I want to tell you about a little story. There was a huge building which was a marvelous edifice. The maintenance took a lot of money. The son of the person in whose honor this building was erected had a group of people whom he was mentoring. One day as he was talking to these people, some of the guys who were looking after the maintenance of the building came along and spoke to his mentees and asked them whether the person who was teaching them 9They didn’t know that he was the son) ever paid anything towards the maintenance of the building as was the rule of that culture. The people who were being mentored were not sure and one in particular had a very surprised look on his face. But he said, “Yes, of course, he does”, knowing that the person who was teaching was a person of integrity.
When they went into the house, the teacher turned to him and asked him, “What do you think? Do people pay taxes?” and the answer was “Yes”. “Do sons have to pay taxes to their fathers?” And the answer was “No”. Then the teacher said, “Well, here’s what you need to do. Go and pay the tax just in case the people who asked you don’t understand that I am the son and I don’t have to pay the tax, just so they don’t get offended.”
When I heard that story, I thought that there was a principle within that story that says that we have rights, but we also have responsibilities. Ultimately the better, more prudent, wiser, beneficial path is the path of responsibility. My thoughts went back to a book that I received in the mail from a dear friend last week by Dov Seidman entitled ‘HOW: Why How we do Anything Means Everything…in Business (and in Life)’. There’s a chapter there that says, ‘From Can to Should’ and the underlying principle is that there are many things that we can do but are they things that we should do? Many things we can do, we have a right to; but is it the more responsible path that we ought to take?
The writer Seidman documents two scenarios for us. In the 70s and 80s, an East German athlete won a lot of Olympic medals which was far out of proportion to the size of their population. Many people thought that they were using performance-enhancing drugs. After the fall of communism, it was indeed shown to be true, that they were using anabolic steroids. Years later, a group of these former East German Olympians got together to seek restitution and compensation for their medical problems which had come because of the use of steroids early on in their youth. The company that was responsible, JVE Jenapharm, which is now bought up by Bayer Schering Pharma at that point said, “This was not something that we were responsible for. We were forced to manufacture the drugs and then distribute them to the athletes without any warning.” In that sense, they washed their hands off and said, “It’s not our fault and we’ll see you in court.” That was their stand.
Then he goes on to talk about the University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Systems (UMHS) in Ann Arbor. In 2001, a lot of malpractice suits were coming to the fore and the hospitals were reeling under cases that were coming against them for different malpractice litigations that were growing during that time. This hospital realized that they had to do something about it. They realized that “They could do little about lawsuits stemming from catastrophic errors that resulted in loss of life or limb. They focused instead on suits involving less serious consequences, like a patient with epilepsy admitted for surgery, whose doctor forgot to note his post-operative need for antiepileptic medication. When that patient had a seizure in the bathroom and bumped his head, requiring a few stitches, it was a good case to sue the hospital. So they encouraged their doctors to say “I’m sorry”. Acknowledge the mistake and apologize on the spot.
Now in a world where we are so connected, information about the way we act travels instantly and people watch and judge not just what we do, but how we do it. In 2006, Jenapharm the company that was responsible for giving the steroids, paid out to only 184 of the thousands of affected athletes, $12,200 each and donated another $224,000 to organizations that would provide support for them. That was all they did, saying that the agreement would avoid a drawn-out legal argument. End of story!
But when we look at what happened with UMHS’s decision to apologize, malpractice claims and lawsuits against them dropped by nearly 50%. One company attempted to limit its exposure by shutting down all challenges, while the other opened itself up to challenge, and in so doing, actually reduced its exposure. What was the difference? UMHS employed a value-based approach to pursuing corporate goals: respect, compassion, trust, integrity and leadership. All these values informed the way that they treated their patients and the way they treated their staff and the way they made decisions regarding people who they had done wrong to. Everything was based on their values.
What a nice way to go about things. We look at our companies, the firms we work for and we see vision statements and mission statements and core values. Yet here was one company that was willing to let a core value decide their course of action, ‘This is what we can do – it’s our right to go to court and fight and make sure that we don’t spend too much of money paying athletes that suffered because of the drugs we offered. ‘
But what was the right and responsible thing to do? What is it that we should do? We should take moral responsibility for the things that happen on our watch.
This might be a good thought to give to all of you as you work within different areas. Ask the question, ‘Do we stand on our rights, on the things that we can do? Or do we stand on the things that we should do?”
Clothing maker Levi Strauss’ code of conduct states that: We are honest and trustworthy. We do what we say we are going to do. Integrity includes a willingness to do the right thing for our employees, brands, the company and the society as a whole, even when personal, professional and social risks or economic pressures confront us.
Beautiful! These are the values that we stand for even if it means that we will take some risks in following that.
Dov Seidman ends by saying, “Rules that we have in our companies rarely inspire us, but values do. Rules only tell us the things that we can or cannot do. Values inspire and motivate us.
Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice says, “There is a difference between what you have a right to do, and what is the right thing to do.”
Maybe today we need to ask that question. What is the right thing to do? What if I were to put down my rights today and just ask the question “What should I do?” instead of “What can I do?” what is the right thing to do in all the things that I am doing in the office today? And maybe we will find greater inspiration to do things than by keeping the rules that we are governed by.
God Bless Us All.
When they went into the house, the teacher turned to him and asked him, “What do you think? Do people pay taxes?” and the answer was “Yes”. “Do sons have to pay taxes to their fathers?” And the answer was “No”. Then the teacher said, “Well, here’s what you need to do. Go and pay the tax just in case the people who asked you don’t understand that I am the son and I don’t have to pay the tax, just so they don’t get offended.”
When I heard that story, I thought that there was a principle within that story that says that we have rights, but we also have responsibilities. Ultimately the better, more prudent, wiser, beneficial path is the path of responsibility. My thoughts went back to a book that I received in the mail from a dear friend last week by Dov Seidman entitled ‘HOW: Why How we do Anything Means Everything…in Business (and in Life)’. There’s a chapter there that says, ‘From Can to Should’ and the underlying principle is that there are many things that we can do but are they things that we should do? Many things we can do, we have a right to; but is it the more responsible path that we ought to take?
The writer Seidman documents two scenarios for us. In the 70s and 80s, an East German athlete won a lot of Olympic medals which was far out of proportion to the size of their population. Many people thought that they were using performance-enhancing drugs. After the fall of communism, it was indeed shown to be true, that they were using anabolic steroids. Years later, a group of these former East German Olympians got together to seek restitution and compensation for their medical problems which had come because of the use of steroids early on in their youth. The company that was responsible, JVE Jenapharm, which is now bought up by Bayer Schering Pharma at that point said, “This was not something that we were responsible for. We were forced to manufacture the drugs and then distribute them to the athletes without any warning.” In that sense, they washed their hands off and said, “It’s not our fault and we’ll see you in court.” That was their stand.
Then he goes on to talk about the University of Michigan Hospitals and Health Systems (UMHS) in Ann Arbor. In 2001, a lot of malpractice suits were coming to the fore and the hospitals were reeling under cases that were coming against them for different malpractice litigations that were growing during that time. This hospital realized that they had to do something about it. They realized that “They could do little about lawsuits stemming from catastrophic errors that resulted in loss of life or limb. They focused instead on suits involving less serious consequences, like a patient with epilepsy admitted for surgery, whose doctor forgot to note his post-operative need for antiepileptic medication. When that patient had a seizure in the bathroom and bumped his head, requiring a few stitches, it was a good case to sue the hospital. So they encouraged their doctors to say “I’m sorry”. Acknowledge the mistake and apologize on the spot.
Now in a world where we are so connected, information about the way we act travels instantly and people watch and judge not just what we do, but how we do it. In 2006, Jenapharm the company that was responsible for giving the steroids, paid out to only 184 of the thousands of affected athletes, $12,200 each and donated another $224,000 to organizations that would provide support for them. That was all they did, saying that the agreement would avoid a drawn-out legal argument. End of story!
But when we look at what happened with UMHS’s decision to apologize, malpractice claims and lawsuits against them dropped by nearly 50%. One company attempted to limit its exposure by shutting down all challenges, while the other opened itself up to challenge, and in so doing, actually reduced its exposure. What was the difference? UMHS employed a value-based approach to pursuing corporate goals: respect, compassion, trust, integrity and leadership. All these values informed the way that they treated their patients and the way they treated their staff and the way they made decisions regarding people who they had done wrong to. Everything was based on their values.
What a nice way to go about things. We look at our companies, the firms we work for and we see vision statements and mission statements and core values. Yet here was one company that was willing to let a core value decide their course of action, ‘This is what we can do – it’s our right to go to court and fight and make sure that we don’t spend too much of money paying athletes that suffered because of the drugs we offered. ‘
But what was the right and responsible thing to do? What is it that we should do? We should take moral responsibility for the things that happen on our watch.
This might be a good thought to give to all of you as you work within different areas. Ask the question, ‘Do we stand on our rights, on the things that we can do? Or do we stand on the things that we should do?”
Clothing maker Levi Strauss’ code of conduct states that: We are honest and trustworthy. We do what we say we are going to do. Integrity includes a willingness to do the right thing for our employees, brands, the company and the society as a whole, even when personal, professional and social risks or economic pressures confront us.
Beautiful! These are the values that we stand for even if it means that we will take some risks in following that.
Dov Seidman ends by saying, “Rules that we have in our companies rarely inspire us, but values do. Rules only tell us the things that we can or cannot do. Values inspire and motivate us.
Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice says, “There is a difference between what you have a right to do, and what is the right thing to do.”
Maybe today we need to ask that question. What is the right thing to do? What if I were to put down my rights today and just ask the question “What should I do?” instead of “What can I do?” what is the right thing to do in all the things that I am doing in the office today? And maybe we will find greater inspiration to do things than by keeping the rules that we are governed by.
God Bless Us All.
No comments:
Post a Comment