Success at work means dealing effectively not just with those who have less power than you but also with those who have power over you. We’ll now consider how to be ethically intelligent when your boss:
• Says offensive things at work
• Criticizes you
• Gives you an assignment you object to
• Reveals that he or she has a problem with drugs or alcohol
A friend of mine — I’ll call her Barbara — works in the executive offices of a popular chain of grocery stores. Her boss — let’s call him Al — loves to tell jokes, and he tells them frequently. The problem with Al’s jokes is that they offend entire groups of people: women, gays, lesbians, African Americans, Jews, the disabled —Al makes fun of them all. Al’s defense is that he is an equal opportunity offender, so he’s not singling out any particular group. Barbara has been known to tell an off-color joke or two herself, but she takes care not to do so while on the job.
Last week, Al told Barbara that because of changes in company policy, both of them would be getting lower performance reviews this year, although each would be getting a raise. When Barbara expressed dismay at the lower rating, Al assured her that the important thing is that she would be getting more money.
“Barbara, you’re a whore, just like me!” he said with a smirk.
Barbara usually ignores Al’s locker-room style of humor, but this time she had to speak up.
“Wait a second, Al. Let me write that down for the lawsuit I plan to file.”
The normally talkative Al was caught off guard and stopped speaking for a moment. “Er,” he sputtered, “you know I’m only kidding.”
After an awkward silence, they moved on to discuss an assignment Al had given Barbara to do.
Al’s comment is a straightforward example of how to violate the first principle of ethical intelligence, Do No Harm, while at work. Although Al’s salty language constitutes an offense, not a harm per se, his churlish sense of humor may indeed interfere with Barbara’s ability to work well with him and to do her job to the best of her abilities. It isn’t a stretch, then, to suggest that Al’s boorish behavior harms his relationship with his direct report (and who knows how many others within his purview). Both the company for which they work and the customers they serve may ultimately be worse off because of Al’s trash talk.
Al’s claim that he meant no harm doesn’t let him off the hook. As the familiar expression says, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Whether Al likes it or not, his behavior sets the standards for how the people he manages comport themselves. If Al is known to tell racist, sexist, or homophobic jokes while on the job, he is essentially telling the office, “I’m not troubled by them, so feel free to indulge in them, too.” Being a manager brings with it some great benefits: a higher salary, the prestige associated with holding an influential position, and sometimes even a dedicated parking space. But with these benefits come responsibilities, and all of these duties are related in some way to ethical intelligence.
The ethically intelligent boss is, above all else, a leader committed to the principles Do No Harm, Make Things Better, Respect Others, Be Fair, and Be Loving. Having an ethically intelligent boss doesn’t guarantee that all team members will be committed to those principles, but an ethically unintelligent one all but guarantees that everyone else will not be at their best. At the very least, the disturbing lack of self-awareness that a boss like Al exhibits presents an obstacle to getting one’s work done well.
Ethical intelligence does not call for a workplace devoid of jokes and laughter. An office without an ounce of merriment would be a dreary place to be, and such an atmosphere could itself be a detriment to working effectively. What kinds of jokes are acceptable, and what should be considered off limits?
In chapter 5,I suggested that talking about the Fearsome Foursome — sex, money, politics, and religion — is not consistent with ethical intelligence because of the potential for harm to occur. It makes sense, then, that jokes about Fearsome Foursome topics should similarly be put on hold until after work (if they’re to be told at all). But there are other subjects that don’t make for ethically intelligent jokes in the workplace. Federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. But even if your organization is not covered by these laws, joking in the workplace about members of such groups is not ethically intelligent. Such jokes risk violating the Do No Harm and Respect Others principles, and they’re not kind or compassionate, either.
If your boss has a habit of making jokes that are rude, offensive, or mean-spirited, you have a right to encourage him or her to stop. Recall from chapter 2 that the first principle of ethical intelligence, Do No Harm, has an important corollary: Prevent Harm. One of the reasons that Al, the grocery store executive, trash-talks so often is probably because no one has called him on it (or no one did until Barbara stepped up to the plate). But old habits die hard, and if your boss simply won’t put an end to this boorish behavior, it may be necessary to get human resources or the designated office or person in the organization involved. It’s reasonable to have human resources take over, in part because this sort of problem is within their purview and also because it’s sensible to maintain a good working relationship with a boss, even a coarse one. As I’ll discuss in the next section, everyone should welcome constructive criticism (even if it comes from a direct report), but your boss might not see things this way and could hold it against you.
The purpose of such an intervention is not to punish Al but to help him become a better manager and set the highest possible standards for conduct while on the job. What Al jokes about at home is his business. What he does at work is everyone’s business.
The first job I had after graduate school was as an assistant professor at a large state university, and on occasion, I was called upon to write book reviews for scholarly publications. It was exciting to be in a position that commanded respect — my words were now going to be read by a worldwide audience, not just by my professors. But part of the thrill had to do with evaluating some of the same people whose work I had read as a student. Not only was I their colleague, but I also had a degree of power over them, which I thought was cool.
My first review was of a book written by someone my boss himself had studied under, and I had both positive and negative things to say about the work. I showed my boss a draft of the review and figured he’d be pleased with what I thought was a thorough, well-written critique.
His response took me by surprise. “Don’t take potshots if you don’t have to,” he said as he pointed out a troublesome passage. I don’t remember exactly what I wrote in that portion of the review, but I do know it was more a display of how clever I could be than an on-point discussion about the argument the book’s author was making.
Two things about the experience have stayed with me:
1. I learned to be on guard for using my power and authority to cut someone down to size.
2. My boss offered useful criticism without being unpleasant. In fact, it was his restraint that made the criticism so helpful. He modeled the right way to criticize and, in so doing, criticized me with ethical intelligence.
In chapter 6, we looked at ethically intelligent ways of giving criticism to team members. It’s now time to turn the tables and reflect upon how to accept valid criticism with ethical intelligence and how to respond when the criticism is wrongheaded, mean-spirited, or downright hostile.
Criticism done well seeks to get someone back on track, to inspire or motivate that person, and to bring out the best in him or her. Why, then, is it so unpleasant to be on the receiving end of any criticism, even that of the ethically intelligent variety?
It is extraordinarily difficult to see oneself accurately. No matter what your level of self-esteem is, you probably have a distorted view of who you really are. If your self-regard is in the mid- to high range, you’re more likely to notice the things you do well and overlook the things you don’t. If your self-esteem is, as Woody Allen, playing Isaac Davis, said to Diane Keaton’s character, Mary Wilkie, in Manhattan, “a notch below Kafka’s,” you tend to focus on the mistakes you make and forget or deny the things at which you excel.
Criticism of those with positive self-esteem challenges their view of themselves as beyond reproach, even when the criticism is ethically intelligent. “I can’t possibly be so flawed,” such a person thinks upon hearing such criticism, and his or her defenses go up. Accurate criticism for the Kafkaesque man or woman merely confirms his or her biggest fear: “I am indeed a flawed person.” This hurts, and it’s only natural to resist things that cause painful feelings. People with low self-esteem may cover up the sting of criticism by responding with resentment or anger. Any way you slice it, criticism doesn’t feel good and is understandably met with resistance.
But it’s one thing to appreciate why criticism is unpleasant and another to justify the natural tendency to push it away. When criticism is viewed objectively, apart from the trappings of one’s ego, one can see that it’s irrational to ignore good criticism. You can always do your job better, no matter how well you actually do it (or think you do). Accepting, even welcoming, ethically intelligent criticism is one of the best ways to grow professionally and personally. Living rationally means, in part, acting prudently, and taking good criticism to heart is simply a prudent thing to do.1
As the story about my boss illustrates, it is indeed possible for one’s superior to offer criticism with ethical intelligence. But other varieties of criticism seem far more common, and it’s worth expanding the scope of our investigation so that we can consider these types of critique. We live in an age where it’s possible to leave scathing criticism anonymously on the Internet, where “reality” TV and talk radio programs offer a constant display of the most childish ways to find fault with others, and where political candidates use personal attacks rather than reasoned argument to win elections. It makes sense that the term for personal attacks online is “flaming” someone; the point of such criticism is to hurt, to demean, and to leave scars. And it does.
As a public figure, I receive plenty of personal criticism, and I have to tell you that even though I’ve been doing my job for many years, such criticism hurts. After I’ve been interviewed on CNN or written an article for Bloomberg Businessweek online, a few disgruntled people will email me or submit a post filled with invectives, which I won’t bother reproducing here. I’ve noticed several recurring elements of critics who submit these hateful communications:
1. They usually hide behind nicknames and don’t provide their true identities.
2. They focus on my personal characteristics, my qualifications as an ethicist, how they themselves feel about me — everything but the arguments I’m making.
3. The nastier and more mean-spirited the criticism is, the more likely it is to be expressed poorly through sloppy grammar, frequent misspellings, and a tendency to overuse capital letters and exclamation marks.
Why are such critiques ethically unintelligent? First of all, they say nothing about the truth content of the position they’re attacking. Ad hominem arguments (arguments in which the object of criticism is the person rather than what he or she is saying) are fallacious. They’re not really arguments at all but expressions of raw, unexamined emotions. It doesn’t even matter how smart or successful the critic may be; even if William Shakespeare were to respond to my argument against office romances by proclaiming, “Bruce Weinstein is a pribbling, base-court apple-john,” it wouldn’t follow that anything I’ve said about the ethics of dating coworkers is wrong. I may indeed be mistaken, but Mr. Shakespeare’s attack against my person would say nothing about the validity of the argument I’ve made, even though his Elizabethan-era insults would make for a poetic zinger.2
Another reason why the forms of criticism I’ve mentioned are ethically unintelligent is that they’re intentional violations of the Do No Harm principle. Even though I realize personal criticism has no philosophical validity, being on the receiving end of it still is an unpleasant experience (though I wouldn’t mind the occasional Shakespearean slam, if only to enjoy the artistry that went into making it). I know that the kind of people who choose to write vindictive emails that seek not to enlighten but to destroy and who don’t even have the courage to be accountable have probably been beaten up in some way themselves — but it still hurts. If those bent on hurting people through Internet communication could see the effects of their actions, or if their identities were revealed in their emails and posts, I suspect that many of them would think twice before hitting Send.3
When someone criticizes you, even if it’s not your boss, an ethically intelligent response includes doing the following things.
1. Resist the urge to dismiss the critic. Considering what the person has to say will only strengthen your own understanding of the issue you care about. It’s hard to face your flaws, but if the criticism is offered with ethical intelligence, it’s in your own interest to pay attention. If you’re receiving the criticism in person, resist the urge to interrupt the critic and defend yourself.
2. Recognize that you may not be right. You may be unaware of one or more of the facts relevant to your argument, or you may have ignored some of the rules or principles at stake.
3. Realize that ad hominem attacks say more about the person making them than about you. Rather than sink to the level of such attacks, it’s wiser to ignore them.
4. Transform a glass of poison into a healing elixir. In my lectures, media interviews, and books, I use the personal attacks I’ve received as examples of how not to give effective criticism. Doing so alleviates their sting and may help others to resist taking the low road themselves. Tina Fey went so far as to put one nasty email on the back cover of her memoir, Bossypants,4 and her humorous discussion of it was prominently featured in the New York Times review of the work.5
But you don’t have to be a public speaker, TV pundit, or celebrity to turn malicious criticism into the stuff of ethical intelligence. Simply being aware of how lousy it feels to receive nasty correspondence can prompt you to avoid being a perpetrator of it. I often struggle with such ignoble impulses myself, so I know how hard it is to put this idea into practice.
5. Be grateful. After you’ve received constructive criticism, the best thing to say is, “Thank you.” You’ve just been given an opportunity to grow, and it’s a gift. If you’ve received ethically unintelligent criticism and you’ve taken the high road in response to it, you should be grateful for having resisted the impulse to lower yourself to the critic’s level.
Our goal in life can be to bring out the best in others and ourselves, or it can be to puff up our own egos and debase others by exploiting our power over them. If the first is our mission, we would do well to give criticism respectfully and receive it graciously whenever it is offered in good faith.
A few years ago, after working in the public relations field for a long time, Matt decided to launch his own firm. It has been a struggle, in part because the firm is based in one of the most competitive markets in the country. Kelsey is the newest member of the staff. Thanks to her superior networking skills, which is one of the main reasons Matt chose her for the position over dozens of other qualified candidates, she has amassed a lot of media connections.
Matt has just brought in a client named Justin, who has a self-published novel called January: The Cat Who Ate Little Rock. Having made a fortune in the oil and gas industries, Justin now wants to realize a lifelong dream: to have a bestselling book to his credit. He tells Matt he wants to get on the biggest TV shows, do readings in the country’s largest bookstores, and be reviewed in leading newspapers and magazines. When Matt appoints Kelsey as the head of Justin’s campaign, Kelsey takes the book home, reads it, and goes to Matt’s office first thing in the morning with a major concern.
KELSEY. Matt, this book is horrible! It’s easily the worst one I’ve ever had to represent. Every page is filled with misspellings and sloppy grammar, and — worst of all — the story is ridiculous! An alien cat named January lands in Arkansas and kills everything in its path? Who is going to read this junk? We’re leading Justin on if we allow him to believe this book can ever become a bestseller.
MATT. Kelsey, our job isn’t to pass judgments on our clients’ work. It’s to get them as much exposure as possible.
KELSEY. Well, I’m one of the best publicists around, but I’m not a miracle worker! Justin wants to be on the top morning TV programs? He’ll be lucky if he can get booked on public access at 2 AM! I’m telling you, there isn’t a single reputable outlet that would ever interview this guy.
MATT. Just give it your best shot. We owe him that, at least.
KELSEY. How can I pitch him with a straight face? Besides, I’ve developed good relationships with my media contacts, and they trust me when I pitch to them. They know I won’t waste their time. I have a good reputation, and I want to protect it.
MATT. Kelsey, this job isn’t about you — it’s about our clients! There are lots of things you can do for Justin. Sign up on Amazon.com for ten different accounts, then leave rave reviews about the book using each account. There are some paid services that will write positive reviews, too. Get on Facebook, Twitter, blogs. We just have to show Justin that his book is getting some publicity. (Pauses.) I know a lot of hungry publicists who wouldn’t have a problem with this. Do I have to say more?
Kelsey smiles wanly, leaves Matt’s office, and heads out for a coffee, furious about what she has been asked to do. She tries to consider her options but can’t focus for long on any of them because she’s so angry with her boss.
Kelsey is right to be troubled by what Matt is asking her to do. In the short run, Matt can indeed make some money with people like Justin, but if he makes a habit of it, his company will get a reputation for misrepresenting its clients. Misrepresenting the truth, which violates the third principle of ethical intelligence, not only shows disrespect for other people; it’s also disrespectful of one’s own enterprise. It’s both unethical and bad for business.
Matt’s call to plant positive reviews also does a disservice to the people who buy books, without whose support Matt’s business would not be possible. Many book lovers use reviews to help them decide which books to buy, and they trust that positive reviews are written by people who actually read and liked the books they’re raving about. If a reader can’t rely on a review being honest and accurate, rather than paid-for puffery, he or she would have no reason to bother reading reviews at all.
If Matt’s public relations plan became an acceptable industry practice, everyone would eventually be the worse for it: readers would have one less source to help them make informed decisions about what to read; authors would have fewer opportunities to get the word out about their work; clients like Justin would rightly feel ripped off for having had their (unrealistic) hopes encouraged and then dashed; and publicists would find it hard to get anyone to believe what they say, which would damage their own reputations and those of the businesses for which they work. In addition to compromising the third principle of ethical intelligence, Matt’s campaign violates the first principle, Do No Harm.
When I was a teenager, I was a member of the amateur (or “ham”) radio community, in which building one’s own gear was a mark of real accomplishment. I’ll never forget a passage in one manual I read that tried to steer the less than competent (like me) away from hack work: “There always have been, and there always will be, haywire artists, whose mission is to get the job done, no matter what.” Just substitute “unethical bosses” for “haywire artists,” and you have an apt description of people like Matt. Although the story I’ve presented (which is based on a true incident) is set in the world of publicity, unethical assignments can be found in any organization, business, or group — in other words, wherever there are people.
You have doubtless been asked to do something unethical at some time in your career. Perhaps you’re wrestling with this problem right now. It’s fitting, then, to consider the ethically intelligent way to deal with unethical job assignments.
Having a positive relationship with your boss is good for its own sake as well as for the sake of other things, such as raises, promotions, and recommendations to future employers. But you can’t rightfully be expected to fulfill ethically objectionable assignments. An ethically intelligent response is one in which you stand up for what’s right without jeopardizing the valuable relationship you have with your supervisor. Here’s how Kelsey (or you) can accomplish both of these important goals.
1. Explain to your boss why you believe the assignment is wrong. It’s possible that Matt doesn’t know that his campaign ideas for Justin are ethically unintelligent. He may think that because he and some of his colleagues write fake reviews from time to time, it’s okay to do this. He may believe that because a practice is accepted, it is acceptable.
Kelsey is right to be angry about this assignment, but her anger has gotten the best of her. It’s not easy to think straight when one’s emotions are overwhelming. Kelsey is more likely to prevail — and help Matt, his company, and Justin — if she can calmly explain to Matt why his plan is both wrong and bad for business.
She might begin, for example, by agreeing with Matt that she wants to help people like Justin. Matt should understand that Kelsey is on his side. The next step is to show why Matt’s plan will hurt, not help, Justin, as well as Matt and his company. Publicists who misrepresent their clients will not only not get their clients placed; they will also make it harder for future clients (who may actually have talent) to get booked. Like the boy who cried wolf, it’s hard to be believed after making intentionally false claims a number of times, and such a practice can have a greatly undesirable outcome.
Kelsey would do well to end the conversation by presenting some win-win solutions. She could help Justin get a good editor so that his book could be reworked into something that would be more marketable. She could recommend some classes Justin could take or books he could read that would help him sharpen his writing abilities. If Justin balks at such a proposal, Kelsey cannot in good conscience represent him and should refund his money.
2. Find a way to accomplish the objective of the assignment without compromising your integrity. Both Kelsey and Matt want to help Justin, and it’s possible to do this in an ethically intelligent manner. For example, Kelsey could target the public relations campaign to the niche audience of science fiction and fantasy fans who are also cat lovers, such as readers of blogs devoted to writers like Andre Norton (once Justin’s manuscript has been copyedited). It would also be important for Kelsey to manage Justin’s expectations. She should tell him that it’s possible that some mainstream magazines like Cat Fancy and The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction would want to apprise their readers of January: The Cat Who Ate Little Rock but that appearances on the top national morning TV shows are simply not a realistic goal.
3. Refuse to do the assignment. If Matt is a reasonable person — and it’s in his own interest to be — he will rethink his campaign ideas. But it’s possible that, for whatever reason (greed, hubris, or difficulty accepting criticism from subordinates, women, or both), he’ll reject Kelsey’s ideas. If he won’t take no for an answer, Kelsey must refuse to go along with the plan. Justin’s well-being and Kelsey’s own reputation are at stake, and she shouldn’t violate the first principle of ethical intelligence, Do No Harm, simply to collect a paycheck.
4. Pick your battles. Kelsey should take a hard line only if she is convinced this issue is worth fighting for, because by refusing to budge, she could lose her job. It’s a sign of her integrity that she is willing to take a stand against an unethical assignment, but only for truly egregious tasks should she seriously consider walking away or being let go. Kelsey could refuse to write bogus reviews but still do other kinds of work on the project.
5. Keep in mind you may be wrong. Kelsey would do well to get a reality check from someone she trusts. Perhaps Justin’s book isn’t as awful as Kelsey thinks it is. It’s important to pay attention when one feels the stirrings of injustice; it’s also important to ensure that what one believes is wrong really is wrong.
Tom is senior vice president of operations at a large insurance company. At the annual holiday party yesterday for Tom’s division, he got drunk and made a fool of himself — again. This is the fourth time in the past six months that Fred, Tom’s direct report, has observed such behavior. Tom did the same thing at the past two office parties and once at a bar after work.
Fred has smelled alcohol on Tom’s breath during the workday many times but has been reluctant to say anything for fear of angering Tom and jeopardizing Tom’s future at the company — and Fred’s as well. But the holiday party represented a new low: the more Tom drank, the more inappropriate his behavior became toward June, the youngest member of the staff. Risqué jokes gave way to Tom’s putting his arm around June and eventually pulling her toward him as if they were romantically involved with one another. Fred intervened several times, but Tom’s behavior continued on its downward spiral.
Last night, Fred couldn’t sleep. “How can I be the only one bothered by this?” he kept asking himself. Several times, he has heard people at the office talking about it, but they don’t seem to take it very seriously. He also thought about the other senior managers at the company. “Surely,” Fred reasoned, “Marla, Rashid, and Rick know about what’s going on with Tom. They’re the ones who should be doing something about this, not me.”
Today, Tom shows up late at work and doesn’t say anything about how he had conducted himself. Fred doesn’t know what to do now. He’s a few weeks away from getting his yearly bonus, and Tom has been talking recently about giving Fred a raise. But Fred is deeply troubled by what is going on with his boss and worries about the terrible things that could happen to Tom and other people if he, Fred, does nothing about the situation. Yet if Fred does get involved, there could be repercussions. “No matter what I do,” Fred tells himself, “it’s going to get ugly.”
To act with ethical intelligence often means doing something rather than nothing when you’re wondering, “What’s the right thing to do?” In this case, for example, ignoring the situation will allow a serious, potentially life-threatening problem to continue. Fred, however, is in a position to promote change. Keeping in mind the Prevent Harm corollary to the first principle of ethical intelligence, getting involved is the right thing for him to do. But what kind of involvement is called for? Talking with Tom about the issue may not help matters. After all, what is Tom likely to say? Most likely, one of the following things:
• “Oh, lighten up! It was a party! I was just having some fun.”
• “Yes, I know I have a problem, but I’m taking steps to address it. Thank you for your concern.”
• “I’m going through a tough time at home. Cut me some slack.”
• “It’s none of your business!”
Someone with a drinking problem usually can’t solve it on his or her own, so it’s misguided for him or her to say, “I can handle it.” If Fred wants his intervention to be effective, he will have to contact the appropriate department at the company. This will probably be human resources.
No one likes to do this sort of thing. Fred would reasonably fear that if Tom finds out that Fred initiated an investigation into Tom’s behavior, Tom might seek retribution. Many companies have antiretaliation policies, but reprisals can happen nevertheless. Tom might become angry with Fred. He might give Fred undesirable work. He might prevent Fred from getting a raise or a promotion, and in a worst-case scenario, he could find a way to fire Fred.
Then there is the sad reality that some attempts to get help for someone with an alcohol problem are met with indifference. I speak from experience. Many years ago, I took the keys away from someone who had had way too much to drink. A police officer who saw me doing this instructed me to give the woman her keys back and suggested that if I didn’t, I would be arrested. I returned the keys under protest, got the officer’s name, and called the sheriff the next day. The sheriff made light of the matter and said that he would not investigate it. Case closed.
There are thus several valid reasons for Fred to do nothing about Tom’s drinking problem. Nevertheless, the ethically intelligent question for Fred to ask himself is this: “Is it better to take steps to prevent harm to my boss and others, even at the risk of alienating him or not being taken seriously, or keep it to myself and hope that someone else gets involved or that Tom solves the problem on his own?” It’s true that Fred has an ethical obligation to himself to remain gainfully employed. It’s also the case that if Fred does nothing, the following harms could occur:
• Tom’s effectiveness as a senior manager could be compromised if he drinks on the job.
• Tom’s health could continue to spiral downward.
• Tom could drive while intoxicated, collide with other drivers, and hurt or kill people, including himself.
• Tom could get drunk at a restaurant, be recognized by several patrons as a senior manager at the company, lose several potential clients, and damage the company’s reputation.
Fred has good reasons to do nothing, but he has better reasons to take the appropriate measures to get help for Tom. Fred’s dilemma presents a striking example of how difficult it can be to make ethically intelligent choices. It also suggests that finding some way to make those choices can prevent serious harm to a whole lot of people — and bring out the best in you, the person with the courage to make the tough choices.
I asked two experts in the field of substance abuse and treatment what their thoughts were on this case study. “The best outcomes occur when [human resources] departments insist on a professional evaluation rather than accuse the individual of having a drinking problem,” said Dr. Omar Manejwala, medical director of Hazelden, one of the world’s leading treatment centers for drug and alcohol addiction.6 Dr. Manejwala added that Tom’s situation is relatively common, and he cited a recent study by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which found that 8 percent of employed men and women have a substance abuse problem.7
Chuck Rice, a licensed alcohol and drug abuse counselor at Hazelden who is in recovery himself and uses his experience to help addicts,8 told me how important it is for people in Fred’s position to take action. “In my thirteen years of experience treating men with chemical dependency, the workplace is generally the last area of a man’s life to be impacted by alcohol or drug use,” Rice said. “By the time it starts to show up in the work environment, it is likely that the rest of his life is in shambles. Nothing will get an employed male into treatment faster than some form of workplace intervention or mandate. Often, the mere threat of such is sufficient.”9
Both Dr. Manejwala and Chuck Rice emphasized that as unpleasant as an intervention can be for all concerned, it is quite possible for the addicted employee to be successfully treated and eventually return to work. But if no one else is willing to make the first move, Fred (and others in his position) will have to do so.
Here are some ways to respond with ethical intelligence to boss-related issues.
Offensive language after hours is merely offensive, but at work, it can damage relationships with clients, harm the company’s reputation, strain working relationships, and call one’s leadership ability into question. Just as your boss has a right to expect you to comport yourself professionally while you’re on the job, you have a right to expect this of your boss. It’s best to bring up your concerns directly rather than start with human resources or your boss’s supervisor. If your boss persists in the uncouth behavior after you’ve raised the issue with him or her, the Prevent Harm corollary to the first principle of ethical intelligence calls upon you to take your concerns to the appropriate party.
No one likes to be criticized, but ethically intelligent criticism helps you do your job better and perhaps grow as a person, too. Other varieties can be demoralizing and hurtful. Personal attacks, inappropriate displays of anger, and other forms of wrongful criticism are at odds with ethical intelligence, and as with the trash-talking boss, you have a right not to be subjected to such conduct. It’s bullying, and you deserve better. But you’ll have to speak up to get it to stop.
There are lots of reasons why you might object to an assignment. Merely finding the task distasteful or unpleasant doesn’t justify a refusal. But if you’re asked to do something that could harm you or others, could exploit clients, or involves committing other unethical acts, there are several ethically intelligent options: refusing to participate and finding creative ways of getting the job done in an ethical fashion are two noteworthy ones. Even if your job requires taking risks (such as removing asbestos or controlling pests), you have a right to have potential harms minimized.
It’s hard enough to intervene when someone close to you is wrestling with an addiction, but when the addict is your boss, you are forced to make one of the most difficult decisions you’ll ever confront: do nothing, which is easier and more likely to keep your relationship intact, or contact the appropriate office or person in your organization, which may very well anger your boss if he or she finds out. Even with nonretaliation policies in place, we all know that people can find a way to get back at the whistleblower. But if you view an intervention not as punishment but as the most caring thing you can do for your boss and others who might be affected by your boss’s behavior, then the answer is clear: you must intervene. The question is this: Can you find the courage to do it?