Tag Archives: Respect

What is Right? Thinking it Through. (Part 2)

Posted on by

Part 1 in this three-part series on “What is Right?” mapped out seven different decision filters we can use when confronted with a choice. Those filters serve as tools in our mental decision kit. However, like most tools they produce the most effective results when applied by a skilled craftsman within the framework of a process. For example, it does little good to smoothly sand and finish pieces of wood before cutting and shaping the individual pieces into their final forms and assembling those pieces into the final product.

What process might we apply to making choices? The following three critical questions help us apply the seven decision filters (authoritative, aligned, aimed, available, attentive, acceptable, and appropriate) in a logical manner. Disclaimer: I do not intend for the following process framework to fit all situations or all seasons. For the purpose of this post we will focus on choices that fit under the umbrella of “What is the right thing to do?”

1. Is there an authoritative principle of natural law in play?

Natural laws apply to all peoples in all situations for all time. These natural laws are written on our hearts, and our own conscience acts as a witness; either condemning or defending the alignment of our behavior with those natural laws. We can squelch or cultivate our conscience but natural laws stand inviolable. Consequently, everything starts here. On a related side note, the whole concept of civil disobedience collapses as vacuous nonsense unless certain authoritative principles trump all else.

2. What prior commitment(s), if any, affect(s) my choice?

Commitments of belonging …Groups of people who have voluntarily chosen to align for a common purpose; whether they be countries, companies, clubs or communities (beginning with marriages and expanding outward), often create written and unwritten policies to govern the behavior of group members. Those policies describe “what is right” for inclusion in the group. As such, when I choose to join any group I essentially commit to conform my behavior to that group’s policies. Recent accusations that Todd Gurley, running back for the University of Georgia, may have signed his name to certain memorabilia items in exchange for compensation provides a great example of the interplay between these first two steps in the decision framework. Some argue that the NCAA’s policy prohibiting a player from financially capitalizing on their own image while doing the same for itself is not right. I happen to believe this argument has some merit; nonetheless, by voluntarily joining an organization aligned with the NCAA, Gurley effectively placed himself under the authoritative policies governing behavior in that organization. Consequently, if the NCAA determines his behavior violated their policy, Gurley may get barred from future competition for some period of time. Without speculating as to Gurley’s culpability or possible motivation, his situation reinforces the point that even when our behavior aligns with natural law, we may still find ourselves subjected to social ridicule, adverse financial damage, or, in extreme cases, risk of physical harm.

Commitments of action … One of my early mentors, Luther Boggs, made a statement which has stuck with me for decades. “A commitment is not a commitment, unless you are prepared to personally sacrifice to keep it.” Our lives are more productive and less stressful when we act with integrity and keep our commitments.

3. What choice most aligns with my life purpose and goals?

Some might argue that this question should come second, but I contend it rightfully falls here. Choosing what is right does not allow us to abrogate prior commitments merely because we define a new goal. For example, a husband or wife should not walk out on their family to chase a new dream. As highlighted in a previous post (here), a personal mission statement is a powerful and useful tool. Absent the guiding presence of a personal mission statement, you cannot really answer this question. You will especially struggle to determine your availability and decide what invitations to decline. So, if have not yet created a personal mission statement or captured written goals for major roles and responsibilities in your life, I encourage you to do so.

Once past those three decision gates we are beyond principles and priorities and into the arena of preference where demanding our own way is likely just selfishness and deference should typically hold sway. Into this space apply the decision filters of attentiveness to the needs of others, responding to the appropriateness of the situation and choosing to behave in a manner acceptable to the sensitivity of others.

Part three in this What is Right? series will discuss the Binary Decision Trap.

10 Transformative Acts of Human Dignity

Posted on by

I find it an interesting dichotomy that some social ideas can be both widely known and widely misunderstood.

Turn the other cheek. “Not me,” you say. “I have no plans to let someone else take advantage of me. I won’t tolerate any mistreatment.” But, is allowing someone else to abuse me and then ask for more what Jesus meant?

In His famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught a series of transformational behaviors; including this one “…if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” As with any illustration, it is important to understand the social context of the example. In the society of Jesus’ day people used their left hand for unclean acts associated with daily care and therefore never used their right hand in public. So, in order to smite someone on the right cheek, the offender delivering the blow had to strike the other person with the back of the right hand. This act was a power move designed to communicate or force submission. The act of turning the other check says to the offender, “I’m here. I’m ready. If you want to go any further, you will have to treat me as an equal.”

In the same passage from the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus used another illustration, “And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” According to the laws of the day, the soldiers enforcing Rome’s rule could require local inhabitants to carry their armor for a mile. That second mile meant, “You can make me carry that load for the first mile, but I’m going this second mile by an act of my own will. My sense of self-worth is intact.”

The Civil Rights movement in this country provides a more recent illustration of this transformative power where non-violent expressions of human dignity forced the culture to accept blacks as equals.

One of the sad legacies of the Industrial Age is the dehumanizing nature of modern corporations. These larger organizations force people into increasingly narrow and repetitive roles that dull the mind and sap the spirit. Large organizations also give rise to bloated bureaucracies and a stifling conformity imposed by reams of rules and policies. We can either respond to these unhealthy environments by descending into the petty mindset of a victim or react from a well-spring of self-dignity.

Many articles and books on organizational or cultural change focus on the role of the leader. I don’t want to minimize that vital responsibility, but always waiting for the leader is a victim mindset. The transforming power of human dignity compels us to ask, “What can I do to change this situation.”

One of the distinguishing elements of the lean enterprise philosophy is respect for people. This is not just about managers respecting employees or employees respecting those in organizational authority but a culture of multilateral respect. We cannot have a healthy and genuine respect for others unless we first respect ourselves. Absent self-respect our thoughts in any circumstance quickly turn toward our own needs and hurts. We evaluate every action in light of its impact on us. We harbor resentment from slights that offend us. We respond with a vengeful spirit that destroys respect and relationships.

One of the intriguing quirks of humans is our ability to behave our way into a new way of believing. So, rather than attempting to determine what motivates me and the others around me, I encourage you to begin behaving with human dignity. The power of the following ten simple acts to transform a family, a team, a company or a community will amaze you.

  1. We fulfill our responsibilities
  2. We volunteer to help others
  3. We identify and solve problems
  4. We defend the weak
  5. We give of our time and money to help others
  6. We show up on time out of appreciate the value of others’ time
  7. We resist the urge to lash out in revengeful responses
  8. We honor our commitments
  9. We take care of our bodies with proper nutrition, rest and exercise
  10. We acknowledge the limits of self-reliance and associate in community for a richer and more productive life experience

10 Signs Your Capital Investing Strategy May Be Upside Down

Posted on by

Since the design of the first tool, men and machines have experienced a dynamic interplay characterized at various times by harmonious synergy and contentious strife.

The Middle Age craftsman was both owner and laborer and oversaw the manufacturing process from start to finish. The craftsman viewed the manufacturing process and the machines within that process from a holistic perspective. He decided to build or buy machines based on the impact to both the machine and his labor; not the machine or his labor. He also considered how any machine might better leverage his time and talent to improve the quality and/or quantity of his finished product (not just any particular step in the manufacturing process).

The Industrial Revolution severed the relationship between owner and labor and also introduced a new layer into the decision process, the professional manager. The Industrial Revolution also disaggregated the craftsman’s role across multiple individuals who only performed discrete steps of the entire manufacturing process. These narrowly constructed roles separated laborers from the output of their work with adverse consequences for everyone. Laborers felt stymied in their ability to contribute and stopped thinking (“just do what you’re told”). Unsurprisingly, managers began viewing laborers as low-value, interchangeable elements in the manufacturing process and used people only to perform work which they had not yet figured out how to automate. This disrespectful mental framework sank to such a depth that for much of the past few decades some industries chased cheap labor all over the world. I call this the Human Capital Paradigm.

In attempts to improve manufacturing some firms turned to an alphabet soup of new techniques and tools — 5S, TQM, TPM, PDCA, QIS, DMAIC, SPC, DOE, etc. Most of those efforts failed, because manufacturing leaders continued to apply those tools from the mental framework of the Human Capital Paradigm. What’s needed is a Human Capital Paradigm, which is best explained by comparison to its failed predecessor in the table below.

Financial Capital Paradigm Human Capital Paradigm
Improvements achieved by investing financial capital (money) Improvements achieved by balancing investments of human capital with financial capital
Discipline/repeatability for high quality sought through machines; managers do not believe people can be disciplined Discipline/repeatability for high quality achieved by people using reliable processes (as the late Bob Galvan of Motorola was fond of saying “People may make mistakes, but teams can be perfect.”)
Machines designed for high repeatability, but offered low flexibility (hard automation) Machines designed for flexibility (easily reconfigurable and capable of performing a range of tasks)
People perceived as highly flexible (able to perform a wide variety of tasks), but with low reliability People are highly disciplined without losing flexibility
Managers think; Laborers do Every team member expected to think and contribute toward continuous improvement

 

In the Human Capital Paradigm machines provide flexible discipline and people contribute disciplined flexibility. The challenge of building such a culture has implications that touch almost every aspect of designing, staffing and running an organization of any size. That challenge is too large for this post. However, I will close by sharing a sample list of attributes you might use to assess how your organization stacks up against the capital investment paradigm? While not an exhaustive list, these behavior-based markers can provide clues to your progress along this journey. I encourage you to use the list below to expand or jump start your own list of markers:

  1. Expectations and related consequences established by agreement, not edict
  2. Accountability for meeting expectations belongs to individuals, not managers
  3. A focus on what we want, not what we don’t want; managers focus on catching people doing things right and recognizing them for it; not discovering and punishing wrongdoing
  4. Team members measure themselves, rather than a manager or third-party
  5. Indicators of performance visible to everybody; most notably those performing the work
  6. Opportunities for improvement often identified by people doing the work not just engineers or managers
  7. Customer-driven variety, not changeover considerations predominately influence production scheduling
  8. Disciplined adherence to standard work procedures facilitates reliable outcomes
  9. Processes highlight abnormal process variations and trigger corrective action
  10. Repeatable processes used to test and verify the efficacy of ideas before widespread implementation

Law. Liberty. Love.

Posted on by

Liberty has an emotionally powerful appeal. We instinctively crave opportunities to choose our own way and resist boundaries that constrain us. This thirst for self-determination unceasingly appeals for freedom.

In its heroic embodiment, the pull of liberty compels some people to heroic actions that risk their lives and/or fortunes. Many Americans willingly laid down their lives to protect our freedoms. Yet, the license of liberty drives some to acts of callous disregard for others and even unspeakable acts of evil. Ancient writings speak of the chaos which results when every person does what is right in their own eyes and history is replete with examples of despotic power holders imprisoning, enslaving and killing millions of fellow human beings.

That contrast of outcomes suggests liberty is amoral. While often raised as a rallying cry, liberty alone will not produce stable families, societies or businesses. In order to avoid the risks of its worst excesses, we must somehow constrain liberty without squelching its productive nature. We may constrain liberty by external or internal forces.

External forces constrain liberty by cultivating fear and imposing physical force. A small element of a society (in extreme cases a single individual, such as a king or dictator) defines boundaries in the form of laws that prescribe the adverse consequences for unacceptable behaviors. These dictatorial lawgivers possess sufficient power to restrain lawbreakers and compel compliance through fear. In theory, a rational person will fear the negative consequence of breaking a law and instead choose to behave within the constraining boundaries prescribed by the laws of that society. When coupled with the human desire for liberty, this environment will encourage some to flirt with the lines of the law (i.e. how close may I get without getting in trouble?). Of greater and grimmer long-term consequence, the fear induced by the force of law reaps a risk-averse society or organization that squelches creativity and innovation.

An effective external constraint of liberty via laws relies upon several highly unstable presumptions in any society governed by fallible humans.

  1. Prudence — Laws prescribe a limited set of behaviors necessary for a safe and orderly society. Laws are few enough to remember and simple enough to understand such that each individual member of the society may moderate their own behaviors in full confidence of compliance with all the laws of that society.
  2. Reasonableness — Laws require no more than modest efforts to comply and are generally perceived as fair.
  3. Equality — Members of the society receive equal treatment under the laws. There are no exceptions or undue burdens for any element of society.
  4. Reliability — Laws are consistently enforced. Members of society know with certainty that they will get caught and punished for breaking the law and left alone when they comply.

The absence of any element unleashes increasing amounts of lawbreaking, which, in turn, causes the lawgiver(s) to deploy increasing levels of force and induce higher levels of fear. This societal death spiral will either choke the vitality of a society (consider the moribund Russian society under the yoke of the Soviet Union) or may induce rebellion (remember the birth of the United States).

Love for others as an internal driver can also compel us to restrain our exercise of individual liberty. We abandon other activities which may offer greater personal pleasure to care for our sick child. We moderate our language and even speaking volume around certain people or situations. We adjust our style of dress appropriate to the situation. We change our work style or schedule to accommodate the needs of the group. We give of our time, talents and treasure when others are counting on us. We make these choices voluntarily and often without immediate or even certain benefit to ourselves. Out of internally motivated love we choose to sacrifice our personal liberty for the benefit of those around us.

When we allow love to restrain our individual liberty we do not need long lists of dos and don’ts that cover every conceivable situation. We do not need bulging employee manuals or bloated legislation. We only need one beautifully and unforgettably simple guiding principle…Love your neighbor as yourself.

On the other hand, liberty constrained by law creates narrow spaces hemmed in by the boundaries of many laws and wastefully consumes attention and energy to understand and avoid those boundaries. The simplicity of liberty restrained by love creates vast open fields of opportunity for creativity and risk-taking. When I know that others have my best interests at heart I trust (not fear) them. This freedom from fear unleashes the innovative spirit within each of us.

Ask yourself this question…Do I personally and professionally cultivate relationships fueled by love or compelled by law?

Looking ahead…The choice to constrain liberty by law or restrain liberty by love impacts societies and businesses in innumerable ways and results in vastly outcomes. Present society defaults to liberty constrained by laws (including policies and procedures) to the point that “love” for others is rarely heard in the public square or board rooms. How societies and businesses might look if we constructively restrained liberty by love is the subject for a future blog post.