Change irresponsible behavior in the workplace to responsible behavior.
Joseph A. Williams, Ph.D.
Copyright 2009 Joseph A. Williams, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.
Human CABLE System™ (HCS) is a Registered Trademark of Joseph A. Williams, Ph.D.
No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review.
Editor: Bree K. James
Designer: Sue Campbell
Photographer: Randy Carr
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data available.
ISBN-10: 0-615-26855-2 (Hardbound book)
ISBN-13: 978-0-615-26855-2 (Hardbound book)
Published by Common Sense Management Strategies (CSMS)
Henderson, Nevada 89011
Phone 702-567-3051 • Fax: 702-567-3054
Smashwords Edition (e-book)
This book is dedicated to my two daughters, April and Eva. My greatest hope is that they can live in a world with a responsible behavioral environment, and pass the culture of responsibility on to future generations. May they use this style of behavior to enhance their journeys.
In memory of my parents Ada and Bob,
and my brothers Bobby, Rudy, Donald, Cliff, and Malcolm.
Contents
Chapter 1: “Saving the World, One Coffee Shop at a Time”
Chapter 2: “Common Sense Principles, A Standard Workplace Guide”
Chapter 3: “Scope and History, Common Sense Choices”
Chapter 4: “Twelve Common Sense Principles of Responsible Behavior”
Chapter 5: “Robert Joins the Workforce Environment”
Chapter 6: “The Magical Mirror”
Chapter 7: “The Five Elements of the Human Behavior Process”
Chapter 8: “Donna Joins the Workforce Environment”
Chapter 9: “Connecting the Dots Between Donna’s Past and Current Behaviors.”
Chapter 10: “To Tell or Not To Tell”
Chapter 11: “Un-Designated Driver”
Chapter 12: “Donna Takes a Good Look at Herself”
Chapter 13: “Donna’s Cable Wiring”
Epilogue: “Who Do You See in the Mirror?”
“The Twelve Principles of Responsible Behavior”
Added Bonus
“Who Do You See In The Mirror? Self-Improvement Workbook”
My wife Janett Rice, who inspired me to write this book, is also a published author and understands the writing process. With this in mind I thank her most of all for her never-ending patience as this book was being written. I also thank her for the creative ideas she contributed and her tough but oh, so necessary editing skills. Janett spent copious hours reading and critiquing my writing with minimal complaint. For this I remain forever grateful.
Special recognition also goes to Bree K. James for her outstanding contributions that made this book possible. Bree took dry technical information and brought it to life. She is an exceptional story-telling editor, and this book would not have been the same without her experience and coaching.
Meredith McGhan, Linda O’Connor and O’Brien Young all added significant expertise and their own unique individual touches during the editing process. Other editing contributors include Leslie Hoffman and Suzanne Bergfalk, Ph.D.
In the process of formulating the Human CABLE System™ (HCS), it was necessary for me to accurately apply theories of educational psychology and organizational behavior during early human development. Associate Professor Lisa D. Bendixen, Ph.D. in the Department of Educational Psychology, and Professor Alder Stoney Ph.D. in the College of Business Management, University of Nevada–Las Vegas, deserve special recognition for sharing their expertise in those areas with me.
No manuscript can be successfully written without the open and frank criticism of its readers. Special thanks go to Dorothy Rasmussen, Ph.D. and Patty Brown, two readers who read the manuscript in its infancy and made comments that helped it grow into a mature adult. Thanks also go to Billee Platt and Barbara Jones for their contributions.
I am grateful to Candie and Rayneen Cervantes for sharing real life experiences when I was desperately seeking interesting examples of behavioral situations. Thanks go to Dorothy Rasmussen and her son Daniel for their story sharing contributions. There were also numerous employees, interviewed at international airport during my travels, that shared their experiences relating to a variety of behavioral issues.
Many companies and organizations participated in the gathering of research data. These companies include: Costco, Office Max, University of Phoenix, Warm Springs Dental, Henderson Writers Group, Avista Eye Center East, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and St. James United Methodist Church, Kansas City, Missouri. Their cooperation was especially appreciated.
Who Do You See in the Mirror? is a story about dealing face-to-face with human behavior. Everyone in the world—an estimated 6.8 billion of us—exhibits or is influenced by two types of behavior: responsible or irresponsible. Behavior is everything that humans do, linking their actions and inactions in response to the stimulation of their environment. Behavior has no age, sex, or national origin boundaries. Responsible or irresponsible human behavior penetrates all social structures: businesses, governments, political institutions, churches, schools, and communities. And, human behavior also enters into every personal interaction in life. Behavior accounts for all of the problems the world is facing today and their future solutions.
People’s actions and inactions have a ripple effect, either negative or positive, in establishing our global behavioral environment. Many of the behaviors we see in today’s society suggest we are shifting toward a culture of irresponsibility. A culture of irresponsibility consists of people who are out of control and display carelessness, immaturity, dishonesty, corruption, and are in a state of denial. It also includes people who lack courage and good work ethics, and regularly blame others for their own actions. The trend toward irresponsibility is a greater threat to the world’s security than the proliferation of nuclear weapons or guns. Weapons themselves, being inanimate objects, do not kill. Killing occurs as a result of human action.
Economists have estimated that the total world’s labor force in the current global economy is approximately 1.5 billion people. However, with China, India, and Russia entering the labor market, an additional 1.5 billion people will be competing in the global economy. This brings the total world labor force to about 3 billion people, about 50 percent of the world population, that are being influenced by the ripple effect of responsible and irresponsible behavior.
Individual human behavior connects the global behavioral environment. The labor force will mirror the behavior of its culture. If society displays irresponsible behavior, creating a culture of irresponsibility, the workplace behavioral environment will suffer the same shift toward irresponsibility.
Irresponsibility is a serious threat to the success of the workplace behavioral environment. An enterprise is the non-living organ of the business organization, and, as such, it cannot decide, act, or behave by itself. Therefore, the enterprise has no effective existence by itself. A business succeeds or fails according to the responsible or irresponsible behavior of its personnel, both management and non-management, the living organ of the organization. All personnel must work together, executing responsible actions, to achieve the goals of the enterprise. Employees must be held accountable for the successes and failures of a business.
The same can be said of our government’s workplaces. Government, as an organized structure, is a non-living element, which cannot function without the actions of the members of the Congressional and Executive branches working together responsibly for the causes of the voters who elected them, and with the Judicial branch to ensure the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. If these bodies behave irresponsibly, the voters’ wishes are disregarded, and the global culture of irresponsibility is strengthened.
Human behavior is the source of most problems and their ultimate solutions in today’s global society. The recession America and other nations are experiencing should remind us just how much human behavior is connected. America’s economic crisis has had a domino effect on the economies of other nations. Despite the cultural differences, all people in the world share the instinct to survive, and the desire to be respected and achieve self-actualization.
There exists today a sense of urgency to seek common sense solutions for a sustainable change. This requires responsible action on a global level. What has gotten in the way of this? Some say the world is too complex, but perhaps it is because the mindset of denial, lack of courage and fear of self-incrimination reflects back at people when looking into the mirror.
Who Do You See in the Mirror? addresses the larger issue of responsible and irresponsible behavior, with its primary focus targeting workplace behavior. It also looks at related causes and effects of behavior that often stem from the developmental structure established in childhood. This book will help anyone working with others to deal directly with the question: What do you see in the mirror: responsible or irresponsible behavior in the workplace?
The purpose of Who Do You See in the Mirror? is to help employers and employees identify and understand workplace-related actions and inactions that may result from their own unique behavioral backgrounds. The process involves using a simple innovative concept called the Human CABLE System (HCS), and the Twelve Common Sense Principles for Responsible Behavior to create a more responsible workplace culture.
The HCS, used as a self-help tool, offers a clear way to be part of a responsible workplace environment. Using HCS can help answer the question, “Who Do You See in the Mirror?” The consequences of your attitude, behavior, learning, and environment are much closer to each other than people realize.
Although there has been much scholarly enterprise involved in gathering and creating the material for this book, Dr. Williams is also “just Joe” to the many workers he met and worked beside. Stepping outside his experiences in the academic and corporate world—where he accomplished 30 years of successful employment—Dr. Williams decided to “walk his talk” and took a job as a baggage handler at a major airport.
The following stories are inspired by the many surveys, interviews and conversations Dr. Williams conducted with working people. The participants in the weekly coffee shop meetings in the book are composites of the actual people and events. The “character” of Joe is both a realistic portrayal of Dr. Williams, and a reflection of the feedback he received from the people who became the coffee shop group.
A recipient of the 2008
Extraordinary Faculty Award in Walden University Alumni Magazine
answers a pressing question that relates to
why this book
fills a critical need.
Question: What is the most important issue that people in your field are not talking about?
Response: In psychology, people are not looking enough at the environmental determinants of behavior; they’re trying too much to look for genetic determinants. But even if there is a genetic factor, we don’t have control over that. What we have control over are conditions in our environments.
—Dr. Steven Little,
College of Social and
Behavioral Sciences
Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Saving the World, One Coffee Shop at a Time
Begin with yourself to see change in the world!
For a shift toward a society of more responsible behavior — who do you see in the mirror?
Every Monday after work, Joe stopped at a local coffee shop to unwind before going home for the evening. This coffee shop, near the business district and a major airport, had become a favorite hangout for many of the working class people employed nearby. Its atmosphere provided them with a safe haven in which to escape their job responsibilities and relax after a stressful day in the workplace.
It had become a tradition for a regular group of workers to stop by the coffee shop on Monday evenings to spend about an hour before going home for the evening. Since this was a weekly gathering, the coffee shop servers became familiar with the faces, names, and favorite drinks of the regulars. When they arrived at the shop, each would be greeted with a friendly smile, a bit of small talk, and his or her favorite beverage.
There was camaraderie among the regulars, and they usually started the evening inquiring about each other’s work day and families, and then often proceeded to discuss a national or international issue that they felt affected them at work. They shared a common interest in discussing new ideas to resolve their work issues. As Barbara, a bookkeeper at one of the larger food suppliers at the airport, said one evening, “Did you know that more than 50 percent of working people’s waking hours are spent on the job? It just makes sense that if our lives were better at work, the world would be better, too.”
One of the concerns the regulars shared is what they saw as a trend toward irresponsible behavior at their respective businesses. The indictments of corporate securities fraud and falsification of business records that resulted in the convictions of several top executives, investigations of wrongdoing by government officials and employees, and thousands of people dealing with cancellations of airline flights due to neglected inspections were constantly in the news and gave the group members grist for the mill of their discontent. Barbara brought up a report by the FBI she had seen on the Internet, telling her companions, “It said corruption had increased 30 percent over the past year.”
Edward, who had been working for over 15 years as a mechanic at a large garage, shook his head and said, “It seems that no one these days wants to take responsibility for what they do or don’t do. Those convicted executives blew off their responsibility for the consequences of their actions! They’re always ready to say, ‘Oh, no, it wasn’t me, I had nothing to do with it’ … and point the finger at somebody else—and usually somebody who is lower than they are on the totem pole.”
Brian, a hotel desk clerk, responded to Edward, “Seriously, it’s not just a problem of these big-time execs in the news. It’s my manager and then his manager and then his manager and on and on. This lack of responsibility thing goes all up and down the ladder.”
“Right you are,” Edward agreed. “And it’s got this ripple effect that makes where you work a negative scene.” The regulars felt this irresponsibility issue was out of control and needed to be fixed, and the coffee shop gatherings were the perfect setting to come up with ideas to resolve the problem.
A server who had been avidly listening to the discussion remarked, “You’d be surprised how many problems are resolved in coffee shops just like this one.”
Joe overheard this discussion and it really caught his attention—what the coffee shop patrons were talking about was precisely his area of interest, and he saw a great opportunity to help the group with his skills and further his own study of the subject at the same time. It was not too long before Joe became one of the regular patrons, and over time, it became clear to his companions that Joe had some ideas that could improve life at work for them all. The Monday evening gathering at the coffee shop turned into a sort of casual seminar. People came to learn about Joe’s concepts about behavior on the job being the root cause of the positive or negative cultures in their workplaces.
Joe knew he was quite different from the group of regulars. He had 30 years of management experience after working for two Fortune 500 companies, and because he wanted to remain mentally active, he went back to graduate school after retiring.
“You’re a good example that an old dog can learn new tricks!” Brian said when he heard that Joe completed his doctorate in Applied Management and Decision Science at 65-years-old. “Now tell me what all that means, and why the heck you’re working as a baggage handler, and I’ll buy your coffee tonight.”
Joe explained to Brian and the rest of the group that when he was an executive in the corporate world, he often wondered why today’s businesses didn’t consider it more important to focus on the human behavioral aspect of the organization. “After all,” he told them, “behavior is the common element shared by all issues.” Believing that a person’s actions and inactions are the most critical factors in determining an individual’s moral fiber and the success or failure of an organization, Joe developed his own innovative ideas.
“It’s simply that some people act responsibly when responding to situations and others act irresponsibly,” he said. “But this is a mighty thing, because it goes beyond the workplace. I’m hoping I can help you figure out how to make some things in your work lives better, and I’m hoping you can help me answer two questions I’ve been working on for quite a while: What is the connection between behavior in the workplace and an individual’s early childhood environment? And how can people’s irresponsible behavior be corrected?”
Joe was an efficient facilitator at the Monday evening get-togethers, and was able to help the group define and frame an issue before focusing on a solution. The others encouraged Joe to lead most discussions, both because he was considered the common sense behavioral expert, and because his enthusiasm for the topic of the day was contagious. Occasionally, the regulars would ask him questions or offer their points of view to spur the discussion forward.
Sometimes Joe would present the group with an issue, and then invite them to dream of the best possible outcome.” I believe this,” he told them, “if you can dream a positive outcome you can achieve it.” He told the group stories about people’s behavior in real life situations, sometimes using metaphorical characters and concepts, but always bringing in two basic behavioral principles that were central to his philosophy:
1. Responsible or irresponsible behavior is the sole source of a human being’s acts. These acts are creations and activities that result in success or failure.
2. To resolve a problem or improve a situation and achieve real sustainable progress the root cause of the issue’s success or failure must be dealt with directly as well as the related cause and effects connected with the problem.
Joe found the metaphor of looking at oneself in the mirror helped people see themselves objectively—something that he knew was necessary in order to make sustainable behavioral changes. One day Greg, an airport van driver, asked Joe, “Why do you use mirrors in most of your explanations and discussions?” Joe replied, “The mirror is a tool to unmask people’s self-denial. It helps us deal directly with the root cause of many issues, and helps me find real sustainable solutions to those issues.” He then proceeded to share the story of how the mirror became such an important part of his story analogies.
“When I was a young boy, my mother frequently had to remind me that if I really wanted to help make the world a better place in which to live, I would have to ‘begin with the person I saw in the mirror.’ Her words stayed with me to this day, although, the phrase took on different meanings as I matured in life. At the age of twelve I understood her words to mean that I should take a good look at my own appearance before I looked at other people’s appearances, and looking in the mirror became a daily routine.
“I became obsessed with my appearance. Thinking about this, I realized that looking in the mirror was the only way a person could come face to face with the truth of him or herself. The mirror has always symbolized honesty because the mirror’s image never lies. It conveys the same absolute truth, as does the human body. It tells the truth of how we look before we comb and brush our hair, apply make-up, or dress for the day.
“My thought process at age twelve could not get past the physical appearance of the image reflecting back. People today are even more obsessed with the way they look than I was then. So much so, they are willing to spend billions of dollars on plastic surgery, altering their appearances by giving themselves a physical makeover instead of altering their behavior for an internal character makeover.
“As I got older I realized my mother reminded me about looking at myself in the mirror when I acted irresponsibly, not when she was trying to say something about how I looked. She was telling me not to let the physical attributes reflecting from the mirror blind me from seeing the attributes of my character. I came to understand that this is the true center of beauty: moral character. A person’s physical appearance is only skin-deep and fades with age, whereas, a person’s character will never fade, and will last well past physical life on this earth.
“Making this critical behavioral connection helped me to get past the physical appearance mentality. I began to think on a much broader horizon. The reflection of the mirror image mimics all of an individual’s actions. In this situation, I am in complete control of the actions of the reflected image. I cannot blame others or deny the fact that I am responsible and accountable for the acts of my reflected image. However, being faced with the reality of my physical attributes, I still had a tendency to blame my parents for my dissatisfaction about the way my eyes, hair, nose, and lips looked.
“After all, I did not bring myself into the world; it was an action taken by my parents. While I played the blame game, I blamed my pants for being too tight to fit me comfortably anymore. It was either the fault of the pants manufacturer or the cooks of the food I ate. I did not accept the fact that I chose to eat too much. Blaming others for such tangible things such as the pants or food, was my way of feeling better about myself by seeking pleasure and avoiding emotional pain.”
“So, what you are saying,” Edward commented, “is that consciously or unconsciously, people behave by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, right?”
“Right,” Joe responded. “It’s a built-in survival instinct that comes with being human. Pain is suffering resulting from physical, mental, or emotional distress. Pleasure is the result of being satisfied. Pain and pleasure can vary from person to person. What one person sees as pain, another person sees as pleasure, or vice-versa depending on the circumstances.”
“I just know you’re going to tell us how this relates to work,” said Brian, drawing a chuckle from the others, a group that had settled into a dozen or so people who made a commitment to the Monday night meetings.
Joe nodded, smiling. “Why, yes, I am, Brian, and here’s what it is. In the workplace environment, workers will typically seek tasks they enjoy doing and avoid stressful tasks, even though they know the job requires the completion of the stressful tasks. So, employers attempt to match the tasks with workers who enjoy performing them, because this increases morale and productivity.
“These same workers, who enjoy performing their tasks, are also more willing to be responsible and accountable for the outcome. Matching a worker’s incentive to perform a task to the task being asked of them is a win-win situation for both the employer and employee, as long as it does not stifle flexibility of the workforce.
“Workers, who attempt to avoid tasks that are stressful while still having to perform them, have a tendency to blame the procedure or others for the outcome if it is not successful.”
Ellen, a security guard and single mother of two, asked, ”How did the workplace reach a point of being almost immune to people accepting responsibility for their own actions and inactions?”
“That’s a good question for next Monday’s gathering,” Joe replied, suggesting three discussion topics for the following week. “First, let’s define the issue of responsible versus irresponsible behavior in the workplace so we’re all on the same page. Second, we can try to determine how big this issue is, and third, I’ll share some things I know about the history of how the workplace got to where not taking responsibility for one’s own behavior became so fashionable in today’s environment.
“This will be a bit like looking at the issue in a rear view mirror,” Joe concluded. “We can look at where the behavior of the workplace environment has been, so we can see where behavior in the workplace environment is going—always a good idea before changing lanes.”
Common Sense Principles, A Standard Workplace Guide
The regulars began gathering at the coffee shop around five p.m. Joe began the discussion. “Picking up where we ended last Monday’s discussion, here are some examples of employee actions that describe responsible versus irresponsible behavior in the workplace. We all need to have a clear, comprehensive definition of the problem behavior before we attempt to fix it.
“First, here are some examples of responsible behavior characteristics in the workplace.” He handed a small stack of papers to Brian and asked him to pass them around. “I think it’s always easier to have a list like this in front of you, so you don’t have to be trying to write it down on your napkin,” he said, smiling, and got a few laughs from the people who had been about to do just that. Joe read the list:
1. Responsible employees don’t need guidance or supervision. They can be trusted to do their work correctly and independently.
2. They usually perform tasks with integrity, putting forth their best effort.
3. Proactively, they take into account the consequences of their actions before reacting to a situation. They openly display the courage to take responsibility for their actions without blaming others.
4. They also have the courage to do the right thing when confronted with difficulties that challenge their character.
5. They consistently report to work on time. They treat themselves and other employees with respect and dignity.
“These principles of responsible behavior are plain, common sense actions,” Joe said. “Later in this discussion, we can use these characteristics to develop some common sense principles of responsible behavior that can be used as a standard guide in the workplace and throughout life.
“A good role model for responsible behavior is the president and CEO of Japan Airlines, Haruka Nishimatsu,” Joe continued. “The CEO goes to work on a public bus, not private corporate jets. He also cut his salary to about $90,000 a year when he proposed cutting the salary of his employees. He even removed the walls from his office so he’d be more accessible and exemplify a true open door policy to his employees.”
Ellen commented, “What you just described sounds like a good work ethic and just what today’s workforce seems to be moving away from.”
“Yeah, that certainly is a good example of a responsible executive,” Edward responded, “but when I told my sister what we were talking about, she e-mailed me this article about Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain, who spent $1 million decorating his office.”
“Yes,” Joe said, “I’m afraid there are more examples of this kind of irresponsible corporate behavior. Did you know that Citigroup executives had planned to purchase a new $50 million corporate jet at the same time they were receiving billions of dollars in tax payer bailouts?”
These examples touched a lot of nerves in the room. Head shaking and muttering ensued. But Joe thought it was important to get the group activated enough to truly want to help make change happen, so he risked continuing in this vein. “Likewise,” he said, his serious tone capturing the restless group’s attention, “regardless of the losses in investor retirement accounts and the huge taxpayer money bailout, Wall Street gave out more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008.”
“Well, that’s what President Obama was talking about!” Brian exclaimed. “I heard him blasting these selfish executives for asking taxpayers to give them all this money, and how we’re in a bind because if we don’t provide help, the whole system could come down on top of our heads.”
“I heard that, too,” Barbara added. “He said that it’s the height of irresponsibility and shameful. And then right after the even bigger bailout from the government—over $8 billion, right?—executives at the same companies that were getting this money took huge bonuses! The President was really angry about that, too.”
“Indeed,” said Joe. “I’m afraid we could cite many more examples of irresponsibility by corporate leaders. Let’s turn those sheets over now and look at my list of the behaviors exhibited by irresponsible employees.” And with the soft flutter of papers being flipped around the room, Joe read this list to the group:
1. They often go against the rules, are driven by impulse, and seldom consider the consequences of their actions.
2. They rarely take responsibility for their actions or inactions.
3. They cannot be trusted to do their work independently, or with integrity. A fraud-based attitude tends to drive their response to the behavioral environment.
4. Rarely do they put forth their best effort.
5. Blaming others for their own actions becomes a pattern in their behavior. They often abdicate their responsibility and then look for a scapegoat to cover their inaction.
6. They have little respect for themselves, others, or for the company’s property.
7. They consistently report to work late, using excuses for their lateness.
8. When working on a team, they do not contribute their fair share of the work and spend a lot of time thinking of ways to get out of doing their work.
“I agree that irresponsible employees have an attitude toward fraud,” said Barbara. “This is going back a bit, but for me it was one of my first times of being aware of how badly people can behave in a company. Maybe it kind of set the stage for the more recent outrages. I’m talking about Enron, you know, the energy company? It was found to be guilty of one of the biggest swindles in U.S. history. Enron once employed about 21,000 people, and after the financial fraud scandal, it employed only about 6,000.”
Brian interrupted, “Barbara, we can always count on you to know the numbers!”
Barbara blushed a little at the compliment and continued, “It was shocking to learn that Enron, once the world’s leading electricity, natural gas, pulp and paper, and communications company, committed such an irresponsible act. Enron’s top executives once claimed as much as $111 billion in revenue. But, it was later revealed that its financial picture was deliberately and creatively planned accounting fraud.”
“How could anyone forget this display of irresponsible behavior,” added Ellen. “It was not the kind of record those top executives were shooting for, but Enron is now known as the largest corporate failure in world history due to criminal acts.”
“That’s for sure,” Barbara responded. “It was the largest and most complex bankruptcy case in U.S. history. It’s estimated that Enron’s losses exceeded $68 billion.”
“Enron’s fraud scandal caused the end of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm,” said Edward, “which had a ripple effect on the whole business world. Their irresponsible behavior cast a cloud of suspicion over other corporations and accounting firms serving the public—how can we trust any of them?”
“What I read was that the Enron financial scandal happened when CEOs lied about their financial holdings,” Ellen said. “The CEOs mislead investors and employees, and then denied responsibility for the result. The whole Wall Street mess proves that situations like Enron’s are increasing, and some people seem to think that irresponsible acts such as these are just the tip of the iceberg. In today’s workplaces, there is a lot of suspicion about just how widespread these corporate scandals are.”
“Well,” chimed in Greg, “scandals aren’t confined to the private businesses. Let’s not forget about irresponsible behavior in government, when local, state, and federal officials are involved in taking bribes for favors given to special-interest groups.”
Joe nodded agreement and said, “The disjointed responses by local, state, and federal governments to the damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are also examples of abdicating responsibility. There were allegations surrounding improper distribution of federal dollars to people affected by the hurricanes. And at the same time others not affected by the hurricanes received government money. This is a situation where some people took advantage of the opportunity to commit fraud.”
“And what about the officials in the Pentagon who misused billions of dollars?” Ellen asked. “They spent all this money on personal luxuries instead of directing it to the war efforts. It’s unconscionable that such a scandalous act was perpetrated while our soldiers were losing their lives in the Iraq war.”
“So true,” Edward said. “Money is so often the main incentive for negative behavior whether it’s a public, private, or government workplace. I hear this expression often in break room conversations at work when these sorts of scandals surface. People say ‘money is the root of all evil,’ and it seems that if money is involved as a temptation, some people are easily seduced into committing acts of corruption.”
When Edward mentioned the saying “money is the root of all evil,” Joe decided this was a good time to clarify the difference between the motivations caused by living versus non-living things.
“We pointed out in a previous discussion the behavioral differences that might shed some light on the saying ‘money is the root of all evil.’ To reiterate, an inanimate entity such as an enterprise is a non-living organ of a business and is incapable of behaving or taking action without employees. The employees form the living organ. Other examples include the various branches of our government that are non-living organs and are incapable of behaving without the actions of the members.
“Likewise,” Joe continued, “the saying ‘money is the root of all evil,’ is an inaccurate statement, because money is a non-living material possession that is used as a medium of exchange. Money cannot act by casting an evil spell over a person that causes the person to commit fraud—just as an enterprise cannot run itself without the actions of its employees. The lesson here is that only people, the living forms of life, can commit fraud.
“The saying ‘money is the root of all evil’ originated in the New Testament. To be exact the quote is ‘For the love of money is the root of all evil,’ Timothy, 6:10. That saying has been misquoted for thousands of years and is still being misquoted today.”
“Really!” said Brian. “I didn’t realize it came from the Bible.”
“I would guess that a lot of people today don’t know the origin if they’re not church goers” said Barbara, “but this is how people’s actions influence what Joe calls the ‘behavioral environment.’ One person misquotes the saying. When others hear it, they don’t question the correctness of the saying, and the misquoted saying is repeated enough times until it becomes fashionable. The incorrect saying becomes the one everyone knows.”
“Yeah,” added Brian. “It’s like the game of Gossip we used to play as kids, whispering something from person to person and hearing how it came out at the end of the line. The last kid said out loud what he or she thought they’d heard and the result was often very funny because it had nothing at all to do with the original statement. It could start out as, ‘James and Melanie went to the store and bought six oranges,’ and end up as ‘Games on linoleum get stoves sent abroad with orangutans!”
Joe laughed along with the others and then said, “Exactly. Yet the context of the two sayings is completely different. In the phrase ‘For the love of money is the root of all evil,’ love is a feeling expressed toward a person, an object, money, a job, food, etc. Money is a measure of status in life. But more important, a person’s character is often measured by his or her response to money. People are often confused between money, status, and the resulting behavior.
“They amass money to achieve status rather than to pay the bills. These are two different motivations. Amassing money to pay bills is a reaction based on survival. How much money a person has accumulated is one way to measure wealth. So, is it not fair to blame all evil on money, or even any evil at all, really, since money is a non-living substance? Money is incapable of behaving.”
“So, if money is not the root of all evil, what is?” asked Edward.
“Before I answer your questions, I would like to explain a common cause of evil acts displayed by people,” responded Joe. “It’s jealousy.
“Jealousy is a common cause of evil and can take many different forms in the workplace. It is often connected to money. For example, an employee can become jealous of another employee because he or she makes more money. The most common evil acts displayed among employees in the workplace center around inequitable work assignments and mistreatment that may not have anything to do with money. But, those things have everything to do with the employees’ irresponsible behavior. Situations such as sexual and racial harassment, verbal abuse, and discrimination come to mind.
“By the same token,” continued Joe, “amassing money for the love of money can be evil or good whether you are an entrepreneur or employee. As an example, suppose an entrepreneur loves to accumulate money for the purpose of giving it away to make the world a better place. Say, the entrepreneur gives it away to help find a cure for cancer, diabetes, or heart disease, and donates money to help educate less fortunate people so those people can help themselves and pass it on to others in the world. These are examples where money is used for doing good things, not evil.
Obviously, there is status gained for giving money away for a good cause, and some of the richest people in the world have gained such status of being generous with their wealth. Nonetheless, you can’t say that having money has caused these philanthropists to act in an evil way.
“The other side of this debate is a selfish entrepreneur or employee who loves money to the degree of being obsessed with it. This entrepreneur’s or employee’s behavior is a more accurate description of what the phrase ‘for the love of money is the root of all evil’ addresses. But even in this scenario, money, being a non-living substance, cannot be blamed for people’s obsessive and selfish behavior regarding it.
“So, to answer the question you asked earlier, people’s behavior—regarding money and everything else in life—is actually the root of all evil. It’s even more accurate to say that human behavior—action or inaction—is the root cause of evil or good. There are many examples where money is blamed for irresponsible behaviors. And these instances are common occurrences costing organizations billions of dollars in lack of productivity.”
“I can think of a bunch of things people have done at work that I’d call irresponsible,” said Ellen, “but then I imagine all sorts of reasons they might have for doing what they’ve done. Joe, I’ll bet you have some good stories that might help us understand how to figure out when to take something seriously, right?”
“Indeed I do,” replied Joe, “And that sounds like a good place to start next time—this has been a long and meaningful discussion and we all have a lot to think about, so how about we begin with some story telling next week?”
The group agreed and, as promised, the following Monday, Joe shared a typical story about the absenteeism that runs rampant throughout most workplace environments. When everyone was settled, he began.
“A supervisor asked one of his subordinates to come to his office for a performance review.
“‘I reviewed your records,’ the supervisor said, ‘and I noticed that your absentee rate is 10 percent. Monday is the day that you call in sick more often than any other day. Could you help me understand? Why Monday?’
“‘Just between you and me, the work is boring,’ the employee said. ‘If I don’t use up my sick days, company policy doesn’t let me carry them over to next year or get paid for them. If I don’t use them, I lose them, so I take a lot of nice long weekends.”
“The supervisor thought to himself, ‘Employees with a sense of entitlement are ruining this company! They’re the reason I always have to be the bad guy.’
“‘But sick days are not vacation days. You’re only supposed to use sick days if you get sick,’ said the supervisor.”
“‘Really?’ The employee seemed befuddled. ‘But that just doesn’t seem fair!’”
“I imagine we all can relate to that story,” said Joe, and agreement rolled around the room.
Susan, a regular with the group who rarely spoke up, was clearly brought to attention by this topic. “I work in one of the gift stores at the airport,” she said.
“Employees who regularly report to work late also create problems. Being late is almost as bad as being absent for the day in terms of the inconvenience it can cause. In retail businesses, employees who are responsible for opening the store at a specific time will miss out on sales if they don’t open the store on time. And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to wait for the person taking over my place at the cash register when they’re late for their shift. I try to continue to give good service to the customers, but it’s hard when I’m tired and starting to get annoyed that I’m still working and not getting paid for it! I have a family to get home to—well, except on Mondays when I come here,” she said, her frown of frustration softening into a smile.
“The airline industry is another situation where being on time is really important,” said Greg. “I mean, the airline’s goal is to get travelers, bags, cargos, and mail from location A to location B safely and on time. If a worker with some of the responsibility for achieving that goal, like myself and the other van drivers, are late or absent, there’s a whole chain of other services that are affected, and complaints end up on the person’s record. Getting your co-workers and everybody up the line in a bind sure isn’t a way to advance your career.”
“What really drives me nuts,” chimed in Brian, “are the lame excuses people give for being late: ‘I forgot to set my alarm clock,’ ‘I got stuck in traffic,’ or ‘I forgot to change my clock to daylight savings time.’ I was working night shift at the hotel one time, when the person relieving me was almost two hours late—I was falling asleep at the desk! You know what she said when she finally showed up? Her hair dryer caught fire and she had to go to the store to buy another one and then go back home and do her hair! I’ll tell you, the excuse about that girl’s hair was nothing you’d put on an employee evaluation as superlative employee performance!” Brian flicked his own hair off his forehead as if those strands were the center of his universe.
After the laughter over Brian’s spontaneous imitation died down, Barbara brought a serious tone back to the room. “On the other hand,” she said, “bosses and supervisors who fail to deal with employees being late or absent too often can also contribute to establishing the environment of irresponsibility Joe’s been talking about.”
“I agree,” said Edward. “But what are responsible upper management people supposed to do? When bosses try to fix the problem of middle and lower management not following the absentee and lateness rules with the people they’re supervising, they need to be consistent and to apply those rules all the time to everybody working at their company—including the top execs and themselves. And they should really back up their action with more than just some memo going into a file.”
“Exactly,” said Joe. “Management personnel must practice what they preach. Leadership starts with management from the top. It’s my experience that a strategy of changing irresponsible behavior into responsible actions starting from the bottom up has little or no chance of sustaining the change. So, a company’s management personnel must be willing to model punctuality in order to get that sustainable change. Ideally, the modeled behavior will end the tardiness. Otherwise, attempts to fix the problem will be short lived and efforts wasted.”
“That’s an interesting point you made, Joe, on leadership starting from the top,” added Susan. “I think a situation that happened at the gift shop is a good example of ineffective action taken by a manager. One of the supervisors at the store, who had his own problem with tardiness, was allowed to counsel the people working under him for the same problem. It was pretty awkward for him, because the people he was getting after knew he was late more than they were! So, if I’m getting what Joe is saying correctly, that manager was being irresponsible to reprimand the late workers when he was doing the same thing.”
“Right, thanks, Susan,” Joe responded. “The manager’s behavior and words sent out a mixed and thus irresponsible message to the workforce “Namely, do as I say, not as I do. In other words, the tardiness policy in that situation only applied to non-management personnel. This approach has never worked in providing guidelines that change the behavior of employees. The approach of telling employees to comply with a rule that the employers are not willing to comply with themselves is not realistic, and it’s hypocritical. The employer who is attempting to apply the rule is in a state of denial about his or her own behavior. Employers must be willing to look in the mirror and start with the image they see reflecting back before they can begin enforcing behavioral polices for their employees.
“This method relates to much of early childhood development. The do what I say, not what I do approach has been passed down from generation to generation,” Joe continued “This approach did not work during past generations, at least not in the long run, and does not work today either in the workplace or in life. Although the method has been around for years, it has never influenced people to make long-lasting changes in their behavior. Why would you want to infantilize employees anyway? Treating employees like children sets up a false power structure, as well as one that most people will resist.
“This approach seemed to work in past generations simply because of the respect some children had for their parents. This kind of respect was demonstrated in what I’d call surface level reactions. The children felt ambivalent about their parents doing the very thing that they told them not to do. Even parents often doubted that this approach would work. Parental actions were based on hoping that it would work. Most of the children who complied with that rule of do what I say and not what I do were eager to become adults so they could do the very things their parents told them not to do. Correctly, children viewed their parents as hypocritical. Some children voiced their disapproval, others remained silent, and still others rebelled.
“When children questioned their parents, the parents tried to justify their position by saying, ‘I want you to grow up to be better than me.’ Some parents claimed, ‘I don’t want you to make the same mistakes I made.’ But parents kept making the same mistakes, and there was no real learning taking place in the next generation. For children, observing their parents making the same mistakes had more influence on the children’s future behavior than their parents’ verbal message.
“To put it simply, applying the theory that ‘actions speak louder than words,’ in today’s behavioral society, could be revised to ‘responsible actions speak louder than words. Do what I say, not what I do should also not be applied as a strategy in the workplace to guide the actions of employees. This is irresponsible behavior. Setting an example of responsible behavior is the only effective strategy to use as a guide in the workplace and in everyday life.”
Joe straightened up in his chair and a worried crease appeared on his forehead. His tone was quieter when he continued, and the group unconsciously leaned in toward him. “A truly dreadful example of a workplace environment that is totally out of control is when violence occurs in that environment,” he said after a thoughtful pause. “Like when employees are involved in a physical fight or shooting at work. Unfortunately, it happens more often than we realize. The local media will often report a shooting incident, but fights among employees that turn physical will probably not make the news. We all know about shootings that have occurred at post offices and schools. However, violent shootings have also happened in the private business sector.” The room remained quiet as each person present recalled some of those terrible events.
Joe knew this topic was disturbing to them all, but it was important to continue, so he cleared his throat to let his listeners know there was more and went on. “When violent behavior occurs in the workplace,” he said, “it is a sign that the behavioral system of the organization is broken and has been for some time. Build-up for this type of overt behavioral situation did not happen overnight. Chances are that both employer and employees have ignored the warning signs of fights or violence. The irresponsible behavior of inaction has allowed the potential for violence to fester. The bottom line is that it has not been handled with a sense of urgency by either the employer or the employees, and the outcome is violent.”
“Our company has a policy for addressing on-the-job violence,” Edward said. “The policy clearly states that any employee involved in a violent act, like a fist fight, will be terminated immediately. Yet, two employees were involved in a heated argument, and when tempers flared, their argument became a fistfight. The boss gave them a three-day suspension without pay. After that, they were both allowed to come back to work. Everybody working at the garage sure got the message that the organization’s words don’t match their actions. I think this is a case where the actions of both the boss and the employees contributed to that shift toward workplace irresponsibility we’ve been talking about.”
“These real life stories about actions or inactions seem to show that irresponsible behavior is becoming more common in the workplace,” Joe concluded. “In framing this issue, it brings us to the second topic. How big is the responsible versus irresponsible behavior problem in today’s society?”
Joe looked at his watch. It was time to bring the gathering to a close. “Why don’t we start with that next Monday? As each of you go through your workweek, think about the scope of the problem. Also, reflect about the history of how the workplace got to the point where irresponsibility has become so fashionable. I believe the history will offer some interesting insights.”
Scope and History, Common Sense Choices
The next week, Joe was happy to see that Susan had taken a seat closer to his regular spot—he was anxious for everyone to have a say and Susan’s contribution the previous week had been a real boost to the discussion. He also noticed a few new faces at the tables that had been pushed together into their meeting circle and thought to himself, My, my, we seem to be gathering a bit of steam. He smiled at Susan as he kicked off the evening’s discussion.
“Last Monday, I suggested that we think about the scope and history of the responsible versus irresponsible issue,” he said.
Barbara was ready for him. “At my office, there’s a feeling that society has changed and is headed in the direction of irresponsibility,” she said. “It seems to be the exception rather than the rule when an employee who knows right from wrong when faced with a challenging situation makes the choice to do the right thing. For example, employees who use the company’s phone for personal calls during working hours know that they’re getting less work done. The employees also know that using the company’s phone costs the company money, and there is a clear company policy about the improper use of phones for personal reasons.
“Nowadays,” Barbara continued, “the use of people’s own cell phones doesn’t raise the company’s phone bill, but it still impacts productivity when workers are making cell phone calls during working hours, instead of waiting for lunch or break time. All the employees know this slows us down. From the perspective of a good work ethic, it’s wrong to commit such an act.”
“Yet, people do this all the time,” said Ellen.
“Exactly,” said Joe. “This gives us some indication of the scope of the irresponsible behavior issue.” Then, he asked, “Let me see the hands of those who have seen irresponsible behavior displayed in your workplace because there’s no consistent application of company policy.” The response was unanimous—everyone in the group raised a hand.
“There’s a second part to this question,” Joe continued. “Raise your hand if you’ve seen irresponsible behavior displayed in your workplace resulting from employees having a lack of respect for company policy?” Again, the show of hands was unanimous.