Planning a Good Murder

This is one of my favorite stories, from a veteran high school teacher, Mr. R., who was covering an ethics unit for a senior [critical thinking] class.

After covering the fine points of ethical thought and behavior, the big assignment was to get into small workgroups to plan the perfect murder.

Students who’d been disengaged lit up and got involved. Individuals who hated group projects re-engaged with enthusiasm. Kids in other classes said, “Awww…I wish I had that class.” For a couple days, even Facebook was deserted in favor of this assignment.

By deadline, these bloodthirsty students had their Powerpointed schemes all worked out. That is, until Mr. R. asked the showstopper question:

“This is a unit on ethics. Did anyone at any point speak up against this?”

They stared at him the way a lab full of monkeys would stare when all the bananas are inexplicably removed.

 “But you sort of gave us permission,” argued one student, “when you made it a homework assignment.”

“And we all know it’s not for real,” said another. “No one really gets hurt.”

I know that in business many things can be forgiven if the right outcomes ($$$) are produced, and in recent years it’s become socially acceptable, even hip, to laugh over the “cleverness” of people who win profits by pulling off some ethical sleight-of-hand.

But here are the questions that teacher posed:

• If someone in a position of authority initiates or sanctions what you know to be wrongdoing, does that make it all right?

• If you’re told that it’s not for real, if you can’t see the victim, or are assured the wrongdoing is a victimless crime, does that then make it all right?

This teacher told me every once in a while he’d have a student who’d raise their hand and say, “Hey, Mr. R., I don’t get this. We’re studying ethics so why do you have us planning a murder? Isn’t that wrong?”

Bingo—automatic “A” for that unit.

Don't Overlook Your Human Capital

Most businesses are so intensely focused on developing new revenues, leaders and managers typically overlook a hidden corrosive that will cost plenty if left unaddressed.

Aggression is valued in sales teams—and why not? Sales really isn’t for “sissies” or the faint-hearted; it’s demanding, vigorous work.

But there’s a danger in becoming a workplace culture so reverent of aggression that it tips into tolerating or even encouraging uncivil behaviors.

Low-intensity incivility ranges from stealing someone’s food out of the break-room fridge to leaving shared work areas untidy and depleted of supplies. High-intensity acts include sending nasty e-mails, hogging credit, or yelling at and publicly humiliating colleagues and subordinates.

Intentional or not, incivility exacts a huge toll: authors Christine Pearson and Christine Porath (The Costs of Bad Behavior) state rudeness is on the rise and estimate the tab at $300 billion/year for U.S. employers in expenses related to lost time, lowered morale/productivity, and employees fleeing a toxic workplace.

Fact: Chronic offenders will alienate other employees. Teams need trust (“psychological safety”) in order to learn and to reach peak collaborative skills, and offenders kill this, especially if they’re team leaders. Coping behaviors can include avoiding the offender; withholding effort, help, or information; or sabotaging the organization for tolerating the offender.

Fact: Witnesses to rude behavior register the same physiological stress reactions as targets, and few customers will continue to do business with an organization that permits rude behaviors, even from their high achievers.

Fact: Employees who are habitually targeted by rude behaviors will leave, and the costs of replacing them are high, to say nothing of the relationships and networks that leave with them. Pearson & Porath’s formula for quantifying this: 150% the annual salary of a low-ranking employee; 250% the salary of middle management; and as high as 400% the salary of upper management.