10

AVOIDING THE POTHOLES

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

—BENJAMIN FRANKLIN¹

Reflect on instances in your life when you have not lived according to your values, or on such instances among family members or friends. Calculate a cost-benefit ratio. How many times did the benefits of character failure outweigh the costs? Not often, we suspect.

Throughout this book we have looked at ways that positive character, both as an individual trait and as an organizational value, is associated with good outcomes. Strengths of the head, heart, and gut give us the edge needed to live productive and fulfilling lives. Organizations that embrace positive values and develop a culture that nurtures and rewards positive character among their members create an environment that fosters both individual achievement and organizational effectiveness.

By virtue of being human, we are subject to errors of judgment and conduct. Times, settings, and conditions in life may lead us to behave “out of character.” Sometimes we can pick ourselves up and get back on the right track. Other failures may be sufficiently profound as to present a major obstacle to making amends and moving forward. It may take many years to repair a reputation tarnished by failed character. In addition to the loss of reputation, such major failures may also have tangible economic consequences, including the loss of a job or a career.

To Benjamin Franklin’s point, with character, an ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure. Preventing character failure is a better strategy than mending the fallout stemming from that failure. Most people know this and incorporate strategies to aid them in living a virtuous, principled life. Strong family values, religious and spiritual beliefs, and a conscious effort to give positive meaning and purpose to life help. Psychologists, too, have examined factors that are associated with character failure in both individuals and organizations. Being mindful of these factors may add to your ability to avoid character failure.

A CHARACTER RISK MODEL

Threats to exhibiting good character stem from three sources. First, intrapersonal factors, meaning personality traits, personal weaknesses, or habits that compromise one’s ability to display positive character traits. The second source are environmental factors, circumstances external to the individual that create pressure or stress that may lead to character failure. Third are social/organizational factors, which are aspects of the social or organizational setting that create conditions that fail to properly guide and constrain behavior, making it more likely that some individuals will fail in character.

These three factors do not operate independently. Instead, they multiply together to increase risk of character failure. Figure 10.1 represents that relationship among these three factors and character risk. The shaded area in the middle of the Figure 10.1 indicates the space where intrapersonal, environmental, and social/organizational factors come together. When this happens, character risk is greatly increased. You could call it a character-risk triple threat. Risk is also increased where two factors combine, such as a person at low risk in intrapersonal factors, but at high risk for both environmental and social/organizational factors. Looking at character risk this way helps us understand why on some occasions even people with the highest character may fail.

Figure 10.1

Let’s use the Character Risk Model to analyze a case of character failure that General Caslen encountered while a division commander in Iraq. In an infantry battalion (consisting of eight hundred to a thousand soldiers), its senior noncommissioned officer, the command sergeant major (CSM), is, aside from the commander, its most influential leader. If this leader is under investigation for some moral or ethical issue, the entire battalion is adversely impacted. This is their leader. This is the one they are told to emulate. This is the leader who not only establishes the standards but also enforces the standards. This is the leader whom all the enlisted soldiers want to be like. He or she is their role model. All noncommissioned officers memorize the Non commissioned Officer (NCO) Creed, which says, “I am proud of the Corps of noncommissioned officers and will at all times conduct myself so as to bring credit upon the Corps, the military service and my country regardless of the situation in which I find myself. I will not use my grade or position to attain pleasure, profit, or personal safety.” So, when the senior NCO is charged with character issues contrary to the standards, values, and culture of the unit and the NCO Corps, you can imagine the devastating impact it has on the morale and discipline of a unit. When that unit is in a combat environment, where stress and life-and-death situations face the troops daily, morale and discipline are exponentially affected. Such was the case with one of the battalions in Caslen’s division.

Sexual violence impacts the victim for a lifetime. Knowing that one of your own teammates is a victim of sexual violence also has a crippling impact on the morale of the unit. This was the situation for this battalion when its command sergeant major was being investigated for sexual assault.

As the investigation was launched, the CSM was suspended from his position. Additional investigations soon revealed allegations by a number of female soldiers from other units. They surfaced from not only this deployment, but from previous deployments as well, indicating a lengthy pattern of predatory sexual behavior.

The exposure of his conduct had even more devastating impacts. In the middle of the investigation, the CSM took his own life. The impact on this unit’s morale and discipline when they found out, in combat, their CSM had taken his own life instead of facing the charges and allegations was devastating. It was similar to the impact of the problems that faced the Third Battalion, Eighth Cavalry Regiment (described in the preface).

Caslen experienced far too many ethical issues among his senior leaders during his deployment in Iraq as a division commander. Over his twelve months of command, he dealt with more than seventy incidents of misconduct. While a few were cases of criminal conduct, most were discipline and morale issues that stemmed from character failures. Improper treatment of subordinates, hostile command climates, inappropriate relationships, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and alcohol use were common themes. These character failures among leaders are certainly disruptive in a civilian or noncombat setting, but in a war zone, misconduct of this type is a direct threat to team cohesion and therefore mission success.

INTRAPERSONAL THREATS

Using the Character Risk Model, we can examine the three classes of threats to character. First, consider intrapersonal factors. One example of such a factor that is strongly related to character failure and criminal behavior is what psychologists refer to as the dark triad. The dark triad consists of three personality traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Narcissism involves a greatly exaggerated sense of self-worth and importance. Machiavellianism refers to people who use others as tools to achieve personal goals, even when it is detrimental to the others. It is a win-at-all-costs approach to life, an approach that we argue is unsustainable over the long run. Finally, psychopathy involves persistent antisocial behavior. Psychopaths are not capable of the feelings of empathy and remorse that for most people provide constraints to thoughts and behavior. Psychopaths are self-centered and egotistical.

This combination of three dysfunctional personality traits has been linked to a variety of unfavorable and criminal behaviors. One recent study examined the relationship between the dark triad and the seven deadly sins of anger, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, and sloth.² Each component of the dark triad, including narcissism, was reliably associated with these seven outcomes.

In the case of the CSM, his behavior reflected aspects of the dark triad. His alleged history of sexually assaulting multiple women represents a consistent pattern of antisocial behavior. Spotting someone in your organization who shows one or more components of the dark triad is probably not difficult. Such people are boastful, talk a great deal about their accomplishments, are in constant need of praise, feel they deserve the best perks and special compensations the organization offers, and all the while demean and belittle others to enhance their own sense of self-worth. They may stop at little to achieve their goals and to satisfy their personal needs.

The dark triad reflects a basic personality pattern and may be difficult to change. But these traits occur on a continuum ranging from mildly annoying on the left end to pathological and sometimes criminal on the right. Nearer the left (nonpathological) side of the continuum, self-regulation may modulate the expression of narcissistic, Machiavellian, and/or psychopathic tendencies.³ On the right, or pathological, side of the continuum, these impulsive behaviors are difficult for an individual to control. If you as a leader or a coworker see these behaviors, they should set off warning signals.

Hubris, or excessive self-pride, is another character trait that may contribute to problems in an organization. Hubris is not a personality disorder like the components of the dark triad. But if self-pride dominates a person’s interactions with others, it can destroy morale. Consider the following case.

One of the staff officers in General Caslen’s division was tremendously competent and demonstrated the highest standards every day. But he was such a perfectionist that any subordinate who failed to meet his high expectations was confronted in an adversarial way. This resulted in a hostile command climate. No allegations of the officer’s lying, cheating, or stealing, nor of inappropriate relationships, or moral or ethical issues, were made. But if you found yourself in his staff unit, you would try your best to get out from under his authority, simply because of the antagonistic and hostile way he treated his subordinates. Although this officer did not demonstrate flaws in his fundamental character or values, his actions would be considered a violation to “living honorably” because this is not how to treat those we work with, and it destroys the trust between a leader and his or her subordinates.

This staff officer in Caslen’s division suffered from an overriding sense of hubris; it was a signature of his personality, and it made him ineffective as a leader. In our character model, this reflects a low level of modesty and humility and of social intelligence. This example is from a workplace, but the negative impact of such character flaws can be found in any sort of group. A basketball player, however talented, who criticizes and dominates his or her teammates causes great harm to team morale.

Hubris undermines the trust between an organization and its clients. This is true in the profession of arms, where the erosion of trust between the military and the people it serves may have devastating consequences. The military is not alone in this way. The widely publicized outcries over the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers against minorities reflect the profound distrust between these communities and law enforcement.

Another all-too-common intrapersonal factor that compromises character is drug and alcohol abuse. The link between alcohol and sexual assault is well demonstrated. Alcohol, even in low doses, depresses the central nervous system and reduces inhibitions. Alcohol’s effects are well known and include increased aggression and a variety of inappropriate and sometimes illegal behaviors. When the dark triad meets drugs and alcohol, the threat to character is significantly higher. People with the dark triad do a poor job of self-regulation, and self-regulation is further impaired by substance abuse. This creates a Venn diagram within a Venn diagram, within the intrapersonal circle shown in Figure 10.1.

Personality characteristics and substance abuse present challenges to the consistent expression of good character. But people are capable of significant change. If you have these personality traits, then you may seek psychotherapy to address narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Alcoholics and substance abusers may find a variety of programs to help them. At the organizational level, leaders should be fully cognizant of the problems posed by the dark triad and substance abuse and have policies in place to address them. Large organizations, such as the military, have many programs in place to accomplish this.

ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS

The second threat to character in the Character Risk Model is environmental factors. Work or other settings that result in sleep deprivation (going without any sleep for extended periods) or sleep restriction (getting inadequate sleep over extended periods) are linked to character failures. A study of West Point cadets showed that those who slept the least had higher incidents of conduct problems. This study found that cadets on average receive only 5.5 hours of sleep on weeknights, and by Friday their sleep deficit resulted in behavioral deficits similar to a blood alcohol content of .08 percent—legally drunk in most US states.⁴ A recent study of Royal Norwegian Naval Academy cadets found that sleep-deprived cadets showed poorer leadership behavior.⁵ Other research establishes a link between sleep and moral awareness. Sleep deprivation and restriction diminish a person’s ability to self-regulate, sometimes leading to ethical/moral character failures.⁶

A particularly interesting study showed that sleep deprivation increases risk-taking due to a reduction of self-awareness. Judgment also suffers.⁷ These effects may result in decisions leading to behavior inconsistent with a person’s character. Soldiers deployed in Afghanistan report sleeping fewer than six hours a day. Over a one-year deployment, sleep restriction of this degree could contribute to a host of bad outcomes, including ethical/moral lapses.⁸

Other environmental factors include danger, prolonged exposure to a hostile physical environment, frequent changes in leadership, or, in some organizations, frequent changes in work assignments or locations. In the case of the command sergeant major, both sleep restriction and social isolation may have combined with other risk factors to enable his deviant behavior.

Environmental factors may worsen intrapersonal factors that contribute to character failure. For example, a young infantry officer performed heroically in his first combat tour, where he earned several decorations for valor. Selected to attend graduate school and teach at West Point, he continued his exemplary performance as a West Point instructor, both in the classroom and as a role model for cadets and other officers. Following this assignment, he deployed again to combat and again excelled. Once again, because of his faithful and exemplary service both in combat and previously at West Point, he was sent to graduate school to obtain a doctorate degree. Upon completion he reported to West Point to serve once again on the faculty. He was the loving father of young children and enjoyed a good relationship with his wife. Thanks to his outgoing personality, he had many friends as well.

What nobody knew was that following his second combat tour he was silently dealing with the lingering symptoms of combat stress. But, like many soldiers, he hid the symptoms and did not seek treatment. When he returned to West Point, his behavior changed significantly from that of his first tour. Then he was always the first at work, arriving early in the morning to prepare for class and complete other duties. He was engaged with cadets outside of class. He was positive and energetic in his interactions with others. But in his second tour, he came to work late and left early. He seemed preoccupied and distracted and not fully engaged in his job.

About two years into his second tour, allegations came to light that he was having an affair with the wife of a fellow officer. Formal charges of misconduct were filed. Recognizing his character failure, this officer pleaded guilty to all charges. The superintendent of West Point reviewed the case and ruled that the officer would be reduced in rank and forced to immediately retire from the Army. This officer had the potential to rise to a position of high leadership at West Point, but despite his great talent, his career was ruined.

What happened? The environmental stress and responsibilities of his most recent combat deployment contributed to poor decisions associated with character failures. These environmental factors reduced his ability to self-regulate and led him to behavior that was out of character. Similarly, the environmental stress of the combat deployment may have contributed to the command sergeant major’s situation as well.

SOCIAL/ORGANIZATIONAL THREATS

Social/organizational factors exert a powerful influence on positive character. This third circle within Figure 10.1 may be the most important because organizations have considerable influence over this component.

Individuals who lack supportive social networks are more vulnerable to character failures. Some people are incapable of forming close relationships with others. Some are physically removed from their normal social setting and are isolated from others. We saw earlier that soldiers in the Black Hearts platoon were geographically isolated from other units in the battalion. Clearly many factors contributed to the criminal actions of this platoon, including the dark triad, but social isolation was also a contributing factor.

In the case of the command sergeant major, his unit provided some social support, but probably not enough. Senior officers and NCOs have fewer close social relationships within their units because military tradition and rules discourage the establishment of friendships between leaders and subordinates. Moreover, the CSM was away from his family and thus lacked any stabilizing support they may have offered.

The values of an organization are critical to shaping and maintaining positive character among its members. When leaders overlook the importance of positive values and organizational climate, the consequences may be severe and even represent an existential threat to the organization. It is all the more distressing when the institutions are responsible for the development and education of the nation’s greatest resource—its college students, who will be our future leaders.

ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE: A CASE HISTORY

The first big scandal comes from Penn State University, where Coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted of sexually abusing children in 2012. This resulted in the termination or resignation of a number of university officials.

Then, on September 26, 2017, “the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced the arrest of ten people for involvement in fraud and corruption schemes related to college basketball—four NCAA Division 1 college basketball coaches, a senior executive and two employees at a major athletic apparel company, and three athlete advisors. The first scheme involved allegations that college coaches took cash payments from athlete advisors to steer players and their families to the advisors making the payments. The second scheme involved allegations that a senior executive at a sports apparel company worked with athlete advisors to funnel payments to high-school players and their families to obtain their commitment to attend universities sponsored by the apparel company.”⁹ Of the ten individuals arrested, six pleaded guilty, three went to trial, and charges were dropped for the tenth person. The trial for the three defendants who pleaded not guilty resulted in convictions, but all three are expected to appeal the decision.¹⁰

Another scandal occurred at Michigan State University, whose gymnastics-team physician sexually abused more than three hundred women athletes both at Michigan State and on the USA Gymnastics women’s team. Penn State made the news again when a student died during a fraternity hazing incident. Then came the misappropriation of 85 million taxpayer dollars at the University of Central Florida, which resulted in the resignations of another university president and its board chair. Four senior administrators at Georgia Tech resigned after it was discovered that they had failed to disclose conflicts of interest and inappropriate business relationships with vendors. The scandals reached a new level when federal charges were filed against more than thirty parents who had allegedly paid enormous amounts of money to recruiters who then allegedly bribed officials to ensure their children were accepted in prestigious universities.

What is striking in this last case were the sheer number of university athletic coaches and administrators who were charged with bribery, fraud, or racketeering conspiracy. These included two university soccer coaches, a sailing coach, a college aptitude test administrator, a senior associate athletic director, a water-polo coach, and a men’s tennis coach. At the time of publication many defendants had pleaded guilty but a handful of defendants have pleaded not guilty and the criminal justice process will undoubtably continue to unfold for some time to come.¹¹

These incidents are alarming. When the university athletic scandals broke into the public news cycle, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) hired former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice to head a commission to recommend ways in which the NCAA could regain its ability to provide leadership and accountability. The commission’s final report stated, “Everyone knows that these payments occur. That state of affairs—where the entire community knows of significant rule breaking and yet the governance body lacks the power or will to investigate and act—breeds cynicism and contempt.”¹² These incidents represent a terrible indictment about the ability of university leadership to maintain ethical climates within their institutions.

What do these scandals and situations have in common? In every instance a leader, someplace, failed to lead. You can be the best university president in the country, but if you fail in character, you fail in leadership. Sound familiar?

Ethical fading may play a role in these examples. Ethical fading is a deterioration or corrosion of ethical standards over time.¹³ When unethical behavior occurs and goes unchecked by leadership or others, it can become standard practice and, over time, is no longer seen as wrong. This is exactly what occurred at the University of Central Florida, with its misappropriation of state funds. Failure to address unethical behavior is poor leadership.

In an examination of a university admissions scandal in 2009, Dr. Nathan Harris, assistant professor at the Warner School of Education at the University of Rochester, said, “The potential for misconduct pervades colleges and universities more than we assume—and even more than we feel comfortable acknowledging.” He followed up, “A senior administrator does not wake up in the morning and say, ‘Today I am going to do something that lands me on the front page of the Chicago Tribune for the wrong reasons.’”¹⁴ Ethical fading strikes again.

How are universities today addressing this? And can universities develop a culture of ethics on their campuses? We believe the answer is yes.

These crises force universities to address these issues and problems directly. At Penn State, the solution was to create an independent and centralized compliance office. This office oversees compliance in a wide variety of issues, including employee conflicts of interests, use of appropriated funds, employee training in whistle-blower procedures, hiring vendors, disclosing crime statistics, and complying with NCAA and other governance statutes, such as gender-equity laws known as Title IX. University staff and faculty must comply with numerous other laws, policies, regulations, and statutes, and the university leadership is responsible for creating a culture of ethics that seeks compliance rather than trying to find ways around regulations.¹⁵

At many universities, offices of compliance and ethics are using a powerful “new” tool—a simple campus-wide survey. When Georgia Tech discovered that four senior employees had inappropriate financial ties with vendors and contractors, the president, Dr. Bud Peterson, surveyed the staff, faculty, and graduate students, a population of twelve thousand. From the survey Georgia Tech’s leadership learned, astonishingly, of a level of distrust that “exceeds the realm of an ethics scandal that shook the campus last summer.… You as administrators hope and think you’re in tune with everyone on campus, but that one really came as a shock to us,” said Georgia Tech’s then chief of staff, Lynn M. Durham.¹⁶

Peterson should be applauded. Other presidents might be reluctant to survey their staff and faculty on these topics. That Peterson faced these issues head-on and was transparent with the survey findings and in the follow-on actions he took to address these issues showed the staff and faculty how serious the leadership was in addressing their concerns. This type of leadership produces an essential result—a rebuilding of trust.

Georgia Tech also appointed a new vice president for ethics and compliance, Ling-Ling Nie, who reinforced the importance of ethical compliance: “If we underscore the importance of having a workforce that is grounded in integrity and respect and articulate exactly what that means and how that manifests, day to day, as a manager or as an employee, it gets to the heart of some of those concerns.”¹⁷

As Georgia Tech’s leadership and staff and faculty continue to build this ethical culture on its campus, other newly implemented programs include regular surveys of employees to assess campus culture, instituting an ethics-awareness week, regular ethics and whistle-blower training, senior leadership meetings singularly focused on campus values, senior-level emphasis that retaliation will not be tolerated, and the requirement of all senior administrators to regularly talk face-to-face with their subordinate leaders about campus values.¹⁸ This is leadership building a culture based on university values. This is leadership making a difference.

These examples illustrate the juxtaposition of personal character flaws, such as hubris and dysfunctional organizational values and climate of a win-at-all-costs mentality. When the university’s leadership considers the success of a college football program to be more important than holding an individual responsible for years of child abuse, something is badly amiss.

ORGANIZATIONAL HAZARDS TO CHARACTER

An article by the Deloitte Center for Regulatory Strategy called “Managing Conduct Risk: Addressing Drivers, Restoring Trust” lists eight drivers of misconduct.¹⁹ Although discussed in the context of the financial industry, these drivers of misconduct are relevant to many organizations and represent another type of pothole that must be avoided. Misconduct is associated with failures in character. Let’s first take a look at these drivers of misconduct, then see how they play out in an actual organization.

1. Consumer need and suitability are not guiding product lifecycle practices. In simple terms, this means that organizations that place sales over actual customer needs are prone to misconduct. The university that is more concerned with new buildings or winning sports championships than with the education of its students is an example.

2. Failing to have a balanced scorecard for human resource decisions. This means that important personnel decisions that are driven by short-term or narrow performance indicators result in misconduct. In college athletics, this is the win-at-all-costs mentality. Coaches who believe they will be fired if they do not win a championship every year are at greater risk to compromise their character in recruiting or retaining players.

3. Individuals and leadership are not responsible or held to account for misconduct. We have already discussed multiple examples of this driver. Failure to have and to enforce standards is a surefire recipe for misconduct.

4. Failing to identify and manage conflicts of interest. There must be outside checks and balances to guard against misconduct. Scientists who conduct research on human participants must present their research plans and objectives to an institutional review board to ensure ethical standards of research are adhered to. Before these institutional review boards were common practice, abuse of human subjects occurred, even when the scientists involved were well intended. In 1932, scientists with the lofty goal of developing effective treatments for syphilis began a study of six hundred black men. But while the men volunteered to be in the study, the researchers did not reveal to them the true purpose of the study or the full facts about their treatment. The researchers thus deceived the participants, ultimately resulting in a class-action lawsuit and a $10-million out-of-court settlement in 1973 to surviving participants and their families.²⁰ The checks and balances provided by a review board would have prevented this misuse of human participants.

5. Complex, disconnected, or growth-at-all-costs business models. Complexity breeds confusion, which can be followed by a focus on the wrong goals and objectives. A bigger-is-better philosophy enables focusing on short-term gains, achieved at any costs including compromises of character, over long-term success.

6. Manual and complicated processes and procedures. Making the job too hard leads to shortcuts. Excessive bureaucracy causes people to take shortcuts that may compromise their ethics. A recent study of Army culture concluded, “Many Army officers, after repeated exposure to the overwhelming demands and the associated need to put their honor on the line to verify compliance, have become ethically numb. As a result, an officer’s signature and word have become tools to maneuver through the Army bureaucracy rather than being symbols of integrity and honesty.… As a result, untruthfulness is surprisingly common in the U.S. military even though members of the profession are loath to admit it.”²¹ Leaders must streamline their organization’s policies and procedures to promote adherence to ethical standards.

7. Weak systems for monitoring and surveillance. Leaders must ensure that fair and objective systems are in place to track adherence to ethical guidelines. Failure to do so allows the perception that unethical actions will go undetected and unpunished.

8. Disparate subcultures or a problematic prevailing culture. Organizations may foster positive character, such as Johnson & Johnson, or allow unprincipled behavior to be the norm, such as the Army rugby team. Leaders must take positive and constant action to establish and maintain a positive organizational climate. This may be the most important thing a leader does. Such a strong and positive culture may mitigate against other risk factors in the Character Risk Model.

One or more of these drivers of misconduct have been found in every example of organizational failure that we have presented from the West Point rugby team to the University of Central Florida. For the rugby team, the main driver of misconduct was the formation of a subculture that had values inconsistent with the values of the parent organization, coupled with weak systems for monitoring and surveillance. Had an effective monitoring system been in place, the dysfunctional subculture would not have been able to fester and grow.

In larger and more complex organizations, such as some of the universities described previously, multiple drivers of misconduct may combine to create significant departures from acceptable and even legal procedures, bringing on a crisis that can become massive in scope and impact. Deloitte’s third driver of misconduct is clearly illustrated when leadership is not held responsible for misconduct. Deloitte’s fifth driver of misconduct, growth at all costs, is also seen in some of these cases. Perhaps not surprisingly, Deloitte’s seventh driver of misconduct, “weak systems for monitoring and surveillance,” will prevent a university from recognizing its failures and correcting them before significant damage is done. Finally, Deloitte’s eighth driver of misconduct may be seen in the development of a subculture where a set of values inconsistent to the values of the institution can damage an institution’s reputation and good standing.

There are several key takeaways from these situations. The solution starts with a leader who reinforces integrity and honor. Not only does he or she demonstrate integrity and honor every day and take advantage of every opportunity to articulate the need for it, but the leader also holds subordinates accountable to these values. When subordinates are out of line, they are immediately corrected. When subordinates cross a threshold and are no longer trusted, they must be replaced. Leaders must also identify risks to their organization, their employees, and their customers. These risk assessments must originate from numerous sources including the leader him- or herself. Once risks are identified, they should be assessed for their likelihood and duration, then risk mitigation factors must be put in place.

The good news is that high-performing, high-character organizations may develop strategies to avoid these potholes. It takes attention and conscious effort, but that is what high-performing, high-character organizations do. The road to excellence has no easy shortcuts.

A COMMENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media presents a major threat to character. People say things on social media they would not ordinarily say in person. Why? Perhaps it is the perceived distance between themselves and their targets. Stanley Milgram’s famous study of obedience to authority demonstrated that ordinary people are capable of doing harm to others. You may recall this experiment, where Milgram posed as an experimenter and instructed “teachers” (the subjects of the experiment) to administer painful electric shocks to “learners” (the learners were actors and did not receive actual electric shocks). One of Milgram’s main findings was that teachers were far more likely to comply with the experimenter’s commands to administer painful shocks when the learner was physically distant than when the learner was close by, where he or she could be seen and heard.²² This same principle applies to social media. Because they cannot directly sense the impact of their words, some people feel unconstrained and say things that are both incongruent with their own values and hurtful to others.

The unfiltered content of social media may be especially disruptive to people who are at multiple levels of character risk as defined in our Character Risk Model. Hateful and prejudiced content has been linked to mob violence. The deadly incident in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a young woman was run over and killed by a white nationalist sympathizer, is a good example. Social media messaging incensed both the white nationalists and those protesting against their views. Evidence suggests that Russian operators employed “false-front” Twitter accounts to polarize and inflame the attitudes of both sides in Charlottesville.²³

Riots and group violence are not a new phenomenon. Mobs are well known to bring out the worst in many people. What is new is the ease with which a virtual mob may form. Whether whipped into a frenzy either by groupthink or through intentional manipulation by outside forces, the potential threat to character is significant.

SOCIAL ISOLATION

Social isolation is a significant contributor to character failure. Sometimes your personality leads you to social isolation, as in the case of extreme introverts. Other times specific situations make direct social contact and support difficult, such as for soldiers deployed far from home for extended periods.

Senior leaders often have poor social relationships, especially in hierarchical organizations such as the military. The commanding general or CEO may have few people he or she can turn to for advice or to discuss important issues. This isolation allows problems to fester. A few years ago, an Army general committed suicide shortly after promotion to the next-highest grade. The army chief of staff tasked a three-star general to form a group to explore threats to general-officer well-being. One threatening factor the group identified was that general officers usually do not have a peer of equal rank easily available for advice. While the Pentagon and a few large military bases have several general officers, generals assigned to most Army posts have nobody of equal rank at their installation. This was true of the general who committed suicide. For others, such social isolation may result in less dramatic, but still quite damaging, lapses of character.

PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

The Character Risk Model provides strategies for avoiding character potholes. For individuals, a number of things may be done. Reflect on your character strengths, how you use them, and under what conditions you may sometimes fail to adhere to your values. Do you have personal habits that may compromise your character, such as alcohol or drug abuse? If so, get help. Evaluate your social network. Identify close friends, ones that you may reach out to in trying circumstances. Look to them and family members for balance and perspective. Changes in mood or sleeping habits may signal stress. Learn what situations trigger stress for you and work to develop adaptive ways of dealing with those situations if they cannot be avoided altogether. Be honest with yourself about your personality. Do your vanity and pride get in the way of effective relationships? Is your ego too big? Learn to self-regulate these indicators of the dark triad.

Individuals should seek a mentor with whom they can have an honest discussion about their personality and character. A powerful exercise would be for your mentor to rate you on each of your twenty-four character strengths, then for the two of you to compare his or her ratings with your own. Others may perceive you differently from the way you perceive yourself. If you learn that you are perceived as immodest or that you lack social intelligence (we are often bad at recognizing our flaws), such a discussion may stimulate personal development. Most character flaws are not pathological like the dark triad. More common are lesser flaws in one or more of the strengths in each of the six moral virtues. Once identified, these may be addressed.

At the social level, individuals should seek to establish and maintain positive relationships with friends, family, and coworkers. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. People have different needs for social support and different ways of seeking it. But we all need people with whom we can share our joys and accomplishments and seek comfort and guidance. Ask yourself, “Whom could I see or call right now, or at any time of the day, if I have something I need to talk about?” If you can’t think of anyone, then you may need to put less time into your job or your schoolwork, and more time into social relationships. These social relationships help bring out good character and are central to a balanced life.

At the organizational level, leaders have the responsibility to create a positive, character-driven environment with clear goals. A public and simple vision statement combined with an equally straightforward mission statement is a beginning. But most important, leaders must genuinely believe in the organization’s values and adhere to them. Workers, students, and members of all types of organizations are quick to sniff out hypocrisy.

Leaders may use Deloitte’s eight drivers of misconduct to diagnose organizational character risk. Key leaders should be intimately aware of these drivers of misconduct, and units at all levels within the organization should be assessed on each. Doing so helps avoid potholes and should be a priority for all types of institutions.

THE CHARACTER EDGE REVISITED

Character lost is difficult to regain. Individuals and organizations who want to excel and win over the long term should maintain a focus on character. Our Character Risk Model provides a guide for where to look for threats to character. A proactive approach to character management prior to failure is far more effective than a reactive approach focused on repairing damage after the fact. The result is a distinct character edge, for both the individual and the organization.