Change People's Mind
*IT MUST BE ETHICAL*
There is a lot at stake as we continue to work our way through the act of changing another person’s mind. My focus will be on the moral tug of war between our desire to influence change and our will to preserve our personal ethics.
Webster’s defines the word “ *ethics* ” this way: “a system
of *moral values* .” There isn’t a whole lot of gray area here.
Either you adhere to a system of moral values, or you don’t; it’s as simple as that. Or is it? When we are emotionally invested in creating change, even the most well-intentioned individuals can inadvertently struggle with the choices at hand.
Rather than ignore this potential conflict, I want to
examine how well-intentioned people can find themselves
challenged to do the right thing. By doing so, I believe we can step out of the shadows of feeling that changing someone’s mind by applying the skills of influence is some how a bad thing. It isn’t. In fact, it can provide one of the greatest acts of kindness one human being can extend to another. On the other hand, changing someone’s mind by
applying the skills of manipulation can be a despicable act
of selfishness, and that’s why we must start here.
You see, most of us don’t wake up one day, stretch, grab a cup of coffee, and say to ourselves, “You know, I
feel like being unethical today.” It’s a little more complicated than that. In fact, it begins with another word we’ll
now introduce. The word is “justification,” which Webster’s
defines this way: “a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends."
A chance to be in the Parliament House with money and power, a lucrative position, possibly career-changing contest victory, within an inch of your grasp, the line between infuence
and manipulation stands out in boldface. When you have a companion whose change of behavior would result more
in our personal gain than in his or hers, that line appears
again. Mix in the word “justification,” and you have a recipe for *unethical* behavior.
The line is easy for you to distinguish, you say? Well,
we all have our ethical thresholds. For instance, if you
were in a public library and found a beautiful Montblanc pen that
had been left behind at the table, would you take it to the Lost and Found? Maybe. Now let’s sprinkle in a little bit
of “justification.” What if you had been given a beautiful
Montblanc pen as a token of thanks for your participation
in a meaningful event, and you had left it behind a month ago, and it had not been returned to you? As you sit in
the library and roll this new pen between your fingers, will you still run to the Lost and Found to return it?After all, someone took your beautiful Montblanc pen; shouldn’t you be able to keep this pen, to replace it?It seems only
fair. That’s what I mean by justification.
One of my unique clients was a group of more than
650 polygraph examiners. I learned from these fine folks
that regardless of the crime, the confessions always contained an almost *bizarre* *sense* of justification. “I know I
embezzled the money, but I had two tuitions to pay, the owner has more money than he knows what to do with, and he left the safe open!” I know it’s easy for you and me
to see this for what it is, which is stealing, but the person who was confessing _justified_ this lack of ethics and saw it
as a way to survive.
Here is the conclusion.
It is clearly the norm, not the exception, to *justify* any
questionable act we may engage in, and this dilemma
is by no means new. Case after case throughout history highlight this issue. Let me give you a real life example: John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated the beloved President Abraham Lincoln, did not in any way perceive his actions to be unjust. History tells us that Booth felt *justified* in his horrific act, believing that his actions would not only turn the tide of the Civil War, but would eventually make him a celebrated hero to all humankind.
We all need to be on *guard* when our *inner voice* of
ethical guidance is countered by another voice that tries to rationalize a set of behaviors that, deep down, we know is not right. So our second hurdle will be to provide a
line between when the skills of influence are appropriate, and when we cross that line into manipulation. This
is why there will be reminders emphasizing just where lines between influence and manipulation exist, with the
intention of protecting and guiding against inadvertently
straying over the line.
*IT MUST BE ETHICAL*
There is a lot at stake as we continue to work our way through the act of changing another person’s mind. My focus will be on the moral tug of war between our desire to influence change and our will to preserve our personal ethics.
Webster’s defines the word “ *ethics* ” this way: “a system
of *moral values* .” There isn’t a whole lot of gray area here.
Either you adhere to a system of moral values, or you don’t; it’s as simple as that. Or is it? When we are emotionally invested in creating change, even the most well-intentioned individuals can inadvertently struggle with the choices at hand.
Rather than ignore this potential conflict, I want to
examine how well-intentioned people can find themselves
challenged to do the right thing. By doing so, I believe we can step out of the shadows of feeling that changing someone’s mind by applying the skills of influence is some how a bad thing. It isn’t. In fact, it can provide one of the greatest acts of kindness one human being can extend to another. On the other hand, changing someone’s mind by
applying the skills of manipulation can be a despicable act
of selfishness, and that’s why we must start here.
You see, most of us don’t wake up one day, stretch, grab a cup of coffee, and say to ourselves, “You know, I
feel like being unethical today.” It’s a little more complicated than that. In fact, it begins with another word we’ll
now introduce. The word is “justification,” which Webster’s
defines this way: “a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends."
A chance to be in the Parliament House with money and power, a lucrative position, possibly career-changing contest victory, within an inch of your grasp, the line between infuence
and manipulation stands out in boldface. When you have a companion whose change of behavior would result more
in our personal gain than in his or hers, that line appears
again. Mix in the word “justification,” and you have a recipe for *unethical* behavior.
The line is easy for you to distinguish, you say? Well,
we all have our ethical thresholds. For instance, if you
were in a public library and found a beautiful Montblanc pen that
had been left behind at the table, would you take it to the Lost and Found? Maybe. Now let’s sprinkle in a little bit
of “justification.” What if you had been given a beautiful
Montblanc pen as a token of thanks for your participation
in a meaningful event, and you had left it behind a month ago, and it had not been returned to you? As you sit in
the library and roll this new pen between your fingers, will you still run to the Lost and Found to return it?After all, someone took your beautiful Montblanc pen; shouldn’t you be able to keep this pen, to replace it?It seems only
fair. That’s what I mean by justification.
One of my unique clients was a group of more than
650 polygraph examiners. I learned from these fine folks
that regardless of the crime, the confessions always contained an almost *bizarre* *sense* of justification. “I know I
embezzled the money, but I had two tuitions to pay, the owner has more money than he knows what to do with, and he left the safe open!” I know it’s easy for you and me
to see this for what it is, which is stealing, but the person who was confessing _justified_ this lack of ethics and saw it
as a way to survive.
Here is the conclusion.
It is clearly the norm, not the exception, to *justify* any
questionable act we may engage in, and this dilemma
is by no means new. Case after case throughout history highlight this issue. Let me give you a real life example: John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated the beloved President Abraham Lincoln, did not in any way perceive his actions to be unjust. History tells us that Booth felt *justified* in his horrific act, believing that his actions would not only turn the tide of the Civil War, but would eventually make him a celebrated hero to all humankind.
We all need to be on *guard* when our *inner voice* of
ethical guidance is countered by another voice that tries to rationalize a set of behaviors that, deep down, we know is not right. So our second hurdle will be to provide a
line between when the skills of influence are appropriate, and when we cross that line into manipulation. This
is why there will be reminders emphasizing just where lines between influence and manipulation exist, with the
intention of protecting and guiding against inadvertently
straying over the line.
No comments:
Post a Comment