You’re only as strong as the people who work with you. In this chapter, we’ll look at ethically intelligent ways of dealing with coworkers. We ’ll focus on three issues:
• Office romances
• Talking politics on the job
• Dealing with people you can’t stand
When David Letterman admitted that he’d had sex with several of the women who worked for him, the national discussion about dating in the workplace that had been simmering for years finally exploded. Is it right to date a coworker? Your boss? Someone who works for you? Let’s consider whether office romances are consistent with ethical intelligence.
Most romantic relationships don’t work out. Think about it: How many people do you know who are still in a relationship with the first person they ever dated? It’s a good thing that this is the case. After all, it takes time to find the right person. But what does “the right person” mean, anyway?
I remember a conversation I had as a young professor with my boss at the time. We were driving back from a workshop we’d given and were having a heart-to-heart conversation about marriage, since I was single then.
“Bruce, what do you think makes a relationship work?” he asked.
“Shared interests,” I said. “Mutual attraction.”
“Those are important,” he replied, “but shared values are what really matter.”
His words have stayed with me because I think he’s right. There’s no doubt that physical attraction jump-starts a relationship. Once that relationship gets going, it’s great to discover that both you and the other person love sports, traveling, or the films of Alfred Hitchcock. But what takes the relationship from a sprint to a marathon is a shared commitment to the things that matter most. That is, shared values. And values are revealed over time by how the person acts, not by what he or she says.
Since it takes time to get to know a person and what his or her values are, the office is the obvious place to look for love or for love to find you. With a fragile economy and increased financial worry, we’re spending more time on the job than ever before. Seeing someone every day gives you a good sense of what that person is really like, much more so than a few dates with someone does. The workplace does seem like the best possible arena for finding a lifelong partner.
But the fact that most relationships don’t work out is the reason why dating in the workplace is not consistent with ethical intelligence. If, after a few dates with someone you know from outside of work, you discover that you’re not interested in pursuing a relationship with that person and you call it quits, you probably won’t see him or her again (unless you live in a very small town). If, however, your romantic relationship with a coworker fizzles out, as it almost certainly will, you have to see that person day after day, and that’s where the problems begin. I know from personal experience how excruciating it is to sit at your desk stewing with anger, hurt, and bewilderment after you have a falling out with the person down the hall. It’s hard to focus on your work, and it becomes difficult to do your job well. You may wind up letting clients down, tarnishing the reputation of the company, and making it more difficult for yourself to move on. Dating a coworker is thus one of the surest ways to violate the first principle of ethical intelligence, Do No Harm.
A lawyer I know from a major law firm — I’ll call her Emily — told me about how an office romance threatened the firm’s relationship with a client. The couple in question — I’ll call them Jake and Isabelle — were prone to displays of affection around the office. One day, they were smooching after hours in front of a conference room, which they believed was empty. It looked empty from their cursory glance, but one of the firm’s clients was in the room and felt uncomfortable enough about what he witnessed to complain to Emily.
What kind of review do you think this client gave the firm to others in his organization? If someone asked him to recommend a good corporate law firm, do you think he would have suggested the one with Jake and Isabelle? If he was moved to bring up the matter then and there, one can only imagine how he spoke about the place to others.
Emily reported the matter to a senior partner, who then confronted Jake and Isabelle. Jake argued that he and Isabelle did their best to be discreet, but they were really in love and felt that their relationship should be respected.
It turns out that the client wasn’t the only one who was bothered by Jake and Isabelle’s romantic relationship. A lot of the people who worked near them felt uncomfortable as well, and they, too, had notified the senior partner. Nobody begrudged them their happiness, but when you are working hard to earn your pay, there is something disconcerting about knowing your coworkers are spending their work time kissing. When Jake went into Isabelle’s office and closed the door, some of their coworkers wondered, “Are they having a business meeting, or are they just making out?” The senior partner ultimately gave Jake and Isabelle thirty days for one or both to leave the firm.
A manager I once had told a few staff members at lunch one day that she and her boyfriend had been having sex all over the office — including on the round table where we were eating! She presented it as something funny, but I was troubled by her decision to sexualize the workplace. There was also the obvious hygienic concern: Who wants to worry about whether the desk they’re writing on had a couple of bare bottoms rolling around on it the previous evening?
The first principle of ethical intelligence, Do No Harm, is compromised in several ways by office romances: clients, office morale, and the business’s reputation are all at risk.
But there is one other aspect of Jake and Isabelle’s relationship worth mentioning: he was her supervisor. Isabelle claimed that she began dating Jake of her own free will and never felt pressured to remain in the relationship for any reason. Perhaps this was so. But, as we will see, dating a subordinate is inconsistent with ethical intelligence.
Suppose you’re interviewing someone for a new position at work and you find this person quite attractive. I’ll assign the name Chris to this candidate to cover both gender possibilities. Several times during the interview, Chris smiles warmly at you, which makes you feel good. As the interview unfolds, you get the feeling that Chris is attracted to you. This is someone you’d love to have on your team. Chris isn’t wearing a wedding ring and makes no reference to a boyfriend or girlfriend. You sure would like to hire Chris — but how can you tell that your attraction isn’t compromising your ability to assess Chris’s abilities accurately? Chris may indeed be the best person for the job, but if one of the reasons that you want this candidate on your team is that you feel a romance is possible, you simply can’t be objective.
Let’s take it a step further. Others on the interviewing committee believe Chris would be a terrific fit at the company, so Chris is hired. You decide to wait to ask Chris out, just so that you can see whether there is indeed a mutual attraction. You learn that Chris is single. You ask Chris out, but Chris refuses. In fact, Chris appears mortified that you would do such a thing. You explain why. Chris replies, “I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood me. I’m just a friendly person. I smile a lot. That’s the way I am.” How will this new development in your relationship affect Chris’s work and your relationship with Chris? The outcome may very well be negative for all concerned. You now question whether it was a smart move on your part to hire Chris in the first place. None of this is consistent with ethical intelligence.
But suppose that when you ask Chris out, the answer is yes. How can you be sure that Chris is accepting your invitation out of a genuine interest in you? Chris may be doing so for fear of alienating you, which doesn’t bode well for anyone in the long run. Or Chris may agree to go on the date because Chris’s long-term goal is to advance in the company, and this is a sure way to do so. This, too, suggests unpleasant things are in store.
Let’s imagine now that Chris has agreed to go out on a date because Chris is indeed attracted to you. The relationship goes great for a while, but ultimately it doesn’t work out. Shortly thereafter, the company has to do some downsizing, and you’re called upon to do some of this unpleasant work. Chris is one of the people you decide to let go. How can you or Chris know that the unhappy personal relationship wasn’t a factor in your decision? You can’t, and neither can Chris.
Even if the relationship is genuine and not put to the test of downsizing, there is the issue of appearances. Chris’s peers will reasonably wonder if Chris is getting advantages they aren’t getting because they’re not sleeping with the boss. That’s not fair to Chris’s peers or to Chris.
Sexual harassment laws were promulgated to prevent just these kinds of nasty situations from occurring and to provide redress when they do. Two forms of sexual harassment exist under the law: the creation of an offensive or hostile environment (which may follow if Chris becomes unwillingly entangled in a romantic relationship with you) and quid pro quo, literally, “something for something” (which could exist if you offer Chris some kind of benefit at work in exchange for sex). Because of its brazen violation of the Do No Harm principle, sexual harassment is obviously inconsistent with ethical intelligence.
But an office romance between a boss and his or her subordinate doesn’t have to involve sexual harassment for it to be something that ethically intelligent managers and those who work with them avoid. The waters are simply too perilous to proceed on such a journey. As difficult as it is to “just say no,” this is what the ethically intelligent person does when considering whether to date someone at work.
If, however, two people simply can’t resist the call of Cupid, and there is not an imbalance of power between them, ethical intelligence calls for each person to be on a different team at work. Since preventing harm is an important corollary to the first principle of ethical intelligence, smart lovebirds at work, and those who manage them, will ensure that coworkers, clients, the company, and the lovers themselves are not at risk for getting hurt and that the couple’s first responsibility on the job — to do their work well — will not be compromised.
I know (and I’ll bet you do, too) several couples who met on the job and are now happily married or in a long-term, committed relationship. Two of my professors in college met their wives in class, which seems to provide some evidence against the argument that romantic relationships characterized by an imbalance of power are perilous. Human beings aren’t automatons, and as these examples suggest, it is indeed possible to conduct a love affair at work or in school with ethical intelligence.
But the fact that some folks can avoid the pitfalls of an office romance does not mean that this kind of relationship, generally speaking, is smart. In his memoir, Red: My Uncensored Life in Rock, Sammy Hagar talks about his love of driving fast on the freeway.1 He has been pulled over for speeding over forty times and once exceeded 150 miles an hour on Highway 101 in California. Fortunately, his passion for exceeding the speed limit hasn’t harmed anyone (yet), but even the man who wrote “I Can’t Drive 55” could hardly say that such a policy is a good idea.
Bottom line: Office romances are generally not consistent with ethical intelligence. Dating a coworker may seem to be a great way to apply principle 2, Make Things Better, to one’s own life, but this is likely to compromise relationships with coworkers, clients, and the employer. When Freud said that the two essential ingredients for a happy life are work and love, he didn’t mean that they’re to be found in the same place.
However, if two people at work do fall in love, the ethically intelligent thing to do is for managers to ensure that they don’t work together and for the lovebirds themselves to be as discreet as possible.
Can you think of a time in your life when there was more at stake politically in our country and the world than there is today? Or one that engendered such strong feelings about political issues? Or that featured so many nasty advertisements and personal attacks from candidates for election?
I can’t, and I grew up in the 1960s.
With so many troubling issues before us — a fragile economy, tremendous job insecurity, skyrocketing health-care costs — and news about these issues presented in emotionally charged talk radio and cable news programs, it’s an understandable impulse to discuss these issues at work, especially around election time. But talking politics on the job is not ethically intelligent.
Politics is a pillar of what I call the Fearsome Foursome topics of conversation. The others are sex, money, and religion. All four share certain characteristics:
• Each arouses strong feelings and deeply held beliefs.
• Each is associated with intensely personal values.
• It is difficult to have a rational discussion about each of these topics.
The most sensitive of the Fearsome Foursome is money. You’d probably be more willing to tell a coworker the problems you’re having in your sex life than to reveal how much you make a year. As emotionally charged as the topic of sex is, our financial status is an even more volatile one. Most of us feel that we don’t have enough money, we worry about being able to pay our bills, and we’re filled with anxiety about our retirement accounts (and with good reason, since the Wall Street scandals destroyed many of them).
Religion is another topic that is characterized by more divisiveness than consensus. Even though, as we saw in chapter 1, religious traditions are founded on the same ethical principles,2 discussions about religion are fraught with dangers, even between two people of the same faith.
But all topics in the Fearsome Foursome are inappropriate for workplace discussion because each one presents ready opportunities for violating the first principle of ethical intelligence, Do No Harm. Discussing any of them can cause harm to your relationships with coworkers, supervisors, and those who report to you; in addition, your own future at the organization can be put in jeopardy.
I’ll present two scenarios that illustrate these risks.
Scenario 1: When Coworkers Discuss Politics
Suppose that the race for the White House is under way, and each of the three leading parties has chosen its candidate — Pete Cochran, Linc Hayes, and Julie Barnes. (These happen to be the names of the members of the Mod Squad3 and do not intentionally refer to any real political candidate or party.) Also, I’ll refer to the hot-button topic in question as “XYZ,” which can stand for any law or public policy related in some way to violence.
Dave, Ari, Carol, and Miwa work in four conjoined cubicles. Dave is bored, so he strikes up a conversation with Ari.
DAVE. Hey, Ari, did you watch the debate last night?
ARI. Yeah. Linc Hayes won, hands down.
DAVE. Linc Hayes? That guy’s a nitwit. He’s for XYZ.
ARI. He’s right. We’d have a lot less violence everywhere if we had more XYZ. (Carol tries to focus on her work, but the issue of violence is a sensitive topic for her because a close family member died violently. She does her best to ignore Dave and Ari’s discussion.)
DAVE. Julie Barnes should be our next president. She’s against XYZ. Less XYZ is the only way to reduce violence. I checked the studies she talked about, and she’s right: XYZ is the problem, not the solution.
ARI. Julie Barnes? First of all, a woman will never be elected president in this country, so a vote for her is a vote thrown away. (Carol and Ari have worked together on several projects, but she never knew that Ari was for XYZ and viewed women in politics unfavorably.)
DAVE. Ari, you’re being sexist.
ARI, louder than before. I am not sexist. I’m just realistic about who can win. You’ve got your head in the sand if you think Julie Barnes stands a chance.
While Dave and Ari’s conversation escalates in intensity, Miwa is on the phone with one of her clients. She finds her colleagues’ discussion more interesting than the one with her client. She can’t wait for the phone call to end so that she can join in, because she has very strong feelings about XYZ.
In the course of a few minutes, Carol has decided she doesn’t want to work with Ari, Miwa’s attention has drifted away from her client, and Dave and Ari have dropped their work altogether.
This scenario is hardly the stuff of fantasy, and the way it progressed would be the case for any controversial political topic, not just XYZ. Note that both Dave and Ari want the same thing — less violence in society — but disagree strongly about how to achieve this goal. Even when two people want to get from A to B, the way to get there isn’t always clear. That’s why political discussions — which at their core are often about how to get from A to B — are so fraught with disagreement. It doesn’t matter what the political topic happens to be. The result is the same: talking about such matters at work makes it difficult to get one’s job done, and it can strain relationships that had previously been good ones.
Scenario 2: When the Boss Talks Politics
At the end of the day, Carol goes to her boss’s office to discuss a big project coming up. In the middle of the discussion, the boss casually mentions the political debate from last night.
BOSS. So did you catch the debate?
CAROL, trying to avoid a repeat of what happened between Dave and Ari. Um, yeah. I have a question, though, about this proj _____.
BOSS. What’d you think of Linc Hayes? He won, hands down.
CAROL, becoming increasingly uncomfortable. It was a good debate, I’ll say that.
BOSS, no longer interested in talking about the project. No, it wasn’t! And I’ll tell you why. Our country is in trouble. You know that, don’t you? (Carol has never talked politics with her boss before, and she doesn’t want to talk about it now, either.)
CAROL. The thing is, I’m not sure how to deal with this client _____.
BOSS. I’ll tell you why I like Linc Hayes. Among other things, he’s the only one with the courage to support XYZ. That’s the only way we’re going to reduce violence. You agree with me, right? (Carol is turning red now. In spite of her best efforts to talk about the project, she feels compelled to take a position.)
CAROL. Actually, I think Pete Cochran’s attitude toward XYZ is the right one.
BOSS. Pete Cochran? Are you serious? That guy is a complete nincompoop. His approach is going to increase violence, not reduce it.
Carol is now angry with her boss, both for dragging her into a political discussion and for supporting a different candidate. When she finally gets back to talking about the project at hand, she finds it hard to keep her mind on it. Her boss finishes the conversation by announcing that he’s going to put Ari on the project with Carol because she and Ari have worked well together before.
Carol wonders whether she should tell her boss that she’d rather not work with Ari now. But she suspects she’d be pressed to give her reason, which would just create more tension all around. Carol also wonders if her boss is assigning Ari because Ari is the best person to work on the project or because the two men have similar political convictions.
As election day approaches, Carol’s boss continues to chide her for supporting Pete rather than Linc.
Her performance review comes around, and Carol’s boss doesn’t mention politics. But shortly thereafter, Carol is surprised to discover that her boss has not recommended her for a raise, even though she believes her work has been exceptional and she has the evidence to support her belief.
This scenario is even more troubling than the previous one because much more is at stake. It was bad enough when a political discussion distracted four coworkers, but now, one of those employees may have been denied a raise because of political differences with her boss. There is a striking parallel here with the issue of office romances involving a person who has power over another. Just as an employee who breaks up with her boss and is denied a raise or promotion can never be sure that the bad romance wasn’t the culprit, Carol will never know whether her politics was the reason her boss decided against a salary increase.
Yes, it’s possible to have a rational, respectful discussion about political issues, even the hot-button ones, while at work. Hearing a colleague or boss talk about a topic like XYZ can help you understand competing points of view and perhaps become more sympathetic to those who hold positions different from your own. It’s even possible for you to change your mind when presented with strong counterarguments to your own position. Perhaps your coworkers have information that you haven’t considered, and those facts might make you reconsider where you stand. Even if you don’t end up changing your mind, listening nonjudgmentally to those with different points of view is a sign of maturity and good character.
But because political topics and elections stir up such strong emotions, and because it’s difficult to be reasonable and respectful when such emotions are aroused, talking politics at work is not consistent with ethical intelligence. Even if a majority of your colleagues are capable of engaging in thoughtful discussions, all it takes is one person getting wound up, and the problems begin.
Why are workplace discussions about politics so problematic compared with topics such as TV, music, movies, and food? For one thing, many people consider aesthetic judgments to be merely a matter of opinion. If you like Madonna and I like The Who, you may not share my taste for hard rock, but you probably don’t think I’m wrong for liking it. But if you support the political issue XYZ and I’m against it, you don’t think that I hold a different but equally valid point of view; you think I’m mistaken, and as a result, you may think less of me, which could strain our working relationship.4
There’s also more at stake in politics than in other realms. When the Mars company discontinued production of red M&M’s for a decade,5 fans of the colored treat were disappointed, but their lives weren’t ruined. You could have a lively debate with colleagues about the wisdom of this decision, and no one would be the worse for it. However, if another candy company were to cease all operations in the United States and expand its facilities in other countries, tens of thousands of people would lose their jobs, which would have a tremendous negative impact on families across the nation. Some of those affected may be related to your coworkers — or to you. Debating the wisdom of that corporate decision presents a much greater challenge to workplace harmony since the stakes are much higher.6
Besides, most political discussions have little, if anything, to do with the work at hand. It’s simply too easy to get sidetracked, and remain there, when the talk turns to politics. Ethically intelligent managers will discourage, if not prohibit, discussing politics on the job. When a supervisor isn’t around and a political topic comes up, the ethically intelligent employee will divert the discussion to less controversial matters. If a few folks are determined to argue about politics and it becomes difficult to do one’s job, then the ethically intelligent response is to let a supervisor know what’s going on and to ask for an intervention.
Even if there is a legal right to talk about politics (or any of the other Fearsome Foursome topics), it doesn’t follow that it’s appropriate or wise to do so. And it isn’t, because of the risk of harm to relationships with clients, colleagues, and supervisors.
Bottom line: Political discussions at work make it too easy to violate the first principle of ethical intelligence, Do No Harm, as well as the third principle, Respect Others. There is a time and a place for such talk — before coming to the office and after leaving it. As tempting as it may be to debate political issues at work, the ethically intelligent practice is not to do so.
Louise was one of the nastiest people I’d ever met. The overwhelming majority of the things coming out of her mouth were complaints of some sort, and no target was spared. Clients, coworkers, the weather — you name it, she complained about it. It surprised me that Louise had any friends at all since, by all appearances, she never had a good word to say about anybody or anything.
I did my best to stay clear of Louise, but it was impossible to avoid her completely. There was a small kitchen where some of us would have lunch, and inevitably she’d bring her sour spirit to mealtimes. I couldn’t understand why no one else seemed to be bothered by her constant barrage of negativity, but people just seemed to take her in stride.
As my work with the company progressed, Louise’s backstory began to emerge: She’d come to this country with nothing and had worked as a housekeeper for one of the in-house counsel. Her sponsor sent her to school and found a position for her within the company, where she ended up doing well. I began to see Louise differently; there was a reason why she presented a troubled persona to the world, and it was a good reason. She’d had a tough life.
Before I passed judgment on Louise, I should have remembered what Elvis sang in “Walk a Mile in My Shoes” or what Atticus Finch told his daughter, Scout, in To Kill a Mockingbird: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”7 Once I had a better understanding of Louise’s story, I became more sympathetic to her, which she may have sensed; one day, I ran into her on the street, and she gave me a big, warm hug. That sealed the deal: I would stop thinking harshly of Louise from that moment on.
It’s easy to be kind or loving to someone you like. The challenge for living with ethical intelligence is to do so when you have to deal with someone you can’t stand. Why should you bother to be loving toward the contemptuous, the hateful, the miserable, or people who are simply annoying?
The answer, in part, is that being loving toward others simply makes you feel better. Isn’t that reason enough to adopt a loving attitude in everything you do? It would be narcissistic, though, to say that the only reason to live with ethical intelligence is because it benefits you. This is indeed the case, but there is another good reason: all human beings have an inherent dignity, and your conscious choice to be a loving and kind person is a powerful way to honor that dignity.
As we saw in chapter 2, the first four principles of ethical intelligence — Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, and Be Fair — may be properly seen as principles of duty, whereas the fifth principle, Be Loving, is an ideal to which we should aspire. You can be faulted for intentionally harming someone, but it’s a stretch to say you’re acting unethically if you’re not loving to everyone you meet (especially the nasty and the unpleasant).
Nevertheless, ethical intelligence is a critical component of being fully human. To be ethically intelligent is to be committed to bringing out the best in others,8 which happens to bring out the best in you, too. So even if it is not, strictly speaking, ethically required that we be loving and compassionate to all, the ethically intelligent person recognizes it’s important and strives to do so as much as possible.
The challenge presented by the fifth principle of ethical intelligence is ultimately not the intellectual one of justifying it but the practical one of living by it. Even when you know it’s a good thing to be loving and kind to all, how can you do so with people who appear to have no interest in reciprocating?
In other words, how can you find a way to be a loving person in those situations where it would be much easier to be mean, spiteful, or antagonistic? Although I recognize how supremely difficult it is, here are my humble suggestions on how to do so.
1. Look at the world through the other person’s eyes. In the 1989 film Dead Poets Society, new teacher John Keating (played by Robin Williams) has each student stand up on his desk and look at the world from a new perspective. This simple exercise has profound implications when it comes to applying the fifth principle of ethical intelligence. It’s not easy to be loving toward the people who push your buttons, but seeing the world the way they do is a huge step in the right direction.
2. It’s usually not about you. What I learned from my experience with Louise is that what seemed to be hostility directed toward me and everyone else was actually an expression of her own frustrations. This speaks to one of Don Miguel Ruiz’s Four Agreements: “Don’t take anything personally.”9 (I was offended by this suggestion until I realized he wasn’t speaking to me directly.)
3. Ask for help. During my workshops, I ask for volunteers to present ethical problems they’re facing, because the collective wisdom in the room can provide solutions they wouldn’t have thought of on their own. Dispassionate observers aren’t emotionally invested in the problem and often come up with creative ways of getting past it. It also helps when someone says, “This happened to me, and here is how I handled it.” It’s good to know you’re not alone.
4. Being kinder to yourself makes it easier to be kinder to others. The converse is also true, as Mark Twain noted: “The best way to cheer yourself up is to try to cheer somebody else up.”10
5. Some people are going to be miserable, no matter what you do. It would be terrific if your best efforts to be kind and compassionate to all prompted others to do the same — but it won’t. Rather than get angry at these people, you’re better off not making enemies and wasting your energy, following Sir Mick Jagger’s advice in the song “Let’s Work.” I’ve found that having hateful feelings toward people who have wronged me does nothing to them but a lot of damage to me. Better to set those feelings aside and focus on better, more important things.
Here’s how to be ethically intelligent with your coworkers.
Because they risk violating the Do No Harm principle of ethical intelligence, office romances are not a good idea, however tempting they may be. Employees who cannot resist the call should not work on the same team.
Ethical intelligence is not compatible with office romances characterized by an imbalance of power.
Politics, sex, religion, and money constitute the Fearsome Foursome: topics that are ethically unintelligent to discuss at work because of the potential for harming working relationships and diverting attention from the job at hand.
It’s easy to be compassionate toward people we like. Finding a way to apply the fifth principle of ethical intelligence to those who rub us the wrong way is a formidable challenge — but not an insurmountable one. An ethically intelligent response to working peaceably with off-putting coworkers is to look at the world through their eyes. Appreciating the burdens they carry can help us understand why they are unpleasant to be around and may result in a better relationship with them.