Trust

The loss of productivity at Potter's House is a frustration every time I visit. I love Potter's House and serving as one of its volunteers and advisers is one of the rare privileges of my life.  But consider the contrast between my sense of normal and theirs:

• I leave my computer on my desk when I leave for lunch and the door open.  They have to lock both up.

• I wander around and find an open meeting room.  There I have to find someone with the key.

• Here we order Tshirts for the team and hand them out.  There, each team member has to sign a special sheet to indicate that they received the shirt.

It's not that the Potter's House leadership is a bad team or that they've cultivated a bad culture.  In fact, they're quite good at what they do.  But they live in a country in which basic trust is absent.

Many Americans are proud of their country, its freedoms, our heritage, and our creativity and inventiveness.  In reference to doing big, hard things, Mitt Romney spoke these words at the Republican National Convention:  "...that unique blend of optimism, humility, and the utter confidence that, when the world needs someone to do [something really hard], you need an American."


But I wonder if it is optimism, humility, and confidence that matter.  I'd like to suggest that it is actually trust that is the primary contributor to American productivity.  I trust that you won't steal my computer when I'm at lunch.  I trust that you will drive on the right side of the road.  I trust that our agreements will not have to be adjudicated in the courts, but that the courts will work when we have to go there.  If we had to adjudicate every agreement in the courts, we would be paralyzed for lack of a basic trust in the spirit and honor of a contract. 

My friend in leadership in other countries lose incredible productivity in protecting their assets and their staff.    The energy they put into protection, could be used for innovation.  They wait for the right person with the keys to open the conference room.  They sign, counter-sign, and seal even the most trivial documents.  They require time cards even for salaried employees. Two people are required even if it is the job for one, just to be sure that no graft is involved. If trust were at the core of the culture, the productivity boost would be incalculable.

Perhaps, if I were forming America's foreign policy, I'd be looking for ways to export more trust than food, fuel, technology, and pop culture.  It is much harder to do, and harder to account for, but maybe instead of being the world's policeman, we should be the world's trust broker.  I'm just not sure there are any willing importers out there.

Wishing it were better is not enough.  But getting our goals right might be a good next step.

Justice

Applied justice is not blind reciprocity nor legalistic consistency. it is correction that turns us toward wholeness, rightness and newness.

I've been faced with lots of people demanding justice lately.  I suppose this is among the challenges of leadership.  The challenge has been to sort out what they want from what is required.  My good friend said, "Justice is what we want delivered to others and mercy is what we want delivered to ourselves."  Now there is insight!

1. It seems that when people want justice what they really mean is retribution.  Put another way, they're asking for logically sanctioned reciprocal pain: "If Bob injured Steve, we must injure Bob."
2. Other times it seems that when people want justice what they want is consistent discipline.  "When Mary cheated, you kicked her out.  Since Sally cheated, kick her out too."
3. I've also seen a remarkable that there is a punitive assumption and voyeuristic infatuation, often in the name of transparency.  "In order to stop the rumors, you need to tell everyone what you did about the David situation."  

Really?

When did we lose sight of the purposes of our correction?  It seems to me that the core problem with the three issues raised above is that we have lost our focus on a better future.  To examine the three ideas above, consider this:

1. If we were really interested in restoring both the injured and the injurer to a better place, what would we do?  My mother used to say, "Two wrongs don't make a right."  (But two Wrights make an airplane!)  Perhaps Bob must make amends as much as possible with Steve, but should we in fact injure Bob in the same way that he injured Steve?  I don't understand how that puts either of them in a better place.
2. Reciprocity has its problems too.  If the way we disciplined Mary was unhelpful, should we repeat it with Sally in the name of consistency?  Or should we be learning leaders who get better at discipline and correction as we grow.  Some argue for, "let the punishment fit the crime;" I wonder if it would be better to frame it as, "Let the punishment fit the perpetrator."  What correction makes them better people?
3. Even transparency, though logical, is often unhelpful.  The North Korean prison camp guards are reported to make liberal use of public executions in order to deter acts of dissent.  But is that really our model?  My practice has been public praise, private critique, positive tone.  My experience is that corrective action, accountability for remedy, and steady progress toward reconciliation happen best when they occur in small groups.  Think of it this way, is it harder to break a promise to a crowd (think politics) or to an individual (your running partner)?

In my nearly 30 years of employment, I have never fired an employee.  Not one.  Of those close to the edge, about 80% of them got better with good coaching.  The other 20% or so, eventually left as they found better suited roles.  Perhaps we need to change our focus from a simplistic view of justice as an equation to balance, and set our sights on justices as an unmistakable commitment to restoration for the injured and better character for the injurer.

Now some readers may wonder if I've lost my marbles.  Did you know that the Spanish word for marbles is "cincos". And even if you have four (cuatro) marbles, they're still cincos (fives)?  Crazy language.  

OK, that aside my seal it for you.  But in all seriousness, the question of criminal justice has to be looming in the background of this discussion.  Are you arguing, Paul, that terrorists, axe murders, and tax evaders really should be "coached" into better classroom behavior?  I've reached the conclusion that that would be a better outcome, but is very unlikely in the general case and very unlikely given the resources and structure of our criminal justice system. At the same time, there is little evidence that locking up a street corner drug dealer makes either the dealer better or restores the honor back to the community.  I'm not so sure our public justice system works toward better-ness, but it does work toward a consistent application of a public consensus of fairness.

I also grant that there are some crimes that are so heinous that punishment is the only course of action.  But this must be viewed from the perspective that in such situations, there is no real remedy for the injured and little hope of meaningful rehabilitation of the injurer.  Punishment is our choice when there is no way for either party to be improved through another option.

Consistent fairness may be the best we can get from our public institutions, and last resort punishment may be the best we have in extreme cases.  But in the everyday culture of most of our lives we have other options. I'm thinking about how we work toward better private institutions, and better offices, neighborhoods, churches, ballet schools, and Kiwanas Clubs.  Is fairness the best we have to offer?  Or can we, as leaders in these places, step beyond the simplicity of kindergarten reciprocity into a richer place of improvement for all parties involved?