Introduction to:

ETHICS

ETHICS IN ACTION

Sociologists have contended that determining our own identity is not an easy thing. Many people never realize that they are able to choose who they are by the choices that they make. Certainly, everyone is influenced by many things, some of which are beyond our control. Even so, most of who and what we are, we determine ourselves.

Since reason is man's basic means of survival, it is not surprising that we have the ability to form who and what we are. This is called Objectivist Ethics. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own efforts, there are two basic points to becoming the person we choose to be: thinking and actions. We decide who we will be and our actions carry out those thoughts. To be an ethical person, we must, through our thinking, choose to be so, and then productively work towards it.

If some people do not choose to make any conscience choice, they will develop by imitating and repeating the actions of those around them. This is why it is so important that agencies and management staff make ethical behavior a priority in the workplace. Those who simply repeat the actions of those around them seldom make an effort to understand their own work. Unfortunately, who is imitated is seldom a concern to these individuals. As a result, one bad apple can, in effect, spoil the barrel.

Those who do choose to think out their actions and work productively towards a goal still do, however, remain the main force. They are the people who are most likely to be copied by others. Even those who survive by using brute force, or by making others their victims in some capacity, survive only because someone else was thinking and working productively. In other words, con men survive off the thinking efforts and hard work of others. Those who use brute force to steal or loot, survive off the thinking efforts and the hard work of others. It all comes back to those who do use logic and conscience choice.

Objectivist Ethics, as a theory of ethics, holds man's life as the standard of value and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man. The difference between "standard" and "purpose", as used in this context, can be important. "Standard" is an abstract principle that serves as a measurement or gauge to guide a person's choices in his or her achievements or specific goals. The goal itself or the achievements obtained become the "purpose." Probably every person has some "purpose" or goal in life, but not everyone would have a "standard" of life.

Pete was born very poor. This poverty made such an impact on him in his childhood that he now strives to become wealthy. He obtains his accumulating wealth by whatever means necessary. Although Pete definitely has a goal or purpose in life (becoming rich), he does not have any standards. There is little doubt among those who know Pete that he will become very rich. Along the way, however, Pete is not finding much happiness. He has not thought out the goals he has established. Pete knows what he is doing, but he does not understand why he is doing it. Pete would be surprised (and perhaps even laugh) if someone told him that ethics are a part of finding happiness.

What does Ethics in Action mean?

Our history is full of wise men that wrote about the philosophies of life. While many of them did not agree on many points, most did agree on one: lack of ethics promotes disorganization, financial turmoil and, sometimes, even the demise of governments.

As individuals, we may often feel that we have little control over others. This is true to a certain extent, but we do actually have more control than we might realize. The control we have is the ability to choose our own way of life. There is little doubt that what we do on a day-in, day-out basis affects everyone we come in contact with. We are impacted by others in the same manner.

Tim is driving to work and the traffic is very congested. Even so, his mood is bright and he is humming along with the radio. As he merges into another lane in anticipation of an upcoming freeway exit, the man he pulls in front of becomes angry. Perhaps he feels Tim has cut him off, or maybe he is just a sour person in general. For whatever reason, the driver is angry. The other driver whips alongside of Tim's car, rolls his window down and shouts angry explosive words full of the four-letter type. The angry driver also gives Tim a few well-known hand signals.

Although Tim did not feel that he had done anything wrong, his mood instantly changes. He no longer hums with the radio. When he arrives at work, his secretary greets him cheerfully. Tim's response is short and bleak. Although he did not actually say anything bad to Jane, his secretary, she felt that he must be angry with her for some reason. Had she forgotten to do something yesterday? Jane spent her morning feeling worried and stressed.

By the afternoon, Tim had forgotten about the driving incident (or simply put it behind him), but Jane was still affected. As the day progressed, she expected some explanation from Tim about what she had done that was upsetting to him. When no explanation came, her stress mounted. That evening on her way home, Jane began to wonder if Tim was simply unhappy with her work in general. That night she barely slept.

On her way to work the next morning, Jane stopped to get her car filled with gas. When she handed the clerk a twenty-dollar bill, the clerk miscounted her change. When Jane noticed she was short a dollar, she curtly pointed out the error to the clerk.

After Jane left, the clerk, Susan, felt humiliated. It was obvious to her that Jane thought she was trying to cheat her by keeping an extra dollar. Susan never became angry, but she did feel stupid and inferior. It was just one more incident that confirmed to Susan that she would never amount to much. She figured she would probably always work for minimum wage because she simply did not have the ability to do any better.

Are the examples of how we affect others an extension of our code of ethics? Often we forget that ethical behavior is not only connected to such things as paying our taxes fairly, following the laws, or telling the truth. Ethical behavior can also be connected to how we treat others. Ethics is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions. In choosing one's own actions and even goals, we must face constant alternatives. Even such things as the manner in which we speak to others are a part of our daily alternatives.

Some have argued than man's nature is to be selfish. In order for a person to choose various alternatives on a daily basis, he or she must have a standard of values. The term "value" presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom or for what? This is where an inborn selfishness might be considered. What is the end goal or purpose? Who is the perceived or intended beneficiary of the action? Ourselves or others?

To be selfish is to be motivated by one's own self-interests. Insurance agents are often accused of this. For an individual to center on their own self-interests, they must have considered what constitutes their own self-interests and how to achieve it. Because a selfish person chooses his goals by the guidance of reason, it is hard to believe that selfishness is an accident (or a lack of training in the case of insurance salespeople).

Nathan, an insurance agent, has been in the business for only a year. Even so, he has been able to build up a fairly good-sized clientele in the health market. Soon after he became an agent, he was told that replacing his own business can bring added advantages in the commissions earned. Although Nathan continues to work to build up his clientele size, he does not miss a chance to replace business (his own or someone else's) anytime the chance arises.

Recently, Nathan realized that annuity sales could bring in good commissions. His initial intent was simply to bring in new business in the annuity field. After awhile, however, he found that it was not particularly difficult to replace annuities. Of course, the client generally had early surrender penalties, but Nathan learned how to justify not only the penalties, but the new surrender period as well. Nathan was not above misrepresenting other companies to achieve his goals.

Although Nathan is fairly new to the occupation of insurance, his sales practices are well thought out. Nathan received very little training from the agency where he works. Most of what Nathan knows, he learned on his own or from other agents. It might be argued that specific training might have made a difference in how Nathan looked at his sales practices. However, from an ethical context, it seems fairly obvious that Nathan is not acting irrationally. He has spent time thinking out his approach to sales. Selfishness is seldom a matter of emotions or feelings; rather they tend to be thought out actions. That is not to say that selfish people are not emotional in nature because they may be. What we are saying is that a selfish person determines their goals on a thinking or reasoning basis.

We have been talking about ethics at work, but it should also be noted that ethics is hard work. Who among us would not enjoy an extra $5 (even if it were not due us)? If our boss thought we were the one who did something wonderful, who would not like to take that credit, even if it belonged to someone else?

Being ethical can be very difficult when being unethical is sometimes more rewarding from a financial or public standpoint. The public standpoint is often overlooked. If we feel strongly about something that no one else seems to, it is very easy to keep quiet. In fact, that is precisely what gets "followers" in trouble. When a person knows something is not right, but no one else is saying anything, it is easy for the individual to simply go along with the group.

Greg works for a very large insurance agency. Greg has always had very strong religious convictions and, as a young man, took much teasing from others regarding his so-called "prudish" outlook. Over the years Greg simply found that keeping quiet was easier. After all, he reasoned, as long as he personally held his moral ground, what others did was their own business.

Mike was also an agent with the same agency as Greg. As time went by Greg found mounting evidence that Mike was "clean sheeting" his applications. One day in the field Greg ran across one of Mike's clients. She was an elderly woman who obviously had some mental disorder. She could not remember simple things and was under a doctor's care.

Back at the office, Greg asked Mike how he ever got her on that policy, which was issued only 6 months previously. "I would not have even attempted it, given her medical situation," stated Greg.

Mike replied: "I simply stated what she told me. If she didn't say it, I didn't write it."

On two other occasions, Greg found similar circumstances in Mike's business. Greg voiced his concern to Mike: "You know those people won't be covered if something comes up. The company will simply rescind their policy."

Mike: "You worry too much."

It became obvious to Greg that Mike did not intend to change his practices.

Since Greg is not involved and is behaving in a way that he perceives to be ethical personally, does he have any moral obligation to the clients of Mike? Since Greg considers Mike to be a friend, does he have a higher obligation to Mike or Mike's clients?

Greg was still concerned so he went to his manager. The company's manager told Greg that it was not his concern, as did several other coworkers. In fact, most people that he talked to within the company seemed to be viewing Greg as a potential troublemaker. Greg had heard about "whistle-blowers" and he knew he could be putting himself in a precarious position with the company if he became too vocal.

Are Greg's self-interests more important when no one really seems to care other than himself? Is it the management's responsibility (rather than Greg's) to mandate ethics?

On the surface it would be easy to say that right is right no matter what. It is likely that most people would, however, suggest a different course for others than they would suggest for themselves. Studies have shown that people are more likely to voice ethical behavior than follow it.

The truth is, our identity is established by our actions (a liar is known for his lies; a thief is known for his stealing, etcetera). A common pitfall to proclaiming ethics, but not following them, is that an identity is established. When we allow ourselves to be defined by whatever we happen to fall into, that in itself is a choice. Who we are is established by what we do and even by what we do not do.

Who we become is a gradual thing. Seldom are we formed by one single experience although one single experience, if great enough, can change our direction or focus in life. Our "becoming" is a gradual and natural thing. So gradual that people seldom notice what is happening themselves. Without even noticing it, one can slip into a pattern of behavior, which ends up being the ultimate basis by which we are judged by others. Therefore, a code of ethics must be a daily goal that we deliberately choose to follow.

We have all known someone who allowed their job to be the ultimate basis for who they were. When retirement comes for those individuals, they have nothing in their life to fill the void left by retirement. These individuals spent so much time becoming who they were within their jobs that they neglected to define who they were away from their work. Sooner or later all of us will lose our jobs. While we hope it will be through retirement, it may also happen due to lay-offs or other means. When a person's identity (which includes ethical behavior) is wrapped up primarily in their work, an extreme crisis may occur when that work place is no longer there. Men seem to be particularly vulnerable to this situation and often die shortly after retirement. One wonders if those men simply could not find a reason to continue living without an identity they were secure in.

As we stated, being an ethical person IS hard work. However, when a person learns to base who they are upon a distinct code of ethics, it is unlikely that their jobs will completely define who they are. When success in the workplace means compromises in ethics and values that often means that we are allowing our employers or coworkers to define who we are. There is a song that states: "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." There is a great deal of truth in that lyric.

A sociologist, Irving Goffman, touches upon a troubling image of those who establish themselves only through their work identities. Mr. Goffman calls those who aspire to be successful at any cost as "con artists" because they do not learn the business skills but rather they develop a way to act and present themselves in a manner which is convincing to others. In commissioned sales this may especially be true. Since commissioned salespeople are not guaranteed a paycheck each week, it becomes very important to present a professional and appealing image to others. Of course, the ideal way to do this is through education, product understanding, communication skills, and just plain hard work. Many take the short cut and, as Irving Goffman states, chooses to develop an outward appearance of education and understanding (when none actually exists).

Sales meetings often point out that sales people are, in some ways, actors and actresses. The same of course may be said for most people. Each of us generally desire to be accepted by those around us. In view of this desire, we tend to put on the "front" that we feel will be accepted by those in our company. Even such things as politeness could, in some ways, be described as "acting."

Betty is at a party given by one of her neighbors. Being fairly new to the neighborhood, Betty knows few people. Since moving across the country to this small rural town, Betty has been lonely. Her past living experiences in the big city did not prepare her for the rural living she is now a part of. As she is introduced to people, she finds herself thinking that most seem to be very ignorant individuals. Everyone is talking about weather, small school plays, their children, church activities and so forth.

Betty's hostess, her next-door-neighbor Sarah, comes up to Betty and warmly holds her hand: "I hope you are meeting everyone."

Betty: "Oh yes. I just hope I can remember all the names."

Sarah: "Don't worry about that. We want you to feel welcome and enjoy everyone."

Betty: "You have wonderful people in your town. I'm so glad I moved here."

Obviously Betty simply was not a person who would have said "Everyone is stupid here" even though she was actively thinking it. It could be said that Betty was being an actress, playing a part that was not truthfully her.

Each of us do this on a day-to-day basis because our ethical standards do not allow us to be unkind to others. How do we draw the line between being a graceful "actress" or "actor" and being a "con artist?"

Just as people will have different views on what is and what is not ethical, each given person also tends to develop levels of ethics. For example, Betty was actually lying about her views on the people in the small rural town. If asked, Betty would say that lying is unethical and she does not believe in it. At the same time, Betty would say that she feels it is unethical to be cruel to others. Which is worse? Which set of values or ethics should be followed? It is likely that every person, even the most ethical, do not always tell the truth. Lies, such as the mild kind Betty told to Sarah, are often called "white lies." The term likely originated to describe lies which were told with a good intent, such as sparing another's feelings. Even so, a lie is still a lie. Is there ever such a thing as an ethical lie?

In Arthur Miller's famous play, Death of a Salesman, the main character, Willie Loman, believes that the secret of success lies in the salesman's personality. This might involve many aspects of the personality, but it comes down once again to acting. Being the person the prospective buyer wants the salesman to be. If the buyer loves children, then the salesman loves children; if the buyer would like to travel, then the salesman either has traveled or wants to travel also. Common ground, we are told, is vital to the sale.

Being an actor or an actress, especially in sales, is a dangerous part to play. Sooner or later, it is likely that the salesperson's true identity will be exposed. The woman who tells the elderly client that she loves cats, too, will be caught smacking at the cat who attempts to climb on her lap. The man who weaves a tall tell about his traveling experiences will say something that proves him to be a liar. Sooner or later, chances are that we will blow our cover. It is simply too difficult to keep what was told to who straight. This is especially true in small towns where your clients often know each other and will compare notes. Attempts to conceal our true nature will eventually come into the light. As the Bible says, sooner or later who we are "will be declared from the rooftops."

It should be pointed out that it is possible to discontinue acting in an unethical manner, or "mend our ways" as it is often referred to. It is never too late to begin to act in an ethical way. In fact, John Newton, the man who wrote one of our most famous songs, was the captain of a slave ship. As he came to realize that slavery was wrong, he used his experiences to bring this same understanding to many others. The song written by John Newton was Amazing Grace. Knowing this, the words of the song gain a greater meaning:

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound

that saved a wretch like me

I once was lost

but now I'm found

was blind, but now I see.

Of course, the most important reason to be ethical is not hard to understand. We are a reflection of our lives, our families, our community, and of ourselves. Our children will copy us (that's hard to believe during their teen-age years, but it does happen), our families and our communities will be affected by our actions and we, ourselves, must live with who we are yesterday, today and tomorrow. In fact, those around us, including our coworkers, are affected by our values (ethics). Just as a follower may follow the cheater, they may also follow ethical behavior. When you define the "inner" character as someone you are proud of, it will show in your daily behavior, which includes your work. This will bring self-assurance, which will ultimately benefit you in many ways, including financially. Personal integrity radiates confidence and everyone prefers to deal with people who seem confident.

A few years ago, the Howard Fischer Associates (one of New York's top executive search firms) conducted a survey of CEOs of the top one hundred companies in the New York area. They were looking for traits that were valued most by the leaders.

Of course honesty and fairness were ranked at the very top. These are the other character traits that were listed:

1. Never compromise on matters of principle nor standards of excellence, even on minor issues.

2. Be persistent and never give up.

3. Have a vision of where you are going and communicate it often.

4. Know what you stand for, set high standards, and don't be afraid to take on tough problems despite the risks.

5. Spend less time managing and more time leading. Lead by example.

6. Bring out the best in others. Hire the best people you can find, then delegate authority and responsibility, but stay in touch.

7. Have confidence in yourself and in those around you, and trust others.

8. Accept blame for failures and credit others with success. Possess integrity and personal courage.

There is much so-called sound advice circulating for achieving financial and business success. We are not here to say whether that advice is accurate or not. It is true, however, that before accepting such advice, one might wish to consider what they actually wish to accomplish during their lifetime. So often, individuals lose track of their true goals (such as rearing happy children, writing a book, etc.) and become sidetracked with making a living in a manner that makes their boss, spouse, or coworkers happy. When an individual loses track of their own goals, they are more likely to become followers rather than thinkers.

Often motivational speakers are concentrating on goals that may actually be secondary to our main desires. Yes, we all want to make a good financial living for ourselves and our families. The question is, do we want to make that money at the expense of ourselves and our families?

In an effort to become the super-salespeople that the company, agency or management staff promotes, people tend to embrace a variety of role models. That might include optimum time usage, aggressive sales techniques, becoming a superb team player, or motivational skills. Certainly all of these avenues can have advantages in one way or another. Each method does have its place in the business and sales world. Usually, each method that is promoted contains a certain amount of useful advice because they contain certain truths. That is precisely why these books tend to sell well. Even so, these methods, whatever they may be, also have their limitations.

Agents have complained that there seems to be something "missing" even when they have followed the methods precisely. Very often the why simply is not addressed. Why are you selling insurance? Only to make a living? Do you understand where a product fits? Does the product do an outstanding job of meeting another's goal? If not, you have likely missed the why of your job. It is in the why that ethics or values often play an important role. When an agent does understand the role they are playing in another's life, the satisfaction gained goes hand-in-hand with ethical behavior. Clearly defined goals and purposes are essential if people are to understand what their lives in general and their work in particular are really all about.

It seems that psychology is the current rage in selling. While it may give an air of being scientific, often the "psychology" listed is more apt to resemble manipulation. When such techniques are encouraged, individual employees may feel inadequate to challenge the validity of them. This may especially be true if the concerned salesperson is not the "star" of the agency. Often, an individual may feel their job is not secure enough to question the techniques being pushed on them by their employer. Or, if the salesperson is not the super producer of that agency, they may simply feel that they have not earned to right to speak out. In actuality, ethics belong to everyone, not just the superstars of sales.

We are often told that merely feeling very good about ourselves will accomplish much in the sales field. There is certainly much truth to the concept that self-worth is tied to many of our successes in life. In fact, low self-esteem may be tied to many of the under-achievers in our country. However, high self-esteem in itself will not accomplish anything. It takes much more than that. Some of the most effective workers in the world are the Japanese people. Yet personality tests have revealed that the Japanese people traditionally have very low self-images. They are often depressed because they do not feel good about themselves. Self-esteem is important to have for many reasons, but it is not likely to insure economic success.

It has become commonplace for insurance companies and other industries to shower their salespeople with prizes, plaques and medals for selling their products. It seems that companies believe their employees will work only for material gratification. There are those who believe that attempts to build self-esteem in the work place will result in successful (financial) payoffs for the company.

Sometimes this belief can cause problems. Employees may begin to do their work for the wrong reasons. Their "ethical compass" may become misdirected. When self-esteem is tied to financial rewards, the why of the work can again become lost. Of course, financial rewards are essential, but when ethical behavior is not tied into those financial rewards, many negative circumstances can develop.

Totally fulfilling work probably does not exist. For many people, commissioned sales are something to be feared. It is probably safe to say that some amount of high self-esteem likely exists for those who enter the commissioned sales field. A person must feel they can succeed even to enter into such work. This brings us to another area of ethics. In this case, it involves those who recruit commissioned sales staffs.

Nearly every insurance agent has, at some time or another, had a company or person promise the world. The majority of workers do not enter commissioned sales. There must be a reason. If financial success were so easy, everyone would be doing it.

Sally has been unemployed for nearly six months. After being laid off her job in Seattle, she thought she would easily find another one. As it turned out, the only jobs she could find paid about half of what she had been earning. In fact, her unemployment benefits would, in some cases, amount to more than she would earn if she took some of the available jobs.

Finally, Sally sees a newspaper ad that promises high income for "self-motivated" people. She makes an appointment for an interview.

When Sally arrives she is surprised to see a roomful of people there for the "interview." Sally's first impulse is to leave, but since she has already gone to the trouble to come, she sits down.

At the appointed time, a well-dressed man enters the room and introduces himself as the Regional Manager for an insurance agency (not an insurance company). The gentleman, Mr. Randall, begins his pitch:

Mr. Randall: "Welcome to the world of excitement and money. This is not for everyone, because those who enter this world must be prepared to manage themselves and not everyone can do that. Most people need the crutch of a weekly paycheck paid to them whether they put forth any effort or not. In this job you will be responsible for your own paycheck. It can be as low or as high as you desire. You make the determination yourself based on how much time you are willing to devote to your work. Do you need an extra thousand dollars one month? Then you simply work a couple of Saturdays. It's that simple.

“We offer the most comprehensive benefits around. All you do is explain those benefits to people who need them. You will be invited into people's homes as a guest because you will be offering these folks something they want and need. That does not mean that you won't be working. Selling is work. The difference is, you get paid what you are worth! Aren't you tired of having someone else tell you what you are worth? Aren't you tired of having someone else determine what hours of the day and week you will work? Isn't it time that you took your destiny into your own hands? Make life work for you instead of against you.

“Last year our top producers earned well over $100,000 while working less than 40 hours a week. In fact, as time goes on, these top professionals are able to work less, not more, because they gain an understanding of what they are doing. These people work smarter, not harder. Isn't it time that you do the same? We will teach you how to earn up to your potential. It is very likely that you will earn in excess of $50,000 in the first year alone. And you will continue to earn additional income on every sale you make even after the policy is in place. As your renewals accumulate and you also continue to make new sales, your potential is unlimited."

As Sally listened, she began to feel an excitement. Looking around, she could see others getting the same excitement. Sally knew she could discipline herself to be on the job and she liked the idea of being in charge of herself; her own boss. Best of all it sounded like high income was common.

Can ethics be a part of promotional selling? At what point does reality need to be interjected? Should the fail rate be stated?

It might be easy to state that the "dark side" should also be stated, but would you expect that in other industries? Can you imagine a new car salesman saying: "Oh, sure, the car looks great now, but it won't in a few years’ time. They'll be wear and tear and the paint job will dull. Five years from now you'll be glad to just get rid of the car."

Should Mr. Randall be expected to tell the audience all the difficulties of commission sales right up front? Should it be disclosed that only one top producer earned more than $100,000? Or is it the listener’s responsibility to make sound decisions for themselves?

It is common for agents to say that they would never have gotten into the business if they had known everything. And yet, now that they are in the business, they do enjoy their work. There are many aspects of commissioned sales that can scare a person out of ever entering it. Should these aspects be discussed with new recruits?

Few, if any, jobs are totally satisfying. Certainly it is desirable to find fulfilling work, but most things in life are a mixture of things. In other words, there are times that the job seems extremely fulfilling and there are other times when the job seems absolutely terrible. Even fields of work that seem to be glamorous to others generally carry with them a certain amount of negatives. Even jobs that promise excitement carry stretches of boring mundane tasks.

And yet, promotional advertising is all around us. As viewers of this, we must be aware that glamour and excitement also carries simple hard work and frustration. Look at the ads for joining the armed forces. These ads show handsome men flying planes or jets, standing on the decks of mighty ships, or visiting exotic foreign places. They do not show kitchen duty, strenuous marches, or other mundane tasks.

Even the ads for smoking came under fire for such one-sided promotional activity. We felt that cigarette companies, and lately alcohol companies as well, should not show smoking or drinking as glamorous or exciting. The rugged cowboy who always lit up a cigarette now has cancer. Alcohol companies show young beautiful people drinking, laughing and having a good time. Alcohol companies do not show the car accidents caused by drunk drivers.

So, the question still lingers: Can ethics and promotional campaigns be integrated?

It would be wonderful if every industry were blessed with an individual whose inner greatness or qualities were able to inspire those around them with their vision and energy. In truth, few industries are graced with such people. Those people who do possess such qualities often have no desire to be promotional tools for businesses.

Perhaps one of the major reasons why ethical behavior is something that must be constantly stressed is simply the fact that being ethical is hard work. Even though it may seem to come effortlessly to a few, the majority must make a conscience effort to be ethical. Ethical people typically have a moral reason for being such. Some might tie it in to their religion (in fact, the majority of people who place high regard on ethical behavior state their religion as a major factor). We also find that people who consider ethical standards to be a high priority also value such personality traits as patience and kindness towards others. In fact, whatever the career line, the most successful salespeople state that patience and kindness is necessary in their line of work. Some state this quality as a "love of people". Top-notch salespeople do, of course, develop the necessary skills for their jobs, but their love of people motivates them to do a better job than the average person. They tend to "go the extra mile" for their clients even when that extra mile does not overtly bring them any financial rewards.

An individual who is naturally kind towards others tends to have a sensitive awareness of them. Kindness generally takes into account how another person might feel as a consequence of what we do. That is not to say that a kind person always sympathizes with others in every situation. Sometimes being kind means withholding sympathy. It does mean that empathy must be involved. Let's look at the difference:

Sympathy (noun): 1. fellow-feeling; compassion; 2. condolence; 3. agreement; approval; accord.

Empathy (noun): (1) the complete understanding of another's feelings, and motives.

There are many differing views regarding the need for sympathy or empathy. Sympathy may not necessarily help a person and may, in some cases, increase the problem that exists. Empathy, on the other hand, tends to be aimed at correcting a given situation, and may be what is sometimes described as "tough love".

Jackie is a secretary at the XYZ Corporation. Her boss, Craig, is the supervisor for a large insurance division. Jackie is single, but Craig is married with two young children. As time goes by, a romance develops. Both Jackie and Craig are basically nice people who would not intentionally hurt anyone. They think they are keeping their affair secret, but in fact, most of the office and field agents are aware of it.

One of the field agents, Marsha, considers Jackie a friend. The easiest course of action would be to say nothing despite the vicious rumors that are circulating. Marsha could even tell herself that what Jackie and Craig do is their own business. After all, they are adults. Furthermore, if Marsha does confront the issue (even out of concern), Craig is likely to become angry and he has the ability to make Marsha's job miserable. In fact, if Craig wanted to, he probably has the power to have her fired.

The risks are great for Marsha and she is aware of them. Marsha also understands how Jackie became involved. Jackie has been a basically lonely person who has always had trouble making friends. Jackie has had even more trouble finding a comfortable male relationship. This affair is obviously making Jackie happy. It can be seen in how positive she has become about her day-to-day life. Marsha is worried that Jackie might never forgive her if she somehow took the relationship away from her (even out of concern).

Yes, the risks are multiple and real. On the other hand, Marsha also knows Craig's wife and children, although they are not close friends. Craig's wife, Cheryl, would be very hurt by the affair. Marsha knows it is only a matter of time before Cheryl learns of the situation. After all, many of the office and field staff knows Cheryl. It is likely that when Cheryl learns of the affair, Jackie will be forced by the company to leave her job. Craig probably has enough position to keep his job, but not Jackie.

Kind people try to prevent someone else from hurting. If Marsha does not confront the situation, she knows that the hurt will eventually be even deeper than it already is. Marsha does understand how Jackie became involved and she realizes that it could easily have happened to her under the same circumstances. Understanding how it happened, however, does not mean that she sympathizes with Jackie's lack of judgment. Marsha does empathize with Jackie.

Obviously, there is no single answer to this situation. It is a matter of judgment and perception. Bad news sometimes only gets worse as time goes by. If Marsha delays the confrontation, Jackie might lose possible opportunities that would give her lasting happiness, rather than temporary happiness. Jackie might also simply tell Marsha to mind her own business and a valuable friendship might be damaged or lost entirely.

Marsha does eventually face Jackie with her feelings about the situation. Marsha decides that it is more important to her to do what she feels is right. While she does value Jackie's friendship (and she wants to be liked by Jackie), Marsha decides that the kindest thing to do is to be honest. Sometimes the kindest thing is also the toughest thing (as every parent knows). All Marsha can do is hope that Jackie realizes that she is speaking from concern, not condemnation.

Although our example looked at a personal relationship, the same principles could be applied to other situations.

Let us say that you are friends with a fellow insurance agent, Dale. The young man is friendly and outgoing. He has earnestly studied all the company's products and seems to have a good understanding of them. He likes people and people basically seem to like him. Even so, he is struggling financially because he seldom makes a sale. Since he is your friend, you agree to accompany him on a few of his appointments with potential clients.

Your first appointment is at a middle-class home with a well-groomed lawn and beautiful flowerbeds. The couple has two children, ages 5 and 8. The husband, Marv, is a welder and his wife, Sherry, works part-time as a waitress at a local cafe. Marv has medical insurance supplied by his union, but they do not have any life insurance.

Dale: "Your home is beautiful. Who does the gardening?"

Sherry: "I do. I guess you could say that it is my hobby. At least that is where I seem to spend every spare moment. I suppose I put too much money into it, but a person has to have some pleasure in life. Before you leave, I'll give you some flower starts."

Dale is obviously flattered. As Sherry and Dale continue to talk about the flowers, you notice that Marv is becoming bored and glancing at the television in the next room where the kids are watching a program.

You (interrupting Sherry): "Marv, how is the job going? Is it as tough as I hear in the welding trade?"

Marv: "You bet it is. Last month I only worked two full weeks. Some months, we barely make our bills."

You: "Gosh, that would be a worry. Since you mailed this card in asking for some life insurance information, I guess you are the one who realizes the financial pitfalls and obviously you care about your family. Sherry, you must feel lucky that Marv is concerned. Dale, why don't you show them the information they requested.”

Dale opens his brief case and pulls out a yellow legal pad and several brochures. It is obvious immediately that Sherry is not interested. She pulls out a seed catalog and lays it in front of Dale over the brochures. Sherry opens to a page.

"Have you ever seen these colors before in the Iris?"

Dale: "No, I don't believe I have. They are beautiful."

Once again, the conversation turns to flowers. Marv becomes visibly agitated. "Put that damn book away."

Sherry: "You are so selfish. I finally get to enjoy some conversation and you act like that."

By the end of the appointment, you think you know exactly why Dale seldom makes a sale. Dale made no attempt to steer the conversation into the life insurance, but seemed to be drawn away from it at every opportunity. Even when you brought the talk back to it, with Marv becoming interested, Dale allowed Sherry to misdirect the conversation.

Two other appointments went equally bad. During the evening Dale collected several friendships, some flower starts, and a napkin full of cookies to take home to his children. Dale made no insurance sales, however.

The next day, you know you need to give Dale some guidance. While Dale was a friendly, outgoing person, he did not appear to have any concept of sales. He allowed the conversation to go in all directions, always listening and joining in, but never getting down to the actual business at hand. While only Marv outwardly acted agitated about that, the other potential clients seemed confused as to why the two of you were there. Eventually, Dale did run over the brochures, but in such an unorganized manner that you doubt anyone really understood what he was trying to do.

You doubt that Dale has the ability to ever be a successful salesperson. You fear he will end up in bankruptcy unless he gets into another line of work . . . and soon!

The ethical question: Is it kinder to be honest and suggest that Dale leave sales or would it be better to offer a few suggestions and allow him to sink or swim, as the saying goes, on his own?

When a person is discharged, personnel managers report that they often try to soften the blow by being less than honest about the person's shortcomings. In addition, they often do not tell the next potential employer about them.

Such evasions of the truth may do more harm than good. Unless the person knows and understands the deficiencies and mistakes that led to the loss of his or her job, those deficiencies and mistakes cannot be corrected and are likely to be repeated. Certainly, kindness needs to be used when relaying the information, but honesty is still the best option.

Reporter Leslie Lampert did a story on overweight people. To do the story, she was fitted with a specially made "fat suit" which instantly made her appear 150 pounds heavier. Most of the people she encountered made no attempt to help her in any way. In fact, most people treated her with disgust and sometimes even open antagonism.

One particular person, however, knew how to be both kind and ethical (honest). She was a hairdresser that Leslie Lampert went to while in her "fat suit." The hairstylist, who was very thin, gently explained to Leslie that the hair style she wanted would not be right for her ample figure. Leslie stated that she was honest, but not insulting. Rather than do a hairstyle that would not aid her appearance, the woman used honesty and caring to suggest a style that would be right for her. Certainly, the hairstylist was probably very good at her trade since she understood what style would work best. It goes beyond that, however. She also was concerned about her clients and their well-being.

A person who does not know what changes need to be made, will never make any changes at all. As a result, the same mistakes will be repeated over and over again. The truth, in such a situation, may leave you disliked by the person, but it may also lead that person (such as Dale or Leslie as an overweight woman) into the possibility of success. Sometimes being liked is simply not as important as being kindly honest. It is not always kind to deny the truth to a person who truly needs to hear it.

The next question: Are you being kind in telling someone the truth, or are you getting some type of power or pleasure personally by pointing out their failure?

As the Bible says, "love envieth not." To be a truly kind person, what you say must not be a reflection of your own insecurities or envy. The ethical person can take pleasure in other's happiness or successes. We seldom have control over what recognition we receive from others, but we do have complete control over how we react to the recognition others receive.

Most of us have had someone say to us, "I don't want to hurt you, but I must offer some constructive criticism." Usually, that means someone is going to say mean things, which are supposed to be for our own good. Before speaking "constructively", one needs to assess their personal motivation.

For Example:

"Dale, I don't know where to begin. You did everything wrong. You had no ability to control the conversation. There was a sale waiting on every table, but you just walked away from it."

"Dale, it is obvious that people like you, but I wonder if perhaps you are too concerned with having them like you. It seemed like you were avoiding getting down to the sale. Maybe we could role play and see if that helps."

LOOKING THE PART

In the business world, and in sales especially, assertiveness is valued. It is hard to imagine a meek insurance sales person. It is generally that "take-charge" type of personality that is prized. We read books on how to dress for success. Red power ties must be worn; business suits in specific colors are sought.

In fact, few of us desire to have a salesperson, of any occupation, who has an inflated ego sitting at our dining room table trying to sell us something. While we may not be looking for meekness, we do appreciate humility. Does ethics also concern such personality traits as humility? If you were new to an agency and were unsure of what was proper, who would you copy? The braggart or the person who seemed humbly competent?

On the other hand, isn't it possible for a braggart to also be ethical? If a person prides himself or herself on doing every business transaction in a completely honest and open way, is there any reason why he or she should not openly brag about it? If that person also brags about the many sales he makes, the techniques used and the money earned, is that any reason to believe that he is not also ethical?

Certainly, the most effective salespeople do not make a habit of considering themselves above or better than others. To have such an attitude would simply destroy too many sales. Most ethical salespeople consider themselves and others to be basically the same kind of people. Not only does this promote open and honest sales presentations, but it also tends to cement sales relationships. Few of us like being with a person who we perceive to be looking down on us. Of course, a salesperson who actually does feel they are above you will not openly say so. It is perceived due to their actions, body language, facial expressions and sometimes the wording that they use.

While ethics are not always perceived as tied into personality traits, personality traits often reflect the actual ethics held by a person. It is probably impossible to separate the two. A liar is not likely to be an ethical salesperson, for example.

Tony Campolo, author of Everything You've Heard is Wrong, relates this story:

"Dr. James H.S. Bossard was a favorite teacher of mine in graduate school. During one of his lectures, I was whispering and joking in the back of the classroom with some of my classmates. As I look back upon it, I know I was being an obnoxious nuisance. Dr. Bossard, who knew that my vocational goal at that time was the Christian ministry, angrily demanded my attention and sternly said, "Mr. Campolo! You do not have to be a gentleman to be a clergyman, but it helps!"

Courtesy is an expression of respect. Respect is an ethical behavior element. Some people seem to be instinctively courteous, but chances are that it is a habit they have purposely formed or carefully been taught in childhood. Courtesy is not linked to income, background, or schooling. Courtesy is a trait that is purposely developed. Those who practice courtesy simply wish to make others feel comfortable.

Have you ever noticed that people tend to be more courteous to those who they perceive to be wealthy or important? Such people can be late to a function, rude to others or incompetent and those around them will still remain courteous. Certainly, they may be thinking negative thoughts, but still they remain courteous. Why is that?

It is very common for the most courteous of people to also be among the most ethical. Of course, con artists may also be very courteous, but for different reasons. One of the most common complaints heard in the last few years comes from secretaries who must bring their bosses coffee. Few of us mind doing such things for someone we like and enjoy. Consequently, it is likely that those secretaries who dislike bringing coffee are actually complaining about the way in which they are told or expected to do the task.

We have all heard the saying, "It was the straw that broke the camel's back."

That means that there was a line of burdens, one of which finally made the entire situation unacceptable. Even in marriages, it is often the tiny problems that erupt into divorce proceedings while the larger differences are seldom addressed. The final "straw" is the sum total of the indignities that were endured day-in and day-out.

Simple words, such as "please" and "thank you," make mundane tasks seem more enjoyable. Many managers seem never to have learned how to say these simple common words. They somehow feel that their "power" will be diminished if they ask an employee to perform a task. These managers prefer to order their employees to do the work. In the end, those managers do not get the performance they could have by using simple courtesy.

It is likely that any insurance agent alive has also been told that it is necessary to "picture the rewards we want out of life." We are told persuasively that we must "imagine" the material goals we have. Tape that picture of the desired boat to the dashboard of your car. Call the travel agency and get precise information on that Hawaiian trip you would like to go on. We are told to "taste" the desire to acquire things. It is said that these desires will promote the ability to sell.

Besides being ridiculous (does the desire to fly a plane actually provide the ability to do so?), it is also self-serving. It is true that one must have the desire in order to follow up with the actions necessary to acquire. However, there is so much more involved that to simplify the process in this way does a disservice to all involved. The agent is not served well because it gives him or her a false sense of ability. Without the necessary desire for knowledge (both of the products and of communication skills), an agent is not likely to succeed no matter how clear the "image" may be.

The promotion of such techniques does not serve the agency well because the agents may quickly become discouraged when the technique fails them. Most agencies have some amount of time and money invested in their agents, so it is important that they succeed. In addition, the future of the agency depends upon the competence of their sales force. Promoting a materialistic self-serving method will not only cause some amount of frustration for the agents, but it may also side track the agency from providing training that is educational and worthwhile.

The "image" technique is a disservice to the clients because it implies that they are there only to provide the cash necessary to acquire the materialistic rewards. There is no consideration of whether or not the client can afford the goods or service, or whether or not the client will even benefit from them. This is surely not ethical behavior.

Those who make a job of motivating salespeople often portray greed as something that is necessary in our capitalistic society. They may describe greed as the fuel that fires the engines of industry; the fuel that motivates companies and salespeople to bring products to the consumers. There are theories that say self-serving desires are the motivation for investments and productive efficiency. These theories do have some basis in truth. The problem is that these theories often fail to tell the entire story.

No one expects a person to flounder financially in any field or vocation. However, a person who is motivated only by greed cannot survive long-term. Greed too easily becomes destructive. Webster's dictionary describes greed as "undue desire." All of us have desires, but greed moves beyond what is healthy and motivational. Greed and ethics simply cannot co-exist.

C. P. Snow, scientist and writer, observed that obedience can override all that we know to be ethical and just. Notes C. P. Snow, "When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have even been committed in the name of rebellion."

An early example of this was the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam. For most of our soldiers, it never occurred to them that they had any moral responsibility not to participate. In fact, most reported that they did not feel that they had any choice. They were given an order and they followed it.

It should be noted that the massacre was not reported by a soldier that participated, but rather by a GI who simply heard about the situation and wrote multiple letters to expose it.

There is no doubt that we could not have any type of social order without obedience and respect for authority. Some philosophers actually argue that social order is so important, we should blindly follow authority in order to protect society. Few of us in the real world would agree with this opinion. Even so, imagine what would happen if massive amounts of people disregarded our laws. We only have to look to the Los Angeles riots to understand the outcome of such actions. Regardless of the motive, the results are nearly always negative for everyone.

On a more moderate scale, simply consider the results if sizable numbers of people disregarded stop lights while driving. While that is not a violent action, the results could actually end up violent through deaths from accidents.

All of us would probably agree that order and authority are necessary in our lives. Even your business could not run without a measure of order and authority within it. Even so, there are times, as the My Lai massacre demonstrated, when authority must be questioned. It is important to question decisions or directives that do not follow your ethical guidelines. You must also take responsibility for the directives if you choose to follow them.

Stanley Milgram demonstrated how difficult it is for most people to defy authority. His subjects were ordinary people who answered an advertisement. Each subject was informed that the purpose of the experiment was to study the effects of punishment on learning. Of course, the real experiment was to study the extent to which the subjects would obey someone in authority when they were told to inflict pain (through electric shocks) on a person who was not threatening or hurting them.

Actually, the person who was supposedly being shocked was an actor. No shocks were ever received. However, the subjects in the experiment did not know that.

The subjects were told to teach another (the actor) a list of word pairs. They were told the other subject (the actor) was an accountant. The actor appeared very mild and passive. Each time the accountant (the actor) made a mistake, they were told to shock him by pulling a lever on an impressive-looking shock generator. In addition, the shocks were to be increased in intensity each time a mistake was made.

At the first shock the actor merely grunted, but as the shocks supposedly increased in their intensity, his reactions ranged from complaints of pain to outright screaming. The subjects delivering the shocks experienced sweating, trembling, laughing nervously, and digging into themselves with their fingernails due to stress. Often they looked to the researcher for permission to stop. Each time the researcher would instruct them to continue in an authoritative voice.

Despite multiple signs of stress, despite their desperate desire to stop, despite the screams of the actor, despite the fact that the subjects were never forced to continue to upgrade the level of the shocks, 65 percent of the subjects did continue to deliver shocks to the actor actually reaching the highest level of intensity on the shock generating machine. This experiment pointed out that relatively few people are able to defy authority even when they desire to do so. When questioned later, a common response was: "I was just doing what I was told."

Most of us are not the big wheeler-dealers on Wall Street. Most of us are middle-of-the-road Americans who are simply trying to provide well for ourselves and our families today and put away enough savings to provide for ourselves and families in the future. For us, daily negotiations are made in the workplace that will hopefully benefit ourselves and our clients equally. There will always be those traces of greed in everyone. We will always be tempted not to tell the clerk in the grocery store that she gave us a dollar too much in change. We may try to get the office with the best view or take the largest steak at the barbecue. When greed becomes a motivating factor, however, it is dangerous to others and ourselves, as well. When a person wants everything their way, serving only their own interests (regardless of how it affects others), that greed or selfishness is out of control. For agencies to actually promote such greed is inexcusable. Unfortunately, many motivators do not realize the mistake they are making when promoting such techniques. The truly professional motivator will emphasize education and communication, not materialistic greed.

It is easy for anyone, but especially those whose income depends upon specific performance, to lose sight of the big picture. It is easy to become so caught up in one's own circumstances that ethics and the needs of others become overlooked. The job of agency and company management is to help those in the field keep sight of the big picture and of the role they play in it.

Whatever personality traits a person has, he or she is likely to assume that others are the same. The ethical person will naturally assume that others are ethical also. A person who mistrusts everyone and believes they will steal from him is likely projecting their own values and traits onto others. A cynical attitude towards others will ultimately affect one's own performance. A salesperson that mistrusts others will display that mistrust (without always realizing it) to the consumers being dealt with.

One of the most damaging and certainly unethical behaviors deals with talking. Sales people often overlook the need for confidentiality. It can be very easy, in the excitement of a pending sale, to tell some bit of information about someone else that should not be told. While we might assume that one client does not know another, this is not always the case. Especially in small communities, people often know each other for miles around. Even if they do not know each other, any information gathered should be respected.

Sometimes, humor is used in a cruel way, which can affect others. Ethnic or religious jokes are a good example of cruel humor. Ethical behavior never condones anything that is cruel or may hurt another is some form.

Sexual harassment is sometimes mixed with cruel humor; both are wrong and both are unethical. To be truly ethical, individuals should not participate in such behavior, and they should openly condemn it as well. To say nothing is to imply consent or agreement. In fact, each of us likely has things that we would not want known or publicly talked about. Unless it is necessary to bring up something that has the potential of harming others, an ethical person should never discuss another's life or business (except in a positive context).

In sales, insincerity (which is, after all, lying) can reach epidemic levels. As previously stated, we are often told to "be just like the client". If the client gardens, then we garden; if the client cans their own vegetables, we can ours, etcetera. We laugh at the client's jokes even when they insult us or others; we pretend to completely like those that we can barely stand. We do whatever is necessary to get that signature and check. Sometimes what "is necessary" is so against our feelings of right and wrong that we do not enjoy the sale or the commission. We may end up depressed or irritable as a result. The question: Are there some sales that simply are not worth the price we pay personally and emotionally?

Salespeople are traditionally thought of as untrustworthy. This is unfortunate since most are good honest people. Why do you suppose this image developed? Most of us want to be trusted; we want people to believe we are as good as our word. If we say something is so, we want others to believe it. To be viewed as a person of integrity is not only important in business, but in our personal lives, as well.

The Amish people hold their word in high regard. They refuse to sign written contracts because they feel that, as Christians, their word should be good enough to guarantee any agreement that is sealed with a handshake. The Amish are known for their strength of character; whatever is promised will be delivered.

Unfortunately, there are few groups of people or organizations that are honored with such high reputations. As insurance agents, we commonly call on people who feel that other agents before us have misrepresented products, companies, or services. In fact, agents themselves have sometimes been misled by the companies they represented. The more we are in the business world, the less we find ourselves trusting others. We are warned daily to "read the small print."

Often, problems occur not because something was specifically stated, but because something was implied. Salespeople who allow their clients to assume something that is not true will be viewed as badly as someone who openly lied. Misleading another, whether that is an insurance agent misleading a client, or an agency misleading their agents, will eventually come face to face with credibility problems.

Implying that which is not true is a form of manipulation. People may make serious mistakes financially on the basis of what is implied. In some cases, this can cause serious legal problems for the agent. More often, it simply means that people learn to mistrust them. In fact, insurance companies themselves may "red flag" some agents if problems of "misunderstandings" seem commonplace in their client's applications. If an agent continually seems to leave out pertinent medical information, the agent may say that he or she asked the medical questions; the consumer simply failed to understand them. If it happens once or even twice, the insurance company will probably take the explanation, but if it happens repeatedly the insurance company surely will not.

End of Chapter 3

United Insurance Educators, Inc.