Recently, one of my readers (let’s call her Beverly) asked for help resolving a conflict she’d had with a friend.  Beverly had borrowed and lost a piece of costume jewelry that her friend particularly liked.  Beverly apologized and replaced the piece with something similar, but her friend remained cool.  Beverly is now a little miffed herself - after all, she apologized.  What more did her friend expect?

What Beverly failed to recognize is that the effectiveness of an apology frequently depends not only on how it’s delivered, but how it’s received.  Even when the person apologizing does everything right the first time (and it seemed as though Beverly had), it may take the other person a little time to get over the initial hard feelings.  Beverly came perilously close to blowing her apology - and the friendship - by presuming that she was entitled to immediate forgiveness. 

Fortunately, Beverly recognized her mistake.  After a week or two she apologized to her friend again, and was careful to tell her friend how much she treasured their relationship.  By then, her friend had taken the opportunity to think things over, and was ready to offer forgiveness.  Beverly’s first apology wasn’t fully effective, but the second one was.  Beverly’s situation demonstrates that, sometimes, it takes more than one apology to set things right.

Topics: Apologies | 2 Comments »

Thanksgiving is over, leftovers are drying out in refrigerators nationwide, and that means the holiday shopping season is upon us.  Not surprisingly, the recent economic downturn is putting pressure on everyone to cut back on holiday buying.  Early news reports suggest that most shoppers intend to spend less than they did in recent years and are aggressively hunting for bargains. 

“Aggressive” seems to be the right word to describe shoppers who are desperate to fulfill their holiday gift obligations without breaking the bank.  One worker was literally trampled to death yesterday when he attempted to slow the stampede of frantic customers who poured into a Walmart store at 5:00 AM on Black Friday looking for bargains.  So much for the holiday spirit.

Good times and bad times each pose their own ethical hazards.  In good times people get overconfident and conclude that they don’t have to play by whatever rules are in place.  That’s how the subprime mortgage debacle occurred - financiers decided that they could make a lot more money if they relaxed their lending standards.  In bad times people sometimes decide that they can’t afford to play by the rules, and ignore their ethical obligations to jockey for personal advantage.  That’s what happened in Walmart yesterday - people chose to climb over a fallen man, trampling him to death, to save a few dollars on Christmas presents. 

Yes, everyone’s worried about the economy, but we’ve been through tough financial times before and we’ll come through this one, too.  Wouldn’t it have been great if I’d been able to report today that shoppers in that same Walmart saw the fallen worker, helped him up before he was seriously injured, dusted him off, and wished him a merry Christmas?  The holiday season is a great time for folks to slow down, take a deep breath, think about what they believe is right, then act accordingly.  That might be the best gift we could possibly give to each other.

Topics: Personal Ethics, Social Ethics, ethics | 1 Comment »

Thanksgiving Day is upon us, which means that a great many Americans will be traveling long distances to sit down for dinner with family and friends.  It’s a wonderful holiday - until one of those “issues” that seem to crop up every year rears its ugly head over coffee and pumpkin pie.

There are various ways to deal with long-standing frictions.  Slate ran a funny piece today on how to win holiday political spats, offering winning arguments for both sides of the aisle.  Apparently, some people really like a lively exchange of views after dinner, even if it degenerates into an outright shouting match.  (If you’re one of those intrepid folks who’d rather fight about the recent election than watch football, check out http://www.slate.com/id/2205434/?GT1=38001.)

For gentler souls, though, holidays can be fraught with emotional peril as old hurts resurface, ongoing differences of opinion flare up, and past mistakes get brought up and commented upon all over again.  (”Remember the Thanksgiving when Uncle Alex burned down the garage frying the turkey? …”) 

If you think about it, chances are good that you’re going to see or talk to someone on Thanksgiving whose feelings you’ve bruised in the past.  You can, of course, help yourself to more cranberry sauce and ignore it. Or instead, you can make this the year that you clear the air and make things right with an apology.  A well-timed “I’m sorry” may be just the thing to make everyone you love a little more thankful.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Topics: Apologies, Personal Ethics, ethics | No Comments »

The Washington Post Express reported this morning on the Albuquerque Police Department’s decision to use the want ads to recruit informants.  According to the Post Express, the police department’s ad solicits “people who hang out with crooks,” inviting them to “Make extra cash!” by reporting criminal behavior, earning anywhere from $50 for a tip that helps police arrest drug dealers to as much as $700 for tips about murder suspects. The Post Express article quotes Captain Joe Hudson as saying that the department received more than thirty responses to the ad in two days.

It’s not unheard of for police to pay off tipsters, and the Albuquerque police undoubtedly plan to independently investigate the credibility of the tips they receive.  (There are people who’d inform on their best friends for $50, even if they had nothing criminal to report.)  Still, there was one aspect of the ad that left me queasy.  According to the Post Express, the ad reads in part, “Drug use and criminal record OK.”  Can anyone doubt that an addict who gets paid for information will probably use the money to buy drugs?  Can it possibly be ethical for the police to pay informants when they know that at least some of the money will likely be used to support criminal activity? 

Law enforcement officials have told us for decades that illicit drug trade is not only a social scourge in itself, but frequently contributes to violent crimes like rape and murder.  If the rest of us are supposed to take illegal drug use seriously - and we should - how can a police department condone it?  And how will the Albuquerque Police Department excuse itself if one of its paid informants uses taxpayer money to buy drugs, then goes on a violent spree?

Where, you ask, is the nexus between this story and business ethics?  The police are, among other things, the standard of integrity in our communities, and police departments investigate business crimes like fraud and embezzlement as well as theft and murder.  If a police department appears to be cutting ethical corners in one area, businesses may conclude that the department will take it easy on other ethical lapses.  The Albuquerque Police Department’s ad may yield useful information, but it sends the wrong message to businesses in its community.  There has to be a better way.

Topics: Business Ethics, Legal Ethics, Social Ethics, ethics | No Comments »

A few days ago, the Washington Post Express reported the story of a 13-year-old who wanted to refuse potentially life-saving surgery.  The story focused on the question of whether a minor should be allowed to refuse treatment, but I found myself wondering about a different aspect of the story:

What about the ethical dilemma facing the doctor?

The medical profession has an extensive set of rules to help physicians wrestle with ethical conundrums.  Those rules provide that a competent adult patient has the right to refuse treatment, and that the patient’s doctor has met the medical profession’s ethical standards so long as the doctor explains clearly to the patient what the consequences of refusal will probably be.  It’s also pretty clear, both in the medical profession’s rules and under the law, that a minor is not normally considered competent to refuse treatment (although some courts are revising that norm for emancipated minors and some medical procedures).  Ordinarily, a doctor who treated an unwilling minor would be well within the medical profession’s ethical rules, especially if one or both of the patient’s parents authorized the treatment.

Still, thirteen is not so young anymore, and it may not be reasonable to presume that a thirteen-year-old is incapable of making an informed decision to refuse medical treatment.  This patient may not be an adult, but the patient’s wishes certainly deserve some respect.  Should this thirteen-year old patient’s surgeon operate against the patient’s will, or should the surgeon support the patient’s decision not to have surgery, even if the consequences of that decision could be fatal? 

The Post Express article suggested that the case is headed for court, and the judge will probably order the surgeon to proceed.  With the support of the medical profession’s rules and a court order, the surgeon may be confident about going forward.  At the same time, this situation demonstrates that even if the solutions to ethical dilemmas seem obvious, getting to them is not always a comfortable process.

Topics: Business Ethics, Professional Ethics, ethics | 7 Comments »

A few months ago, I had the pleasure of appearing on Elfreda Pretorius’ radio show to talk about my book, The Art of the Apology.  Now, Elfreda has released her new book, and I’m delighted to recommend it to my readers.

Elfreda’s book, Stop Struggling and Start Living - The Rules of the Game, offers a new take on how to live life in a most positive way.  While it’s not specifically business-oriented, Stop Struggling and Start Living  presents a number of principles that, when applied, make it feel downright terrific to do business in an ethical manner.  I enjoyed it, and would recommend it to anyone who wants to get a fresh perspective on life.

It’s a special pleasure to recommend Stop Struggling and Start Living today because Elfreda has arranged for some of the proceeds of her book sales to go to Butterflies and Brains, an organization that assists in the rehabilitation of children with Acquired Brain Injury.  If you buy her book from Amazon tomorrow, November 19th, Elfreda will donate 10% of the sale to Butterflies and Brains, and you can get a number of valuable free gifts - including one from me.  (No, I’m not going to tell you what it is … go check it out!) 

The holidays are right around the corner.  If you know someone who could stand to stop struggling and live a better life - and who couldn’t? - Elfreda’s book would make a great gift.  For more information, go to http://elfredapretorius.com/jv/stopstruggling.html.

Topics: Lauren Recommends | 1 Comment »

At the sound of the beep …

11.17.08 By Lauren

A friend of mine (let’s call him Bob) recently suffered through what should have been a simple telephone call.  Bob had worked for over a decade for a company with a particularly nice pension plan so, when he left for a new job, he decided to leave his retirement money in his former employer’s plan for a while.  But when Bob lost almost half of his retirement savings in the recent stock market collapse, he decided to get some professional help to recoup the losses.  He hired a financial advisor who recommended moving Bob’s money from his former employer’s pension plan to an IRA.  That’s where the trouble began.

Bob and his advisor called the investment firm that managed Bob’s pension money - or tried to.  The investment firm’s automated voice answering system ran them around and around its endless menus and security questions, cut them off, and took almost ten minutes before they finally got to a human being.  (Anyone less persistent would have given up by the third time the system asked for Bob’s security code.)

Was the automated phone system inefficient?  Maybe not.  Bob’s advisor told him that investment firms frequently use such convoluted answering systems to discourage people from moving their money.  Make it a big enough hassle, and most consumers will decide it’s just not worth the trouble to reinvest their funds.

It may not be outright dishonest for investment firms to use such underhanded tactics to keep investors’ money, but it’s certainly sleazy.  Bob’s angry enough at this point that he wouldn’t use that firm again under any circumstances, and he’ll share his story with friends and family if an opportunity arises.  Note to investment firms: we know times are hard, but if the only way you can keep your investors is to trap them in your phone system, do your part to reduce the unemployment rate and hire a receptionist.  If you don’t free your customers, they’ll eventually free themselves.

Topics: Business Ethics, business communications, customer relations, ethics | 1 Comment »

Recently, The London Telegraph reported that researchers at Oxford University had compiled a list of the top ten most irritating phrases.  The list sounded like it would offer an entertaining break from all the bad business news so, just for fun, I looked it up.

Oh, dear …

Imagine my chagrin when I found that several of the phrases on the list routinely show up in my conversation  - and more than occasionally in this blog.  Using them has been a matter of unthinking habit, but the folks at Oxford certainly got my attention.  This situation proves once again that annoying behavior doesn’t need to be intentional to warrant an apology.

So, let me apologize to everyone who reads this blog for thoughtlessly using phrases that, to many of you, are probably as irritating as a stuck car alarm in the middle of the night.  I appreciate your past tolerance, and promise to do better in future posts.  (And, despite the embarrassment, I still think the list is better news than we’re getting from the business world these days!)

To check out the Oxford researchers’ list of top ten irritating phrases, go to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/3394545/Oxford-compiles-list-of-top-ten-irritating-phrases.html - and feel free to add your own.

Topics: Apologies, Personal Ethics, ethics | 1 Comment »

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson hit a new low when he announced yesterday that he won’t use the $700 billion Congress allocated for the Wall Street bailout to buy mortgage-backed securities after all.  Instead, Paulson appears to have made a unilateral decision to buy stock in banks and credit card companies, bail out other industries, and who knows what else.  Paulson’s new approach deviates significantly from the plan he announced to Congress when the funds were put aside in September, but he seems to think that’s well within his self-proclaimed “broad authority.” 

While announcing this stunning turn in a brand-new direction, Paulson said, “I will never apologize for changing the strategy when the facts change” (emphasis mine).

This latest display of iron-clad arrogance on Secretary Paulson’s part is positively breathtaking.  If the facts had changed he might have a point, but that’s not what happened here.  When Wall Street first started to crumble, Paulson ran to the Hill and announced that mortgage-backed securities had created the crisis and said he needed $700 billion immediately to buy up bad debt and sidetrack the oncoming financial trainwreck.  Congress acted (probably too quickly) to give Paulson the funds and authority he claimed to need.  Since then, almost two months have gone by, the economy has tumbled into recession, stocks have plummeted, consumer confidence is at a new low while unemployment rates climb, and Paulson has the gall to say that he won’t apologize. 

It’s not that the facts have changed - it’s more likely that Paulson didn’t know what the facts were when he made his pitch to Congress.  Back in September when Paulson sold Congress on the $700 billion bailout it was pretty obvious that the federal government was in no position to buy and refinance billions of dollars of individual loans.  Apparently, Paulson shot off his mouth without checking his facts first, and now he has $700 billion of taxpayer money at his disposal and, seemingly, no one to call him to account for how he uses it.

Secretary Paulson doesn’t have to apologize for replacing what was undoubtedly a pretty poor strategy with a new one (and let’s hope this one is better).  However, to the extent that he shot from the hip and misled Congress and the American public, intentionally or not, an apology is definitely in order.  You’re as human as the rest of us, Mr. Secretary.  It truly wouldn’t kill you to admit you were wrong and apologize.

Topics: Apologies, Business Ethics, Social Ethics, ethics | 2 Comments »

Yesterday, soon-to-be President Barack Obama made a whole lot of points with me when his transition team announced new ethics rules for lobbyists.  You may remember that candidate Obama promised to take a strong stance on corruption in Washington, and to prevent lobbyists from gaining undue influence in his Administration.  Although he hasn’t even taken the oath of office yet, President-Elect Obama has already started working to keep that promise.

The new ethics rules don’t absolutely prohibit lobbyists from taking jobs in the new Obama Administration.  They do, however, set meaningful limits.  Lobbyists won’t be allowed to work on issues they’ve previously lobbied, which means they won’t easily be able to procure favored treatment for former clients.  For Washington, that’s a significant step in the right direction. 

Critics of the new Administration are already saying that the new rules don’t go as far as candidate Obama promised they would, but I think that’s unfair.  Candidates talk in generalities - elected officials deliver specifics.  That’s exactly what President-Elect Obama has done, and he’s done it in record time.  People are sick of politicians who don’t care about ethics and don’t keep their promises.  Won’t it be wonderful if President-Elect Obama does both?

Topics: Business Ethics, Social Ethics, ethics | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries