What's In It For Me?

I am sure we have all met many people whose philosophy of life and what they do or do not do, can best be summed up by the words, "What's in it for me?" While I fully understand and appreciate that people have to "watch their backs" and make sure they are not taken advantage of, I strongly believe there are many situations where that attitude is, at best limiting, and at worst, selfish, narcissistic, and wrong. Every individual must have their own individual moral and ethical code, and it must include doing what's right.

I have always felt that, at least in terms of guiding my own personal actions, the most essential thing is to always remain true to my beliefs. My mother used to always tell me that you can always regain and rebuild nearly everything, except your self-respect and reputation. Mythology refers to individuals who are "Janus-faced," and others call it two-faced, but there is very little as irritating as dealing with an individual who says one thing to your face and another behind your back. How can one ever trust an individual who exhibits that type of behavior?

Why does there always have to be something in it for someone? At least, not something that directly benefits the individual in a material way. Doesn't peace of mind, doing the right thing, helping others, caring, etc. count for anything?

The Hebrew word, "tikun olam" literally means healing the world. If we all simply guided our lives and our actions by the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," wouldn't we live in a far better society?

This may seem like an odd philosophy from someone who has spent my entire adult life in: sales; marketing; consulting; negotiations; conference, convention and event organization, development and management; real estate sales and management; etc., but I feel that the keynote to my career in each industry and every endeavor is my code of ethics. I strongly feel that I have consistently gotten far better results in all my negotiations and presentations, because I have always remained open and honest with those that I deal.

You only get out of life what you put in. Therefore, doesn't it make sense to adopt a helpful attitude than a what's in it for me philosophy?

Blaming Others Is Not Constructive!

In my three decades of consulting in numerous areas, including motivation and self- help, I have come to realize that blaming others rarely accomplishes anything constructive. Many individuals choose to blame others in order to absolve themselves of any blame, often making another individual the "scapegoat" for all issues, woes, and challenges. Dictionary.com defines "scapegoat" as "one who is made to bear the blame for others." This expression had biblical origins, from when Aaron sacrificed a goat for forgiveness of the sins of the Israelites. Today, we
witness scapegoating in many aspects of life. Politicians often "sacrifice" a campaign worker, aide, or even a friend or family member, to shelter themselves from blame. We have all heard of police interrogations when police, reportedly, tell multiple suspects that a "deal" will be made with whichever suspect "comes clean" first.

From an honesty and decency point of view, the practice of scapegoating should be repugnant to any ethical, moral, and honorable person. What ever happened to personal responsibility. We often hear that the "scapegoat" was the "weak link" in the operation, and that by disposing of a certain individual, the operation will function more efficiently.

Very rarely does a subordinate either scapegoat a superior, or even get that opportunity. Those in charge are the ones who generally shelter themselves by saying that a subordinate was not doing his job, or that it wasn't the superior's fault that the subordinate was either incompetent or dishonest. We have even witnessed President Obama throwing both his grandmother, as well as his Reverend "under the bus," in the sense that, during his presidential campaign, he said he even observed a form of racism from his maternal grandmother, and that he did not pay attention to, nor even remember, some of the more controversial statements made by his Reverend.

In the workplace, when a superior (supervisor, manager, or even above) comes "under fire" for nor getting something done properly, or not accomplishing what he should have, often blames a subordinate, and often that subordinate is "forced" to either resign or have his or her employment terminated. While there are certainly times that much of the fault may have been the subordinates, or at least that subordinate contributed to the ineffectiveness by not adequately performing his duties, effective managers effectively oversee what their aides or subordinates are doing, and review and evaluate their work on an ongoing basis, requiring certain tasks accomplished on a timely basis, or, at the very least, receive regular reports (which should include tasks performed, being worked on, anticipated resolution dates, status, and other relevant information). If a subordinate has worked for a superior for more than thirty (but certainly less than sixty days), the superior should always be held accountable for the failings of a superior, unless the superior took effective action in a timely manner. Harry Truman did not believe that "The Buck Stops Here" was merely a sign on his desk, or a clever motto, but rather that it was his obligation to assure that tasks were accomplished as they should be.

It is however, important to realize that there is a difference between scapegoating and rightfully terminating a subordinate because he or she could not get the job done. Proper handling of personnel employed by a superior is that individual's duty, and the superior must be held accountable, if he is lax about assuring that his employees were properly handling tasks assigned. A superior is not responsible merely because an employee makes an error, but becomes responsible when he fails to act in a timely manner to correct the situation.

There is very little in business as cowardly as scapegoating. Unfortunately, it regularly occurs, because, often, either "higher-ups" or someone influential demands "someone's head." Those higher up often automatically believe that by eliminating the supposed "weakest link" the problem will be resolved, should likewise be held responsible for not fully examining the issue. In many cases, the individual who makes another the scapegoat is at least as responsible by not properly overseeing the situation, and being a proper manager!

Ethics are Essential to Leadership

Many leaders find themselves with the dilemma of being popular versus making the sometimes difficult, yet necessary decisions. True leaders understand that leadership requires managing by following one's principles, and being guided by what is ethical and responsible.

In many organizations, this battle is exacerbated by the fact that it is often difficult to find qualified leaders, as well as by the fact that the vast majority of organizations do not have any type of true leadership training. In the past three decades, I have observed that while most organizations believe that they engage in leadership training, since this training does not encompass those necessities of leadership, and are generally neither professionally prepared or presented, little is achieved. The obstacle is that since most existing leaders are neither trained nor fully qualified, and therefore do not fully understand how to train leaders, it is often difficult for those "leaders" to "let go," and permit an organized, consistent and ongoing leadership training program to be conducted.

In general, human nature is such that most people strive to be liked and/or admired. However, since being liked is not a guiding principle for effective leadership, there is often a breakdown in the leadership process. Doing the right thing for the organization, without fear of hurting one's popularity, is, in fact, essential to effective leadership.

Leaders must be guided by the principles of morality, ethics, and, specifically, being guided by what is in the best interests of the organization. Effective leaders realize that doing that many not be popular, but is often necessary. Undoubtedly, there would be more effective and qualified leaders if organizations prioritized professional and ongoing leadership training.

In observing organizations for three decades, I am consistently amazed that following principles and ethics is the exception rather than the rule. If an organization is to fluorish, it needs effective leadership.