Search Results

Monday, March 24, 2008

A Question of Rightfulness


A family friend died recently. His was a life of turbulent relationships -- but he lay on the bed which he made. Quite proudly at that. In truth I know very little of him, of his struggles and choices; I don't even remember what he looked like, happy or angry or sad. And I will never really know.

When word came that he was ill someone from their past asked my father to confirm if he truly was ill, or if it was merely a rumour spread to confuse everyone. He was, after all, still in a legal dispute with the party she had chosen to take sides with.

But it was true. He lay dying of metastasized cancer. He'd kept his condition secret all these years. He'd asked that Dad tell no one, so no one will visit him. And then he died.

The morning before he died this woman asked that we pray for him, that he may repent his sins while there is time. This said, by a person highly respected by all for her spirituality. A person known for her rightfulness in matters compassionate. A person I greatly respected, until that moment. Her moral condescension left me dumbstruck.

That he may repent his "sins" while there is still time. "Sins" that never involved her in any way, anyway. A protracted legal debacle that does not and cannot include her, neither by kinship nor affinity -- for she is neither.

Who is "right" and who is "wrong" ? Is it essential that for one person to be "right" the other must be "wrong" ? Must it be dialectically opposed, that "wrongfulness" exist, so that we can justify the state of "rightfulness" ? Who is more "right" and who is more "wrong" ?

Only God can pass judgment on us all. Regardless of what we have done to each other, what "sins" we have committed -- real, imagined, and preconceived -- we have no authority to condemn our brethren. Is it not our duty to improve the lives in our community? Moral outrage is not equal to moral condescension. There is no justice in condemnation. There is no compassion in moral condescension.

Was he Christian enough, for the Christian God? Was he Buddhist enough, for Buddha? Or was he Moslem enough for Allah? We don't know that. None of us can know that. Only God.

May God have mercy on all our souls.

Monday, March 17, 2008

The business of truth telling

COMMONNESS By Bong R. Osorio
Monday, March 17, 2008

Integrity is often thought of as ethical practice, respectability in the work we do and moral resoluteness. It is doing what is right and making great decisions. But we should all realize that integrity is more than that. In fact, it is an anchor, a security blanket, a promise that we offer and continue to commit to, a way of being and behaving that builds who we are, or who our companies are.

Integrity is inherent in our ability to represent ourselves as our word and badge of honor. It is being true to our principles, and ultimately, being true to ourselves. It is not held back by, nor does it rest on, rules, directions, or imposed demands. Integrity creates an environment of freedom, power, and joy.

“Integrity begins by being honest about dishonesty,” Quinn McKay, an author, business professor and leadership coach writes. In his dissertations, he scrutinizes the ways all of us — both in and out of the workplace — often consider ourselves to be more honest than we really are. McKay provides a realistic approach to integrity, not just a theoretical and dreamy dissertation of the concept. He combines stimulating questions about honesty with discussion guides that can be used to test our own, our team’s or our company’s stance toward real-life predicaments. McKay lists the following principles to keep integrity at the forefront of the organization and the people who work in it:

Rise above the trite slogans that feed self-deception. Sloganeering, labeling and reciting platitudes such as “always be truthful,” or “we are an honest company,” not only fail to solve the problem, but also buttress trickery, which keeps us from seeing the truth. Deep, relevant discussion will bring better results than mere catchphrase recital. Exhortations of “honesty” and “integrity” splashed all over corporate literature don’t make a company honest. They may even stop people from thinking about the real essence of integrity.

Agree on a working definition of truth telling. Without a working definition, talk of honesty most often is just talk. We all know that to be believable, we have to walk our talk. McKay recommends Robert Louis Stevenson’s “to tell the truth is not just to state the facts, but to convey a true impression” as a good framework to use to start crafting our concept of truth telling. Even if we find it impossible to live up to it at all times, it is a good marker and a solid foundation for meaningful conversations.

Be wary of the four devices of deception. There are a variety of ways we all lie and deceive, and we must be aware of them. First, we say things that are not so. This is lying, and may lead us to believe this is the only time we lie. Second, we overstate or exaggerate our statement, which can be deceitful since it does not communicate reality. Third, we understate or convey a false impression in our attempt to minimize our responsibility when something goes awry. Fourth, we withhold information that leads to fraud, or prods us to cover up for people and situations.

Recognize pressure as a major determinant of honesty. The pressure to achieve desired results must be managed. Actions are not taken in a vacuum. In the competitive world there is a constant pressure, fueled by self-interest, to step over the ethical line and even the legal line.

Be alert to incremental morality. Seldom does a person jump from being a most-admired altar boy to a most-wanted criminal in one jump. Most of it, McKay underscores, is a series of small, almost innocent steps that leads to gross, dishonest behavior. With competitive pressure at our backs, once we’ve started down that slippery slope, it is difficult to draw the line and say, “No, not one more ‘innocent’ step.”

Realize that we live by two different ethical standards. In some parts of our lives, we live by personal ethics, and in other parts we live by “gaming” ethics. We should be clear when they should be appropriately used. Personal ethics that dictate we should never lie are not the same as “gaming ethics” that encourage disguise and deception in order to prevail in competition. We need to choose our company’s set of standards for business behaviors and make those standards transparent to all our stakeholders.

Develop the essential skills for personal integrity. McKay contends that desire alone does not an honest person make. Truthfulness requires, at minimum, general skills like the ability to determine what is true, and the skill to project it accurately. Just as with any other expertise, these powers can be built and strengthened with conscious, deliberate observation and actual application.

Resolve conflicts of principle. There are no gray areas. “That’s a gray area,” McKay avers, is a dangerous label for an individual of integrity to adopt. It keeps a person from critically deciding on a Catch-22 state of affairs. Most gray areas are actually two right principles in direct disagreement with each other. In instances such as these, we should establish a hierarchy of beliefs for our companies. Intentionally prefer and heed the loftier principle. McKay stresses that when honesty and loyalty are in conflict, loyalty will nearly always pay better dividends.

Create a climate where wrongful acts can be reported. There is a great need for more people to expose wrongdoing in companies. However, from our youth, we have been ingrained with, “Don’t be a tattletale.” This cultural imperative causes well-intentioned whistle-blowers to be labeled disloyal, squealers, and inferior. Within our organizations, we should set clear expectations on what to report and how, and reward the behavior we want. McKay suggests the creation of a corporate culture where whistle blowing is made acceptable, and creating a successful, respected “anonymous reporting” program.

Understand the law of obligation. The law of obligation says we can accept no favors from another. Bribery can occur in many subtle ways because obligations arise often from supposedly innocuous practices such as letting someone pay for our lunch. A person of integrity, McKay enthuses, does not acknowledge that someone did them a significant favor and then claim, “But it had absolutely no influence on my actions.”

Know when a promise is a promise. We should learn to fully understand when a promise has been made. Is it only when a legal document has been drawn or is it when you allow someone to believe you will do something? Also, we ought to decide what justifies failing to keep a promise and still preserve one’s integrity when circumstances change.

Allow that lying is sometimes the right thing to do. Absolutes such as “Never tell a lie” just don’t work in reality, McKay emphasizes. There are justifications for lying when the ends are good, such as when the truth would jeopardize a life or a major institution’s future. Companies need to recognize that platitudes about “all truth, all the time” aren’t realistic — and then companies should establish guidelines for instances in which lying in business is justified.

An anonymous quote reads “Truth and Falsehood were bathing. Falsehood came out of the water and dressed herself in Truth’s clothes. Truth, unwilling to put on the garments of Falsehood, went naked.” Indeed, truth loves to go bare.

* * *

E-mail bongo@vasia.com or bong_osorio@abs-cbn.com for comments, questions and suggestions. Thank you for communicating. Read the original article here.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Open Letter to a Scammer

Tips for you, the aspiring, soon-to-be-successful scammer:
  1. Next time you want to run a scam, research. Do the work! There is an overload of information nowadays, thanks to our friend the Internet. For example,Glastonbury, Somerset (BA6) is about 185 km / 115 miles from Lambeth (SW8) London. You hesitated to tell me which tube stop is closest -- because there is no tube. The Underground doesn't extend all the way to Somerset.
  2. Read, read, read. The whole literate world is at your fingertips -- make sure you catch their meaning in timely fashion. It's pathetic how a supposed Englishman keeps not understanding his lingua franca. Sarcasm is wasted on the illiterate. By the way, there is a world of difference between American English and British English.
  3. Make sure you have coherent fake street addresses, websites and email addresses and keep them handy. You never know when you'll come across that inconspicuous bitch who asks too many questions.
  4. Using children - or pretending to use one - is maudlin and uncreative. If you truly cared for children as much as you pretend to be, you wouldn't be exploiting the cute factor as much. It's just not logical. That goes for pretending to care for one's elderly parents.
  5. Apropos to number 3, when asked a direct question don't sidestep. It's annoying in the least; it heightens existing suspicions, at the most. The more questions you sidestep, the more you'll get questioned: Keep those questions to a minimum!
  6. Study human nature. This will give you the advantage in quickly gauging the susceptibility of a potential payor. You can then easily decide which strategy is best for which particular character. It's also possible that the fish you're trying to hook is actually hooking you.
If this looks and feels like a real job to you, it's because running a scam isn't as brainless as they'd have you think. It requires intelligence, dedication, perseverance, and interest in the human condition. You might have an easier time being employed by someone else -- you can actually rise to your level of incompetence by just coming to work daily.

Good luck in your chosen profession!

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

개설된 영어 강의

개설된 영어 강의

0906.777.28.73