ThreeWays to Strengthen Our Ethical Muscles

Three Ways to Strengthen Our Ethical Muscles

As an ethics teacher for almost a decade at the University ofTexasatAustinandanexecutivecoachtomunicipaland corporate leaders throughout the state, I’m often brought into confidence when people are wrestling with ethical issues.Inmyexperience,threetechniquesmosteffectively buildourethicalmusclesand,evenunderpressure,helpus arrive at sound moral decisions.

1. Distinguish between ethical choices and ethical dilemmas.

When I taught ethics to freshmen at the University of Texas,studentsoccasionallyaskedformyopinionontheir ethical struggles. One such student told me of a promise she’d made to visit her elderly grandmother once a month at a nursing home about an hour from Austin. Her grandmother was expecting her for dinner that evening, but the student was having second thoughts about going because she had been invited to a concert that evening by a student she’d had a crush on all semester.

The student didn’t have an ethical dilemma, she had an ethical choice. In an ethical choice, there’s a right answer…youjustmightnotwanttochooseit.Inanethical dilemma, there’s an ethical downside to whatever you decide, because values are in tension or in outright conflict. This is what makes distinguishing an ethical choice from an ethical dilemma so important. When we know we’re dealing with an ethical choice, there is a right answer; we just have to find it. When it’s an ethical dilemma, we can stop the fruitless search for a right answer, identify the values in tension, and choose the value we want to lean toward to resolve the conflict.

As an executive coach to city leaders, it’s my privilege to collaboratively think through some of the ethical choices and dilemmas that many of you face. When doing this, I often face my own ethical choice: Should I tell you what you want to hear, which will preserve and possibly strengthen our relationship, or should I tell you what you need to hear, which might cause (and has caused) you to find an advisor more “aligned” to your point of view. It’s ethics when you feel it. If there’s no consequence—if there’s no skin in the game—it’s ethical talk, not ethical action.

The most effective way to tell if you are dealing with an

ethicalchoiceistolookfortemptation:Areyoutemptedto say yes to a cute guy instead of traveling an hour to visit your ailing grandmother? Are you tempted to tell a client what she wants to hear instead of what she needs to hear? Are you tempted to gently encourage a friend to pitch a city contract low enough to prevent a full-on bidding process instead of letting the process play itself out? Are you tempted to accept a campaign contribution from someone you really don’t trust, or do you politely decline the donation?

Forethicalchoices,the10/10/10rulecanhelpyouuncover the right answer. Ask yourself how you ’ll feel about your decision10weeks,10months,and10yearsfromnow,and the temptation at the heart of the choice usually reveals itself as the exercise illuminates a timeless moral lesson: temptation today, regret tomorrow. Distance from the decision provides context, and context often distinguishes what you want to do from what you should do.

2. Use your core values in ethical dilemmas, because that’s when you need them the most.

In an ethical dilemma, no matter what you decide, there’s anethicaldownside.There’snoethicaldownsidetotelling someoneyoulikethatyoucan’tgooutonadate,totelling aclientwhatsheneedstohear,tolettingabiddingprocess play itself out, and to refusing a campaign contribution from someone you don’t trust. There are only practical downsides in these cases, and conflating something practicalwithsomethingethicalonlymakesithardertodo the right thing. Your core values—the things you believe most deeply—are your best guides in ethical dilemmas, because you are going to have to live with an ethical downside no matter what you select.

Nate Self, a combat veteran who is a friend of mine, told me about a firefight in Afghanistan where a few of his soldiers had become seriously wounded. Nate called for a medical evacuation helicopter to get medical care for the wounded troops, and his higher headquarters asked if the shooting had stopped because they didn’t want to risk landing a helicopter in the middle of a firefight. Nate’s ethical dilemma was that he could either tell the truth— that the fighting was ongoing—and some of his most seriously wounded soldiers might die waiting to be evacuated. Or, he could lie to get his wounded troops evacuated quickly, but he’d put more people at risk in the process.

ThebroadoutlineofNate’sethicaldilemmawasafamiliar one: Truth versus Loyalty (we discuss other common dilemmas below). Nate wanted to do everything he could to take care of his seriously wounded troops, which would uphold the loyalty value (a deeply held value among soldiers). But if Nate said it was safe to land the medical helicopter, he’d violate the truth—integrity is another strongly embedded military value—and possibly put others in harm’s way. Nate chose to redouble his efforts and the energy of his troops to fight their way off the battlefield so their wounded colleagues could eventually get treatment. He resolved the dilemma by favoring his core value of integrity.

Some of you might have chosen differently than Nate, but that’s precisely the point. There isn’t a correct, cost-free answer to an ethical dilemma, so you will have to pick from competing values—you have to decide—to resolve the value conflict. Most of us first experience the Truth versus Loyalty value conflict as children when a parent or a teacher asks us to confirm the misbehavior of a (guilty) friend or sibling. Do I tell the teacher that my friend Johnnywassmokinginthebathroom(truth),ordoIcover for him (loyalty)? It’s the same basic value choice that Nate faced inAfghanistan, but with lower stakes.

Helpfully,theethicistRushworthKidder,inhisbookHow Good People Make Tough Choices, illuminates five pairs of values which are commonly in tension during ethical dilemmas (I’ ve adapted Kidder’s categories slightly to best fit public service professions):

Truth versus Loyalty

In the case above, Nate chose truth over the loyalty value, and he has to live with the outcome of his decision:There are no cost-free decisions in ethical dilemmas. Telling the truth might mean that his wounded soldiers die. On the other hand, telling the helicopter to land might mean that the helicopter crew dies. We get to make our ethical selections, but we don’t fully control the outcomes. (You can find out what happened in Nate’s excellent book,Two Wars.)

Individual versus Community

For many citizens, deciding to run for public office is an individualversuscommunityvaluedilemma:DoIgiveup the perks of a private life (individual) to serve my city in themoretransparentrealmofpublicservice(community)? As public officials, you might favor the community value,

but you ’ ve likely had trying moments during your career whenyouwonderedifyoumadetherightdecisionforyou andyourfamily.Andoneday,youmightconcludeit’stime to put your own interests and the interests of your family first by leaving public service. Both decisions will be ethical: You simply leaned one way when you entered (community), and the other when you left (individual). Ethical priorities can change over time.

Short-term versus Long-term

As you well know, elected and appointed officials frequently resolve short-term vs. long-term dilemmas. Howcanweincreaserevenueorreducecoststoday(shortterm) to set up our city for future success (long-term)? Should we have a bond election this year (short-term) to pay for a new public service training facility, or set aside funds for the next ten years (long-term) to fund it?

Justice versus Mercy

Not too long ago, a Department of Public Safety trooper pulled me over for speeding between Hereford and Dimmit. The values in tension for the trooper were justice (ticket) and mercy (warning). Although I was relieved when he chose mercy, he would have been well within his rights, ethically, to choose justice.

Rule versus Principle

Like many of you enrolled in United’s frequent flyer program, I received an email recently from United’s CEO apologizingforforciblyremovingacustomerfromaflight because the customer wouldn’t give up his seat, for compensation, to a crewmember who needed to get to work. In the letter, the CEO pointed out that United had a rule (crewmembers needing seats take priority over other passengers) that conflicted with a company principle (customers are our priority). Said differently, company policycreatedthedilemmainthefirstplace.Tounwindthe dilemma, United’s CEO announced in the letter that the airline was changing the rule in favor of the principle: Paying customers will no longer be involuntarily removed from flights.

3. Pick yourself up when you stumble, because no one is (ethically) perfect

We all occasionally make poor ethical choices: the student willgooutonthedateandleavegrandmaalonefordinner; I’lltellaclientwhat’seasyinsteadofwhat’scontroversial; you ’ll accept a campaign contribution from someone you distrust. In these instances, we may have fallen short of who we aspire to be, but should remember the words widely attributed to George Eliot: “It’s never too late to be what you might have been. ” And sometimes the outcomes of our ethical dilemmas will makeitseemlikewewerefoolishtopickthevaluewedid. Thetrooperwhogavemeawarningwatchesindisbeliefif I do a wheelie on my way back onto the highway. The private citizen who subjects himself and his family to the brutal transparency of a campaign ends up losing the election. My friend who tells the helicopter pilot the truth ends up losing one of his wounded soldiers. We don’t fully, or sometimes even partially, control outcomes, and looking back in regret on how our ethical dilemmas worked out is unfair and counterproductive because it doesn’t account for what might have happened: I might have driven more safely; the citizen might have won the election; more people might have died if Nate had called in the chopper.

There’s no such thing as ethical perfection, but ethical progress certainly exists. Our shared goal is to strengthen our ethical muscles so that we more consistently arrive at thekindsofdecisionswe’llbeproudofyearsfromnow— for ourselves, for our cities, and for the ethical legacy we aspire to leave behind.

Geoffrey Tumlin is a featured speaker at the 2017 TML Leadership Academy on the topic of ethical leadership. Geoffrey is president of On-Demand Leadership, and is the author of, Stop Talking, Start Communicating. He travels extensively throughout Texas helping leaders and their teams improve.

Reprinted with permission of Texas Town & City, published by the Texas Municipal League.

Pool Testing

Municipalswimmingpoolsarenolongerregulatedby the State of South Dakota, however, these facilities should be tested for coliform bacteria during each weekofoperation.

All pool samples should be tested for “total coliform” ,whichisanindicatorbacteriafordrinking water and pools. j “Total Coliform - Negative” means that no coliformbacteriawerefoundandthewaterissafe. j “Total Coliform - Positive” means that coliform bacteria were found.

Two or more consecutive positive samples indicates a general trend of bacteria presence in the pool. Corrective measures should be taken, such as superchlorination, to prevent a health related incident caused by poor water quality.