Reflections on Kramer's Article "The Harder They Fall"

October 30, 2018

In his excellent article, Kramer discusses the phenomenon of people who ascend to the pinnacles of their profession and subsequently fall from grace.  These people appear to have it all; money, job, prestige, and power.  Why do they lose it?  Could they have avoided those mistakes?  Kramer provides some good interesting strategies that could be pursued to prevent such dramatic falls from grace.  I will discuss three such examples of a fall from grace that occurred in society, at work, and in my personal life.

Societal Example

Kevin was an outstanding Catholic Priest.  He was 29 years old, tall, athletic, and very good looking.  Kevin was something more.  He was an extremely spiritual and holy individual.  The goodness of his soul seemed to emulate from around him like some barely visible energy field.  Kevin had made it through high school, college, and the Catholic Seminary in great order.  Where ever he was in life, he excelled and wowed people with his charisma.

I got to know Kevin better during a weekend spiritual retreat sponsored by St. Patrick’s Church in Brighton, MI.  Kevin was the associate pastor of St. Patrick.  During the weekend, we reflected on our lives, meditated, played sports, conducted group inquiries into philosophy, and sang songs.  It was a tremendous experience that is still with me 20 years later.

One day, during a summer-time Mass in 1998, Kevin prepared to give his homily.  A homily is usually a collection of the Priest’s thoughts & reflections on the Bible readings of the day, and how they could best be applied in our everyday life.  The congregation was prepared to hear Kevin’s thoughts.  Kevin always gave relevant and powerful homilies.  Kevin opened by stating the following: “I am leaving the Priesthood to get married to xxx, and nothing can change my mind about this.”  He further explained that he would not have joined the Priesthood if he had not been convinced that the Bishops of Rome would reverse their position on Priests taking wives.  It was a shocking announcement.  There was anger.  There was a sense of betrayal.  There was a sense of abandonment.  My reaction was sadness.  I was saddened that our Parish was about to lose this great Priest because the Church could not allow married Priests within their ranks.  (They do!)  I know a Catholic Priest in Corpus Christi that is married.  He was a married Protestant Minister and he converted to Catholicism and the Priesthood.  How unfair is that? 

The point here is, Kevin’s behavior towards women changed from when he was an aspiring Priest to another perspective after he was ordained into the Priesthood.  I am not saying that his choice was wrong.  However, just as some of Kramer’s examples changed their behavior once they attained a goal, this example is similar.  Just like the Kramer examples, Kevin suffered a huge fall from grace due to his actions.

Professional Example

Most of us know people who have done “everything”.  There isn’t an experience that they haven’t had or something that they haven’t done in their lives.  If they can convincingly articulate their experiences (real or imagined!), they can move up in the ranks of an organization.  We had one such guy where I currently work at.  He was known for always “having been there and done that”.  Behind his back, he was derided as a “legend in his own mind”.  This person, we will call him “Rick”, moved up rapidly.  His behavior also changed as he moved up. 

He was no longer respectful of people.  At company gatherings, he was loud, obnoxious, and usually drunk.  People began to lose respect for him.  As the director of a key area in the organization, he was tolerated by people.  That all changed when it was revealed that due to his direct actions, his directorate lost the organization millions of dollars over the past several years.  Rick was then publicly humiliated by being removed from his directorship and demoted.  Rick could have avoided this if he had paid attention to a few simple rules.  Social graces, moderate drinking, and a humble profile would have served him well.  In addition, although he moved up the ladder by appearing to know everything, that very trait got him into trouble with his directorate.  Rick did not like to ever receive advice or information.  He always thought that he knew more than anyone else, so he did not ever have to consider an alternative viewpoint or course of action.  I took no pleasure in seeing Rick fail.  However, reading Kramer’s article reminded me of that situation.  This was a time where Rick’s “know-it-all” attitude should have been jettisoned and replaced with a humble inquiring mindset.  He made it to the top but proceeded to fail.

Personal Example

My last example comes from a tale of two brothers (cousins of mine).  The younger brother appeared to have life mastered, while the older brother struggled.  Whereas the older brother struggled in his personal and professional life, the younger brother appeared to have an easy path in his personal and professional life.  The younger brother was educated, articulate, and good looking.  He was also personable, athletic, and tall.  On the surface, he appeared to have it all.

The younger brother attained a wealthy status.  He owned multiple homes, had boats, cars, motorcycles, money in the bank, and investments.  He was married to a beautiful woman and they had three kids together (since grown and out of the house).  The younger brother appeared to have it all, then fell from grace.  The traits that brought him to the top were abandoned.  He was described as perpetually angry, bitter, and critical of everyone around him.  His brothers and sisters stopped associating with him.  His kids stopped coming around except when they were expected to.  He was fired from his job.  Finally, he discovered that his wife, unhappy for over 20 years, had started seeing someone else.  He had received the wake-up call of his life! 

Meanwhile older brother finally got settled in life and appeared to have caught up to his younger brother.  The older brother was different in that he was not bitter, angry, or critical of others.  Instead, he appeared to have learned some valuable lessons in life and was now very pleasant to be around.  The older brother received a call from his younger brother in which the younger brother made a serious attempt to make amends for his actions over the course of their lives.  Of course, the older brother accepted his overture and they both forgave each other and promised to do better in the future.  But, what went wrong with the younger brother?

I can’t say for sure what went wrong.  I can only speculate since I heard the story second-hand.  However, sometimes when a certain level of success is attained, such as surpassing what one’s parents did in life, a pent-up bitterness at the unfairness of it all explodes.  I believe this happened to my cousin.  He appeared to have all the attributes of a successful person, but his strengths that he relied on during his ascent to the top, he abandoned.  Not only that, he abandoned his religion as well.  Contributing to the mess was probably a lack of emotional intelligence (EI) development, during his climb to the top.  (He and his wife are attempting to make their marriage work and are involved in counseling.  He has also revived his interest in the Catholic church.)  I hope that all turns out well for him.  The one thing that Kramer did not cover in his article, was a fall from grace that included a subsequent rebound after learning the lessons of what caused the fall.

Respectfully,

John Hescott

References:

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall (Links to an external site.) . (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

Hescott, John. (2017-2018).

Two Theories of Ethics: Consequentialism & Deontology

October 23, 2018

Consequentialism.

Consequentialists say that people are “morally obligated” to act in ways that produce the best outcome for others.  LaFollette in his book, uses the examples of choosing a job or a major in college, with the best outcome in mind for the one making the decision.  Those examples could be called prudence.  Prudence is different from overall Consequentialism in that prudence refers only to what is best for an individual making those choices.  Consequentialism considers the interest of all who are affected by a decision.  This is a huge undertaking.  Further, Consequentialism requires three steps to be taken in a moral decision.  A. Which consequences are morally relevant? B. How much weight should we give to those consequences? & C. A set of rules or guidelines in how to use these factors in moral reasoning.  So far, this sounds great.  There are problems of course.

First, one cannot possibly know all the consequences that a moral decision or non-decision can have on others (and how many others at that).  Many consequences are “hidden”.  They are not known to the person making the decision.  A good example of this is found in the movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life”.  James Stewart played the lead character, George Bailey, who ran into some financial trouble and potential scandal.  He “wished that he had never been born”, and his guardian angel granted him that wish to show him the “consequences” of that decision.  George is subsequently dumbfounded and confused about the condition of this “alternate reality”.  Apparently, George was such a good person in his real life, that his actions (most of them moral and correct) had a widespread but hidden consequence for a great number of people.  I can’t think of a better example to illustrate the hidden consequences that our moral decisions create.  It is also part of why Consequentialism is such a huge undertaking.  The two other problems that Consequentialism has, is that it lacks a moral foundation in its code, and it has a branch of its theory called Utilitarianism.  A Utilitarian would think it is perfectly okay to kidnap a healthy person off the streets, kill him, harvest his organs, and save 5 other people (LaFollette, 2007).  What?  That is an extreme example of Utilitarianism, but it illustrates the two main problems that I have with Consequentialism.

Deontology.

Deontology contends that there are strict moral codes and limits as to what we can do to other human beings.  They would be shocked as I was, with the example of the utilitarian kidnap scenario.  Deontology appears to abide by the golden rule; do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  That is an abbreviated definition of the golden rule, but the point is made.  Deontologists often clash with Consequentialists even in circumstances when they agree on the choice being made.  They disagree in the reasoning that led them to the same conclusion.  For instance, If I made a promise to take a co-worker to get his car out of the repair shop.  The correct decision is to fulfill that promise.  A consequentialist would say that I should keep my promise only because failing to do so, may lead to some bad outcome for my co-worker.  A deontologist states that I should keep my promise because it is the morally correct thing to do.  Both theories arrived at the “correct” solution, but for very different reasons.

One of the advantages of deontology is that it reflects the moral code that most of us were brought up with in our homes and in our churches. The other advantage is that consequentialism, taken to extreme, becomes very unappealing.  Immanuel Kant was one of the great thinkers in Deontology that was quoted extensively in LaFollette’s book.  Kant says, “People ought to be moral, period – no matter what their desires or interests, or beliefs” (LaFollette, 2007. p. 34).  I agree with him on that point.  Where I disagree with Kant, is when he asserts that people should be moral at all times, and implies that we are born with that trait and knowingly deviate away from it.  Deontologists also have two diverging points of view.  They can either give something some moral weight when determining the consequences of their decisions, or they must simply state that consequences do not matter and a strict moral code must be followed always.  A good example of that, would be Jim Carrey’s movie, “Liar Liar”.  In this movie, his son makes a birthday wish that his dad (Carrey) could not lie for 24 hours.  The results are hilarious.  Part of the reason the movie is so funny is because it strips away everything – down to the white lies that people tell daily.  Are white lies immoral?   The answer is that sometimes they are.

Conclusion.

I find myself more in line with the deontology point of view on ethics.  One reason is because they utilize a moral code and incorporate the golden rule.  Another reason is because they don’t totally discount the weight of moral decisions that consequentialists give to everything.  However, unlike the pure consequentialist, they don’t have to make a decision based upon external consequences to others.  They can consider it, but they are not forced into any such decision.  I think it is prudent to give weight to moral decisions and to look at the resulting consequences, if possible.  As stated in our examples, we cannot always know what the consequences are of one of our decisions.  Some of them remain hidden.  That is why some people, such as myself, seek wisdom and hidden knowledge.  It becomes a habit as well as a life-long pursuit.  Good luck to all in your search.

Respectfully,

John Hescott

References:

LaFollette, Hugh. (2007) The Practice of Ethics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing

John Hescott (2017-2018)

The Train Dilemma – Reflection Blog  MSLD 634

 

October 17, 2018

 

Scenario 1:  A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switch person.  By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.  Will you throw the switch?

 

This appears to be a “no-win” situation regardless of the choice made.  Simple logic would tell someone to sacrifice one, so that others could live.  Therefore, throwing the switch sacrifices one to save the other five.  An example of this reasoning happened during WWII.  Winston Churchill’s intelligence agency had broken the German codes from their enigma machine.  Churchill knew that if the Germans kept bombing the airfields, aerospace factories, and military harbors, that England would certainly lose the war.  Churchill cleverly provoked Hitler into changing his bombing targets by a spectacular bombing raid of Berlin (like Doolittle’s raid on Tokyo later in the war).  Hitler was enraged and ordered the British cities to burn.  With the code broken, Churchill knew of an impending attack.  He considered the codes so valuable that he ordered no air raid warnings to be sounded, no aircraft flying to meet the attack, and no black-out procedures for the targeted cities which included Coventry.  The attack came as what the Germans believed to be a complete surprise.  17,000 British citizens lost their lives on that first air raid.  Was this a moral ethical decision?  Certainly, keeping the secret of breaking the enigma codes was vital.  It probably helped win the war and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  Was the enough justification for the decision he made?

 

I believe that in an instance of the train dilemma, I would throw the switch.  Is that the right decision?  Who knows?  In today’s world, I may end up getting charged with murder regardless of what decision I made.  There are also the after-effects of guilt to deal with, for having to make such a horrible decision.

 

Scenario 1A: Same scenario except:  You are standing next to an elderly man.  If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved.  Will you push him? 

 

The ethical dilemma posed is tricky because it is an “old man”.  Does that justify killing him to save the 5 children?  Again, logic may say so, but what would Jesus do?  Let’s not be funny and say that he would stop the train himself.  Would Jesus push the old man in front of the train to save the 5 children?  What about sacrificing oneself instead of the old man?  That would be a higher calling of spiritual morality.  I should say that most people wouldn’t do it.  I am reminded of the movie, “Message in a Bottle”, where the lead character played by Kevin Costner must decide whether to try and save a drowning woman, after saving her son and husband.  The odds of saving the woman were slim and no one could have faulted him for not trying.  In the end, he did and saved neither himself or the woman. 

 

In the end, a conscious decision may not even be made.  The self-preservation instinct in human beings is strong.  What would God’s judgement be upon a person if he made no choice and let the tragedy happen?  It would be difficult for me to justify any decision made.  Therefore, it is possible that I could “freeze” in the situation, not knowing what to do, and the 5 children would die.  The only consolation for me would be that I didn’t have to kill someone (outside of war) to save other lives.  That wouldn’t make the result any happier or better.  I guess I would have to honestly answer that I don’t know what I would do.  Any action or inaction on my part would probably be on some sort of “auto-pilot”.  One also has to be careful not to step on the slippery slope.  For if killing in this one instance is okay, where is the new line drawn?  There is the question that was brought up in the first scenario.  Could I as the responsible person be charged with murder of: 5 children, an old man, or one child?  I don’t know the answer to that question either.  It all depends on how the situation was perceived by others and what they thought what the right thing to do.  This also plays into the self-preservation mode that human beings have.  Would I like to be incarcerated or executed for any decision that I made in this situation?  Probably not.  Therefore, what should one do?  My answer is:  I don’t know.

 

Scenario 1B:  Same scenario except:  The one child on the side track is your child.  Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

 

In this scenario, the outcome is also a no-win situation, but I, like most people, would instinctively save my child.  Is that, morally right?  How many people would willingly sacrifice their child to save others?  I am betting not too many.  Abraham, in the Old Testament, was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar because God told him too.  Evidently, that story demonstrates the moral, ethical dilemma most people would have when faced with a choice of sacrificing one of their children.  Further, I believe that most people would not have the time nor the inclination to think out the “rational” solution.  The decision making logic of this scenario, is less clear and harder to prove when faced with one’s own child at risk.  I believe that I would save my child and it wouldn’t be a drawn-out decision.  I may freeze when faced with the unpalatable choice in the scenario above, but I don’t believe I would freeze in this one.

 

Regarding the train dilemma, I know that different cultures would react differently to ethical decisions.  Orientals may not make the same choices as Europeans, who would not make the same choices as Americans.  The factors surrounding the decisions are based on moral upbringing in the family and/or religion, ethical & moral education, specific crisis related training, and the culture that one hails from.  None of these answers have moral absolutes tied to them.  As with many choices in life, there is black, white, and varying shades of gray.  It is up to everyone to decide what shade they decide to participate in.

 

References:

 

Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11486219

 

Stevenson, William. (1976) A Man Called Intrepid. New York: Sky Horse Publishing

 

Movie: “Message in a Bottle” starring Kevin Costner (1999)

 

Old Testament, Genesis (Unknown)

 

John Hescott (2017-2018)