Competent, Reliable, OPEN and Principled

My speaking agent recently brought to me an opportunity to do a presentation for a well known manufacturer and installer of communications and IT solutions. It should have been a great chance to work with a leader in IT, and an industry I know and like from doing many other presentations and consulting projects. Unfortunately I had to tell her I wouldn’t work with this organization.

Some time ago I sat with the regional manager of the company to discuss a market research project he was starting up. He wanted to find out what his biggest clients were saying about his business, and he wanted to invite their local general managers in for a series of informal “focus groups”. I had been called in to discuss with him how to connect with the clients and get them engaged in the project.

Things were going well until we started to discuss the records we would keep. Our plan was to take notes, anonymize the feedback, and present it to the client in a grouped report with the major themes highlighted and recommendations for action. The client wanted the verbatim feedback. We pointed out that taping and transcribing would be time consuming, and besides, people often aren’t as candid when they know they are being recorded.

To our astonishment the regional manager said we didn’t have to tell them they were being recorded!

I think he had watched one too many episodes of “Law and Order” or something similar. He thought he could set up a room with a two-way mirror, watch and record the proceedings, and use the material as feedback for his staff…

I’ve written before on trust, and how important it is to maintaining any relationship. There are four key elements to trust. People who are trustworthy are:

• Capable: Can do what they say
• Reliable: Will do what they say
• Open: Will say what they do
• Principled: Will do what they should

When it comes to trust, like a crop, you reap what you sow.

Unfortunately, when it came to being trustworthy this regional manager badly failed the third criteria. He wasn’t open…he wouldn’t say what he was going to do. The most generous interpretation of what happens when people don’t say what they do is that they run the risk of being misunderstood, which doesn’t build trust. The least generous view of people who are closed, guarded or subtly misleading is that they won’t say what they do because you wouldn’t approve. Certainly there are times when we are less than open because we are preserving a confidentiality, or being sensitive to over communicating what others are not interested in. Generally though, it’s better to err on the side of being overly open rather than overly closed.

In this case I wouldn’t be a part of what I considered to be lying to those clients who came in to participate in the focus group. Sure, if we were being technical we could have set things up so that the clients would never know they were being recorded, and provided we never promised we weren’t going to record them…nevertheless, this sort of thing leaves a very bad impression with me. People should say what they do.

In my ethics classes with graduate students I often express this a different way: What would you be proud to see widely reported in the papers or on the internet? What would you be ashamed to see reported? I don’t think the regional manager would be proud to see his actions widely reported. I don’t think it would build a sense of community with his customers.

Life is too short to spend with people you’re not proud to spend time with. I’m glad I’m not pursuing this particular speaking opportunity.

Top Chef Masters: The Good, The Bad and The Guilty

I noticed on a recent episode of “Top Chef: Masters” that there is a significant difference between the way these seasoned, successful chefs treat failure and the way the normal reality show contestant acts when faced with the judges’ panel. It’s a good lesson for most executives, (whether they watch reality TV or not).

In most cases when someone goes before the judges on a reality show they do one of four things. They claim it wasn’t really a problem, they provide reasons why they really aren't unhappy with the outcome, they blame something or someone else, or they act like what we know happened didn’t really happen. We can call these the Justify, Rationalize, Excuse and Deny strategies. The trouble is, trying to Justify, Rationalize, Excuse or Deny when we know something went wrong just makes things worse. It makes people want to argue with you so that you “get it”, or it makes them want to punish you so that you “get what’s coming to you”.

A key issue that many executives don’t know how to deal with well is the presence of regret. Regret is when you think something like “how much better this would have been if it had turned out another way.” It's OK to feel and express regret. Regret isn’t the same as guilt. Guilt is when you not only regret something, but feel morally responsible or worthy of punishment. For example, if you hit a child who runs out from between parked cars you would naturally feel regret…but if you were speeding or driving under the influence you should probably feel guilty as well.

When people feel guilty they should ‘fess up and face the consequences. When people feel guilty and don’t want to take responsibility, or feel the consequences exceed what they are prepared to face, they Justify, Rationalize, Excuse and Deny.

The Top Chef Masters certainly made mistakes and did things the judges might have found questionable. One very well known chef cooked his pasta in the bathroom, (you have to see the episode). Another froze all his fresh produce before the contest started. However, although both chefs expressed regret, in the sense that they would have preferred things to have happened differently, neither acted guilty. Consequently, the judges didn’t feel the need to argue with them, or punish them.

Most of us make mistakes, and when we do we should be prepared to face consequences without attracting undue argument or punishment. We should regret what happened, and accept the consequences without acting guilty. The way the master chefs acted was exactly the way to do this.

First, they acknowledged what happened without shrugging it off. Again, think of our driver who has hit a child in the road. We would be shocked and angry if the driver’s response was too glib, or didn’t appropriately acknowledge that we all would rather the child weren’t hit. Imagine if the driver said something like “well it’s really too bad but it’s not my fault…it’s not like it was my responsibility not to drive in the road rather than that negligent child or parents’ fault.” Ouch! Instead, our top chefs admitted what they had done and definitely didn’t downplay what happened or shrug it off.

Secondly, they agreed it would have been better otherwise, and expressed appropriate regret. In Top Chef Masters the chefs come before a panel of judges who have eaten their food and sat among their customers. If something the chefs have done affected the judges personally, they apologize, and express regret. A simple “I’m sorry about that” goes a long way to disarm the Argue/Punish response.

Finally, if you watch the episode carefully you see the third element of the chefs’ way of handling their mistakes. They remain quietly optimistic about the future. Either they say they learned from their mistake, (that chef will check the fridge again before he risks freezing his produce), or they put the mistake in context, (obviously the chef who cooked in the bathroom did so because of the extreme circumstances of the setting, not because he thought it was a good place to cook).

I have often seen successful executives take this one step further if they are going to have an ongoing relationship with the “judge”. Sometimes we make a mistake and the person we end up discussing it with is our boss, our colleague or our customer. When that happens it’s good to take the approach of “how can we make this better”. This ONLY works once you’ve gone through the first three steps, (Acknowledge, Express Regret and Behave Optimistically), otherwise you just set off the Argue/Punish response. Note also the “we”. I describe it as mentally getting you both on the same side of the table. Adopt the attitude that you’re going to sit side-by-side with this person and figure out what will improve the situation.

Good executives make mistakes. If they don’t they’re probably not trying hard enough. When they do it’s important they NEVER resort to one of the guilty behaviors, (Justify, Rationalize, Excuse and Deny). Instead, it’s OK to express what's appropriate in the circumstances, (Acknowledge the situation without shrugging it off; Express regret with an apology where appropriate; Be quietly optimistic about the future). Where an ongoing relationship is involved, the good executive knows the importance of engaging the other in making the situation better.

Memorial Day

In the US today is Memorial Day, a national holiday commemorating US men and women who died while on military service. While it was moved from its original date to accommodate a three day weekend, and it’s traditionally the start of summer and the day of the Indianapolis 500, Memorial Day is still observed as a day of gratitude for those who sacrifice their all on our behalf.

Memorial Day is something commemorated in one form or another in many places around the world. In the United Kingdom there is Armistice Day, specifically remembering the day on which World War One officially ended. Where I come from in Australia we have Anzac Day, recognizing the members of the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps who fought and died during a particularly bloody defeat in the Dardanelles during “the war to end all wars”.

What most of these days have in common is coming together to express thankfulness, honor and respect. The original Memorial Day was to honor the fallen Union troops of the Civil War. Over time we have come to extend our days of remembrance to include all those who have sacrificed during wartime, whatever we think of the original conflicts and causes. In Australia Turks who fought against the Australians at Gallipoli march alongside their one time enemies in commemorative parades, joined together in showing respect and regret for all death and warfare.

One of the Basic Interpersonal Skills is to “always make the effort to make things better”. One aspect of this is “being firm with the facts, and fair with the people”. Memorial Day is an occasion to think about the cost and pain of warfare. Our national days of mourning are an opportunity to show honor and respect for our past, present and future members of the military, and by extension our police, medical, fire and other services who put themselves in danger every day to serve and protect. It’s a good time to consider how we can all live so their sacrifices are properly respected.

The end of Week Five Post-Op

This photo of me was taken by my ever patient photographer wife at the end of my first run, exactly five weeks after my surgery. I didn’t run far, maybe two miles in the sub-zero temperature…it’s a start.

This had been a bad week for me, but it’s all relative. It began with a bloody nose on Tuesday morning after a particularly violent sneeze. It turned out that I had burst a capillary in my nose, and with the blood thinners I am taking it just wouldn’t stop. I had to cancel meetings I had set up, and then put up with hanging around the house feeling useless while my nose dripped.

One thing that happened as a result…I finally got it fixed on Saturday. I’d gone to Urgent Care as recommended by my physician if it wouldn’t stop, and after a really bad downpour that ruined a shirt I’d had enough. I was ready to get my nose cauterized. My blood pressure was up, and my blood clotting ability was down, so they’ve changed my meds and then looked at what they could do to fix the bleeding in the meantime. “Have you tried Afrin?” asked the physician.

I’m thinking it will be a $95,000 experimental drug I’ll need to get special permission to take, and it turns out to be a $3.50 over the counter spray that most people would already have used. I guess he could have recommended a more significant medical intervention, but he did for me what I hope my advice does for my clients: regardless of what he gets out of it he presented the most effective solution in my best interest.

The second thing reinforced for me this week was the kindness of the people I know, both personally and professionally. I have four projects on currently, and I’ve had to contact each client, explain my situation, and talk with them about how we can handle their project in the best way for them. The very positive thing is that each one has gone out of their way to accommodate me, juggling calendars, doing work virtually and by email, and generally being as helpful as possible. I’ve had flowers sent to my home, books and meals left for me by friends and colleagues, and even a bag of chocolate covered licorice, (my favorite), deposited anonymously on my doorstep.

In the past I’ve visited my friends in hospital, dropped by and offered help when they’ve been sick and tried to go out of my way to cover for absent colleagues. I don’t think I’ve been particularly good at it, and I’ve never been sure how my efforts have been received. Now I’m on the other side of the operating table let me say, it feels really good to have people make an effort for you. It has helped my recovery enormously and given me a world of motivation to get well. I’m sure it wasn’t done in the spirit of payback, but nevertheless, I feel fortunate to be the recipient of the largess, and an obligation to do more for others in the future.

If the golden rule of “do unto others as you would they do to you” has any meaning it is as a basis for everyone building a kinder, more generous society where we think about how our actions affect others and try to maximize their well-being. My take-away from this week is that I should try to do that more, and ask for help when I don’t know how to deal with a nose-bleed.

One small run for me, one giant thought for society.

What is the best book about doing business in China?

“Managing the Dragon” by Jack Perkowski! There are three things that make a business book stand out for me among all the many very ordinary books that are published each month. The author needs to know what they are talking about, They need to have something new to say, and they need to be able to write it in an interesting way that I can relate to.

Perkowski manages to do all three in a book about business that reads like a combination between a personal biography and a travel guide. Throughout the book three themes are continuously repeated, if not always explicitly: Connectedness in relationships, Trust, and Perseverance. I imagine that these three values would also be strong contributors to Perkowski's self-identity.

Perkowski knows what he’s writing about. He went to China in 1991 after a successful career on Wall Street, and founded a automotive parts company currently selling over US$500m and 30% of that outside China. His book outlines how he came to make the connections in China that enabled him to start and build his business, and the various challenges he has faced since.

He has a number of new things to say. For example, many people talk about the challenge of enforcing Intellectual Property Rights, (IPR), in China. Local laws do little to protect IPR, and writers often draw negative conclusions about the Chinese character and society as a result. Perkowski, on the other hand, has a purely economic take on the situation. He talks about the sort of products that are regularly knocked off, the kinds of buyers they have, and the distribution systems. His take is that all of these do much more to explain what happens in China than any judgemental comments about Chinese morality. His own business success shows how he has accommodated and succeeded in the Chinese market without compromising his principles. And the something new? Products with the most proprietary content and highest-technology value are probably the best products to take to China and the easiest to protect. (You’ll have to read the book).

Other counter-intuitive concepts in the book?

• You don’t need a local partner in China, and you might even be better off without one.
• You don’t need to learn Mandarin
• The real reason for the Chinese cost of manufacturing, (it’s not lower labor costs)

Not every one of Perkowski’s plans came out well. He discusses how he went through Plan A to begin his company, (it failed), Plan B, (which also failed), and he eventually settled on Plan C, (the success). The story of his three different strategies and how he learned from his mistakes is a lesson in persistence and humility many leaders can learn from. He describes his journey in China as a marathon.

There is a lot of discussion in the book about baijiu, the local alcoholic drink without which no business dinner seems complete. Many of the stories are funny and entertaining in their own right, and would stand up to inclusion in any collection of witty travel writing. Perkowski also uses them as a platform to talk about the importance of mutual respect, being willing to share, acting kindly toward others and having a sense of humility. All of the various dinners and social drinking sessions seemed to build supportive relationships that furthered the business without being focused on the business.

Finally Perkowski makes two points in his book that are interesting and easy for me to relate to. Firstly, he debunks the popular notion that China is different because it relies on Guanxi, which can best be described as “a network of influence and supportive social relationships”. A lot of foreigners emphasize the extent to which this is important in China, likening it to nepotism or cronyism. In fact, most successful people in any culture rely on networks of influence and social support. Managing The Dragon describes how China is the same, rather than focusing on how it is different. Perkowski uses his own career story to illustrate how important it is to be socially intelligent, and how he has benefited from the support of others.

The other concept emphasized in the book to which I readily relate is the importance of trust. If employee and customer engagement means contributing time, talent and resources to the organization it is impossible to imagine engaging people without trust. The importance of trust is a central theme throughout Managing The Dragon. The book looks at both the benefits of positive trust, and how difficult business is in the absence of trust.

Of all the business books on China I have read, this is one of the few that looks at how doing business in China is much the same as doing principled business anywhere else. No fancy tricks or “gee whiz” formulas. And at the end of the day, Perkowski sounds like a good guy to share baijiu with.

You can email me by clicking here, or leave a comment to share with others by clicking on "COMMENTS" below.

Postscript: After this review was written Jack Perkowski left Asimco. I'm not sure of the circumstances, and I'm not sure they are relevant. However, here's another review of Perkowski's views of doing business in China, this time from the China Law Blog at http://www.chinabusinesslawblog.com/2009/02/want-lasting-relationships-in-china.html Interestingly, the emphasis in the article is on one of the key themes in the book that I picked up on: the importance of trust.

Connections, Connections, Connections

During my recent hospitalization I made many connections with the nurses, technicians, physicians and support staff on my ward. Hospital rooms are a bit like Times Square or in my home town, Flinders Street Railway Station: many people constantly coming and going whose purpose and motivations you don't understand.

A concept I discuss with my students and clients is Peter Singer’s “circle of ethics”. Drawing on a long history Singer talks about how most of us start with a fairly narrow circle of care: the people whose interests we try to assist and whose positive outcomes we support. It begins with parents and family, extends to neighbors and play-mates at school, and over time comes to include “first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity.” As the circle of care expands, so too does the circle of influence. Once we begin to care about suffering in other countries, we start to find ways to positively influence overseas welfare. Our circle of care runs a little ahead of our circle of influence, and directs where we spend our time and emotional energy.

In the hospital I made a point of introducing myself to everyone who came into my room. When Genevieve was allowed to stay with me I introduced both of us, and I made a point of trying to remember everyone’s names so I could greet them again when they came back. This is just part of my nature, but I imagine it’s also something I have learned to do because I am positively rewarded for it. The staff made little allowances for us, and generally made our stay as pleasant as possible. We were pulled into their “circle of care” because we had created a personal connection with each other.

As an example, it seemed like every six hours or so someone would come to change my IV site, take a blood sample or do something else that involved tubes and poking me with sharp needles. One day, two gentlemen came in together and I went through the usual introductions: “Hello, I’m David, and this is my wife Genevieve.” Almost anyone will then tell you who they are by name, and these two introduced themselves and told me they were the new phlebotomist and his trainee. We made a little small talk, and I was interested to hear how the trainee's job was going because my Little Brother from the BigBrotherBigSister scheme has just started working as a trainee at the Red Cross.

So then the time came to stick me. “Ah,” I said. “And which of you will be drawing my blood today?”

Now you have to remember that my arms already have two IV lines in them, and they are blue and bruised all over from the many blood draws I already have. A trainee will be hard pressed to find a spare vein, and will find it even more difficult than usual to take the blood sample painlessly.

“Well…I guess I can do your draw today” said the trainer, and the trainee handed over his needles.

Connecting with people draws you into their circle of care, and if they have the ability to influence your well-being it makes people positively inclined to go out of their way for you. It’s why waiting staff introduce themselves to you at your table, and why it pays to get to know your auto mechanic. Done with sincerity and genuine care it expands the circle of people around you who will put out their hand to help you.

"What Would Google Do?" by Jeff Jarvis

“What Would Google Do?” is a provocative title because Jarvis knows Google is unlikely to do many, if any, of the things he writes about. Things like run a bank, build cars or get involved in hospitals and insurance. What he tries to do is get at the essence of what has made Google successful, and use that to hypothesize how Google’s terms of engagement could be applied to other industries. Interesting…

When I was an economics student I learned there were only four engines of prosperity and wealth:

1. Arbitrage: The classic buy low/sell high, either across time, across space or between different buyers’ perceptions of value.
2. Compound growth: Reinvesting your winnings, no matter how modest, and letting exponential growth provide you with a healthy return.
3. Leverage: Borrowing to maximize the returns compared to the capital invested.
4. Value Enhancement: Addling labor, capital or marketing to a product to improve its value in the market place. What most of us do by going to work and laboring for wages and salaries.

Jarvis says that in the new market place all that has changed. Google has made “free” into a business model, and encouraged us to make money by “getting out of the way”.

In reality, what Google has done is removed one of the most significant barriers to a free market: getting perfect or near-perfect knowledge to consumers at near zero cost. In the old economy one of the reasons people made a lot of money in the four ways above was because they had access to knowledge at a cost most couldn’t attain. They knew where to invest, where to leverage, how to add value and where the best price differentials were. Google changes all that. Google commodifies everything and enables everyone equal access to all parts of the market at the lowest visible cost.

The book is in two parts. First, Jarvis sets out new business realities in a world where instantaneous knowledge is near perfect and near free. Second, Jarvis looks at specific industries and speculates on what they would look like if they were run in a way that takes most advantage of the new business realities.

Here are a couple of examples. “Atoms are a drag” and so in the new world businesses should try to be as virtual as possible. Avoid buildings, trucks and stock in your business…manufacture just in time to meet consumer demands, and distribute using existing infrastructure that you access at the lowest possible cost. This is the model Amazon uses for selling and distributing books and many other goods, and it works. “Answers are instantaneous” so your consumer responsiveness better be lightening fast. “Everything is searchable” so you had better be transparent, honest and capable of recovering from your mistakes.

One of the most significant areas of analysis in the book is the section on ethics. The message seems to be that when everything you do is searchable and visible to all you better be good. Although the approach is very pragmatic and utilitarian it nevertheless encourages all business people to be honest, open, collaborative and self-regulating. Not a bad admonishment for businesses everywhere.

I like this book largely because of the second half. It’s interesting to look at how Jarvis envisions Google running retail: responsive, collaborative, and virtual. In Jarvis world restaurants would aggregate all the information available about who orders what with what, and use it to offer you specials, discounts and wine/food pairings based on your tastes and the tastes of the people you emulate. Airlines get out of the business of “moving atoms” and get into being a social marketplace where people can exchange travel options. Car companies collaborate with consumers to produce vehicles people really want, (a purple electric SUV with DVDs, a child’s high chair and no stereo perhaps).

Jarvis personal style is a little irritating. I learned too much about how much he earns, how successful his meetings are at Davos and what it’s like to run an internet community of his devoted fans. Still, the book has many valuable insights into doing business in a modern economy. It’s worth it just for the great chapters on “If Google ruled the world”.

An ethical suggestion for the bailout package

Here's a suggestion for the government's upcoming economic bailout package. It won't require special appropriation beyond what congress has already approved; it won't set up bad precedents for the future; and it will encourage the right kind of economic behavior.

Get ethical!

Alex Brigham is the Executive Director of the Ethisphere Institute, a research, rating and media organization designed to develop, drive and reinforce profitable ethical business practices, www.ethisphere.com. In a recent article, (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/08/brigham_obama/), he pointed to the waste in government spending that comes from poorly supervised government contracts that go to people with political connections and lobbying ability rather than those with the best economic outcomes for the public. He estimates that more than 50% of government contractors can't show compliance with even the most basic ethics requirements of the government's contracting laws. If the waste is only 10% of this 50% it still comes to more than $18 billion.

That's a lot of money.

However, it's already the case that companies actively engaged in federal procurement and contracting, particularly those who receive contract awards in excess of $5 million, have to develop and maintain compliance plans, business ethics training, and related internal controls under rules that amend Parts 2, 3 and 52 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).

Every organization actively engaged in federal contracting! So the 50% who can't point to their interal controls are out of compliance and shouldn't be receiving federal contracts.

How about if some of the economic bailout money went into investigation and compliance programs. It probably wouldn't cost $18 billion, and with the improved efficiency and ethical compliance it would probably end up being cost neutral if not revenue positive. Even if it wasn't, it would be a positive step toward getting organizations to what they are supposed to be doing anyway.

That would be a good use of the money, and probably one of the better bailout measures.

Of course, if you want to be ahead of the game, you could make sure you have your ethics and compliance program in place, (including your code of conduct, internally publicized reporting hotline, internal control system that prevents violations of law, periodic reviews, and procedure for self-disclosing of violations). I'm sure you can find a consultant who could help you with that.

You can send me an email by clicking here, or you can share a comment for others to see by clicking on the word "comments" below

How trust helped me through

I’m writing this in the second week after my open-heart surgery. I’m home and feeling well, and getting ready for my first physiotherapy sessions. I am reflecting on my experience and the notes I took and I have decided to start with the big one: Trust. Trust is the basis of all human interactions. That’s a huge statement, and one I repeat frequently with my clients and in my presentations. Trust helped pull me though my recent surgery.

I shopped around for my surgeon. I called on my network and checked out a few of the different places and people who could do my operation. When I sat with my surgeon for the first time it was Genevieve and I having a three-way discussion about my options and prognosis.

What would have happened if we hadn’t trusted each other? Without trust it’s difficult to have a relationship of mutual and positive outcomes. If you don’t have trust you’d better at least have, in declining order of effectiveness:

1. Respect
2. Compelling Mutual Goal/Context
3. Continual and Intense Communication
4. Power and Competition
5. The ability to “live with it”

Sound familiar? Many patients complain they don’t understand their surgery, or they feel powerless to get what they want. Eventually, many patients have to “live with it”, feeling pushed around by their medical staff and not a part of the process.

I wanted to trust my surgeon, and just as importantly, I wanted my surgeon and my medical team to trust me. What is trust? Here’s how I define trust as an outcome of four different aspects of the relationship:

• Capable: Can do what you say
• Reliable: Will do what you say
• Open: Will say what you do
• Principled: Will do what you should

When it comes to trust, like a crop, you reap what you sow. So of course, we asked many questions such as how many of these procedures the surgeon had done before, what the success rate was, what the options were and so on. One question in particular stood out for me. I wasn’t afraid of much with regard to the operation, but I did have a morbid dread of being one of those patients who “wake up” under anesthesia and experience the pain of the operation without being able to do anything about it. The surgeon’s response? “Yes, that would be terrible, and it does happen. That’s why we do X, Y and Z to minimize the chance of it happening during your operation.”

I liked that. He was clearly competent and didn’t try to sugar coat the risks for me. He empathized with my fears. He outlined what might happen, and the steps taken to minimize the risk. He was principled…he was open and frank with me and I trusted him as a result. But how did I come across to him?

Trust is a two way street. By doing my homework before our meeting I hoped he would see I was competent and reliable as well. I was open about what I knew I could do post-surgery, and what I felt was beyond me…and in our discussions I believe I came across as principled: someone who would do the right thing when needed.

And as it turned out, I believe my surgeon’s trust in me helped my recovery just as much as my trust in him. Certainly, when it came to my peace of mind it was much easier to be relaxed and focused believing I was in the best hands. When the medical team discussed my pain medications and my options for getting up and moving around they let me try to move forward at my own pace. They trusted that even if I wasn’t as pain medicated as many patients, and was trying to get up and walking quickly compared to others, I would be open with them about my limits and take responsibility for the outcomes. They let me try walking on the first day, and I was able to gently push myself to getting out of the ward on the fourth day post-op.

Our mutual trust worked well for both of us, and set the basis for our interactions together.

Doubt, Starring Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman

A few minutes into this movie I wanted to dislike it intensely. It seemed that we were being set up from the beginning to view the priest played by Hoffman as someone who was having inappropriate relationships with the boys in this 1960’s Bronx Catholic school. My reaction was based on the fact that we could see what was going on so clearly, yet the staff of the school seemed oblivious. It would have been too easy to make a movie that attacks the Catholic church, or uses a “ripped from the headlines” approach to engage the audience. However, not long into the movie it takes a turn, and the doubts and ambiguity of the situation start to be spelled out for the audience. This is a clever film, and one with significant lessons for how people try to do well in difficult circumstances, and what organizations need to do to address wrong-doing.

[Warning: Plot spoilers follow]

Streep plays Sister Aloysius, an old-fashioned nun and stern principal of the school. She distrusts Father Flynn, a laugh-out-loud jolly priest with a compassionate view of what it takes to help children grow and provide love and support in a poor working class neighborhood. Sister Aloysius distrusts his use of ball point pens, (we can almost hear her mutter “tools of the devil”), and in turn Father Flynn says “the dragon is hungry” when seeing the principal call another luckless student to her office for discipline.

The drama in the movie revolves around the school’s first African-American student and his relationship with Father Flynn. Is the priest just solicitous and compassionate, or is there something inappropriate in their relationship? Sister James thinks she sees something when the pupil is called to a private meeting with the Father, and she suspects she smells alcohol on the boy’s breath after. The boy’s mother just wants to enable her son to graduate, go to a good high school, and avoid a beating from his father who suspects him of having an “unusual nature”. Sister Aloysius goes on a crusade to get Flynn to confess, Flynn provides extremely plausible explanations of everything that happens.

The film’s ending leaves what actually happened unresolved. We don’t know for sure whether there was any wrongdoing. Indeed, we don’t know if Sister Aloysius’ distress and doubt at the end is at the role played by the church hierarchy, or directed at her own role in removing a potentially innocent priest from his calling to teach, or even a wider doubt in her faith that such things could happen at all.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops gives the movie a favorable review, (http://www.usccb.org/movies/d/doubt.shtml), despite the fact that it deals with themes of child abuse and sexual misconduct within the Catholic Church. I think it is because the film deals sympathetically with the dilemma of the school, the staff and the Catholic Church, a dilemma faced equally often today by contemporary businesses and organizations.

Since at least 1970, social researchers such as Latane & Darley, (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20070430084944AAby7D0), have recognized five stages of helping behavior.

1. You must notice an event
2. You must interpret the event as requiring help
3. You must assume personal responsibility
4. You must decide what action is required
5. You must act

The film illustrates that this is not as obvious as it seems. It would have been easy for Sisters Aloysius and James to ignore the warning signs of potential misconduct, and equally easy for them to accept Father Flynn’s explanations as showing no intervention or help was necessary. Similarly, had not Sister Aloysius taken personal responsibility for dealing with the situation and saving the boy the movie illustrates that the church and the schools in this era had no infrastructure set up to deal with child abuse. While Sister Aloysius works through her options it is clear there is no one easy way to deal with a potentially inappropriate relationship in the school and the church. Her actions end up including direct confrontation, (trying to get Father Flynn to confess), and deception, (pretending she has spoken to a nun from the Father’s previous school who has spilled the beans on his past). Sister Aloysius is a model of the Latane and Darley theory, but also a sad illustration that a reinforcing social infrastructure is needed to enable helping behavior to be successful.

What can contemporary organizations do to enable helping behavior to succeed?

Organizations can “inoculate” themselves against bad behavior by systematically and sequentially addressing Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Abilities and Reinforcement. Using the movie Doubt as an illustration, here’s how a successful implementation might look.

Awareness: What is right and what is wrong needs to carefully explained so everyone is aware of the difference. Meeting with the priest to discuss pastoral matters is right. Calling boys for private meetings with Father Flynn when the purpose is unspecified and setting is hidden is probably wrong. Providing respect and support is right, providing hugs and giving individual gifts, (as Father Flynn does), is probably wrong. One of the major traps Father Flynn and many organizations fall into is that it is not enough not to do wrong, you have to be seen to not do wrong. Even if Father Flynn’s behavior had been acceptable the private and secretive nature of the relationship provided enough of an opportunity that something inappropriate could be happen. As such, Flynn’s behavior was wrong and his actions should have been subject to “the cleansing light of open air”.

Desire: There needs to be a shared understanding and desire of what the right behavior will do, and how the future can be better. Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn have very different views of what is right for the boys in the school. The principal is a disciplinarian who favors mirrored glass to enhance the ability of the teachers to have “eyes in the back of their heads” and hands out repetitious tables and word drills for disciplinary infractions. The priest believes the boys respond to positive modeling, (“look at my clean nails” he says), and offers opportunities for sport and positive interaction as well as delivering his traditional sermons from the pulpit. An organization needs to create a vision of what can come from positive change, and engage everyone in working constructively toward the common goal. Such collaboration lessens the possibility of in-fighting and reduces the opportunity for bad or deviant behavior to exist or worsen.

Knowledge: Had Sisters James and Aloysius been able to understand from the beginning the purpose of what had been happening between the priest and the boy there would have been less room for ambiguity. The priest was secretive, exerting his authority in the face of legitimate enquiries and attempting to intimidate the principal with a sermon on intolerance. One of the surest guards against bad behavior is public knowledge. The less that is secretive in an organization, the less opportunity there is for bad behavior to go unnoticed.

Ability: Sister Aloysius doesn’t know what her abilities are to act against the appearance of wrongdoing from Father Flynn. Had the school or church wanted to ensure such things did not happen there needed to be system of enquiry or “whistle blowing” that empowered anyone with suspicions. The system need not be punitive. It should have given Sister Aloysius the ability to have her doubts heard without adverse consequences. It should have enabled self-learning in the school and church as organizations. The school could have let Father Flynn continue in place, but changed its rules on private meetings with the boys or the giving of personal favors. One of the saddest outcomes of the movie is that you suspect that if Father Flynn were guilty, the church had simply moved him to another parish where he could transgress again unless there were another equally powerful sister to stand up to him.

Reinforcement: This is the crux of the final scene in the film. Sister Aloysius is not positively rewarded for what she has done. Rather, she is left out of the church’s decision to relocate Father Flynn, and left to deal with her own doubts over her actions. She is comforted by Sister James, but not by the church and its hierarchy. We wonder as an audience whether it was worth it for her. There is a whole sub-plot in which the boy’s mother wants no part of confronting the priest, and it seems that she is alone and unrecognized. Would she do the same again? Father Flynn moves on, neither reprimanded nor enlightened as to his role. Indeed, we are told his new position is a promotion. Organizations need to set up positive reinforcement for people who do the right thing, especially when it involves speaking up against authority or disclosing unpleasant truths.

Doubt is a powerful movie with great illustrative power. I will be using it with my clients to demonstrate a practical example of how well meaning people can’t always prevent bad behavior, and how organizations need to reinforce and support people doing the right thing.