Motivating Ethical Decisions

SHRM has come out with their 4th-quarter research paper, on business ethics. Of course there are many excellent solutions to be gleaned, but one paragraph sparked an interesting discussion here this morning.

On page three of the report, it is stated,

“Two broad incentive categories encourage ethical behavior: reward and recognition systems, and performance evaluation systems.”

It is then elaborated that "reward and recognition" is to be publicly done, and evaluations simply refers to the H.R. vehicles familiar to all of us. What about private, conversational, and mundane recognition of ethical decisions?

In his book, Drive, David Pink argues strongly that extrinsic motivators such as public rewards or bonuses are overemphasized in modern business, and can easily become counterproductive and demotivate creativity. Instead of extrinsic motivation, he suggests intrinsic motivation, which is admittedly harder to build.

But intrinsic motivation is built by daily interactions rather than scheduled rewards. I realize that Character First's own recognition program can fall prey to this extrinsic overemphasis. We need to keep emphasizing that the whole underpinning of CF as a vocabulary tool should encourage managers to build intrinsic motivation through daily conversations more than through periodic scheduled events.

Functional Character Emphasis

The list of character traits as a tool for character emphasis is going the way of the Dodo.

This has been the mainstream method to date, and there are many examples, including our own:

http://www.characterfirst.com/aboutus/qualities/
http://www.values.com/teaching-values
http://charactercounts.org/sixpillars.html
http://www.search-institute.org/developmental-assets/lists
http://www.virtuesproject.com/virtues.html
http://www.viacharacter.org/Classification/tabid/56/Default.aspx

I am not saying that these lists should go away: and I applaud the efforts of organizations that are attempting to change their approach to this issue. But not many are even trying.

It's good to talk in the abstract about "making ethical decisions." It's even better to present, in that discussion, practical examples of how ethical decision making plays out.

But that's still not how people experience ethical decision making every day. People don't ask the question, "How can I make an ethical decision?" They ask, "How can I tell the truth about my tardiness and still keep my job?" They ask, "How can I admit to my employees that it's my fault, and still keep their respect?" They ask, "I try so hard to be a good example–why doesn't my team follow my example?" They ask, "How can I tell my co-worker about something that's bugging me, without getting into a fight?"

Life is messy, and when we need to make a decision, we don't stop and think, "OK, what is the ethical decision here?" It's always much more situation-specific. We don't live in the abstract.

And simply throwing in some practical examples is not the solution. I argue that we cave in to the desire to "abstractify" ethical decisions even when we organize our practical examples underneath a hierarchy of "Pillars of Character" or "Character Qualities."

We lose when we frame the issue as one of "building character." We need to get specific and functional right from the start, or all we'll be doing is hanging posters in people's minds that they will learn to walk right past.

The solution? Functional character emphasis, which will always appear under another name. Leadership development. Employee development. Conflict resolution. Task management. Relationship skills. Team building.

More on this soon.

---

Luke Kallberg manages website content for the Character Training Institute.

Hope

We each face difficulties in various relationships. What hope do we have that those problems might be resolved? Really only the hope that, somehow, people can behave better than they are right now. We often talk about the improvement side of that: practical ways that we can act and think better. But we often skip over the foundational point: we must recognize that we are imperfect.

When Character First! is implemented in correctional facilities, a major hurdle is often getting prisoners to recognize their responsibility for where they are. Excuses abound. And as long as we keep on repeating, “I didn’t do anything wrong: it’s someone else’s fault,” we will likely keep on repeating the mistakes that get us in trouble.

As counterintuitive as it sounds, hope is only possible when we recognize and freely admit that we are imperfect.

• Emphasizing character doesn’t mean telling people about all the good things you do. Be honest and let others learn from your weaknesses as well as you strengths. When we present ourselves as something we’re not, we set ourselves up to be exposed. Consider the classic “Pocket Watch Story” in our Truthfulness resources.

---

Luke Kallberg manages website content for the Character Training Institute.

Vision Casting or Hype?

This article was first published November 16, 2009, at members.characterfirst.com.

Whenever a new program begins in a team, or organization, an individual or two usually becomes the “evangelist” for it. They strongly see the desirability and talk it up. Without people like this, we would probably forget some valuable things, but when they talk too much, it can get annoying. What makes the difference?

Sometimes we perceive these individuals as promoting something with no substance, or want to see an idea confirmed from multiple sources. But we do need people constantly “casting vision”—keeping important goals in our minds even when we don’t see it happening yet.

Employees might tend to react more negatively when a manager brings a character program in with a flourish instead of simply starting to manage them with character. In fact, if employees see the whole program as management hype, they might just decide to prove it wrong.

• If you’re the “evangelist,” make sure you present more than just you and your opinions. Check out these tips on persuasive leadership.
• If you tend to be skeptical of new, untested ideas, ask yourself how things could be better than they are, and how might people be motivated to pursue that. Consider how you can see things from another’s perspective.

---

Luke Kallberg manages website content for the Character Training Institute.

Can People Change?

This article was first published November 2, 2009, at members.characterfirst.com.

We see ourselves as able to choose freely in each situation. But practically speaking, how many experience a shift in priorities large enough to make them more likely to make right choices vs. wrong choices?

We each know a story or two about someone who dramatically changed for the better or the worse. But why are these stories so rare?

Perhaps our conscious choices are not the only factor. If it were as simple as deciding what to do and then doing it, New Years’ resolutions wouldn’t be broken, nicotine patches would be obsolete, and programs like Character First! would be unnecessary.

But outside influences, whether the environment or people, do lead to many of our choices: even causing us to sometimes choose against what we “want.” In fact, we are so awash in outside influences that the question could probably be turned around: Can people avoid changing? And probably if we look at those changes, we’ll see that people—community—are/is involved at every step. So maybe it’s not change that’s rare–it’s just fast change.

Perhaps the best role Character First! can play is to help people build a community that is supportive of the natural person–changing aspects of community.

• Being part of a Character First! initiative doesn’t mean spending lots of time on the Members’ Library–it means taking little pieces you’ve gleaned about character and living them out here and there.

Don’t be intimidated by big terms like “successful relationships.” Pursuing personal character and the good relationships that follow is a very every-day sort of activity.

---

Luke Kallberg manages website content for the Character Training Institute.

Can We Just Talk?

This article was first published October 19, 2009, at members.characterfirst.com.

Can people talk too much about character? I have this picture in mind of an employee meeting where the CEO announces the latest in a long line of employee development programs. This program happens to be character-based. Once again, it’s going to “change the way we do business!” Two ten-year veterans in the back glance at each other and roll their eyes.

A major goal at Character First! is to provide a “vocabulary of character.” When the talk is disproportionate to the walk, the program won’t just stagnate—people will actually decide to not let it work. There will be negative buy-in.

Edgar Schein of MIT has researched organizational culture, and he lists the following mechanisms whereby leaders can “embed” values into their organizations’ culture:

Schein’s Primary Embedding Mechanisms

• What leaders pay attention to, measure, and control on a regular basis
• How leaders react to critical incidents and organizational crises
• How leaders allocate resources
• Deliberate role modeling, teaching, and coaching
• How leaders allocate rewards and status
• How leaders recruit, select, promote, and excommunicate

Schein’s Secondary Articulation and Reinforcement Mechanisms

• Organizational design and structure
• Organizational systems and procedures
• Rites and rituals of the organization
• Design of physical space, facades, buildings
• Stories about important events and people
• Formal statements of organizational philosophy, creeds, and charters¹

All but one of Schein’s primary mechanisms are pure observed behavior. Yes, it is possible to talk too much—if your observed behavior is saying something else.

• If you’re a leader, each quality’s Leadership Tips are a must.
• Many Employee Tips are really tips on how to “embed” your values into your culture.

Reference:

¹Schein, E. H. (2004), p.246. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

---

Luke Kallberg manages website content for the Character Training Institute.

Not Just Behavior

I'm posting old Members' Library Home Page articles here to serve as an archive. This one was first published October 2, 2009, at http://members.characterfirst.com.

Luke Kallberg

I’m sure you’ve heard lots of people talk about the importance of character. Unfortunately, much of it sounds something like, “We need to start a character emphasis because all these people are doing bad stuff, and we want them to start doing good stuff!”

Though understandable, this statement focuses completely on behavior and really isn’t very character-based at all. People can do lots of good things while still having bad character. Being concerned about someone’s character means being concerned about the real them–not about the image they project for all to see. We need to be careful that, in getting excited about “character,” we’re not merely getting excited about socially acceptable behavior.

Telling someone to “be patient” is different from saying, “wait for the train without complaining.” The person might very well wait without complaining while being inwardly impatient.

But many of us simply mean, “wait without complaining.” We’re thinking in terms of the behavior we want from that person. We’re not going to the trouble of worrying about their true inward state. Instead, we need to be concerned about what’s going on inside the person, and be talking about that when we say, “be patient.”

One strength of Character First! is that it tries to talk about these inner characteristics rather than outer behavior. This is very difficult since we only notice character by noticing someone’s behavior. But we always need to direct our thinking past the behavior to the character. When you praise someone for patience, you might wonder whether they were really patient on the inside. Only time will tell. But over time, the delicate distinction will become clear to those who listen to you.

---

Luke Kallberg manages website content for the Character Training Institute.