give others an excuse to reject our message, but valid and valuable lessons can be taught by imperfect people. A coach doesn't have to be able to do a back flip to teach it, and important lessons about right and wrong can be taught by those who do not live consistently saintly lives.

What's more, people struggling to live up to their own standards can be even more effective precisely because they understand the nature and power of temptation and the ever-present possibility of bad judgment. I often comfort myself with this thought. Despite my preoccupation with issues of ethics and character, I know I'm no paragon of virtue. I frequently fall short of my moral ambitions.

For example, I want to be thin -- especially when I'm not hungry! I want to be healthier as part of my responsibility to my family and others who care about or rely on me. Still, every day is a challenge, not because I don't know what I should do, but because I love steak and bagels and donuts. Unfortunately, resisting temptation most of the time simply isn't good enough.

We shouldn't give up on our pursuit of perfection, but we also shouldn't wait till we're perfect to teach what we know and believe is right.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 11:10 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Cynicism about the ethics of elected officials may be at an all-time high, continually fueled by new stories of outright corruption or bad judgment. At every level of government there are politicians who can’t seem to recognize or resist conflicts of interest, inappropriate gifts, improper use of the power or property entrusted to them, or the discrediting impact of shameful private conduct.

Thus, it’s no surprise that news media are continually shining light on real and perceived improprieties and putting the heat on federal, state, and city legislatures to pass new and tougher ethics laws to restore public trust.

The phrase "ethics laws" is peculiar because it marries two very different concepts. Ethics refers to standards of right and wrong, how a person should behave according to moral principles such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect. Living ethically is a matter of conscience. Unethical conduct results in shame and perhaps criticism, scandal, or disgrace.

While ethics is about should, laws are about must. They prohibit or mandate specific conduct. Obeying the law is a matter of compliance, and illegal conduct results in sanctions including fines and imprisonment.

Ethics laws meld the two concepts. They both require conduct such as open meetings and disclosure of financial interests and forbid transactions that could compromise the integrity of government. Because of a high tendency of those regulated to evade the spirit and purpose of such laws, statutes have become more complex and technical.

Historically, legislative bodies have been reactive rather than proactive, doing only what they absolutely must. Thus, existing laws often are a hodgepodge of regulations designed to prevent
reoccurrence of specific past improprieties. That’s a big part of the problem.

What we need is nonpartisan statesmanship and visionary leadership willing to face up to the fact that relying on the individual judgment of each elected official is a failed strategy that guarantees a continuous flow of scandals that discredits their institutions and even the enterprise of democratic government itself.

While I wish more emphasis was placed on character rather than compliance, the raw reality is that voters do not consistently demand scrupulous integrity as evidenced by the re-election of people severely stained by scandal.

It’s often said you can’t legislate morality. This is true. But we can require moral conduct. Ethics laws don’t make people ethical, but they do deter unethical conduct. And that’s an important first step.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 1:23 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Although there was plenty of evidence of moral deterioration in 2006, it’s time to look at the good news beneath the bad news. Let’s start with business.

The era of conflicts of interest, creative accounting, easy lying, instinctive cover-ups, inattentive and permissive governance, and lax enforcement has succumbed to a new philosophy emphasizing strict compliance, voluntary disclosure, and serious sanctions.

Yes, this change is driven more by new laws and more aggressive prosecutions than an epiphany of conscience, but invigorated concepts of transparency and accountability are nevertheless changing the moral landscape of big business for the better.

Ever since the indictment of Martha Stewart, it’s been an explosively dangerous environment for corporate leaders prone to ethical shortcuts. In the past five years, more top executives have been fired and/or imprisoned for legal and ethical lapses than in the previous five decades combined!

What’s more, the sentences are the longest in history. Many high-profile commandos of corruption will spend the rest of their life behind bars.

Yesterday, my list of the year’s moral shortcomings included schemes to inflate executive compensation by back-dating stock options, but the growing casualty list shows most firms are dealing with the issue forthrightly and firmly.

I also listed the involvement of Hewlett-Packard’s chairwoman and chief ethics officer in dishonest investigative practices. Both were fired, and several others, including the firm’s general counsel, resigned under pressure.

Let there be no doubt, the certification, self-reporting, and requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley law and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, enforced with prosecutorial zeal, have started a powerful ripple effect that is changing attitudes and conduct.

Boards of directors who govern, accountants and lawyers who serve, and agencies that regulate public corporations are vastly more vigilant and intolerant of dishonest practices today.

It’s a new day where good ethics is not only right, but wise. In fact, it’s an essential risk-management strategy.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:14 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

In the next few days, you’ll hear many versions of the year in review. Time, Newsweek, National Geographic, and countless other media sources will give you ranked lists of notable occurrences from top stories already well-told to others that received less public attention. I find such lists interesting because they highlight events and people that had an impact on the year and, possibly, history.

From my perch, it’s sadly too easy to sum up 2006 as a banner year when ethics was continually subordinated to expediency.

My list of top ethical shortcomings includes:

- More corporate greed and arrogance highlighted by top executives caught fraudulently backdating stock options

- The conduct of Hewlett-Packard’s chairwoman and chief ethics officer who endorsed unethical, and probably illegal, investigative techniques to catch a leaker

- Political scandals of corruption, conflicts of interest, sexual misconduct, and just plain irresponsibility involving Hurricane Katrina, Congressman Foley, and rampant influence-peddling

- New revelations damaging the credibility of religious leaders, including prominent evangelists

- Another parade of top athletes caught cheating using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and the continued ambivalence of athletes and sports groups to the problem

- The failure of school administrators in Texas and elsewhere to deal with substantial evidence of widespread cheating by teachers and school administrators on state performance exams

- A troubling drift away from traditional American values evidenced by increasing incivility, self-righteousness, and intolerance in political discourse

- In our battle with terrorism, an historic departure from the presumption of innocence and the importance of due process, cornerstones to the American sense of justice

- Finally, I’m disturbed and embarrassed by my country’s (and my own) inattention to what our government labels "an ongoing genocide" in Darfur, Sudan

Later, I’ll look on the bright side.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Continue reading "Year in Review — the Bad News 494.3" »

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:06 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Ben was a lumberjack who swung his ax with great power. He could fell a tree in 20 strokes, and in the first few days he produced twice as much lumber as anyone else. By week’s end, Ben was working even harder, but his lead was dwindling.

One friend told him he just had to swing harder. Another said he had to work longer. Neither idea worked. Finally, an old fellow asked Ben how often he sharpened his ax. Ben said he had no time; there was too much to do.

The lesson of this parable contains the remedy to ineffectiveness in today’s workplace.

Dedicated executives may work enormous hours not realizing how much their failure to sharpen their ax by taking time off reduces their effectiveness. As one exceeds the limits of intellectual and physical stamina, both the quantity and quality of work suffer. Fatigue affects judgment and mental acuity, and it soon becomes inevitable that the time and energy needed to fix errors offsets the extra time devoted to the task.

Organizations fail to sharpen their ax when they give short shrift to screening job applicants and training new hires. Burdened with heavy workloads, managers consumed by a sense of urgency to fill open positions succumb to the "warm body" fallacy – the false idea that anyone is better than no one.

You need three things in a good employee: competence, commitment, and character. Shortcomings in any area will be costly, consuming time and resources and damaging morale. Sharpening your ax in this setting means taking the time to be more diligent in background checks, more selective in hiring, more serious in training, and more demanding during probation.

Without the right tools, hard work is not enough.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:31 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

After I spoke about the responsibility of employees to express concern when they spot inefficiency, illegality, or unethical conduct, a man charged the podium to set me straight. "You don't know what you're talking about," he said. "Everyone I've ever worked for cheated and cut corners. I confronted a boss and all it got me was fired."

He was instantly unlikable, and I realized it's guys like that who give whistleblowers a bad name.

Being an effective critic isn't easy. No one likes criticism, and even sincere people of good character can get defensive, especially when someone is being offensive toward them. It's easy to discount or dismiss complaints and opinions of people who seem more interested in letting off steam and telling you how bad things are than in making them better.

If you want to improve the chances of making things better without damaging your career, here are a few suggestions:

• Be prepared. Ensure your facts are correct and you're talking to the right person.

• Be respectful. Watch your tone. Be earnest but not self-righteous or accusatory. An opening like "You stupid, unethical scum" is not likely to be productive. Don't raise your voice or make threats. Be willing to listen as well as talk.

• Be fair. Don't assume bad motives of anyone.

• Be open to new facts and explanations. Don't equate not agreeing with you as not listening, not caring, or being stupid.

• Be honest. Don't exaggerate or omit important facts.

• Be focused and stick to the point.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:12 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Dave had to undergo painful throat surgery. Since he's not a young man and makes his living as a professional speaker, the experience was frightening and traumatic.

He told me his surgeon was skilled and the hospital workers were competent, but the cold indifference of the parade of nurses and doctors who came in and out of his room was one of the most depressing, demoralizing, and dehumanizing experiences of his life.

They treated his disease rather than treating him as a person with a disease, often talking in front of him as if he were a dumb animal who couldn't understand what they were saying. Although they were assigned to his care, they acted as if they didn't care. Their behavior was outright toxic.

I can understand why medical practitioners keep an emotional distance from human suffering as a form of self-protection. And I understand how confronting difficult and demanding patients as well as pain, disease, and even death on a daily basis can form calluses around the heart. But when professional distance translates to disrespect, it's a form of malpractice.

The job of medical professionals is not simply to cure disease but to care for the overall well-being of patients. They do their job best when they help patients get better and help them feel better.

What saved him, Dave said, wasn't the pain-killing drugs but the attitude of a few nurses who uplifted his spirits by simple acts of human decency -- a smile, a kind word, a compassionate expression or tone -- that conveyed the message that they cared.

We have to love and admire those who can bring their hearts to their work, knowing that mental sunshine and flowers are powerful medicines.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:07 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

If it’s really true that good ethics is good business, then only stupid people would be unethical.

Yet the scores of millionaire executives sent to prison in the past few years aren’t stupid at all. In fact, they’re unusually smart. They’ve got plenty of IQ points. What they lack is a moral compass.

Clearly, smart isn’t the same thing as wise -- or good.

And so, stories of highly successful people ruined by conscious-less greed or arrogance-induced moral myopia continue to make news.

Bruce Karatz, one of California’s highest-paid executives as chairman of KB Homes, the fifth largest homebuilder in the nation, was expelled from his company for fraudulently inflating income by backdating stock options. Pat Dunn, recently forced to resign as chairman of Hewlett Packard’s Board, pled not guilty to criminal charges that she approved of illegal spying tactics against fellow board members and journalists.

But amid these stories validating Lily Tomlin’s observation that "No matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up" is an underplayed story of moral courage and integrity.

Dean Baquet, editor of the Los Angeles Times, was recently fired for refusing to carry out orders to sharply cut staff. By standing on principle, he joined former Times publisher Jeffrey Johnson, who took the same stance, and suffered the same fate, a month ago. The newspaper is highly profitable, but its owner, the Tribune Company, is under pressure to increase profits even more to boost the sagging price of its stock.

Both men face a very uncertain future in an industry dominated by a handful of conglomerates willing to maximize profits at the cost of diluting news coverage.

These men deserve our commendation and gratitude for setting the kind of example we need.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:36 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

You’ve probably heard about the hard-working woodsman who was so overwhelmed with all the trees he had to cut down that he couldn’t take the time to sharpen his ax. Thus, he worked harder and harder and became less productive.

So it is with many corporations that are so immersed in efforts to increase revenues, cut costs, and expand market share that they don’t pay adequate attention to the primary driver of sustainable success – a dedicated and competent workforce.

Despite noble rhetoric about the importance of employees, the morale, dedication, and loyalty of the core workforce is deteriorating throughout corporate America.

Large numbers of executives are getting worn out – physically and emotionally – not only from the relentless pressure to do more with less, but from the strain of trying to meet the escalating expectations of their bosses and the ongoing needs of their families.

I once suggested to a CEO who had metrics and goals for every imaginable element of profitability that he ought to factor in the divorce rate of executives and loss of focus when a key employee is dealing with the alienation and anger of kids who are both spoiled and neglected.

Josephson Institute surveys of clients’ workforces commonly reveal broad-based and deep-seated distrust for leadership and widespread fear and suspicion. Employees readily admit lying to their bosses and often claim a "kill the messenger" culture in their organization causes them to conceal or distort negative information.

What’s needed is a comprehensive ethical-culture initiative embracing the whole human-resource process, stressing pride and fulfillment more than pay and a sincere and concerted effort to address the work/life balance issue.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:35 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Most managers think they have a pretty good idea of what’s going on in their department. Many pride themselves on their open-door policy and self-perceived approachability. Yet it’s likely there are things they don't know about and employees who hope they don’t find out.

According to dozens of organizational surveys administered by the Josephson Institute, at least 30 percent of employees say there’s a "kill the messenger" syndrome in their workplace that causes them or others to conceal or distort negative information. Nearly as many admit they are under so much pressure to hit their numbers that they regularly tailor reports to give their superiors what they want to hear.

Whether management really has created an intimidating culture or employees have formed unfair perceptions as an excuse to avoid confrontations or criticisms, the fact remains that there are huge gaps in management’s knowledge on both practical business matters and potential legal and ethical issues.

One lesson from the recent bundle of business and accounting scandals is that complete, reliable information is essential to good decisions and that it is prudent as well as respectful and responsible to encourage employees to reveal facts, discuss pressures, and challenge practices that might be inefficient, illegal, or unethical.

The primary goal of encouraging candor in the workplace is to provide managers with important information while reinforcing the idea throughout the organization that you want and expect everyone to be forthcoming and accountable. When employees feel comfortable expressing themselves, the likelihood of morale-damaging gossip and outside whistle-blowing is reduced.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:30 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

A task force of military and civilian leaders appointed by the Defense Science Board, an agency of the Department of Defense, evaluated the causes of recent scandals in the defense-acquisition community and the effectiveness of current ethics-training programs. Among their conclusions: The government’s preoccupation with compliance is far too narrow to deter improper conduct or inspire moral courage.

What’s needed to create a high-integrity organization worthy of public trust and employee pride is leadership and a proactive top-down commitment to "ensure that values and ethics are the foundation for employee actions."

Undersecretary of Defense Kenneth Krieg concurred, declaring, "The key to success is making ethics a critical part of our core values." He added, "We must instill a culture with our people that shows ethical behavior is highly valued."

The Josephson Institute has been asked to help the Defense Department’s vast acquisitions apparatus move from a narrow rule-based culture stressing knowledge to a values-based ethical culture emphasizing judgment. It’s a daunting task.

Many government agencies, as well as companies that do business with the government, trivialize the concept of ethics by what is commonly called ethics training. These annual "ethics dips" often consist of an hour-long session focused on technical rules and consequences. They are not only ineffectual, they can be counterproductive.

Legalistic compliance courses parading under the banner of ethics frequently generate cynicism and resentment, trivialize the grand notion of ethics, and encourage a search for loopholes based on the principle: If it’s legal, it’s ethical.

I’ll talk more next time about a much better strategy designed to motivate moral aspirations through pride rather than the fear of punishment.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Continue reading "The Shortcomings of Compliance Training 487.1" »

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:20 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

A task force of military and civilian leaders appointed by the Defense Science Board, an agency of the Department of Defense, evaluated the causes of recent scandals in the defense-acquisition community and the effectiveness of current ethics-training programs. Among their conclusions: The government’s preoccupation with compliance is far too narrow to deter improper conduct or inspire moral courage.

What’s needed to create a high-integrity organization worthy of public trust and employee pride is leadership and a proactive top-down commitment to "ensure that values and ethics are the foundation for employee actions."

Undersecretary of Defense Kenneth Krieg concurred, declaring, "The key to success is making ethics a critical part of our core values." He added, "We must instill a culture with our people that shows ethical behavior is highly valued."

The Josephson Institute has been asked to help the Defense Department’s vast acquisitions apparatus move from a narrow rule-based culture stressing knowledge to a values-based ethical culture emphasizing judgment. It’s a daunting task.

Many government agencies, as well as companies that do business with the government, trivialize the concept of ethics by what is commonly called ethics training. These annual "ethics dips" often consist of an hour-long session focused on technical rules and consequences. They are not only ineffectual, they can be counterproductive.

Legalistic compliance courses parading under the banner of ethics frequently generate cynicism and resentment, trivialize the grand notion of ethics, and encourage a search for loopholes based on the principle: If it’s legal, it’s ethical.

I’ll talk more next time about a much better strategy designed to motivate moral aspirations through pride rather than the fear of punishment.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Continue reading "The Shortcomings of Compliance Training 487.1" »

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:20 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

I’ve talked before about the Josephson Institute’s 2006 survey revealing that 28 percent of high school students admitted stealing from a store and 60 percent cheated on an exam within the past year. Yet these numbers understate the true problem -- 27 percent confessed they lied on at least one question on the survey itself!

Consider the rampant corporate fraud that devastated the financial markets and sent scores of top executives to jail. Unless we do something about this growing culture of cheating, things could get worse. Another 2006 study of more than 5,000 grad students found that 56 percent of those seeking advanced business degrees are active cheaters who asserted that success is more important than integrity.

How can we ignore the likely havoc caused by an employee pool polluted by so many dishonest future workers, customers and vendors?

Long ago, the business community actively supported literacy programs because it needed employees who could read and write. Well, it’s time for business to recognize a parallel need to promote moral literacy because it needs employees who know and do what’s right.

When making hiring decisions, philanthropist Warren Buffet said he looks for three qualities: integrity, intelligence and energy. Then he added, "If you don’t have the first one, the other two will kill you."

Rotary Clubs, local Chambers of Commerce and other business associations ought to demand and support character-education programs in schools, and major corporations ought to make honesty an explicit and essential aspect of recruitment, performance reviews and promotion decisions.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 12:23 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

There’s a hole in the moral ozone, and if we don’t work harder to repair it, we will sentence ourselves and our children to a future filled with scandals and economic instability.

As part of National CHARACTER COUNTS! Week, the Josephson Institute of Ethics just released its 2006 biennial Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth. The data ought to alarm parents and employers: Twenty-eight percent of the more than 36,000 high school students surveyed admitted they stole from a store in the past year, 60 percent confessed they cheated on an exam and 82 percent said they lied to their parents about something significant.

Because these data are sadly consistent with our former surveys, it is clear that dishonest habits and values have become deeply entrenched in the next generation of corporate executives, cops, politicians, journalists, generals and parents. We hoped the information would be received as a call to action. Instead, many top news organizations reacted with a dismissive yawn.

One editor from the Chicago Sun-Times said, "Most people cheat on tests at one time or another. I don’t see the dire implications you do."

An interesting observation from a profession rocked by plagiarism, fabrication and circulation-fraud scandals. In forming his judgment that there is no story here, he ignored that more than one in four students poised to enter the workforce are active thieves.

Perhaps he and his colleagues are right in thinking it’s no big deal, or maybe he’s simply ignoring all the signs in the same way Louisiana politicians ignored evidence that New Orleans was not ready to cope with a hurricane the size of Katrina.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 12:42 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Last week I suggested three rules for job success: Be a positive force, always give your best and be accountable. Here are three more:

Relentlessly build your knowledge and skill. No matter what your job is, you can get better at it if you accept personal responsibility for your own professional development. Learn whatever you can whenever you can to build expertise and proficiency. Be reflective, draw learning out of every experience, broaden and deepen your knowledge by reading, conversing and staying current. Lifelong learners enjoy their work more and become an indispensable business resource.

Be honest – all the time. Consciously and continually build trust and safeguard your reputation for integrity. Be honest with your boss and your customers about little things as well as big things. Regardless of the pressure or temptation to make yourself or your company look better, don’t risk credibility by lying, exaggerating or misleading. Don’t try to solve problems by deceit. Remember, each act of dishonesty or insincerity is like a land mine that can destroy trust and jeopardize your job.

Treat everyone with respect whether they deserve it or not. Life is full of people who are rude, abusive or just plain annoying. Don’t take it personally. Control the impulse toward anger or retaliation. A professional maintains poise and dignity no matter the provocation. You don’t have to respect everyone in the sense that you think highly of them, but you should treat them with respect -- not because they deserve it, but because that is the kind of person you are. Nothing is ever lost by being respectful, and much can be gained.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 12:39 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

If you want to do well in your job or get a better one, here are three good rules for success:

Be a positive force. Bad mouthing, letting off steam or unloading about the shortcomings of your company, boss or coworkers may be therapeutic or entertaining, but it’s unprofessional and nothing good will come of it. Don’t sweep real problems under the carpet, but find constructive ways to raise them. Loyal employees who are seen as positive forces, team players and morale boosters are highly valued. Those who develop reputations as gossipers, whiners, backbiters or finger-pointers are liabilities who everyone will be glad to see go.

Always give your best. Go the extra mile, pitch in to help others, get to work early and stay late when needed. Demonstrate pride in your work even if you think no one appreciates it. Keep non-work-related chatter and activities to a minimum. Don’t let slackers and minimalists set your standards. Pursuit of excellence is never wasted. Those who give their best efforts will eventually flourish; they will stand out and move up. Those who do only what they have to do will languish. When opportunities arise, they will be ignored. When economic pressures mount, they will be moved out.

Be accountable. Admit mistakes readily. Even when a problem is not your fault, think of what you could have done to avoid it or lessen the impact. Acknowledge your part apologetically when appropriate, but not defensively and make a mental note to do more or better next time. If you see something that’s not working, fix it or bring the matter up in a positive manner to those who can.

Tomorrow I’ll talk about three more rules of job success.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:18 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

"Sshhh, no one has to know."

"This is confidential."

"Don’t tell anyone."

These sorts of phrases are a prelude to problems if they’re intended to mask words or conduct that will look ugly, be embarrassing or generate legal action if exposed. The foolish belief that misconduct will stay concealed is at the root of a continual parade of relationship-ending, reputation-ruining, career-crushing scandals.

There are no safe secrets about what happens in bedrooms, boardrooms, grand-jury rooms or computer rooms.

Hewlett Packard’s chairperson Pat Dunn never dreamed the gory details of her covert, but dubious, efforts to catch a fellow board member who had leaked information would become big-time news. Now Dunn, the leaker and a handful of HP executives are history.

Congressman Mark Foley was confident his sexually laden computer messages to underage Congressional pages would never see the light of day just as House Speaker Dennis Hastert didn’t imagine the world would know he was warned about Foley’s proclivities and did nothing more than tell him to stop. Foley is gone and Hastert is in trouble.

Jeanine Pirro, a political candidate in New York, never thought her discussions about secretly eavesdropping on her cheating husband would become public, but they were and her credibility has been damaged.

And surely, actor Jude Law thought no one would find out he was having sex with his children’s nanny.

It’s never been easy to keep secrets, but it’s never been harder than it is today.

As I emphasize in my seminars to business executives, public officials and police officers, if it’s gotta be a secret, don’t do it. Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want reported on the ten o’clock news or some Internet blog.

The only safe way to protect yourself is to behave yourself.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:25 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Words are powerful things. Unkind or mean-spirited labels can be weapons of mass emotional destruction, while kind and encouraging words can heal wounds better than any medication. Often, great energy is used to create words or phrases to replace designations considered too direct, harsh or unpleasant.

In fact, someone invented "euphemism" to describe the process of using a nicer-sounding word for an ugly one. A euphemism is itself a euphemism for what often is a deliberate deception. When we don’t want to admit we’ve lied, we might say we fudged the truth or exaggerated. Years ago, the term "disinformation" was used to describe a policy of lying to the press to advance international objectives. "Collateral damage" is meant to hide the horror of the deaths of innocent civilians. "Rendition" denoted a policy to hand over suspected terrorists to other nations with the knowledge and intent that the suspects would be tortured during interrogation.

Now, corporate America has a new one: "pretexting." It seems that the board of directors of Hewlett-Packard hired investigators to discover the source of leaks to the press. Among other things, the investigators called telephone companies pretending to be customers to obtain private telephone records. The investigators and several corporate executives are likely to face criminal charges. Their innocent-sounding word can’t mask the fact that pretexting is lying, and essentially a form of fraud.

Try as one might, you can’t hide the moral significance of an awful act by dressing it in nice words. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:01 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

What we do to make a living plays such a critical role in our lives that it’s worthwhile to ask ourselves now and again whether we are in the right job.

There are four dimensions of job satisfaction: what you do, who you work for, who you work with and what you’re paid. If there’s a big deficiency in any one of these, you should consider changing your job by fixing what’s broke or changing your job by finding another one.

Remember, you do have a choice. Sure, you need a job, but it’s a trap to believe you need the job you have. Like it or not, you could lose your job at any time for a whole lot of reasons. And if you do, you’ll get a new job -- often a better one.

To have a good life, you need a good job, one where you can feel a sense of achievement in what you do, where you can be proud of whom you work for and where you like and respect the people you work with.

As Disraeli said, "Life is too short to be little." Don’t belittle your life by demeaning work.

No job is inherently demeaning. Physical labor can be as rewarding and meaningful as management. Every job can be performed in a manner that is significant and worthwhile. What is demeaning is a job where you are pressured to compromise your values or where you work for or with people or a company you aren’t proud to associate with -- a boss who’s dishonest, disrespectful, irresponsible or unfair or coworkers who don’t care about quality and excellence.

John Ruskin said, "The highest reward for your toil is not what you get for it, but what you become by it." Your job should make you a better as well as a happier person.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:31 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Labor Day’s a good time to think about the role work plays in your life.

Henry Thoreau said, "The mass of men spend their lives in quiet desperation." For some, work is part of that desperation. For others, it’s part of what makes life worth living. Finding the right job is as difficult as finding the right mate, but it’s just as important.

People who love their work get more out of their lives. Teddy Roosevelt said, "Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." George Sand put it another way: "Work is not a punishment; it’s a reward."

According to W. H. Auden, three things are needed if people are to be happy in their work: "They must be fit for it, they must not do too much of it and they must have a sense of success in it." Elbert Hubbard told his readers to "Get happiness out of your work or you may never know what happiness is."

In summing up his life, comedian Johnny Carson said, "Never continue in a job you don’t enjoy. If you’re happy in what you’re doing, you’ll like yourself, you’ll have inner peace and more success than you could possibly have imagined."

One of the profound questions is where does work fit into a balanced life. Some live for their work. If their work is truly meaningful and gratifying, that may make sense, but Harold Kushner points out, "I’ve never met anyone on their deathbed who said, 'I wish I spent more time at the office.'"

Work is, of course, a common subject of cynical observations such as "Accomplishing the impossible means only that the boss will add it to your regular duties" (Doug Larson) or "Many people quit looking for work when they find a job" (anonymous).

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:28 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

This is number five on my list of all-time favorite commentaries.

Sam, a supervisor, was dumbfounded as he watched Bill diligently dig holes while Chuck, after waiting a short interval, filled them. When he demanded an explanation, Bill was indignant: "Chuck and I have been doing this job for more than 10 years. What’s your problem?"

"Are you telling me that for 10 years you’ve been digging and filling empty holes?" Sam replied.

"Well, not exactly," Bill said. "Until a few months ago, another fellow put a bush in the hole before Chuck filled it. But he retired and was never replaced."

"Why didn’t you tell somebody?" Sam sputtered.

"My gosh," Bill answered, "You’re management. We figured you knew."

While management is ultimately to blame when employees systematically waste time and money in thoughtless unproductive activity, we can’t let Bill and Chuck off the hook. Sure, it’s easy to hide behind the assumption that the stupidity of management has no bounds, but responsibility is a personal burden everyone carries for himself or herself.

Too many organizations are weighed down by practices equivalent to digging and filling holes because too many workers and managers engage in or ignore inefficient and ineffective activities.

Whether unaccountability is fed by laziness, ignorance or fear, employees who surrender to the negative momentum of the workplace not only demean the value of their work, but they increase the likelihood that they will someday be out of work.

We can avoid our responsibilities, but we can’t avoid the consequences of avoiding our responsibilities. All of us are accountable for what we allow as well as what we do. If we want to make our lives more meaningful, we should be sure our work is meaningful.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:57 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

This is number seven on my list of all-time favorite commentaries.

Some years ago, a senior executive at a large company objected when I asserted that corporations have an ethical, as well as a legal, obligation to keep promises and honor their contracts. He said the decision to live up to or ignore contractual commitments is a business decision, not an ethical one. His primary responsibility, he said, was to the stockholders. He noted that most of the time it is wise to fulfill your promises because there are legal and relationship risks involved in breaking contracts, but in the end the decision to honor or renounce a business agreement should be based on a cost/benefit analysis. Ethics has nothing to do with it.

This claim that business executives are justified in treating the pursuit of self-interest as a moral imperative is disturbing and dangerous. It’s also common.

The theory that expediency, not ethics, should control decision making in business flourishes because many people compartmentalize their lives into personal and business domains, choosing to believe each domain is governed by different moral standards.

As a result, fundamentally good people who would never lie, cheat or break a promise in their personal lives delude themselves into thinking they can properly do so in business.

Nonsense! There’s no such thing as "business" ethics. There’s only ethics. Fundamental standards of right and wrong, such as trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and good citizenship, do not become irrelevant when we enter the workplace.

And it doesn’t matter how many people think otherwise. Ethics is not a description of the way people actually behave. It’s a prescription for how we ought to behave. In business -- and, for that matter, in politics, sports, journalism and parenting -- ethical principles are not simply factors to be taken into account; they’re ground rules.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:53 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

This is number 10 on my list of all-time favorite commentaries.

When I work with companies to help them build or strengthen their ethical culture, I use the acronym T.E.A.M. It stands for teach, enforce, advocate and model -- a four-step process to infuse the organization’s core values into everyday decision making. The problem in many organizations is that their stated ethical values are neither consistently modeled nor enforced.

Despite a clear responsibility to uphold organizational standards, 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. Managers from top to bottom often tend to find an endless array of excuses to look the other way -- no time, fear of litigation, discomfort with confrontation, etc. Thus, it’s not uncommon to find that the bad guys win and that high-visibility employees and top executives flourish, even if they lie on internal reports, take credit for the work of others or manage through intimidation.

Good organizations need good people: men and women of principle with the courage to do what needs to be done in an honorable manner, even in the face of possible litigation or unpopularity.

Two basic rules of management are: 1) whatever you allow, you encourage and 2) whatever employees will do for you, they will do to you. Thus, when managers are too timid, lazy or ambitious to firmly and consistently enforce the rules, they make a mockery of organizational policies and ethical rhetoric. What’s worse, they demoralize employees who do live up to higher standards, sowing seeds of inefficiency and corruption.

Remember, every time you let a bad guy win, you weaken the resolve of dozens of ordinary folks who need to know that playing by the rules is not just for suckers.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 4:12 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Yesterday I talked about Roy, a service rep, who told a customer a convincing lie to conceal his company’s failure to meet its commitments. He falsely blamed a third party, and the tactic worked. It increased the customer’s confidence in both Roy and his company.

I asked whether Roy’s boss should praise or penalize his conduct. Although some would admire his inventiveness, if I were Roy’s boss, I’d require him to call the customer back and set the record straight. I’d also tell him if he lied again, he’d be fired.

There are both moral and practical reasons for this.

The best reason to discourage and discipline this conduct is that it’s just plain wrong. Dishonesty is not a legitimate problem-solving strategy. The ethical principle of trustworthiness does not permit us to lie to get out of a jam. It’s even worse to blame an innocent party. One of the Commandments forbids "bearing false witness."

From a moral perspective, it’s of no consequence that the lie worked or that the norms of business may allow such tactics. Roy may have been clever enough to win the customer’s trust, but he’s not trustworthy.

The lie also violates the principle of responsibility. A person or company of character is accountable. It’s wrong to unfairly shift the blame to others.

Yes, it takes moral courage to own up to mistakes and it may cost more than you want to pay, but that’s what honorable people and companies do.

On the practical level, it’s a huge blunder to sanction deceit. For one thing, people who will lie for you will lie to you. What you allow, you encourage. When dishonesty is tolerated, it flourishes, creating a degraded organizational culture that elevates effectiveness over ethics.

Finally, while lies will sometimes work, it’s foolish to think they will always work -- and insane to think you can build sustainable goodwill on a foundation of dishonesty. Lies are like hidden land mines. It’s only a matter of time before some of them explode, destroying credibility and trust.

Even if nothing good comes from admitting wrongdoing, it gets a lot worse if you don’t.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 4:19 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Yesterday I promised to explore good decision making. Let’s start with an example:

Roy, a service rep, is told that a salesman forgot to send an order for window blinds to the factory and, as a result, they will not be available for another ten days. Roy is told to call Jenny, the customer, and tell her the blinds will not be delivered on the date promised.

Roy has a decision to make: What should he tell the customer?

Telling Jenny the real reason will likely infuriate her and cause her to demand a refund or deep discount. This isn’t a good result, so he devises a plausible but false excuse that shifts the blame onto Jenny’s credit-card company. He even makes himself a hero convincing her he did everything possible to solve the problem and, though his company was not at fault, convinced his manager to give Jenny a 10 percent discount for her inconvenience.

Jenny is angry at the credit-card company and upset about not getting her blinds, but she’s impressed with the professional way Roy handled the situation. Her loyalty to the company is actually strengthened.

Should Roy be praised or penalized?

The case for praise is that he took a lemon and made lemonade. He turned a bad situation into a good one, and no one was hurt (except, maybe, the credit-card company -- and who cares about them?). His little white lie yielded great dividends and is well within the norms of business.

The case for reprimanding or firing Roy is that a good decision must be ethical as well as effective. He was dishonest and, whether his solution worked or not, a company that values trust should not permit dishonesty to be used as a problem-solving tactic.

If you were Roy’s boss, what would you do? Write me at radio@jiethics.org. We will post your responses, along with mine, on our website next week.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:29 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (2)

I’ve never seen a time when the pressure to perform is as high as it is in the current business environment. It’s not uncommon for leadership to demand double-digit growth, regardless of market conditions.

I’ve never seen a time when the management of major companies has been as well trained as it is today to devise and implement strategies to maximize profits and productivity. Many companies have impressive training programs focusing on all sorts of matters including planning, leadership and the acquisition and development of talent.

In this context, I asked the president of a company with ambitious growth goals about his major concerns. He didn’t list competitive pressures, government regulation or the need for continuing innovation, though all those things are important. On the top of his list was the worry that some employee would make a bad judgment that would damage the company’s reputation or subject the firm to prosecution or litigation.

He realized that in today’s highly regulated, highly scrutinized business environment, one of his major responsibilities was to be a good steward of the reputational equity of his company.

He expressed concern that what was missing from his firm’s extensive training programs was a formalized and focused attention on improving judgment.

Having just finished a major project to infuse decision-making strategies into police academy training, I believe good decision making can be taught and judgment can be improved.

There are three qualities to a good decision: it’s effective, legal and ethical. An exemplary decision, however, goes one step further. It distinguishes between a variety of acceptable and good approaches and chooses the one that produces the best possible result.

In the next few commentaries I will talk about making better judgments.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:23 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

According to a survey of American workers, more than half said they did something unethical or illegal in the previous year because of pressures. If we polled the scores of corporate executives recently convicted of lying or fraud, I’d bet most of them would attribute their ethical lapses to pressures as well.

For that matter, aren’t school administrators who devise deceptive and fraudulent schemes to enhance student performance or understate dropout or violence rates yielding to overpowering duress? With so much heat on students to perform, can we really blame them for cheating?

Since we’ve identified the culprit causing our moral ozone to deteriorate, we have shifted responsibility from individual weakness to the system. Don’t blame the liar; blame the law. Don’t blame the cheater; blame the test. To achieve virtue, remove burdens.

What a bunch of hooey! Pressures are no more than temptations in disguise. The difference is, while we expect people to succumb to pressures, we expect them to overcome temptations.

Lots of people will lie, cheat or steal under stress. But that’s an explanation, not a justification. It’s part of life. It would help if we had less pressure, but it’s more important to have more character.

What we need is higher, not lower, standards. We need to reject perspectives of human nature that expect surrender and to restore our belief in our inherent capacity to know and do what’s right even when it costs more than we want to pay.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:42 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

As I watched nearly five dozen eager graduates of the Los Angeles Police Academy throw their hats in the air celebrating their achievement, I knew these were the survivors of a rigorous training and their journey was not over.

Ahead of them is a full year of supervised field training, and it’s unlikely all of them will make it through their probation.

It’s difficult to cut hard-working and hopeful probationers, but if an organization wants to create a culture of excellence, its gatekeepers (those in charge of hiring, training, retention and promotion) must exercise clear-eyed objectivity and demonstrate unflinching courage by weeding out those who are unwilling or unable to be excellent.

In policing, and many other fields, the stakes are simply too high to knowingly accept less. No one wants a surgeon, teacher or cop with marginal or mediocre skills or shaky character.

Yet everywhere we see signs of declining standards. Public and private organizations regularly lower their expectations due to political expediency, misplaced loyalty, forced diversity or perceived necessity. Adequacy has become the shifting standard defined as "the best we can get."

Two results are inevitable when we lower standards: The quality of service continually sinks as fewer people strive for the best within them, and mediocrity becomes the norm as good people move up and out, leaving behind a growing proportion of so-so performers.

Two results are inevitable when we insist on excellence: Performance increases as everyone does better than they otherwise would, and some people will be asked to leave. Management can avoid its responsibility, but it can’t dodge the consequences of shirking it. Excellence is achievable, but not without sacrifice and discipline.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 2:38 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Plagiarism and her close cousins, cheating and resume fraud, are much in the news these days. While many are outraged, others are quick to excuse and shrug off such conduct. "What’s the big deal?" they ask.

Well, first, plagiarism is a form of lying and fraud. Often it’s a form of theft as well. But even if the person plagiarized consents, the act is fundamentally dishonest. Those who take credit for the writings or ideas of others victimize everyone who believes the plagiarist’s false claims.

Second, if plagiarism and other forms of cheating are treated lightly, more people will engage in such conduct more often. Remember, what we allow, we encourage. Because the Internet makes plagiarism so easy, it becomes even more important to impose consequences on cheaters that are serious enough to deter others.

Third, the reason to impose severe sanctions on people who lie and cheat is not so much to inflict pain on wrongdoers as it is to honor and uphold moral principles and protect honest people from being taken unfair advantage of. When cheaters are allowed to prosper, we betray all those who have the virtue and courage to resist temptation.

Finally, all forms of cheating are habit forming. What’s more, cheaters invariably lie to cover up their cheating, increasing the damage to their own credibility and generating toxic distrust and cynicism that undermines all of society.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:35 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

A critical maxim of management is: "Suitability is as important as capability." Capability asks, "Can they do the job?" Suitability asks, "Are they right for the job?"

If the job is not a good fit, it’s not a good job.

Yes, an employee has to have (or be able to readily acquire) the skills and knowledge required for excellent job performance, but compatibility can be more critical than capacity.

There are three aspects to suitability: intellect, temperament and objectives.

Intellectually, will the employee be challenged but not overtaxed by the job? People who are overqualified usually fail or leave because they get bored or hate being underutilized. On the other hand, employees who must stretch mightily to do a job often find it too stressful to do so continually.

Temperament and personality are also important. Some people flourish while others wilt in particular organizational cultures. Some need more authority or autonomy than a job entails while others want closer supervision and more direction. Some love and others hate detail work. And some rebel against too much structure while others need orderliness and predictability.

Fit involves integration with existing people and practices and compatibility with the style and values of their immediate boss. An organization should encourage fresh ideas, creativity, innovation and a willingness to challenge assumptions and approaches, but there is a significant downside to employees who spend too much energy trying to change their coworkers and the way things are done.

Finally, does the job make sense given the applicant’s financial and career objectives? Despite pledges and protests to the contrary, employees who think they are taking a step backward in pay or prestige often find easy excuses to leave. In such cases, it’s just like hiring a temp but without the control over timing.

A responsible manager must be perceptive and prudent. Just as job applicants tend to say whatever they think the employer wants to hear, employers who need to fill a job tend to believe whatever they want to hear.

There’s no lasting benefit when suitability gaps are filled with wishful thinking or rationalizations.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:31 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Although I wasn’t a fan of Ken Lay, convicted former founder and chairman of Enron, I was deeply saddened to learn of his sudden death this week. It was a tragic ending to the long fall from grace to disgrace.

Ken Lay was not a thoroughgoing villain. This son of a minister from a small town in Missouri had many great qualities that helped him become an American business icon before he became a symbol of greed, corruption and self-denial. He was smart (he had a Ph.D. in economics), industrious and, according to people who knew him, charming and charitable.

During the bulk of his business life he received accolades and admiration as the embodiment of the rags-to-riches possibilities of free enterprise.

It all began to unravel about five years ago and, ever since, his life was more hell than heaven, marked by accusations, vilification and ridicule.

He was convicted in May of this year and he faced living the rest of his life in prison. Although he died before being sentenced, he lived to see the Ken Lay YMCA in Fort Bend County, Texas, remove his name.

His death is a bookend to scores of ruined lives that started with the suicide of Lay’s friend, the former vice chairman of Enron, J. Clifford Baxter. Baxter shot himself in his Mercedes shortly after the scandal broke. His note to his wife sums up the terrible cost of shame:

Carol,
I am so sorry for this. I feel I just can’t go on. I have always tried to do the right thing but where there was once great pride now its gone. I love you and the children so much. I just can’t be any good to you or myself. The pain is overwhelming. Please try to forgive me.

Cliff

In the end, both men died of self-inflicted wounds, but whether just or not, no one should rejoice at such a sad, sad ending.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:59 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

For me, the toughest thing about running an organization is being the boss. Hiring is kind of fun, but I’m uncomfortable with performance reviews and decisions about compensation. I really dislike mediating disputes between co-workers and dealing with rumors, misunderstandings and hurt feelings. But most of all, I hate having to terminate someone.

Yet I’ve learned every time I try to escape the unpleasant parts of being a boss, I make things worse.

I’ve had to face up to the ethical core of management -- the responsibility to know what needs to be known and do what needs to be done.

A boss is at the center of a network of conflicting relationships and obligations. Each person or group affected by a decision is a stakeholder with a moral claim on the decision maker.

Employees are critical stakeholders. They deserve fair, compassionate and respectful treatment. Once you start the relationship, they are like extended family and I have an obligation, within reason, to try to make it work by giving them training and candid counseling if they’re not performing to expectations.

Still, other stakeholders have an equal or stronger claim to a manager’s loyalty. For example, customers have a right to expect honest and excellent service, and other employees have a right to expect management to put together a compatible team of individuals, all with the competence, character and commitment to do their job well. I’m not a great manager, but I do better when I follow four maxims of management I will talk about in future commentaries:

1. Suitability is more important than capability.
2. Hire for intelligence and character, train for skills.
3. Don’t keep an employee you wouldn’t re-hire.
4. What you allow, you encourage.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:41 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Suppose Amy’s bonus depends on achieving aggressive sales goals and she knows she can pump her numbers by instructing Bob, a subordinate, to ship goods that weren’t ordered to a large customer.

Whether she will choose to engage in this scheme and order Bob to participate, and whether Bob will actually do so, is not only a matter of personal character but of corporate culture.

Decisions BY employees like Amy and Bob are strongly influenced by their perceptions of the company’s character and operational values. In most organizations, you get what you reward and encourage what you allow.

Amy is more likely to avoid deceptive conduct if she believes that integrity and honesty are ground rules rather than rhetorical ornaments and that she’ll be more severely sanctioned for deceptive conduct than missing her numbers. Similarly, Bob is likely to say no to his boss if he’s convinced the company wants him to and will support him if he does.

In today’s precarious environment, leaders have a duty to assess their organization’s culture and do whatever is needed to strengthen or create a sustainable ethical environment that generates trust and promotes honesty, fairness and unflinching accountability as well as legal compliance.

This can’t be accomplished by lofty rhetoric or even strict ethics codes. Words and rules must be translated into expectations and made believable by the modeling of senior executives and by adopting performance-review criteria, compensation systems and promotion decisions that reward ethical judgment and punish ethical shortcuts.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:42 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

If you were hiring a new CEO, what are the most important qualities you’d look for? Surely you’d want a high level of demonstrated competence – knowledge, experience, intelligence, vision, communication and relationship skills and the ability to motivate, manage and solve problems. But what about qualities such as honesty, moral courage, accountability and fairness?

Despite bold rhetoric about the indispensability of good character, many hard-driving organizations are willing to be flexible on character to get an exceptionally competent person.

Thus, many current scandals -- in business, the church and college sports -- occurred because organizations compromised their principles by recruiting, retaining or tolerating leaders with serious character flaws that generated costly accusations of wrongdoing and undermined trust, morale, teamwork and loyalty.

I used to tell clients that competence and character were two separate aspects of intelligent employment decisions. Now I think it’s a mistake to disconnect them. Good character is an essential aspect of competence.

Long ago, Samuel Johnson said, "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, but knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful." Warren Buffet updated the notion: "In looking for people to hire, look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence and energy. But if they don’t have the first, the other two will kill you."

Since it’s easier to train a person of good character to do a job well than it is to develop character in a skilled but unprincipled employee, if you have to choose, hire for character and train for skills.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:31 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Immediately after his conviction, Ken Lay, the genius behind the growth of Enron from a small pipeline company to the seventh-largest corporation in the nation, expressed shock. It "is not the outcome we expected," he said. "I firmly believe I am innocent of the charges against me."

I believe him.

I believe he was surprised the jury did not buy his defense that he was duped by underlings who concocted and carried out a massive fraud that resulted in bankruptcy that wiped out more than $60 billion in market value, $2 billion in pension plans and nearly 6,000 jobs. Although 16 other executives who worked for him had already admitted their guilt, I think Mr. Lay thought the government would be unable to prove he had criminal intent. I also believe he thought his extensive private and corporate philanthropy of more than $12 million a year would convince the jury he was too good a guy to be sent to prison.

And I believe he sincerely thinks he’s innocent and his self-image remains high. He’s not wracked with guilt. Instead, he feels victimized. Denial and self-delusion are common among people who achieve great stature and find their conscience and moral good sense have been disabled and distorted by walking with giants through cheering crowds of admirers.

But it’s not the sincerity of Mr. Lay’s self-delusions that matters. What matters is that our criminal system worked, and he and others responsible for the largest financial fraud in history will be held accountable. The final irony is that the judge set September 11th, one of the most infamous dates in U.S. history, as the day this symbol of corporate corruption will be sentenced to prison.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:32 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

It's easier to make a good company better than a bad company good. The key is to identify the fallacies that lead good companies astray. Here are five:

1. The overriding objective of corporate leadership is to maximize profits. This is a critical component of good management, but the better companies consistently place reputation and relationships over short-term profits and recognize obligations to stakeholders other than shareholders. Besides, shareholder value is best built on a foundation of values, not a single day's valuation.

2. If it's permissible, it's proper. Compliance with the law is important but hardly enough. Clever people can always find loopholes that thwart the regulatory goals of laws. Such gamesmanship strategies may be legal, but ethics is not about what you have a right to do. It is what is right to do. Lots of legal things are still wrong.

3. An unenforced law isn't a requirement; it's a suggestion. There are many reasons why some laws are not enforced, especially in corrupt or under-resourced cultures. None, however, free a company from the citizenship obligation to obey the law.

4. Business ethics is determined by the marketplace: If smart and successful people are doing it, it's necessary to fight fire with fire. Ethics is not about the way things are; it's about the way they ought to be. Conduct doesn't become ethical because it's common. No matter what others do, the moral obligation to be honest, respectful, responsible, fair, caring and a good citizen are personal and perpetual. If you fight fire with fire, all you'll end up with are the ashes of your integrity.

5. Ethics is one factor to consider in a smart business decision. Ethics is not just a factor; it's a ground rule.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 4:26 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Ethics is a popular topic at corporate meetings today because management correctly sees the benefits. Good things tend to happen to companies that consistently do the right thing, and bad things tend to happen to those that even occasionally do the wrong thing. Being ethical is playing the odds.

First, over the long haul, ethics provides a competitive edge. People prefer to work with those they trust.

Second, ethical companies have higher credibility. It's a huge advantage to be believed.

Third, trust makes decision making more efficient and economical.

Fourth, ethical companies attract and retain employees better because they have higher morale. People feel better about their jobs and themselves.

Fifth, ethics breeds good will and loyalty from customers, vendors and employees.
So, it's true: Good ethics is good business.

The problem with trying to motivate employees by stressing the corporate benefits of ethics, however, is that rationales grounded in self-interest are essentially amoral; they have nothing to do with ethics. Doing the right thing to get something in return is an investment, not a commitment. Ethics based on self-interest is situational; only ethics based on moral convictions is sustainable. It's the difference between acting ethically and being ethical.

Asking employees to give up the possible benefits of lying or lawbreaking for corporate gain rather than personal goodness invites them to look at their conduct in terms of risks and rewards rather than values and virtues. And what if they ask not what's good for the company or customer, but what's good for them? Clearly, what's good for an enterprise is not always good for its employees.

It's foolish and fruitless to expect most employees to sacrifice their financial well-being for the good of the company, but many will do so for the good of their soul and the sense of worthiness that comes from earning the respect and esteem of their family and friends.

Appeals to the heart are more powerful than appeals to the head.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 4:24 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Nearly 20 years ago, I left the groves of academe as a law professor to spend full-time writing and speaking about ethics to anyone who would listen. When I set up the Joseph & Edna Josephson Institute of Ethics in honor of my parents, many viewed the idea of explicitly connecting moral principles to management responsibilities as a novelty.

It wasn't that the organizations claimed that ethics was irrelevant; rather, they took it for granted that anyone who rose to the highest leadership positions in their organization couldn't have done so unless they were highly ethical. So, when an organization asked me to speak to top management, it was viewed more as an affirmation of their moral commitment than as a meaningful challenge to the way they were doing business.

Yes, I poked and prodded executives about the inconsistency between rhetoric and reality and it made some people uncomfortable, but I was viewed more as entertainment than education.

It's very different now.

Huge fines, forced resignations and hundreds of guilty pleas and convictions (accompanied by long prison sentences) are evidence that plenty of scoundrels have worked their way to the top of the success ladder in business and government. And for every villain, dozens of good people succumb to external pressure or self-delusion. In fact, good people doing or allowing bad things account for a large portion of these recent scandals.

In the past year, more than 1,000 government employees were convicted of corrupt activities, and the FBI is investigating thousands more. The growing vulnerability of corporations to costly accusations of wrongdoing has made it clear that any company ignoring the ethical quality of its people and culture does so at great peril.

The problem is, many people's ethical compass has been distorted by decades of amoral thinking that focuses on what's legal rather than what's right. Whenever ethics is viewed simply as a business strategy, underlying moral principles like honesty and integrity become mangled by gamesmanship strategies and conscience-numbing rationalizations. It's time to recognize we don't need more compliance; we need more character.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 4:22 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Some time ago, I received a handwritten note on a yellow post-it attached to a torn-out page from a magazine about a new book. The note said, "Mike, thought you might be interested." It was signed "L." It was sent in a non-business envelope with a stamp, but no return address. My assistant thought it was a personal message from a friend and put it on top of my correspondence.

It wasn't from anyone I knew. It was a marketing trick to sell the book.

I'm sure you've seen other deceptive ploys: mailings disguised as telegrams, urgent "personal" messages, announcements that you've won something, window envelopes whose interior looks like a check. An especially audacious variation is the salesperson who calls pretending he knows you. To get through the screening process, he or she will shamelessly try to con your secretary with "Oh, he knows what it's about" or "He asked me to call."

These are all lies and deceptions, but they're used because they work. The people who send them don't care about their credibility or who they offend by the tactic. No one knows who they are.

While one can appreciate resourceful techniques, clever dishonesty doesn't make an action less despicable. I make it a rule to never do business with anyone who uses such techniques.

What's the harm? The harm is that someone has invaded my life with a lie, depriving me of the choice to decide what I will read and whom I will talk to. Worse, it erodes trust and builds cynicism. Dishonest merchants don't deserve your business.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 4:43 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

If you were hiring a new CEO, what are the most important qualities you'd look for? Surely you'd want a high level of demonstrated competence -- knowledge and experience, intelligence, vision, communication and relationship skills and the ability to motivate, manage and solve problems. But what about honesty, moral courage, accountability and fairness?

Despite bold rhetoric about the indispensability of good character, many hard-driving organizations are willing to be flexible on the character issue to get an exceptionally competent person.

Thus, many current scandals have occurred because organizations compromised their principles by recruiting, retaining or tolerating leaders with serious character flaws that generated costly accusations of wrongdoing and undermined trust, morale, teamwork and loyalty.

I used to tell clients that competence and character were two separate aspects of intelligent employment decisions. Now I think it's a mistake to separate them. Today, good character is an essential aspect of competence.

Long ago, British poet and essayist Samuel Johnson said, "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, but knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful." Warren Buffet subsequently updated that notion: "In looking for people to hire, look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence and energy. If they don't have the first, the other two will kill you."

Since it's easier to train a person of good character to do a job well than to develop character in a skilled but unprincipled employee, hire for character and train for skills.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 5:09 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Frank is a new supervisor who wants to do well. Maria consistently comes in late. When he confronts her, she makes a joke out of it. Hoping to win friendship and loyalty, Frank is painfully patient, though Pat, a very conscientious employee, urges him to do more. Soon others begin to come in late, and Pat quits. Frank feels victimized by disloyal employees, but he has no one to blame but himself.

A frequent workplace complaint is waiting for the boss to make a decision or take needed action. It might be about a pending promotion, filling an open position, giving an overdue performance review, pricing a new product or dealing with a sticky customer complaint. Whatever the issue, failure to make a decision can make big problems out of little ones. What's more, indecisiveness generates resentment and undermines confidence in the manager's ability.

It was Frank's responsibility to set the tone of the work environment. In management (or parenting, for that matter), "what you allow, you encourage." As Frank learned the hard way, indecision and inaction can cause as much harm as a poor decision.

Sure, it's important to be careful, and it's sometimes wise to put off a decision or delay action -- for instance, to get more information or buy-in, to let things cool off or for other strategic reasons -- but a failure to make a needed decision is not acceptable because a manager is too busy, avoiding an unpleasant confrontation, hoping things will work themselves out or just procrastinating.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 5:03 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

In the wake of a continual parade of scandals, there has been a lot of talk concerning codes of ethics. I've written dozens of codes and have a healthy respect for their value as an element of a corporate culture, but I wince at the unreasonable expectations attached to these documents.

First of all, ethics codes don't make people ethical. They don't make bad people good. Nor do they make people with poor judgment wise. An ethics code would not have prevented most of the objectionable behavior we've seen in recent years.

You see, there are two aspects to ethics: discernment (knowing right from wrong) and discipline (having the moral willpower to do what's right). A code can help define what's right and acceptable and provide a basis for imposing sanctions on those who don't follow it. But unless it reinforces an established ethical culture, it won't do much to assure that people do what's right.

It's proper and prudent to clarify obligations under existing laws and establish standards of conduct in areas not governed by law. In effect, ethics codes transform one perspective of a moral obligation into a binding rule. For example, it's helpful to set clear parameters for the use of e-mails, private information or company property, hiring or doing business with relatives and the acceptance of gratuities. In more complex cases, codes can mandate disclosure or certification and forbid or restrict transactions such as loans and reimbursements that could create real or apparent conflicts of interest.

To the extent we need more clarity, we need more codes. To the extent we need more character, we need a lot more.

This is Michael Josephson, reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 5:20 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Thomas, a new supervisor, was mystified when he came upon two men working diligently. One would dig a hole and the other would fill it up. Then they moved on to repeat the process.

Thomas demanded an explanation and was told, “We’ve been doing this job for more than 10 years. What's your problem?”

“You've been digging and filling empty holes for 10 years?” Thomas asked.

“Not exactly," one man answered. “Until a few months ago another fellow put a bush in the hole before we filled it. But he retired and was never replaced.”

“Why didn't you tell somebody?” Thomas sputtered.

“You're management. How could you not know?”

This story illustrates two important workplace rules:

First, whenever there’s an ongoing inefficient process or an incompetent employee, the primary responsibility lies with management. It’s management’s job to know what is going on and to assure quality and productivity.

Second, no conscientious employee can justify thoughtless, unproductive activity because of inattentive or incompetent management. Responsibility to pursue excellence is a personal burden.

Many organizations are weighted down by foolish practices equivalent to digging and filling holes because too many workers and managers fail to be accountable for the end product of their labor.

Employees of any rank who contribute to negative momentum in the workplace demean the value of their work. They also increase the likelihood that they will someday be out of work.

We can avoid our responsibilities, but we can't avoid the consequences of avoiding our responsibilities. All of us are accountable for what we allow as well as what we do. If we want to make our lives more meaningful, we should be sure our work is meaningful.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 5:23 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Larry wrote me the following letter: "I've been a small businessman for almost 23 years in a business where people lie, cheat and steal. I'm sorry to say I became one of them. In the short term, it may have helped, but long term it came back to haunt me. There's no amount of success that's worth it. I am now 48 years old. I have lost my good name; my values and ethics have been destroyed. Is there any way I will ever be able to restore my reputation and lead a life of integrity?"

What a pity that so many people delude themselves into believing that traditional ethical principles like honesty and integrity don't apply in the business world. They govern their daily decisions by pragmatism -- what works -- without reference to principles -- what's right. And, piece-by-piece, decision-by-decision, they sell their souls and sully their names until they find themselves naked and alone on the barren wasteland of moral compromise.

The good news is that Larry can start leading a life of integrity immediately. He can redeem himself and become a man of character simply by choosing to be honest, responsible, respectful, caring and fair.

The bad news is that his reputation will take longer to restore. Character is what you really are; reputation is what people think of you. And since people are more likely to judge us by our last worst act rather than our most virtuous habits, rebuilding a reputation can take years of honorable living.

Still, each phase of one's life brings new opportunities for learning and growth, and if Larry wants it badly enough, the best part of his life is ahead.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 5:40 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

When you visit a medical specialist, an emergency room or a patient in the hospital, are you ever struck by a sense that many doctors are so focused on the scientific aspects of diagnosis and treatment of illness or injury that they ignore, maybe even become annoyed by, things like pain, fear or anxiety?

In her book "Medicine as Ministry," Dr. Margaret Mohrmann, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia , proposes a dramatically different perspective. If accepted, it could drastically change the nature of medical training and treatment.

She contends that doctors tend to view their roles and responsibilities too narrowly. The ultimate object of medicine, she says, is not just to diagnose and cure disease, but to alleviate suffering. In other words, doctors should see themselves as healers, not merely scientists.

"The practice of the ministry of medicine," she adds, "is the practice of paying attention." Being attentive means sensing, treating seriously and responding appropriately to the myriad feelings that inevitably accompany illness and injury.

In her view, the most needed remedy for the kinds of suffering doctors face daily is not more or better painkilling drugs, but more genuine caring. She says doctors should listen more even if it makes them weep. She believes true compassion and empathy are healing agents for pain and anxiety. Genuine gestures of concern -- from a comforting squeeze of the hand to a follow-up phone call or visit -- can be as important as prescriptions and surgical procedures.

I think she's right. It takes a kind of moral courage for a doctor to keep an open heart. But what a huge difference it would make.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:51 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Suppose you want to quit your job. It doesn't matter why; a job is not a marriage. There's nothing wrong with ending the relationship -- if you do it honorably.

When you take a job, you enter into a web of moral responsibilities that don't end simply because you want out. Each organization and individual affected by how and whether you do your job is a stakeholder entitled to be treated ethically.

That means you should be honest every step of the way. You've got to be fair and responsible and treat everyone with respect.

Sadly, these fundamental ethical obligations are regularly ignored by both employees and employers who convince themselves that, in the workplace, self-interest and expediency -- not principles and ethics -- are the proper standards of conduct.

Widespread as this view may be, it's a self-serving delusion. Honorable people are honorable in every setting.

Leaving a job honorably may require you to subordinate your wants, desires and needs to the legitimate moral claims of others. This means you have to really try to reduce the negative effect of your departure by providing ample transition time and offering to help during the transition. Sometimes, the standard two week's notice is sufficient, sometimes it's not.

If you made a commitment, keep it or seek a release from it. Have the courage to discuss the situation with your boss before you make the final decision. The Golden Rule is a good guide: Treat others the way you would like to be treated.

Yes, there's some cost involved, but the cost of a damaged reputation and ruined relationships is much greater. Remember, character is doing the right thing even when it may cost more than you want to pay.

This is Michael Josephson, reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 11:31 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

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 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 I'm grateful to have learned that an important part of character is to just keep knocking.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 12:34 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

The most traditional way to measure the quality of one's life is to evaluate success by listing accolades, achievements and acquisitions. After all, in its simplest terms, success is getting what we want and most people want wealth and status.

Yet, as much pleasure as these attributes can bring, the rich, powerful and famous usually discover that true happiness will elude them if they do not have peace of mind, self-respect and enduring loving relationships.

Peace of mind doesn't preclude ambition or desire for material possessions or high position, but it assumes a fundamental foundation of contentment, gratitude and pride, a belief that whatever one has is enough and an attitude of active appreciation for the good things in one's life.

Feeling successful can generate satisfying emotions of self-worth, but feeling significant -- that one's life really matters -- is a much more potent. Peter Drucker, the great management guru, captures this idea when he writes of the urge many high achievers have to "move beyond success to significance."

The surprise for many is that one of the surest roads to significance is service. It doesn't have to be of the Mother Teresa missionary variety. Parents who sacrifice their own comfort and pleasure for their children are in service, as are teachers, public safety professionals, members of the military and volunteers who work for the common good.

In addressing graduates, Albert Schweitzer said, "I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve."

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 12:31 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Among the many things I find distasteful about Donald Trump's show "The Apprentice" is its depiction of the business world as a competitive arena where the only way to succeed is to outrun, outclimb or outwit others who want what we want.

Sure, there are competitive aspects to getting to the top, but the type of manipulation and short-term thinking that breed success on these sorts of reality shows are liabilities -- not assets -- in the real world.

Indeed, some people do believe that business is basically an amoral survival-of-the-fittest enterprise where traditional ideas of right and wrong are irrelevant and all that really matters is what works. They seize on words like "necessity" and "survival" and view the workplace in purely legalistic and economic terms. This creates the false illusion that the men and women who make daily decisions to advance corporate interests or personal careers are exempt from ethical judgment.

Don't you believe it! Amorality is a myth. Everything we do has moral significance. And regardless of the context, our actions can and will be judged in relation to core ethical values. What's more, these judgments will dramatically affect the formation of character and the way people treat us. People and companies perceived as honest, responsible and fair generate trust and loyalty, two crucial factors of real success.

There's nothing wrong with striving to get ahead or in wanting the prestige, status and comforts associated with business success. Yet, in the end, the purpose of our work is not just to make a living, but to make a life. And, when it's all over, we will be judged not by what we have, but by what we have become.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 11:37 AM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Last month, RadioShack CEO David Edmondson — make that former CEO — was fired for lying on his resume about Bible college degrees he didn't actually have. And so he joins a football coach, a poet laureate, a school superintendent, the first woman chairperson of the United States Olympic Committee, a California judge and a host of executives who lost their jobs and blackened their reputations by lying about their past.

But why do so many successful people risk everything by lying — usually about matters that have little to do with their essential competence? It's easy. First, when they initially told the lie — often decades before discovery — they thought it would make a difference. Second, they thought they’d never get caught.

Lying is wrong and unwise, but it's not irrational. After all, most lies work — at least in the short run. Though lies have a tendency to work their way up to the surface to cause havoc with relationships and careers, some lies do stay buried forever.

According to surveys by professional resume writers and checkers, anywhere from a third to just under a half of all resumes contain major inaccuracies. People lie about their educational background, job titles, salary history and dates of employment. Obviously, most are getting away with their fabrications and they are willing to build careers on an unstable foundation.

Besides, even if they are caught, many take comfort from the example of prominent liars, including Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Joseph Ellis and Bausch & Lomb CEO Ron Zarella, who survived embarrassing revelations with their jobs intact.

For people who do not treasure the notion of personal honor, to lie or not to lie is simply a matter of weighing risks against rewards. And most underestimate the risks and overvalue the rewards.

It's worth noting that with new tools for verifying claims, lying is much riskier today than it was. But the worst thing about lying is that it makes you a liar.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 12:38 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Years ago I was talking to about 50 Army generals responsible for weapons and equipment purchases. When I raised the issue of professional integrity, one of them reminded me there's a big gap between the way things really are and the way they ought to be.

"Look," he said, "if the chairman of the Appropriations Committee comes from a district that makes trucks, we're going to buy those trucks whether or not they're the very best ones for our needs."

I suggested that this was just a form of bribery. But without missing a beat he said, "It's not bribery. It's extortion!" The implication was that if they didn't cater to the politicians, they would pay a high price.

He then added, "That's the way it is, the way it always was, and the way it always will be."

"How can you sound so powerless?" I asked. "You're a GENERAL!"

"Yeah," he said, "but I'm only a one-star."

I'm only a one-star. I hear this sort of abdication of moral responsibility a lot.

Last week, I heard a similar claim of helplessness from a middle manager who protested my appeal to moral courage. "Do you really expect someone with a well-paying job and heavy family obligations to put it all at risk?"

"Yes, I do," I said. "I think there are lots of people who would rather lose their job than their integrity." More than ever we need people to stand up and be counted.

When there's a gap between ideals and reality, people of character don't surrender their ideals. They fight for them. They work to change the way things "are" to the way they "ought to be."

As Edward Everett Hale said, "It's true I am only one, but I am one. And the fact that I can't do everything will not prevent me from doing what I can do."

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 2:45 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

Years ago, my wife Anne was talking to a woman I'll call Lila about another lady I'll call Gwen. Gwen had just been laid off and since she had only worked for the company for a short time, she wasn't eligible to continue the company's medical insurance. That's important because she was eight weeks pregnant and the reason she took the job was to get medical insurance.

Gwen was upset and went to a lawyer. Together, they decided to threaten her employer with a lawsuit claiming the company terminated her because they found out she was pregnant.

Anne asked, "Is that what really happened?"

"Well, no," Lila answered, "but she really needs the insurance and she hopes the threat will force the company to make a settlement."

"But that's dishonest!" Anne said. Shocked by Anne's judgmentalness, Lila stressed again how hard it would be for Gwen if she had no insurance because she had no husband. She was artificially inseminated. Gwen thought of asking the company if she could keep her insurance by paying the premiums, but her lawyer said it would weaken her case.

Anne was incredulous. "Weaken what case? Her case is a lie! I know she's in a tough situation, but how can Gwen possibly justify making a false claim?"

Lila concluded: "Gwen only did what she had to do."

It's one thing to feel compassion for Gwen. It's quite another to justify fraud simply because she thought it was necessary. There's a certain seductive force to necessity claims, but neither real nor perceived necessity gives anyone a moral free pass. Personal needs and wants just don't trump moral principles. Remember, character is doing the right thing even when it costs more than you want to pay.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 2:42 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (0)

If you were hiring a new CEO, what are the most important qualities you'd look for? Surely you'd want a high level of demonstrated competence — knowledge and experience, intelligence, vision, communication and relationship skills, and the ability to motivate, manage and solve problems. But what about qualities such as honesty, moral courage, accountability and fairness?

Despite bold rhetoric about the indispensability of good character, many hard-driving organizations are willing to be "flexible" on the character issue to get a person perceived to be exceptionally competent.

Thus, many current scandals — in business, the church and college sports — occurred because organizations compromised their principles by recruiting, retaining or tolerating leaders with serious character flaws that generated costly accusations of wrongdoing and undermined trust, morale, teamwork and loyalty.

I used to tell clients that competence and character were two separate aspects of intelligent employment decisions. Now, I think it's a mistake to separate the concepts. Today, good character is an essential aspect of competence.

Long ago, Samuel Johnson said, "Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, but knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful." Warren Buffett updated the notion. He said, "In looking for people to hire, look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you."

Since it's easier to train a person of good character to do a job well than it is to develop character in a skilled but unprincipled employee, if you have to choose, hire for character and train for skills.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Webmaster at 2:55 PM   | Permalink |  Comment (1)